|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 24 2017 09:55 Wulfey_LA wrote:It is fitting that the Patriots are the most patriotic team in the NFL. Finally someone is willing to stand up to the PC left and fight to make this country great again. Prepare to get triggered: + Show Spoiler + Is that legit?
|
On September 24 2017 09:59 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2017 09:55 Wulfey_LA wrote:It is fitting that the Patriots are the most patriotic team in the NFL. Finally someone is willing to stand up to the PC left and fight to make this country great again. Prepare to get triggered: + Show Spoiler + Is that legit? I'm fairly certain it's satire from that guy's Twitter account.
|
Lol thought so, these days it's hard to tell
|
Oh yeah, it is satire. But people were asking "who is sticking up for the President", so I figured I would volunteer. EDIT: something I found.
EDIT2: to below, if DonJR showed that to DJT and neither read it closely, I am fairly confident that DJT would at least cite support from the Patriots in a speech the next day.
|
On September 24 2017 10:01 farvacola wrote:Lol thought so, these days it's hard to tell 
Odds Trump retweets it?
|
On September 24 2017 10:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2017 10:01 farvacola wrote:Lol thought so, these days it's hard to tell  Odds Trump retweets it?
I promise right here and now to vote for R in the midterm if he re tweets it
|
![[image loading]](http://puu.sh/xHlbE/de59a0a340.png)
Excerpt from a recent NBC news & WSJ survey
This is still such a weird phenomenon to me. As much as people disliked Hillary, even within the Democratic party, I don't recall people ever being labeled Clinton supporters to differentiate them from other Democrat voters. There were no Obama supporters, or Bush supporters, but Trump basically ended up with his own political party. Is this what happens when you elect a guy who is so divisive that he can't even unite most of his own party?
It will be interesting to see what direction the Republican party goes in a few years after Trump is out of the picture and all those self-identifying Trump supporters need to find someone/something new to rally behind.
|
On September 24 2017 10:15 Tachion wrote:![[image loading]](http://puu.sh/xHlbE/de59a0a340.png) Excerpt from a recent NBC news & WSJ surveyThis is still such a weird phenomenon to me. As much as people disliked Hillary, even within the Democratic party, I don't recall people ever being labeled Clinton supporters to differentiate them from other Democrat voters. There were no Obama supporters, or Bush supporters, but Trump basically ended up with his own political party. Is this what happens when you elect a guy who is so divisive that he can't even unite most of his own party? It will be interesting to see what direction the Republican party goes in a few years after Trump is out of the picture and all those self-identifying Trump supporters need to find someone/something new to rally behind. you could probably see a similar, though milder, effect with Bernie. It's perhaps more a result of electing someone who's from a far faction of the party which doesn't get along well with (some of) the other factions.
|
On September 24 2017 10:15 Tachion wrote:![[image loading]](http://puu.sh/xHlbE/de59a0a340.png) Excerpt from a recent NBC news & WSJ surveyThis is still such a weird phenomenon to me. As much as people disliked Hillary, even within the Democratic party, I don't recall people ever being labeled Clinton supporters to differentiate them from other Democrat voters. There were no Obama supporters, or Bush supporters, but Trump basically ended up with his own political party. Is this what happens when you elect a guy who is so divisive that he can't even unite most of his own party? It will be interesting to see what direction the Republican party goes in a few years after Trump is out of the picture and all those self-identifying Trump supporters need to find someone/something new to rally behind.
I think this is more what happens when you have party identity dissolving at the seams across the U.S., particularly in the Republican party thanks to the organized anti-establishment Tea Party movement, with historically low "Democrat" and "Republican" identification across the U.S. and more independents than any year in 75 years of polling from Pew. The Tea Party only made this worse, and though they don't have 2016 data posted here on Pew I would be astonished if it hadn't continued to trend upward.
|
Keep politics out of sports amirite guys?
|
On September 24 2017 10:15 Tachion wrote:![[image loading]](http://puu.sh/xHlbE/de59a0a340.png) Excerpt from a recent NBC news & WSJ surveyThis is still such a weird phenomenon to me. As much as people disliked Hillary, even within the Democratic party, I don't recall people ever being labeled Clinton supporters to differentiate them from other Democrat voters. There were no Obama supporters, or Bush supporters, but Trump basically ended up with his own political party. Is this what happens when you elect a guy who is so divisive that he can't even unite most of his own party? It will be interesting to see what direction the Republican party goes in a few years after Trump is out of the picture and all those self-identifying Trump supporters need to find someone/something new to rally behind. Did you forget about Bernie voters? There was an obvious distinction between Clinton voters and Bernie voters.
You got to understand one thing. There are very few respected Republican leaders left. In many ways, the Congressional leadership betrayed the Republican Party in ways Trump could only dream of. The poll makes sense.
|
On September 24 2017 09:16 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2017 09:13 NewSunshine wrote:On September 24 2017 09:11 OuchyDathurts wrote: Politics have ALWAYS been part and parcel with sports. If you've got a problem with that its time to stop watching sports. I would've thought all the ceremonies, anthems, and ads that are sprinkled into every major sporting event were pretty big tip-offs. These are generally patriotic and unifying. For a long time they weren't a left/right thing and it's a left-winger's tinted glasses that would see it as such. Edit: ok hopefully done for real. We'll see  No taking breaks from politics now. This will do great things for the political divide.
Also, wow about the American flag and the military. The flag of the Republican Party and the military of the Republican Party, am I right?
Trump has an impressive race to the bottom, but his competition is doing their best to beat him. It'll be close.
|
I think we're seeing more distraction coming from Trump. I mean, is a few ball players taking a knee during the national anthem such a big deal? Ideologically, maybe - but not in a practical sense.The debate was pretty much had with folks agreeing to disagree until Trump said "son of a bitch" at a rally. Trump rails about the news media all the time but all they seem to do is regurgitate what he says and analyze it ad nauseam.
Side note, CNN has been playing the clip of Trump at the rally and bleeping out the word "bitch". Pretty surreal they feel they have to censor the words coming out of the president's mouth.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
If entertainers want to go political, then I will treat them as political commentators rather than entertainers. If they are ok with that result then go for it.
|
On September 24 2017 11:23 LegalLord wrote: If entertainers want to go political, then I will treat them as political commentators rather than entertainers. If they are ok with that result then go for it. PoC don't have the privilege of being able to just forget that racism is a thing anytime they feel like it. So the question becomes whether you consider the occasional statement or protest "going political". I wouldn't in this case.
|
On September 24 2017 11:23 LegalLord wrote: If entertainers want to go political, then I will treat them as political commentators rather than entertainers. If they are ok with that result then go for it. So you're going to boycott all sports any time someone does something you disagree with?
|
Who needs sports. We got ESPORTS and Sir Richard Lewis to protect us from it's politicization and the invading hordes.
|
It's kinda funny to see a hand-egg team protest inequality, to then have people argue that they're not equal but "in this case" different.
That's logic.
By definition, they're political protesters. They demonstratively protest politics. For the right reasons, in my mind - but also in my mind, that doesn't make them somehow different than any other protester. I just like them more because they share my viewpoint.
That, nothing else, is the difference. They're not "a special kind".
So you're going to boycott all sports any time someone does something you disagree with?
You boycott stuff that you disagree with?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 24 2017 11:32 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2017 11:23 LegalLord wrote: If entertainers want to go political, then I will treat them as political commentators rather than entertainers. If they are ok with that result then go for it. So you're going to boycott all sports any time someone does something you disagree with? Do you make it a habit to boycott political commentators?
Also, do I seem like I like Trump?
|
Does anyone remember the idyllic times of 48 hours ago, when a stern debate was had about whether or not DJT was threatening 25 million people with genocide over Twitter? Some Cons said that the Libs were making undue assumptions. The Libs said that only one conclusion could be drawn from DJT's nonsense. Like all issues, DJT is determined to prove the Libs were right all along. This is what a first strike threat looks like. This is the real thing.
EDIT: I can already feel this debate coming. 3 pages long. Team Con will put up some condescending nonsense about how 'THEY' could possibly just mean some sort of totally A-Okay decapitation first strike. Team Lib will point out that DJT's feeble grasp of the issue and lack knowledge about any military options beyond a full nuclear strike preclude any minimal interpretation of 'THEY'. And we will wait another 48 hours for DJT to make clear that team Con was full shit, and team Lib was right, DJT meant 'THEY' in the 25 million sense.
|
|
|
|