Robert Reich tweet misinterpreted as violence against Sinema

No no no no, just wrong and dangerous!

Pretty hypocritical since the OP couldn’t ever make a post condemning the violence that republicans threatened daily.

Yes. He would have been better to use an idiom like turning their backs on her, which implies the rebuke without the violence.

No, we don’t condone violence against Sinema, no matter how big a traitorous she-devil she might be.

Maybe it's because I'm old like Robert Reich, but that was a common phrase in my time. And it means exactly what he said--a rebuke.

Perhaps if any of these outraged people had ever read a book, they’d know that.

Reminds me of the blowup over the use of the word “niggardly” a while back.

Ah, here we go. I wondered where this came from. Is it possible that no one on Fox News has ever heard this expression?

www.foxnews.com/media/ex-labor-secretary-reich-sinema-filibuster

Former Democratic Labor Secretary Robert Reich became the latest figure on the left to viciously attack Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., over her filibuster stance, suggesting Senate Democrats should assault her for it.

"Tonight, Republican senators lined up to shake Kyrsten Sinema's hand," he wrote in a now-deleted tweet on Thursday. "Democratic senators should have given her the backs of their hands."

On Thursday afternoon, he said he deleted the tweet because "it was widely misinterpreted and distorted by conservative media," calling "back of the hand" an "idiom for rebuke."

Sinema has particularly enraged liberals for her steadfast support for maintaining the filibuster, and Reich's suggestion that Democrats should hit a woman for her stance drew outrage.



National Review's Charles Cooke said Reich's remark was tantamount to saying Sinema "must be slapped around by her party if she fails to follow the demands of a white man."

"No big deal," tweeted radio host Larry O'Connor. "Just Democrat/Socialist icon [Robert Reich] encouraging violence against a female senator who didn't vote the way he wanted."



You can read the rest of it on the link if you want.

or at least add the full story that the tweet was deleted and why he deleted it. 

That is exactly what went through my mind!

Nah. To them, it is much more interesting to ban and prevent others from reading books than it is for them to actually read themselves. 

You mean you read an opinion piece that confirmed your bias by the far-right Blaze and RedState "journalist" Caleb Howe, whom Mediaite unwisely features on occasion because they think it makes them appear more balanced. And then you did no further research to check what you believed to be true, and you rushed to make a "gotcha" post on the pea board.

Blaze "journalist" Caleb Howe also chose to use only an image of the meaning he wished to convey from a book of idioms that is, shockingly, not available for fact-checking online. I know. I, too, have a hard time believing that a Blaze "journalist" would do such a thing, but here we are.

More readily accessible online idiom dictionaries give both potential definitions. Perhaps you've also read a book that included the phrase "backhanded compliment," which derives from the same well-known meaning of the words Reich used. I assume that if someone said they gave Biden a backhanded compliment, you'd understand that they didn't mean to strike him, right? 

Meanwhile, Reich, who is not known for using violent imagery or advocating violence of any type, retracted his statement and clarified his position on violence. To further demonstrate his lack of violent intent, he did not stand outside and incite a group of people to go and commit violence against Senator Sinema. He also did not refer to Sinema as "the enemy of the people" or suggest that some "2nd amendment people" should do something about her. He didn't suggest that anyone should "lock her up."

I think if Reich had really intended violence against Sinema, he would have gone one of those routes instead of retracting his statement and clarifying his position. But perhaps you hang around with people who express violent intent on the regular, and I'm just not aware of how it's done.

If you read it there as you claim, did you intentionally leave this part out?

Reich deleted the tweet, but not before there was a big reaction, and many conservatives responded to him with a screenshot of the now-deleted tweet.


or this one, along with Reich's tweet wholeheartedly condemning violence
At the time of this posting Reich has not apologized for the violent imagery in his tweet, instead, he blamed “conservative media” for distorting and misinterpreting his remark.


If you read the article, perhaps a more balanced post or a more accurate, complete picture would have included the deleted tweet and the clarification.  Since you chose to exclude those important, relevant details from your post, this thread seems very much like a gotcha post, despite your claim to the contrary. Again not an equal representation despite your attempts to portray it that way.