Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On May 10 2019 05:43 NewSunshine wrote: I mean, I'm honestly curious. How would Danglars and xDaunt feel if Obama went to a rally, filled with people who clearly support him, and someone joked about shooting Christians, and his response was to mildly joke about what that person said? Would you honestly feel he went far enough to ridicule the idea? You would want someone in such a clear position of authority to send a clear message that he wouldn't tolerate such heinous ideas, would you not?
I'm serious here. Take a minute and do some reflection. Within minutes you'd have people all over the internet saying that's unacceptable. You guys know that. But do you care?
See, I find this to be a particularly stupid and insulting question. It should be obvious from my posting history that I don't bother bitching about trivial shit like this. It's generally beneath me. And believe me, there is no shortage of stupid jokes and other public faux pas that democrats have made that I could bring up around here. Long story short, don't project your love affair of the trivial upon others, and especially not me.
i get the sentiment and if you’ll let me i’ll put some words in your mouth in the sense that in parading around similar failures, at the very least, we would all then agree they’re faux pas. or some people may choose to try to defend the democrats respective faux pas(though i would like to think i would not be one of them.)
if i’m off base, i’m sorry.
also i just realized i have no idea how to pluralize faux pas. google says it’s already plural, like moose. in case anyone else needed to learn that too.
My point is the following: regardless of whether what Trump said is actually a faux pas, who really gives a fuck? It's not informative. It's not interesting. It's not going to change anyone's mind about Trump. This is why I don't bother bringing up similar shit that Democrats say/do.
As I have pointed out many times in this thread over the past few years, Democrats and liberals have demonstrated a real problem with being able to discern between important grounds to attack Trump on and trivial grounds to attack Trump on. Most people simply tune it all out now.
Idk did you think Obama’s association with Rev. Wright and his Chicago church community was a big deal? I’m not saying you did but plenty of people who watched Fox News did.
I thought that Obama's association with Rev. Wright and other radicals was a big deal worth discussing as it pertained to his world view and how he was likely to act as president. There's a big difference between the significance of the comments of the pastor at the church that you have been attending for 20+ years and and the significance of the comment of some random guy at your campaign rally.
So I'm sure you were pleasantly surprised he threw him under the bus and perpetuated the policies Rev Wright was critiquing in the notorious "God Damn America!" video?
Here's the video for anyone doesn't remember (or only the "god damn america" part):
On May 10 2019 07:22 Plansix wrote: As someone who attended church for 20 years, the pastor of the church had zero impact on my world views. Now the people at the church, like my grandparents, they mattered. And were also smarter and better read than both of the pastors. And we spent a good chunk of time complaining about those pastors, because that is what you do at church. Given my experience, I find it doubtful that the pastor at the church has negligible impact on Obama's world views, especially given Obama's impressive education and accomplishments.
But man, it does make for an impressive line of attack, to think that Obama was taking this guys counsel for all this time. I can see why Fox News latched on. Not really seeing how anyone of substance believed it, however.
plenty of pastors are widely admired, respected, and heeded by their congregants.
if you don’t think people’s associates matter please shut up now and forever about commenters at trump rallies
On May 10 2019 07:22 Plansix wrote: As someone who attended church for 20 years, the pastor of the church had zero impact on my world views. Now the people at the church, like my grandparents, they mattered. And were also smarter and better read than both of the pastors. And we spent a good chunk of time complaining about those pastors, because that is what you do at church. Given my experience, I find it doubtful that the pastor at the church has negligible impact on Obama's world views, especially given Obama's impressive education and accomplishments.
But man, it does make for an impressive line of attack, to think that Obama was taking this guys counsel for all this time. I can see why Fox News latched on. Not really seeing how anyone of substance believed it, however.
plenty of pastors are widely admired, respected, and heeded by their congregants.
if you don’t think people’s associates matter please shut up now and forever about commenters at trump rallies
You missed the point. Plenty are not and people still attend services. That pastor was likely not the reason the Obamas attended that church.
On May 10 2019 05:43 NewSunshine wrote: I mean, I'm honestly curious. How would Danglars and xDaunt feel if Obama went to a rally, filled with people who clearly support him, and someone joked about shooting Christians, and his response was to mildly joke about what that person said? Would you honestly feel he went far enough to ridicule the idea? You would want someone in such a clear position of authority to send a clear message that he wouldn't tolerate such heinous ideas, would you not?
I'm serious here. Take a minute and do some reflection. Within minutes you'd have people all over the internet saying that's unacceptable. You guys know that. But do you care?
See, I find this to be a particularly stupid and insulting question. It should be obvious from my posting history that I don't bother bitching about trivial shit like this. It's generally beneath me. And believe me, there is no shortage of stupid jokes and other public faux pas that democrats have made that I could bring up around here. Long story short, don't project your love affair of the trivial upon others, and especially not me.
i get the sentiment and if you’ll let me i’ll put some words in your mouth in the sense that in parading around similar failures, at the very least, we would all then agree they’re faux pas. or some people may choose to try to defend the democrats respective faux pas(though i would like to think i would not be one of them.)
if i’m off base, i’m sorry.
also i just realized i have no idea how to pluralize faux pas. google says it’s already plural, like moose. in case anyone else needed to learn that too.
My point is the following: regardless of whether what Trump said is actually a faux pas, who really gives a fuck? It's not informative. It's not interesting. It's not going to change anyone's mind about Trump. This is why I don't bother bringing up similar shit that Democrats say/do.
As I have pointed out many times in this thread over the past few years, Democrats and liberals have demonstrated a real problem with being able to discern between important grounds to attack Trump on and trivial grounds to attack Trump on. Most people simply tune it all out now.
Is this the same disconnect we had when he spoke about having "the real tough guys" behind him that weren't being tough, and the next day some tough guy kills dozens in NZ, listing Trump as an inspiration?
You certainly don't need to resort to Trump's rallygoers to find people he associates with who are morally depraved. In fact, pretty much everyone around him, throughout his career, is a clown and/or a morally depraved villain.
On May 10 2019 07:40 IgnE wrote: Rev. Wright was/is a pretty popular guy with a thriving church. Why do you think all the cool people went to his church?
Obama was a community organizer before he took office and that church was quite popular. He may have liked its location in relation to their home or knew other families that attended. I can think of endless reason that would have made him pick that church. But the reality is they are all likely factors.
And the idea that a single pastor would have impressive amounts of sway over Obama over all the other people in his life is an intellectually bankrupt argument, anyways. The man attended Harvard and read and was exposed far more subversive thinkers. A single, justifiably angry black pastor from Chicago isnt going to make much of a dent.
But man, it would make good B-roll on Fox News. Right next to the time Obama saluted while holding a coffee cup.
On May 10 2019 07:40 IgnE wrote: Rev. Wright was/is a pretty popular guy with a thriving church. Why do you think all the cool people went to his church?
Obama was a community organizer before he took office and that church was quite popular. He may have liked its location in relation to their home or knew other families that attended. I can think of endless reason that would have made him pick that church. But the reality is they are all likely factors.
And the idea that a single pastor would have impressive amounts of sway over Obama over all the other people in his life is an intellectually bankrupt argument, anyways. The man attended Harvard and read and was exposed far more subversive thinkers. A single, justifiably angry black pastor from Chicago isnt going to make much of a dent.
But man, it would make good B-roll on Fox News. Right next to the time Obama saluted while holding a coffee cup.
Well luckily no one was making that argument. The argument was more like “birds of a feather flock together.”
On May 10 2019 07:40 IgnE wrote: Rev. Wright was/is a pretty popular guy with a thriving church. Why do you think all the cool people went to his church?
Obama was a community organizer before he took office and that church was quite popular. He may have liked its location in relation to their home or knew other families that attended. I can think of endless reason that would have made him pick that church. But the reality is they are all likely factors.
And the idea that a single pastor would have impressive amounts of sway over Obama over all the other people in his life is an intellectually bankrupt argument, anyways. The man attended Harvard and read and was exposed far more subversive thinkers. A single, justifiably angry black pastor from Chicago isnt going to make much of a dent.
But man, it would make good B-roll on Fox News. Right next to the time Obama saluted while holding a coffee cup.
Well luckily no one was making that argument. The argument was more like “birds of a feather flock together.”
Guiltily by association is a pretty shit argument, especially if the only thing the pastor did is give some sermons that are highly critical of America. My old church was pretty conservative. I am not.
Maybe a minor point but that's not what guilt by association means. If that was what it meant, guilt by association would be a totally justified argument. Who you associate with can and does say things about you.
On May 10 2019 05:00 brian wrote: i don’t know if i’m crazy. i find all these jokes funny, including the presidents joke. i just think the president under no circumstances should make these jokes in the capacity of president.
if it was at his dinner table that would be something different.
I'm talking about the dude in the crowd. I understand how Trump's response works.
My issue with Trump's response is that because I can't see how the dude in the crowd could possibly not have been serious, I would have expected a serious answer rather than a joke to defuse the situation.
Trump has a history of ignoring/normalizing the extreme. Don't forget Trump is a birther youtube.com/watch?v=M0u3QJrtgEM Where McCain wouldn't stand for such lies and conspiracy theory bullshit, Trump used it as his platform.
The current demand for fascists exceeds the supply of fascists, so people rebrand more and more things as fascistic.
Then some people pretend the ones they branded white supremacist/fascist/racists need to come back into the fold for the good of the country. Trump’s small potatoes when it comes to tearing the country apart. He couldn’t do a better job than Democratic leadership & media allies if he tried.
On May 10 2019 10:39 Danglars wrote: The current demand for fascists exceeds the supply of fascists, so people rebrand more and more things as fascistic.
Then some people pretend the ones they branded white supremacist/fascist/racists need to come back into the fold for the good of the country. Trump’s small potatoes when it comes to tearing the country apart. He couldn’t do a better job than Democratic leadership & media allies if he tried.
Who told you that Trump's GOP? Trump's platform for demonizing "the left" long existed before the democrats became more enamored by less centeriests views in their own party. Trump's constant persecution complex while setting up group as "enemies with-in" shares much more similarities with a fascist than any us president i know of.
The difference isn't so much that the overall actions are domestically different it's the drop of any preface that people who aren't in your group are still people that are the same as you.
On May 10 2019 10:39 Danglars wrote: The current demand for fascists exceeds the supply of fascists, so people rebrand more and more things as fascistic.
Then some people pretend the ones they branded white supremacist/fascist/racists need to come back into the fold for the good of the country. Trump’s small potatoes when it comes to tearing the country apart. He couldn’t do a better job than Democratic leadership & media allies if he tried.
What does fascism mean to you, and how are you able to clearly tell the difference between that and what we are being supplied?
Judge Amit Mehta plans next week to weigh the major legal issues raised in President Donald Trump's challenge of a congressional subpoena for his accounting firm's records, according to an order issued Thursday -- putting the case on an even faster track than it previously looked to be.
Congress has subpoenaed Trump and his business' accounting records from the firm Mazars USA, and Trump's personal legal team sued to stop the records from being turned over.
A hearing is now scheduled for May 14.
Previously, the case was set up so that Mehta, a nominee of President Barack Obama, would consider it in multiple stages, beginning next week -- which could have lengthened out the legal fight and held off Congress from getting the records.
There was a lot of expectation that Trump's legal team would try and drag this case out as much as possible, but it appears at least so far, that tactic is unlikely to work as well as they would like.
To me, this signifies that, at least in this case, the legal system is not happy with Trump's attempts to subvert the systems of oversight put in place. Given that Trump and his children are essentially asking financial institutions and services they've used to ignore a law that the Ways and Means Committee is citing, I can see judges, both conservative and liberal, not going along with the Trumps' argument since it would more or less imply that they don't have to follow the same rules everyone else does.
On May 10 2019 10:39 Danglars wrote: The current demand for fascists exceeds the supply of fascists, so people rebrand more and more things as fascistic.
Then some people pretend the ones they branded white supremacist/fascist/racists need to come back into the fold for the good of the country. Trump’s small potatoes when it comes to tearing the country apart. He couldn’t do a better job than Democratic leadership & media allies if he tried.
What does fascism mean to you, and how are you able to clearly tell the difference between that and what we are being supplied?
The further left you go the more things you brand as fascist. Go back to Bill Clintons 1995 SOTU and hear his tough talk on “Illegal aliens” and strengthening the borders.
The irony now democrat supporters and the silicon valley social media giants censorship of viewpoints they disagree with.The overton window is not where you think it is, thats why Trump won.Less authoriatianism all round would be good, more debate less censorship.
The internet is poorer than it was 10-15 years back due to the decline of forums like this and the rise of twitter and facebook in their place.My opinion but many agree.
EPT
