|
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 25 2017 10:44 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2017 10:17 xDaunt wrote:On September 25 2017 09:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 25 2017 05:43 xDaunt wrote:On September 25 2017 05:17 Artisreal wrote:On September 25 2017 05:09 xDaunt wrote:On September 25 2017 05:05 PhoenixVoid wrote:On September 25 2017 04:58 Plansix wrote:
Trump has picked a fight with the most popular sport in America. Good lord. It's almost poetic how attempting to appeal to his voter base and their second religion on Sundays (football) backfired quite horribly. All he's done is enrage players and the team owners to take a stand against their president, and now everyone is going to get a dose of a middle finger at Trump on their Sunday TV. Don't confuse the reaction of the teams with the reaction of the fans. The big loser here is going to be the NFL, which is unfortunate. Can you elaborate on what you think is unfortunate for the NFL? To me as a non American this is not immediately obvious so pardon my asking. I don't like Trump's statement about the NFL for the same reason that I didn't like Google canning the guy who circulated that memo a couple months ago, but the reality is this new faux pas is going to amount to nothing for him. Nothing else he has done has really mattered, and I see no reason why this would be any different. As for the NFL, they already have had some major PR problems due the Kaepernick-spawned protests. The majority of people who watch football are very patriotic and disapprove of the national anthem protests. Perhaps more than anything else, they want to keep politics out of sports. The NFL already has a ratings problem from a variety of factors, including the national anthem protests, the concussion issues, and cord cutting. The NFL getting tied up in this new political fight is only going make matters worse for them. People keep repeating this nonsense? Politics have always been a part of sports. No one wants to "keep politics out of sports" if they think they "want to keep politics out of sports" they are just lying to themselves (or too ignorant to realize it's always been a part of sports). Similar to the "they need to respect the flag" these are arguments created by people smart enough to know they are bullshit and then repeated by people who aren't or don't care. The ratings thing is only problematic because of the whole "we should grow every year" idea. It's ratings still demolish most of television and certainly any other sport. If they can't stand for what is right I'd be happy to see them gone anyway. That politics has a history of creeping into sports does not mean that there is not a large segment of people who really don't want to see politics in sports. EDIT: You admit it's far worse for the president to encourage than it is for a company to make their own decision right? Yes, it is worse for the president to tread into these waters given the power of his office. To be honest, I'm quite torn on what Trump has done. On the one hand, I really don't like him further politicizing things and deepening divisions in the country. On the other hand, I fully recognize that I voted for Trump to fight these types of cultural battles. Trump didn't start this fight. Some of the NFL players did, and various media elements and other leftist figures encouraged it as part of their larger agenda. And let's be quite clear: Kaepernick wasn't the first incidence of this type of behavior. Remember that time when those idiot NFL players did the "hand up, don't shoot" thing after Ferguson? I certainly do. This kind of nonsense has been allowed to fester for a long time. The bottom line is that conservatives really shouldn't be silent on this stuff any longer, and conservatives desperately need someone with a megaphone to lead the charge. For all of his imperfections, Trump does have this capability. The nation should be defended. at the end of the day they're normal people like everyone else though, aren't they? What do you propose to change here? Not allow them to state their opinion while working? It's essentially the same thing with hollywood actors etc who are criticised for being too political as well, isn't it? Sure, someone with 100k+ followers on twitter has a bigger reach but I don't think that's something you want to change
I'm not challenging anyone's right to do anything. What I am interested in is marginalizing certain inherently divisive and subversive ideas.
|
On September 25 2017 10:59 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2017 10:44 Toadesstern wrote:On September 25 2017 10:17 xDaunt wrote:On September 25 2017 09:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 25 2017 05:43 xDaunt wrote:On September 25 2017 05:17 Artisreal wrote:On September 25 2017 05:09 xDaunt wrote:On September 25 2017 05:05 PhoenixVoid wrote:On September 25 2017 04:58 Plansix wrote:
Trump has picked a fight with the most popular sport in America. Good lord. It's almost poetic how attempting to appeal to his voter base and their second religion on Sundays (football) backfired quite horribly. All he's done is enrage players and the team owners to take a stand against their president, and now everyone is going to get a dose of a middle finger at Trump on their Sunday TV. Don't confuse the reaction of the teams with the reaction of the fans. The big loser here is going to be the NFL, which is unfortunate. Can you elaborate on what you think is unfortunate for the NFL? To me as a non American this is not immediately obvious so pardon my asking. I don't like Trump's statement about the NFL for the same reason that I didn't like Google canning the guy who circulated that memo a couple months ago, but the reality is this new faux pas is going to amount to nothing for him. Nothing else he has done has really mattered, and I see no reason why this would be any different. As for the NFL, they already have had some major PR problems due the Kaepernick-spawned protests. The majority of people who watch football are very patriotic and disapprove of the national anthem protests. Perhaps more than anything else, they want to keep politics out of sports. The NFL already has a ratings problem from a variety of factors, including the national anthem protests, the concussion issues, and cord cutting. The NFL getting tied up in this new political fight is only going make matters worse for them. People keep repeating this nonsense? Politics have always been a part of sports. No one wants to "keep politics out of sports" if they think they "want to keep politics out of sports" they are just lying to themselves (or too ignorant to realize it's always been a part of sports). Similar to the "they need to respect the flag" these are arguments created by people smart enough to know they are bullshit and then repeated by people who aren't or don't care. The ratings thing is only problematic because of the whole "we should grow every year" idea. It's ratings still demolish most of television and certainly any other sport. If they can't stand for what is right I'd be happy to see them gone anyway. That politics has a history of creeping into sports does not mean that there is not a large segment of people who really don't want to see politics in sports. EDIT: You admit it's far worse for the president to encourage than it is for a company to make their own decision right? Yes, it is worse for the president to tread into these waters given the power of his office. To be honest, I'm quite torn on what Trump has done. On the one hand, I really don't like him further politicizing things and deepening divisions in the country. On the other hand, I fully recognize that I voted for Trump to fight these types of cultural battles. Trump didn't start this fight. Some of the NFL players did, and various media elements and other leftist figures encouraged it as part of their larger agenda. And let's be quite clear: Kaepernick wasn't the first incidence of this type of behavior. Remember that time when those idiot NFL players did the "hand up, don't shoot" thing after Ferguson? I certainly do. This kind of nonsense has been allowed to fester for a long time. The bottom line is that conservatives really shouldn't be silent on this stuff any longer, and conservatives desperately need someone with a megaphone to lead the charge. For all of his imperfections, Trump does have this capability. The nation should be defended. at the end of the day they're normal people like everyone else though, aren't they? What do you propose to change here? Not allow them to state their opinion while working? It's essentially the same thing with hollywood actors etc who are criticised for being too political as well, isn't it? Sure, someone with 100k+ followers on twitter has a bigger reach but I don't think that's something you want to change I'm not challenging anyone's right to do anything. What I am interested in is marginalizing certain inherently divisive and subversive ideas.
Racism shouldn't be a divisive issue. Nor should protesting it.
|
On September 25 2017 10:59 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2017 10:44 Toadesstern wrote:On September 25 2017 10:17 xDaunt wrote:On September 25 2017 09:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 25 2017 05:43 xDaunt wrote:On September 25 2017 05:17 Artisreal wrote:On September 25 2017 05:09 xDaunt wrote:On September 25 2017 05:05 PhoenixVoid wrote:On September 25 2017 04:58 Plansix wrote:
Trump has picked a fight with the most popular sport in America. Good lord. It's almost poetic how attempting to appeal to his voter base and their second religion on Sundays (football) backfired quite horribly. All he's done is enrage players and the team owners to take a stand against their president, and now everyone is going to get a dose of a middle finger at Trump on their Sunday TV. Don't confuse the reaction of the teams with the reaction of the fans. The big loser here is going to be the NFL, which is unfortunate. Can you elaborate on what you think is unfortunate for the NFL? To me as a non American this is not immediately obvious so pardon my asking. I don't like Trump's statement about the NFL for the same reason that I didn't like Google canning the guy who circulated that memo a couple months ago, but the reality is this new faux pas is going to amount to nothing for him. Nothing else he has done has really mattered, and I see no reason why this would be any different. As for the NFL, they already have had some major PR problems due the Kaepernick-spawned protests. The majority of people who watch football are very patriotic and disapprove of the national anthem protests. Perhaps more than anything else, they want to keep politics out of sports. The NFL already has a ratings problem from a variety of factors, including the national anthem protests, the concussion issues, and cord cutting. The NFL getting tied up in this new political fight is only going make matters worse for them. People keep repeating this nonsense? Politics have always been a part of sports. No one wants to "keep politics out of sports" if they think they "want to keep politics out of sports" they are just lying to themselves (or too ignorant to realize it's always been a part of sports). Similar to the "they need to respect the flag" these are arguments created by people smart enough to know they are bullshit and then repeated by people who aren't or don't care. The ratings thing is only problematic because of the whole "we should grow every year" idea. It's ratings still demolish most of television and certainly any other sport. If they can't stand for what is right I'd be happy to see them gone anyway. That politics has a history of creeping into sports does not mean that there is not a large segment of people who really don't want to see politics in sports. EDIT: You admit it's far worse for the president to encourage than it is for a company to make their own decision right? Yes, it is worse for the president to tread into these waters given the power of his office. To be honest, I'm quite torn on what Trump has done. On the one hand, I really don't like him further politicizing things and deepening divisions in the country. On the other hand, I fully recognize that I voted for Trump to fight these types of cultural battles. Trump didn't start this fight. Some of the NFL players did, and various media elements and other leftist figures encouraged it as part of their larger agenda. And let's be quite clear: Kaepernick wasn't the first incidence of this type of behavior. Remember that time when those idiot NFL players did the "hand up, don't shoot" thing after Ferguson? I certainly do. This kind of nonsense has been allowed to fester for a long time. The bottom line is that conservatives really shouldn't be silent on this stuff any longer, and conservatives desperately need someone with a megaphone to lead the charge. For all of his imperfections, Trump does have this capability. The nation should be defended. at the end of the day they're normal people like everyone else though, aren't they? What do you propose to change here? Not allow them to state their opinion while working? It's essentially the same thing with hollywood actors etc who are criticised for being too political as well, isn't it? Sure, someone with 100k+ followers on twitter has a bigger reach but I don't think that's something you want to change I'm not challenging anyone's right to do anything. What I am interested in is marginalizing certain inherently divisive and subversive ideas.
Do you want to marginalize or compartmentalize?
|
On September 25 2017 10:59 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2017 10:44 Toadesstern wrote:On September 25 2017 10:17 xDaunt wrote:On September 25 2017 09:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 25 2017 05:43 xDaunt wrote:On September 25 2017 05:17 Artisreal wrote:On September 25 2017 05:09 xDaunt wrote:On September 25 2017 05:05 PhoenixVoid wrote:On September 25 2017 04:58 Plansix wrote:
Trump has picked a fight with the most popular sport in America. Good lord. It's almost poetic how attempting to appeal to his voter base and their second religion on Sundays (football) backfired quite horribly. All he's done is enrage players and the team owners to take a stand against their president, and now everyone is going to get a dose of a middle finger at Trump on their Sunday TV. Don't confuse the reaction of the teams with the reaction of the fans. The big loser here is going to be the NFL, which is unfortunate. Can you elaborate on what you think is unfortunate for the NFL? To me as a non American this is not immediately obvious so pardon my asking. I don't like Trump's statement about the NFL for the same reason that I didn't like Google canning the guy who circulated that memo a couple months ago, but the reality is this new faux pas is going to amount to nothing for him. Nothing else he has done has really mattered, and I see no reason why this would be any different. As for the NFL, they already have had some major PR problems due the Kaepernick-spawned protests. The majority of people who watch football are very patriotic and disapprove of the national anthem protests. Perhaps more than anything else, they want to keep politics out of sports. The NFL already has a ratings problem from a variety of factors, including the national anthem protests, the concussion issues, and cord cutting. The NFL getting tied up in this new political fight is only going make matters worse for them. People keep repeating this nonsense? Politics have always been a part of sports. No one wants to "keep politics out of sports" if they think they "want to keep politics out of sports" they are just lying to themselves (or too ignorant to realize it's always been a part of sports). Similar to the "they need to respect the flag" these are arguments created by people smart enough to know they are bullshit and then repeated by people who aren't or don't care. The ratings thing is only problematic because of the whole "we should grow every year" idea. It's ratings still demolish most of television and certainly any other sport. If they can't stand for what is right I'd be happy to see them gone anyway. That politics has a history of creeping into sports does not mean that there is not a large segment of people who really don't want to see politics in sports. EDIT: You admit it's far worse for the president to encourage than it is for a company to make their own decision right? Yes, it is worse for the president to tread into these waters given the power of his office. To be honest, I'm quite torn on what Trump has done. On the one hand, I really don't like him further politicizing things and deepening divisions in the country. On the other hand, I fully recognize that I voted for Trump to fight these types of cultural battles. Trump didn't start this fight. Some of the NFL players did, and various media elements and other leftist figures encouraged it as part of their larger agenda. And let's be quite clear: Kaepernick wasn't the first incidence of this type of behavior. Remember that time when those idiot NFL players did the "hand up, don't shoot" thing after Ferguson? I certainly do. This kind of nonsense has been allowed to fester for a long time. The bottom line is that conservatives really shouldn't be silent on this stuff any longer, and conservatives desperately need someone with a megaphone to lead the charge. For all of his imperfections, Trump does have this capability. The nation should be defended. at the end of the day they're normal people like everyone else though, aren't they? What do you propose to change here? Not allow them to state their opinion while working? It's essentially the same thing with hollywood actors etc who are criticised for being too political as well, isn't it? Sure, someone with 100k+ followers on twitter has a bigger reach but I don't think that's something you want to change I'm not challenging anyone's right to do anything. What I am interested in is marginalizing certain inherently divisive and subversive ideas.
Wait, you want the president to be in the business of marginalizing ideas because he deems them divisive or subversive? Am I understanding that correctly? That's not very pro-free speech of you.
|
On September 25 2017 10:17 xDaunt wrote:
conservatives desperately need someone with a megaphone to lead the charge. For all of his imperfections, Trump does have this capability. The nation should be defended.
The problem is that you can't just say "imperfections" because that's too much of an understatement. Trump's the wrong guy, and he only makes things worse.
|
On September 25 2017 11:44 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2017 10:17 xDaunt wrote:
conservatives desperately need someone with a megaphone to lead the charge. For all of his imperfections, Trump does have this capability. The nation should be defended. The problem is that you can't just say "imperfections" because that's too much of an understatement. Trump's the wrong guy, and he only makes things worse.
So who is the alternative?
Remember what I said during the campaign regarding why Trump drew popular conservative support: he fights.
|
A gorilla from the jungle would be a good alternative. The gorilla's noises would carry as much credibility as trump's word.
|
Personally, I'd have said that if Trump is the best mouthpiece one can find for a given social/political viewpoint, then that might say something about the quality of that viewpoint.
|
On September 25 2017 12:45 Aquanim wrote:
Personally, I'd have said that if Trump is the best mouthpiece one can find for a given social/political viewpoint, then that might say something about the quality of that viewpoint.
Like I said, that's the only part that made sense. I think Danglars and Intro might have to have a talk with him.
|
On September 25 2017 10:29 Aquanim wrote:Against what? What threat does any of this pose to the "nation"?
This was a serious question that I would like to see an answer to, in particular to see how "nation" is being defined.
On September 25 2017 10:59 xDaunt wrote:...
I'm not challenging anyone's right to do anything. What I am interested in is marginalizing certain inherently divisive and subversive ideas.
I'd also like to know exactly what is being referred to here as an "inherently divisive and subversive idea".
|
On September 25 2017 12:53 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2017 10:29 Aquanim wrote:On September 25 2017 10:17 xDaunt wrote:...
The nation should be defended. Against what? What threat does any of this pose to the "nation"? This was a serious question that I would like to see an answer to, in particular to see how "nation" is being defined. Show nested quote +On September 25 2017 10:59 xDaunt wrote:...
I'm not challenging anyone's right to do anything. What I am interested in is marginalizing certain inherently divisive and subversive ideas. I'd also like to know exactly what is being referred to here as an "inherently divisive and subversive idea".
That POC of rights
|
On September 25 2017 13:52 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2017 12:53 Aquanim wrote:On September 25 2017 10:29 Aquanim wrote:On September 25 2017 10:17 xDaunt wrote:...
The nation should be defended. Against what? What threat does any of this pose to the "nation"? This was a serious question that I would like to see an answer to, in particular to see how "nation" is being defined. On September 25 2017 10:59 xDaunt wrote:...
I'm not challenging anyone's right to do anything. What I am interested in is marginalizing certain inherently divisive and subversive ideas. I'd also like to know exactly what is being referred to here as an "inherently divisive and subversive idea". That POC of rights
I understand the desire to put words in xDaunt's mouth in this instance, but I'd be obliged if everybody refrained from it so I can get an answer.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 25 2017 12:45 Aquanim wrote:
Personally, I'd have said that if Trump is the best mouthpiece one can find for a given social/political viewpoint, then that might say something about the quality of that viewpoint.
If a certain viewpoint is so regarded within the political elite as to be so suicidal to uphold that no career politician would uphold it, then sometimes you have to go to the dregs to find someone willing to speak the viewpoint. This point is essentially saying "if it's not popular enough to have politicians standing up for it then it doesn't matter." Which is horseshit.
|
On September 25 2017 14:02 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2017 13:52 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 25 2017 12:53 Aquanim wrote:On September 25 2017 10:29 Aquanim wrote:On September 25 2017 10:17 xDaunt wrote:...
The nation should be defended. Against what? What threat does any of this pose to the "nation"? This was a serious question that I would like to see an answer to, in particular to see how "nation" is being defined. On September 25 2017 10:59 xDaunt wrote:...
I'm not challenging anyone's right to do anything. What I am interested in is marginalizing certain inherently divisive and subversive ideas. I'd also like to know exactly what is being referred to here as an "inherently divisive and subversive idea". That POC of rights I understand the desire to put words in xDaunt's mouth in this instance, but I'd be obliged if everybody refrained from it so I can get an answer.
xDaunt isn't dangles, so you might get an answer tomorrow some time for sure. I'll wait to see what he has to say. But I'm not holding out for much.
|
On September 25 2017 14:09 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2017 12:45 Aquanim wrote:
Personally, I'd have said that if Trump is the best mouthpiece one can find for a given social/political viewpoint, then that might say something about the quality of that viewpoint. If a certain viewpoint is so regarded within the political elite as to be so suicidal to uphold that no career politician would uphold it, then sometimes you have to go to the dregs to find someone willing to speak the viewpoint. This point is essentially saying "if it's not popular enough to have politicians standing up for it then it doesn't matter." Which is horseshit.
Okay then, LegalLord: name a worthy cause in history that could not find a much, much better mouthpiece than Trump (politician or otherwise).
|
On September 25 2017 08:58 Kevin_Sorbo wrote:
Nice to see how Trump got cucked by the NFL today. These attacks were probably good for the ratings too, just like what he did for the WSJ.
It is refreshing to see pro athletes acting (or trying to) like role models. Keep fighting the good fight.
I forgot to point out this wasn't about Trump. Trump enraged more people, but it's about injustice and white supremacy. I know liberals in general (not saying you're doing this) want to co-opt this and turn it away from the injustice that existed under Obama as well as Trump and focus it on Trump. But again, this was not about Trump.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 25 2017 14:15 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2017 14:09 LegalLord wrote:On September 25 2017 12:45 Aquanim wrote:
Personally, I'd have said that if Trump is the best mouthpiece one can find for a given social/political viewpoint, then that might say something about the quality of that viewpoint. If a certain viewpoint is so regarded within the political elite as to be so suicidal to uphold that no career politician would uphold it, then sometimes you have to go to the dregs to find someone willing to speak the viewpoint. This point is essentially saying "if it's not popular enough to have politicians standing up for it then it doesn't matter." Which is horseshit. Okay then, LegalLord: name a worthy cause in history that could not find a much, much better mouthpiece than Trump (politician or otherwise).
Care to rephrase that as a non-loaded question?
|
On September 25 2017 14:29 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2017 14:15 Aquanim wrote:On September 25 2017 14:09 LegalLord wrote:On September 25 2017 12:45 Aquanim wrote:
Personally, I'd have said that if Trump is the best mouthpiece one can find for a given social/political viewpoint, then that might say something about the quality of that viewpoint. If a certain viewpoint is so regarded within the political elite as to be so suicidal to uphold that no career politician would uphold it, then sometimes you have to go to the dregs to find someone willing to speak the viewpoint. This point is essentially saying "if it's not popular enough to have politicians standing up for it then it doesn't matter." Which is horseshit. Okay then, LegalLord: name a worthy cause in history that could not find a much, much better mouthpiece than Trump (politician or otherwise). Care to rephrase that as a non-loaded question?
I don't think there's a practical way to remove all or most of the ambiguity from the terms "worthy cause" and "better mouthpiece", besides discussing it case by case, if that's what you're asking.
Nevertheless, if the original point was "horseshit" as you put it I'd expect a counterexample to not be too hard to find.
(Do note that I am not operating on the assumption that one must be a career politican to be an agent of change, or a prominent mouthpiece for a given opinion.)
|
I think team Con is leaping over the question of whether or not the President should be leading the culture war. I get that a lot of news triggers white butthurt and fragile whites are looking for a champion to push back against these kneeling bucks, but team Con needs to put up some reasons why the President (i.e., the Office of the Presidency in the abstract) is the right entity to do this. The First Amendment uniquely limits the Executive Branch in a way that private actors are not limited. The President is constitutionally incapable of using his powers to start stamping out culture he doesn't like. Just look at Trump's impotence in dealing with the kneelers. 200+ kneeled today after Trump called them sons of bitches.
'At least he fights' is a good justification for watching Hannity, or listening to Limbaugh. But the President has to respect the first amendment rights of Americans to practice a culture that conservatives hate.
And another thing, history has a lot of examples of kings, emperors, and tyrants leading cultural wars. Mao, Caligula, Hitler, Stalin, the Jong-Il clan in NK, etc. Why does team Con think that DJT should be leading a cultural struggle against the left? What happened to limited government?
EDIT: and before you b-b-b-b-but Obama, here is Obama's remarks on Kapernick. Back when it wasn't cool. Consistent with the gravity of the Office of the President, President Obama threads the needle between acknowledging the importance of free speech, supporting the flag, and bringing up issues with Office Use of Force Incidents. This is nothing like DJT's "throw the sons of bitches off the field".
+ Show Spoiler +Obama responded: "Well, as I've said before, I believe that us honoring our flag and our anthem is part of what binds us together as a nation. But I also always try to remind folks that part of what makes this country special is that we respect people's rights to have a different opinion."
Obama added that he believes protesters should be aware that the reason they are able to share their opinions are because people "fight" for them to be able to do so.
"The test of our fidelity to our Constitution, to freedom of speech, to our Bill of Rights, is not when it's easy, but when it's hard," he said. "We fight sometimes so that people can do things that we disagree with ... As long as they're doing it within the law, then we can voice our opinion objecting to it but it's also their right."
The President also continued that it is important for "everybody to listen to each other."
"I want (the protesters) to listen to the pain that that may cause somebody who, for example, had a spouse or a child who was killed in combat and why it hurts them to see somebody not standing," Obama said. "But I also want people to think about the pain he may be expressing about somebody who's lost a loved one that they think was unfairly shot."
Earlier this month, Obama made similar comments about the quarterback, saying he was "exercising his constitutional right" by not standing for the national anthem.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/28/politics/obama-colin-kaepernick-nfl-national-anthem-presidential-town-hall-cnn/index.html
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Ok, let me rephrase my objection.
As written, your request is quite clearly not going to lead to productive discussion and as such I am disinclined to answer. You essentially imply that you have already made up your mind, that Trump is by far the worst mouthpiece for any cause in history that isn't unworthy so by extension the cause must be shitty. That kind of attitude is not going to get any useful answer so I will not provide one for preordained dismissal.
However, if you wish to shed the loaded wording, and add some more genuine context and specificity to what kind of cause we're talking about in regards to both Trump and any hypothetical comparable example, then maybe that will be worth an answer: probably not quickly, since I don't expect to post in this thread within the next 24 hours or so (nap time, busy Monday) but if it can be posed as a genuine question then I will do my best to answer. If not, I think it's most proper to simply write it off as a loaded question and leave it at that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
