The US Politics |OT|

[sundin13]

EricHiggin said:

sundin13 said:

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.

1. The media says, look at Trumps face, he's upset, it's because (insert reason). So they aren't reaching here, by giving their opinion on what he's thinking and why that makes him react as he does, yet my opinion, is reaching, because I'm explaining his thinking? MSM good, people bad?

2a. Ok then. Trump is just a non stop activist and so everything he says is ok because activism overrules PC. Got it, I guess.

2b. Trump is also in a class known as the Presidency. He's 1 of 45 of a 'protected class' you could say.

2c. PC people don't care about sports? I wonder who's behind the trans sports movement? I wonder why sports athletes have cleaned up their act over the decades, because that certainly wouldn't cater to PC.

2d. They should have called or wrote to politicians, individually or as a group. If they want the worlds attention, what is it they want the world to do? Is the world going to impeach him or vote him out? What can they do that would be PC? What if the world thinks the whole country is irrational, so let's avoid them? That would be great for America don't you think?

2e. Why are the Dems keeping their 'whistleblowing' sources secret then when it comes to the Trump impeachment? If everyone knowing asap is so much better, why are they hiding this super important info from the people about their illegitimate President? Why aren't these people being promoted and put on pedestals?

3a. Then based on this, every individual at that stadium who is against Trump, needs to have what they said taken seriously. Unless you think Trump was special before he became Prez. I'm sure there were a bunch of Trump supporters who jumped in to bash the Prez trying to make him feel bad. That chant didn't sound like much laughter going on in that crowd, and based on the tone, well. These people who are against the Prez, chanted against him, and yet you say he should act on what they want, even though they want people like Trump to abstain from saying things like "lock her up" because it's wrong, even though they'll do it themselves? Trump needs to be accountable as an individual, but not other individuals? Lucky them eh?

3b. It does matter. Trying to falsely jail your political opponent when you're in an election is a big deal. If they are truly guilty, then that's another story. Everyone knows that if Hillary was guilty, it wasn't going to be found until Trump was in office anyway, because nobody else was going to go after her. Intimidation only works if it's legit. If it's false, there is nothing to worry about. He's gone after the DNC servers and DNC email's, in which Hillary's would be part of that yes. Aside from that, even if through the DNC info, Hillary was found to be guilty, she's no longer an opponent, so what would be the problem now if she were found to be guilty?

5. You started talking about his approval rating. That is everything you need to know about his supporters? How reliable have the polls or ratings been, starting during the election? If ratings matter, whether it be what people think of a President, or what news people watch, then Fox news should be a worthy source, yet it's certainly not viewed that way, so why should Trumps approval rating mean anything?

6. Your answer was, "no, Trump cannot talk himself out of his actions. He needs to act." So in other words, it doesn't matter what Trump does, he's getting treated like dirt regardless, unless he does exactly what the naysayers tell him to do. Don't the naysayers also believe in democracy? Hmm...

The contradiction counter is rising faster than the sea's.

1) I don't know what you are referring to and as such, I will not/have not made a value judgement regarding it.

2a) Again, the fuck is this take? I didn't even use the word "activism" or "activist" so what the fuck is this? Like, explain to me how you think this is a logical response to what I posted.

2b) As for "Protected class", you clearly don't know what that phrase means. Here is a list of what is considered a "protected class" within US law: Race, religion, national origin, age, sex, pregnancy, familial status, disability, and veteran status. You will notice that "President of the United States" is not on that list.

2c) I also did not say that PC people don't care about sports. I said that it is a stretch to take a large crowd of sports fans and just arbitrarily label them as the PC police.

2d) Again, if the whole world thinks that the US is crazy because people bring attention to the shit Trump is doing, don't you think thats on Trump and not the people criticizing him for it? Also, activism largely involves spreading the word and getting information to people so they can make more informed decisions. So yes, getting attention is important.

2e) This is a smokescreen, but the reason is in order to make it more difficult to coordinate testimony. However, the inquiry is moving into its public and phase and that info will come out. Don't worry your pretty little head.

3a) Have you read anything I've said? At all? If you want a response to this, simply read what I've already said to you.

3b) There's so much to respond to within each of these little paragraphs. How do you even? Lightning round:

-Even if she is guilty there are cons to the Executive Branch pushing charges.

-There was already an investigation into these issues, so it isn't like no one was investigating them.

-Intimidation can work even if it isn't legit. A lot of damage can be done through bullshit. That is the whole reason Trump asked Ukraine to publicly announce they were investigating Biden. The result wasn't the important part.

-Clinton is still a political opponent, and jailing her can have a boosting effect for Trump and a cooling effect for those who want to go against him.

5) Do you think that an approval rating is the same thing as a TV rating? You do see the ridiculousness in drawing an equivalence here, right?

6) No.

Lets read that back:

My point: "It doesn't matter what Trump says, he has to act"

Your response: "So it doesn't matter what he does"

Just, go through those sentences real quick. Let me break it down some more and rephrase:

Me: Actions matter

You: So what you are saying is that actions don't matter?

Like, are you trying to make bad points? You are explicitly implying that I am saying the literal opposite of what I clearly said.