OOTB's Political Thread . ..

[tarheel0910]

There is breaking news that parts of a trade deal between China and the US are close to being finalized. If true, and both sides actually sign the deal, that would be a huge win for Trump. It would give him a big win on a campaign promise and the market would probably set some records.

 

[Grayhead]

There is breaking news that parts of a trade deal between China and the US are close to being finalized. If true, and both sides actually sign the deal, that would be a huge win for Trump. It would give him a big win on a campaign promise and the market would probably set some records.

Shhhhh!!!!
Can't say things like that in public

 

[strummingram]

There is breaking news that parts of a trade deal between China and the US are close to being finalized. If true, and both sides actually sign the deal, that would be a huge win for Trump. It would give him a big win on a campaign promise and the market would probably set some records.

That would be awesome.

 

[tarheel0910]

That would be awesome.

That reads kind of like sarcasm. Do you not think a deal would be a good thing?

 

[uncboy10]

I guess I'm the opposite. I chose the candidate that was the lesser of 2 evils. She has proven herself unworthy in all her dealings for years. Trump doesn't for the model of politician. He is an ego maniac. He is unfiltered. He has broke the mold for access to the highest office in the land. He is not a conservative either. But he also has not nuked anyone. Hasn't started any wars. The economy seems fine.
I know the never trumpers has a different view. I understand it. I didn't like Obama. But we made it thru his terms with some good things as well as some bad things. It will be the same with trump. And I think you are wrong that the pubs could have beaten Clinton with any other canidate.

By the way, Christian's need a voice and platform as much as any other group.

Christians have a voice. They have plenty of churches where they can say whatever they want. And nobody is suppressing Christianity. But it has no place in government.

 

[strummingram]

That reads kind of like sarcasm. Do you not think a deal would be a good thing?

Then you're reading sarcasm into it. It was stated as it was written.

That would be awesome.

 

[Hark_The_Sound_2010]

Every republican's favorite democrat isn't running for reelection. It will be interesting to see if she runs as a third party candidate for president.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campai...tion-to-congress-focuses-on-presidential-race

That would be interesting. Someone like Bernie running as a 3rd party would obviously split the votes against Trump and hand him an easy win. I assume Gabbard would take more votes from the Dem nominee than Trump, but maybe not.

 

[Hark_The_Sound_2010]

@prlyles

Sounds downright Libertarian to me. Minimum Govt., maximum freedom.

Welcome aboard.

But good luck finding a candidate to represent you.

Yup. It's a bit of a paradox finding a politician that favors minimum government when their livelihood, career, and ego are benefited by bigger government.

 

[Grayhead]

Christians have a voice. They have plenty of churches where they can say whatever they want. And nobody is suppressing Christianity. But it has no place in government.

Christian's should also be a part the discussion as much as gays, minorities, or any other part of society.
If a congressman wants to run on a christian based platform, then they should be allowed. If a homosexual wants to do the same, then they should be allowed. Its ultimately up to the people who vote for them. That's the way a democracy works. But to say Christian's only have churches to say what they want in against the very thing this country was founded on. I don't think anyone is saying the church/ gays/ fill in the blank should be in charge. Its whoever's the people vote for. Some people dont like Trump, but he sits in the highest office in the land. If people dont like it, vote against him.

 

[nctransplant]

That would be interesting. Someone like Bernie running as a 3rd party would obviously split the votes against Trump and hand him an easy win. I assume Gabbard would take more votes from the Dem nominee than Trump, but maybe not.

Policy-wise I don't think there is a lot difference between Bernie and Gabbard is there?

 

[tarheel0910]

Policy-wise I don't think there is a lot difference between Bernie and Gabbard is there?

She publicly told Clinton to GFY. That's a policy I can get behind. She's the best candidate out of all of them based solely on that.

 

[nctransplant]

She publicly told Clinton to GFY. That's a policy I can get behind. She's the best candidate out of all of them based solely on that.

I like the fact that she did that as well BUT, what are her policies?

 

[tarheel0910]

I like the fact that she did that as well BUT, what are her policies?

Don't know, don't care. As long as she's not trying to kill anyone close to me I'm all in.

 

[uncboy10]

Christian's should also be a part the discussion as much as gays, minorities, or any other part of society.
If a congressman wants to run on a christian based platform, then they should be allowed. If a homosexual wants to do the same, then they should be allowed. Its ultimately up to the people who vote for them. That's the way a democracy works. But to say Christian's only have churches to say what they want in against the very thing this country was founded on. I don't think anyone is saying the church/ gays/ fill in the blank should be in charge. Its whoever's the people vote for. Some people dont like Trump, but he sits in the highest office in the land. If people dont like it, vote against him.

Actually one of the primary principles that laid the foundation of this country was the separation of church and state. The founding fathers fled England because of religious persecution being carried out by the English government. They understood that the only way to prevent that was to keep religion out of government. Freedom of religion must also include the freedom FROM religion, which means we don’t have a religious state. Religion should never be a justification for the decisions or actions of our government. Theocracy is antithetical to everything that this country is supposed to be about.

I didn’t say that churches are the only place where Christians have a voice. Freedom of speech means you can talk about fairy tales in the public square if you so choose. But the vast number of churches and mega churches all across the country is clear evidence that Christians are far from being persecuted. Christians love to act like they’re being persecuted when people try to keep religion out of government or public schools. Evangelicals love to try and shove their religion down other people’s throats while simultaneously complaining about how their freedom is being attacked when people push back.

 

[Heelicious]

Policy-wise I don't think there is a lot difference between Bernie and Gabbard is there?

IMO this is exactly correct. They both have pretty far left views on economic and social policy. Gabbard has drawn favor in some circles recently for standing up against some democrat pol and media establishment types (Hillary, CNN, NY Times) and just recently came out against what she sees as secrecy in the impeachment hearings. Plus, her non-interventionism, and her physical attractiveness, and intelligent composed demeanor and image on TV make her alluring to a larger crowd.

When push comes to shove - I'm not sure how many potential Trump voters actually would vote for her over DJT on these factors alone, especially if they saw it as an enabler for Biden or Warren to win.

 

[strummingram]

The desire for Hillary to lose is a powerful one, and ideal to harness. Hillary Hate is like a Shelby Cobra.

 

[Heelicious]

Actually one of the primary principles that laid the foundation of this country was the separation of church and state. The founding fathers fled England because of religious persecution being carried out by the English government. They understood that the only way to prevent that was to keep religion out of government. Freedom of religion must also include the freedom FROM religion, which means we don’t have a religious state. Religion should never be a justification for the decisions or actions of our government. Theocracy is antithetical to everything that this country is supposed to be about.

I didn’t say that churches are the only place where Christians have a voice. Freedom of speech means you can talk about fairy tales in the public square if you so choose. But the vast number of churches and mega churches all across the country is clear evidence that Christians are far from being persecuted. Christians love to act like they’re being persecuted when people try to keep religion out of government or public schools. Evangelicals love to try and shove their religion down other people’s throats while simultaneously complaining about how their freedom is being attacked when people push back.

I believe you are entirely right about founding of this country and strong intent to not establish a national (or even individual states') religion, as was the case in some European countries that the founders had experienced first hand, and rightly strongly opposed, seeing / feeling the consequences over there.

To me just loosely tagging "religion" to some major policy issues is just too vague to address the issue.

Is marriage a religious issue and a religious construction? I believe that it is, since it is defined in the Bible (though many cultures throughout time have had marriage and family customs regardless of religion). I personally don't think the federal govt should have any say on any marriage issues (gay, etc). If addressed at all by govts, it should be at state level (I think it is best left to churches, synagogues, etc only )

Abortion: is this a "religious issue"? I don't think it is. I think it is a life, liberty, pursuit of happiness issue stated in declaration of independence. If you think the baby inside the womb is a human, then abortion is a severe human rights abuse on an order of magnitude of the Holocaust. I think a person can believe this regardless of whether he/she is a most avowed agnostic, or deeply religious.
I think you can't really just talk about abortion in a single word (abortion) without describing in more detail what time period we are talking about in the fetus stage:

• a majority of voters are in favor of abortion rights at some stage after conception
• a vast majority of voters oppose abortion in the third trimester, when the fetus / baby is viable outside the womb, can feel pain, is nearly fully developed
• as rare as it may be - we have almost all the Dem candidates favoring abortion right up to the point of delivery, even immediately after birth. How is this different than infanticide?
• Why don't our leaders in govt and in society work harder to enable / facilitate adoptions of near-full-term babies, for the many thousands of couples waiting to adopt?

It just bothers me that you only hear about the woman's rights, choice, body, with zero mention ever of the other human life in the equation - especially / even when the baby (fetus) could live outside the womb.

I do believe these issues should be discussed, debated, and have legislation to govern them in state and federal levels. I'd argue the issues have more to do with biological science and human rights than promotion of any specific religion or religious view. We as a scientific society know what a human life is, and when it starts, without the Bible telling us so.

 

[Grayhead]

Actually one of the primary principles that laid the foundation of this country was the separation of church and state. The founding fathers fled England because of religious persecution being carried out by the English government. They understood that the only way to prevent that was to keep religion out of government. Freedom of religion must also include the freedom FROM religion, which means we don’t have a religious state. Religion should never be a justification for the decisions or actions of our government. Theocracy is antithetical to everything that this country is supposed to be about.

I didn’t say that churches are the only place where Christians have a voice. Freedom of speech means you can talk about fairy tales in the public square if you so choose. But the vast number of churches and mega churches all across the country is clear evidence that Christians are far from being persecuted. Christians love to act like they’re being persecuted when people try to keep religion out of government or public schools. Evangelicals love to try and shove their religion down other people’s throats while simultaneously complaining about how their freedom is being attacked when people push back.

Are you saying anyone with an agenda should never hold office. Politicians should completely exclude them from their decisions. None can run if they live by christian morals?

 

[uncboy10]

I believe you are entirely right about founding of this country and strong intent to not establish a national (or even individual states') religion, as was the case in some European countries that the founders had experienced first hand, and rightly strongly opposed, seeing / feeling the consequences over there.

To me just loosely tagging "religion" to some major policy issues is just too vague to address the issue.

Is marriage a religious issue and a religious construction? I believe that it is, since it is defined in the Bible (though many cultures throughout time have had marriage and family customs regardless of religion). I personally don't think the federal govt should have any say on any marriage issues (gay, etc). If addressed at all by govts, it should be at state level (I think it is best left to churches, synagogues, etc only )

Abortion: is this a "religious issue"? I don't think it is. I think it is a life, liberty, pursuit of happiness issue stated in declaration of independence. If you think the baby inside the womb is a human, then abortion is a severe human rights abuse on an order of magnitude of the Holocaust. I think a person can believe this regardless of whether he/she is a most avowed agnostic, or deeply religious.
I think you can't really just talk about abortion in a single word (abortion) without describing in more detail what time period we are talking about in the fetus stage:

• a majority of voters are in favor of abortion rights at some stage after conception
• a vast majority of voters oppose abortion in the third trimester, when the fetus / baby is viable outside the womb, can feel pain, is nearly fully developed
• as rare as it may be - we have almost all the Dem candidates favoring abortion right up to the point of delivery, even immediately after birth. How is this different than infanticide?
• Why don't our leaders in govt and in society work harder to enable / facilitate adoptions of near-full-term babies, for the many thousands of couples waiting to adopt?

It just bothers me that you only hear about the woman's rights, choice, body, with zero mention ever of the other human life in the equation - especially / even when the baby (fetus) could live outside the womb.

I do believe these issues should be discussed, debated, and have legislation to govern them in state and federal levels. I'd argue the issues have more to do with biological science and human rights than promotion of any specific religion or religious view. We as a scientific society know what a human life is, and when it starts, without the Bible telling us so.

Just because religious people have an opinion on certain issues doesn’t make them a religious issue in the political sense.

Marriage for some is a religious institution. But as it relates to government, it is a civil institution. The bible doesn’t have a monopoly on marriage. And marriage is significant in many ways that have nothing to do with religion so the idea that religious principles about what does or doesn’t constitute marriage aren’t relevant to how the state looks at marriage. So the Bible can say whatever it wants about marriage. And churches can refuse to marry whoever they want. But those religious principles about marriage should have nothing to do with who can or can’t become married, because marriage is not just a Christian institution. As long as people get economic and legal benefits from being married, the state’s definition of marriage should have nothing do with religion.

Very few people support abortion rights beyond the stage of development where a fetus could survive outside of the womb. At that point I don’t see any point in getting an abortion. Why not just remove the baby and allow it to continue developing outside of the womb if that is medically possible? It seems deeply unethical to abort a pregnancy at that stage.

For me the question is not about what is or isn’t human. Someone who is in a vegetative state is still a human, but we don’t consider them being removed from life support to be murder.

I agree that the abortion debate should center around a developmental deadline. Otherwise we would have to outlaw plan B. The notion that a baby exists from the moment of conception is completely naive of basic biology.

Abortion is tough ethical dilemma. In my opinion the people who say it’s just a woman’s right to choose and there should be no restrictions on abortion are just as wrong as the people who say abortion is murder at any point in the pregnancy. With a problem this complex, it’s hard to take anyone seriously who claims to have the answer.

One thing does seem clear to me. Both sides should want to prevent abortions from being necessary. If birth control was free then I think it would do society a lot of good, including reducing the number of abortions.

 

[uncboy10]

Are you saying anyone with an agenda should never hold office. Politicians should completely exclude them from their decisions. None can run if they live by christian morals?

No. I’m saying that no law or policy should be religious. The state should not promote religion and should be completely secular in nature.

 

[Grayhead]

No. I’m saying that no law or policy should be religious. The state should not promote religion and should be completely secular in nature.

I dont think any law is religious. But a person's belief system should allow them to make decisions based on that belief. Of course I am assuming it's based on ethical reasons. You and I have entirely different viewpoints. If we were law makers, we should argue decisions based on whatever platform allowed us office. My beliefs in morality weigh heavy just as your secular beliefs do for you.
As for abortion, why should the government be the one to uphold either side of the argument. Killing the basis cells of life after conception is a moral choice. Naturally the church preaches against it. But there are also many people who are not religious who oppose it. Educating people about the process should weigh heavy. I donate to a company called Save the Storks. They camp out in front of abortion clinics with buses set up for prenatal ultrasounds. 9 out of 10 women who hear the heartbeat chose to keep the baby. Most say they never realised what they were doing. Personally, I think abortion should only be used for medical specific reasons or rape. Just because Joe's 16 year old daughter gets pregnant on prom night doesn't warrant abortion. Nor does some dude or woman who refused to have unprotected sex warrant abortion either.

All the women I know who had one, regret the choice. I dont know anyone who is happy to have one.

You used an example of someone in a vegetative state and pulling the plug. That's and entirely different situation.

 

[heelmanwilm]

So trump at a campaign rally in pittsburgh to a standing ovation claimed the wall is currently already being built........



......In colorado!!!



The wall IS NOT UNDER CONSTRUCTION ANYWHERE. NEVERTHELESS IN A STATE THAT DOESNT EVEN BORDER MEXICO.

Fuking lying idiot.

 

[strummingram]

So trump at a campaign rally in pittsburgh to a standing ovation claimed the wall is currently already being built........



......In colorado!!!



The wall IS NOT UNDER CONSTRUCTION ANYWHERE. NEVERTHELESS IN A STATE THAT DOESNT EVEN BORDER MEXICO.

Fuking lying idiot.

 

[uncboy10]

Lol at the "stable genius."

Best part is the supporters who are still proud of voting for a complete idiot.

 

[strummingram]

Lol at the "stable genius."

Best part is the supporters who are still proud of voting for a complete idiot.

You know what his being president has shown me? It shows me just how irrelevant that office can really be, in the big picture. I can't always pinpoint how and why things go the way they go. In fact, I rarely manage that outcome! But, things are relatively okay despite that mow-ron's occupying of the Oval Office. Sure, he's a joke and embarrasses himself... a lot. But, overall, things are still okay. Don't get me wrong, I'm definitely not glad he's president. But, I am glad that it hasn't collapsed around us, assuming that having a dipshit like him as president can make-or-break the situation. I dunno how it's humming-along, but it seems to be. It seems like you could stick a monkey in that office and we'd would somehow manage. It's more than just one guy, and thank goodness for that.

And, frankly, unless things change drastically, what are Democrats going to run on that will be convincing enough to wanna change it? I don't think most people care about Russia, or the Ukraine, or if he was getting dirt on people. That's what politicians do- they try to be a better bullshitter than the other guy by whatever means they can. Americans have proven, quite often, and a long time ago, that they actually value a good bullshitter!

 

[tarheel0910]

LOL. You couldn't make this shit up.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/po...-reporter-heard-discussing-need-cash-n1071901

 

[uncboy10]

You know what his being president has shown me? It shows me just how irrelevant that office can really be, in the big picture. I can't always pinpoint how and why things go the way they go. In fact, I rarely manage that outcome! But, things are relatively okay despite that mow-ron's occupying of the Oval Office. Sure, he's a joke and embarrasses himself... a lot. But, overall, things are still okay. Don't get me wrong, I'm definitely not glad he's president. But, I am glad that it hasn't collapsed around us, assuming that having a dipshit like him as president can make-or-break the situation. I dunno how it's humming-along, but it seems to be. It seems like you could stick a monkey in that office and we'd would somehow manage. It's more than just one guy, and thank goodness for that.

And, frankly, unless things change drastically, what are Democrats going to run on that will be convincing enough to wanna change it? I don't think most people care about Russia, or the Ukraine, or if he was getting dirt on people. That's what politicians do- they try to be a better bullshitter than the other guy by whatever means they can. Americans have proven, quite often, and a long time ago, that they actually value a good bullshitter!

Depends on who you are and what you focus on.

I’m sure the Kurds would feel differently. What happens when there’s a terrorist attacking that gets traced back to one of the ISIS terrorists who were released after we pulled back? The president’s actions won’t seem so irrelevant then.

I’m sure they haven’t seemed irrelevant to business owners who use steel as a major input for the goods they produce. Many have had to cut back or shut down completely because of the tariffs.

Trump has rolled back or eliminated every environmental regulation he possibly can. Those regulations are meant to protect consumers and the general public. People will eventually get sick and die as a result of pollution that would otherwise be illegal. Most people agree that biodiversity is a good thing. How many species will go extinct as a result of trump weakening the endangered species act? And what possible justification could there be for such an act

While we’re on the subject of the environment, what is the cost of having a climate change denier in the White House? He single handedly pulled us out of the Paris Climate Accord. Coordinated international effort is the only way to address such an issue. How significant of a setback are we facing as a result of Trump’s decision to pull out and what will the cost be? Scientists are arguing that the data suggests we are at a precipice and need to act quickly to abate emissions. A four year delay could be catastrophic.

I could go on and on but my point is that it’s all about perspective. Maybe things are generally okay for you and I, but that doesn’t change the fact that trump has done a lot of damage.

Trump is on a completely different level than other politicians. There has never been a politician who lied as frequently or in the manner that he does. We have never seen the open embrace of corruption like we’ve seen from the trump administration. The level of incompetence from the trump administration has been unprecedented. There has never been a president who had to have their name mentioned on every page of a briefing just to keep their attention.

The narcissism, ignorance, and corruption of this president is legitimately dangerous. Using foreign aid as a bargaining chip to convince a foreign head of state to investigate a political opponent makes Nixon look like a choir boy. Normalizing this kind of behavior will have long term consequences. Is trump’s behavior really the kind of precedent we want to be set for the executive branch?

 

[strummingram]

Depends on who you are and what you focus on.

I’m sure the Kurds would feel differently. What happens when there’s a terrorist attacking that gets traced back to one of the ISIS terrorists who were released after we pulled back? The president’s actions won’t seem so irrelevant then.

I’m sure they haven’t seemed irrelevant to business owners who use steel as a major input for the goods they produce. Many have had to cut back or shut down completely because of the tariffs.

Trump has rolled back or eliminated every environmental regulation he possibly can. Those regulations are meant to protect consumers and the general public. People will eventually get sick and die as a result of pollution that would otherwise be illegal. Most people agree that biodiversity is a good thing. How many species will go extinct as a result of trump weakening the endangered species act? And what possible justification could there be for such an act

While we’re on the subject of the environment, what is the cost of having a climate change denier in the White House? He single handedly pulled us out of the Paris Climate Accord. Coordinated international effort is the only way to address such an issue. How significant of a setback are we facing as a result of Trump’s decision to pull out and what will the cost be? Scientists are arguing that the data suggests we are at a precipice and need to act quickly to abate emissions. A four year delay could be catastrophic.

I could go on and on but my point is that it’s all about perspective. Maybe things are generally okay for you and I, but that doesn’t change the fact that trump has done a lot of damage.

Trump is on a completely different level than other politicians. There has never been a politician who lied as frequently or in the manner that he does. We have never seen the open embrace of corruption like we’ve seen from the trump administration. The level of incompetence from the trump administration has been unprecedented. There has never been a president who had to have their name mentioned on every page of a briefing just to keep their attention.

The narcissism, ignorance, and corruption of this president is legitimately dangerous. Using foreign aid as a bargaining chip to convince a foreign head of state to investigate a political opponent makes Nixon look like a choir boy. Normalizing this kind of behavior will have long term consequences. Is trump’s behavior really the kind of precedent we want to be set for the executive branch?

You are the yin to my yang... I guess.

 

[Hark_The_Sound_2010]

You know what his being president has shown me? It shows me just how irrelevant that office can really be, in the big picture. I can't always pinpoint how and why things go the way they go. In fact, I rarely manage that outcome! But, things are relatively okay despite that mow-ron's occupying of the Oval Office. Sure, he's a joke and embarrasses himself... a lot. But, overall, things are still okay.

Agreed, the best thing about the Trump presidency will likely be the hard evidence that's needed to prove that the office isn't some infinitely complicated job that only a select few people can manage. He'll hopefully greatly expand the types of people that are seen as viable candidates for the job, and hopefully the future non-politician-lifers that get a chance do better than he has. He's exhibited his usefulness in that regard.

And, frankly, unless things change drastically, what are Democrats going to run on that will be convincing enough to wanna change it? I don't think most people care about Russia, or the Ukraine, or if he was getting dirt on people. That's what politicians do- they try to be a better bullshitter than the other guy by whatever means they can. Americans have proven, quite often, and a long time ago, that they actually value a good bullshitter!

Ya this is what I'm thinking as well. Sure his ardent detractors will find areas to harp on as reasoning that he shouldn't get a second term. But I think most people will think they're doing ok after his first term and will be unwilling to risk the big shakeup change that would come with whoever the Dem nominee is (especially since it's increasingly looking like it won't be Biden).

 

[heelmanwilm]

How unpopular a president are you when you’re booed at the world series amid chants of “lock him up” mere hours after you order a raid that kills the most wanted terrorist in the world?

 

[strummingram]

How unpopular a president are you when you’re booed at the world series amid chants of “lock him up” mere hours after you order a raid that kills the most wanted terrorist in the world?

That's what happens when you don't hold a rally with all MAGA folks!

 

[strummingram]

Agreed, the best thing about the Trump presidency will likely be the hard evidence that's needed to prove that the office isn't some infinitely complicated job that only a select few people can manage. He'll hopefully greatly expand the types of people that are seen as viable candidates for the job, and hopefully the future non-politician-lifers that get a chance do better than he has. He's exhibited his usefulness in that regard.



Ya this is what I'm thinking as well. Sure his ardent detractors will find areas to harp on as reasoning that he shouldn't get a second term. But I think most people will think they're doing ok after his first term and will be unwilling to risk the big shakeup change that would come with whoever the Dem nominee is (especially since it's increasingly looking like it won't be Biden).

Bill Maher has never nailed it so perfectly...

he calls-out how Democrats try to out-SJW each other to win votes that they already have.

 

[uncboy10]

How unpopular a president are you when you’re booed at the world series amid chants of “lock him up” mere hours after you order a raid that kills the most wanted terrorist in the world?

Kind of odd how right after Trump does a favor for Putin/Turkey/Iran we find him. Almost like his location was a bargaining chip in a quid pro quo.

 

[Hark_The_Sound_2010]

I’m sure the Kurds would feel differently. What happens when there’s a terrorist attacking that gets traced back to one of the ISIS terrorists who were released after we pulled back?

Ya, that was a bad move. The ISIS terrorist prisoners should have all just been shot when we left the area. Why they got released alive, I'll never know.

 

[Heelicious]

How unpopular a president are you when you’re booed at the world series amid chants of “lock him up” mere hours after you order a raid that kills the most wanted terrorist in the world?

I'm not defending DJT - but this was surely expected. DC voted 90+% for Hillary. Most people living in DC are opposed to most everything he's trying to do.

I suspect if he were announced in Houston - even though Houston itself is likely about as liberal as any other large city - he'd have received a slim majority of cheers vs. boos

 

[uncboy10]

Ya, that was a bad move. The ISIS terrorist prisoners should have all just been shot when we left the area. Why they got released alive, I'll never know.

That sounds like a better death than they deserve.

 

[Hark_The_Sound_2010]

But the media has changed how we respond to the Office of Presidency.

It will be interesting to see if the media has the same open season on future presidents as they have with Trump. I take a contrarian approach for my Presidential rooting interests. They rail on Trump, so I find myself pulling for the guy in a lot of situations. They slurped Obama big time, so I found myself not caring for him in most instances.

 

[heelmanwilm]

Would you have booed if you were at the game?

There was a time when people didn’t boo the President no matter how much they disliked him. I never booed Obama. If I were somewhere and his presence was announced, I wouldn’t boo. I certainly wouldn’t cheer and I might roll my eyes as if to say “this f*ckin guy...”. But I wouldn’t boo. Hell, I was in a bagel shop and VP Biden came in. I didn’t boo him. I asked him to take a picture with my family, which he did. And then he left the bagel shop and I looked at my wife, rolled my eyes and said, “this f*ckin guy...”. Social mores of the past kind of shamed people who would boo the President. But those are gone. Long gone. Trump has changed the Office of Presidency, sure. But the media has changed how we respond to the Office of Presidency.

No i would not have booed

But you’re wrong. Its trump thats brought the booing upon himself.

 

[uncboy10]

It will be interesting to see if the media has the same open season on future presidents as they have with Trump. I take a contrarian approach for my Presidential rooting interests. They rail on Trump, so I find myself pulling for the guy in a lot of situations. They slurped Obama big time, so I found myself not caring for him in most instances.

Lol what?

He does stupid shit, lies, and generally makes an ass of himself on a daily basis. They could report on that stuff 24/7 and would still barely be able to keep up. It almost seems like part of his strategy. If he does enough dumb shit then the news can never focus on one point for very long. You expect the media to just ignore the quid pro quo with Ukraine! Or ignore him saying we’re building a border wall in Colorado?

Meanwhile Obama was attacked for such heinous crimes as wearing a tan suit. Just imagine if Obama had talked about grabbing women by the pussy. The same network that constantly tried to smear Obama has spun or ignored everything trump has done, to the point of basically looking like state run media.

I think you’re using some selection bias to help reinforce your perception. If you pretend CNN is unfairly attacking trump while pretending that Fox News didn’t exist during the Obama presidency then I can see how you would come to this conclusion.

The idea of pulling for a president just because the media is criticising him seems a bit silly, but you do you.

 

[nctransplant]

Lol what?

He does stupid shit, lies, and generally makes an ass of himself on a daily basis. They could report on that stuff 24/7 and would still barely be able to keep up. It almost seems like part of his strategy. If he does enough dumb shit then the news can never focus on one point for very long. You expect the media to just ignore the quid pro quo with Ukraine! Or ignore him saying we’re building a border wall in Colorado?

Meanwhile Obama was attacked for such heinous crimes as wearing a tan suit. Just imagine if Obama had talked about grabbing women by the pussy. The same network that constantly tried to smear Obama has spun or ignored everything trump has done, to the point of basically looking like state run media.

I think you’re using some selection bias to help reinforce your perception. If you pretend CNN is unfairly attacking trump while pretending that Fox News didn’t exist during the Obama presidency then I can see how you would come to this conclusion.

The idea of pulling for a president just because the media is criticising him seems a bit silly, but you do you.

I'm glad he's building it in Colorado, it could have been one of those 50+7 states......