Author Topic: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting  (Read 116067 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 28026
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #3955 on: January 11, 2019, 05:07:10 PM »
Also about the wall, especially for drug delivery.


.......can't some drones just take care of that? Like you walk up to your side of the wall, attach some drugs to a drone, fly it over, drop it, leave. I dunno.


Wall just seems largely pointless.

That plus the vast majority of the kinds of drugs FOX News anchors and Republican senators shovel up their noses come in by plane.

But nevertheless, you're making the mistake of thinking with your brain here. I've found that to be futile when trying to figure out Trump's political strategy. Just keep on repeating to yourself: "This side good and safe. The other side bad and dangerous. Wall keeps the other side out". As Trump keeps on demanding we all do: try to think in medieval terms.

Oh I'm not actually wondering why they think it's a good idea. I guess I'm just posting random thoughts about how dumb it is as they come.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Online Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 15580
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #3956 on: January 14, 2019, 03:31:11 PM »
Also of note is that there is no concrete (or steel) plan for "the wall" or any measurable milestones of what that $5 billion would get when put towards it or what completion of it would entail. There is already money for border security (which I believe the administration didn't even spend last year after the spending was increased). It's not about some amount extra for border security. It's $5 billion for a "Win For Trump" in the press and a slush fund labelled "Wall".

You write that as if every major expenditure over the past, oh, I don't know pick a number....  30 years, has been adequately funded in that way. Do you honestly think the ACA was anything but a slush fund labeled "healthcare"?   Or any of the environmental endeavors surrounding global warming? 

Don't misunderstand, the fiscally conservative among us want to see that practice end, but to be critical of that, one has to acknowledge that we are plowing new ground here.

Online Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 15580
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #3957 on: January 14, 2019, 03:34:05 PM »
Chino's and my Mexican counterparts could put their heads together and come up with 5 ways to knock enough of those things down to drive a truck through in 2 hours.

I'd use jet fuel.
JET FUEL CAN'T MELT STEEL!!!!

Haha, now THAT got a laugh out loud.   :)

Online Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 28026
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #3958 on: January 14, 2019, 03:38:45 PM »
Also of note is that there is no concrete (or steel) plan for "the wall" or any measurable milestones of what that $5 billion would get when put towards it or what completion of it would entail. There is already money for border security (which I believe the administration didn't even spend last year after the spending was increased). It's not about some amount extra for border security. It's $5 billion for a "Win For Trump" in the press and a slush fund labelled "Wall".

You write that as if every major expenditure over the past, oh, I don't know pick a number....  30 years, has been adequately funded in that way. Do you honestly think the ACA was anything but a slush fund labeled "healthcare"?   Or any of the environmental endeavors surrounding global warming? 

Don't misunderstand, the fiscally conservative among us want to see that practice end, but to be critical of that, one has to acknowledge that we are plowing new ground here.

So if ACA was a slush fund (not that it was) that means all future politicians have a blank check because if it was done before, we're no longer allowed to point out when it's dumb to do now? He didn't write it as if it's never been done before. He just said it's being done now. And it is.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Online Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 15580
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #3959 on: January 14, 2019, 03:54:09 PM »
If the Democrats had an ounce of gumption between them (spoiler alert, they don't) they'd use the idiot's words against him. By his own official statement America has been "invaded" on his watch, after he promised time after time that he had built the bestest, awesomest, most expensivest military the world had ever seen. Yet now the USA has, according to his own words, been "invaded", despite that ridiculous generation-crippling budget he signed off on last year. As Commander-in-Chief, he's failed his country in his first and most important task. CNN have been handed a gift here. Tomorrow's headline needs to be "President Trump Says USA Has Been Invaded, Months After Saying He Alone Could Protect Us".

I'm not sure that's effective, though.  I get that the Republicans are stupid, racist and drug-addled (according to the last 20 odd posts here) but even they wouldn't be advocating for the use of cutting edge military technology against the supposedly "innocent" people looking to "peacefully" and "lawfully" emigrate to our country.

That's the problem with this whole issue; none of it is pragmatic, it's all political.   The Dems don't want to solve this - every subsequent day the polls show more and more people are blaming Trump for this; that's the equivalent of Willie Wonka's golden ticket in terms of the 2020 election.   So they have ZERO incentive to fix this (Hint: they don't give a rats ass about the immigrants either).

I've long said that the Democrats big problem was moralizing everything, to the detriment of the policies that most people deem important, and this is the conundrum for them.  They have, as I said, zero incentive to fix this, but I have been right over the past two years or so, and the moralizing/identity politics backlash continues, it's going to backfire on them badly.    The very last thing that the Dems want - even if they don't realize it - is a Kamala Harris or a Cory Booker moralizing this because you're just not going to sway those that don't look at these issues in those terms.   This is why the packed Dem field is going to be so interesting (and why the potential for ANY field on the Republican side is so crucial).  It's not necessarily WHO is running for President in 2020, it's "What is the nature of the argument"? 

Interesting note on this point: Obama seems to be siding with the radicals, calling for "new blood" in what some are saying is a snub to his old partner.  I don't see it that way; I think that Obama is smart enough to know that there's little appetite for Biden in the crowded Dem field, and that if a legacy player does float to the surface, it's likely going to be Clinton (again) not Biden.

Online Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 15580
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #3960 on: January 14, 2019, 03:57:10 PM »
Also of note is that there is no concrete (or steel) plan for "the wall" or any measurable milestones of what that $5 billion would get when put towards it or what completion of it would entail. There is already money for border security (which I believe the administration didn't even spend last year after the spending was increased). It's not about some amount extra for border security. It's $5 billion for a "Win For Trump" in the press and a slush fund labelled "Wall".

You write that as if every major expenditure over the past, oh, I don't know pick a number....  30 years, has been adequately funded in that way. Do you honestly think the ACA was anything but a slush fund labeled "healthcare"?   Or any of the environmental endeavors surrounding global warming? 

Don't misunderstand, the fiscally conservative among us want to see that practice end, but to be critical of that, one has to acknowledge that we are plowing new ground here.

So if ACA was a slush fund (not that it was) that means all future politicians have a blank check because if it was done before, we're no longer allowed to point out when it's dumb to do now? He didn't write it as if it's never been done before. He just said it's being done now. And it is.

No, no, I'm fine with that; I clearly said I'm in favor of calling it out.  But one of the bigger failures of the anti-Trump movement has been the fallacy that he's some anomaly, or that what he's doing is unique, and it's not.   That makes it a less compelling argument, and likely to fall on deaf ears.   

Online RuRoRul

  • Posts: 1538
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #3961 on: January 14, 2019, 06:01:15 PM »
Also of note is that there is no concrete (or steel) plan for "the wall" or any measurable milestones of what that $5 billion would get when put towards it or what completion of it would entail. There is already money for border security (which I believe the administration didn't even spend last year after the spending was increased). It's not about some amount extra for border security. It's $5 billion for a "Win For Trump" in the press and a slush fund labelled "Wall".

You write that as if every major expenditure over the past, oh, I don't know pick a number....  30 years, has been adequately funded in that way. Do you honestly think the ACA was anything but a slush fund labeled "healthcare"?   Or any of the environmental endeavors surrounding global warming? 

Don't misunderstand, the fiscally conservative among us want to see that practice end, but to be critical of that, one has to acknowledge that we are plowing new ground here.
Actually while I will definitely admit to not being an expert or even particularly knowledgeable about the details of the ACA when it passed / was under debate (and am happy to read viewpoints from those here who I know followed much more closely at the time and know more about it than myself to become better informed), based on what I have read I absolutely do honestly believe that the ACA had considerably more detailed plans, justification for how much it would cost to fund (in terms of government funding) and specific aims for what should be achieved than the current proposal for "Wall" by Trump.

I take your general point though that it has been the norm for government funding to be approved in tranches for broad purposes without always having adequate plans and projections to ensure that money is going to be used as efficiently as it should be and what the outcome will be after the money is spent. However, I think what I posted is indeed important to note for this particular case (over and above making a general statement about government spending) because I think it's something that might factor into people's feelings about how important it is to extend what's already become the longest government shutdown over getting this particular bit of funding at this particular moment in time: the fact that the demand is for some amount of money that will go to something to do with the wall with no clear plan or reasonably well justified expectations of what this amount will actually achieve in terms of construction of a wall; and the fact that it is very specifically this money for the wall that Trump has forced the shutdown over (the important point posted here by others that Donald doesn't have sole responsibility for the shutdown shouldn't be mistaken for him not having any significant responsibility for it), not funding for effective border security in general.

« Last Edit: January 15, 2019, 05:41:48 AM by RuRoRul »

Offline PowerSlave

  • Posts: 1884
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #3962 on: January 14, 2019, 07:02:39 PM »
I've long said that the Democrats big problem was moralizing everything

I keep seeing you use this argument against the Dems, but doesn't this work both ways?

Anti abortion, anti gay rights, anti drug laws and anti immigration are all things with a moral component from the right. Or am I misunderstanding your use of the word/phrase?
All of this has happened before and all of this will happen again

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 7120
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #3963 on: January 14, 2019, 09:20:12 PM »
(Hint: they [Democrats] don't give a rats ass about the immigrants either).

Aside from their votes you mean? Of course the virtue signally helps too.

Snarkiness aside, I feel some do feel genuinely passionately about immigrants, like one of WA's reps Pramila Jayapal. I wish they felt as strongly about addressing the issues of their constituents and the communities they represent.
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Offline portnoy311

  • Posts: 981
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #3964 on: January 15, 2019, 02:13:17 AM »
I've long said that the Democrats big problem was moralizing everything

I keep seeing you use this argument against the Dems, but doesn't this work both ways?

Anti abortion, anti gay rights, anti drug laws and anti immigration are all things with a moral component from the right. Or am I misunderstanding your use of the word/phrase?

Basically, literally every social issue, which is a major part of the official party platform.

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 20809
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #3965 on: January 15, 2019, 04:24:39 AM »


I can't think of a better visual representation of the presidency.

I get the chef is not in because of the government shutdown, but Trump is humble-bragging that he paid for this meal out of his own pocket. Doesn't he have a 5 star hotel like two blocks away with a kitchen that could have provided some real food?
« Last Edit: January 15, 2019, 05:40:32 AM by Chino »

Offline Dave_Manchester

  • Posts: 954
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #3966 on: January 15, 2019, 06:15:27 AM »
Yeah, mountains of cold stale junk food served on silver platters in the state dining room will take some beating for the perfect metaphorical image of Donald Trump as President. Abe Lincoln unable to look on behind him just makes the image. Catering a White House event with 300 fast food burgers would be a setpiece in some awful 'comedy' movie where a child becomes president. That's also a serviceable analogy of the last 2 years.
"As democracy is perfected, the office of President represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their hearts' desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron" - H.L.Mencken, 26th July 1920.

"China has total respect for Donald Trump and for Donald Trump's very very large brain" - American President Donald Trump, September 26th 2018.

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20458
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #3967 on: January 15, 2019, 06:32:29 AM »
I thought it was pretty funny, looked like the college kids enjoyed it too (the video clips I saw on espn seemed to show lots of smiles while they grabbed whatever fast food they wanted, that's all im going off of maybe they are bitching on twitter and I dont know), but it is a bit odd and obviously nothing to brag about.  Seems like he just picked what he wanted to eat really so selfishness seems par for the course.

Offline Dave_Manchester

  • Posts: 954
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #3968 on: January 15, 2019, 06:47:29 AM »
It's the bragging that people are mocking. This kind of thing (Trump capitalises words that he feels have great power and import. Hence, 'Fast Food'):

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1085159285208858624

"Great being with the National Champion Clemson Tigers last night at the White House. Because of the Shutdown I served them massive amounts of Fast Food (I paid), over 1000 hamberders etc. Within one hour, it was all gone. Great guys and big eaters!"

(not sure what a 'hamberder' is)

Every president since the 30s has received a Presidential Library upon leaving office. Stuff like this will be preserved for posterity.
"As democracy is perfected, the office of President represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their hearts' desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron" - H.L.Mencken, 26th July 1920.

"China has total respect for Donald Trump and for Donald Trump's very very large brain" - American President Donald Trump, September 26th 2018.

Offline lonestar

  • DTF Executive Chef
  • Official DTF Tour Guide
  • ****
  • Posts: 17058
  • Gender: Male
  • First Follower
    • Lady Obscure Music Magazine
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #3969 on: January 15, 2019, 07:52:11 AM »
Also love how it went from 300 to 1000 overnight. :lol


As to the kids, I've spent the last 14 years feeding the UC Berkeley football team, and I can say with surety that those kids were fine with McDonalds.
Quote from: nightmare_cinema
So should lonestar and I have babies or something now, is that how this works?
Dang, you're easily the coolest fogey I know of

Offline jingle.boy

  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 26564
  • Gender: Male
  • The changing of the worrd is inevitabre!!!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #3970 on: January 15, 2019, 08:14:09 AM »
As to the kids, I've spent the last 14 years feeding the UC Berkeley football team, and I can say with surety that those kids were fine with McDonalds.

Yeah, but do they have a Hamberdular?
I think Jingle is right as rain
warflwwcesfw.
That's meme-speak for "We are really f*****g lazy when we can't eve say full words".

Offline gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 12531
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #3971 on: January 15, 2019, 08:41:11 AM »
and I can say with surety that those kids were fine with McDonalds.

I don't have a great opinion about trump.....think he's a pretty poor human.....but, I think this was all he was going for. He wanted to be the 'cool' guy. He could have easily had that dinner catered by a 5 star catering service.....but he wanted to be cool and for it to be the spectacle that it has become.
Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 21614
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #3972 on: January 15, 2019, 09:05:28 AM »
I'm just amazed nobody else has made the obvious connection.

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 Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 20809
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #3973 on: January 15, 2019, 09:11:54 AM »
Reddit did  :lol :lol 


Online RuRoRul

  • Posts: 1538
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #3974 on: January 15, 2019, 09:12:14 AM »
I mean sure if it's a slow news day and you're discussing a meal at the White House for a sports team there are many things you could quibble about (cold McDonalds may not taste its best even for McDonalds, him providing another option was only necessary because of a shutdown, paying for it himself he chose a cheaper option than a fancy meal, perhaps it suggests a lack of imagination or even competence that he couldn't provide something different). But the general idea of "fast food banquet in the White House!" (while it might also appear tacky) is something that in the right context might also be a display of some humanity and even charm. Hell, the fact it's what he likes to eat was mentioned here and while maybe that shows his self-centredness, it could even be interpreted a positive gesture too, an attempt at kindness and decency - I'd like this so it's my idea of something good to provide. So I don't really consider it something deserving of much serious criticism and don't think it's too bad myself (the mispelled Tweet bragging about it is a different matter though).

That said the juxtaposition of the image above of Trump doing the jazz hands over the piles of McDonalds boxes on the fancy table with the Lincoln portrait behind is hilarious.

Online Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 15580
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #3975 on: January 15, 2019, 10:20:55 AM »
I've long said that the Democrats big problem was moralizing everything

I keep seeing you use this argument against the Dems, but doesn't this work both ways?

Anti abortion, anti gay rights, anti drug laws and anti immigration are all things with a moral component from the right. Or am I misunderstanding your use of the word/phrase?

No.  I'm not talking about specific issues with a moral component, I'm talking about a moral underpinning for the entire platform, and using a moral sort of "bullying" to effect that platform.   

I get it; there are moments of moralizing on all sides.  Portnoy311 often quotes Pence saying something to the effect of "we have a moral obligation" to do... I forget what it was.   I'm talking about something more broad, more comprehensive, and more PERSONAL.  The "deplorable" argument is solely about MORALS.   The constant haranguing about identity politics is almost solely about MORALS.  The almost requirement at this point that we agree with ANY position put forth in the name of identity politics is solely about MORALS.   (There is nothing whatsoever illegal, unconstitutional, or otherwise legally problematic about being a racist, and yet we're at the point now that even the expression of quasi-racist ideas are enough for censure, bullying and blackballing.  That is an entirely MORAL position).   

Income inequality is a MORAL position.   Unilaterally absolving people of student debt (in direct contravention of legally binding, valid contracts entered into by competent, consenting adults) is a MORAL position.   Directly circumventing established law, ignoring constitutional and official mandates in order to provide sanctuary to illegal immigrants is a MORAL position.   Taking the stand that "this is not my President" and we will "RESIST!" becauase, in part, he's not "sensitive" or "politically correct" enough, is a MORAL position.   

If the wall, or immigration, or tariffs, or guns, or whatever are so bad, then argue the merits of the issue.  Do not resort to the bullying and cajoling of a moral argument, then castigate those that decide that they either have other criteria they'd rather judge the issue on, or have a different prioritization of morals.  For example, I abhor racism.  I think it's narrow-minded, limiting, and unsupported by science.   That said, I do not think it is or should be a silver-bullet issue. I don't agree with racists, but I do not think it's grounds for them losing their jobs, their livlihoods, their friends, or any of the rights they might have under the Constitution.   The Constitution does not apply ONLY to "non-racists".   To many on the left, that makes me a defacto racist, because "silence is consent".  Bullshit. 

The GOP tried this back in the '80s with the Moral Majority, and while it took a while to completely shed the baggage from that, they realized pretty quickly that it was a limiting strategy and a long-term loser.  The Dems are in that threshold phase right now, but they're not giving any indication that they've learned any lesson about this.   In fact, just the opposite; the very premise of "being on the right side of history" has a moral component, and I don't see too much moving away from that.   

Online Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 15580
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #3976 on: January 15, 2019, 10:33:33 AM »
I mean sure if it's a slow news day and you're discussing a meal at the White House for a sports team there are many things you could quibble about (cold McDonalds may not taste its best even for McDonalds, him providing another option was only necessary because of a shutdown, paying for it himself he chose a cheaper option than a fancy meal, perhaps it suggests a lack of imagination or even competence that he couldn't provide something different). But the general idea of "fast food banquet in the White House!" (while it might also appear tacky) is something that in the right context might also be a display of some humanity and even charm. Hell, the fact it's what he likes to eat was mentioned here and while maybe that shows his self-centredness, it could even be interpreted a positive gesture too, an attempt at kindness and decency - I'd like this so it's my idea of something good to provide. So I don't really consider it something deserving of much serious criticism and don't think it's too bad myself (the mispelled Tweet bragging about it is a different matter though).

That said the juxtaposition of the image above of Trump doing the jazz hands over the piles of McDonalds boxes on the fancy table with the Lincoln portrait behind is hilarious.

It's never a slow news day when it comes to mocking people you don't agree with and/or don't like!   :)

At the end of the day, the only opinions that matter are that football team that was hosted at the White House.

Offline jingle.boy

  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 26564
  • Gender: Male
  • The changing of the worrd is inevitabre!!!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #3977 on: January 15, 2019, 12:27:52 PM »
Two things

Income inequality is a MORAL position.   Unilaterally absolving people of student debt (in direct contravention of legally binding, valid contracts entered into by competent, consenting adults) is a MORAL position.   Directly circumventing established law, ignoring constitutional and official mandates in order to provide sanctuary to illegal immigrants is a MORAL position.

On this issue, income inequality is an economic issue, and for some, a health issue.  Not sure that loan repayments is a constitutional issue.  There are quantifiable economic and health benefits to reducing debt - of which student debt is the highest portion of consumer debt, is it not?

The Constitution does not apply ONLY to "non-racists".   To many on the left, that makes me a defacto racist, because "silence is consent".  Bullshit. 

I agree with the first part of that statement, but it is not BS to say silence is consent.  In some places, there is a legal obligation to not be silent in the presence/awareness of crimes.  "Silence is consent" is not bullshit.
I think Jingle is right as rain
warflwwcesfw.
That's meme-speak for "We are really f*****g lazy when we can't eve say full words".

Offline Nekov

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9452
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #3978 on: January 15, 2019, 12:38:54 PM »
The Constitution does not apply ONLY to "non-racists".   To many on the left, that makes me a defacto racist, because "silence is consent".  Bullshit. 

I agree with the first part of that statement, but it is not BS to say silence is consent.  In some places, there is a legal obligation to not be silent in the presence/awareness of crimes.  "Silence is consent" is not bullshit.

Every Seinfeld fan knows this....
When Ginobili gets hot, I get hot in my pants. 

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 7120
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #3979 on: January 15, 2019, 12:50:00 PM »
I agree with the first part of that statement, but it is not BS to say silence is consent.  In some places, there is a legal obligation to not be silent in the presence/awareness of crimes.  "Silence is consent" is not bullshit.

Every Seinfeld fan knows this....

Had to think about this... but good one!
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 21614
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #3980 on: January 15, 2019, 12:51:01 PM »
"Silence is consent" completely misses the point, and I don't think that's actually the phenomenon we're seeing at work right now. In the modern US silence equals approval, and that's bullshit. I've long said that I support a person's right to be an asshole. That'd doesn't mean I approve of his assholery, though. Try explaining that to some young knucklehead looking for things to add to his ledger of grievances.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Online Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 15580
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #3981 on: January 15, 2019, 05:25:04 PM »
Two things

Income inequality is a MORAL position.   Unilaterally absolving people of student debt (in direct contravention of legally binding, valid contracts entered into by competent, consenting adults) is a MORAL position.   Directly circumventing established law, ignoring constitutional and official mandates in order to provide sanctuary to illegal immigrants is a MORAL position.

On this issue, income inequality is an economic issue, and for some, a health issue.  Not sure that loan repayments is a constitutional issue.  There are quantifiable economic and health benefits to reducing debt - of which student debt is the highest portion of consumer debt, is it not?

The Constitution does not apply ONLY to "non-racists".   To many on the left, that makes me a defacto racist, because "silence is consent".  Bullshit. 

I agree with the first part of that statement, but it is not BS to say silence is consent.  In some places, there is a legal obligation to not be silent in the presence/awareness of crimes.  "Silence is consent" is not bullshit.

No, "silence is consent" is not bullshit in and of itself.  "Mandatory reporter" is an integral part of our checks and balances.  But in the context, of "here's my position, and I'm right, and if you don't agree with it, we're going to assume you are wrong and act on it", it is.   I'm not a "racist" because I don't actively speak out in condemnation of that kid in Sarasota.  Or hop on the "he's a racist!" bandwagon every time Trump goes off the PC script.   In that context, it's a form of bullying.

Online Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 15580
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #3982 on: January 15, 2019, 05:26:29 PM »
"Silence is consent" completely misses the point, and I don't think that's actually the phenomenon we're seeing at work right now. In the modern US silence equals approval, and that's bullshit. I've long said that I support a person's right to be an asshole. That'd doesn't mean I approve of his assholery, though. Try explaining that to some young knucklehead looking for things to add to his ledger of grievances.

I'd accept that revision.  You and I generally see eye to eye on this point, I think.

Offline PowerSlave

  • Posts: 1884
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #3983 on: January 15, 2019, 08:08:42 PM »
I've long said that the Democrats big problem was moralizing everything

I keep seeing you use this argument against the Dems, but doesn't this work both ways?

Anti abortion, anti gay rights, anti drug laws and anti immigration are all things with a moral component from the right. Or am I misunderstanding your use of the word/phrase?

No.  I'm not talking about specific issues with a moral component, I'm talking about a moral underpinning for the entire platform, and using a moral sort of "bullying" to effect that platform.   

I get it; there are moments of moralizing on all sides.  Portnoy311 often quotes Pence saying something to the effect of "we have a moral obligation" to do... I forget what it was.   I'm talking about something more broad, more comprehensive, and more PERSONAL.  The "deplorable" argument is solely about MORALS.   The constant haranguing about identity politics is almost solely about MORALS.  The almost requirement at this point that we agree with ANY position put forth in the name of identity politics is solely about MORALS.   (There is nothing whatsoever illegal, unconstitutional, or otherwise legally problematic about being a racist, and yet we're at the point now that even the expression of quasi-racist ideas are enough for censure, bullying and blackballing.  That is an entirely MORAL position).   

Income inequality is a MORAL position.   Unilaterally absolving people of student debt (in direct contravention of legally binding, valid contracts entered into by competent, consenting adults) is a MORAL position.   Directly circumventing established law, ignoring constitutional and official mandates in order to provide sanctuary to illegal immigrants is a MORAL position.   Taking the stand that "this is not my President" and we will "RESIST!" becauase, in part, he's not "sensitive" or "politically correct" enough, is a MORAL position.   

If the wall, or immigration, or tariffs, or guns, or whatever are so bad, then argue the merits of the issue.  Do not resort to the bullying and cajoling of a moral argument, then castigate those that decide that they either have other criteria they'd rather judge the issue on, or have a different prioritization of morals.  For example, I abhor racism.  I think it's narrow-minded, limiting, and unsupported by science.   That said, I do not think it is or should be a silver-bullet issue. I don't agree with racists, but I do not think it's grounds for them losing their jobs, their livlihoods, their friends, or any of the rights they might have under the Constitution.   The Constitution does not apply ONLY to "non-racists".   To many on the left, that makes me a defacto racist, because "silence is consent".  Bullshit. 

The GOP tried this back in the '80s with the Moral Majority, and while it took a while to completely shed the baggage from that, they realized pretty quickly that it was a limiting strategy and a long-term loser.  The Dems are in that threshold phase right now, but they're not giving any indication that they've learned any lesson about this.   In fact, just the opposite; the very premise of "being on the right side of history" has a moral component, and I don't see too much moving away from that.   



I just can't get on board with this being a one-sided thing, though. I won't argue with you that the Dems are doing it, because I completely agree that they are attempting to appeal to a segment of society with those views. But we still see the same game being played from the right as well.

I'll give you a few examples:

1. We have a regular poster in these forums that says that he voted for Trump because of the Supreme Court positions that would be opening up during his time in office. I'm assuming (I can't say for sure, and I don't want to try to speak for anyone else definitively) that this has to do with his views about abortion. That is a vote cast for a moral position if my assumption is correct.

2. Ted Cruz made it very well known that he was trying to appeal to the "Reagan Republicans" during the '16 election cycle. If he wasn't trying to appeal to the remnants of the moral majority and those that have taken up the mantle since that time, then who was he addressing?

3. While serving as Governor of Indiana, Mike Pence said publicly that he would have to go home and pray about it instead of taking action when a major HIV/Aids outbreak occurred in a small town/rural area in his state.

These are just a few examples of people on the right basing their decisions, or using rhetoric that rely heavily on moral positions.
All of this has happened before and all of this will happen again

Offline gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 12531
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #3984 on: January 15, 2019, 11:29:00 PM »
1. We have a regular poster in these forums that says that he voted for Trump because of the Supreme Court positions that would be opening up during his time in office. I'm assuming (I can't say for sure, and I don't want to try to speak for anyone else definitively) that this has to do with his views about abortion. That is a vote cast for a moral position if my assumption is correct.

Iím going to assume this may be me you were alluding to because Iíve said that a couple times....so Iíll respond a bit. I personally thing that abortion is a womanís choice. Itís her body. But, I also think that it needs to be an educated choice. Iíve personally known 4 women who have had abortions.....one of which was a girl I dated after she had one with a prior boyfriend.

All four I knew utterly hated themselves after the fact and had severe emotional scars from it. Iím talking severe. I think the preciousness of life and that magic that it is....thereís a connection made between mother and child in the womb that when itís artificially severed and ended unnaturally....I think it does harm a womanís Ďsoulí per say. Iím not speculating that.....Iíve witnessed it first hand. I think that itís more prevalent than is led on. I think there needs to be better pre and post counseling for that choice given how traumatic an experience it is. I donít think proponents of abortion give much thought to the actual women who endure that procedure. I think itís all a political statement for them.

My desire for more Ďconservativeí Supreme Court members is rooted in a moral bias I suppose because I think itís the only way to level the playing field in an ever increasing drop of morality in our country as we sprint into this socially unregulated,  Ďprogressiveí culture where everything goes....do what makes you happy....etc etc.

The pace in which America is steamrolling Ďtraditionalí values and morals far exceeds the time that it will take to see the consequences of that future IMO. Although a quick glance back in history or even some current Ďprogressiveí cultures can give you a glimpse of whatís to come. Some may hope gleefully for that type of future but Iím not one of them. If thatís the direction the country is taking.....so be it....but the reason I voted and will vote for candidates who I identify as more likely to place Ďconservative/traditionalí judges on the Supreme Court is to curb and balance the acceleration of what I see as the ĎEurpeanizationí of America.
Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 21614
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #3985 on: January 16, 2019, 08:27:36 AM »
1. We have a regular poster in these forums that says that he voted for Trump because of the Supreme Court positions that would be opening up during his time in office. I'm assuming (I can't say for sure, and I don't want to try to speak for anyone else definitively) that this has to do with his views about abortion. That is a vote cast for a moral position if my assumption is correct.

Iím going to assume this may be me you were alluding to because Iíve said that a couple times....so Iíll respond a bit. I personally thing that abortion is a womanís choice. Itís her body. But, I also think that it needs to be an educated choice. Iíve personally known 4 women who have had abortions.....one of which was a girl I dated after she had one with a prior boyfriend.

All four I knew utterly hated themselves after the fact and had severe emotional scars from it. Iím talking severe. I think the preciousness of life and that magic that it is....thereís a connection made between mother and child in the womb that when itís artificially severed and ended unnaturally....I think it does harm a womanís Ďsoulí per say. Iím not speculating that.....Iíve witnessed it first hand. I think that itís more prevalent than is led on. I think there needs to be better pre and post counseling for that choice given how traumatic an experience it is. I donít think proponents of abortion give much thought to the actual women who endure that procedure. I think itís all a political statement for them.

My desire for more Ďconservativeí Supreme Court members is rooted in a moral bias I suppose because I think itís the only way to level the playing field in an ever increasing drop of morality in our country as we sprint into this socially unregulated,  Ďprogressiveí culture where everything goes....do what makes you happy....etc etc.

The pace in which America is steamrolling Ďtraditionalí values and morals far exceeds the time that it will take to see the consequences of that future IMO. Although a quick glance back in history or even some current Ďprogressiveí cultures can give you a glimpse of whatís to come. Some may hope gleefully for that type of future but Iím not one of them. If thatís the direction the country is taking.....so be it....but the reason I voted and will vote for candidates who I identify as more likely to place Ďconservative/traditionalí judges on the Supreme Court is to curb and balance the acceleration of what I see as the ĎEurpeanizationí of America.
I think the point's already made, but I'll just throw out that I know three women who've had abortions and all three of them remain of the opinion that it was the right thing to do. They don't hate themselves and they're all leading pretty normal lives right now. In two cases raising kids they're now capable of supporting, and one happily child free. I would suggest that your position on the spectrum puts you in a position where you're far more likely to see cases like you describe. That doesn't mean that there aren't just as many, if not more, who have had very different experiences.

Also, suggesting that the government (much less the courts) needs to step up to protect women from making decisions they might later regret is pretty much the antithesis of conservatism. Considering the small scale of the problem you describe, if you're really concerned about protecting people from themselves you'd be better off supporting restrictions on 96oz sodas.
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 XeRocks81

  • Posts: 535
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #3986 on: January 16, 2019, 08:38:18 AM »
the fact abortion is such a hard choice that women have to live with for the rest of their lives, that can potentially cause great emotional distress,depression etc. is actually a point IN FAVOR of it being a safe and accessible procedure.   It reinforces that it is in fact NOT an easy way to shirk responsibilities and in reality can be a heavy burden.

Offline gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 12531
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #3987 on: January 16, 2019, 08:41:02 AM »
I think the point's already made, but I'll just throw out that I know three women who've had abortions and all three of them remain of the opinion that it was the right thing to do. They don't hate themselves and they're all leading pretty normal lives right now. In two cases raising kids they're now capable of supporting, and one happily child free. I would suggest that your position on the spectrum puts you in a position where you're far more likely to see cases like you describe. That doesn't mean that there aren't just as many, if not more, who have had very different experiences.

I'm pretty sure I was just making the point that the emotional devastation from an abortion is more prevalent than believed. I'm not suggesting that 'every' woman suffers this....only that the focus is rarely on the women who are suffering from their choice and mostly on the women who've come to terms with it.



Also, suggesting that the government (much less the courts) needs to step up to protect women from making decisions they might later regret is pretty much the antithesis of conservatism. Considering the small scale of the problem you describe, if you're really concerned about protecting people from themselves you'd be better off supporting restrictions on 96oz sodas.

I thought I was more clear than that. I think it's a womans choice. Whether I like or agree with abortion or not. It's not my body. My desire to have more conservative Supreme Court Justices is not to ensure Roe v Wade is overturned.....it shouldn't be.....and it won't be.....it has to do with combating multiple other facets of the progressive undertone that is being pimped in America right now.
Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind

Online Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 15580
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #3988 on: January 16, 2019, 08:42:48 AM »
I've long said that the Democrats big problem was moralizing everything

I keep seeing you use this argument against the Dems, but doesn't this work both ways?

Anti abortion, anti gay rights, anti drug laws and anti immigration are all things with a moral component from the right. Or am I misunderstanding your use of the word/phrase?

No.  I'm not talking about specific issues with a moral component, I'm talking about a moral underpinning for the entire platform, and using a moral sort of "bullying" to effect that platform.   

I get it; there are moments of moralizing on all sides.  Portnoy311 often quotes Pence saying something to the effect of "we have a moral obligation" to do... I forget what it was.   I'm talking about something more broad, more comprehensive, and more PERSONAL.  The "deplorable" argument is solely about MORALS.   The constant haranguing about identity politics is almost solely about MORALS.  The almost requirement at this point that we agree with ANY position put forth in the name of identity politics is solely about MORALS.   (There is nothing whatsoever illegal, unconstitutional, or otherwise legally problematic about being a racist, and yet we're at the point now that even the expression of quasi-racist ideas are enough for censure, bullying and blackballing.  That is an entirely MORAL position).   

Income inequality is a MORAL position.   Unilaterally absolving people of student debt (in direct contravention of legally binding, valid contracts entered into by competent, consenting adults) is a MORAL position.   Directly circumventing established law, ignoring constitutional and official mandates in order to provide sanctuary to illegal immigrants is a MORAL position.   Taking the stand that "this is not my President" and we will "RESIST!" becauase, in part, he's not "sensitive" or "politically correct" enough, is a MORAL position.   

If the wall, or immigration, or tariffs, or guns, or whatever are so bad, then argue the merits of the issue.  Do not resort to the bullying and cajoling of a moral argument, then castigate those that decide that they either have other criteria they'd rather judge the issue on, or have a different prioritization of morals.  For example, I abhor racism.  I think it's narrow-minded, limiting, and unsupported by science.   That said, I do not think it is or should be a silver-bullet issue. I don't agree with racists, but I do not think it's grounds for them losing their jobs, their livlihoods, their friends, or any of the rights they might have under the Constitution.   The Constitution does not apply ONLY to "non-racists".   To many on the left, that makes me a defacto racist, because "silence is consent".  Bullshit. 

The GOP tried this back in the '80s with the Moral Majority, and while it took a while to completely shed the baggage from that, they realized pretty quickly that it was a limiting strategy and a long-term loser.  The Dems are in that threshold phase right now, but they're not giving any indication that they've learned any lesson about this.   In fact, just the opposite; the very premise of "being on the right side of history" has a moral component, and I don't see too much moving away from that.   



I just can't get on board with this being a one-sided thing, though. I won't argue with you that the Dems are doing it, because I completely agree that they are attempting to appeal to a segment of society with those views. But we still see the same game being played from the right as well.

I'll give you a few examples:

1. We have a regular poster in these forums that says that he voted for Trump because of the Supreme Court positions that would be opening up during his time in office. I'm assuming (I can't say for sure, and I don't want to try to speak for anyone else definitively) that this has to do with his views about abortion. That is a vote cast for a moral position if my assumption is correct.

2. Ted Cruz made it very well known that he was trying to appeal to the "Reagan Republicans" during the '16 election cycle. If he wasn't trying to appeal to the remnants of the moral majority and those that have taken up the mantle since that time, then who was he addressing?

3. While serving as Governor of Indiana, Mike Pence said publicly that he would have to go home and pray about it instead of taking action when a major HIV/Aids outbreak occurred in a small town/rural area in his state.

These are just a few examples of people on the right basing their decisions, or using rhetoric that rely heavily on moral positions.

I've explained this, and I understand that it's not crystal clear:  assuming you are even right (I don't necessarily agree, but  for the sake of argument, I'll give you that those are moral answers to political questions; certainly #2 is not as I would argue that "Reagan Republicans" is an economic position not a moral one) you are talking about SPECIFIC ISSUES, and in at least one case above, you're talking about targeting a specific group for a specific reason, not laying a general platform basis on morality.   I'm talking something more systemic, and I'm talking something less... personal.   You are talking about three out of maybe 100 issues that, for whatever reason, involve ONE PERSON taking what might be construed as a moral position.  There are plenty of people who voted for Trump on SCOTUS terms that don't give a rats ass about abortion, but are worried about the ACA, or guns, or just the notion of the Dems using the judicial branch to circumvent the voters of the United States.    I know for me, SCOTUS is about the only reason I WOULD have voted for Trump and it has absolutely NOTHING to do with morals.

In contrast, you have a PARTY that across the board lays out a MORAL position first, and if the moral bullying ("You're DEPLORABLE if you don't see things our way!") doesn't work, then opts for more substantive responses.   The official Democrat House position on the wall? It's immoral.   The  official Democrat House position on immigration?  It's immoral to separate families, to deny access to people in need, and to deny sanctuary.  It's immoral to allow guns on our streets (even though the data does NOT support the Dems position on gun control).   It's immoral to allow 10 million people to CHOOSE to be without health insurance.   EVERY ISSUE is a moral one at heart, and if you don't comply, you are a racist, a bigot, stupid or deplorable.  The very idea that one could even vote for Trump - the irony being that he ran against an arguably treasonous perjurer - was cast as a moral failure (and still is).   
« Last Edit: January 16, 2019, 08:53:30 AM by Stadler »

Offline gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 12531
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #3989 on: January 16, 2019, 08:43:48 AM »
the fact abortion is such a hard choice that women have to live with for the rest of their lives, that can potentially cause great emotional distress,depression etc. is actually a point IN FAVOR of it being a safe and accessible procedure.   It reinforces that it is in fact NOT an easy way to shirk responsibilities and in reality can be a heavy burden.

Which is exactly why I think that choice should be as educated of a choice as there can be.

I will say that I do not agree with abortion after 20 weeks (unless life threatening measures facing the mother, fetus) 
Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind