Author Topic: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting  (Read 34735 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19233
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1715 on: December 06, 2017, 12:05:51 PM »
This might not be the place for it but I really wish fuckin Hillary would shut the fuck up and take a step back from the headlines. The more she graces us with her fuckin opinions, all of which we already know, they more Trump and his supporters have room to do their "But Hillary!" routine. I didn't vote for Hillary and I don't know anyone who voted for her because they like her, she shouldn't be a counter-argument any more but her uninvited presence makes her an almost-valid one.

I use the "but Hilllary!" a lot, and frankly, I'm not going to stop, because I feel like a LOT - not all - of the "Never Trump!" nonsense is a matter of political ideology and nothing more.  The Left has systematically made what used to be political arguments into moral ones.  The ACA isn't good because it's economically efficient, or cuts cost, or provides for better outcomes.  It's because "it's the right thing to do!".  It may be, but so is free handjobs, and we're not arguing for that.   When the repeal and replace came up, the argument wasn't "well, how are we going to make those that choose to opt out more likely to opt IN?"; instead it was framed as "taking away healthcare from millions!".   No, it was giving them the choice.   Hillary didn't say "well, there's a certain number of Trump supporters that aren't interested in identity politics in any way, shape or form, and those people aren't going to vote for me.".  No, she said "deplorable".     

If you're going to make every argument a moral one, then by god, your morals ought to be up to the scrutiny, and shamefully, they're not.
Uh, I've been arguing for that for years. Blowjobs, actually, but same difference. That is what would lower healthcare costs in this country, not more access to meds and CT scans.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 16385
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1716 on: December 06, 2017, 12:08:19 PM »
Lower mass shootings as well, everyone needs that release now and then from a handy or blowy.

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 19380
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1717 on: December 06, 2017, 12:32:00 PM »
Probably less road rage and bar fights too.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19233
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1718 on: December 06, 2017, 12:34:00 PM »
Increase workplace productivity. Lower alcohol consumption. Probably would have prevented a few wars. Lower instances of STDs and unwanted pregnancies. Could be a real gamechanger for humanity. But, eh, God says no.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2739
  • Hard-hearted harbinger of haggis
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1719 on: December 06, 2017, 12:37:05 PM »
Well, it's more of a different kind of swamp.  :lol
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline XeRocks81

  • Posts: 394
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1720 on: December 06, 2017, 12:49:48 PM »
Calling half the country a bunch of moochers is being honest and to be applauded, but Hillary saying half of Trump voters being motivated by prejudice is wrong?
I believe his point is that explaining why one is the case is better than just saying "eh, they're assholes." For the record I think you've raised a very good point and I'm on your side here, but his distinction is quite valid.

I get it and don't think it's invalid per se, but still, Romney made a whole ton of assumptions about people's beliefs JUST like Hillary did (they're content with leeching off the government, content to do nothing, greedy and want nothing but free handouts etc.). They're no better. Rather than getting people to justify one side I was trying to make the point that both of them said incredibly stupid, shortsighted things about an enormous swathe of their opponent's base of, and that if someone lambasts one of them over it, the other should get the same treatment. And I didn't bring it up just to argue -- what Romney said there was a massive turn-off for me in 2012, although I wasn't a fan of his to begin with, that statement officially put me off from even considering a vote for him, and I know Stadler enjoys a bit of Mitt now and again so I wanted his input on that. Don't want to sound like an asshole, just wanted to clear that up :) I disagree with Stadler's subjective views of Romney (showers him with praise) and Clinton (showers her with blame and scorn). I don't know how both can say things like that but one is honest and the other is not. Does not compute. Romney isn't much better than Clinton. I remember his 2012 campaign. Smug. As. Hell.

That's not really what he said.  He said "THEY'RE NOT GOING TO VOTE FOR ME".  He didn't make any moral judgments as to them or their worth or their societal wellbeing.   She didn't make any such clarifications.  She said they were DEPLORABLE, a moral judgment that goes to their character and worth as human beings.

47% full quote:
Quote
There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. And I mean, the president starts off with 48, 49, 48—he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn’t connect. And he’ll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean that’s what they sell every four years. And so my job is not to worry about those people—I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. What I have to do is convince the 5 to 10 percent in the center that are independents that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or the other depending upon in some cases emotion, whether they like the guy or not, what it looks like.
This is more than just "they won't vote for me". 47% of people in USA believe they are victims, and are not taking personal responsibility and care for their lives, per this quote. 47% of people. It's understandable why he'd make the generalisation appealing to his donors, but let's not pretend there are no judgements in there. If he had just said "47% of the country don't pay federal income tax, so our message of low taxes probably won't reach them so they probably won't vote for me", I don't think it'd generate more than a single headline or two.

Deplorables full quote:
Quote
You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people — now how 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks — they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America. But the other basket — and I know this because I see friends from all over America here — I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas — as well as, you know, New York and California — but that other basket of people are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they’re just desperate for change.
You're right that Clinton's makes more direct and intense judgements of people - of people that are racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic. Saying someone is irredeemable is pretty bad, though it applies to "some" racists, sexists, homophobes, xenophobes, Islamaphobes - something I'd find hard to argue with. She generalises to "half of Trump's supporters" being those things, which might be offensive since that's a large number of people - but funnily enough if you're not one of the racists, sexists, hopophobes, xenophobes or Islamophobes, I don't see why it would offend you. If Clinton had said "Every Trump supporter is an irredeemable deplorable" I'd agree it's as bad or worse than Romney's, but unlike Romney who lumped the essentially the entirety of the population who didn't support him into his crude generalisation, Clinton actually did try to make a clarification between her crude generalisation of the supporters she believed couldn't be reached (there's no point trying to reach to someone voting for Trump because they believe he will be better for racists, sexists and homophobia) and ones that it didn't apply to.

Both cost them by galvanising the people they made the generalisations about (the entitled, the deplorable) and making them seem out of touch with the issues important to the people that they could maybe have convinced. Romney's was the one that made sweeping judgements of more people though - Clinton's statement actually gave an out to Trump supporters who wanted change, were let down by the government, the economy, etc. Counting yourself among "the deplorables" despite that would be basically saying "Forget change, I'm just here for the xenophobia."


similar points have been made to Stadler many times, on various forums.  He... has a differrent take  ;)

Offline XeRocks81

  • Posts: 394
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1721 on: December 06, 2017, 12:53:55 PM »
This might not be the place for it but I really wish fuckin Hillary would shut the fuck up and take a step back from the headlines. The more she graces us with her fuckin opinions, all of which we already know, they more Trump and his supporters have room to do their "But Hillary!" routine. I didn't vote for Hillary and I don't know anyone who voted for her because they like her, she shouldn't be a counter-argument any more but her uninvited presence makes her an almost-valid one.

I use the "but Hilllary!" a lot, and frankly, I'm not going to stop, because I feel like a LOT - not all - of the "Never Trump!" nonsense is a matter of political ideology and nothing more.  The Left has systematically made what used to be political arguments into moral ones.  The ACA isn't good because it's economically efficient, or cuts cost, or provides for better outcomes.  It's because "it's the right thing to do!".  It may be, but so is free handjobs, and we're not arguing for that.   When the repeal and replace came up, the argument wasn't "well, how are we going to make those that choose to opt out more likely to opt IN?"; instead it was framed as "taking away healthcare from millions!".   No, it was giving them the choice.   Hillary didn't say "well, there's a certain number of Trump supporters that aren't interested in identity politics in any way, shape or form, and those people aren't going to vote for me.".  No, she said "deplorable".     

If you're going to make every argument a moral one, then by god, your morals ought to be up to the scrutiny, and shamefully, they're not.

You can disagree healthcare is a moral question, but it has nothing with the morality of the person talking about it.  That’s absurd.

Offline Progmetty

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6454
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1722 on: December 06, 2017, 01:19:56 PM »
I use the "but Hilllary!" a lot, and frankly, I'm not going to stop, because I feel like a LOT - not all - of the "Never Trump!" nonsense is a matter of political ideology and nothing more.  The Left has systematically made what used to be political arguments into moral ones.

That's a prime example of why I think she should go away, you're instinctively bundling Hillary's agenda with the left and it couldn't be further off.
And I know this might be nit-picking but "Never Trump" was actually a conservative movement, not liberal or leftist. It can't be based on political ideology and nothing more, cause you gotta face it; the man is ridiculously incompetent, talks shit all the time regardless of the consequence and has no respect for the weight of the job.
I was actually alarmed last week when there were rumors Rex Tillerson was getting fired cause I had some level of security knowing he's the last level minded person in the WH. We're talking about a guy from the same party with whom I disagree.
Hillary definitely is not the symbol or the face of opposition to Trump. She and Trump supporters like to think so but I believe that's nowhere near the truth.
I wouldn't want somebody with 18 kids to mow my damn lawn, based on a longstanding bias I have against crazy fucks.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19233
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1723 on: December 06, 2017, 09:38:34 PM »
Since Grabby made this lady's death a key to his campaign I'll leave this here. An essay written by an alternate juror in the Kate Steinle murder trial explaining why the jury voted for acquittal (much to the boy president's chagrin). Makes a lot of sense, really.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/12/06/kate-steinle-murder-trial-jury-didnt-botch-216016
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5196
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1724 on: December 06, 2017, 11:34:32 PM »
Fair assessment, and as someone who didn't follow the trial, I can jump on board. Sounds like the DA over-reached with the charges?

I do find fault with one thing, however, where she says the defendant "accidentally caused it [the gun] to fire." To me (a non-gun owner), and lots of people who support the right to own firearms, there isn't such a thing. If the gun is in your hands and it goes off, you should be held responsible for whatever the discharged bullet does.

I can also be spared the "As a scared, homeless man wanted by immigration enforcement..." So yeah, come in to a country repeatedly, and get deported repeatedly, should be scared of immigration enforcement. Let's not make him out to be a victim here.
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19233
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1725 on: December 07, 2017, 08:09:36 AM »
Fair assessment, and as someone who didn't follow the trial, I can jump on board. Sounds like the DA over-reached with the charges?

I do find fault with one thing, however, where she says the defendant "accidentally caused it [the gun] to fire." To me (a non-gun owner), and lots of people who support the right to own firearms, there isn't such a thing. If the gun is in your hands and it goes off, you should be held responsible for whatever the discharged bullet does.

I can also be spared the "As a scared, homeless man wanted by immigration enforcement..." So yeah, come in to a country repeatedly, and get deported repeatedly, should be scared of immigration enforcement. Let's not make him out to be a victim here.
In a general sense I think I would agree with your second paragraph. However, I think the person should have to know they're holding a gun in their hands, and the jury decided he did not. If I UPS a loaded gun to you and in the process of opening an unknown package with unknown contents it goes off, is it still your fault?

As for the third paragraph, the point was to explain why he dumped the heater in the river. Not to garner sympathy. I honestly think you're reaching there.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 10556
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1726 on: December 07, 2017, 08:39:53 AM »
My issue with the article. Jose Ines Garcia Zarate is described as an 'undocumented immigrant'. No, he was here illegally for the sixth time....deported five times and was evading for his sixth.

Other than that the article is very well thought out and explains it perfectly. Did the guy kill her on purpose? Nope. But he was here illegally....again.....and she's dead because of it.
Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19233
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1727 on: December 07, 2017, 09:20:09 AM »
The guy's immigration status had nothing whatsoever to do with the shooting, outside of the president's tiny mind. No sensible person would feel differently if she were accidentally shot by the good ole American variety of bum, and it certainly has no basis in the trial. In fact, if I'm not mistaken the prosecution purposely left that completely out of the trial, and rightly so.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 10165
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1728 on: December 07, 2017, 10:14:18 AM »
Calling half the country a bunch of moochers is being honest and to be applauded, but Hillary saying half of Trump voters being motivated by prejudice is wrong?
I believe his point is that explaining why one is the case is better than just saying "eh, they're assholes." For the record I think you've raised a very good point and I'm on your side here, but his distinction is quite valid.

I get it and don't think it's invalid per se, but still, Romney made a whole ton of assumptions about people's beliefs JUST like Hillary did (they're content with leeching off the government, content to do nothing, greedy and want nothing but free handouts etc.). They're no better. Rather than getting people to justify one side I was trying to make the point that both of them said incredibly stupid, shortsighted things about an enormous swathe of their opponent's base of, and that if someone lambasts one of them over it, the other should get the same treatment. And I didn't bring it up just to argue -- what Romney said there was a massive turn-off for me in 2012, although I wasn't a fan of his to begin with, that statement officially put me off from even considering a vote for him, and I know Stadler enjoys a bit of Mitt now and again so I wanted his input on that. Don't want to sound like an asshole, just wanted to clear that up :) I disagree with Stadler's subjective views of Romney (showers him with praise) and Clinton (showers her with blame and scorn). I don't know how both can say things like that but one is honest and the other is not. Does not compute. Romney isn't much better than Clinton. I remember his 2012 campaign. Smug. As. Hell.

That's not really what he said.  He said "THEY'RE NOT GOING TO VOTE FOR ME".  He didn't make any moral judgments as to them or their worth or their societal wellbeing.   She didn't make any such clarifications.  She said they were DEPLORABLE, a moral judgment that goes to their character and worth as human beings.

He absolutely did make a moral judgment on them. Did you hear the audio (I'm sure you did)? He was excessively condescending. All but directly, he called them lazy, entitled moochers. He made a sweeping generalization about their beliefs. He may not have said deplorable, but he implied all the same that these people were not only not going to vote for him, but that they always have their hands out begging to be handed everything. I think it's splitting hairs to try to justify one over the other. They're both shitty generalizations to make about a massive group of Americans. Full stop.

Here is the quote: 
"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it -- that that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. ... These are people who pay no income tax. ... [M]y job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

Almost every one of those statements is a provable fact.   There is no mention of "lazy".  No mention of "moochers" (great word, though!).  No mention of any name-calling or moral judgment.  He doesn't say whether that entitlement is "good", or "bad", and in fact, he actually agrees with them to a point:  "And the government should give it to them."


Offline Podaar

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5529
  • Gender: Male
  • Looks like Fish, tastes like chicken
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1729 on: December 07, 2017, 10:19:02 AM »
He doesn't say whether that entitlement is "good", or "bad", and in fact, he actually agrees with them to a point:  "And the government should give it to them."

I can't tell if you are serious or not, but I'm pretty sure that's not what Mitt meant in this context. He wasn't stating his opinion, but the 47%'s opinion.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19233
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1730 on: December 07, 2017, 10:19:30 AM »
Within the context of the rest of the quote I believe "and the government should give it to them" is a continuation of their thinking and not an agreement on his part. Moreover he essentially goes with "fuck'em" with the last part. There's no way that wasn't denigrating to the people in the 47%.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 10165
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1731 on: December 07, 2017, 10:19:54 AM »
Calling half the country a bunch of moochers is being honest and to be applauded, but Hillary saying half of Trump voters being motivated by prejudice is wrong?
I believe his point is that explaining why one is the case is better than just saying "eh, they're assholes." For the record I think you've raised a very good point and I'm on your side here, but his distinction is quite valid.

I get it and don't think it's invalid per se, but still, Romney made a whole ton of assumptions about people's beliefs JUST like Hillary did (they're content with leeching off the government, content to do nothing, greedy and want nothing but free handouts etc.). They're no better. Rather than getting people to justify one side I was trying to make the point that both of them said incredibly stupid, shortsighted things about an enormous swathe of their opponent's base of, and that if someone lambasts one of them over it, the other should get the same treatment. And I didn't bring it up just to argue -- what Romney said there was a massive turn-off for me in 2012, although I wasn't a fan of his to begin with, that statement officially put me off from even considering a vote for him, and I know Stadler enjoys a bit of Mitt now and again so I wanted his input on that. Don't want to sound like an asshole, just wanted to clear that up :) I disagree with Stadler's subjective views of Romney (showers him with praise) and Clinton (showers her with blame and scorn). I don't know how both can say things like that but one is honest and the other is not. Does not compute. Romney isn't much better than Clinton. I remember his 2012 campaign. Smug. As. Hell.

That's not really what he said.  He said "THEY'RE NOT GOING TO VOTE FOR ME".  He didn't make any moral judgments as to them or their worth or their societal wellbeing.   She didn't make any such clarifications.  She said they were DEPLORABLE, a moral judgment that goes to their character and worth as human beings.

47% full quote:
Quote
There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. And I mean, the president starts off with 48, 49, 48—he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn’t connect. And he’ll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean that’s what they sell every four years. And so my job is not to worry about those people—I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. What I have to do is convince the 5 to 10 percent in the center that are independents that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or the other depending upon in some cases emotion, whether they like the guy or not, what it looks like.
This is more than just "they won't vote for me". 47% of people in USA believe they are victims, and are not taking personal responsibility and care for their lives, per this quote. 47% of people. It's understandable why he'd make the generalisation appealing to his donors, but let's not pretend there are no judgements in there. If he had just said "47% of the country don't pay federal income tax, so our message of low taxes probably won't reach them so they probably won't vote for me", I don't think it'd generate more than a single headline or two.

Deplorables full quote:
Quote
You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people — now how 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks — they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America. But the other basket — and I know this because I see friends from all over America here — I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas — as well as, you know, New York and California — but that other basket of people are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they’re just desperate for change.
You're right that Clinton's makes more direct and intense judgements of people - of people that are racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic. Saying someone is irredeemable is pretty bad, though it applies to "some" racists, sexists, homophobes, xenophobes, Islamaphobes - something I'd find hard to argue with. She generalises to "half of Trump's supporters" being those things, which might be offensive since that's a large number of people - but funnily enough if you're not one of the racists, sexists, hopophobes, xenophobes or Islamophobes, I don't see why it would offend you. If Clinton had said "Every Trump supporter is an irredeemable deplorable" I'd agree it's as bad or worse than Romney's, but unlike Romney who lumped the essentially the entirety of the population who didn't support him into his crude generalisation, Clinton actually did try to make a clarification between her crude generalisation of the supporters she believed couldn't be reached (there's no point trying to reach to someone voting for Trump because they believe he will be better for racists, sexists and homophobia) and ones that it didn't apply to.

Both cost them by galvanising the people they made the generalisations about (the entitled, the deplorable) and making them seem out of touch with the issues important to the people that they could maybe have convinced. Romney's was the one that made sweeping judgements of more people though - Clinton's statement actually gave an out to Trump supporters who wanted change, were let down by the government, the economy, etc. Counting yourself among "the deplorables" despite that would be basically saying "Forget change, I'm just here for the xenophobia."

Look, I disagree with your analysis.  The 47% is documentable.  "Half of Trump supporters" is not.  But most importantly - and why I make the distinction - look at the focus and framing of the statements.

Hillary:  "THEM".  THEY.  They are DEPLORABLE and IRREDEEMABLE.  No self-reflection, no accountability for that, no culpability.

Romney:   States the facts, then takes FULL responsibility:  "I'LL NEVER CONVINCE THEM."   Not that they should come to this conclusion on their own, or that they are unchangeable, or that they are a lost population.  No, I - Mitt Romney - won't be able to move the needle.   

It's a perspective of philosophy, and if you don't see that Clinton is FAR closer to Trump than Romney - always blame the other guy, always point fingers, always have an excuse - I'm not sure what the point of this conversation is.   

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 10165
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1732 on: December 07, 2017, 10:21:01 AM »
Increase workplace productivity. Lower alcohol consumption. Probably would have prevented a few wars. Lower instances of STDs and unwanted pregnancies. Could be a real gamechanger for humanity. But, eh, God says no.

Fewer posts on DTF... nah, I can do both.   :) 

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 10165
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1733 on: December 07, 2017, 10:23:39 AM »
This might not be the place for it but I really wish fuckin Hillary would shut the fuck up and take a step back from the headlines. The more she graces us with her fuckin opinions, all of which we already know, they more Trump and his supporters have room to do their "But Hillary!" routine. I didn't vote for Hillary and I don't know anyone who voted for her because they like her, she shouldn't be a counter-argument any more but her uninvited presence makes her an almost-valid one.

I use the "but Hilllary!" a lot, and frankly, I'm not going to stop, because I feel like a LOT - not all - of the "Never Trump!" nonsense is a matter of political ideology and nothing more.  The Left has systematically made what used to be political arguments into moral ones.  The ACA isn't good because it's economically efficient, or cuts cost, or provides for better outcomes.  It's because "it's the right thing to do!".  It may be, but so is free handjobs, and we're not arguing for that.   When the repeal and replace came up, the argument wasn't "well, how are we going to make those that choose to opt out more likely to opt IN?"; instead it was framed as "taking away healthcare from millions!".   No, it was giving them the choice.   Hillary didn't say "well, there's a certain number of Trump supporters that aren't interested in identity politics in any way, shape or form, and those people aren't going to vote for me.".  No, she said "deplorable".     

If you're going to make every argument a moral one, then by god, your morals ought to be up to the scrutiny, and shamefully, they're not.

You can disagree healthcare is a moral question, but it has nothing with the morality of the person talking about it.  That’s absurd.

You're missing my point; I'm not talking about the morality of the person talking about it, I'm saying the argument for healthcare is predicated on a moral argument, not a practical, economic or efficacy argument.   There are plenty of people, including here on this forum, that believe that we should provide healthcare to 100% of people, REGARDLESS of cost, effectiveness, constitutionality, etc.   It's a purely MORAL rationale.   That's a Democrat hallmark in recent times. 

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5196
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1734 on: December 07, 2017, 10:34:43 AM »
I think the person should have to know they're holding a gun in their hands, and the jury decided he did not. If I UPS a loaded gun to you and in the process of opening an unknown package with unknown contents it goes off, is it still your fault?

Didn't follow this trial, so had to research. The gun was wrapped in a t-shirt, so he didn't know what it was? A T-shirt is pretty thin, it isn't a wrapped pacake. What could it have been, a banana? 

No sensible person would feel differently if she were accidentally shot by the good ole American variety of bum, and it certainly has no basis in the trial. In fact, if I'm not mistaken the prosecution purposely left that completely out of the trial, and rightly so.

This is something I struggle with. We can go with "If he wasn't here, this wouldn't have happened." While true, I don't know how that applies in a legal sense. If a bad hombre breaks in to my house, and shoots me, do we get to factor in that he committed a crime by breaking in to my house in when determining the innocence/guilt/punishment of committing the crime of murder? If this scenario plays out with John Q. Citizen, would this be news? Or course not. But we also shouldn't turn a blind eye to the problem these "undocumented immigrants" pose. But that's another thread.


"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 10165
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1735 on: December 07, 2017, 10:35:20 AM »
I use the "but Hilllary!" a lot, and frankly, I'm not going to stop, because I feel like a LOT - not all - of the "Never Trump!" nonsense is a matter of political ideology and nothing more.  The Left has systematically made what used to be political arguments into moral ones.

That's a prime example of why I think she should go away, you're instinctively bundling Hillary's agenda with the left and it couldn't be further off.
And I know this might be nit-picking but "Never Trump" was actually a conservative movement, not liberal or leftist. It can't be based on political ideology and nothing more, cause you gotta face it; the man is ridiculously incompetent, talks shit all the time regardless of the consequence and has no respect for the weight of the job.
I was actually alarmed last week when there were rumors Rex Tillerson was getting fired cause I had some level of security knowing he's the last level minded person in the WH. We're talking about a guy from the same party with whom I disagree.
Hillary definitely is not the symbol or the face of opposition to Trump. She and Trump supporters like to think so but I believe that's nowhere near the truth.

If need be, I can change the reference to "RESIST!", which is more of a Liberal movement.  The point remains; the notion that he's "incompetent" is not an objective one.  I don't like him, I don't support him, I didn't vote for him, and I wouldn't vote for him now.  But I don't say "incompetent".    I don't know that he is at this point.   I really don't.   I despise the tweeting.  I hate how we've devolved into comparing tweets from five years apart as if it is relevant or meaningful.   Does this mean "incompetent"?  I don't know that.   What is incompetent?  Policies you don't agree with?   On that measure, Obama is incompetent to (no, not another example of "whataboutism"; trying to understand your point and make mine at the same time).

Hillary may or may not be the "face" of the opposition to Trump, I'll grant you that, but she IS the predominant example of the mindset that led to Trump and that informs the rebuttal to Trump.   Trump isn't incompetent for wanting a wall.   Trump isn't incompetent for wanting tax reform.  Trump isn't incompetent for "repeal and replace".   Perhaps the one area where you can say that is in the inability to unify the party for R&R, but that's just one point.   Beyond that, the predominant argument against Trump stems from the "deplorable" mindset.   Everything is reduced to moral terms.  I'm not going to give examples, because I'd be repeating myself, but the point remains. 

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 10165
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1736 on: December 07, 2017, 10:43:09 AM »
He doesn't say whether that entitlement is "good", or "bad", and in fact, he actually agrees with them to a point:  "And the government should give it to them."

I can't tell if you are serious or not, but I'm pretty sure that's not what Mitt meant in this context. He wasn't stating his opinion, but the 47%'s opinion.

Within the context of the rest of the quote I believe "and the government should give it to them" is a continuation of their thinking and not an agreement on his part. Moreover he essentially goes with "fuck'em" with the last part. There's no way that wasn't denigrating to the people in the 47%.

Look, I was being serious, but I won't argue your points.  Neither of us know for certain, and your conclusion is just as reasonable as mine.  Having said that, neither conclusion rises to "You lazy, mooching fucks", and certainly there isn't anything in there that rises to the moral level of "deplorable, and irredeemably so".   And I repeat myself again to say that the focus is completely different.    Hillary:   pointing fingers, casting clear moral judgment and absolving self of any blame or responsibility.  Romney:   Observations that may or may not imply judgment and taking full responsibility for the failure to change mindsets.   

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19233
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1737 on: December 07, 2017, 10:47:28 AM »
I think the person should have to know they're holding a gun in their hands, and the jury decided he did not. If I UPS a loaded gun to you and in the process of opening an unknown package with unknown contents it goes off, is it still your fault?

Didn't follow this trial, so had to research. The gun was wrapped in a t-shirt, so he didn't know what it was? A T-shirt is pretty thin, it isn't a wrapped pacake. What could it have been, a banana? 
I thought I'd seen that it was a towel, but it doesn't matter. He wouldn't have known until he picked it up, barring Xray vision of some sort. For all we know it was the sudden realization of what it was that caused him to flinch, discharging the weapon. In any case, this was an accident.


This is something I struggle with. We can go with "If he wasn't here, this wouldn't have happened." While true, I don't know how that applies in a legal sense. If a bad hombre breaks in to my house, and shoots me, do we get to factor in that he committed a crime by breaking in to my house in when determining the innocence/guilt/punishment of committing the crime of murder? If this scenario plays out with John Q. Citizen, would this be news? Or course not. But we also shouldn't turn a blind eye to the problem these "undocumented immigrants" pose. But that's another thread.
Illegal immigrants might well cause problems. My personal opinion is that they solve more than they create, but that's neither here nor there. Was does matter is that they didn't cause this problem.

And if we're going to play the what-if game, there's a much bigger problem that got buried under Trump's childish ranting. What if some dipshit federal agent didn't leave his Sig lying around to be stolen? While I hope to hell he feels some guilt, he's still a lucky bastard to have his blundering overshadowed by some idiotic presidential tantrum.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 10165
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1738 on: December 07, 2017, 11:07:29 AM »
I think the person should have to know they're holding a gun in their hands, and the jury decided he did not. If I UPS a loaded gun to you and in the process of opening an unknown package with unknown contents it goes off, is it still your fault?

Didn't follow this trial, so had to research. The gun was wrapped in a t-shirt, so he didn't know what it was? A T-shirt is pretty thin, it isn't a wrapped pacake. What could it have been, a banana? 

And that's what juries are for; finders of fact.  They make this call, as peers of the defendant.

Quote
No sensible person would feel differently if she were accidentally shot by the good ole American variety of bum, and it certainly has no basis in the trial. In fact, if I'm not mistaken the prosecution purposely left that completely out of the trial, and rightly so.

This is something I struggle with. We can go with "If he wasn't here, this wouldn't have happened." While true, I don't know how that applies in a legal sense. If a bad hombre breaks in to my house, and shoots me, do we get to factor in that he committed a crime by breaking in to my house in when determining the innocence/guilt/punishment of committing the crime of murder? If this scenario plays out with John Q. Citizen, would this be news? Or course not. But we also shouldn't turn a blind eye to the problem these "undocumented immigrants" pose. But that's another thread.

Legally, there is "cause" and there is "proximate cause".   The latter goes to those things that are not just incidental, but actually further the crime itself.  In my view, being an illegal immigrant is cause, but not PROXIMATE cause, of this crime.   

As for the "bad hombre" example, it's not something we can easily determine here, because some laws explicitly prescribe what happens when multiple crimes happen.   In other words, if you commit a burglary, and someone dies as a result, you can be charged with "felony murder" and the result is that the prosecution doesn't have to prove intent to the same degree as "regular" murder. 

I'm oversimplifying here, to inform, but that's the gist.