Quantcast
The Official US Politics OT

Forums - Politics Discussion - The Official US Politics OT

Jaicee said:

It's possible this might have been mentioned and discussed already because I haven't been to this thread in some time now and lack the energy to scroll back many pages to find out, but in case it hasn't been, thought I'd highlight the fact that President Trump's recent appearance at the World Series (where he broke with a century-old tradition by refusing to throw out the first pitch) was met with loud booing, followed by chants of "LOCK..HIM..UP! LOCK..HIM..UP!" from the 41,000 attendees. At one point, some of the attendees unfurled a banner reading "IMPEACH TRUMP!" Even Fox News struggled to spin the scene in his favor, with one of their commentators arguing that the baseball fans in the audience should be "held accountable" for disrespecting the president, whatever that means.

I think that's probably the first time Trump has ever stepped outside his bubble of support. Seriously, like every public appearance he makes is either just with the press or in a safe space like a campaign rally where only supporters are allowed in. For perhaps the first time in his political career, he finally stepped outside that bubble to occupy the same space as a whole bunch of real, normal people, not screened for political allegiance, to learn, probably for the first time, that he's not actually popular and well-loved after all. You can see the shock and horror take over his face as he eventually discovers that he's the one being booed in the footage. I think getting a brief taste of what most people think of him was probably the healthiest thing he's done his entire tenure so far.

Jaicee said:
coolbeans said:

I find this take utterly fascinating.  What do you kind of 'support bubble' do you think he's stepped into whenever he's attending a WH press conference.  There's potential $ and fame to be made for a journalist who matches Trump's level of narcissism, even if that harms their journalistic credibility.  

And what kind of general crowd do you think you're actually pulling for World Series tickets in a D.C. stadium?  Your average nosebleed seat likely ran around a thousand dollars.

What I mean is that Trump really seems to generally live in a world where he appears to only supporters on the one hand (like his staff, who he can fire if they disagree with him, or his rallies where only supporters are allowed in) or else at press events. My point being that this dynamic doubtless leaves him with the impression that it's only the press that dislikes him and real, ordinary people love him. Now he has discovered otherwise.

As to people who attend the World Series, it's worth pointing out that said tickets are priced high for a reason: because they're highly sought after. Baseball has been traditionally known as "the American past time". It seems weird to suggest that baseball fans aren't normal Americans.

It is healthy for him to get out and get a taste of what all the people think from time to time, but based on his facial expressions, while he is showing bruise to his ego, there is clearly also disappointment in there, and not about himself. While Trump wants them to like him, you can also see he thinks they are mislead. 

There's many ways you could look at this, like the naysayers who point out that Trump does many things that make America look bad to the rest of the world, yet plenty of people worldwide are going to see this, and so how is that helping the worldview of America? Also, you could say he kinda asked for it since he started the whole lock her up thing, yet at the same time, it's the naysayers who've been complaining he shouldn't be doing that because it's wrong, and now here they are doing exactly that. If you're Trump, are you really going to believe what they're saying here holds water, if it goes against what they've said initially about lock her up and making America look bad worldwide?

Should Trump have started it in the first place? Was it wrong? If it's wrong, should you follow suit? Would that make you as bad as him? Then who should listen and give merit to either side?

No President has ever had all of the people on their side during their time in office, and so negativity is going to get thrown their way at some point at times, especially in certain places. What matters most is the majority. A small amount of loud people in a small space, does not negate the many quieter people countrywide. It also doesn't mean a leader should turn a blind eye to that small group, but he has to focus more so on the majority, otherwise, what you get is Trump. There is a reason they say that the "silent majority" showed up for the 2016 election. 

Lastly, if Trump actually was able to try and talk and reason with these chanters at the game, do you think it would likely lead anywhere constructive? If not, then why put yourself in situations like that? You go where people will be reasonable, where you can actually get things accomplished, which the media rarely covers because it doesn't get ratings. They show him either getting pummeled by his naysayers, or they sometimes show him being praised by his most devout followers. The majority is somewhere in between those extreme's, and so why aren't they being covered?

The "silent majority", also happens to be seen as the 'boring majority', unfortunately.



The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau

 

Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.

Around the Network
EricHiggin said:

1) It is healthy for him to get out and get a taste of what all the people think from time to time, but based on his facial expressions, while he is showing bruise to his ego, there is clearly also disappointment in there, and not about himself. While Trump wants them to like him, you can also see he thinks they are mislead. 

2) There's many ways you could look at this, like the naysayers who point out that Trump does many things that make America look bad to the rest of the world, yet plenty of people worldwide are going to see this, and so how is that helping the worldview of America?

3) Also, you could say he kinda asked for it since he started the whole lock her up thing, yet at the same time, it's the naysayers who've been complaining he shouldn't be doing that because it's wrong, and now here they are doing exactly that. If you're Trump, are you really going to believe what they're saying here holds water, if it goes against what they've said initially about lock her up and making America look bad worldwide?

4) Should Trump have started it in the first place? Was it wrong? If it's wrong, should you follow suit? Would that make you as bad as him? Then who should listen and give merit to either side?

5) No President has ever had all of the people on their side during their time in office, and so negativity is going to get thrown their way at some point at times, especially in certain places. What matters most is the majority. A small amount of loud people in a small space, does not negate the many quieter people countrywide.

6) It also doesn't mean a leader should turn a blind eye to that small group, but he has to focus more so on the majority, otherwise, what you get is Trump. There is a reason they say that the "silent majority" showed up for the 2016 election. 

7) Lastly, if Trump actually was able to try and talk and reason with these chanters at the game, do you think it would likely lead anywhere constructive? If not, then why put yourself in situations like that? You go where people will be reasonable, where you can actually get things accomplished, which the media rarely covers because it doesn't get ratings.

They show him either getting pummeled by his naysayers, or they sometimes show him being praised by his most devout followers. The majority is somewhere in between those extreme's, and so why aren't they being covered?

The "silent majority", also happens to be seen as the 'boring majority', unfortunately.

Some weird takes here:

1) That's a lot read from an expression. I don't know that you can read "a disappointment regarding the fact that other individuals are misled about you" from a fading smile, but hey, more power to ya if you think you can.

2) Now, this is the part that made me want to respond. Please correct me if I'm wrong and explain what you mean, but when I read this comment, it sounds to me like you are saying that people criticizing someone for doing something bad, is in itself bad because it brings attention to that bad thing. I find that ridiculous. It is not the fault of those criticizing the President's actions for doing harm to America's standing in the world, it is the fault of the person actually doing the bad things.

3) The main reason that "Lock her up" has been criticized, is because it reeks of a Soviet style imprisonment of an individual's political opponents. It is the responsibility of those in politics to oversee the peaceful transition of power and ensure that power is not being abused. The President (or prospective president) making these comments is wrong, because it implies abuse of power. An individual outside of politics does not hold the same responsibility. I can say "I believe that the President should be imprisoned", but I would feel a lot less comfortable about individuals within the Democratic Primary making that same statement. I do believe that the President has broken the law, but I also believe that the executive branch should not be used as a tool against political opponents. I also think you have to acknowledge that much of these chants is likely meant more ironically as a response to Trump, but I don't think we need to get into that.

4) Yes, it was wrong for Trump to start the "Lock her up" chants. Next question.

5) Very much worth noting that Trump has never had majority support. He did not win the popular vote and his disapproval rate has been higher than his approval rate basically since taking office. While no President has ever garnered support from literally everybody, many have obtained significantly higher levels of support than this president. I believe Trump will be the first President to never have an approval rate over 50% since polling was popularized if we maintain this course.

6) Again, give that "silent majority" a few extra quotes. Something like """""""Silent "Majority" """"""" would be more fitting.

7) No. Trump cannot talk himself out of his actions. He needs to act.



Trump is still cool. He represents how America is viewed by the rest of the world like no other president before him.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

US business hiring hits 7-year low amid Trump’s trade wars



TallSilhouette said:
US business hiring hits 7-year low amid Trump’s trade wars

meanwhile

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/11/01/jobs-report-2019-employers-added-workers-october-85-k-expected/4116570002/



Around the Network
sundin13 said:
EricHiggin said:

1) It is healthy for him to get out and get a taste of what all the people think from time to time, but based on his facial expressions, while he is showing bruise to his ego, there is clearly also disappointment in there, and not about himself. While Trump wants them to like him, you can also see he thinks they are mislead. 

2) There's many ways you could look at this, like the naysayers who point out that Trump does many things that make America look bad to the rest of the world, yet plenty of people worldwide are going to see this, and so how is that helping the worldview of America?

3) Also, you could say he kinda asked for it since he started the whole lock her up thing, yet at the same time, it's the naysayers who've been complaining he shouldn't be doing that because it's wrong, and now here they are doing exactly that. If you're Trump, are you really going to believe what they're saying here holds water, if it goes against what they've said initially about lock her up and making America look bad worldwide?

4) Should Trump have started it in the first place? Was it wrong? If it's wrong, should you follow suit? Would that make you as bad as him? Then who should listen and give merit to either side?

5) No President has ever had all of the people on their side during their time in office, and so negativity is going to get thrown their way at some point at times, especially in certain places. What matters most is the majority. A small amount of loud people in a small space, does not negate the many quieter people countrywide.

6) It also doesn't mean a leader should turn a blind eye to that small group, but he has to focus more so on the majority, otherwise, what you get is Trump. There is a reason they say that the "silent majority" showed up for the 2016 election. 

7) Lastly, if Trump actually was able to try and talk and reason with these chanters at the game, do you think it would likely lead anywhere constructive? If not, then why put yourself in situations like that? You go where people will be reasonable, where you can actually get things accomplished, which the media rarely covers because it doesn't get ratings.

They show him either getting pummeled by his naysayers, or they sometimes show him being praised by his most devout followers. The majority is somewhere in between those extreme's, and so why aren't they being covered?

The "silent majority", also happens to be seen as the 'boring majority', unfortunately.

Some weird takes here:

1) That's a lot read from an expression. I don't know that you can read "a disappointment regarding the fact that other individuals are misled about you" from a fading smile, but hey, more power to ya if you think you can.

2) Now, this is the part that made me want to respond. Please correct me if I'm wrong and explain what you mean, but when I read this comment, it sounds to me like you are saying that people criticizing someone for doing something bad, is in itself bad because it brings attention to that bad thing. I find that ridiculous. It is not the fault of those criticizing the President's actions for doing harm to America's standing in the world, it is the fault of the person actually doing the bad things.

3) The main reason that "Lock her up" has been criticized, is because it reeks of a Soviet style imprisonment of an individual's political opponents. It is the responsibility of those in politics to oversee the peaceful transition of power and ensure that power is not being abused. The President (or prospective president) making these comments is wrong, because it implies abuse of power. An individual outside of politics does not hold the same responsibility. I can say "I believe that the President should be imprisoned", but I would feel a lot less comfortable about individuals within the Democratic Primary making that same statement. I do believe that the President has broken the law, but I also believe that the executive branch should not be used as a tool against political opponents. I also think you have to acknowledge that much of these chants is likely meant more ironically as a response to Trump, but I don't think we need to get into that.

4) Yes, it was wrong for Trump to start the "Lock her up" chants. Next question.

5) Very much worth noting that Trump has never had majority support. He did not win the popular vote and his disapproval rate has been higher than his approval rate basically since taking office. While no President has ever garnered support from literally everybody, many have obtained significantly higher levels of support than this president. I believe Trump will be the first President to never have an approval rate over 50% since polling was popularized if we maintain this course.

6) Again, give that "silent majority" a few extra quotes. Something like """""""Silent "Majority" """"""" would be more fitting.

7) No. Trump cannot talk himself out of his actions. He needs to act.

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?

3. 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? 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? 



The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau

 

Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.

EricHiggin said:
sundin13 said:

Some weird takes here:

1) That's a lot read from an expression. I don't know that you can read "a disappointment regarding the fact that other individuals are misled about you" from a fading smile, but hey, more power to ya if you think you can.

2) Now, this is the part that made me want to respond. Please correct me if I'm wrong and explain what you mean, but when I read this comment, it sounds to me like you are saying that people criticizing someone for doing something bad, is in itself bad because it brings attention to that bad thing. I find that ridiculous. It is not the fault of those criticizing the President's actions for doing harm to America's standing in the world, it is the fault of the person actually doing the bad things.

3) The main reason that "Lock her up" has been criticized, is because it reeks of a Soviet style imprisonment of an individual's political opponents. It is the responsibility of those in politics to oversee the peaceful transition of power and ensure that power is not being abused. The President (or prospective president) making these comments is wrong, because it implies abuse of power. An individual outside of politics does not hold the same responsibility. I can say "I believe that the President should be imprisoned", but I would feel a lot less comfortable about individuals within the Democratic Primary making that same statement. I do believe that the President has broken the law, but I also believe that the executive branch should not be used as a tool against political opponents. I also think you have to acknowledge that much of these chants is likely meant more ironically as a response to Trump, but I don't think we need to get into that.

4) Yes, it was wrong for Trump to start the "Lock her up" chants. Next question.

5) Very much worth noting that Trump has never had majority support. He did not win the popular vote and his disapproval rate has been higher than his approval rate basically since taking office. While no President has ever garnered support from literally everybody, many have obtained significantly higher levels of support than this president. I believe Trump will be the first President to never have an approval rate over 50% since polling was popularized if we maintain this course.

6) Again, give that "silent majority" a few extra quotes. Something like """""""Silent "Majority" """"""" would be more fitting.

7) No. Trump cannot talk himself out of his actions. He needs to act.

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.



sundin13 said:
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.

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?

2. Ok then. Trump is just a non stop activist and so everything he says is ok because activism overrules PC. Got it, I guess. Trump is also in a class known as the Presidency. He's 1 of 45 of a 'protected class' you could say. 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. 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?

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.



The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau

 

Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.

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.



I want people's honest thoughts on a potential 25% income tax to pay for "Medicare For All". I'm not talking about the likelihood of this occurring. I'm talking, do you think this is reasonable, and more appropriately, do you think the average American can actually afford this.

This has nothing to do with being for or against healthcare etc.

My personal scenario is I would likely have to sell my house to not go bankrupt if my taxes increased by 25%. My and my wives current expenditures related to healthcare including employee and employer contributions are approximately $10,000 per year. Assuming our income goes up by the employer contributions and adding a 25% tax and reducing the standard deduction would result in additional taxes of over 25k per year.

Reduce the $10k less in current insurance expenses and we are out $15000 every single year.

This is quite substantially more than we would currently be out if we maxed out our insurance every single year...and somehow I would now need to determine how to save an additional $1,250 per month.

They are trying to say they absolutely will not tax the middle class, but I see today one of the proposals is an across the board income tax rate increase of 25%. Our income is absolutely within middle class, and this will decimate us.



Money can't buy happiness. Just video games, which make me happy.