|
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. |
|
|
and he goes "fuck you I'm Trump", turns around, and makes up jobs for his children.
|
On January 02 2018 10:20 zlefin wrote:
@iamthedave:
there isn't compromise because at least one (maybe two) of the parties don't want compromise. compromise cannot be done unless both parties agree to it.
and you should look to the deeper layers, to see WHY american media is more polarized. always more layers to the onion (well, not really, but a nice saying).
mostly just commenting/responding; were there any of the questions you posed on the last page that you actually need more specific answers to?
Sorry for the late reply.
The deeper layer that seems most significant in this case was the deliberate politicisation of the media done by Murdoch waaaaaaay back when. A lot of what's happening the US right now seems the sort of thing Murdoch aspired to as a young man. People coming to him - and only him - for news that he practically invents to suit his purposes. Fake News is the apotheosis of the Murdoch dream; de-legitimization of all media, so that he can win the entertainment war he started in the first place.
By all means pour on the layers, though  Do you think the state of US education has something to do with it? I don't know much in specific but I know the US education system - save for higher education - is very poorly regarded internationally, at least in comparison to other western nations. I think it's getting better though? It seems to be currently ranked around 14th out of 40, and I'm sure it was lower than that a few years ago.
As for specific questions I'd like input on...
How do people compromise? Culturally. Individuals obviously can. I'm sure you have conservative friends, and I certainly know people on both sides of the aisle. But how can the US get back to a healthy - or at least healthier - public political discourse? When both sides do nothing but scorched earth politics where they portray the opposing side as borderline satanic, in a nation where such comparisons are meaningful, how can either side talk in a way that matters?
And where do you think the conversation begins? Who is in a position to start it? I think the US Media is uniquely ill-equipped to do it due to the previously-mentioned politicization.
Do you think it's going to get worse before better? And if you think it's going to get worse, how do you think that might demonstrate itself?
|
On January 04 2018 03:45 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2018 02:20 mozoku wrote:On January 03 2018 17:00 IgnE wrote:On January 03 2018 16:01 mozoku wrote:On January 02 2018 21:01 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:+ Show Spoiler +@mozoku: This is kinda "the sky is blue" of American politics, but I'll humor you. It's very well known that the middle class itself has suffered since around the 1980's, at least in terms of income. That's everywhere, and every damn newspaper and research center has something on it. Here's the Centre on Budget and Policy Priorities' nice little graphic: ![[image loading]](https://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/styles/downsample150to92/public/atoms/files/10-24-17pov.png?itok=wAexWmRm) Attributing policy to economic change is not trivial, but it is important to note that Reagan came into power right at the splitting point: just after 1980. Once of the first major events of his presidency was his handling of a massive strike. And by handling, I mean he told the workers to go **** themselves. This very strong anti-labour action sent a strong message - unions and organised workers no longer had any real bargaining power as of then. Democracynow analysis of the Patco strikeNYTimes op-ed on Patco StrikeWhile both pieces have a very different view of Reagan's personal ideals, there's no disagreement in the effect of Reagan's decisions regarding unions. It would not be at all surprising to see income disparity after middle and working class people lost their negotiating power, and that is exactly what happened. The myriad of tax cuts and opposition to programs like proper healthcare haven't helped at all, but effectively giving all power to decide wages and salaries to those who already have economic power, is IMO far and away the biggest action the Republican establishment has taken to screw the middle class over. It's important to note that a lot of the problem is what the government hasn't done. Companies already have legal teams, money and time. They don't need their interests to be quite as carefully looked after. Corporate welfare is a sick joke. However their average worker most certainly does not have these things, so in order to maintain a semblance of balance, to have the interests of the middle class protected, government needs to pro-actively support them. They need to ensure unions have some bite and to spend on programs like healthcare. This is why progressives, by and large, don't have very good opinions of libertarian viewpoints. It's why they outright despise the Republican party, because their deliberate refusal to give workers any negotiating power, and their deliberate obstructionism with regards to healthcare and social spending, is as good as telling the average citizen to get ****ed and accept slave wages when their employer decides they want to have a bit more money. Apologies for late reply. Busy work day. You're making the exact mistake that I thought you would, and mistakenly attributing to the government that which is actually the result of technology-driven economic shifts. First mistake: the middle class isn't simply deteriorating away into poverty. It's bifurcating into winners and losers, which is the expected outcome of the shift to the knowledge economy and globalization. The driver of inequality, therefore, isn't government policy but economic shifts. Unions are part of this story, as it's a global trend. While globalization has certainly hurt American laborers and benefited higher earners, it's also brought raised the living standards of untold millions, if not billions, in the developing world. You can make a valid argument that the US should be prioritizing its domestic workers ahead of foreigners, but liberals and leftists who believe the US government is out to screw the middle class almost invariably despise the nationalist/protectionist view so that isn't your ticket either. Next mistake: blaming the US tax code. Granted the tax code just changed, but the previous tax regime had been the most progressive tax code among developed countries. However, the progressive tax revenue hasn't been redistributed to the middle- and lower- classes. I suspect that has to do with the fact that America subsidizes a large share of the world's defense--seeing as most of the developed world spends about a than a third of as much on defense as the US (as a share of GDP, which is already somewhat biased against the US). [1] [2]There's one reason you listed that I haven't yet touched: social programs. The two that I commonly hear about are education and healthcare. US healthcare is a mess, but there's been highly publicized efforts from both sides to reform the system in the past decade. The system will likely look completely different in another 10 years. The suggested education policies I've seen that focus on expanding college access are moronic, as I've explained in an earlier post. -------------- Despite all of the crying about lobbyists, campaign funding, Trump's profiting off the presidency, etc., there isn't much actual evidence that all of this has amounted to policies that have destroyed the middle class to line the pockets of the rich. The reality is that the shift in income in favor the upper and upper-middle class are economy and technology-driven, and that the government can't simply wave a magic wand to fix the problem. Health care seems like the lowest hanging fruit, and unsurprisingly it's been the biggest political issue of the past two presidencies. ah well, the way you tell it, the shrinking of the middle class is just the result of the market, which itself is just a consequence of human nature. government policies don't matter, so why do we get so worked up about who to vote for? I never said government policies don't matter--you can look at East/West Germany, or North/South Korea for definitive proof on that. However, within the scope of plausibly reasonable governments for developed countries, the variance of their policy choices has a relatively small effect compared to the effect of global technological and economic shifts. It's like a sailboat in the wind. The captain of the boat has control over the direction of the ship, but its speed greatly shaped by which way the wind is blowing. If you choose to sail directly upwind, you end up like North Korea. Most developed countries are already sailing mostly downwind. The reason we get worked up over whom to vote for is because government policies are the factor that we have by far the most direct control of. When people feel like things aren't going well, they complain about the ship's direction because it's obviously ineffective to complain about the wind (and the boat's leadership factions both can and do overstate the the impact of the boat's direction in their bid for captaincy). On January 03 2018 18:29 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On January 03 2018 16:01 mozoku wrote:On January 02 2018 21:01 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:+ Show Spoiler +@mozoku: This is kinda "the sky is blue" of American politics, but I'll humor you. It's very well known that the middle class itself has suffered since around the 1980's, at least in terms of income. That's everywhere, and every damn newspaper and research center has something on it. Here's the Centre on Budget and Policy Priorities' nice little graphic: Attributing policy to economic change is not trivial, but it is important to note that Reagan came into power right at the splitting point: just after 1980. Once of the first major events of his presidency was his handling of a massive strike. And by handling, I mean he told the workers to go **** themselves. This very strong anti-labour action sent a strong message - unions and organised workers no longer had any real bargaining power as of then. Democracynow analysis of the Patco strikeNYTimes op-ed on Patco StrikeWhile both pieces have a very different view of Reagan's personal ideals, there's no disagreement in the effect of Reagan's decisions regarding unions. It would not be at all surprising to see income disparity after middle and working class people lost their negotiating power, and that is exactly what happened. The myriad of tax cuts and opposition to programs like proper healthcare haven't helped at all, but effectively giving all power to decide wages and salaries to those who already have economic power, is IMO far and away the biggest action the Republican establishment has taken to screw the middle class over. It's important to note that a lot of the problem is what the government hasn't done. Companies already have legal teams, money and time. They don't need their interests to be quite as carefully looked after. Corporate welfare is a sick joke. However their average worker most certainly does not have these things, so in order to maintain a semblance of balance, to have the interests of the middle class protected, government needs to pro-actively support them. They need to ensure unions have some bite and to spend on programs like healthcare. This is why progressives, by and large, don't have very good opinions of libertarian viewpoints. It's why they outright despise the Republican party, because their deliberate refusal to give workers any negotiating power, and their deliberate obstructionism with regards to healthcare and social spending, is as good as telling the average citizen to get ****ed and accept slave wages when their employer decides they want to have a bit more money. Apologies for late reply. Busy work day. You're making the exact mistake that I thought you would, and mistakenly attributing to the government that which is actually the result of technology-driven economic shifts. First mistake: the middle class isn't simply deteriorating away into poverty. It's bifurcating into winners and losers, which is the expected outcome of the shift to the knowledge economy and globalization. The driver of inequality, therefore, isn't government policy but economic shifts. Unions are part of this story, as it's a global trend. While globalization has certainly hurt American laborers and benefited higher earners, it's also brought raised the living standards of untold millions, if not billions, in the developing world. You can make a valid argument that the US should be prioritizing its domestic workers ahead of foreigners, but liberals and leftists who believe the US government is out to screw the middle class almost invariably despise the nationalist/protectionist view so that isn't your ticket either. Next mistake: blaming the US tax code. Granted the tax code just changed, but the previous tax regime had been the most progressive tax code among developed countries. However, the progressive tax revenue hasn't been redistributed to the middle- and lower- classes. I suspect that has to do with the fact that America subsidizes a large share of the world's defense--seeing as most of the developed world spends about a than a third of as much on defense as the US (as a share of GDP, which is already somewhat biased against the US). [1] [2]There's one reason you listed that I haven't yet touched: social programs. The two that I commonly hear about are education and healthcare. US healthcare is a mess, but there's been highly publicized efforts from both sides to reform the system in the past decade. The system will likely look completely different in another 10 years. The suggested education policies I've seen that focus on expanding college access are moronic, as I've explained in an earlier post. -------------- Despite all of the crying about lobbyists, campaign funding, Trump's profiting off the presidency, etc., there isn't much actual evidence that all of this has amounted to policies that have destroyed the middle class to line the pockets of the rich. The reality is that the shift in income in favor the upper and upper-middle class are economy and technology-driven, and that the government can't simply wave a magic wand to fix the problem. Health care seems like the lowest hanging fruit, and unsurprisingly it's been the biggest political issue of the past two presidencies. Okay, so you insist that, for example, outright destroying the wage negotiating power of much of the middle class, whose wages have since stagnated, was not at all responsible for the observed trend, and that the aforementioned is purely market forces. I'm not exactly convinced, you understand. A bifurcation isn't much different than destruction if 10-20% go up and the whole rest go down. Government can't wave a magic wand, they can however do more than say "oh well guess nature intended for you to be poor". The weird wealth distribution in the US is absolutely not the norm for a country with so much wealth. To blame it all on market forces and whatever completely misses a massive potential role of government. A role that many other countries, to varying degrees, seem to get. This weird deregulation, anti-union, anti-social spending idea the Republican party has (and that the democrats have often allowed them to get away with, although the Fox situation is also anomalous) cannot be left blameless. Especially, again, considering that the US has worse income inequality than pretty much any other developed country. Arguing that there is no cause-effect relationship between policy that destroys middle class bargaining power, and the stagnation of middle class earnings which really kicks off there after, is going to need to be a bit more convincing than this. As a note, we've now shifted far from debating the original contention that "the sole goal of the US government is destroy the middle class and preserve the ruling class." Simply asserting "better policies will fix the problem" is useless. What are they? I've asked four times now and have been given zero (arguably one in healthcare, which is in the process of being addressed) reasonable proposals. If you can't name any sound and significant policy changes with remotely certain benefits, how is it the US government's fault for not implementing them? but you are saying that government policies are only minor course adjustments to the winds of the market, and that "the market" is a force of nature that can either be resisted (to citizens' detriment) or allowed to take its course (to citizens' benefit). you've made it all very easy. more governance is usually bad (resisting the wind) and less governance is usually better. so now we see how youve arrived at your initial position, that bad government policies cannot be responsible for the shrinking middle class: government policies can only ever take us where the market winds blow, or, in trying to resist the winds, make things worse.
I wouldn't equate the market to the wind, though it's certainly is a big part it. The wind is made up of the larger factors that are mostly out of a reasonable government's control at the time it enacts a policy: technology, the economic shifts it brings, demographics, natural disasters, international politics, terrorism, public mood, etc. The market is certainly a common driver of many of those--or at least an endogeneic one.
A wise captain/crew studies the wind and then determines its next intermediate destination. This ensures the boat keeps moving forward. A naive one's decision-making progresses in the reverse order, and risks getting stranded at sea.
|
On January 04 2018 03:57 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2018 03:49 Adreme wrote:On January 04 2018 03:29 Danglars wrote:On January 04 2018 03:01 TheTenthDoc wrote:
It's not like Trump announced a blanket change in military policy over Twitter to get his other policy goals accomplished and was only overruled by the people under him.
Oh wait, that happened... It sounds like you’re fine on other topics, but when it’s time to let “rocket man” slide ... wait we can’t do it. Why doesn’t Trump stop calling him that! Make him stop!! It’s seriously like saying since words convey messages, we need a unified response that doesn’t take into account differences between trolling, policy proclamations, crowd size or tax cut exaggerations, and feuds. I think the last twenty four hours of posts here signify that y’all reserve the right to lump them all together or treat certain ones differently according to your personal mood or day of the week. No it's a simple philosophy. He is a 70 something year old man actimg like an elementary school student with childish nicknames and schoolyard taunts and aside from it just being pathetic in general it comes from the,leader of the country so now you have a bunch of adults trying to sensibly work things while you have this child stomping his feet and demanding everyone pay attention to him and tell him how great he is and ignore all those other people. You’re stuck with him for three more years, so my advice is to make the best of it. One way is to not treat every tweet like some earth shattering policy change that will doom us all. I didn’t expect to find so much resistance to stating the obvious (that he enjoys the backlash and feeds off it), but whatever. Shitposter clarification: this does not mean you have to like what he does and you can still hate on the overall tweeting product. I give you props for “childish nicknames and schoolyard taunts.” I just got done typing to 2+ people that thought they were indistinguishable/amounted to policy statements and administrative governance. Someone smarter than me should design a 12 step program to not losing your lid on his twitter playground, because admitting you can call a spade a spade is definitely the first or second step in there.
If he wants to act like a toddler more power to him it's the best thingto happen to democrats but I do get why people put an exception as it pertains to NK.
One miscalculation, one mistep, one stupid statement that makes NK feel like it has to fight or lose credibility and a war starts and the BEST case in that war is 10s of millions of people die. Those steaks are just too high to be okay leaving in the handsof an idiot and while I trust that his contribution to NK policy is little more than those twitter it still however small is a risk that could end horribly wrong.
|
On January 04 2018 02:51 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2018 02:42 hunts wrote:On January 04 2018 01:28 Danglars wrote:On January 04 2018 01:07 brian wrote:On January 03 2018 23:28 Danglars wrote:On January 03 2018 23:14 brian wrote:
I’d be angry if he started using racial slurs on the daily too but i don’t think that’s a very good reason to say ‘maybe stop getting so angry about it and he’ll stop.’
he’s the president of the united states, not a high school bully. why would you treat him like one? and do you think treating the president of the united states like a high school bully is truly the best course of action?
you’re pretending to offer counsel and say the obvious question is unwarranted but it’s not. at what point do you stop blaming the liberals? I would’ve imagined this is a bridge too far. No, it is not the liberals fault he can’t help himself from name calling. This would seem to be apparent since he’s been doing it since before he started campaigning. But perhaps it’s not apparent to all. 1. You're pretending to offer counsel. 2. You're really just blaming liberals. 3. It's not liberal's fault he can't help himself from name calling. The logical leaps are very athletic of you. Have you ever engaged on twitter with a twitter troll? Tell me, did responding with outrage and demands to stop ever yield that kind of behavior change you asked for? Do you think repeated demands (I guess you're referring to Pocahontas as some kind of 'racial slur,' but I really have no idea) are likely to get less of the behavior or more of the behavior? what are you even talking about here? like i said, he’s not a twitter troll. he’s not a high school bully. why do you suggest treating him like one? he’s the president. so your honest belief is treating the president of the united states like a high school bully is the best course of action? what logical leaps are you talking about? you said in plain english that you’re trying to offer advice. are you not blaming liberals when you say ‘stop outraging and he’ll stop?’ and lastly yes, it is not the liberals fault he can’t help himself from name calling. is this personal to you? sorry if you were offended by anything i said. but it seems clear you’re blaming liberals here, and so the question remains, when is it//where is the line that you don’t? If he acts like one on social media, you should respond like you're dealing with one on social media. No harm intended personally to you or others. We just disagree on tactics and implications. I don't think dealing with Trump's twitter activities tactically necessarily means liberals are at fault for his actions. But the white house said anything he says over social media is official statement from the president. How would you feel if Obama made a state of the union saying that he has a bigger dick than Kim Jon Un, and then called republicans a bunch of whiny incestuous old white men? If Obama conducted himself on social media just like Trump did and does, I’d say he’s clearly just stirring the pot and stop feeding the troll.
Isn't this a problematic stance, though? Sarah Huckabee Sanders - official White House spokeswoman - has repeatedly referred people to Trump's twitter to find out the White House's stance on tons of issues.
Doesn't that make Trump's twitter an official arm of the White House rather than simply just a place for an incredibly unpleasant man to display how unpleasant he is? And doesn't that mean his bullying tweets have to be taken more seriously than you imply?
|
|
|
The last 72h of tweets and statements make me wonder what Trump' s new years resolution was. It's like he's actively trying to embarrass himself and the country. I guess this makes sense since he never wanted the job, just the press.
Somebody tell him you can still quit. Donald you don't have to wait for impeachment!
|
On January 04 2018 04:42 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2018 02:51 Danglars wrote:On January 04 2018 02:42 hunts wrote:On January 04 2018 01:28 Danglars wrote:On January 04 2018 01:07 brian wrote:On January 03 2018 23:28 Danglars wrote:On January 03 2018 23:14 brian wrote:
I’d be angry if he started using racial slurs on the daily too but i don’t think that’s a very good reason to say ‘maybe stop getting so angry about it and he’ll stop.’
he’s the president of the united states, not a high school bully. why would you treat him like one? and do you think treating the president of the united states like a high school bully is truly the best course of action?
you’re pretending to offer counsel and say the obvious question is unwarranted but it’s not. at what point do you stop blaming the liberals? I would’ve imagined this is a bridge too far. No, it is not the liberals fault he can’t help himself from name calling. This would seem to be apparent since he’s been doing it since before he started campaigning. But perhaps it’s not apparent to all. 1. You're pretending to offer counsel. 2. You're really just blaming liberals. 3. It's not liberal's fault he can't help himself from name calling. The logical leaps are very athletic of you. Have you ever engaged on twitter with a twitter troll? Tell me, did responding with outrage and demands to stop ever yield that kind of behavior change you asked for? Do you think repeated demands (I guess you're referring to Pocahontas as some kind of 'racial slur,' but I really have no idea) are likely to get less of the behavior or more of the behavior? what are you even talking about here? like i said, he’s not a twitter troll. he’s not a high school bully. why do you suggest treating him like one? he’s the president. so your honest belief is treating the president of the united states like a high school bully is the best course of action? what logical leaps are you talking about? you said in plain english that you’re trying to offer advice. are you not blaming liberals when you say ‘stop outraging and he’ll stop?’ and lastly yes, it is not the liberals fault he can’t help himself from name calling. is this personal to you? sorry if you were offended by anything i said. but it seems clear you’re blaming liberals here, and so the question remains, when is it//where is the line that you don’t? If he acts like one on social media, you should respond like you're dealing with one on social media. No harm intended personally to you or others. We just disagree on tactics and implications. I don't think dealing with Trump's twitter activities tactically necessarily means liberals are at fault for his actions. But the white house said anything he says over social media is official statement from the president. How would you feel if Obama made a state of the union saying that he has a bigger dick than Kim Jon Un, and then called republicans a bunch of whiny incestuous old white men? If Obama conducted himself on social media just like Trump did and does, I’d say he’s clearly just stirring the pot and stop feeding the troll. Isn't this a problematic stance, though? Sarah Huckabee Sanders - official White House spokeswoman - has repeatedly referred people to Trump's twitter to find out the White House's stance on tons of issues. Doesn't that make Trump's twitter an official arm of the White House rather than simply just a place for an incredibly unpleasant man to display how unpleasant he is? And doesn't that mean his bullying tweets have to be taken more seriously than you imply?
I’m sure ten minutes of reflection will judge whether a tweet on joe scarborough’s low ratings or Elizabeth Warren’s ancestry reflects a White House stance on FCC policy or the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The public feuds and schoolyard bully antics are pretty obvious ... he’s not pulling off an elaborate deception that’s problematic beyond simply unpresidential.
|
On January 04 2018 05:08 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2018 04:42 iamthedave wrote:On January 04 2018 02:51 Danglars wrote:On January 04 2018 02:42 hunts wrote:On January 04 2018 01:28 Danglars wrote:On January 04 2018 01:07 brian wrote:On January 03 2018 23:28 Danglars wrote:On January 03 2018 23:14 brian wrote:
I’d be angry if he started using racial slurs on the daily too but i don’t think that’s a very good reason to say ‘maybe stop getting so angry about it and he’ll stop.’
he’s the president of the united states, not a high school bully. why would you treat him like one? and do you think treating the president of the united states like a high school bully is truly the best course of action?
you’re pretending to offer counsel and say the obvious question is unwarranted but it’s not. at what point do you stop blaming the liberals? I would’ve imagined this is a bridge too far. No, it is not the liberals fault he can’t help himself from name calling. This would seem to be apparent since he’s been doing it since before he started campaigning. But perhaps it’s not apparent to all. 1. You're pretending to offer counsel. 2. You're really just blaming liberals. 3. It's not liberal's fault he can't help himself from name calling. The logical leaps are very athletic of you. Have you ever engaged on twitter with a twitter troll? Tell me, did responding with outrage and demands to stop ever yield that kind of behavior change you asked for? Do you think repeated demands (I guess you're referring to Pocahontas as some kind of 'racial slur,' but I really have no idea) are likely to get less of the behavior or more of the behavior? what are you even talking about here? like i said, he’s not a twitter troll. he’s not a high school bully. why do you suggest treating him like one? he’s the president. so your honest belief is treating the president of the united states like a high school bully is the best course of action? what logical leaps are you talking about? you said in plain english that you’re trying to offer advice. are you not blaming liberals when you say ‘stop outraging and he’ll stop?’ and lastly yes, it is not the liberals fault he can’t help himself from name calling. is this personal to you? sorry if you were offended by anything i said. but it seems clear you’re blaming liberals here, and so the question remains, when is it//where is the line that you don’t? If he acts like one on social media, you should respond like you're dealing with one on social media. No harm intended personally to you or others. We just disagree on tactics and implications. I don't think dealing with Trump's twitter activities tactically necessarily means liberals are at fault for his actions. But the white house said anything he says over social media is official statement from the president. How would you feel if Obama made a state of the union saying that he has a bigger dick than Kim Jon Un, and then called republicans a bunch of whiny incestuous old white men? If Obama conducted himself on social media just like Trump did and does, I’d say he’s clearly just stirring the pot and stop feeding the troll. Isn't this a problematic stance, though? Sarah Huckabee Sanders - official White House spokeswoman - has repeatedly referred people to Trump's twitter to find out the White House's stance on tons of issues. Doesn't that make Trump's twitter an official arm of the White House rather than simply just a place for an incredibly unpleasant man to display how unpleasant he is? And doesn't that mean his bullying tweets have to be taken more seriously than you imply? I’m sure ten minutes of reflection will judge whether a tweet on joe scarborough’s low ratings or Elizabeth Warren’s ancestry reflects a White House stance on FCC policy or the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The public feuds and schoolyard bully antics are pretty obvious ... he’s not pulling off an elaborate deception that’s problematic beyond simply unpresidential.
Has North Korea escalated its actions in part because of Trump's insults?
|
I'm curious if Danglars thinks he would have made the same sort of argument about how to treat a presidents tweets if it was Obama tweeting bullying statements to/about people/groups he doesn't like (let's not pretend he doesn't make these statements outside of twitter as well).
Personally I think it would look a lot more like everything he's complaining liberals are doing.
|
On January 04 2018 05:13 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2018 05:08 Danglars wrote:On January 04 2018 04:42 iamthedave wrote:On January 04 2018 02:51 Danglars wrote:On January 04 2018 02:42 hunts wrote:On January 04 2018 01:28 Danglars wrote:On January 04 2018 01:07 brian wrote:On January 03 2018 23:28 Danglars wrote:On January 03 2018 23:14 brian wrote:
I’d be angry if he started using racial slurs on the daily too but i don’t think that’s a very good reason to say ‘maybe stop getting so angry about it and he’ll stop.’
he’s the president of the united states, not a high school bully. why would you treat him like one? and do you think treating the president of the united states like a high school bully is truly the best course of action?
you’re pretending to offer counsel and say the obvious question is unwarranted but it’s not. at what point do you stop blaming the liberals? I would’ve imagined this is a bridge too far. No, it is not the liberals fault he can’t help himself from name calling. This would seem to be apparent since he’s been doing it since before he started campaigning. But perhaps it’s not apparent to all. 1. You're pretending to offer counsel. 2. You're really just blaming liberals. 3. It's not liberal's fault he can't help himself from name calling. The logical leaps are very athletic of you. Have you ever engaged on twitter with a twitter troll? Tell me, did responding with outrage and demands to stop ever yield that kind of behavior change you asked for? Do you think repeated demands (I guess you're referring to Pocahontas as some kind of 'racial slur,' but I really have no idea) are likely to get less of the behavior or more of the behavior? what are you even talking about here? like i said, he’s not a twitter troll. he’s not a high school bully. why do you suggest treating him like one? he’s the president. so your honest belief is treating the president of the united states like a high school bully is the best course of action? what logical leaps are you talking about? you said in plain english that you’re trying to offer advice. are you not blaming liberals when you say ‘stop outraging and he’ll stop?’ and lastly yes, it is not the liberals fault he can’t help himself from name calling. is this personal to you? sorry if you were offended by anything i said. but it seems clear you’re blaming liberals here, and so the question remains, when is it//where is the line that you don’t? If he acts like one on social media, you should respond like you're dealing with one on social media. No harm intended personally to you or others. We just disagree on tactics and implications. I don't think dealing with Trump's twitter activities tactically necessarily means liberals are at fault for his actions. But the white house said anything he says over social media is official statement from the president. How would you feel if Obama made a state of the union saying that he has a bigger dick than Kim Jon Un, and then called republicans a bunch of whiny incestuous old white men? If Obama conducted himself on social media just like Trump did and does, I’d say he’s clearly just stirring the pot and stop feeding the troll. Isn't this a problematic stance, though? Sarah Huckabee Sanders - official White House spokeswoman - has repeatedly referred people to Trump's twitter to find out the White House's stance on tons of issues. Doesn't that make Trump's twitter an official arm of the White House rather than simply just a place for an incredibly unpleasant man to display how unpleasant he is? And doesn't that mean his bullying tweets have to be taken more seriously than you imply? I’m sure ten minutes of reflection will judge whether a tweet on joe scarborough’s low ratings or Elizabeth Warren’s ancestry reflects a White House stance on FCC policy or the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The public feuds and schoolyard bully antics are pretty obvious ... he’s not pulling off an elaborate deception that’s problematic beyond simply unpresidential. Has North Korea escalated its actions in part because of Trump's insults?
I mean they did just ask for a dialogue with South Korea. Mixed reactions. If they don’t nuke us or South Korea/Japan in the next three years for Trump calling him “rocket man,” will you be surprised, disappointed, other?
|
|
|
On January 04 2018 05:22 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm curious if Danglars thinks he would have made the same sort of argument about how to treat a presidents tweets if it was Obama tweeting bullying statements to/about people/groups he doesn't like (let's not pretend he doesn't make these statements outside of twitter as well).
Personally I think it would look a lot more like everything he's complaining liberals are doing.
Are you confusing support for those activities vs appropriate response to those activities? I just answered less than five posts ago almost the same question. You think I’m cheering Trump on or something? Rofl.
|
Pretty meaningless if we don't know what he is suing over.
|
On January 04 2018 05:28 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2018 05:22 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm curious if Danglars thinks he would have made the same sort of argument about how to treat a presidents tweets if it was Obama tweeting bullying statements to/about people/groups he doesn't like (let's not pretend he doesn't make these statements outside of twitter as well).
Personally I think it would look a lot more like everything he's complaining liberals are doing. Are you confusing support for those activities vs appropriate response to those activities? I just answered less than five posts ago almost the same question. You think I’m cheering Trump on or something? Rofl.
No, I'm wondering if you think you would suggest to ignore Obama doing the same thing? I think you know you wouldn't.
I think we all know that if Obama acted like that you wouldn't be treating it the same way, but I'm curious if you'd admit it.
|
|
|
|
|
On January 04 2018 05:31 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2018 05:28 Danglars wrote:On January 04 2018 05:22 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm curious if Danglars thinks he would have made the same sort of argument about how to treat a presidents tweets if it was Obama tweeting bullying statements to/about people/groups he doesn't like (let's not pretend he doesn't make these statements outside of twitter as well).
Personally I think it would look a lot more like everything he's complaining liberals are doing. Are you confusing support for those activities vs appropriate response to those activities? I just answered less than five posts ago almost the same question. You think I’m cheering Trump on or something? Rofl. No, I'm wondering if you think you would suggest to ignore Obama doing the same thing? I think you know you wouldn't. I think we all know that if Obama acted like that you wouldn't be treating it the same way, but I'm curious if you'd admit it.
Yeah just answered that question.
|
...
judge throws it out after looking at it for 5 minutes and life goes on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
