President Trump

[I. Rex]

If Congress is constantly falling back on the other branches to correct horribly or vaguely written laws, there is no zero incentive to put serious debate and thought into the laws in the first place.

That depresses the hell outta me. Anyone should be able to see the problem, both in theory, and in the way it's already manifesting itself throughout these debates.

I see that the process bothers you but my concern is less about legislative theory and whats ideal and all about rescue the kids NOW. Sorry to disappoint you on that but I frankly feel thats a no brainer. If a building is burning and theres a kid in it my instinct is to get the kid the hell out of the building FIRST before talking about how we should really improve the code issues for this building that caused it to catch on fire to begin with. Im not really concerned that getting the kid out of danger might make us less focused on fixing the problems that result in a higher likelihood of fires. Its just not as important to me. Im just not willing to risk the kids well being for a legal (or legislative) procedure point. Or out of stubborn adhesion to process and procedures. And anyway, if its true that legislators wont have any incentive to fix the problem once kids are no longer in harms way (although they are still in harms way for other reasons) then that’s a problem with either the current system or the current legislators. Or both. And if it’s a problem with the latter or both then the answer is to vote those folks out and vote IN folks who will be more willing to take on these issues withOUT being forced to at gun point only. We don’t need a congress that wont cooperate with itself as a rule. That’s not governing. But I frankly feel that doing ANYTHING other than stopping this harmful practice immediately is tantamount to state sponsored child abuse and is a non starter for me. Are you saying you are willing to allow that to continue because the process of legislating "correctly" is more important in the long run then these kids well being in the short run?

From what I can tell, that's not how "ALL the other presidents" interpreted it. There was a photo circulating recently of some child behind a fence, looking miserable. It got halfway around the Internet before someone noticed it was taken years ago.

Yes, I urge you to read my initial response to captain steel when he insisted all these pictures were actually of Obama throwing kids in cages. The truth is when there was a spike of undocumented minors in 2014 that overwhelmed the system, they had to pull out the chain link fences and create "temporary crowd reduction facilities" or some such. In these cases there WAS NO parent available to pass these kids onto. So they scrambled to find housing and made some facility set ups that seemed cringy out of context. But this was NOT overt active policy on the administrations part like it was with Trump. They were NOT looking to actively purposefully separate children and throw them in cages for political reasons and deterrent reasons. These kids had no parents and there was suddenly THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of them. What options do you have in those situations? So I don’t see Trumps use of cages as even remotely comparable to what went down during 2014 with Obama. That short term solution was not being used and implemented as a means of deterrent and intimidation as it was with the Trump administration. And that is a world of difference.

[Yoda]

I see that the process bothers you
Yeah, ya' got me. Thinking laws are important is a real bugaboo of mine.

If a building is burning and theres a kid in it my instinct is to get the kid the hell out of the building FIRST before talking about how we should really improve the code issues for this building that caused it to catch on fire to begin with.
There is no equivalent to just rescuing the kid here. Executive Orders still need to be considered and drafted and all that. A better analogy would be that you want to run into the building to save whichever single kid you run into first without calling the fire department.

Also worth noting that, if you disregard those stodgy old code issues long enough, a whole lot of people end up on fire. So if your goal is to minimize the number of people on fire at any given moment, I'm pretty sure it would involve at least some long-term thinking, even at points where you really really want to just think short-term.

Short-term solutions breed long-term problems. Not theoretical problems, actual ones. Which means not caring about them is not actually being more practical or compassionate: it's just allowing us to feel better in the moment while shifting the responsibility and pain onto some future person.

Im just not willing to risk the kids well being for a legal (or legislative) procedure point.
This is a false dichotomy. If the Congress wants to, it can easily submit and vote on a clean bill quickly. We've done this in times of crisis before.

You'll also find that, in a political culture that actually expects laws to be drafted with precision from the get-go, you won't find yourself in as many of these situations to begin with.

Or out of stubborn adhesion to process and procedures.
How do you feel about the idea of a President Trump who gets to decide which laws are "real" laws that need to be enforced and which ones would just be the "stubborn adhesion to process and procedures"?

Are you saying you are willing to allow that to continue because the process of legislating "correctly" is more important in the long run then these kids well being in the short run?
First, I'm amazed that you can, with a straight face, put "correctly" in quotation marks about the mere act of submitting and passing legislation. As if Congress making law was some kind of arcane parliamentary maneuver, rather than the entire basis for our government.

Second, no, I'm not saying it's more important. I'm saying it's not unimportant, to the point where we can or should brush it off whenever it's convenient. Which is, I've noticed, pretty much any time we want to do anything.

Third, this is so, so amazingly easy to pick apart in any other context. Are you saying you're willing to let a murderer and rapist go free because the idea of an "unreasonable search and seizure" is more important in the long run than getting this dangerous person off the streets? :skeptical:

[Slappydavis]

Once again recommending the IQ2 debate on executive power:
https://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/president-has-usurped-constitutional-power-congress


(Note: this debate occurred during the 2016 campaign)


Here's a 3 minute taste:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGgM4Ml9Zmc

[ashdoc]

future map of USA IN 2040:(

http://mapofunitedstates.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/map-usa-1840-image-map-of-the-united-states-1815-1845-993-x-681-pixels.jpg

[mark f]

I guess Drumpf got whipped by his in-family "pussies" [his own Access Hollywood reference]. Hopefully his "big star" is setting.

[ScarletLion]

An Iconic and shameful image from this week's Time magazine.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DgNkLb3W4AIAba1.jpg

[matt72582]

An Iconic and shameful image from this week's Time magazine.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DgNkLb3W4AIAba1.jpg


"I worked hard for my inheritance!"

[I. Rex]

Yeah, ya' got me. Thinking laws are important is a real bugaboo of mine.

As are children. And human lives.

There is no equivalent to just rescuing the kid here. Executive Orders still need to be considered and drafted and all that. A better analogy would be that you want to run into the building to save whichever single kid you run into first without calling the fire department.

I love that our discussions generally come down to dueling analogies. :p

Also worth noting that, if you disregard those stodgy old code issues long enough, a whole lot of people end up on fire. So if your goal is to minimize the number of people on fire at any given moment, I'm pretty sure it would involve at least some long-term thinking, even at points where you really really want to just think short-term.

Ok but this goes to my point of rescue the kid in the burning building NOW, AND still come up with a solution to the bad fire coding ALSO. To me its not an either or. I know you have little faith that the latter will happen if we save the kid but as noted that’s an issue about the ineffectiveness of our politicians not the merits of our system necessarily. And Im not willing to sacrifice children to a fiery death in order to make it more likely that the codes get fixed. Any other action than saving the child FIRST is essentially using the childs life for another purpose. Even if you see that purpose as saving more children in the long run.

This is a false dichotomy. If the Congress wants to, it can easily submit and vote on a clean bill quickly. We've done this in times of crisis before.

And if Trump wanted to he could choose not to torment kids for political reasons. But we don’t live in a world of ideals where the best case solution is always undertaken and in plenty of time.

You'll also find that, in a political culture that actually expects laws to be drafted with precision from the get-go, you won't find yourself in as many of these situations to begin with.

Im thinking more and more that you live in some strange unfamiliar ideal democratic utopia where legislators are actually efficient and honest and competent and uninfluenced by anything other than doing the right thing for their constituents and somehow every piece of legislation comes out perfect and is widely accepted by all. I'd love to join you but that’s not the reality Im currently living in. So until we get there Im going to bulldoze through process if need be when it comes to keeping kids from being tormented in my name. But I wont be doing this as a rule. And I will also vote. And express my urgent desire for a legislative solution for the situation even after the kids are out of relative danger. I can do both things. And I expect my politicians to be able to also.

How do you feel about the idea of a President Trump who gets to decide which laws are "real" laws that need to be enforced and which ones would just be the "stubborn adhesion to process and procedures"?

What, you mean like colluding with foreign powers? :D You could have just stopped that sentence at "How do you feel about the idea of a President Trump..." and Im sure you could fill in my opinion from there. And anyway, to me the process worked here. There was so much pressure on him for the way he chose to interpret this law that he was forced to change course. Which is saying something considering how rarely he backs down no matter how ludicrous or blatantly stupid his choice of action is. So theres always checks from people just going too far with things, even when things fall between the normal legislative cracks. Generally, the true back and forth on issues is in the tight middle. When politicians go to enormous extremes they tend to find themselves checked by the courts (as with his Muslim ban) or by other politicians or by the volume of the public itself.

Second, no, I'm not saying it's more important. I'm saying it's not unimportant, to the point where we can or should brush it off whenever it's convenient.

I fully agree its not unimportant. In fact it may be the second most important thing next to saving the kids. Im thinking this argument is basically boiling down to:

I. Rex: SAVE THE KIDS AND FIX THE LEGISLATION

Yoda: FIX THE LEGISLATION SO KIDS CAN BE SAVED.

Are you saying you're willing to let a murderer and rapist go free because the idea of an "unreasonable search and seizure" is more important in the long run than getting this dangerous person off the streets? :skeptical:

Wait... Are you talking about someone convicted based on illegal or unconstitutional tactics? Then yes of course. You arent? By definition, if they have been convicted based on illegal tactics then they arent actually proven guilty of the crime. Specifically, their case should be thrown out and they should be retried. Although Im not really sure how this is directly relevant to my stance on helping the children first.

[Yoda]

As are children. And human lives.
This is probably the third time you've implied that kids are being actively hurt or dying during this process. I'm not sure where that's coming from. The outrage is (justifiably) about parents and children being separated, not parents being detained and children being executed. Please elaborate.

Any other action than saving the child FIRST is essentially using the childs life for another purpose. Even if you see that purpose as saving more children in the long run.
Really? What if that one other action is calling the fire department to put the fire out? You're basically saying "no time for that water nonsense! There's a kid near a fire in there!" Meanwhile, there's a whole 'nother building full of kids next door that has a really big stake in whether or not you make that call.

You can't react to every situation as if it's the last/only situation. Thankfully, as a people we've been clear-headed enough to use the downtime between one crisis and the next to setup procedures that minimize those awful situations.

That's the argument you're actually up against here, not this straw man stuff about letting kids die to prove an abstract point about civics. I realize that's a much easier position to defend, but it's not the actual choice in front of us.

And if Trump wanted to he could choose not to torment kids for political reasons. But we don’t live in a world of ideals where the best case solution is always undertaken and in plenty of time.
Exactly. Your entire argument hinges on the idea that an Executive Order would happen faster than legislation. But that argument lives in that "world of ideals" where Trump would just do what you wanted immediately, rather than the real world where it predictably took days of outrage and hemming and hawing.

I'm not talking about some kumbayah bipartisan pipe dream. This was on the verge of happening already, and very likely would have if people hadn't unilaterally ruled it out.

Im thinking more and more that you live in some strange unfamiliar ideal democratic utopia where legislators are actually efficient and honest and competent and uninfluenced by anything other than doing the right thing for their constituents and somehow every piece of legislation comes out perfect and is widely accepted by all. I'd love to join you but that’s not the reality Im currently living in.
See above. You're playing the "this is the real world" card when talking about a legislative solution, but not with the executive order.

And I can assure you, zero of my beliefs are based on a general faith in the effectiveness or honesty of politicians. That's precisely why the separation of powers are important in the first place.

So until we get there Im going to bulldoze through process if need be when it comes to keeping kids from being tormented in my name. But I wont be doing this as a rule. And I will also vote. And express my urgent desire for a legislative solution for the situation even after the kids are out of relative danger. I can do both things. And I expect my politicians to be able to also.
If you expect them to be able to do that, you can expect them to vote promptly on something important. You're really just arbitrarily fluctuating between expecting nothing of politicians, and saying you should be able to expect X, as the needs of a given argument dictate.

You could have just stopped that sentence at "How do you feel about the idea of a President Trump..." and Im sure you could fill in my opinion from there. And anyway, to me the process worked here.
Well, yeah, that's why I asked: the whole premise of the question is based on the idea that you won't like the way it works out other times, which is why it's not good to favor power grabs in general, even when they produce results you like in a given situation.

I can kinda see how someone could look the other way on executive power when they like the guy wielding it and like what he's doing with it, though that's obviously tremendously short-sighted. But I can't for the life of me wrap my head around how someone could continue to do this while simultaneously thinking the current person wielding that power is dangerous and irresponsible.

Wait... Are you talking about someone convicted based on illegal or unconstitutional tactics? Then yes of course. You arent? By definition, if they have been convicted based on illegal tactics then they arent actually proven guilty of the crime. Specifically, their case should be thrown out and they should be retried. Although Im not really sure how this is directly relevant to my stance on helping the children first.
I thought it was pretty clear, but sure, I'll put it side-by-side:

Are you saying you are willing to allow that to continue because the process of legislating "correctly" is more important in the long run then these kids well being in the short run?
I'm just replacing a few nouns:

Are you saying you are willing to let a murderer go free because due process is more important in the long run then these victims' lives in the short run?
Please explain how you decide which legal issues are expendable in the moment, and which are more important than the outcome of any one situation.

[ash_is_the_gal]

This is probably the third time you've implied that kids are being actively hurt or dying during this process. I'm not sure where that's coming from. The outrage is (justifiably) about parents and children being separated, not parents being detained and children being executed. Please elaborate.


not sure if this is the kind of thing you were looking for, but i thought this was a fairy informative article about the short term and long terms effects for the children being separated from parents.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44528900?SThisFB

[Yoda]

Appreciate the link, but yeah, I already take for granted that this is all horrible and potentially traumatizing.

I ignored the first few references to death and danger because the argument, at first, only hinged on the idea that they were being harmed in some way, so the distinction didn't matter. Now the distinction between trauma and death is being asked to hold pretty much the whole weight of the argument, so it's become necessary to clarify that point.

[Captain Steel]

not sure if this is the kind of thing you were looking for, but i thought this was a fairy informative article about the short term and long terms effects for the children being separated from parents.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44528900?SThisFB

Perhaps the parents of the 70,000 unaccompanied minors who were SENT on unprotected journeys through Central America to the U.S. in 2014 should read this article.

It's funny how the left (who are suddenly so concerned about children and want to condemn the government for its law enforcement) don't seem to have any condemnation for parents who intentionally separated their own children from their families to send them unaccompanied out into some of the harshest, most violent areas, or for parents who endanger their children by involving them in illegal trespassing.

[Yoda]

I think you're still confusing deflections with arguments.

"Let's talk about these other people doing something bad" is not a defense of whatever you're ostensibly defending. The question is what we do now, and how, and talking about how we got here--while relevant for other questions--is not an answer to either of those.

[Captain Steel]

I think you're still confusing deflections with arguments.

"Let's talk about these other people doing something bad" is not a defense of whatever you're ostensibly defending. The question is what we do now, and how, and talking about how we got here--while relevant for other questions--is not an answer to either of those.

I'm just suggesting that parents who willfully separate their own children from them should read that article, especially when the trend to do so became epidemic in certain areas in 2014, but which the same people outraged now had no problem with then.

And that those who use crises as political ammunition should view similar crises in similar ways, not ignore them in one instance then become spontaneously enraged when it becomes advantageous to use their sudden-found outrage as a political weapon against someone else.

That is a double standard - and if any situation exemplified the double standard, this past week has been it.

[ash_is_the_gal]

I'm just suggesting that parents who willfully separate their own children from them should read that article, especially when the trend to do so became epidemic in certain areas in 2014, but which the same people outraged now had no problem with then.

And that those who use crises as political ammunition should view similar crises in similar ways, not ignore them in one instance then become spontaneously enraged when it becomes advantageous to use their sudden-found outrage as a political weapon against someone else.

i believe I Rex already responded to you when you said this earlier in the thread, citing the many differences between what's happening now vs. what happened in 2014. you didn't respond to it, so, forgive me for not bothering to take the time to responding to this latest dig

[Captain Steel]

i believe I Rex already responded to you when you said this earlier in the thread, citing the many differences between what's happening now vs. what happened in 2014. you didn't respond to it, so, forgive me for not bothering to take the time to responding to this latest dig

You don't have to respond and I'm sad you take it as a dig. I'm not making digs, I'm being pretty straight forward about those engaging in political double standards who's motives are ulterior (they're not really concerned about the welfare of children at all times, only when it becomes politically expedient to do so).

[ashdoc]

mexico 2040 . back to the past .

http://www.eacfaculty.org/history/HIS101-Lecture11_files/image023.jpg

[ashdoc]

i haven't read all the arguments here but i can't help wondering if people who don't really care for children and don't bother to produce them are suddenly and hypocritically showing great concern for other peoples' children due to their hatred for trump :suspicious:

[ynwtf]

I'm disappointed with the adding of political motivation for child protection. For me, politics do not influence my principles; rather, my principles dictate my politics. That's always been the case for me and has changed over time as I learn more about myself, the world around me, and my interactions with the world.

No political group checks all the points for me and several points feather over many groups. While ideology may be an obvious attraction, it is action, motivation, and tactics of that group that usually hold my sway. Or repulse me away.

As to children, I have none. I do not show concern for these children because I hate Trump. Actually, I would hope we are all concerned for children's safety regardless of political lines to include understanding the motivation of why these parents would risk their safety to come to America. I am disappointed in Trump as a representative of conservative family values in part because of how I feel the whole thing was a political means to an end (motivation and tactic) to deter immigration. Maybe THAT is hypocritical of me to state considering my first sentence, but observation has not taken place in a vacuum.

[Yoda]

I'm just suggesting that parents who willfully separate their own children from them should read that article, especially when the trend to do so became epidemic in certain areas in 2014, but which the same people outraged now had no problem with then.
Why do you think saying "I'm just" followed by repeating yourself is a response?

People being hypocrites a) doesn't make them wrong about a given topic, and b) is not a defense of the policy being discussed. If you're "just" here to say people are hypocrites and are going to refuse any topic or framing which doesn't allow you to artificially control the scope of a conversation, I'd recommend blogger.com (https://www.blogger.com). You can use that to talk as much as you please about a given topic without the inconvenience of anyone else's agency.

[ash_is_the_gal]

i haven't read all the arguments here but i can't help wondering if people who don't really care for children and don't bother to produce them are suddenly and hypocritically showing great concern for other peoples' children due to their hatred for trump :suspicious:

i don't have abortions either but i still fight for others right to do so :rolleyes:

[Citizen Rules]

I'm disappointed with the adding of political motivation for child protection. For me, politics do not influence my principles; rather, my principles dictate my politics. That's always been the case for me and has changed over time as I learn more about myself, the world around me, and my interactions with the world.

No political group checks all the points for me and several points feather over many groups. While ideology may be an obvious attraction, it is action, motivation, and tactics of that group that usually hold my sway. Or repulse me away.

As to children, I have none. I do not show concern for these children because I hate Trump. Actually, I would hope we are all concerned for children's safety regardless of political lines to include understanding the motivation of why these parents would risk their safety to come to America. I am disappointed in Trump as a representative of conservative family values in part because of how I feel the whole thing was a political means to an end (motivation and tactic) to deter immigration. Maybe THAT is hypocritical of me to state considering my first sentence, but observation has not taken place in a vacuum.Good post ynwtf...I like what you said and how you said it.

I don't have children either and while I am concerned about any children being mistreated...I also have another concern, which is: Trump's actions with immigration & children are going to give America a bad reputation in the world. I don't want the world to view America as an abusive country, but Trump is not setting a good example. He's Making America Hated Again.

I'm American, I love my country and I feel lucky to live here, but I hate how Trump has brought ugly to the forefront. All the world is watching us, do we really want to be seen in such a poor light?

[Powdered Water]

I disagree Rules, America has been this way for a minute now and that's the real problem here. Trump is just a by-product of our system. Like it or not, he is us. We have got to stop denying this and embrace the horror if we can ever hope to change ourselves and this nation.

[Captain Steel]

Why do you think saying "I'm just" followed by repeating yourself is a response?

People being hypocrites a) doesn't make them wrong about a given topic, and b) is not a defense of the policy being discussed. If you're "just" here to say people are hypocrites and are going to refuse any topic or framing which doesn't allow you to artificially control the scope of a conversation, I'd recommend blogger.com (https://www.blogger.com). You can use that to talk as much as you please about a given topic without the inconvenience of anyone else's agency.

In regards to the article ash linked - I said parents who sent their children unaccompanied to the U.S. should also read it.

So the "I'm just" is "I'm just saying maybe those who abandon children should read the article. Because with the added knowledge, some may weigh the alternatives and decide that trying to make things better where they are might be a better option for their children than separating their children from them and sending them off into the unknown alone."

Then (nothing to do with the article) I pointed out the double standard that relates to both the incidents of unaccompanied minors AND to the current issue of separating families (that those so "outraged" over the latter right now expressed little concern for the former a few years ago).

Why is it important to understand the double standards of the unethical?
Because maybe if those who operate from ulterior motives (the left) were honest, then those who sincerely care for the welfare of children, all children, could have their awareness raised before things get out of hand and do something positive, while those who feign concern as they create or use crises only at times when it's politically expedient, to use as a weapon against one person, can get lost.

Do you agree that things for children would get better if we didn't have people involved who ignore the problems until they find an opportune time to exploit the kids' situations for their own political gain, then refuse to rectify them even though it's within their power and is their responsibility to do so because they think continuing the kids' suffering can make a single individual they don't like look bad?

[Yoda]

In regards to the article ash linked - I said parents who sent their children unaccompanied to the U.S. should also read it.

So the "I'm just" is "I'm just saying maybe those who abandon children should read the article. Because with the added knowledge, some may weigh the alternatives and decide that trying to make things better where they are might be a better option for their children than separating their children from them and sending them off into the unknown alone."
First, the fact that your response to me pointing out you're repeating yourself is to repeat yourself is just...chefkiss.gif

Second, yes, I know the above is what you were saying. There's no confusion on that point. I then made my own point (which is a thing that happens in discussions sometimes!) about how you just want to talk about how people are hypocrites and otherwise not really engage on the topic. Your response to this has been to repeat yourself twice, adding only the words "I'm just."

The fact that someone else making their own point can throw you so much seems to illustrate what I'm saying pretty well. "Wait, but that's not what I said! You're saying different things! I don't want to talk about those things, so here's what I said again."

Why is it important to understand the double standards of the unethical?
Hey, neat trick, asking yourself questions about the thing you want to discuss to make it sound like you're having a discussion.

I didn't suggest double standards don't matter (I actually said the opposite here (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=1913365#post1913365)). I said that calling people hypocrites doesn't make them wrong, and thus exposing double standards is not actually a substantive point about the policy the rest of us are actually discussing here.

Do you agree that things for children would get better if we didn't have people involved who ignore the problems until they find an opportune time to exploit the kids' situations for their own political gain, then refuse to rectify them even though it's within their power and is their responsibility to do so because they think continuing the kids' suffering can make a single individual they don't like look bad?
You've positively mutilated the ordinary form of a question here to make the standard "the left are hypocrites" line seem like it's connected to the topic.

Yes, it would be better. And it'd be better for the discourse in general if people only entered discussions they were interested in having, with other human beings, as opposed to seeing them as insertion points for whatever opinion they're trying to make people listen to.

[ashdoc]

i don't have abortions either but i still fight for others right to do so :rolleyes:

That is why you are a hypocrite if you are showing concern for those stranded kids . you don't mind children getting killed in the womb , but suddenly those kids are important .

[Citizen Rules]

I disagree Rules, America has been this way for a minute now and that's the real problem here. Trump is just a by-product of our system. Like it or not, he is us. We have got to stop denying this and embrace the horror if we can ever hope to change ourselves and this nation. I can agree with a lot of what you said, except: "Like it or not, he is us."...More accurate to say: Like it or not, he is some of us.

[Yoda]

That is why you are a hypocrite if you are showing concern for those stranded kids . you don't mind children getting killed in the womb , but suddenly those kids are important .
It's only hypocrisy if she believes born and unborn children are identical.

You can suggest her distinction between the two is wrong, mistaken, rationalizing, or a hundred other things, but it's not inherently or inevitably hypocritical to show concern for one group and not another if they're not identical.

[Captain Steel]

First, the fact that your response to me pointing out you're repeating yourself is to repeat yourself is just...chefkiss.gif

Second, yes, I know the above is what you were saying. There's no confusion on that point. I then made my own point (which is a thing that happens in discussions sometimes!) about how you just want to talk about how people are hypocrites and otherwise not really engage on the topic. Your response to this has been to repeat yourself twice, adding only the words "I'm just."

The fact that someone else making their own point can throw you so much seems to illustrate what I'm saying pretty well. "Wait, but that's not what I said! You're saying different things! I don't want to talk about those things, so here's what I said again."


Hey, neat trick, asking yourself questions about the thing you want to discuss to make it sound like you're having a discussion.

I didn't suggest double standards don't matter (I actually said the opposite here (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=1913365#post1913365)). I said that calling people hypocrites doesn't make them wrong, and thus exposing double standards is not actually a substantive point about the policy the rest of us are actually discussing here.


You've positively mutilated the ordinary form of a question here to make the standard "the left are hypocrites" line seem like it's connected to the topic.

Yes, it would be better. And it'd be better for the discourse in general if people only entered discussions they were interested in having, with other human beings, as opposed to seeing them as insertion points for whatever opinion they're trying to make people listen to.

Chris, I don't know why you're arguing with me now - it seemed like a page back we were on the same side of the issue.

If I'm repeating myself it's because no one seems to want to acknowledge the point, or attempt to refute it if they think it's wrong, or when people seem to not understand what I'm saying since what I'm saying is only met with criticisms of how I'm saying it. (So I try to say it again in terms that maybe will be understood the next time.)

I'm not here to dissect how people express themselves or defend how I express myself (a lot of people tell me my writing is easy to understand, even if or when they don't agree with the sentiment, but I'm obviously not beyond producing the occasional run on sentence as noted!) ;)

I'm here discussing the issue at hand. I'm not going to debate you because you only seem interested in debating how I'm writing and the logistics of how people express an opinion.

I'm not arguing, since I haven't heard any substantial refutations to argue with, I'm just expressing my opinion about the political games going on around this situation and wondering why what seems so obvious to some does not seem obvious to some others visiting this thread.

[ashdoc]

i don't have abortions either but i still fight for others right to do so :rolleyes:

It's only hypocrisy if she believes born and unborn children are identical.

You can suggest her distinction between the two is wrong, mistaken, rationalizing, or a hundred other things, but it's not inherently or inevitably hypocritical to show concern for one group and not another if they're not identical.

she is a young woman and probably wants to have abortions if she does get pregnant . so when she is fighting for others right to abort she is fighting for herself too .

[Yoda]

Chris, I don't know why you're arguing with me now - it seemed like a page back we were on the same side of the issue.
I don't know that we were, but the fact that you think I should have no objections to what you say if we're on the same "side" is a troubling sentiment.

If I'm repeating myself it's because no one seems to want to acknowledge the point, or attempt to refute it if they think it's wrong
Ash literally just reminded you (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=1913927#post1913927) that they had. You replied without actually acknowledging it.

or when people seem to not understand what I'm saying since what I'm saying is only met with criticisms of how I'm saying it. (So I try to say it again in terms that maybe will be understood the next time.)
It's not being criticized because of how you're saying it. It's being criticized because you're not actually participating in the discussion, but just using it as an excuse to say the same one or two things you always want to say, regardless of topic.

I'm not going to debate you because you only seem interested in debating how I'm writing and the logistics of how people express an opinion.
I'm not arguing, since I haven't heard any substantial refutations to argue with, I'm just expressing my opinion about the political games going on around this situation and wondering why what seems so obvious to some does not seem obvious to some others visiting this thread.
The fact that you flatly refuse to debate (or, let's be honest, really exchange ideas on any level) and just want to "express your opinion" is precisely my point. You're interested in broadcasting opinions, not having discussions. And I'm objecting, seeing as how this is a discussion forum and all.

[Yoda]

she is a young woman and probably wants to have abortions if she does get pregnant . so when she is fighting for others right to abort she is fighting for herself too .
Okay, great, she's fighting for herself. That doesn't defend the charge of hypocrisy.

I guess you can make some hyper-nuanced point about how all false beliefs are ultimately a form of self-deception, because deep down we really know certain things. Doesn't seem like that's what you're saying, though.

[Powdered Water]

I can agree with a lot of what you said, except: "Like it or not, he is us."...More accurate to say: Like it or not, he is some of us.



That's fine. Maybe you're being accurate. Doesn't change anything if you're right though, does it? You have your morally defensible arguments and so does the other side. And we're right back to Trump tweets and all the rest of the circus that America is. That to me though is still a denial of who we are and why we have Trump as President.


I know a lot of these don't get watched and that's OK. As it turns out, Hillary talks directly to Jimmy Dore here and sheds some light on this whole thing.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFC3rXN0J1s

[Citizen Rules]

That's fine. Maybe you're being accurate. Doesn't change anything if you're right though, does it?You have your morally defensible arguments and so does the other side. And we're right back to Trump tweets and all the rest of the circus that America is. That to me though is still a denial of who we are and why we have Trump as President.
There is no collective 'who we are', unless you're talking about the Borg.

[cat_sidhe]

There is no collective 'who we are', unless you're talking about the Borg.

And Swedes. :D

[I. Rex]

This is probably the third time you've implied that kids are being actively hurt or dying during this process. I'm not sure where that's coming from. The outrage is (justifiably) about parents and children being separated, not parents being detained and children being executed. Please elaborate.

Separating a parent from their young still developing child IS harmful. Both psychologically and even physically. Its well known how severing the parent-child connection leads to developmental issues and can even arrest physical growth. I used to work as a child counselor in a group home at one point and I can tell you first hand just how damaging removing a kid even from an unhealthy family situation is. Let alone from a nurturing parenting situation where they are on the run essentially already and stressed as it is and in a strange foreign place and that parent is the ONLY sense of security they have in the world. Ive seen kids get physically sick. Ive seen kids stop eating and become emaciated. Harm themselves. And Ive seen tons of them go from kids with normal personalities to troubled angry conflict seekers or withdraw and lose themselves to the point of catatonic dissonance.

Make no mistake, separating kids from their parents IS child abuse. And its measurably detrimental to its young victims:

The social science research on the harms of family separation is backed up by biological research on its physiologic impact. In a 2012 literature review (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/129/1/e232), the AAP wrote, “physiologic responses to stress are well defined” describing the “wear and tear” that prolonged stress places on multiple organ systems, including the developing brain. Sustained elevation of stress hormones can suppress children’s immune systems and even alter the architecture of parts of the brain responsible for learning, memory and future stress responses.

Fortunately, the presence of sensitive and responsive caregivers (generally parents) seems to protect toddlers from some of these harmful hormonal fluctuations. By separating families at the border, we are eliminating this protective effect and rendering children more vulnerable to lasting physical harm. The science of family separation is clear.

-Katherine Yun, MD, MHS, a pediatrician in the Division of General Pediatrics and the Refugee Health Program at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

Really? What if that one other action is calling the fire department to put the fire out? You're basically saying "no time for that water nonsense! There's a kid near a fire in there!"

Youre micro analyzing the analogy to try to undermine it. How bout just focus on what you know Im saying rather than spending all your focus on poking holes in a general analogy that works. The bottom line is there was a fire and a kid was in immediate danger because of that fire. But we rescued the kid and brought him out of (that) danger. Now there are no more kids in THAT particular immediate danger because the policy has been revoked. Theres still the need for a more permanent fix for the entire fire code/immigration situation but that doesn’t nullify the fact that a kid was in imminent danger and now no longer is.

That's the argument you're actually up against here, not this straw man stuff about letting kids die to prove an abstract point about civics. I realize that's a much easier position to defend, but it's not the actual choice in front of us.

What are you talking about? Die? The fire was an analogy remember? And YOU are the one condemning the idea of rescuing a child in danger because you think its more important to fix the entire fire code situation first. How is that a strawman exactly? Is that not your point of view? My position is RESCUE THE CHILD. Your position is FIX THE LEGISLATION WHILE ITS URGENT. Frankly I think that’s a pretty heartless approach because when someone has chosen to put a child in harms way we should be doing whatever we can to take them OUT of harms way. Not say well now that theyre in harms way we may as well go ahead and come to an agreement about EVERY aspect of immigration so we can get this whole mess behind us. No. F that. WE GET THE CHILD OUT OF HARMS WAY. Period. ESPECIALLY since they’ve been put in that position on purpose! You wanting to use this as an excuse to hash out legislation is essentially supporting Trumps use of these kids as pawns toward his political desires and thats disgusting to me.

Your entire argument hinges on the idea that an Executive Order would happen faster than legislation. But that argument lives in that "world of ideals" where Trump would just do what you wanted immediately, rather than the real world where it predictably took days of outrage and hemming and hawing.

Seriously? It worked! It took him an hour to pen an executive order and it was OVER. Theres ZERO chance they would have come to a decision about a bill and passed it in the senate and the house and implemented it in that amount of time. Are you kidding? They said the very same thing about DACA LAST YEAR and we STILL have nothing despite all the promises from Trump and all the legislators getting together for weeks and weeks before giving up because they cant do squat and they don’t actually give a crap about the Dreamers despite what words they mouth. And look whats going on with this legislation now. Pushed back to Friday. Now pushed back to next week and looking less and less likely anything will happen because extremist republicans refuse to sign off on anything that even hints at compassion for these people. So screw this notion that legislation is always the best approach in every situation no matter the urgency. We have a bunch of representatives that WONT do it no matter what. And I stand by my stance that you do WHATEVER IT TAKES to fix the IMMEDIATE danger for the kids then you vote the douche bags out until we have people in there willing to work together to get something passed. And in the mean time at least no kids will be tortured and tormented in my name...

Well, yeah, that's why I asked: the whole premise of the question is based on the idea that you won't like the way it works out other times, which is why it's not good to favor power grabs in general, even when they produce results you like in a given situation.

Trump already made his "power grab" when he decided to twist the words of the law as an excuse to abuse these children and call it legal. And the American public ended his power grab by putting so much pressure on him that he had to back down. It worked. Not sure why you think this gives anyone free range to do whatever they want and ignore the law. Its actually the opposite in my view.

Are you saying you are willing to let a murderer go free because due process is more important in the long run then these victims' lives in the short run?

Pretty sure Ive already answered this question. And nope, I still don’t see the analogy at all because there isnt one to the situation Ive been describing. But I would ask you to justify why it is you think its more important to keep children in a harmful situation just so you can seek the chance of some elusive legislative final solution. Because that’s what this all boils down to.

[Yoda]

Separating a parent from their young still developing child IS harmful. Both psychologically and even physically. Its well known how severing the parent-child connection leads to developmental issues and can even arrest physical growth. I used to work as a child counselor in a group home at one point and I can tell you first hand just how damaging removing a kid even from an unhealthy family situation is. Let alone from a nurturing parenting situation where they are on the run essentially already and stressed as it is and in a strange foreign place and that parent is the ONLY sense of security they have in the world. Ive seen kids get physically sick. Ive seen kids stop eating and become emaciated. Harm themselves. And Ive seen tons of them go from kids with normal personalities to troubled angry conflict seekers or withdraw and lose themselves to the point of catatonic dissonance.
I'm not sure why you wrote all this (and more), given that I said this earlier:

I already take for granted that this is all horrible and potentially traumatizing.
You don't have to demonstrate that separating children from parents is awful or harmful. Of course it is. I asked whether or not there was actually a direct physical threat or possibility of death, because you'd started responding to non-analogy claims with references to death.

Youre micro analyzing the analogy to try to undermine it.
I'm really not. I'm analyzing it at the most fundamental level: does the decision in the analogy involve similar logic and trade offs as the decision in reality? And it doesn't, at all. Which, let's be clear, is why most people use analogies in the first place: because they can make an argument sound better or worse through subtle (sometimes even unconscious) misrepresentation.

How bout just focus on what you know Im saying rather than spending all your focus on poking holes in a general analogy that works.
I'm usually a big fan of the "you know what I mean" posture instead of pedantic text analysis, but you can't play it after wondering aloud why I think we should read the Constitution to melting kids, or whatever cartoonish position you think you're arguing against here.

And YOU are the one condemning the idea of rescuing a child in danger because you think its more important to fix the entire fire code situation first.
Yeah, again, part of the reason I'm litigating your fire analogy is because you keep trying to sneak in blatantly false equivalences like "fire code." Like this is the legislative equivalent of needing the windows to be a few inches wider before we turn the hose on.

I've said a few times now that I think the notion--which your entire position hinges on--that the executive order was actually faster was a fiction, or at least not remotely established.

How is that a strawman exactly? Is that not your point of view? My position is RESCUE THE CHILD. Your position is FIX THE LEGISLATION WHILE ITS URGENT.
No, that isn't my point. I really don't think you're reading these posts very thoroughly.

You really should be able to glean, just from the absurdity of the idea, that the person you're talking to has probably not taken a cleanly adversarial position to "RESCUE THE CHILD." At minimum you should be able to guess that they think this is a false choice. Which, surprise, is actually what I think (and is what I've said).

Frankly I think that’s a pretty heartless approach because when someone has chosen to put a child in harms way we should be doing whatever we can to take them OUT of harms way. Not say well now that theyre in harms way we may as well go ahead and come to an agreement about EVERY aspect of immigration so we can get this whole mess behind us. No. F that. WE GET THE CHILD OUT OF HARMS WAY. Period. ESPECIALLY since they’ve been put in that position on purpose! You wanting to use this as an excuse to hash out legislation is essentially supporting Trumps use of these kids as pawns toward his political desires and thats disgusting to me.
If you're going to be so comically uncharitable as to ascribe a "disgusting" view to me, for something you have clearly misunderstood or misrepresented, then I suppose the equivalent would be for me to accuse you of grandstanding for going on at length about how separating children from parents is bad, even after I clearly said it was traumatic.

Or, we could just assume the other person is probably not heartless, and anything that makes them sound that way is probably a misunderstanding, and at least briefly consider what interpretations are consistent with being a non-heartless person. I think that'd be better.

Seriously? It worked! It took him an hour to pen an executive order and it was OVER.
You're really skipping over all the salient points. I literally just said this:

But that argument lives in that "world of ideals" where Trump would just do what you wanted immediately, rather than the real world where it predictably took days of outrage and hemming and hawing.
It took him an hour once he decided to do it. That process of deciding and bringing the pressure to bear took days.

There is still an important general question about process, which I'm not going to abandon (or be cheaply shamed into pretending doesn't matter), but the more directly relevant point is that your method isn't actually demonstrably faster to begin with, unless you judge the legislative process by real-world timelines but magically exempt the executive order from the same, or only start the clock after all the outrage has accumulated.

Theres ZERO chance they would have come to a decision about a bill and passed it in the senate and the house and implemented it in that amount of time. Are you kidding?
Nope. You know how I know? Because they already had. Schumer unilaterally rejected any idea of a legislative fix, even though it appears to have already been drafted and had significant support. There was plenty of time to vote on it.

Pretty sure Ive already answered this question.
You haven't. You said it wasn't okay to violate that right, but you didn't explain the distinction between that situation and this one. See below:

And nope, I still don’t see the analogy at all because there isnt one to the situation Ive been describing.
The logic is exceedingly simple: in one case, you're willing to do things that put people in danger to protect the integrity of the system. IE: it's better to let a clearly guilty person free on that technicality than to violate due process. In another situation, you think the danger (which, again, is not literal death or direct/immediate physical harm) must be stopped at any cost and requiring any kind of procedure is "stubborn." I'm asking why your conclusion in these two situations is different, since they clearly involve similar trade offs between process and imminent harm.

But I would ask you to justify why it is you think its more important to keep children in a harmful situation just so you can seek the chance of some elusive legislative final solution. Because that’s what this all boils down to.
What "final solution"? We're talking about emergency legislation to counteract this one aspect, which had already been drafted.

At no point have I suggested that we need to fix the entire broken immigration system to stop kids from being separated from their parents.

[ash_is_the_gal]

That is why you are a hypocrite if you are showing concern for those stranded kids . you don't mind children getting killed in the womb , but suddenly those kids are important .

oh, you're mistaken. a fetus is not a child. :)

[ash_is_the_gal]

she is a young woman.
actually i'm 47-years-old. i was born in 1971. flower child!!!!!!

i know i look super young it's just good genetics.

sorry to disappoint you.

[Yoda]

Summary of all the above executive order stuff, since it is customary to TL; DR when these things get unnecessarily long. There are two key points:

1) Time. The "do something now and fix things properly later" argument implies a trade off between process and time that hasn't been established and I don't think existed in reality. Trump had to be pressured for days, and by that point legislation was ready to go and could've been voted on quickly.

2) Future Harm. We get situations like this specifically because the legislative process is not taken seriously. This kind of sudden, executive-dictated shift in policy (or the application of said policy) is only possible when laws are written vaguely to begin with. There simply isn't any morally coherent way to be this upset about the current situation yet dismissive of increasing the likelihood of situations like this in the future. Or does your answer to the trolley problem flip if we add a slight interval?

[I. Rex]

You don't have to demonstrate that separating children from parents is awful or harmful.

I don’t now? Then why did you ask how this process "actively hurts" children then? I was simply responding to your request. If you already knew the answer then why ask that question? Never once did I mention that kids were being "executed" as you stated.

I asked whether or not there was actually a direct physical threat or possibility of death

No you didn’t. You said "actively hurt". And to me the trauma of taking a child away from its parents IS actively hurting them. You never mentioned physically hurting them.

because you'd started responding to non-analogy claims with references to death.

Nowhere have I ever said the border patrol is executing children or that they are dying on the spot from being separated. Speaking of straw men... You had stated that legislating the process is important to which I responded "So are children. And human lives". If you thought me mentioning human lives somehow meant I was saying kids are being executed than you were mistaken. Lives are important for their quality AND their existence. The use of the term "human lives" is not a reference simply to their existence. And if you are referring to some other quote other than "human lives" I couldn’t find one that was outside the sphere of the analogy so youll need to enlighten me.

I'm really not. I'm analyzing it at the most fundamental level: does the decision in the analogy involve similar logic and trade offs as the decision in reality? And it doesn't, at all.

It absolutely does. Are you telling me you cant use an analogy involving physical harm or death to talk about a situation that doesn’t specifically involve death? You just wiped out all war analogies then. If I say a person is in danger of "falling off a cliff" because they are at a point in their lives where a decision they make could make life more difficult for them is that not appropriate because falling off a cliff is actually fatal in reality? What analogy do you believe would have been more appropriate then if you think comparing the situation of children being abused by being removed from their parents wasn’t like a child in danger of being burned? I guess to be technically accurate I should have said Trump is lighting a building on fire that full of children. Some kids have already been burned. We need to do everything we can to keep any other kids from being burned. The best way to do that would be to force Trump to stop lighting the building on fire. But that just seems way too technical and pedantic. The general structure of the simple analogy works just fine for me. Maybe because I believe kids are being harmed and you don’t?

I've said a few times now that I think the notion--which your entire position hinges on--that the executive order was actually faster was a fiction, or at least not remotely established.

And Ive replied that it is clearly and obviously faster to make an order then it is to go through the laborious unguaranteed process of legislating something that ISNT just going to be about stopping the actual thing everyone is focused on. I mean that’s just a no brainer. And really you keep turning this toward people failing to legislate. Why don’t you focus the blame where its deserved? On Trumps choice to engage in this practice in the first place because he thinks he can. If he can just decide to start abusing children one day then he can decide to stop. He doesn’t need the inept House and Senate to jump through hoops for him. He doesn’t need bells and whistles and formal announcements. He doesn’t even need an executive order. He just needs to stop. But instead we give Trump a pass on abusing children and we complain that not signing a bill loaded with more than just STOP SEPARATING KIDS AND PARENTS on it is all on the democrats. Garbage. Get this joke of a president to NOT torment kids to begin with and this isnt an issue.

At minimum you should be able to guess that they think this is a false choice. Which, surprise, is actually what I think

Ah so you think there is some other choice than rescue the child or legislate the situation? Im assuming you think its a false choice based on your thinking that legislation is just as fast as rescuing which of course I find absurd? Or is it a false choice because you think the children arent actually being harmed or in any danger?

I guess what weve established so far is that you think use of the term "harm" is not appropriate to this situation and I think it is. You think creating and passing legislation is just as fast as saying STOP and I think its not. Not trying to misrepresent you with those declarations. So please correct me if I have something inaccurate there at all. Maybe you are ok with the use of "harm" as long as its made clear "harm" in no way implies "death" and maybe you think legislating is just as fast as ordering as long as you force the democrats (or far right republicans for that matter) to sign off on extra stuff they don’t want any part of. But you tell me. Im not speaking for you. Im all ears.

Or, we could just assume the other person is probably not heartless, and anything that makes them sound that way is probably a misunderstanding, and at least briefly consider what interpretations are consistent with being a non-heartless person. I think that'd be better.

For the record, I don’t think you are heartless simply based on the overall body of posts I have seen you make in my time here so far. I think you clearly value life and fairness and charity. I think you sometimes twist yourself into knots to justify certain points of view that often run counter to your instinct to do right by your fellow man whether its with guns or taxes or the rigid appropriateness of legislation as in this example. But I don’t think you are pro child cruelty in the least. And perhaps that’s exactly why I was disappointed to hear you try to articulate an argument, that to ME can ONLY be a dichotomic choice, in the wrong direction. Based on things that TO ME seem patently ridiculous like the length of time it takes to successfully legislate in our congress. If a jackass comes off as being a jackass by making cruel comments and showing a lack of caring it doesn’t surprise me. Theres been a few of those Ive engaged with here. But if someone like you seems to be saying things that come off that way it actually makes me mad. Because it doesn’t jive with my notion of who you are as a person. And I begin to think why is he doing this?? Was I wrong about them all along?

the more directly relevant point is that your method isn't actually demonstrably faster to begin with, unless you judge the legislative process by real-world timelines but magically exempt the executive order from the same, or only start the clock after all the outrage has accumulated.

Ive already touched on this earlier in this post but I just don’t get the confusion. Clearly the clock starts when the process starts. If the process isnt successful that’s the fault of the process, not the fault of all parties involved not allowing the process to work. Because disagreement and an attempt to come to a compromise IS part of the process after all. The democrats were not going to sign off on a bill that essentially held children hostage to get a $25 billion increase in wall funding and whatever else. You don’t encourage a terrorist. And the extreme right wing republicans werent interested in a bill that didn’t give them some wall funding and/or some other draconian demand. But Trump caved. Stop the clock. Its really just that simple. Now, lets keep working on that bill.

Speaking of which it seems just this morning Trump has told republicans to stop "wasting their time" on immigration legislation until after November because he predicts a red tidal wave in the November elections. Wonder how he can be so sure of that... Maybe Vlad gave him a call? Either way, this seems to only reinforce my point about the difficulty of successfully reaching a compromise on this issue that can become law.

The logic is exceedingly simple: in one case, you're willing to do things that put people in danger to protect the integrity of the system. IE: it's better to let a clearly guilty person free on that technicality than to violate due process.

Pretty sure my exact words were: "if they have been convicted based on illegal tactics then they arent actually proven guilty of the crime. Specifically, their case should be thrown out and they should be retried." How is throwing out a court decision and having a retrial "letting them go free" exactly? And even if they were set free (which was never part of my reply mind you) the analogy still doesn’t work because their existence in the world doesn’t guarantee a child is being abused whereas Trump separating kids from their parents does by definition.

In another situation, you think the danger (which, again, is not literal death or direct/immediate physical harm) must be stopped at any cost

If the individual was currently engaged in the act of trying to separate a child from their parents or any other form of child abuse, like Trump was, then yeah stop him by any means necessary.

What "final solution"? We're talking about emergency legislation to counteract this one aspect, which had already been drafted.

None of the proposed bills I read were JUST about not separating families. And that includes the "moderate" House Republican bill, the more conservative bill presented by Bob Goodlatte, and the one introduced by Mark Meadows. All of them had other things mixed in there including DACA, legal immigration limits and wall funding as noted. If you are aware of another one that was proposed that had NO other considerations other than STOP SEPARATING THE CHILDREN then let me know. It could be i just couldn’t find it. But I heard nothing about it in any news source I watched or in any of the searches i did using the current legislation search tool on congress.gov. I will note that Diane Feinstein introduced a bill in the Senate that ONLY dealt with the family separation issue but of course, being a democrat, her bill was never considered.

[hell_storm2004]

That is why you are a hypocrite if you are showing concern for those stranded kids . you don't mind children getting killed in the womb , but suddenly those kids are important .


Fetus is not a child. If a woman wants to get an abortion, me being a man, who am I to object? Ireland got of the strict abortion laws just a few weeks ago. Now pressure is on Northern Ireland.


I was lucky enough to work with a few asylum seekers as a part of volunteering stuff i did, and it is quite an eye opener.


And these kids are important. If we cant empathize with the parents and their kids, we haven't progressed much as a civilization, I would say.



I am not that much interested in politics to begin with. I just keep track of the news and what's happening around the globe.



But this one just irked me, a lot. Coz the excuses were just lame.

[Captain Steel]

Fetus is not a child. If a woman wants to get an abortion, me being a man, who am I to object? Ireland got of the strict abortion laws just a few weeks ago. Now pressure is on Northern Ireland.


We should have a thread for Controversial Topics such as these! ;)

https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?t=47367

[hell_storm2004]

I try to stay away from all of these mostly online.


Being a millennial my views are mostly fall on the "liberal" side of politics. But if the Republicans can offer a candidate that i can respect, why not. I do not consider myself aligned to any party.

[Captain Steel]

I try to stay away from all of these mostly online.


Being a millennial my views are mostly fall on the "liberal" side of politics. But if the Republicans can offer a candidate that i can respect, why not. I do not consider myself aligned to any party.

Me too. I'm Independent - but reviewing my Presidential voting record, it seems (without me even noticing it) I gradually transitioned from Democrat or Green Party candidates to Republican.

As many people get older, they tend to move from liberalism toward conservatism (many, but obviously not all). This is because experience tends to lead to pragmatism - realizing that the beauty of idealism just isn't as easily applied to reality as once thought.

[TheUsualSuspect]

That fetus/abortion & kids at the border argument was crazy to read.

[Captain Steel]

That fetus/abortion & kids at the border argument was crazy to read.

What's crazy about it?
Are some children not actually children, so only certain ones being mistreated deserve concern?
Are some humans less-than-human based on their age or stage of development? Is unique, individual human DNA in a person somehow not unique human individual DNA depending on a person's age (thus rendering them not a person)? Are some babies not babies? If they're half in the womb and half out, are they only half human and half something else?

Ah, so many questions, so many controversies. ;)

https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?t=47367

[ash_is_the_gal]

As many people get older, they tend to move from liberalism toward conservatism (many, but obviously not all). This is because experience tends to lead to pragmatism - realizing that the beauty of idealism just isn't as easily applied to reality as once thought.

and now for the (surprisingly) less idealistic interpretation from the left-leaner :p

i always interpreted it like, it's not about getting older, it's about the generation you come from. your generation was brought up in a less socially liberal world. as we as a society become more progressive/open-minded, it's hard for people as they get older to see things that used to align with their party suddenly change or disappear altogether; in the 60s for example, one could call oneself a liberal and still be ok with gay marriage being illegal, abortion being largely illegal, the death penalty still being in force, accepting openly racist attitudes etc. not so today.

anyway, don't worry, the odds are definitely stacked in your favor.

[Citizen Rules]

I'm a bit older than Captain Steel and I'm both extremely liberal and extremely conservative and moderate too on some issues...It just depends on the issues themselves. I've never aligned myself with one political party as I only agree with each party about 50% of the time.

[I. Rex]

Me too. I'm Independent - but reviewing my Presidential voting record, it seems (without me even noticing it) I gradually transitioned from Democrat or Green Party candidates to Republican.

As many people get older, they tend to move from liberalism toward conservatism (many, but obviously not all). This is because experience tends to lead to pragmatism - realizing that the beauty of idealism just isn't as easily applied to reality as once thought.

Its like that old saying: Democrats fall in love and Republicans fall in line. That largely explains for me why Democrats can be so inept and Republicans can be so cruel yet effective in my book.

[ashdoc]

anyway, don't worry, the odds are definitely stacked in your favor.

the odds are stacked in favour of liberals in the long run . the immigrants , women , minorities and gays will vote for liberals and eventually their increasing numbers will prevail .

[Captain Steel]

and now for the (surprisingly) less idealistic interpretation from the left-leaner :p

i always interpreted it like, it's not about getting older, it's about the generation you come from. your generation was brought up in a less socially liberal world. as we as a society become more progressive/open-minded, it's hard for people as they get older to see things that used to align with their party suddenly change or disappear altogether; in the 60s for example, one could call oneself a liberal and still be ok with gay marriage being illegal, abortion being largely illegal, the death penalty still being in force, accepting openly racist attitudes etc. not so today.

anyway, don't worry, the odds are definitely stacked in your favor.

Yes - generations and eras do have a major effect. There's also much to be said for people's definitions of the term liberal and conservative. Many say that today's conservative is yesterday's liberal as the characteristics for what these terms represent have themselves changed over time.

[cat_sidhe]

Is it bad to admit that I often can't tell the difference between the US political parties, were it not for who they hate. .lol:

[I. Rex]

Its not bad at all considering Lincoln was a Republican and the most virulent racists that ever existed were southern Democrats. Things change over time. Unless you are a Whig. But as a counter point Im still confused by Conservative versus Labor (sorry... LabOUR...) versus Liberal Democrats versus Democratic Unionists, etc. Seems Monty Python had it right when they touted the Loony Party as a legitimate extension of the British politician system. :D

[ash_is_the_gal]

wtf? i love trump now :D

http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-threw-starburst-candies-angela-merkel-dont-say-i-never-give-you-987178

[hell_storm2004]

My influence was mostly from the cities i lived in and people i grew up with. Except maybe Hanoi. But then again, that was short stay to make that judgement. I have literally nothing against, LGBT, abortion, mixed culture etc etc. All of these are simply a non-issue to me. So I dont like politicians harping about them to get votes. But right now, its a little different. Trump has completely changed the dynamics of what a politician is. But then again, is he a politician?

[Captain Steel]

Like most people here, day by day, I'm learning more and more about this current situation (with immigrant families apprehended after illegally crossing the border) and all the details that led to it - not just those that led to the media blitz but those that led to the overall situations themselves.

A huge huge problem is that so many facts are presented in contexts that misrepresent them or don't tell the full story, and so many things that are not facts are being disseminated for political reasons.

For instance: the media has recently been showing a photo of a crying little girl from Honduras and using its emotional impact to stir up outrage toward the current administration. The initial report was she was crying because she's been separated from her mommy due to the Nazi-esque tactics of the Trump administration. Time magazine even Photoshopped the toddler with Trump looming over her with the caption "Welcome to America."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/resizer/fnB7Byf5BJ2oUq1UW6wfW0DXul4=/480x0/arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/NR2F37UFDA6FJHOTZOWWKZCCGM.jpg

Now recent facts reveal the girl is indeed the daughter of an immigrant from Honduras stopped at the border, but she was never separated from her mother whom she was travelling with. The toddler may have been crying (as toddlers do) for any number of reasons - but not for being separated from her mother to be put into a concentration camp.

Now - the revealed facts in no way suggest that immigrant children haven't been separated from their parents because we now know that they were as part of the "zero tolerance" policy to enforce laws against illegal immigration.

This one incident only shows that there are those willing to exploit others and either lie or fail to fact-check or verify in order to pursue a political agenda just as we saw with the "children in cages" photos which were blamed on Trump and that set off the current media blitz (but which were photos of unaccompanied minors in holding facilities during the Obama era).

One reason (perhaps among others) that "zero tolerance" was initiated was that former "catch and release" policies had resulted in rampant human trafficking utilizing, abusing and endangering children as they became a passport of sorts to various types of human traffickers: kidnappers, drug-cartels, child-prostitution-rings, sex-slavers, labor traffickers and criminals of various sorts. The word got out that if you bring kids to the border, it's a way to get in, and criminals took advantage of it.

So separating children from illegal immigrants while their adult companions were investigated to determine if they were genuine relatives or criminal traffickers was deemed the best way to protect those children who may have been being used. Of course, some argue the gov. was using the separation practice as a harsh deterrent, which also may be true, but it doesn't change the fact that the policy was also designed to separate & protect children from human traffickers while their situations were figured out.

Point: everything is not always as it seems at first glance, and every story (and every "side") has a backstory of details that led to it.

[Yoda]

Yeah, we know how this works: wait for the left to screw up or overreach (which they do plenty), ding them for it, but simply remain silent if it happens the other way and deflect any attempt to talk about anything else. It's all news, and it's all true, but it's heavily curated to create a particular impression.

You can do this with any group or side in any debate, and it's a really transparent way to argue for something without having to really defend it.

[I. Rex]

For instance: the media has recently been showing a photo of a crying little girl from Honduras and using its emotional impact to stir up outrage toward the current administration. The initial report was she was crying because she's been separated from her mommy due to the Nazi-esque tactics of the Trump administration. Time magazine even Photoshopped the toddler with Trump looming over her with the caption "Welcome to America."


That that particular child was not separated from her mother is completely irrelevant. The fact is 2500+ have been. And the only reason this child became a symbol is because she is the ONLY one a photographer was able to get a picture of because the HHS has been SO careful about having reporters get cameras or microphones in the places where this heinous practice was being undertaken. So think of her as a symbol of what was going on. That she wasnt separated doesnt somehow make that not true.

[Yoda]

I think their choice of photo is relevant, and it's worth criticizing them for it. If they can't get the dramatic photo op they want with an actual photo, they shouldn't do it. It's clearly misleading.

Of course, the misuse of the photo is no basis for dismissing criticism of Trump on this issue, either, even though we all know a lot of people will use it for exactly that purpose. Which, incidentally, is another reason not to do it.

[Captain Steel]

Yeah, we know how this works: wait for the left to screw up or overreach (which they do plenty), ding them for it, but simply remain silent if it happens the other way and deflect any attempt to talk about anything else. It's all news, and it's all true, but it's heavily curated to create a particular impression.

You can do this with any group or side in any debate, and it's a really transparent way to argue for something without having to really defend it.

Sure you can do it with any group in any debate - that would pretty much be described as "politics."

I'm not excusing or defending anything - I'm giving of summary of some of the things I learned recently, so far, about this high-profile situation. I will, however, still criticize anyone or group who lies, exploits people or situations for political gain or as part of some personal vendetta against an individual.

For the anti-Trumpers, I always point out he's got enough faults and has done & said enough stupid or offensive things to go after him for, you don't need to make stuff up (like mislabeling photos) to make him look any worse - he takes care of that on his own. If he's going to succeed or fail let him do it on his own merits - he doesn't need any help.

[Yoda]

Sure you can do it with any group in any debate - that would pretty much be described as "politics."
But not discussion. Saying this is just "politics" is admitting you're here to push a particular viewpoint, like a political operative does.

I'm not excusing or defending anything
Yes, I know: your refusal to defend things is part of my point.

I'm giving of summary of some of the things I learned recently, so far, about this high-profile situation. I will, however, still criticize anyone or group who lies, exploits people or situations for political gain or as part of some personal vendetta against an individual.
That you're technically capable of this, or do it sometimes, doesn't really change what I'm saying. You actively choose to wait for, and highlight, transgressions from one side only, and pretty much refuse to engage on anything else. I know because I've tried numerous times.

Discussion forums are for discussion, not monologues. Their life blood is give-and-take, not one-way pontification. If you're not interested in that, you can start a blog.

[I. Rex]

I think their choice of photo is relevant, and it's worth criticizing them for it. If they can't get the dramatic photo op they want with an actual photo, they shouldn't do it. It's clearly misleading.

But it represents something thats actually happening. Its not a lie. Its a truly relevant symbol. Did the Time article state outright THIS LITTLE GIRL WAS DRAGGED AWAY FROM HER SCREAMING CRYING MOTHER? I dont know. But I have no issue with it at all the way its presented. And anyway if Trump can tout this ENTIRELY FAKE TIME cover:

https://amp.businessinsider.com/images/5952c4c8d084cc08538b57a9-750-563.png

then I hardly feel sorry for him now. What do they say payback is again?

[matt72582]

wtf? i love trump now :D
I thought it was so funny, I had to make sure it wasn't an Onion piece!



http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-threw-starburst-candies-angela-merkel-dont-say-i-never-give-you-987178

After someone has a meeting with Pence, Trump will ask them, "Did you pray with Mike?" on their way out :)

2 days ago, he said "I heard so much bad press about me, never seen before, I started disliking myself!" which is funny for anyone to say, ESPECIALLY from an immodest guy like him.

[Yoda]

But it represents something thats actually happening. Its not a lie. Its a truly relevant symbol. Did the Time article state outright THIS LITTLE GIRL WAS DRAGGED AWAY FROM HER SCREAMING CRYING MOTHER? I dont know. But I have no issue with it at all the way its presented.
I'd like a slightly higher standard from my journalism than "not a lie." They can represent what's happening without photo manipulation. I really don't think this should be a controversial position.

And anyway if Trump can tout this ENTIRELY FAKE TIME cover:

https://amp.businessinsider.com/images/5952c4c8d084cc08538b57a9-750-563.png

then I hardly feel sorry for him now. What do they say payback is again?
First, let's maybe hold actual journalists to higher journalistic standards than anyone else, let alone politicians.

Second, some silly self-aggrandizing cover in his office is obviously not equivalent to the magazine's actual cover, sitting on news stands.

Third, if it's lame for him to do that (and it is), it doesn't become okay to do it to him because of "payback."

[Yoda]

I don’t now? Then why did you ask how this process "actively hurts" children then? I was simply responding to your request. If you already knew the answer then why ask that question? Never once did I mention that kids were being "executed" as you stated.
The use of the term "human lives" is not a reference simply to their existence.
Seems like the issue is how you interpret "human lives" (I take it to mean lives are at stake) and "actively hurt" (which I use to mean direct, unavoidable/tangible harm, as opposed to potential or even likely psychological damage). I don't see much use in litigating which of our interpretations is the more natural or intuitive. We're on the same page now, which is the important thing.

It absolutely does. Are you telling me you cant use an analogy involving physical harm or death to talk about a situation that doesn’t specifically involve death?
Nope. I'm saying an analogy has to involve the same general trade offs and considerations.

If I say a person is in danger of "falling off a cliff" because they are at a point in their lives where a decision they make could make life more difficult for them is that not appropriate because falling off a cliff is actually fatal in reality?
"Falling off a cliff" is a good analogy as long as it's being used to describe a point of no return. That's the relevant part, and exaggerating the literal consequence of reaching that point doesn't obfuscate the nature of the claim.

I don't think there's much point in belaboring this, either, though. If you want I'll be happy to break down why I think the analogy misleads and what I think a fair construction would look like, but otherwise I'm content to stick to the rest.

I guess to be technically accurate I should have said Trump is lighting a building on fire that full of children.
Ever hear the phrase "never attribute to malice what you can attribute to incompetence"? I think it clearly applies here. Here's what I said at the beginning of all this:

If someone is in the country illegally, we're legally obligated to detain them, yes? At that point, you either detain them the way you would anyone else (nobody gets to takes their kids to jail), or you have some special facility or exception for families in this situation so they can stay together while being detained/reviewed/whatever. The argument here is that there is no real current legal exception, and to whatever degree this didn't happen before was the degree to which we were just sort of making up the law as we went (though many have pointed out that these things were happening before, only they didn't get as much attention).
If there's nothing in the law about what to do with detained people traveling with their families, it's possible the previous administration just sort of had people not do that, even if there really wasn't much in the law itself to account for the problem. This administration stopped making exceptions, probably not realizing the implications of this.

Not thinking that through is on them, but that's a situation that should've never been created in the first place: either the law is written too broadly (defeating the entire purpose of having laws), or the previous administration decided to just sort of ignore the law as written (and did that for years rather than codifying their policy for future administrations). That's incredibly short-sighted. This obviously wasn't handled well, but no administration should have to come in and figure out what laws the previous administration was massaging around the margins.

And Ive replied that it is clearly and obviously faster to make an order then it is to go through the laborious unguaranteed process of legislating something that ISNT just going to be about stopping the actual thing everyone is focused on. I mean that’s just a no brainer.
The legislative fix was already drafted and there was nothing stopping it other than Schumer ruling out that kind of fix entirely, for no real reason.

If you want to simply believe it was going to fail for one reason or another, I can't disprove your counterfactual, but there really isn't any sign of that. The same pressure that had been brought to bear on the President was motivating Congress pretty well, which is exactly what you'd expect.

On Trumps choice to engage in this practice in the first place because he thinks he can. If he can just decide to start abusing children one day then he can decide to stop. He doesn’t need the inept House and Senate to jump through hoops for him. He doesn’t need bells and whistles and formal announcements. He doesn’t even need an executive order. He just needs to stop. But instead we give Trump a pass on abusing children and we complain that not signing a bill loaded with more than just STOP SEPARATING KIDS AND PARENTS on it is all on the democrats. Garbage. Get this joke of a president to NOT torment kids to begin with and this isnt an issue.
How can you write a paragraph like this and not see how clearly it makes the opposite case re: legislation? If this President is so reckless and dangerous, why don't you want to remove his ability to exercise these whims? These are diametrically opposed views of executive power.

Ah so you think there is some other choice than rescue the child or legislate the situation? Im assuming you think its a false choice based on your thinking that legislation is just as fast as rescuing which of course I find absurd? Or is it a false choice because you think the children arent actually being harmed or in any danger?
It's a false choice because: a) it's just as fast, in this case, because the legislation was ready for a vote and the President predictably took days to respond to public pressure, and b) because we're making dangerous situations like this more common in the future, and while it probably feels better in the moment to forget that and just do ANYTHING to fix the situation in front of you, it doesn't actually reduce the amount of suffering in the world, and somebody has to care about those tough questions of consequence and precedent.

You think creating and passing legislation is just as fast as saying STOP and I think its not.
Yeah, but you're just saying it's not, and I'm giving you reasons it is. First, because there's no actual procedural hurdle: Congress has passed emergency legislation very quickly before. Second, because the supposedly super fast executive order took days, as well, for the same reason legislation would: public pressure has to build. Third, because as far as we can tell it was drafted and prominent Republicans were supporting it.

If your response to this is just to say you think it's absurd, then I guess we're at an impasse.

Not trying to misrepresent you with those declarations. So please correct me if I have something inaccurate there at all. Maybe you are ok with the use of "harm" as long as its made clear "harm" in no way implies "death" and maybe you think legislating is just as fast as ordering as long as you force the democrats (or far right republicans for that matter) to sign off on extra stuff they don’t want any part of. But you tell me. Im not speaking for you. Im all ears.
Nope. I fully understand why someone committed to the legislative process and finding a solution would vote no on a bill laden with extra stuff. I'm not exactly optimistic my progressive friends will remember that concept the next time Republicans are accused of voting against puppy vaccines, or whatever, but in a vacuum that's a potentially legitimate reason to vote no.

Pretty sure my exact words were: "if they have been convicted based on illegal tactics then they arent actually proven guilty of the crime. Specifically, their case should be thrown out and they should be retried." How is throwing out a court decision and having a retrial "letting them go free" exactly?
You're just rewriting the question in a way that avoids what it's asking. I'm positing a situation where violating the Fourth Amendment ensures a conviction that there would otherwise not be enough evidence for. You can't say "well maybe they have enough evidence anyway so they can just retry." The point of the hypothetical is that they don't, and a guilty person is going to go free on a technicality.

And even if they were set free (which was never part of my reply mind you) the analogy still doesn’t work because their existence in the world doesn’t guarantee a child is being abused whereas Trump separating kids from their parents does by definition.
It also has the potential for actual murder, contra that one.

The point is that this appears to be an inconsistent legal standard. You obviously understand the concept that the integrity of the system is more important than any one case, and that sometimes people have to go free (which will inevitably involve some recidivism) on technicalities, yes? I'm asking why this is unthinkable for you in one circumstance, but not another. And what underlying legal principle that distinction is based in.

None of the proposed bills I read were JUST about not separating families. And that includes the "moderate" House Republican bill, the more conservative bill presented by Bob Goodlatte, and the one introduced by Mark Meadows. All of them had other things mixed in there including DACA, legal immigration limits and wall funding as noted. If you are aware of another one that was proposed that had NO other considerations other than STOP SEPARATING THE CHILDREN then let me know.
The Cruz bill (http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/393133-gop-senators-introduce-bill-to-prevent-separation-of-immigrant-families) was, if not literally nothing else, very close, and the only "extras" were specifically about minimizing the time spent in detention facilities. It doubled the number of judges to get through the backlog, for example. The only objection appears to be the expedited hearing timeline, but that's obviously not some kind of payola, or goodie bag, or stealth wall funding or anything, and it also seems pretty consistent with the goals of minimizing the amount of time people are in these facilities (which is inevitably going to involve a trade off between those two goals).

So here's the situation: politicians are saying this is a terrible tragedy, and the need to fix it is positively urgent. They have a piece of legislation that fixes it and isn't festooned with giveaways, but they reject it out of hand and instead assume that a notoriously mercurial, notoriously petty President will do what they want instead? If the situation is as horrendous as they and you have said, and there was no ulterior political motive, how could anyone justify taking that risk?

[Captain Steel]

But not discussion. Saying this is just "politics" is admitting you're here to push a particular viewpoint, like a political operative does.


Yes, I know: your refusal to defend things is part of my point.


That you're technically capable of this, or do it sometimes, doesn't really change what I'm saying. You actively choose to wait for, and highlight, transgressions from one side only, and pretty much refuse to engage on anything else. I know because I've tried numerous times.

Discussion forums are for discussion, not monologues. Their life blood is give-and-take, not one-way pontification. If you're not interested in that, you can start a blog.

No it's not.

Which part of your point? I defend lots of things (I just wasn't defending anything in my last post, except the right to criticize those who lie or exploit).

Yeah, I highlight transgressions as they occur depending on what situation we're talking about (as I did the other day right after the news broke when Chuck Schumer announced that his party was refusing to sign a bill that would resolve the situation he called horrific for no other reason than he "wanted to keep the pressure on Trump" thus pointing out the hypocrisy and fraudulence of all his & his cohort's former "outrage" & "concern").

If you want to argue that he was in the right, I'll debate that with you - but I may not be able to debate it when you are available and I am not (and I understand that the vice versa goes for any online conversations).

I've never seen a discussion board that didn't have monologues. Any discussion must first start with someone making a statement or expressing an opinion (which could be called a monologue). As always, just because people may not be able to discuss on YOUR timetable (like maybe they have to go to a job and won't get back to the site for another 24 to 48 hours) doesn't mean they don't want to discuss. Will you enforce this no monologuing guideline when someone rates or reviews a movie? Isn't that a monologue? And what if someone replies, but the OP doesn't continue the conversation? And what if the initial reply isn't a contrary opinion but something like "I agree, I like that movie too for the same reasons" - isn't that itself just another monologue as there is no exchange of ideas?

I'd love to start a blog. Can you tell me how one goes about doing it?

P.S. Love you Chris (a.k.a. Steve!) :)

[Yoda]

No it's not.I've never seen a discussion board that didn't have monologues. Any discussion must first start with someone making a statement or expressing an opinion (which could be called a monologue). As always, just because people may not be able to discuss on YOUR timetable (like maybe they have to go to a job and won't get back to the site for another 24 to 48 hours) doesn't mean they don't want to discuss.
This is a straw man. I have given you zero grief related to timetables or delays. I'm referring only to issues where you have literally told me you weren't interested in debating, or else clearly decided to stop replying despite posting other things. In other words, clear choices not to engage in a discussion even when it's being solicited, because it's not on your narrowly preferred topics or from your preferred framing.

Will you enforce this no monologuing guideline when someone rates or reviews a movie? And what if someone replies, but the OP doesn't continue the conversation? And what if the initial reply isn't a contrary opinion but something like "I agree, I like that movie too for the same reasons" - isn't that itself just another monologue as there is no exchange of ideas?
I have literally done exactly this, even recently. I think it was last month that I removed a member's thread creation abilities because all they ever did was create threads to say "I like X" and they didn't respond to anything after that.

I'd love to start a blog. Can you tell me how one goes about doing it?
I linked you to a site earlier.

I suspect this hasn't happened (and won't) because monomaniacal political bloggers are a dime a dozen and most are ignored. But posting those same things on a forum guarantees them some kind of audience. That's my problem with this stuff: I think sometimes people just want to yell about something, but can't get people to listen unless they imply they want to have a conversation about it, even though they don't.

[Captain Steel]

You didn't respond to my "Love you" salutation! :)

[Captain Steel]

But it represents something thats actually happening. Its not a lie. Its a truly relevant symbol. Did the Time article state outright THIS LITTLE GIRL WAS DRAGGED AWAY FROM HER SCREAMING CRYING MOTHER? I dont know. But I have no issue with it at all the way its presented.


I do have to agree with Yoda that media accuracy is very important for many reasons, especially in our current age of political hysteria where every side is grasping at anything they think they can use against the other side; context, facts and extenuating circumstances be damned.

Let's remember, this entire recent hoopla (not the actual crisis mind you, but the hoopla that seemed to spontaneously erupt) was set off by the misrepresentation of photographs.

[I. Rex]

Ever hear the phrase "never attribute to malice what you can attribute to incompetence"? I think it clearly applies here.

Well youre probably not surprised that I think the Trump administration is both malicious AND incompetent. Which is certainly a bad combination. Though I guess you could make the argument it’s a good combination since they tend to screw up all their attempts to do evil acts. Take away kids. Ban muslims. Steal elections. Etc. :p

If there's nothing in the law about what to do with detained people traveling with their families, it's possible the previous administration just sort of had people not do that, even if there really wasn't much in the law itself to account for the problem. This administration stopped making exceptions, probably not realizing the implications of this.

Nah. Jeff Miller and company persuaded Trump that it would be the perfect tactic to kill two birds with one stone. It would frighten away those smelly Mexicans from trying to get into the country AND it would get Congress to give them what they wanted on immigration (wall funding, legal limits, end to lottery, etc.) as it would force the hand of the bleeding hearts on the other side of the isle. But this strategy blew up in their face of course. So there you go. That’s evil AND incompetence for you.

either the law is written too broadly (defeating the entire purpose of having laws), or the previous administration decided to just sort of ignore the law as written (and did that for years rather than codifying their policy for future administrations). That's incredibly short-sighted.

Wait is this some variation of "Its all Obamas fault!" again? Last I checked the Republican Congress refused to consider any immigrant legislation despite the President asking for it over and over. And that’s Obama's fault? Trump had an opportunity to get legislation done with a Republican controlled House and Senate and even said we need to fix DACA and he would sign whatever came his way. But when they created a bill he turned around and said forget it. Ive changed my mind. This is all on Trump. He could have had this solved, could have had DACA solved and probably could have gotten a good chunk of wall funding out of the democrats in exchange. But no, he decided that the bigots and soulless scoundrels whispering in his ear were right and that the extremists in his base would get pissy if he gave even an inch to these 'im-mo-grint' lovers. So he walked away and left McConnell and Ryan in the lurch. THEN he turned around and decided to start taking kids away from their parents willy nilly. BOTH things were his fault. So try blaming the man responsible instead of always reaching back at Obama for everything.

The legislative fix was already drafted and there was nothing stopping it other than Schumer ruling out that kind of fix entirely, for no real reason.

Schumer's fear was that the Republicans would likely try to add poison-pill provisions to any immigration bill that came to the floor (he made those comments while the bill was still in discussion in committee). That was still within the realm of possibility and Schumer had been burned by that before: “Unacceptable additions have bogged down every piece of legislation we’ve done” he said. Even the "clean" Cruz bill you mentioned required "merging several ideas being debated by Republicans, including Cruz's bill, into a measure that could win over GOP senators." according to Senator John Cornyn. So, again, I can hardly blame him for not wanting to have this be a hostage situation where the Democrats are forced to vote on a bill that had last minute additions on it that they opposed. I wouldn’t either. Best to nip it in the bud then work on it at length when the immediate danger is over.

How can you write a paragraph like this and not see how clearly it makes the opposite case re: legislation? If this President is so reckless and dangerous, why don't you want to remove his ability to exercise these whims? These are diametrically opposed views of executive power.

We are going round in circles here. It was the ONLY way to resolve the immediate situation. Nothing else would have worked as well or as fast. THIS worked. We are at least back to where we started before he decided to pull a Cruella de Vil. The difference being Trump wont try using this tactic as political leverage anymore because he got burned.

and while it probably feels better in the moment to forget that and just do ANYTHING to fix the situation in front of you, it doesn't actually reduce the amount of suffering in the world

Im curious how this action doesn’t reduce suffering exactly. Im sure the children are at least happier that they don’t have to go to sleep not knowing where their parents are or if they’ll ever see them again. Any emergency bill wouldn’t have done any more than this.

Yeah, but you're just saying it's not, and I'm giving you reasons it is.

I gave you reasons and I told you why I disagree with your reasons.

I guess we're at an impasse.

Probably but I think weve reached an important point in the discussion. Arguing over whether executive order then legislative action was the ideal approach in this situation or JUST legislative action only is fairly pedantic at this point. Whats done is done. And Im not an enormous fan of executive orders as noted several times. Im just glad kids are better off now. But now we should really be discussing what happens next. Trump has no plans to back off on arresting everyone and everything that comes to the border and since he cant separate kids from parents anymore that means they will need an ENORMOUS amount of physical space to house all these people. I understand hes basically ordering the Pentagon to baby sit all these folks now. Wonder how that’s going to work out. Our military bases are going to become refuge tent cities if thats true. Ive also heard that even though EVERY immigrant is entitled to representation in their hearings, many of them just wont get it and don’t know enough to demand it. That bothers me as well. It seems Trump is content to arrest all of Central America if need be and hold on until November and gamble the Republicans will win big in the mid terms and then he'll get everything he wants as far as his immigration demands. Guess we'll see how that works out...

[I. Rex]

I do have to agree with Yoda that media accuracy is very important for many reasons, especially in our current age of political hysteria where every side is grasping at anything they think they can use against the other side; context, facts and extenuating circumstances be damned.

Let's remember, this entire recent hoopla (not the actual crisis mind you, but the hoopla that seemed to spontaneously erupt) was set off by the misrepresentation of photographs.

So if that picture had been of a kid that had been separated from their parent just like the 2500 kids that had it would be ok? But because HHS wouldnt let any photographer within 10,000 feet of the facilities where this was actually taking place its somehow "fake news"? Is every editorial cartoon also fake news to you because its not technically a true image of what its talking about? Lets not pretend this is a picture of kids being assaulted in the basement of a pizza restaurant by Hillary Clinton. I can see how if the article stated that the kid was taken away that you would have a case. But simply showing a picture of Trump and a picture of a child and the words WELCOME TO AMERICA is not creating fake news in my book. Its an accurate and fitting symbol.

Again, I havent read the actual article so Im perfectly fine retracting all this if someone can find any mention of the kid being separated in the article.

I also wonder why it is this particular child was not separated from her mother since the Trump administration seemed happy to do it to every other kid. Part of me wonders if the presence of the photographer gave them second thoughts. Who knows. I actually heard an interview with the photographer that took that photo. He never once stated the child was pulled away from her mom in his presence. He specifically stated he didnt know what happened to her. That the border patrol officers and the mother and child all drove away into the compound and he couldnt make any assumptions either way. And this was at least 2 days before this article came out so the photographer seems fully on the level at least. What really struck me was not the picture of her crying as they cuffed her mom but of them forcing her to take her shoe laces out so she couldnt hang herself with them... at 2 years old...

[Captain Steel]

So if that picture had been of a kid that had been separated from their parent just like the 2500 kids that had it would be ok? But because HHS wouldnt let any photographer within 10,000 feet of the facilities where this was actually taking place its somehow "fake news"? Is every editorial cartoon also fake news to you because its not technically a true image of what its talking about? Lets not pretend this is a picture of kids being assaulted in the basement of a pizza restaurant by Hillary Clinton. I can see how if the article stated that the kid was taken away that you would have a case. But simply showing a picture of Trump and a picture of a child and the words WELCOME TO AMERICA is not creating fake news in my book. Its an accurate and fitting symbol.

Again, I havent read the actual article so Im perfectly fine retracting all this if someone can find any mention of the kid being separated in the article.

I also wonder why it is this particular child was not separated from her mother since the Trump administration seemed happy to do it to every other kid. Part of me wonders if the presence of the photographer gave them second thoughts. Who knows. I actually heard an interview with the photographer that took that photo. He never once stated the child was pulled away from her mom in his presence. He specifically stated he didnt know what happened to her. That the border patrol officers and the mother and child all drove away into the compound and he couldnt make any assumptions either way. And this was at least 2 days before this article came out so the photographer seems fully on the level at least. What really struck me was not the picture of her crying as they cuffed her mom but of them forcing her to take her shoe laces out so she couldnt hang herself with them... at 2 years old...

I don't have answers to a lot of the questions, but I will say that had the issue been that patting down mothers caught illegally crossing the border for 2 minutes was traumatizing children due to Trump's policies, then the photo would be more accurate - but we now know what the issue was (and it wasn't that) and the details around the figure in the photo.

It's a good question about editorial cartoons and how they might compare to a Photo-shopped cover of a magazine. Editorial cartoons are pure opinion and artistic expression, and do not represent a form of journalistic reporting. They are satire used to both criticize and entertain. Some could say the same is true for an "artistic" expression on a magazine cover.

It's somewhat grey, but considering what we now know and the reality of the photos vs how they were used and the narrative they were meant to convey, I come down calling this cover a political exploitation as opposed to a satirical piece of artwork.

[matt72582]

Nah. Jeff Miller and company persuaded Trump that it would be the perfect tactic to kill two birds with one stone.


Didn't Jeff Miller just retire?

[Yoda]

Well youre probably not surprised that I think the Trump administration is both malicious AND incompetent. Which is certainly a bad combination. Though I guess you could make the argument it’s a good combination since they tend to screw up all their attempts to do evil acts. Take away kids. Ban muslims. Steal elections. Etc. :p
Nah. Jeff Miller and company persuaded Trump that it would be the perfect tactic to kill two birds with one stone. It would frighten away those smelly Mexicans from trying to get into the country AND it would get Congress to give them what they wanted on immigration (wall funding, legal limits, end to lottery, etc.) as it would force the hand of the bleeding hearts on the other side of the isle. But this strategy blew up in their face of course. So there you go. That’s evil AND incompetence for you.
I dunno why my statement was taken as an invitation to write Trump-hating fan fiction. Suffice to say, the reality is often stupid or careless, but not often as sinister as we imagine, and I think you're doing an awful lot of imagining here.

I'd affix any number of negative words to Trump, but I don't think "heartless" is a good description of him. He does have a habit of not thinking things through, though. The perfect example of both these things, simultaneously, is when he casually implied during a Republican debate that he maybe favored universal health care by just saying we'd "take care of people."

Wait is this some variation of "Its all Obamas fault!" again?
So try blaming the man responsible instead of always reaching back at Obama for everything.
Ah yes, I'm "always reaching back at Obama"...by briefly mentioning that he has partial culpability in the same paragraph I also blame Trump, half a dozen replies into a lengthy argument. Clearly I just couldn't wait. :rolleyes:

I worried I would get some glib deflection like this, but I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt. I guess that's on me. And now I have to semi-seriously respond to something that reads like it was written for a generic conservative stereotype before you even heard what they'd said.

Sarcastically attacking "it's all Obama's fault" is a straw man. Here's what I actually said, and I'd challenge you to actually find a fault with it:

...either the law is written too broadly (defeating the entire purpose of having laws), or the previous administration decided to just sort of ignore the law as written (and did that for years rather than codifying their policy for future administrations). This obviously wasn't handled well, but no administration should have to come in and figure out what laws the previous administration was massaging around the margins.
That partisan hacks will reflexively blame Obama for things doesn't mean you can leap to that conclusion any time someone suggests the previous administration has some culpability. That, itself, is a hacky response.

And I can't help but notice that, in most of our arguments, they start off thoughtful and relatively to the point, and a few replies in you start giving me longer, rant-ier responses that are less and less connected to what I'm actually saying and read more and more like they're written for conservatives (or what you imagine conservatives to be) in general.

Last I checked the Republican Congress refused to consider any immigrant legislation despite the President asking for it over and over.
Last I checked this was just an overt re-framing of the fact that none of those legislative proposals were meaningful compromises. This is the same kind of standard political theater we always see: ask for more than the other side could plausibly agree too, then blame them when nothing gets done.

I particularly like contrasting this with the following paragraph, and the much more charitable interpretation you have of Democratic intransigence:

Schumer's fear was that the Republicans would likely try to add poison-pill provisions to any immigration bill that came to the floor (he made those comments while the bill was still in discussion in committee). That was still within the realm of possibility and Schumer had been burned by that before: “Unacceptable additions have bogged down every piece of legislation we’ve done” he said. Even the "clean" Cruz bill you mentioned required "merging several ideas being debated by Republicans, including Cruz's bill, into a measure that could win over GOP senators." according to Senator John Cornyn. So, again, I can hardly blame him for not wanting to have this be a hostage situation where the Democrats are forced to vote on a bill that had last minute additions on it that they opposed. I wouldn’t either. Best to nip it in the bud then work on it at length when the immediate danger is over.
I think this is all being retrofitted to the narrative, but as I said, I can't argue with purely hypothetical counterfactuals. I can only point out that the actual verifiable facts indicate otherwise, and you can go on believing that it would have changed or fallen apart in some way.

The part that isn't arguable, though, is that this supposedly clear-headed strategy rested on a petty and mercurial man that you just spent several large paragraphs arguing was evil. So, as I said, you're basically arguing with yourself from one half of the post to the next. Trump is evil and malicious, but it was sound political stratagem to expect him to change his mind about a totally urgent matter? Sounds downright incoherent, to me.

We are at least back to where we started before he decided to pull a Cruella de Vil. The difference being Trump wont try using this tactic as political leverage anymore because he got burned.
And you taught a megalomaniacal President that it all revolves around him and his whims. Cool, great job. That's definitely what you want to reinforce with a guy like that. I'm sure this won't have any unintended consequences down the line.

Im curious how this action doesn’t reduce suffering exactly.
You're solving one crisis by making another more likely, by doing the same kinds of end-arounds that brought that crisis into being. Vague laws lead to broad discretion in enforcement, which leads to broad changes suddenly when power changes hands. It's, like, the whole reason to have a democracy rather than a monarchy: so the laws on a given day don't change based on what side of the bed the king got out of.

It really doesn't feel like you're grappling with the moral trade offs involved here, given that we're this far into the discussion and I'm still trying to get a response on the basic objection.

Also, I'd still very much like to know what legal distinction you're making re: the Fourth Amendment question. You obviously understand the concept that sometimes we, as a society, tolerate awful things to preserve the integrity of a system that, if undermined, leads to more awful things in the long-run. Seeing as how that's the core issue here, I think this is a pretty important (and highly relevant) question, and I'm not sure why I'm having so much trouble getting an answer to it, unless it's because the answer is "I don't know."

[Yoda]

So if that picture had been of a kid that had been separated from their parent just like the 2500 kids that had it would be ok?
If the picture was depicting the thing it implied it was depicting? Yes, of course that would be okay.

But because HHS wouldnt let any photographer within 10,000 feet of the facilities where this was actually taking place its somehow "fake news"?
Another straw man. You can think it's bad and misleading without saying "fake news," whatever that means.

This is another example of trying to use glib deflections to combat glib deflections. It starts when any negative coverage is labeled "fake news." But it continues if, any time someone has a valid media criticism, you sarcastically ask if they're calling it "fake news."

Is every editorial cartoon also fake news to you because its not technically a true image of what its talking about?
Do people routinely confuse cartoons with pictures of things actually happening? No? Then I guess it's not the same. Which you must already kinda know, since you surreptitiously replaced "photo" with "image," even though that's a huge, relevant distinction in this context.

[Yoda]

You didn't respond to my "Love you" salutation! :)
Because you don't, actually, and I assume it was included just to take the temperature down a little. Which I'd generally appreciate in an argument, except when I'm trying in vain to get basic responses to what I'm saying (and have been saying for some time).

[I. Rex]

Didn't Jeff Miller just retire?


Woops. Steve Miller. :D The man so terrible I dare not speak his name apparently...

[matt72582]

Woops. Steve Miller. :D The man so terrible I dare not speak his name apparently...
"Fly Like An Eagle" Steve Miller? Abracadabra! :)

The Stephen Miller (band) is such an awful human being. I don't know why there was so much hate towards Stephen Bannon, who has always appeared sincere, and whose economic nationalism is misinterpreted as racist, even though Bernie Sanders has said the exact same stuff, even about tariffs. Even the two Senators from Ohio (Brown and Kaptur) have supported this despite Trump enacting this... Bannon wanted a 45% income tax rate for the top bracket, and spoke his mind knowing Trump AND Breitbart would fire him... Miller on the other hand has said some horrible things since he was about 10 years old, including not playing with a friend as they went into middle school, because the kid was Hispanic.

[Captain Steel]

Because you don't, actually, and I assume it was included just to take the temperature down a little. Which I'd generally appreciate in an argument, except when I'm trying in vain to get basic responses to what I'm saying (and have been saying for some time).

I do, and yes it was included to take the temperature down!

I'd argue with you Chris, but we seem to see eye to eye on most of this issue... which is difficult to do because the information from both sides seems to change from day to day and as new related but tangential issues keep popping up.

What part of what I've said (which is only information I've relayed from various news and Internet sources, as I really knew very little about this issue before all the hoopla started) do you wish to contest?

[Yoda]

I'd argue with you Chris, but we seem to see eye to eye on most of this issue... which is difficult to do because the information from both sides seems to change from day to day and as new related but tangential issues keep popping up.
We see mostly eye to eye on the issue of whether the media is being fair covering things, but that's not the only issue being discussed. I'm talking to you about the broader problem of posting curated news, clearly intended to express a viewpoint, that you otherwise refuse to discuss.

This latest reply is a perfect example of what I mean: I've made it quite clear this is what I'm talking about, and you're just talking right past it, straight-up pretending that the only issue is the media criticism issue.

Don't post about contentious topics on a discussion forum if you don't actually want discussion. It's as simple as that.

[I. Rex]

I dunno why my statement was taken as an invitation to write Trump-hating fan fiction.

Oh I think that stuff pretty much writes itself. :D Although I do take exception to your use of the word "fiction".

Suffice to say, the reality is often stupid or careless, but not often as sinister as we imagine

Oh I think theres plenty of "sinister" to go around in that administration. And youll note I did say administration in the original reply. I certainly agree that Trump is largely an incompetent buffoon ruled by his ego and his whims and more interested in playing with trucks and space forces and porn stars and cheeseburgers than in real Super Villain stuff (although he does seem to love the despots and tyrants of the world and hate on the democratic leaders who are his allies). But I think you let him off the hook too much by dismissing any aspect of malice in his actions. Because he can certainly be despicable. And this is one example of that. Remember, they said themselves taking kids away was not just technically following the law but was utilized AS A DETERENT to keep immigrants out. That’s THEIR words. And that’s evil to me. Isnt it to you? Now, you can say it was just his administration that did this and not him but I think that’s a bit of denial. At the very least you have to say he has surrounded himself with SOME folks I would put in the evil category. And the criminal category of course. So in the end his administration (with his blessing) has engaged in a number of things I consider outright evil. And the responsibility stops at the top no matter what Trump says.

Ah yes, I'm "always reaching back at Obama"...by briefly mentioning that he has partial culpability in the same paragraph I also blame Trump

Partial? Blame Trump? The only thing you said about Trump was that he didn’t handle it too well which you immediately followed up with an excuse as to why that would be. Meanwhile, you focus ONLY on Obama as the one who really screwed things up by not somehow fixing the immigration system so that this could no longer be an option. Obama did not separate families en mass as policy of course. And the "catch and release" practice you are complaining about refers to a collection of policies, court precedents, executive actions and federal statutes spanning more than 20 years that’s been cobbled together throughout Democratic AND Republican administrations. It wasn’t "ignoring" the "law" in the least. It was following within the legal framework he was given. Its not like he had tons of options to choose from. And when he asked the Republican Congress to give him an immigration bill to fix the whole system, he got nothing. And yet this is all (sorry... "partially") Obamas fault because he didn’t magically fix the system himself? And yes your wording there sure does seem to lean heavily on Obama when it comes to the blame for all this compared to Trump. And says nothing about any other administration at all. But I think its clear that, as I keep stating, this issue is about TRUMP'S actions. Not Obamas. Or anyone elses.

And I can't help but notice that, in most of our arguments, they start off thoughtful and relatively to the point, and a few replies in you start giving me longer, rant-ier responses that are less and less connected to what I'm actually saying and read more and more like they're written for conservatives (or what you imagine conservatives to be) in general.

Then you should probably reread your own words because I only react to the stimuli Im given. And IVE noticed that you seem determined to spin your wheels in these discussions even after the topic has been pretty thoroughly exhausted on both sides and there may be an impasse or at least we seem to be restating the same points over and over. Ive even noticed when I try to move onto the next logical discussion point and even joke around that youll have none of it and you charge once again into the breach of the same point and perhaps even throw in some wording you know will get a reaction out of me, often when Im trying to lighten the mood. And then you complain Im misjudging you when I react to that wording. Now, that could certainly be me just imagining things. Perhaps that in no way describes your mind set when you are writing these replies. But Im just telling you how it sure SEEMS to ME.

Last I checked this was just an overt re-framing of the fact that none of those legislative proposals were meaningful compromises. This is the same kind of standard political theater we always see: ask for more than the other side could plausibly agree too, then blame them when nothing gets done.

You think this is how Obama approached immigration? What did he ask for that the Republicans couldn’t possibly agree to? And why didn’t they just give him what they wanted and let him veto it then? I don’t think Obama and the mainstream Republicans were really that far off. I just think Boehner and Company was hamstrung by the extremists in his group. That’s hardly Obamas fault. He was as frustrated as anybody else. He felt he broke promises to the hispanic community who supported him.

I think this is all being retrofitted to the narrative, but as I said, I can't argue with purely hypothetical counterfactuals. I can only point out that the actual verifiable facts indicate otherwise, and you can go on believing that it would have changed or fallen apart in some way.

Not willing to take a chance in this situation.

The part that isn't arguable, though, is that this supposedly clear-headed strategy rested on a petty and mercurial man that you just spent several large paragraphs arguing was evil. So, as I said, you're basically arguing with yourself from one half of the post to the next. Trump is evil and malicious, but it was sound political stratagem to expect him to change his mind about a totally urgent matter? Sounds downright incoherent, to me.

Hey I was surprised he simply backed down as fast as he did. But it shows even he has political risk limits and saw that game of chicken going against him quickly (although now hes decided ignoring the Constitution is his next safe bet). But you keep trying to paint me as someone who thinks executive order is the best and only solution despite me saying otherwise over and over. How many times do I need to say that the problem isnt solved. That an immigration solution needs to be worked out. And needs to be worked out without a gun to the heads of immigrant children. And I still don’t understand how if an actual clean bill had been passed with NO other riders at all then how would that make us any closer to passing a true immigration bill that touched on all the other issues that are also being discussed. I feel like we would be in the exact same place. Things on hold and seeking a better more long term solution that addresses multiple issues.

And you taught a megalomaniacal President that it all revolves around him and his whims.

No we taught him that America largely hates the idea of torturing children and it’s a bad idea politically. I think that’s pretty clear. Only one way to deal with a bully and its not give in to his hostage demands. That only encourages him. No, you throw his crap back in his face and force him to eat it by making him change his own policy.

You're solving one crisis by making another more likely, by doing the same kinds of end-arounds that brought that crisis into being. Vague laws lead to broad discretion in enforcement, which leads to broad changes suddenly when power changes hands.

This argument is getting old when Im continually endorsing a legislative fix. Just not under the duress of taking children hostage to get one.

You obviously understand the concept that sometimes we, as a society, tolerate awful things to preserve the integrity of a system

I don’t tolerate abuse of children. Not for a "greater cause", not even for five minutes. And I already answered your question. A plaintiff getting off on a technically does NOT guarantee that a child will be abused. Donald Trump enacting a policy of child abuse guarantees a child will be abused. Do you still not see the difference?

[hell_storm2004]

Just read Harley's are moving some of its business to outside the US. And the company that got a Trump invitation to the WH.

Let the trade wars begin.... :scream:

[Yoda]

Partial? Blame Trump? The only thing you said about Trump was that he didn’t handle it too well which you immediately followed up with an excuse as to why that would be.
Er, you mean that's the only thing I said in that paragraph. I've criticized this decision plenty, and I shouldn't have to reiterate all of it any time I want to dare suggest that our systematic problems maybe didn't start in January of 2016.

I should be able to make a case for something without having to worry about tripping your Conservative Cliche alarm where you hear the word "Obama" and immediately run whichever argumentative subroutine my words most remind you of. Argue with what I say, please.

Meanwhile, you focus ONLY on Obama as the one who really screwed things up by not somehow fixing the immigration system so that this could no longer be an option.
This is simply (and demonstrably) false. I did not criticize him for not "fixing the immigration system." I'm talking only about the family separation/detainment issue and the broad enforcement parameters. This is the second time you've tried to conflate the two, and this time it's even after I made it explicit I wasn't talking about the entire immigration debate (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=1914106#post1914106). Again, argue with what I say, please.

And the "catch and release" practice you are complaining about
I didn't complain about that at all.

refers to a collection of policies, court precedents, executive actions and federal statutes spanning more than 20 years that’s been cobbled together throughout Democratic AND Republican administrations.
I'm so glad you agree that the law in this area was a mess already. Now, we need to solve the mystery of why it was terrible when I suggested the same basic thing. Was it because I wasn't making that point explicitly in the service of eviscerating Trump (or not doing it quite forcefully enough)?

And yet this is all (sorry... "partially")
Hold up. If you misrepresent what I've said and I correct you, you're not in a position to cheekily or sarcastically correct yourself, as if I've made some unreasonable or pedantic request.

And yes your wording there sure does seem to lean heavily on Obama when it comes to the blame for all this compared to Trump. And says nothing about any other administration at all. But I think its clear that, as I keep stating, this issue is about TRUMP'S actions. Not Obamas. Or anyone elses.
The issue is how we handle the family members of detained illegal immigrants. If you just want to unilaterally declare that you're only interested in talking about the aspects of this issue that Trump is responsible for, that's your business, but I'm already in the middle of another discussion where I'm pointing out to someone else that only talking about things from some narrowed preferred frame is kinda lame, and not really how discussion works.

Then you should probably reread your own words because I only react to the stimuli Im given.
Your reaction is your choice...and your responsibility. I haven't insulted your family or personally attacked you or otherwise forced you into some kind of extreme response.

And I'm pretty sure I didn't feed you any "stimuli" that amounted to "please strip everything I say of nuance and proportion and argue with whatever caricature is left over."

Ive even noticed when I try to move onto the next logical discussion point and even joke around that youll have none of it and you charge once again into the breach of the same point and perhaps even throw in some wording you know will get a reaction out of me, often when Im trying to lighten the mood.
Kinda sends mixed signals to "lighten the mood" with a joke and then tell me I'm supporting pure evil and not caring sufficiently about abused kids.

Also, I haven't said a single thing to "get a reaction out of you." In fact, in every single reply I've gone over what I've written and removed or toned down most of the more provocatively-phrased bits.

The whole posture here is really off. It sounds the way people do when they try to rationalize their temper; you were trying to get a rise out of me, you knew how I would respond, etc. It's placing the onus on someone other than you for how you respond to things.

And then you complain Im misjudging you when I react to that wording.
Nyet. I complain when you argue with stuff I didn't say. Which has happened a lot, and seems to happen more the longer a discussion goes on.

I dunno if you just expect me to say this kinda stuff, and when I don't it throws you for a loop, or what. Maybe you've never had to carry on an argument with even a moderately thoughtful conservative before. Whatever it is, please stop doing it and just argue with what I say.

Now, that could certainly be me just imagining things. Perhaps that in no way describes your mind set when you are writing these replies. But Im just telling you how it sure SEEMS to ME.
I have no idea why you would need to assess my "mind set" or why you need to apply a layer of divination to what you're responding to. Just reply to what I say, man.

You think this is how Obama approached immigration? What did he ask for that the Republicans couldn’t possibly agree to?
You can't throw out an unsubstantiated claim and then suddenly expect me to hop to if I bother to question it. You said Republicans refused to give him a hearing on any immigrant policy. If you want a more substantive response, elaborate on and substantiate that, and I'll be happy to respond.

At minimum, though, please stop casually tossing out laundry lists of claims about past events. You're baking commentary and value judgments into these mini-histories as if they were part of the basic facts, which is a problem when you're offering them as some kind of rebuttal. I shouldn't have to painstakingly draw them all out and ask you to corroborate each bit.

Not willing to take a chance in this situation.
You're not willing to take a "chance" on already-drafted legislation, but you were okay betting on the super evil, petty, mercurial wannabe dictator to back down?

And I still don’t understand how if an actual clean bill had been passed with NO other riders at all then how would that make us any closer to passing a true immigration bill that touched on all the other issues that are also being discussed.
See above, where I point out on two more occasions that I'm not talking about a comprehensive immigration solution, never was, and even went out of my way to make this totally unmistakable in an earlier reply.

And I already answered your question.
I'm sorry, but you haven't. You've told me one is acceptable and one isn't, but you haven't explained why and you definitely haven't articulated any kind of scalable/workable legal distinction.

A plaintiff getting off on a technically does NOT guarantee that a child will be abused.
This isn't a response, for several reasons.

First, because (as I pointed out earlier), letting murderers or rapists go free contains the possibility of even worse offenses.

Second, because while it doesn't guarantee this will happen in any one case, the policy in total guarantees it'll happen at some point.

Third, because I can't imagine your legal philosophy is actually that the Fourth Amendment could be thrown under the bus if it somehow was guaranteed.

[ashdoc]

President Trump gets a huge victory with supreme court agreeing with his travel ban to some islamic countries

https://m.timesofindia.com/world/us/supreme-court-upholds-trump-travel-ban/articleshow/64751403.cms

[Captain Steel]

President Trump gets a huge victory with supreme court agreeing with his travel ban to some islamic countries

https://m.timesofindia.com/world/us/supreme-court-upholds-trump-travel-ban/articleshow/64751403.cms

Counter to what some claim, there is no mention of religion in the ban and it includes the countries of North Korea and Venezuela.

[I. Rex]

Er, you mean that's the only thing I said in that paragraph.

My reaction was directly in response to what you said in that "same paragraph" as you stated yourself. Not about any other part of the discussion or your overall posting history. Although I disagree with you about your new premise anyway. I see very little in the rest of that post or most of the entire discussion that emphasizes Trumps "culpability" much at all. No one said you were a cheerleader for Trump. Just that you’ve definitely understated Trumps ultimate responsibility in all this and that you quickly fall back on how if it wasn’t for what Obama did or didn’t do this wouldn’t be an issue.

I should be able to make a case for something without having to worry about tripping your Conservative Cliche alarm where you hear the word "Obama" and immediately run whichever argumentative subroutine my words most remind you of.

This is a disingenuous response and smacks of either wanting to have your cake and eat it too or being truly unaware of how you sound. The paragraph you wrote was clearly understating Trumps responsibility in this fiasco and shifting most of the ultimate blame on Obama. Of course Im going to have issue with that kind of comment. If you don’t want to come off like that then don’t sound like that.

This is simply (and demonstrably) false. I did not criticize him for not "fixing the immigration system." I'm talking only about the family separation/detainment issue and the broad enforcement parameters.

Again, what exactly was Obama supposed to do that would have fixed even that? In the situation he was in where you had an enormous spike in immigrant children in a short period of time, based on the laws he was forced to operate under, what is it you think he should have done that would have fixed the situation such that it wouldn’t be an issue now?

I didn't complain about that at all.

Wait, are you saying you are perfectly fine with the 'catch and release' approach to dealing with undocumented aliens trying to enter the country? What, exactly, were you fussing about then when you complained that Obama was "ignoring the law" and getting us into this mess earlier?

I'm so glad you agree that the law in this area was a mess already. Now, we need to solve the mystery of why it was terrible when I suggested the same basic thing.

It was terrible you were willing to allow Trump to take kids hostage to try to get a fix on this one issue. Mystery solved. Although if you still want to continue rehashing past posts we can figure out why you insist on ignoring that Ive repeatedly stated that a LONG TERM fix is paramount and we (they) should be working on getting one done.

Hold up. If you misrepresent what I've said and I correct you, you're not in a position to cheekily or sarcastically correct yourself

That assumes your correction is actually correct.

The issue is how we handle the family members of detained illegal immigrants. If you just want to unilaterally declare that you're only interested in talking about the aspects of this issue that Trump is responsible for, that's your business, but I'm already in the middle of another discussion where I'm pointing out to someone else that only talking about things from some narrowed preferred frame is kinda lame, and not really how discussion works.

Well isnt this ironic since Im the one that’s been trying to talk about this and the next steps and you are the one that just seems only interested in playing word games and rehashing and reframing the same disagreed on points over and over. Pointing out that this is Trumps baby (so to speak) in response to you downplaying that point is hardly me refusing to talk about the overall issues. Ive tried to.

I haven't insulted your family or personally attacked you

When did I say any of that? "Read your words" doesn’t imply any of that. It’s a direct reference to your insistence that I overreact to your "nuanced" and "proportioned" commentary which I often see as neither. And its perfectly legitimate. If you don’t want to be mistaken for a caricature then don’t skirt the edges as best you can then act aghast when I react to it. We all think of ourselves as unique special flowers, sure. Different from all the stereotypes. And we hate being pigeonholed based on assumptions. But I barely know you and only have your words to go on in this entirely two dimensional blind method of communicating. And the fact that you dislike being cordial in a discussion in which there is continued disagreement over a point speaks volumes as well.

Kinda sends mixed signals to "lighten the mood" with a joke and then tell me I'm supporting pure evil and not caring sufficiently about abused kids.

Eh I don’t have a problem expressing a serious disagreement with someone on an issue and still joking around with them. I think that’s the healthy way to approach life frankly. You are always going to have disagreements. Why always insist on making them toxic. I feel like its part of the reason weve gotten ourselves in the situation we are in right now in this country.

In fact, in every single reply I've gone over what I've written and removed or toned down most of the more provocatively-phrased bits.

Really? So have I! What a coincidence!

The whole posture here is really off. It sounds the way people do when they try to rationalize their temper; you were trying to get a rise out of me, you knew how I would respond, etc. It's placing the onus on someone other than you for how you respond to things.

Sorry just calling it like I see it. I have no need to rationalize my temper or any of my emotions believe me. But Ill speak truth to you when I think you need to hear it. Think of it as me holding a mirror up for you. Trying to turn it back around on me doesn’t mean the image doesnt exist.

Maybe you've never had to carry on an argument with even a moderately thoughtful conservative before.

This is rich. Maybe you should make that your title so that no one ever forgets how to speak to you properly. Because apparently my approach to how I interact with people depends on the flavor of their politics for some reason. Not, you know, their words...

I have no idea why you would need to assess my "mind set" or why you need to apply a layer of divination to what you're responding to.

Its simply an honest observation. And it was a response to you doing it to ME by the way. I do notice you also do that to others. Discuss HOW they reply. What they are attempting to do as if you speak for them or are in their head. Not all the time. But definitely enough for it to be noticeable. But its certainly more than JUST replying to only what I SAY... man...

You can't throw out an unsubstantiated claim and then suddenly expect me to hop to if I bother to question it. You said Republicans refused to give him a hearing on any immigrant policy. If you want a more substantive response, elaborate on and substantiate that, and I'll be happy to respond.

A bill. And Im not sure why that requires "substantiating" when its common knowledge. I believe the closest they got was a comprehensive and bipartisan bill that passed the Senate in 2013 but was deep sixed in the House by extremist Republicans. But suit yourself.

At minimum, though, please stop casually tossing out laundry lists of claims about past events. You're baking commentary and value judgments into these mini-histories as if they were part of the basic facts, which is a problem when you're offering them as some kind of rebuttal. I shouldn't have to painstakingly draw them all out and ask you to corroborate each bit.

What is this long list of "claims" you are referring to exactly? And why are "past events" not apropos to this discussion exactly?

You're not willing to take a "chance" on already-drafted legislation, but you were okay betting on the super evil, petty, mercurial wannabe dictator to back down?

Not betting on anything. Youll note I said nothing about an executive order until it actually happened. Because that wasn’t my focus. My focus was "cut it out!". Not "President Trump please save us!". I also note, by the way, that a judgment went down today forcing Trumps hand on a time line to reunite kids with their families based on their age which reinforces exactly what I said about the courts acting as a check for Trumps actions on this.

First, because (as I pointed out earlier), letting murderers or rapists go free contains the possibility of even worse offenses.

And, as noted earlier, the possibility is not abuse actually happening like it was with Trump.

Second, because while it doesn't guarantee this will happen in any one case, the policy in total guarantees it'll happen at some point.

Does not apply since in Trumps case, legislation can be enacted AFTER the executive order to specifically fix the situation so no future incidents could happen. The parallel situation cannot happen with your trial example. No legislation can stop people from committing criminal acts.

Third, because I can't imagine your legal philosophy is actually that the Fourth Amendment could be thrown under the bus if it somehow was guaranteed.

The fourth amendment would not apply if the accused admitted to his actions and in fact was caught with a child in his possession committing an act of abuse on them. Then, as I stated before, stop him by any means necessary. And that’s the correct analogy to this situation.

[Yoda]

My reaction was directly in response to what you said in that "same paragraph" as you stated yourself. Not about any other part of the discussion or your overall posting history. Although I disagree with you about your new premise anyway. I see very little in the rest of that post or most of the entire discussion that emphasizes Trumps "culpability" much at all. No one said you were a cheerleader for Trump. Just that you’ve definitely understated Trumps ultimate responsibility in all this
Talking about the legal history of the issue and how it helped make this situation possible does not absolve Trump in any way, shape, or form. And auditing each paragraph in a vacuum to see if it contains a sufficient level of Trump blame is ridiculous.

and that you quickly fall back on how if it wasn’t for what Obama did or didn’t do this wouldn’t be an issue.
See, this is what I'm talking about. "Quickly fall back." Where does "quickly" come from, given that I wrote thousands of words before mentioning him at all? It's totally made up.

This is a disingenuous response and smacks of either wanting to have your cake and eat it too or being truly unaware of how you sound. The paragraph you wrote was clearly understating Trumps responsibility in this fiasco and shifting most of the ultimate blame on Obama. Of course Im going to have issue with that kind of comment. If you don’t want to come off like that then don’t sound like that.
It doesn't absolve Trump at all, let alone apportion blame so that you could say "most of the ultimate blame" was shifted. The two don't even logically touch each other. Someone who creates the possibility for danger and the person who actually causes it are both culpable in completely separate ways that do not relate to the other's.

I think you're cramming an awful lot of assumptions into phrases like "come off like that" or "sound like that." Presumably because these responses would obviously seem extreme and exaggerated if they were just a response to what I literally said. So they go through some mental black box where you parse my motivations, or whatever's going on there, and come out the other end as "hey, that's just how it seems to me."

Again, what exactly was Obama supposed to do that would have fixed even that? In the situation he was in where you had an enormous spike in immigrant children in a short period of time, based on the laws he was forced to operate under, what is it you think he should have done that would have fixed the situation such that it wouldn’t be an issue now?
What, exactly, were you fussing about then when you complained that Obama was "ignoring the law" and getting us into this mess earlier?
Advance exactly the same kind of legislation we just saw advanced.

If a President notices they have broad discretion, that means they also know the next President will, too. So if that broad discretion covers a very sensitive area, and they bother to think beyond their own administration or consider precedent at all, they'll see the problem.

Now, Obama is hardly the first President to kick this kind of can down the road. As you alluded to, it's a multi-decade, multi-administration failure. But it is a failure. And in this case, they actually saw the problem and massaged around it through that discretion to stop it from happening as often, so they were obviously aware of this.

Wait, are you saying you are perfectly fine with the 'catch and release' approach to dealing with undocumented aliens trying to enter the country?
Nope. I just didn't express an opinion either way. I'm not sure what I think about it, but I'm pretty confused that you somehow keep thinking I've taken sides on issues I've literally never even mentioned.

It was terrible you were willing to allow Trump to take kids hostage to try to get a fix on this one issue. Mystery solved.
"Allow"? Yikes, that's a pretty obvious attempt at rhetoric. They didn't check with me beforehand, and I didn't imply it was okay. And endorsing a legislative fix doesn't validate the decision in any way, either.

Here's the "terrible" idea I actually advanced: laws should not be so broad as to allow individual Presidents to meaningfully change them with their discretion. That's it.

It really seems like there's no actual objection here. The common theme here seems to be that I say something relatively unobjectionable, but it gets a reflexive push back simply because it's not explicitly condemning Trump (or even just not doing it forcefully enough), and anything not doing that must be an attempt to defend him somehow.

Although if you still want to continue rehashing past posts we can figure out why you insist on ignoring that Ive repeatedly stated that a LONG TERM fix is paramount and we (they) should be working on getting one done.
I'm not ignoring it: it just has no bearing on any of the points our disagreement. I believe you want a long-term fix and I've never suggested you haven't. I've just said that wanting to use executive orders as a stop gap has bad long-term consequences.

That assumes your correction is actually correct.
It's not an assumption: I can literally quote my own words alongside your obviously different summaries of them.

Well isnt this ironic since Im the one that’s been trying to talk about this and the next steps and you are the one that just seems only interested in playing word games and rehashing and reframing the same disagreed on points over and over.
It's not word games when I tell you "I didn't say those words."

Pointing out that this is Trumps baby (so to speak) in response to you downplaying that point
Trump's enforcement policy is his baby. Immigration law in total is not. And it seems that the only thing someone has to do to be accused of "downplaying" Trump's involvement is to talk about anything else related to the issue.

When did I say any of that? "Read your words" doesn’t imply any of that.
You didn't. I'm saying those are the kinds of scenarios where my words would necessarily dictate a certain level of response from you.

It’s a direct reference to your insistence that I overreact to your "nuanced" and "proportioned" commentary which I often see as neither.
You think "Trump messed this up, but it shouldn't have been possible in the first place" isn't nuanced? What would be?

If you don’t want to be mistaken for a caricature then don’t skirt the edges as best you can then act aghast when I react to it. We all think of ourselves as unique special flowers, sure. Different from all the stereotypes. And we hate being pigeonholed based on assumptions. But I barely know you and only have your words to go on in this entirely two dimensional blind method of communicating.
First, if you "barely know" me, that doesn't obligate you to assume the worst. It's strange that you think a lack of information is a justification for making uncharitable assumptions. I'd say the opposite is true.

Second, you make it sound as if I've said something ambiguous and you've made some good faith attempt to guess, when in reality I've said straightforward things and you've pretty much immediately contorted them.

Apparently all I have to do to risk being treated like a caricature is occasionally suggest there are problems that predate him, or dare to suggest that maybe multiple people can be to blame in different ways.

And the fact that you dislike being cordial in a discussion in which there is continued disagreement over a point speaks volumes as well.
I don't think implying someone doesn't care about kids becomes "cordial" with the addition of an emoji.

Eh I don’t have a problem expressing a serious disagreement with someone on an issue and still joking around with them. I think that’s the healthy way to approach life frankly. You are always going to have disagreements. Why always insist on making them toxic. I feel like its part of the reason weve gotten ourselves in the situation we are in right now in this country.
I agree with this very much as a general statement, I just don't think it's a good description of what's happening here. I like it a lot when people can forge a mutual respect and belief in each other's good intentions even while arguing forcefully, but it really doesn't work once you pass a certain level of accusation or seriousness. There's a point where it becomes dissonant. And I'd say most discussions where you're invoking analogies where kids are burning and the other side is letting it happen are probably past that point.

Really? So have I! What a coincidence!
Cool. But I didn't accuse you of trying to get a reaction out of me.

I have no need to rationalize my temper or any of my emotions believe me. But Ill speak truth to you when I think you need to hear it. Think of it as me holding a mirror up for you. Trying to turn it back around on me doesn’t mean the image doesnt exist.
It's a fun house mirror. If you were really just "holding a mirror up" you'd be content to quote my actual words back, as opposed to parsing them and then arguing with your conclusion about what they really mean.

This is rich. Maybe you should make that your title so that no one ever forgets how to speak to you properly.
I didn't realize it was pompous to want people not to treat you like a cartoon.

Because apparently my approach to how I interact with people depends on the flavor of their politics for some reason.
You obviously wouldn't have played the "oh you always want to blame Obama" card if not for the general "flavor" of my politics, so...yeah, pretty much.

Its simply an honest observation.
That doesn't mean it isn't wrong. You keep saying stuff like "I call it like you see it" and "sorry, but I'm just responding to you," as if the only question is whether you're being consciously deceptive.

And it was a response to you doing it to ME by the way. I do notice you also do that to others. Discuss HOW they reply. What they are attempting to do as if you speak for them or are in their head. Not all the time. But definitely enough for it to be noticeable. But its certainly more than JUST replying to only what I SAY... man...
The big, glaring distinction is whether this is done instead of replying to the substance of what they're saying, or in addition to.

I make a point to reply to pretty much everything at face value. Any observations about how they're arguing are addendums to that, and even then it's almost always after several examples, along with an explanation as to how it's obfuscating or derailing the substantive parts.

A bill. And Im not sure why that requires "substantiating" when its common knowledge. I believe the closest they got was a comprehensive and bipartisan bill that passed the Senate in 2013 but was deep sixed in the House by extremist Republicans. But suit yourself.
That they did not get a bill is, indeed, common knowledge. That they did not get it because Republicans refused to consider any compromise (which is what you said) is not.

Not betting on anything. Youll note I said nothing about an executive order until it actually happened. Because that wasn’t my focus. My focus was "cut it out!". Not "President Trump please save us!".
Huh? There was no third option. So if you were just saying "cut it out!" and dismissing a legislative fix, you were necessarily endorsing an executive one (you even literally said it was the "ONLY way to resolve the immediate situation"). Hence my question: why was the legislative solution taking a "chance," but hoping Trump would change his mind wasn't?

And, as noted earlier, the possibility is not abuse actually happening like it was with Trump.
...and as I noted in direct response to that already, the possibility is also that something worse could. I'm sure you would take a guaranteed concussion over a certain probability of death, so obviously there's a little more to the moral calculus here than guaranteed vs. possible harm.

Does not apply since in Trumps case, legislation can be enacted AFTER the executive order to specifically fix the situation so no future incidents could happen. The parallel situation cannot happen with your trial example. No legislation can stop people from committing criminal acts.
So you'd be okay with temporarily repealing the Fourth Amendment, then bringing it back afterwards?

The fourth amendment would not apply if the accused admitted to his actions and in fact was caught with a child in his possession committing an act of abuse on them. Then, as I stated before, stop him by any means necessary. And that’s the correct analogy to this situation.
Again, you're rewriting the question to avoid answering the tough part. You can't just posit that the accused has confessed. They usually don't. So when they don't, you are willing to risk further harm to innocent people to preserve a legal precedent, even though it's obvious they're guilty and they're going free on a technicality, correct? Which means you already understand and agree that the mere existence of people coming to harm is not ipso facto reason to disregard precedent.

An argument can be made for when and how exceptions might be made, but just glibly calling it "stubborn" to care about legal precedent when people's lives are at stake obviously doesn't cut it. Particularly since the people who do care about those things care about it specifically because they think it reduces suffering in the long run.

[Captain Steel]

Geez, you guys are prolific! (And coming from someone who's gotten a lot of "TMTR" replies, that's a compliment!):)

[Yoda]

As always, happy to boil it down to a few key points. Think I did that once already in this thread, actually.

[TheUsualSuspect]

I don't visit this thread for reasons.

Yet here I am.

[Yoda]

It's a pretty good metaphor for the man himself.

Love him or hate him, hard to look away.

[hell_storm2004]

Phew.... the posts have shortened up a bit.

[Yoda]

The desire to quote that last post and put every letter in a different box and respond to them individually is overwhelming.

[gandalf26]

Phew.... the posts have shortened up a bit.

Wonder what the record longest post is on this forum.

[hell_storm2004]

I am sure it is. Just too much for me, I have to edit a single 3-4 line post a few times after posting to get all the mistakes out. Quoting, multi-quoting is a bridge too far for me.

[hell_storm2004]

Wonder what the record longest post is on this forum.


The ones on the last page would be up there. Although i did see some dictionary like posts in the gun thread as well. Yoda and L Rex might have to fight it out for this one.


I have the best posts, you see. The best posts in the world! ;)

[Omnizoa]

Take away kids. Ban muslims. Steal elections.
So much subtext, so little time.

The desire to quote that last post and put every letter in a different box and respond to them individually is overwhelming.
I see I've been missed.

[7thson]

Oh my, politics are fun today.

[matt72582]

Oh my, politics are fun today.


Are you watching the Peter Strzzkczkzkzk hearing? (Can't the guy buy a vowel?)

[7thson]

Are you watching the Peter Strzzkczkzkzk hearing? (Can't the guy buy a vowel?)

Yeah, it was quite entertaining. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.

[ashdoc]

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/india-eyes-a-diplomatic-coup-invites-donald-trump-to-be-next-years-republic-day-chief-guest/articleshow/64969390.cms

india has invited president trump to be chief guest at it's republic day parade . let's hope trump accepts the invitation . after all , india is a place where people of his thinking are majority . just like trump , india too has elected a right wing government which is opposed to immigrants like bangladeshis and rohingyas . right wing governments ought to support each other in a world where the liberal media and liberal film industry and liberal governments are increasingly vilifying them .

[Captain Steel]

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/india-eyes-a-diplomatic-coup-invites-donald-trump-to-be-next-years-republic-day-chief-guest/articleshow/64969390.cms

india has invited president trump to be chief guest at it's republic day parade . let's hope trump accepts the invitation . after all , india is a place where people of his thinking are majority . just like trump , india too has elected a right wing government which is opposed to immigrants like bangladeshis and rohingyas . right wing governments ought to support each other in a world where the liberal media and liberal film industry and liberal governments are increasingly vilifying them .

Hi ashdoc,
Are any of your countrymen preparing giant "Trump baby" balloons to fly during protest marches? ;)

[ashdoc]

Hi ashdoc,
Are any of your countrymen preparing giant "Trump baby" balloons to fly during protest marches? ;)

For one thing , trump has yet to accept the invitation. But if he does , I am sure the liberal lobby in India has plans to give him a reception of the kind they like .

[Nausicaä]

Aww he's left Ingerlundddd and golf land. :(

[FromBeyond]

The same anti Brexit campaigners were out in their thousands protesting President Trump.. the same crowd.. with their perfectly untainted hearts and superior intellects showing us what virtue signalling looks like en masse … oh how clever and witty your sign is haha

There was some kid about 7, you could see this brat had no manners or any idea what he was saying... some nonsense reporter asked him why he's here protesting Donald Trump and the kid say Trump doesn't like to share and erm blah blah I can't remember.. he'd clearly been told some things to say but forgot half of it.. reporter nodding her head like this is profound insight, the media makes you want to vomit.

[ashdoc]

Quote from the very start of the article---


It is refreshing to hear an American president call the Europeans out for the sybarites and deadbeats they are


http://www.atimes.com/article/natos-problem-is-that-europeans-wont-fight/

[Kaplan]

After the summit on Monday, how can any American support Traitor Trump?

[TheUsualSuspect]

Denying the intel from your own agency and siding with a foreign dictator. Great leadership.

[ynwtf]

Just a limited perspective of where I live:

Here in Alabama, I have several old high school friends, family, and even coworkers that are emboldened by it. Hell, even my dad has started posting Trump support on his FB feed. They, like Trump, believe the Russian investigation is tactical and without merit. That it is a side-effect of the "swamp" culture. I'm only speaking of the vocal few btw. I feel uncomfortable even just using these anecdotes as example, but these guys are pretty vocal and direct on their own so maybe it's fair game? They have already turned on McCain and other Republicans that are critical of him.

As I read their reactions, I believe they are proud to have someone like Trump bucking the system. While some seem to be pretty hardline, many are enjoying the circus of it all. They all are kind of trollish smart asses (myself included, from time to time so I'm not faulting that!) and are enjoying seeing someone posture and push back against a perceived weak liberal walk-on-eggshells culture fearful of offending anyone. It is exciting to watch a bull kick through the china shop as if watching an episode of Jackass. I worry that is as far as it goes though, because, in my opinion, everything is immediate gratification. There seems to be no reflection on past or future events that may contradict current opinions. It's all here-and-now and the IMO morbid excitement of watching someone else burn things down in your name.

Football is life here and everyone has sided with their home team. Both in politics and religion. Regardless of how clean the other quarterback's passing technique may be, it doesn't matter because he's still a p****. Regardless of how many times their quarterback fumbles, he's home team and is the hero taking the hot cheerleader to the pickup truck.


*EDIT*
I don't mean that to be a judgment, but I guess it reads as such. I can sort of understand a Christian conservative tolerating Trump as a means to an end regarding SCOTUS picks that may shift the balance to more conservative rulings and possible overturning of past rulings, short-term economic gains, immigration, and a more nationalistic world posture. I believe most of my friends are probably in this group and while I don't agree (because it suggests faith in man and politics over faith in God's will), I can at least connect those cultural dots from that point of view. What I cannot understand though, is the glee I see in so many around me wrapped in a "we win" flag actively trolling others for their opposing view. Not at least while claiming Christian values. It's very surreal to me.

[Captain Steel]

Trump messed up.

But what gets me is that some of his detractors (those on the radical left) don't seem to realize that they end up distracting the focus from Trump's foul ups with their extreme overreactions to everything he says and does.

When everything he says is basically the most heinous expression ever made and going to lead to the end of the world, then, when he genuinely messes up, it doesn't seem to have as much impact when (according to the left) every single thing he does is an absolute catastrophe. It's kind of another take on the old "boy who cried wolf" scenario.

To wit: after Trump's displays of diplomacy that seemed to show deference to the word of Russia's leader, we now have lawmakers calling him "treasonous," accusing his summit with Russia as being "high crimes and misdemeanors," and actually calling for "military coupes" as if we are some undeveloped banana republic.

These overreactions seem like Trump's "insurance policy" for when he messes up. They distract from whatever he did or said and become new news stories to focus on, in and of themselves.

The triggered leftists and deranged media are the best thing to happen to Trump (and he knows it while they don't seem to). Who knows where he'd be without them?

[matt72582]

Trump messed up.

But what gets me is that some of his detractors (those on the radical left) don't seem to realize that they end up distracting the focus from Trump's foul ups with their extreme overreactions to everything he says and does.

When everything he says is basically the most heinous expression ever made and going to lead to the end of the world, then, when he genuinely messes up, it doesn't seem to have as much impact when (according to the left) every single thing he does is an absolute catastrophe. It's kind of another take on the old "boy who cried wolf" scenario.

To wit: after Trump's displays of diplomacy that seemed to show deference to the word of Russia's leader, we now have lawmakers calling him "treasonous," accusing his summit with Russia as being "high crimes and misdemeanors," and actually calling for "military coupes" as if we are some undeveloped banana republic.

These overreactions seem like Trump's "insurance policy" for when he messes up. They distract from whatever he did or said and become new news stories to focus on, in and of themselves.

The triggered leftists and deranged media are the best thing to happen to Trump (and he knows it while they don't seem to). Who knows where he'd be without them?


You should substitute the word "Democrat" for "radical" or "leftist" -- it's Coke vs. Pepsi, not ideology... Both parties traded positions (trade, for example).. I agree too much attention is given to gossip instead of real issues (taxes, homelessness).



However, if this was all a movie, I'm sure people would think "Man, that was a pretty ********'d up scene!'

[Yoda]

Disagreeing with your own intelligence community is not treasonous. Even allowing for differences of opinion on degree, I don't even understand the basic logic of that claim. Nobody swears allegiance to the Director of the CIA, and I imagine most of the people tossing around words like "traitor" would've been a lot happier if, say, George W. Bush had disagreed with the intelligence community back in 2003.

We've got a pretty standard cycle going here: Trump says or does something dumb or ignorant, and everyone overreacts to it enough to distract from what he did, give him cover, and give his less thoughtful supporters a cheap excuse to ignore his mistakes. Over and over.

[Citizen Rules]

...
I have several old high school friends, family, and even coworkers that are emboldened by it...

As I read their reactions, I believe they are proud to have someone like Trump bucking the system. While some seem to be pretty hardline, many are enjoying the circus of it all...

It is exciting to watch a bull kick through the china shop as if watching an episode of Jackass...

It's all here-and-now and the IMO morbid excitement of watching someone else burn things down in your name....

@ynwtf (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=95589) your entire post is well written, it's an astute observation. I edited it down for my reply, as those quoted parts of your post goes with my own hypothesis: That the bulk of Trump supporters admire his brassiness, as his angry outburst gives vindication to their own unfocused anger. You know 'birds of a feather'.

It's about angry people responding to a leader who's as angry as they are. I don't think it matters to most Trump supporters what he does or what political stances he takes. As long as Trump lashes out in anger, he then gives voice to his angry supporters.

He sells anger, just like other populist leaders of the past have. Anger is easier and quicker, but ultimately anger is weaker.

[TheUsualSuspect]

“There is no question that Russia interfered in our election and continues attempts to undermine democracy here and around the world," - Paul Ryan.

[Yoda]

Oh, they definitely try to. No doubt about that. But Trump being carelessly ignorant or reflexively contrarian isn't treason.

I also get the impression a lot of people are confused about "interference" means. As far as I can see it doesn't meant vote tampering. It means things like Twitter bots, releasing emails, and buying Facebook ads to sow discord. None of that should be ignored or treated lightly, but this all seems wildly insufficient to sway the election, and which I assume are probably happening (less obviously) most of the time anyway. I'm more mad about the intent than the effect.

[Yoda]

Ell oh ell:

https://twitter.com/ReutersPolitics/status/1019288604454129666

[Captain Steel]

On a more mundane matter... of the many things I'd add to my list of things I'd change about Trump... after just seeing him on TV today, I'd change that hair. I know I've mentioned it in jest before, and I know he likes it, but dang! All I could think of was if you took a homeless person who hasn't been in a clean restroom with a good mirror in a long time, shaved him, put a suit on him and then tried to comb his hair back WITHOUT the benefit of a decent haircut.

[ynwtf]

So weird!!!

lol I meant the tweet; but yeah, the hair too ;)

[matt72582]

Let's hope Trump doesn't misspeak the hostage letter he's reading!

[Kaplan]

Disagreeing with your own intelligence community is not treasonous. Even allowing for differences of opinion on degree, I don't even understand the basic logic of that claim. Nobody swears allegiance to the Director of the CIA, and I imagine most of the people tossing around words like "traitor" would've been a lot happier if, say, George W. Bush had disagreed with the intelligence community back in 2003.

We've got a pretty standard cycle going here: Trump says or does something dumb or ignorant, and everyone overreacts to it enough to distract from what he did, give him cover, and give his less thoughtful supporters a cheap excuse to ignore his mistakes. Over and over.

This isn't rationally disagreeing with your intelligence community, this is standing on the world stage next to Putin and taking Putin's side over your own country. It was disgusting and it showed what a stooge Trump is. As for Bush, that was a very different situation and it's also not as clear cut as you make it out, given that administration was actively looking for an excuse to invade Iraq and while some of the intelligence was inaccurate, other aspects of the intelligence was accurate and was ignored, and even misrepresented, by Bush (or those around him).

If you can't get outraged over Trump's display, then clearly Trump is winning by normalizing behavior that never would have been accepted ever by any other president. Even this is getting criticized across all party lines except by the worst of the worst of Trump sycophants. And it's coming on the heels of the 12 indictment of Russians and the charging of the Russian gun rights woman for being a Kremlin spy.

The president doesn't swear an oath to the CIA director, but Trump did swear an oath of loyalty to the U.S. Our elections were interfered with and the extent of that is greater than you're making it out to be, which is still bad enough, without acknowledging that Russia hacked actual vote registrations and also stole Democratic analytics.

[Sedai]

The president doesn't swear an oath to the CIA director, but Trump did swear an oath of loyalty to the U.S. Our elections were interfered with and the extent of that is greater than you're making it out to be, which is still bad enough, without acknowledging that Russia hacked actual vote registrations and also stole Democratic analytics.


Just to catch everyone up, go ahead and post all the hard evidence backing this claim. Thanks.

[Yoda]

Here's what I said:

Disagreeing with your own intelligence community is not treasonous.
Here's what you said just now:

It was disgusting
If you can't get outraged
is getting criticized
Please note the absence of me denying that it was disgusting, or outrageous, or worthy of criticism.

If you'd said those things, I wouldn't have disagreed with you. I kinda said the same sorts of things myself when I called it dumb, ignorant (twice), and careless.

[Kaplan]

Just to catch everyone up, go ahead and post all the hard evidence backing this claim. Thanks.


What part of that quote of mine isn't backed up by the publicly available information from the reports of the intelligence community or the indictments?

[Kaplan]

Here's what I said:


Here's what you said just now:




Please note the absence of me denying that it was disgusting, or outrageous, or worthy of criticism.

If you'd said those things, I wouldn't have disagreed with you. I kinda said the same sorts of things myself when I called it dumb, ignorant (twice), and careless.


Okay. Sorry if I read you wrong then. The post I quoted certainly seemed as if you were downplaying Trump's behavior, calling it carelessly ignorant. But whatever.

[Captain Steel]

If you can't get outraged over Trump's display, then clearly Trump is winning by normalizing behavior that never would have been accepted ever by any other president. Even this is getting criticized across all party lines except by the worst of the worst of Trump sycophants. And it's coming on the heels of the 12 indictment of Russians and the charging of the Russian gun rights woman for being a Kremlin spy.


I didn't get outraged, but I did have a bit of a question mark over my head.
But then seeing Trump having words coming out of his mouth isn't a "trigger" for me as it is for some people (like my mom).

His behavior was actually very typical for a President (which is unusual for him as he's often accused of lacking Presidential professionalism).

At summits, Presidents aren't there for confrontation or even debate. In-person summits in the political world have traditionally been intended as a way to make nice. They are usually a way to try to cool things down and work out compromises. Putin even said in his recent interview that leaders don't go halfway around the world to meet face to face so they can accuse or insult each other (they can do that at home), but rather they meet to try to find common ground.

I'm not trying to downplay Trump's apparent deference to Putin (which he has today walked back, admitting he flubbed some words), but when we consider all the details around this whole "Russian probe" and all the "intelligence" that led to it:



The Trump campaign collusion accusations with, so far, no evidence or even a basis for any charge...
The exposure of bias surrounding an investigator who was ironically assigned to lead investigations of both Presidential candidates, and who used wordplay to exonerate one of publicly exposed federal crimes, while it was revealed he wanted to come up with an "insurance policy" to "impeach" Trump should he win the election...
The fact that the DNC refused to let the FBI look at their allegedly Russian-hacked servers (anyone actually concerned about our electoral security would seek out law enforcement and say, "Please show us where and how they got in so we can stop them from doing it again" as opposed to withholding or scrubbing the evidence)...
The somewhat flexible definition of exactly what "meddling" or "interference" actually is (that Yoda had mentioned in a previous post)....
The fact that the Obama administration was apparently aware of said meddling, but said and did nothing about it when they were under the assumption that Hillary was the assured winner (and, in fact, had engaged in doing it themselves to other countries' elections, for instance, Israel)...
The whole "dossier" fiasco and how it came to be (including the fact that it involved "Russian collusion" by Democrats)...
The new revelation by Rosenstein that no Americans are under indictment for collusion with Russia...


...it is somewhat understandable that when Trump said both sides have acted stupidly in regards to these issues and the resulting political animosity between the superpowers, that he's referring to all this political obfuscation, bias, attempted manipulation and misdirection that has been thrown up as apparent road blocks, first to his campaign, then to his doing his job by attempting to paint him into some chargeable offense.
Of late, our (the U.S.'s) law enforcement and intelligence agencies have proved less than reliable.

Who needs Russians when members of our own law enforcement have been trying to rig elections?

[Yoda]

Okay. Sorry if I read you wrong then. The post I quoted certainly seemed as if you were downplaying Trump's behavior, calling it carelessly ignorant. But whatever.
No worries, perhaps just an honest misunderstanding, then.

That is my default assumption going into any scandal, though: that he's careless and ignorant, and that it explains most of this stuff. I find it to be more plausible than the idea that he's actively sinister, given the constant, clumsy walk backs. If he's trying to be devious, he's clearly not pulling it off.

I dunno if "incompetent rather than evil" constitutes downplaying to some. But I have been accused of excusing him a few times this year for being in just the 90th percentile, condemnation-wise. Sometimes it seems like the only two options are issuing the strongest possible objection, or else being thought of as an apologist.

[doubledenim]

144 pages. Anybody care to catch me up?

Or are we just waiting for him to legalize the reefer and nail down that re-election. :D

[honeykid]

What I like most about this recent 'scandal' is that, if he is lying and didn't just misread something, at least his lies are becoming more believable. :) Hell, there's almost a humility in admitting you misread something. Well, for him, anyway.

[Iroquois]

Trump messed up.

But what gets me is that some of his detractors (those on the radical left) don't seem to realize that they end up distracting the focus from Trump's foul ups with their extreme overreactions to everything he says and does.

When everything he says is basically the most heinous expression ever made and going to lead to the end of the world, then, when he genuinely messes up, it doesn't seem to have as much impact when (according to the left) every single thing he does is an absolute catastrophe. It's kind of another take on the old "boy who cried wolf" scenario.

To wit: after Trump's displays of diplomacy that seemed to show deference to the word of Russia's leader, we now have lawmakers calling him "treasonous," accusing his summit with Russia as being "high crimes and misdemeanors," and actually calling for "military coupes" as if we are some undeveloped banana republic.

These overreactions seem like Trump's "insurance policy" for when he messes up. They distract from whatever he did or said and become new news stories to focus on, in and of themselves.

The triggered leftists and deranged media are the best thing to happen to Trump (and he knows it while they don't seem to). Who knows where he'd be without them?

What exactly do you consider appropriate reactions under these circumstances? Consider the possibility that the reason the left "overreacts" to everything he says and does is that it's just a constant stream of badness that all deserves focus (Russian collusion doesn't detract from internment camps doesn't detract from endorsing neo-Nazis etc.) and his actions don't deserve any kind of conciliatory "eh, it could be worse" attitude because that wouldn't (and arguably didn't) help matters. If you keep waiting for things to get really bad before overreacting, then by that point it'll be too late. So it's a catch-22. Underreact and it looks like nobody cares so Trump keeps going, Overreact and people look like they care too much to take seriously so Trump keeps going. Don't think you can call it a boy-who-cried-wolf scenario when people's first reaction is to tell you to go and be nice to the wolf.

[gandalf26]

Can someone summerise what the GOAT has done now?

[Yoda]

What exactly do you consider appropriate reactions under these circumstances? Consider the possibility that the reason the left "overreacts" to everything he says and does is that it's just a constant stream of badness that all deserves focus (Russian collusion doesn't detract from internment camps doesn't detract from endorsing neo-Nazis etc.) and his actions don't deserve any kind of conciliatory "eh, it could be worse" attitude because that wouldn't (and arguably didn't) help matters.
I daresay there's some space between "eh, it could be worse" and "he's a traitor being blackmailed by Putin."

If you keep waiting for things to get really bad before overreacting, then by that point it'll be too late. So it's a catch-22.
It really isn't. There's literally nothing stopping people from explaining why something is bad, and noting how it could presage worse things, without acting like those things are already happening or confusing trajectory with reality.

Underreact and it looks like nobody cares so Trump keeps going, Overreact and people look like they care too much to take seriously so Trump keeps going. Don't think you can call it a boy-who-cried-wolf scenario when people's first reaction is to tell you to go and be nice to the wolf.
If only there were some third option between underreacting and overreacting.

[Iroquois]

I daresay there's some space between "eh, it could be worse" and "he's a traitor being blackmailed by Putin."

I daresay there's some space between "Trump messed up" and "it's actually the left's fault for not handling Trump better", yet here we are.

It really isn't. There's literally nothing stopping people from explaining why something is bad, and noting how it could presage worse things, without acting like those things are already happening or confusing trajectory with reality.

Except perhaps the people they're explaining it to.

If only there were some third option between underreacting and overreacting.

Yeah, well, there's a reason I asked Steel what he considered to be an appropriate reaction under these circumstances and vague responses like "some space" and "third option between underreacting and overreacting" are not particularly helpful.

[Yoda]

I daresay there's some space between "Trump messed up" and "it's actually the left's fault for not handling Trump better", yet here we are.
Except he literally said the first thing, and not the second. And even if you think he sorta implied the second, he definitely said both, so I dunno what the "daresay there's some space" part means, unless it's just forcing a pithy rejoinder that the text doesn't actually accommodate.

Except perhaps the people they're explaining it to.
Meaning what? Trump supporters being unreasonable is stopping liberals from leveling proportional criticism?

Yeah, well, there's a reason I asked Steel what he considered to be an appropriate reaction under these circumstances and vague responses like "some space" and "third option between underreacting and overreacting" are not particularly helpful.
It didn't (and still doesn't) sound like a real question to me, particularly given that it was attached to a whole lot of preemptive defense about overreacting. I think the answer is obvious, anyway: not assuming he's a traitor when he does something bad, or evil when he does something stupid, etc.

[Iroquois]

Except he literally said the first thing, and not the second. And even if you think he sorta implied the second, he definitely said both, so I dunno what the "daresay there's some space" part means, unless it's just forcing a pithy rejoinder that the text doesn't actually accommodate.

I didn't literally say the second thing either. Anyway, commenting on the difference is meant to underline how quickly Steel's three-word concession that "Trump messed up" segues into a multi-paragraph post that's focused on finding faults in entities like the left and the media even though that sounds a bit more tangential than he'd like it to.

Meaning what? Trump supporters being unreasonable is stopping liberals from leveling proportional criticism?

Sounds about right, yeah.

Didn't/doesn't sound like a real question to me, particularly given that it was attached to a whole lot of preemptive defense about overreacting, but I feel like the answer is obvious, anyway: not assuming he's a traitor when he does something bad, or evil when he does something stupid.

Perhaps I should have asked the question by itself. That being said, given his generally pro-Trump stance it's too easy to interpret his post as a complaint that the left made too much of a fuss about Trump-related stuff that he considered unimportant or perhaps even agreeable so that once he reached his own limit it was easier to blame the left than Trump himself.

[Captain Steel]

What exactly do you consider appropriate reactions under these circumstances? Consider the possibility that the reason the left "overreacts" to everything he says and does is that it's just a constant stream of badness that all deserves focus (Russian collusion doesn't detract from internment camps doesn't detract from endorsing neo-Nazis etc.) and his actions don't deserve any kind of conciliatory "eh, it could be worse" attitude because that wouldn't (and arguably didn't) help matters. If you keep waiting for things to get really bad before overreacting, then by that point it'll be too late. So it's a catch-22. Underreact and it looks like nobody cares so Trump keeps going, Overreact and people look like they care too much to take seriously so Trump keeps going. Don't think you can call it a boy-who-cried-wolf scenario when people's first reaction is to tell you to go and be nice to the wolf.

Iro, your words reveal how you interpret things.
Most people see the reactions of the far left as overreactions because they're starting from a more objective interpretation of what people are reacting to that isn't loaded with bias that's waiting for a trigger to set it off... a different premise as it were.

For example; Trump never endorsed neo-Nazis: he said there were good people on both sides of the debate over the removal of statues (which long preceded the incidents at the protests in Charlottesville) - those included local people who did not belong to any Nazi groups or Antifa. And he went on to clarify that point, but much of the media does not repeat the entire context and only plays the quote that there were fine people on both sides (which makes it sound like he's talking about the Nazis & radicals that brought violence to the situation).

Trump is not running internment camps - the history of what happens to people caught entering the country illegally with children in tow is a long one. The Obama administration separated children from adults when they couldn't immediately identify if the adults were the children's parents as opposed to human traffickers. Since people entering illegally don't carry all their documentation with them, those separated from children were virtually all of them with children.

Trump has actually built bigger, cleaner and more well stocked facilities for children who need to be verified while the illegally trespassing adults they were with (who may be their parents or who may be human traffickers) are investigated and processed, whereas under Obama, the children who fell into this same category (in addition to tens of thousands of unaccompanied minors who's own parents separated them by sending them here alone) were kept in fenced in pens that resemble animal cages as was revealed in the photos that were first attributed to Trump, but then later revealed to be from Obama's tenure.

U.S. Presidents have been meeting with Russian leaders since the end of WWII.
FDR (the hero of the Democratic party and who did actually create internment camps for American citizens of Japanese decent) praised Stalin after WWII while handing half of Europe over to his Communist regime. The point is, at summits, Presidents don't go to debate on a world stage, or insult or make accusations even when crimes of the "enemy" are clear. At every summit, U.S. Presidents are nice to the wolf - if they weren't, then summits would cease.

Trump carried on the tradition - I'm not excusing his poor showing, inappropriate topics, bizarre oration style, verbal flubs or the optics he created, just saying that what he did do in no way warrants "treason" or "military coupes" that American politicians are now calling for in a deranged showing of completely unwarranted hysteria. I'd expect crazy people in the street to yell these things, but when our own politicians start overreacting with insane rhetoric that's a little scary because they could, at any time, turn that same insanity against any of us citizens.

You keep talking about the right time to "overreact" - well that time is never. OVERreaction is an inappropriate reaction (which is what we've seen from the left over everything Trump has said or done).

[Yoda]

I didn't literally say the second thing either. Anyway, commenting on the difference is meant to underline how quickly Steel's three-word concession that "Trump messed up" segues into a multi-paragraph post that's focused on finding faults in entities like the left and the media even though that sounds a bit more tangential than he'd like it to.
Sure, he's obviously a lot more enthusiastic about that. But the point is that he didn't respond to one extreme by offering another, which is what you're suggesting by shoehorning some turnabout-is-fair-play phrasing into the response. He said both were true.

Sounds about right, yeah.
Sounds terrible. Nobody has the ability to make us unreasonable, and their behavior doesn't absolve us of it when we are.

Perhaps I should have asked the question by itself. That being said, given his generally pro-Trump stance it's too easy to interpret his post as a complaint that the left made too much of a fuss about Trump-related stuff that he considered unimportant or perhaps even agreeable so that once he reached his own limit it was easier to blame the left than Trump himself.
Well, he said in the very first sentence that it wasn't "agreeable," so I don't think there should be much confusion on that point.

As I kept saying to my conservative friends during the election: embrace the "and." You can dislike Trump and Hillary, or Trump and Democrats. Similarly, you can dislike Trump and recognize that everything he does is met with almost reflexive hysteria. And, more importantly, that this hysteria almost always backfires.

Anyway, I took your question to be rhetorical, but if you meant it honestly, fair enough.

[Sedai]

I'll try that whole "and" thing:

I dislike the left and Trump!

[Kaplan]

Iro, your words reveal how you interpret things.
Most people see the reactions of the far left as overreactions because they're starting from a more objective interpretation of what people are reacting to that isn't loaded with bias that's waiting for a trigger to set it off... a different premise as it were.


Sorry, if you're trying to suggest you're not biased, you are making me laugh.

As for the whole argument about overreacting vs. underreacting, let's be clear. Just because someone thinks a "reaction" is overreacting, doesn't make it so. I think it's perfectly reasonable to be outraged by: Trump alienating and attacking our allies, engaging in harmful trade wars, and standing on the world stage with Putin and taking Putin's side over America. And that's just in the last week or so. And that doesn't include this administration taking several days to think over Putin's request to send him our formal ambassador to Moscow, something that should have been rejected in no uncertain terms right at the start. Nor does this count the continuing attacks on our free press, the never-ending flow of lies, or what might have gone on during this private meeting with Putin, what deals were discussed or what secrets were revealed. Nor does it count the larger context, such as the Russia investigation, or the fact this president is just completely incompetent and out of his depth. Yes, outrage is a perfectly legitimate response. And that's just over events of the last week, week and a half. We've had a year and a half of this, more if you count the election campaign.

I think Yoda said he prefers to go with the idea this president is just incompetent, rather than some sort of treasonous mastermind, but let's face it, you can be both. Many criminals are. I don't know what Trump has or hasn't done with regards to cooperating with Russia, but what I saw at the podium with Trump standing next to Putin was him act as a traitor to our country. That's what I saw with my own eyes and my own judgment. And yeah, I'm biased. I'm biased as a citizen of the United States who loves his country and is tired of seeing this buffoon crapping on it.

[Yoda]

I guess at this point we need to ask what people think "traitor" means. It really feels like it's just being used for emphasis, because people have run out of words to express their disgust and need to find one that still has some kind of impact.

[seanc]

Trump, the first nationalist traitor ever. The left can't decide what this guy is. The only thing they know is every time he speaks it must be impeachable somehow. I can't stand this president but pretty sure the left rhetoric bothers me even more. Trump has definitely pushed the middle left way to the left. Unfortunately the opposite is true as well. Most people are so entrenched in their political dogma now we have little chance of getting a pragmatist elected. #exhausted

[matt72582]

Trump, the first nationalist traitor ever. The left can't decide what this guy is. The only thing they know is every time he speaks it must be impeachable somehow. I can't stand this president but pretty sure the left rhetoric bothers me even more. Trump has definitely pushed the middle left way to the left. Unfortunately the opposite is true as well. Most people are so entrenched in their political dogma now we have little chance of getting a pragmatist elected. #exhausted


Hating Trump doesn't mean anything is moving left.

[seanc]

Hating Trump doesn't mean anything is moving left.

Compare how the left was talking about foreign affairs and immigration a couple years ago to how they are today. No doubt the party has moved way farther left in response to Trump. Don't pop pop it man you may get your socialist president yet. Then free Kit-kats for everyone.

[SuperStar]

Sorry, if you're trying to suggest you're not biased, you are making me laugh.

As for the whole argument about overreacting vs. underreacting, let's be clear. Just because someone thinks a "reaction" is overreacting, doesn't make it so. I think it's perfectly reasonable to be outraged by: Trump alienating and attacking our allies, engaging in harmful trade wars, and standing on the world stage with Putin and taking Putin's side over America. And that's just in the last week or so. And that doesn't include this administration taking several days to think over Putin's request to send him our formal ambassador to Moscow, something that should have been rejected in no uncertain terms right at the start. Nor does this count the continuing attacks on our free press, the never-ending flow of lies, or what might have gone on during this private meeting with Putin, what deals were discussed or what secrets were revealed. Nor does it count the larger context, such as the Russia investigation, or the fact this president is just completely incompetent and out of his depth. Yes, outrage is a perfectly legitimate response. And that's just over events of the last week, week and a half. We've had a year and a half of this, more if you count the election campaign.

I think Yoda said he prefers to go with the idea this president is just incompetent, rather than some sort of treasonous mastermind, but let's face it, you can be both. Many criminals are. I don't know what Trump has or hasn't done with regards to cooperating with Russia, but what I saw at the podium with Trump standing next to Putin was him act as a traitor to our country. That's what I saw with my own eyes and my own judgment. And yeah, I'm biased. I'm biased as a citizen of the United States who loves his country and is tired of seeing this buffoon crapping on it.

I understand you. It's obvious for anybody who has seen that broadcast from Helsinki, that Trump was not acting in the interest of the country. Or maybe he did - but that would mean that Russia is stronger and we don't want to believe that. Especially after i've read an article about the russian rich people who buy property in US, Germany and all over Europe to achieve the citizenship:
"The total amount of money sent abroad by Russian nationals in 2017 was $31.3 billion, which exceeds the 2016 figure ($24.8 billion) by 26%. The most popular destinations to send funds were Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Latvia and the United States."
from here https://tranio.com/articles/russian-foreign-property-investments-grow-for-the-first-time-in-4-years-exceeding-usd1-billion/
I can not believe that rich people would run from the strong country tho. Usually they run to the rich country - in this case - to US. :D

[Sedai]

Hating Trump doesn't mean anything is moving left.

It also doesn't mean anything isn't moving left. These are just sort of hollow statements with little meaning, way too broad and amorphous to be indicative of any specific argument.

There has clearly been a shift to the far left by a portion of society, and anyone that denies it just isn't paying attention. The rise in popularity of groups like Antifa, the success (albeit on a small scale) of candidates like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, an unabashed socialist, and the shifts in stance and doubling down on issues like immigration, restriction of speech, and the dead end of identity politics. I see this in the world at large, and also within the circles of folks that I know.

As someone that used to DJ in the rave scene in the late 90s and early 2000s, all the while being a staunch libertarian (albeit left-leaning at the time), I recall open and constructive political discussions between people of all stripes from all coordinates on the political compass. From most of the people that were considered far left at that point in time, I recall a string defense of classic American liberal values, such as freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and a stance of tolerance and attempted understanding, even if they strongly disagreed. I remember ZERO instances, over many years, of people attempting to silence or intimidate.

These days, from many of the same people, who have now grown bitter and aggressive, I see disrespect, derision, outright attacks and attempts to silence, and a level of intolerance for even slight deviation from their perceived concepts of what is socially and politically acceptable. A few of the worst examples include calls for physical violence against those they disagree with. Politically, many of these people call for the destruction of the US Constitution, aggressive, oppressive action against those they disagree with, or outright violent revolution. There has been a clear and present shift farther to the left, with many embracing socialist/communist ideology, coupled with an openly aggressive stance towards those they disagree with.

Personally, I still consider myself to be fairly moderate, but I have more and more trouble embracing some libertarian ideals, and consider myself sort of firmly entrenched in the center-right. I believe in borders, I think some taxation is necessary, I I won't watch the country and culture I grew up in self-detonate in efforts of forced diversity and hazy morality. That said, there is plenty of the right that I can't get on board with, as well, so I don't see myself embracing the GOP anytime soon. I also strongly dislike President Trump, even if I think he has done a few good things for the country during his term.

In summary, many people have been pushed farther left, with a decent portion of moderates sliding the other direction, as well.

That's it for now.

[Omnizoa]

Denying the intel from your own agency and siding with a foreign dictator. Great leadership.
Neither have good track records to be honest.

some of his detractors (those on the radical left) don't seem to realize that they end up distracting the focus from Trump's foul ups with their extreme overreactions to everything he says and does.

When everything he says is basically the most heinous expression ever made and going to lead to the end of the world, then, when he genuinely messes up, it doesn't seem to have as much impact when (according to the left) every single thing he does is an absolute catastrophe. It's kind of another take on the old "boy who cried wolf" scenario.
This is what I've been saying. Firing missiles at another country's military installations on literally no evidence of wrongdoing is easily the most damning thing he's ever done; that's committing an act of war with no legitimate provocation.

What happens to this news? Oh, it gets swept under the rug in favor of a continued conspiracy theory involving Russia "hacking our election". I've literally seen people wearing T-SHIRTS which reference this total farce, a farce which dissolves into jack-**** the second you realize a data leak is not the same thing as a hack, the DNC is not an election, and that the only tie to Russia is an entirely separate event (and don't get me started on the "Muslim Ban"). People are spreading this complete bull**** around while Trump openly attacks another country multiple times despite his campaign promises against interventionism.

And I get called a Trump Apologist. Constantly. It is ****ing disgusting.

This isn't rationally disagreeing with your intelligence community, this is standing on the world stage next to Putin and taking Putin's side over your own country.
You do know America can be wrong, don't you? It elected Trump after all.

The president doesn't swear an oath to the CIA director, but Trump did swear an oath of loyalty to the U.S.
Which is more than the US deserves.

Our elections were interfered with
This again? Our elections have always been interfered with. It's called the Electoral College. If it wasn't there, Hillary would be president. Or are you only now concerned that democracy is being subverted because Trump's involved?

and the extent of that is greater than you're making it out to be, which is still bad enough, without acknowledging that Russia hacked actual vote registrations
Citation.

and also stole Democratic analytics.
You're really stretching to reach "they interfered with the election" when you have to resort to "they copied my homework". I'm sorry, are you implying that Democrats didn't win because someone saw their secret plans? Why in the hell doesn't it occur to you to question why analytics should be critical to an election? It's almost as if America isn't a democracy and that elections are more about gaming the system than acquiring actual support!

What part of that quote of mine isn't backed up by the publicly available information from the reports of the intelligence community or the indictments?
"Educate yourself, ****lord" is not evidence.

What exactly do you consider appropriate reactions under these circumstances?
What possible circumstances could justify the reactions we've seen?

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=46599&stc=1&d=1533273591

I don't care if Trump literally breathed fire every time he spoke, the reactions have been irredeemably ridiculous.

If you keep waiting for things to get really bad before overreacting, then by that point it'll be too late.
It'll be too late to "overreact"? I believe the ideal reaction is a proportional one. I understand your point in not wanting to underreact, but the reactions we currently have have been fueled since day one by the assertion that his election is somehow a revival of fascism.

I daresay there's some space between "Trump messed up" and "it's actually the left's fault for not handling Trump better", yet here we are.
There's also some space between "Trump messed up" and "Trump's condemnation of violence is a dog-whistle to alt-right neo-nazi white supremacists", yet here we are.

Trump supporters being unreasonable is stopping liberals from leveling proportional criticism?Sounds about right, yeah.
That's a cop-out.

Yes, outrage is a perfectly legitimate response. And that's just over events of the last week, week and a half. We've had a year and a half of this, more if you count the election campaign.
I would be ****ing exhausted if I got outraged that frequently and for that long. Fortunately calm cynicism goes a long way.

I think Yoda said he prefers to go with the idea this president is just incompetent, rather than some sort of treasonous mastermind, but let's face it, you can be both.
An incompetent mastermind. See, this is what I was saying before about selective charity. It's a double-edged razor. Unlike Hanlon's Razor, which is much safer and more user-friendly.

I don't know what Trump has or hasn't done with regards to cooperating with Russia,THAT'S A ****ING CHANGE, when did you double back on that one?

but what I saw at the podium with Trump standing next to Putin was him act as a traitor to our country.
The entire US government is a traitor to our country, and it's intelligence agencies are no exception. If you actually gave a crap, you'd broaden your scope of criticism to more than just Trump and his administration, and then MAYBE you'd realize even the worst of Trump and his cronies are peanuts compared to the worst of the United States bureaucratic machine at large.

I'm biased. I'm biased as a citizen of the United States
No, you're biased as a partisan Democrat and as a consumer and perpetuator of left-wing American propaganda.

[Iroquois]

and yet I'm the one who's overreacting

[ScarletLion]

Trump, the first nationalist traitor ever. The left can't decide what this guy is. The only thing they know is every time he speaks it must be impeachable somehow. I can't stand this president but pretty sure the left rhetoric bothers me even more. Trump has definitely pushed the middle left way to the left. Unfortunately the opposite is true as well. Most people are so entrenched in their political dogma now we have little chance of getting a pragmatist elected. #exhausted

There's a lot of sense in this.

But just ask yourself how much of a disgraceful leader someone has to be, in order to "push the middle left way to the left.". That takes some doing. And I include myself in the group of people who have been pushed from the middle left to the left, such is my strength of feeling for this disgusting human being that is currently the President of the USA.

[cricket]

I think labeling someone a disgusting human being so easily is troubling. I haven't been following this thread, but I certainly see a whole lot on the news that is way overblown, and that's not just with Trump.

[ScarletLion]

I think labeling someone a disgusting human being so easily is troubling.

And you have every right to put forward your opinions.

Just as I have every right to put forward mine

https://fat.gfycat.com/FailingFastClingfish.gif

[Mr Minio]

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/164/809/WhoopsNo.gif

[cricket]

And you have every right to put forward your opinions.

Just as I have every right to put forward mine

https://fat.gfycat.com/FailingFastClingfish.gif

You're right, but I'm just a little more careful giving one. I wouldn't say he's a good guy or a bad guy because I don't really know, and I think people talking about things they don't know is a problem by itself.

That gif you posted; my opinion is he looks like he's being silly and immature. What I don't know is that he's mocking someone for being handicapped. What I do know is that he mocked people in the same way who weren't handicapped. Perhaps mocking anyone is not right, yet I think most of us do it in some form.

[Gatsby]

Trump, the first nationalist traitor ever. The left can't decide what this guy is. The only thing they know is every time he speaks it must be impeachable somehow. I can't stand this president but pretty sure the left rhetoric bothers me even more. Trump has definitely pushed the middle left way to the left. Unfortunately the opposite is true as well. Most people are so entrenched in their political dogma now we have little chance of getting a pragmatist elected. #exhausted
To quote Trey Parker of South Park: "You're either a redneck or a fan of Michael Moore".

There's no in-between anymore. No wonder people my generation aren't interested in politics anymore. And yeah, pragmatists are out the window at this point, and it's likely that future leaders will be elected based on personality.

[seanc]

There's a lot of sense in this.

But just ask yourself how much of a disgraceful leader someone has to be, in order to "push the middle left way to the left.". That takes some doing. And I include myself in the group of people who have been pushed from the middle left to the left, such is my strength of feeling for this disgusting human being that is currently the President of the USA.

The problem I have with it is the left is stopping to his level It's what happened in the Republican primaries as well. People think they have to play his politics to counter punch. It's a whole new swamp out there.

[cat_sidhe]

If everyone took me at my jokes, I'd be locked up by now.

[TheUsualSuspect]

It's nice to see the USA continue to alienate allies. (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-us-sidesteps-getting-involved-in-escalating-saudi-canada-dispute/)

To be fair, the UK is doing the same. Money speaks louder than human rights.

[TONGO]

Oh! I thought the Trump thread & talks went away. oh boy..... :rolleyes:

[FromBeyond]

Destroy Trumps walk of fame star and several more pop up... hahahahahaha !!!

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/trumps-walk-fame-star-multiplies-hollywood-1133678

The conservative street artist was motivated not only by the destruction of Trump's star but by the UNANIMOUS vote by the west Hollywood city council to remove Trumps star.

[Yoda]

I don't know what's going to happen with Trump, but I'm pretty sure every scenario where he stays in power involves progressive activists engaging in things like property destruction and finding other, similar ways to alienate political moderates and increasingly entrench each party's base.

This isn't hard. Don't set things on fire and nominate someone boring and sane and moderate and you almost certainly win.

[TONGO]

Ive seen news blurbs how things are better in the U.S. now than they were when Obama was president (unemployment, national debt, etc...). Makes me wonder if this would have occured with or without Trump. This is a guy thats basically the worlds richest Twitter troll, and then I realize it doesnt matter as I dont like him either way.

I used to think "the end justifies the means" and many a Trump supporter love to say "You may not like him but he gets things done." I have to thank Trump in showing how my philosophy was wrong as the ends dont always justify the means. National debts, and job rates may come and go, but the only thing remembered from this time will be the shame.

[ScarletLion]

What a lovely man

https://i.imgur.com/gXUfZtr.jpg

[cricket]

What a lovely man

https://i.imgur.com/gXUfZtr.jpg

It certainly doesn't sound like something that should come from a president, but I've always thought that woman was about as nasty and ignorant as can be. At least without knowing the person.

[jiraffejustin]

https://fat.gfycat.com/FailingFastClingfish.gif

I know I am a disgusting human being, because this gif makes me laugh every time.

[Yoda]

It's possible. We'll never know for sure, but I think the fact that someone like Trump beat her despite some pretty significant issues strongly suggests that she would've lost to a lot of other people, too. I think the story of the election is more about Hillary's weakness as a candidate than anything else.

Anyway, what I mean is that they'd probably win this time if they nominated someone boring. Or, at the very least, they'd have a better chance of doing so than if they tried to nominate someone specifically because they think they'd be able to trade punches with him, or whatever.

[seanc]

It certainly doesn't sound like something that should come from a president, but I've always thought that woman was about as nasty and ignorant as can be. At least without knowing the person.

Birds of a feather and what not

[cricket]

Birds of a feather and what not

Before all of this political stuff, Trump always came off as good hearted to me.

[TheUsualSuspect]

"And one of the elements that he talked about was the fact that we have fallen trees, and instead of removing those fallen trees, which get to be extremely combustible, instead of removing them, gently removing them, beautifully removing them, we leave them to burn."

I literally burst out laughing reading this quote. People were looking at me weird.

[Omnizoa]

and yet I'm the one who's overreacting
I'll comfortably say that Powdered Water, iRex, and Kaplan are overreacting. I've yet to see anything so absurd from you.

But just ask yourself how much of a disgraceful leader someone has to be, in order to "push the middle left way to the left.". That takes some doing. And I include myself in the group of people who have been pushed from the middle left to the left, such is my strength of feeling for this disgusting human being that is currently the President of the USA.
*laughs* The whole "pushing left" or "pushing right" thing has never made any sense to me because that implies that your political opinions have changed. That's on you. You're gonna blame other people for changing your mind, like that's a bad thing?

Though frankly, if you've been paying attention at all to the political climate, knee-jerk hard swings to the left is quite evidently one of the worst possible reactions you could have to this. I mean, there are many people, who over the course of this election have swung right... in response to these swings to the left. It's all reactionary. If you didn't spike the ****in' ball, you wouldn't get it driven back into your face.

And because I know that there are people in this thread who will deliberately misrepresent this post despite it's obvious meaning, I'm not saying it's delusional to be left-wing, and not right-wing, I'm saying that of all the rational reactions one could take to the events of this election, it is the hard left that put Trump in office in the first place and it is the hard left continually validating that protest vote, every single ****ing day with their bull**** media coverage, journalist hit pieces, Twitter meltdowns, academic perversion, literal street violence, racism, sexism, sexualism, everything they accuse their opposition of being, up to and including fascism...

To look at this landscape, and even factoring in the lies and counter-deceptions of right-wing political predators like Fox, Breitbart, Infowars, the Alt-Right, and even Trump himself... to think that on balance you move further to the Left? ...is pretty ****ing astonishing.

The conservative street artist was motivated not only by the destruction of Trump's star but by the UNANIMOUS vote by the west Hollywood city council to remove Trumps star.
CURIOUS, I just posted a review of On The Waterfront in which I discuss the ongoing denial of socialism in Hollywood. SURELY there's no correlation here.

Ive seen news blurbs how things are better in the U.S. now than they were when Obama was president (unemployment, national debt, etc...). Makes me wonder if this would have occured with or without Trump.
This would have happened with or without Trump so long as the president in question passed tax cuts and conservative budgets. One presidential candidate I can promise you would not have had this result is Bernie Sanders.

[Powdered Water]

I'll comfortably say that Powdered Water, iRex, and Kaplan are overreacting. I've yet to see anything so absurd from you.



Even when your "winning" or whatever it is you think you've accomplished in this thread. Its surprising to me that you still feel the need to level lame ass little shots towards other's. Do you want to get along or not?

[Omnizoa]

Its surprising to me that you still feel the need to level lame ass little shots towards other's.
It wasn't intended as a shot, I was clarifying to Iroquois who I thought was overreacting in this thread. Iro may be sympathetic to some of the antagonism and make some disagreeable statements here or there, but I've yet to see him make such overarching grandiose proclamations about white supremacy, treachery, and hacking conspiracies as I've seen from you three.

Do you want to get along or not?
I already told you "NO". I don't like you, Powdered Water, I thought I made that adamantly clear. You have shown me that you are dishonest, uncharitable, and a partisan obscurantist to the utmost extreme.

I've debunked propaganda you've posted (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=1685573#post1685573), which you've never retracted,
you've accused me of being racist (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=1685836#post1685836), which you've also never retracted,
you've been taking lame ass little shots at me (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=1681338#post1681338) throughout the majority of your posts to this topic and now you're condescending to ask me why I'm not more polite and willing to just get along with you?

I'm not falling for it. I think you've had some time to reflect on your views, are feeling a little embarrassed about your previous behavior, and are now wanting to gloss over it like it never happened while trying to protect your ego by taking a completely uncharacteristically facilitating tone and suddenly suggesting that I'm the one being unreasonable.

No, when you're wrong, you admit you were wrong, you don't wardrobe change into another person and try to play it off like you've always had the high ground. I'm not buying this humble act you've put on for a ****ing second.

If you want to smooth things over with me, you can start by admitting you've been spreading lies.

[Powdered Water]

It wasn't intended as a shot, I was clarifying to Iroquois who I thought was overreacting in this thread. Iro may be sympathetic to some of the antagonism and make some disagreeable statements here or there, but I've yet to see him make such overarching grandiose proclamations about white supremacy, treachery, and hacking conspiracies as I've seen from you three.


I already told you "NO". I don't like you, Powdered Water, I thought I made that adamantly clear. You have shown me that you are dishonest, uncharitable, and a partisan obscurantist to the utmost extreme.

I've debunked propaganda you've posted (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=1685573#post1685573), which you've never retracted,
you've accused me of being racist (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=1685836#post1685836), which you've also never retracted,
you've been taking lame ass little shots at me (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=1681338#post1681338) throughout the majority of your posts to this topic and now you're condescending to ask me why I'm not more polite and willing to just get along with you?

I'm not falling for it. I think you've had some time to reflect on your views, are feeling a little embarrassed about your previous behavior, and are now wanting to gloss over it like it never happened while trying to protect your ego by taking a completely uncharacteristically facilitating tone and suddenly suggesting that I'm the one being unreasonable.

No, when you're wrong, you admit you were wrong, you don't wardrobe change into another person and try to play it off like you've always had the high ground. I'm not buying this humble act you've put on for a ****ing second.

If you want to smooth things over with me, you can start by admitting you've been spreading lies.


I'm not retracting anything. Nor should you. You're just sooo right. People need to be set straight and obviously you're the man for the job. Perhaps you'll get an internet trophy someday.



If you want to educate an idiot like me about Trump, that's fine. But I've felt form day one that you've done nothing but talk down to me. And now you've got me captured in a nice little box with big words that I even had to look up a bit just know how you were putting me down this time. Thanks. If you don't want to talk to me, fine.

[ScarletLion]

And because I know that there are people in this thread who will deliberately misrepresent this post despite it's obvious meaning, I'm not saying it's delusional to be left-wing, and not right-wing, I'm saying that of all the rational reactions one could take to the events of this election, it is the hard left that put Trump in office in the first place and it is the hard left continually validating that protest vote, every single ****ing day with their bull**** media coverage, journalist hit pieces, Twitter meltdowns, academic perversion, literal street violence, racism, sexism, sexualism, everything they accuse their opposition of being, up to and including fascism...
.

The hard left media coverage is the bulls**? That's a good one.

[cricket]

The hard left media coverage is the bulls**? That's a good one.

I think in that post you quoted, Omni makes a good point. I've never considered myself republican or democrat as I simply never knew much about politics. I did not vote for Trump, but I now support him as I would have Clinton had she won. Believe it or not, I didn't even know until a few weeks ago the difference between liberal and conservative or right and left. I have my own thoughts, but I couldn't be more objective as far as picking sides. Due to something I saw on the news a couple of weeks ago, I looked up an issue on YouTube. Since then, I've watched hundreds of videos of people on the left debating people on the right, on various issues. What I've been stunned to find is that the people on the right have destroyed the left every single time. I mean it's almost unbelievable. I tried to find videos that went the other way and I couldn't. These videos ranged from collegiate debates, to news interviews, to congressional hearings. I want to disagree with the right just out of fairness, and I haven't been able to. I watched a couple of videos of this one woman, Kamala Harris. She was talking about immigration and I had no idea who she was. I googled her and was shocked to see that she's a democratic California senator who's a favorite to be the presidential nominee in 2020. Are you friggin kidding me? She had complete disregard for facts and common sense, and on top of that is very unlikable. There is no way I would ever vote for this person. With all these videos I've seen, the thought crept in my mind that I would never vote for another democrat again. I'm sure the reality is that I would still go into every election with an open mind, but I can't be the only person having these thoughts.

[cricket]

Just to expand on my last post because I was doing three things at once. I don't think what I've seen is representative of all liberals or democrats. It's just what I happen to have seen and what I have seen has been consistently one sided. Maybe it's just the wrong people that have been given the platform? I didn't vote for Trump before but was quietly rooting for him just due to my disdain for Clinton. Throw in an embarrassing group of supporters though ontop of another subpar democratic candidate, and you can get ready for another Trump victory in 2020.

[Omnizoa]

ThE hArD lEfT mEdIa CoVeRaGe Is ThE bUlLs**? tHaT's A gOoD oNe._

[Omnizoa]

ScarletLion I also like that that's the only thing you contest.

[Omnizoa]

I watched a couple of videos of this one woman, Kamala Harris. She was talking about immigration and I had no idea who she was. I googled her and was shocked to see that she's a democratic California senator who's a favorite to be the presidential nominee in 2020. Are you friggin kidding me? She had complete disregard for facts and common sense,
Wait until you find out what Bernie Sanders believed.


But really, both sides are stupid. The Left is just taking their turn cause there's a Republican in the White House.

[Omnizoa]

I'm not retracting anything. Nor should you.
I think you mean "I'm not retracting anything. Nor should I."

Actually, you should.

You're just sooo right. People need to be set straight and obviously you're the man for the job. Perhaps you'll get an internet trophy someday.
I don't do it for trophies, I do it because I hate to see lies, fallacies, and propaganda go unchallenged.

If you want to educate an idiot like me about Trump,
I don't, I don't give a **** about Trump, what I give a **** about is the truth. It only reinforces my point when you demonstrate that you still haven't figured that out yet.

that's fine. But I've felt form day one that you've done nothing but talk down to me.
Oh, and you've now suddenly recused yourself of your own condescending attitude so I can't call you a massive hypocrite, that's the strategy is it? You're not as clever as you think you are.

Fact is, the overwhelming majority of posts I've seen you make are intellectually insulting.

And now you've got me captured in a nice little box with big words
Like this one, here you are using "big words" to demean me. To denigrate the points that I'm making, to insinuate, without evidence, that what I'm saying has no substance. It's not an argument, it is an admission that you are incapable of presenting a cogent (OMG BIG WORD!) defense of your positions.

But I already knew that when you totally evaded my rebuttals earlier in the thread. You chose instead to throw **** from the sidelines so you didn't feel like your ego was invested.

You make the fundamental mistake here of assuming I don't already know exactly what your game is. I've been you, I've been the weasily little know-it-all using terms before I knew the definitions of them, I've been the egotistical ******* who would talk big and then make convenient excuses to avoid getting called out.

I was doing that **** in the 4th grade.

I know exactly what this confidence game looks like because I've played it, and I was good at it. And because I was good at it, I know even calling you out directly for it will not get you to admit you're wrong.

And also know that predicting you won't admit you're wrong will not convince you to admit you're wrong out of fear to falling to reverse psychology.

Although maybe I'm giving you a bit too much credit here by thinking that many steps ahead. I don't expect to convince you, and I don't even expect any admission of guilt to be honest. You have lost any and all credibility with me, and that's partly because of another thing you still haven't quite figured out:

I'm not refusing to talk to you. I'm simply refusing to be nice. I don't think you deserve nice. I think you deserve to have your cushy pedestal of moral superiority violently kicked out from underneath you. I think that as long as your obvious partisan deceit is given a casual pass on these forums, it should be ripped apart and exposed for the Lovecraftian horror that it is. So that other people might learn what not to become.

[d_chatterley]

https://i.imgur.com/SEg1Rwy.jpg

[Powdered Water]

I think you mean "I'm not retracting anything. Nor should I."

Actually, you should.


I don't do it for trophies, I do it because I hate to see lies, fallacies, and propaganda go unchallenged.


I don't, I don't give a **** about Trump, what I give a **** about is the truth. It only reinforces my point when you demonstrate that you still haven't figured that out yet.


Oh, and you've now suddenly recused yourself of your own condescending attitude so I can't call you a massive hypocrite, that's the strategy is it? You're not as clever as you think you are.

Fact is, the overwhelming majority of posts I've seen you make are intellectually insulting.


Like this one, here you are using "big words" to demean me. To denigrate the points that I'm making, to insinuate, without evidence, that what I'm saying has no substance. It's not an argument, it is an admission that you are incapable of presenting a cogent (OMG BIG WORD!) defense of your positions.

But I already knew that when you totally evaded my rebuttals earlier in the thread. You chose instead to throw **** from the sidelines so you didn't feel like your ego was invested.

You make the fundamental mistake here of assuming I don't already know exactly what your game is. I've been you, I've been the weasily little know-it-all using terms before I knew the definitions of them, I've been the egotistical ******* who would talk big and then make convenient excuses to avoid getting called out.

I was doing that **** in the 4th grade.

I know exactly what this confidence game looks like because I've played it, and I was good at it. And because I was good at it, I know even calling you out directly for it will not get you to admit you're wrong.

And also know that predicting you won't admit you're wrong will not convince you to admit you're wrong out of fear to falling to reverse psychology.

Although maybe I'm giving you a bit too much credit here by thinking that many steps ahead. I don't expect to convince you, and I don't even expect any admission of guilt to be honest. You have lost any and all credibility with me, and that's partly because of another thing you still haven't quite figured out:

I'm not refusing to talk to you. I'm simply refusing to be nice. I don't think you deserve nice. I think you deserve to have your cushy pedestal of moral superiority violently kicked out from underneath you. I think that as long as your obvious partisan deceit is given a casual pass on these forums, it should be ripped apart and exposed for the Lovecraftian horror that it is. So that other people might learn what not to become.




My goodness but your head is so far up your ass its impressive. You are rude and over the top with the disparaging remarks, No ONE is going to listen you for long. Unless you aspire to be President one day I guess. Sorry, was that one of those intellectually insulting posts again?



And I didn't "evade your rebuttals" You weren't making rebuttals. You were being an ass. But you go ahead and keep trying to take the high ground. Believe it or not I really was trying to learn something from you but you just can't help but be nasty... I'll just go crawl back under my bridge and let you and the rest of the smart people tallk about stuff, K?

[Captain Steel]

I WILL DESTROY YOU, SUPERMAN!

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CWYG83cU8AApPj-.jpg

[Captain Steel]

MARVEL COMICS PRESENTS:

The Impeachable Trump in...
"This Man, This Monster!"

Trump SMASH!

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/980872835987013632/xwXCTbtJ_400x400.jpg

Coming to theaters this November!

[Citizen Rules]

MARVEL COMICS PRESENTS:

The Impeachable Trump in...
"This Man, This Monster!"

Trump SMASH!

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/980872835987013632/xwXCTbtJ_400x400.jpg

Coming to theaters this November! I don't get it? He's the Hulk in that pic right? Wasn't the Hulk basically good? It doesn't make sense to me.

[Captain Steel]

I don't get it? He's the Hulk in that pic right? Wasn't the Hulk basically good? It doesn't make sense to me.

Yes, it's confusing - as an Independent I'm presenting mixed messages.
Like Trump's presidency, it's not supposed to make sense! :D

Since everyone is now talking about impeachment (more than usual anyway), I thought how the sound of "the Impeachable Trump" - reminded me of "the Incredible Hulk" - the rest is just a progression on that! ;)

Now that I think of it, Trump & Hulk have some things in common - Hulk's uncontrolled outbursts of temper (which usually manifested in catastrophic physical damage as opposed to tweets & questionable policies) led him to be hunted and hounded by the government!

Robert Mueller as General Thaddeus "Thuderbolt" Ross! ;)

[Citizen Rules]

...Since everyone is now talking about impeachment (more than usual anyway)... I predicted Trump would get impeached long ago, and right here on MoFo. I still think he will.

I thought how the sound of "the Impeachable Trump" - reminded me of "the Incredible Hulk" - the rest is just a progression on that! ;) Ahh, I see. I would have went with James and the Giant Impeachable Trump. He is sort of a peachy color:p

[gandalf26]

Apparently the GOAT didn't grieve hard enough for McCain in Liberal cry baby media berate the GOAT volume #937.

[Yoda]

"Didn't grieve hard enough" = insulted a POW nonsensically because he didn't back a federal loan guarantee he wanted twenty years ago and still holds a petty grudge about it.

Stop defending crap behavior just because you dislike the people criticizing it more.

[ash_is_the_gal]

Trump's petty and classless (no change there), but McCain was a touchhole, anyway. idk why liberals are crying so much over this.

[Sedai]

Trump's petty and classless (no change there), but McCain was a touchhole, anyway. idk why liberals are crying so much over this.

Agreed. I am not sure why the left keeps picking these foolish hills to die on. Whatever their strategy is, they need to start changing it.

[Yoda]

Some are "crying" about it because they oppose him reflexively.

Others, because they still use criteria other than "is also a liberal" to determine whether someone is a good and valuable person.

[ash_is_the_gal]

you think i only don't like him because he's not a liberal? :lol:

[gandalf26]

Agreed. I am not sure why the left keeps picking these foolish hills to die on. Whatever their strategy is, they need to start changing it.

One day Trump might actually do something bad but no one will notice because there has been far too much crying Wolf.

[Yoda]

you think i only don't like him because he's not a liberal? :lol:
Er...yes? If you start describing why you don't, I assume it's going to primarily be because he supported and opposed things you didn't.

[Yoda]

One day Trump might actually do something bad but no one will notice because there has been far too much crying Wolf.
...he already has, and you've already ignored it or downplayed it for that very reason.

Crying wolf is a valid reason to criticize the media. It's not a valid reason to handwave away the actual problems, of which there have been plenty, and which I don't think you'd be able to deny if you were ever to sustain a discussion about this, as opposed to drive-by deflections and transparent quasi-trolling.

[gandalf26]

"Didn't grieve hard enough" = insulted a POW nonsensically because he didn't back a federal loan guarantee he wanted twenty years ago and still holds a petty grudge about it.

Stop defending crap behavior just because you dislike the people criticizing it more.

I do strongly dislike the liberal media.

However this latest criticism of Trump is a contender for worst yet. He says thoughts with McCains family and apparently they isn't enough. They were basically enemies so what more fo you want him to say?

The media should be loving Trump, he's given the 24 hour modern political media something to talk about. They will miss him when he's gone, in fact whoever the next President is I bet they will get less media coverage than Trump, at least for a couple of years.

[gandalf26]

Drive by deflections :). Someone should put that on an Internet lingo dictionary LOL

[Yoda]

I do strongly dislike the liberal media.
So do I. But it shouldn't lead you to downplay or excuse crappy behavior just because you really don't want to agree with them that it's bad. "Never take the wrong side of an issue just because your opponent has taken the right side."

However this latest criticism of Trump is a contender for worst yet. He says thoughts with McCains family and apparently they isn't enough. They were basically enemies so what more fo you want him to say?
You answered your own question: they're upset that he was enemies with someone admirable over something really stupid and petty, making the perfunctory condolence ring especially hollow.

This really isn't complicated.

Drive by deflections :). Someone should put that on an Internet lingo dictionary LOL
Should be self-explanatory: it's a drive-by because it's short and quick and you usually don't stick around. It's a deflection because it's not a defense of the actual thing, but just deflects the issue to being about something else you hate more.

It'd also be an okay band name.

[gandalf26]

...he already has, and you've already ignored it or downplayed it for that very reason.

Crying wolf is a valid reason to criticize the media. It's not a valid reason to handwave away the actual problems, of which there have been plenty, and which I don't think you'd be able to deny if you were ever to sustain a discussion about this, as opposed to drive-by deflections and transparent quasi-trolling.

Problems sure, but more good has been done by Trump. So what if he slept with a load of strippers or prostitutes when he was a celebrity businessman and paid them to shut up, no one gives a ****. The Russian stuff is so ridiculous.

[Yoda]

Problems sure, but more good has been done by Trump.
I'm guessing if I ask you to support this the discussion will peter out pretty quick.

So what if he slept with a load of strippers or prostitutes when he was a celebrity businessman and paid them to shut up, no one gives a ****.
"when he was a celebrity businessman" = "when he was newly married." And you're leaving out the part where he just straight-up lied about it. So your position is that the President's personal loyalties have nothing to do with their effectiveness as a leader, and that it's NBD if they lie to everyone over and over?

That's not what I was referring to, anyway. There are plenty of blatant mistakes even if you agree with his general aims. Do I have to list them? I assume you'll go "yeah I guess that was bad" about some, and won't have known about others, and it'll be obvious you basically just think he's good because he sticks it to the people you hate.

The Russian stuff is so ridiculous.
Some of it, sure, but this is another deflection.

You realize that if he does or says something bad, it's not canceled out if you can find people overreacting to something else he did or said, right?

Right?

[ash_is_the_gal]

Er...yes? If you start describing why you don't, I assume it's going to primarily be because he supported and opposed things you didn't.

but how does that work for people who don't usually side with liberals? Sedai, for instance.

also, i don't determine how good or bad a person is based on how liberal they are, and i'm pretty sure if i said the same thing to you, but about conservatives, you'd find it insulting.

[gandalf26]

On lunch hour at work and on phone, before get accused of disappearing.

[Yoda]

but how does that work for people who don't usually side with liberals? Sedai, for instance.
I think Sedai's "agreed" was about the reaction, not about McCain being a "touchhole."

also, i don't determine how good or bad a person is based on how liberal they are, and i'm pretty sure if i said the same thing to you, but about conservatives, you'd find it insulting.
I think I'd just find it ridiculous, because I haven't said anything to suggest that I think this way.

McCain's a good litmus test for this, because he clearly had consistent and reasonable beliefs and defended them even when it was inconvenient, and even when it put them at odds with his party. So if ever there was a candidate for "I don't agree with them, BUT..." you'd think it would be this guy. But when, in death, he gets the same kind of dismissal any conservative does, it's hard not to conclude that it's just purely ideological and makes no allowances for earnest disagreement.

[Yoda]

On lunch hour at work and on phone, before get accused of disappearing.
I mean, the last time we argued you said something like this and literally never came back.

It's obvious your heart's not really in having a sustained discussion about any of this. Which is fine, except for the thing where you show up every three weeks to jab no one in particular about it.

[gandalf26]

Fair point, I'm not looking for a huge debate. Again I am at work, you can confirm this can't you? You have user location, I'm not at usual desktop location. And when I go home tonight after 12 hours it will be some PUBG, shower and bed won't go on desktop to do massive multi quote replies.

Maybe tmrow though...

[Yoda]

Fair point, I'm not looking for a huge debate.
Which, again, is totally cool. I'm just not nuts about people lighting fires without sticking around to help put them out.

Again I am at work, you can confirm this can't you? You have user location
IPs (sometimes) give me general location, but I dunno where you work and I doubt it would be specific enough for me to confirm.

But it's immaterial, because I 100% believe you when you say you're at work. I just don't think that's why you're not going to have the discussion, because obviously over the years there have been plenty of opportunities. So I've naturally concluded you're just not interested in it, for one reason or another.

I'm not at usual desktop location. And when I go home tonight after 12 hours it will be some PUBG, shower and bed won't go on desktop to do massive multi quote replies.
My best guess is that the length has little to do with it and really short, to-the-point rebuttals would get met with the same thing, and that the common thread is whether you're willing to actually get into the details of any issue or cite things, as opposed to just take a 30,000-foot view of who's good or bad based on very broad ideological considerations (like political correctness).

Which, again, is totally fine, but just doesn't really fly when you wanna briefly land to take some pot shot and then take off again.

[ash_is_the_gal]

I think Sedai's "agreed" was about the reaction, not about McCain being a "touchhole."
maybe. :shrug: in any case, i have a couple friends who hate liberals n McCain even more than Trump, sooo...

I think I'd just find it ridiculous, because I haven't said anything to suggest that I think this way.

ok, i guess the 'they' in "they still use criteria other than "is also a liberal" to determine whether someone is a good and valuable person" was about someone else then. i guess i must be the other reason, then.

anyway, liberals love McCain now for two reasons that i can see:

- bc he had a spat with Trump (even though he initially supported his campaign and didn't turn against him til the Hollywood Access tape)
- bc he and Obama became friends afterall. if you recall, liberals hated him in 2008.

But when, in death, he gets the same kind of dismissal any conservative does, it's hard not to conclude that it's just purely ideological and makes no allowances for earnest disagreement.

i dunno, i hate him for the same reasons i hated him before: much like Obama and his ****ty foreign policy, he was a war criminal responsible for many deaths, but bc they aren't American deaths, liberals don't care.

[Yoda]

maybe. :shrug: in any case, i have a couple friends who hate liberals n McCain even more than Trump, sooo...
Wow. Have they elaborated on why? Foreign policy, mainly?

ok, i guess the 'they' in "they still use criteria other than "is also a liberal" to determine whether someone is a good and valuable person" was about someone else then. i guess i must be the other reason, then.
In all honesty, I don't know, and was trying to allow for the fact that I don't know even though only one explanation really makes sense to me. Also wanted to make the general observation, since I'm seeing a lot of "actually, McCain was..." responses that don't technically end with "...a conservative" or even "...a soldier" but sure seem like they should given what follows.

anyway, liberals love McCain now for two reasons that i can see:

- bc he had a spat with Trump (even though he initially supported his campaign and didn't turn against him til the Hollywood Access tape)
- bc he and Obama became friends afterall. if you recall, liberals hated him in 2008.
Oh sure, it's definitely true that some people like him only insofar as he's convenient to some other goal. They loved him before 2008, too. That election was pretty eye-opening. I'd been hearing liberals say McCain was the one Republican they might consider voting for for maybe a solid decade, but when he ran he got the same treatment as any of them would have.

This is a running joke among conservatives on Twitter, by the way: Strange New Respect. How they often find these guys to be wrong but moderate and honorable statesmen before or after they're running, when there's no political cost to praising them. But when something's on the line they've gotta fend off the same stuff. This is how we get people trying to tell us, with a straight face, that Mitt Romney is an extremist. Mitt Romney.

I try to be idealistic, but in practice I am rarely shocked when someone is overtly partisan or hypocritical. Those two elections were pretty eye-opening, though.

i dunno, i hate him for the same reasons i hated him before: much like Obama and his ****ty foreign policy, he was a war criminal responsible for many deaths, but bc they aren't American deaths, liberals don't care.
I think that's totally reasonable (and would think so even if you hadn't tossed me those bones about Obama and liberals ;)). I'm not as gung-ho about his foreign policy. I'm pretty loathe to say "war criminal" about something that isn't overt, though. Sadly, the Overton Window of what's potentially reasonable in the midst of war is more like a chasm.

[Mr Minio]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Elhyo-_fR0E


Look, having nuclear—my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart—you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I'm one of the smartest people anywhere in the world—it’s true!—but when you're a conservative Republican they try—oh, do they do a number—that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune—you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged—but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me—it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are (nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what's going to happen and he was right—who would have thought?), but when you look at what's going on with the four prisoners—now it used to be three, now it’s four—but when it was three and even now, I would have said it's all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don't, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years—but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us."

[d_chatterley]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dgf7q5UX0AEw9KK.jpg

[cricket]

47744

Hey Nostromo, If you can make it up to Massachusetts in the next couple days, we'll go there with our Trump hats and boo the hell out of that bitch(After the show).

[d_chatterley]

I thought you guys were staying home that weekend and burning your Nikes??

[cricket]

I thought you guys were staying home that weekend and burning your Nikes??

Haha yea I bet there are some nuts out there doing that. I guess if I were out shopping for sneakers and was having a hard time deciding between Nike and some other brand, their decision on who to promote could enter my mind. I'm sure they had some business plan that told them this was a good idea, but from the outside it sure seems puzzling as to why they'd take on a guy with such questionable character.

[ash_is_the_gal]

you should be thanking Nike. they finally gave Kaepernick a chance to "protest on his own time."

[cricket]

you should be thanking Nike. they finally gave Kaepernick a chance to "protest on his own time."

Damn, I wish I could get paid millions on my own time. It must be the oppression kicking in.

"Believe in Something. Even if it means sacrificing everything."

It sounds more suitable for a terrorist than a rich man.


There were ways this could have all been handled much better from the start. It just all went wrong and missed the mark.

[ash_is_the_gal]

well, i'm sure black people everywhere appreciate your opinions on the proper ways to protest police brutality correctly in order to gain your sympathy.

[cricket]

well, i'm sure black people everywhere appreciate your opinions on the proper ways to protest police brutality correctly in order to gain your sympathy.

I couldn't care less about black or white. To me, everyone is the same. The league lost money because of this guy, the same league that made him rich. Great way to say thanks.

[ash_is_the_gal]

not Kaep's fault people don't understand how the constitution works. :shrug:

[cricket]

not Kaep's fault people don't understand how the constitution works. :shrug:

There's such a thing as human decency, of course a guy who wears socks with pigs in police uniforms and defends Castro wouldn't understand that. Just because you have the right, that doesn't make it right. I think you criticize Trump for exercising his rights under the constitution as far as free speech goes. Fair is fair.

[ash_is_the_gal]

There's such a thing as human decency, of course a guy who wears socks with pigs in police uniforms and defends Castro wouldn't understand that. Just because you have the right, that doesn't make it right. I think you criticize Trump for exercising his rights under the constitution as far as free speech goes. Fair is fair.

true, being critical is different. it's more than that though, with the boycott, it's clearly an attempt to sabotage his career again, with the 'anyone who supports him will be shunned' because they don't like his message. the conservatives in my area have actually tried to use facebook to organize a 'public burning of nike merchandise' event, lol. it's CRAZY how angry people are over this. i mean, it's been entertaining from the outside bc burning stuff you already paid for isn't how a boycott works, but damn people get a life.

[cricket]

true, being critical is different. it's more than that though, with the boycott, it's clearly an attempt to sabotage his career again, with the 'anyone who supports him will be shunned' because they don't like his message. the conservatives in my area have actually tried to use facebook to organize a 'public burning of nike merchandise' event, lol. it's CRAZY how angry people are over this. i mean, it's been entertaining from the outside bc burning stuff you already paid for isn't how a boycott works, but damn people get a life.

I was sort of joking before about people actually doing that but then I saw the news.

I do believe he sabotaged his own career. It is a business and teams can not afford to alienate fans. On the other hand, it also has much to do with his performance. If it were Aaron Rodgers or Russell Wilson had done this, they would have still been the starting quarterbacks for their respective teams. It's a risk vs reward assessment, and a backup quality player just isn't going to be worth it. He actually opted out of his contract in San Francisco and was reportedly looking for a starting job to go along with starting job money. That wasn't going to happen even without the controversy.

[Sedai]

but how does that work for people who don't usually side with liberals? Sedai, for instance.

also, I don't determine how good or bad a person is based on how liberal they are, and i'm pretty sure if i said the same thing to you, but about conservatives, you'd find it insulting.


I know I am late on this reply...just catching up now!

I actually tend to side with liberals more than you think, especially when considering values that were supported by what are today called classic liberals, such a free speech. I draw a large distinction between liberals and leftists, btw.

I think it's important...no, vital, that moderate liberals (which you seem to be) and moderate conservatives (which I tend to be on many issues lately) maintain a civil dialogue, and even more so, that they maintain a good relationship with one another, as it is the duty of both of those groups of people to help keep the boat from rocking too far to either side. And for the record, many, if not most of my close friends consider themselves to be liberals.

[donniedarko]

Kaep is a dumbass but those burning their Nike products are babies

Just don't buy it if you care that much

No doubt the whole kneeling thing hurt the NFL, so we'll see how this play works out for Nike. Nordstrom did fine after dropping Ivanka Trumps line, but this could be different.

[MovieGal]

http://i65.tinypic.com/2dvmoax.jpg

[Captain Steel]

I posted this elsewhere, but I'll post it on this site too...


Since Colin claims to be a Christian, he should understand and practice the golden rule, but apparently he does not choose to.

https://mayrsom.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/golden-rule.jpg

It's been explained to him that his action (kneeling during the national anthem) is not clear as a protest of police brutality, and no matter how much he tries to explain it as such, it will always come off as a disrespect to the country, its people, its symbols of patriotism, the sacrifice of those who've given their lives & limbs to defend it, their survivors and those who defend it today.

He understands this, but doesn't seem to care that he's treating people in a way he would not want to be treated, and most likely would not tolerate being treated.

His behavior is the opposite of the golden rule, as he would not wish for people to disrespect him if he informed them that what they were saying or doing was hurtful to him, his family, his teammates, his race, or the memory of his passed loved ones or those he respects.


If I was to explain that a bunch of people have decided we're going to loudly shout the n-word at the public as a way to protest police brutality since we don't have a national platform of professional football to air our mutual protest to the world, what do you think his reaction would be?

First, I'd expect Kaepernick to call me on B.S. (just as we're calling him on his). And he'd be right - it would be B.S. because using a slur has no more to do with protesting police than showing disrespect to the flag, the anthem and offending American citizens.

There is nothing in the anthem that promotes, supports, advocates or glorifies police brutality - the song and the standing for the flag have absolutely nothing to do with police brutality. The flag & anthem represent the values of equality and justice - the complete opposite of racism, abuse of power, oppression and brutality. Standing for them means you support equality and justice, doing something else is a display that you do not respect these values.

So disrespecting the anthem has no more to do with being against police brutality than using the n-word in public would... both are only viewed as aggressive and intentionally hurtful ways to disrespect and insult large portions of the public.

Now, I could explain until I was blue in the face that the n-word is just a word, that I'm not using it to disrespect Kaepernick, his family or anyone of any race. I'm just using it as a form of protest.

I'm sure Mr. Kaepernick would explain to me (if he didn't just punch my face in first) that it's a disrespectful, hateful and hurtful act towards large numbers of people and that, no matter how much I want to rationalize it as something else, it's going to be seen as an attack, as disrespect, as antagonistic, as ignorant and nothing else... exactly as it's been explained to him how people view his kneeling during the anthem.

He would not want to be disrespected, nor have his family made to feel attacked, nor have his people, his teammates or his friends feel insulted, YET he cannot exercise the principal of the golden rule and view how his actions are offensive to others even when it's been pointedly & repeatedly explained to him right to his face, and despite the fact that the golden rule is a major tenet of his religion.

[matt72582]

Of course, he has a rally tonight in Montana... That's the one thing I try not to miss. I hope he's funnier this time.

[John McClane]

Last I checked, Trump hasn’t destroyed America, but he’s trying awfully hard. ;D

Let him kneel. But the day he starts stabbing pigskins we cuff him.

[d_chatterley]

Nike’s online sales jumped 31% after company unveiled Kaepernick campaign, data show
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/nikes-online-sales-jumped-31-after-company-unveiled-kaepernick-campaign-2018-09-07?mod=mw_share_twitter

I guess we shall see how it plays out in the long run. The short run sure looks pretty fruitful.

[Powdered Water]

Go ahead Twitter, ban Trump! I dare you!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iocDMeeF9Gc

[John McClane]

His account is a national security threat, so I really wish they would ban him.

Also, I think I’m late: I was supposed to be out rounding up all those Nike shoes to give to homeless people before they get burned. :rolleyes:

[cricket]

Nike’s online sales jumped 31% after company unveiled Kaepernick campaign, data show
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/nikes-online-sales-jumped-31-after-company-unveiled-kaepernick-campaign-2018-09-07?mod=mw_share_twitter

I wonder if the increase is from the ad, or maybe they finally put the whip to those 10 year old Cambodian children to make them make a better product.

[d_chatterley]

I wonder if the increase is from the ad, or maybe they finally put the whip to those 10 year old Cambodian children to make them make a better product.
I've been wondering if anyone would bring that up or if those poor kids would just fade into nothingness. Ever since that news came out, very long ago (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nike_sweatshops), I cooled off from their products. It just left a bad taste in my mouth.

Not sure if I dislike all of the people on the left who all of the sudden forgot about those kids and made a decision to turn a blind eye and support Nike, or all of the people on the right who decided to boycott their products NOW since, I guess, foreign child labor was and is not as important as domestic national pride.

To be fair to Nike, they seem to be unfairly singled out regarding child labor or treatment of their workers in general. I know I am just assuming here, but are there really any international corporations who manufacture their products in China and treat the Chinese workers according to their own labor laws of their appropriate countries? I seriously doubt it.
How often do you read in domestic media about workers in Foxxcon jumping off buildings in China (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn_suicides)? Yet Apple seems to always get a pass.

[Guaporense]

Labor is cheap in developing countries. By buying stuff made with cheap labor you are helping those developing countries to develop. By not buying shoes made by poorly paid workers you are reducing the demand for their labor, hence, the price of their labor, that is, their wages, making then worse off.

Developing countries use child labor because wages are so low that the adults alone cannot support their families with their incomes. Hence, by not purchasing stuff made in cheap labor countries you are making their labor even cheaper which increases child labor.

So it's very stupid to accuse companies like Nike from purchasing inputs made by subcontracts with child labor. The reason why they have child labor is because demand for their labor is low, it's not because the "evil companies" do it.

[Guaporense]

Go ahead Twitter, ban Trump! I dare you!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iocDMeeF9Gc

That would be fun to watch. :D

[ash_is_the_gal]

i made a meme (sorry, i'm a buffy nerd) and i really wanna share it w/ someone who will get it, so obvs the trump thread of a movie forum is good enough

47882

[John McClane]

Well, there’s one upside to Frump: gun sales are down.

[Citizen Rules]

Well, there’s one upside to Frump: gun sales are down. Yeah but ammo sales are way up!;)

[John McClane]

Yeah but ammo sales are way up!;)
That’s DHS: been like that for the last decade.

[ashdoc]

trump jokes that he would like to set up the indian PM ( who is single ) with somebody---

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2018/08/13/trump-joked-he-could-play-matchmaker-indias-bachelor-prime-minister-report-says/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2a54f48437c7

https://im.indiatimes.in/facebook/2018/Aug/donald_trump_modi_set_up_marriage_1534233425.jpg?h=420&w=800&cc=1

[Mr Minio]

https://i.imgur.com/pl6y2Em.png

WTF TRUMP

There is India, a free society over a billion people, successfully lifting countless millions out of poverty and into the middle class.

There is Saudi Arabia, where King Salman and the Crown Prince are pursuing bold new reforms.

There is Israel, proudly celebrating its 70th anniversary as a thriving democracy in the Holy Land.

In Poland, a great people are standing up for their independence, their security, and their sovereignty. (https://www.vox.com/2018/9/25/17901082/trump-un-2018-speech-full-text)

[ScarletLion]

Are people still defending Trump on this thread?

I can't bear to read it. Sorry.

[Cobpyth]

https://i.imgur.com/pl6y2Em.png

WTF TRUMP

There is India, a free society over a billion people, successfully lifting countless millions out of poverty and into the middle class.

There is Saudi Arabia, where King Salman and the Crown Prince are pursuing bold new reforms.

There is Israel, proudly celebrating its 70th anniversary as a thriving democracy in the Holy Land.

In Poland, a great people are standing up for their independence, their security, and their sovereignty. (https://www.vox.com/2018/9/25/17901082/trump-un-2018-speech-full-text)

That's because the Polish president told Trump that he wanted America to build a military base in Poland called 'Fort Trump'. He likes being flattered.

[Cobpyth]

BTW, what do Mofos think about the Kavanaugh thing?:willem:

[cricket]

BTW, what do Mofos think about the Kavanaugh thing?:willem:

Until there's evidence, he should be given the benefit of the doubt 100%.

[Iroquois]

I'm more inclined to believe the accusers.

[cricket]

The accusations could be true, but the way they've been presented so far doesn't make them believable. Either way, what we have now cannot hold the guy back in any way. That would be bad news for everyone in America.

[ashdoc]

There is India, a free society over a billion people, successfully lifting countless millions out of poverty and into the middle class

Nice to see somebody say something good about my country than the usual left/liberal taunts about being a country of rapists .

[ashdoc]

https://www.google.co.in/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/10/03/politics/trump-saudi-king-intl/index.html

Trump shows Saudi king his place .

[Monkeypunch]

Nice to see somebody say something good about my country than the usual left/liberal taunts about being a country of rapists .

Nah, we're the country of rapists, these days.

[ashdoc]

Nah, we're the country of rapists, these days.

And which country would that be ?

[Monkeypunch]

And which country would that be ?

The U.S. of A.

Look, I love the US, I served in the army for 6 years, and I am glad I did. But it's like sick people like Trump and Kavanaugh, who disgrace our great country, just keep popping up, and it makes me sad, and angry. This isn't even a right/left sort of debate, it's just basic morality. Kavanaugh had three accusers. Where there's smoke there's fire. But whatever, hey, he's on "our" team, let's push him through. And yeah, the left would do the same thing. Trump. There's SO MUCH out there about how he's a criminal, a rapist, in with the russians...but hey, party over people, right? And again, the left would do the same thing. and this needs to STOP. This isn't the country I swore to defend, it's just...gross.