EricHiggin said:
1. People read into other people's body language or speech all the time. It's taught in certain career's. A while back for example, in this thread, there was discussion about what Trump said at the U.N. and how they reacted to it, as well as how Trump took that reaction. I was part of it, but quite a few others were also giving their opinion, which wasn't the same as mine, and quite opposite actually. Who was closer to the truth? Nobody really knows for certain. 2. The naysayer type tend to believe that there is a right way and wrong way to go about things. Politically correct is usually how they label it. I find it hard to believe that a large crowd, likely made up of those type of individuals, chanting lock him up in a stadium, doesn't fall under being politically incorrect. So once again, they are going against their so called morals and/or beliefs. It's clear this could have been done in a more politically correct fashion, that wouldn't put it on a media level worldwide stage, yet it wasn't. Why? Again, why give either side any merit then? 3a. If an individual does not have the same responsibility as a President, then not only is Trump at least somewhat justified in what he said about prior Presidents, before he became one, but any criticism about what Trump said about past Presidents isn't worth bringing up because he was just another individual at the time. Yet that get's used against Trump all the time. Why? 3b. On top of that, Trump wasn't suggesting she be locked up during the election so he could be handed the Presidency. He was saying she broke the law as far as he was concerned and should pay for it like everyone else does by facing the judicial system. He also now is the President, and as far as we know, he hasn't used his agencies to go directly after her, and so how much water did that lock her up statement originally hold? In point 1 you suggest "that's a lot to read from an expression", as if I shouldn't be able to tell, and you now want to tell me it's likely the crowd didn't mean it when they chanted lock him up? How can you tell? 4. While I don't think he started the chants, he did start the whole lock her up thing by saying she should be locked up. I'll assume you meant he shouldn't have suggested it in the first place, unless I'm mistaken. 5. If ratings matter so much, then a Fox News article should carry much more weight than much of the rest of the MSM. Yet it's constantly pointed out that their biased scum and what they have to say doesn't mean much, despite their higher ratings now. Why are their ratings where they are now if they are so terrible and unreliable? How high do their ratings have to reach to become a valuable respected source? Do ratings matter? 6. I'm just quoting a term that's been used since the election. It's not an entirely accurate term either (like fake news), as you've pointed out based on the popular vote. He did win a majority in the EC to become President however. I personally don't define support solely based on the votes though. There are people who say they didn't vote, but now support Trump. To me that counts going forward. Just as much as anyone who says they didn't vote but will be voting Democrat because of Trump in 2020. Not to mention anyone changing sides because of Trump. 7. Who said anything about talking himself out of his actions? Talking to eventually come to some sort of an agreement would be the reason to do so. Acting requires making informed decisions. To become informed, you must source the info through the people, which can be done in many ways, one of which being, going out amongst the people and interacting with them. A reply of 'just do something', based on what I've pointed out so far, reminds me a lot of, "do as I say, not as I do". Why would anyone act on that? Finally, if Trump publicly apologized for lock her up, would it change anything? Would he be forgiven? Then why apologize? |
1) Saying "He was unhappy" or "He was uncomfortable" is fairly reasonable, but to say "I see on his face not just disappointment, but disappointment related to this specific thing" is just funny to me. Seems like a pretty big stretch.
2) I don't really think the idea of political correctness applies here. By my understanding, PC is generally related to the idea that one should avoid certain words or phrases which would offend or insult large, usually protected classes (ex. Don't make racist or sexist jokes or comments). Criticizing one man doesn't really fit into that. Second, it is weird of you to assert that a bunch of people in a sports crowd would be highly PC. Sports fans generally aren't huge on politeness. But beyond that, how exactly would a large crowd express displeasure with the President being in attendance "in a more politically correct fashion" and why would you think that doing so in a way which wouldn't make it on the news is a good thing? Like, usually the point of protest and civil disobedience is being noticed. Protesting in a way that no one sees or pays attention to seems fairly pointless.
Again, it is not the fault of those critiquing bad behavior for that bad behavior being publicized and used against a group. When a whistleblower in, say, the FDA reveals that the FDA is not upholding their duties in testing drugs, they should be lauded for bringing this to light, not criticized for harming the standing of the FDA. That is incredibly backwards logic. Bad behavior should be confronted whenever possible and it is the responsibility of no one but the actor for the damage that this behavior does.
3a) Yes, regular citizens should be held to a different standard than the President. This should need to be debated. Actions and words that the President said before becoming President can and should be used against them. There is nothing improper about doing so. These are still sentiments that the individual expressed, and generally it can be assumed that unless they express otherwise, they still hold these beliefs. If I say "I am against gay marriage" and then run for president, people should ask me "What the fuck? Why are you against gay marriage?" and it is my responsibility to demonstrate that I no longer hold these views and explain why I changed.
3b) Even if that were true, it doesn't matter. Jailing your political opponent isn't just about winning, it is about intimidation and the peaceful transition of power. Also, as far as we know, he very much has used his power to go after her. It was just revealed last month, I believe, that Trump ordered a three year investigation into Hillary regarding her emails from the State Department. He desperately tried to pillory her, however even his own state department had to conclude that she did nothing criminal.
5) The fuck is this point? Everything you said under this heading is absolute nonsense following no line of logic and bearing no relation to subject at hand.
7) You asked if Trump talking to these chanters would lead to a constructive outcome. I said no, because no one cares about what he says, when 99% of what he says is bullshit. Same with the apology. I don't believe an apology would change anything, unless he acted in kind, in which case, yes, I would accept that apology.
