OOTB's Political Thread . ..

[tarheel0910]

Ya, that's true. We already have a method to determine whether we think what has happened over the last 3.5 years is good or bad. It's called voting.

 

[heelmanwilm]

Ya, if we can get a list of norms and institutions that have been destroyed, maybe we can come to an agreement on which ones we care about and which ones we don't.

WTF is this, a game of "let me answer your question with another question"?

basically if the norm or institution doesn’t exist for the sole purpose of bowing before trump and presenting him with sacrifices and songs of praise then its subject to attack.

 

[Hark_The_Sound_2010]

 

[prlyles]

Not sure it's worth anyone's time, because everyone already knows what the responses to that list will be. It will be either "it doesn't matter to me" or a "but president _______ did it first." Just a waste of time.

My favorite is "I don't care as long as my 401K is doing great"

 

[heelmanwilm]

State and federal laws do this all the time. Why should this one be different, especially if it isn't an actual immigration law?

I don’t know. I guess maybe it’s a loophole that scotus wanted to address

 

[Raising Heel]

Are you going to tell us what norms and institutions that are being attacked are causing you to be ok to vote for any Democrat?

Part of the reason for my question was to determine where on the scale you would begin. There's a lot of ground to cover. Since you're unwilling to do so, I'll start. This will be a series of questions.

Q: Is committing an assault against a member of the media acceptable? Yes or no?

 

[UNC71-00]

Part of the reason for my question was to determine where on the scale you would begin. There's a lot of ground to cover. Since you're unwilling to do so, I'll start. This will be a series of questions.

Q: Is committing an assault against a member of the media acceptable? Yes or no?

No. It is not acceptable to assault anyone.

 

[Hark_The_Sound_2010]

Part of the reason for my question was to determine where on the scale you would begin. There's a lot of ground to cover. Since you're unwilling to do so, I'll start. This will be a series of questions.

Q: Is committing an assault against a member of the media acceptable? Yes or no?

Physical assault? No way.

 

[Raising Heel]

Define "assault".

Legal definition. FFS.

 

[heelmanwilm]

Bullshit. That's the kind of answer given by someone that doesn't really want to answer the question at hand.

calm down Nancy. It’s hyperbole.

 

[UNC71-00]

Legal definition. FFS.

So this:

the act of inflicting physical harm or unwanted physical contact upon a person

 

[Hark_The_Sound_2010]

Define "assault".

as·sault
/əˈsôlt/
noun
1. A physical attack
verb

1. make a physical attack on

 

[Raising Heel]

No. It is not acceptable to assault anyone.

Physical assault? No way.

Q: Should someone who was convicted of assault against a member of the media be praised? Why or why not?

 

[UNC71-00]

Q: Should someone who was convicted of assault against a member of the media be praised? Why or why not?

I really don't think anyone should be praised for committing and then being convicted of a crime.

 

[Hark_The_Sound_2010]

Q: Should someone who was convicted of assault against a member of the media be praised? Why or why not?

Praised for the assault, or praised for something else?

I don't think it's good to praise crimes, in general.

 

[Raising Heel]

I really don't think anyone should be praised for committing and then being convicted of a crime.

You didn't answer the why. Can we agree that it's because breaking the law is illegal, and in this particular instance immoral as well?

 

[Raising Heel]

Praised for the assault, or praised for something else?

I don't think it's good to praise crimes, in general.

These aren't trick questions.

 

[Hark_The_Sound_2010]

These aren't trick questions.

I'll be the judge of that

 

[gteeitup]

warren is out

 

[UNC71-00]

You didn't answer the why. Can we agree that it's because breaking the law is illegal, and in this particular instance immoral as well?

Of course.

 

[Hark_The_Sound_2010]

warren is out

Looks like she listened to Donny.

 

[Raising Heel]

I have to head to a meeting, so let's cut to the ending.

At a 2017 campaign rally for Greg Gianforte, who won the Montana election for Senate, President Trump praised him for assaulting a reporter from the Guardian. Gianforte was convicted.

The message was clear. Our democratic norms (violence is wrong) and laws (assault is a crime) were undermined by the president. That's a pretty fundamental example of my problems with him.

Okay, your turn.

 

[UNC71-00]

I have to head to a meeting, so let's cut to the ending.

At a 2017 campaign rally for Greg Gianforte, who won the Montana election for Senate, President Trump praised him for assaulting a reporter from the Guardian. Gianforte was convicted.

The message was clear. Our democratic norms (violence is wrong) and laws (assault is a crime) were undermined by the president. That's a pretty fundamental example of my problems with him.

Okay, your turn.

So you are ok as using this as an excuse to not vote for Trump, but when Bernie Sanders praises Fidel Fukking Castro, who killed millions of people (that's assault, right), it doesn't matter and you would still vote for him over Trump.

Makes complete sense

 

[UNC71-00]

If we want to cut to the chase, let's cut to the chase. People who don't like Trump by and large just don't like his style. Ok fine.

Just don't try to claim some moral high ground as your reason for not liking him.

 

[Hark_The_Sound_2010]

I have to head to a meeting, so let's cut to the ending.

At a 2017 campaign rally for Greg Gianforte, who won the Montana election for Senate, President Trump praised him for assaulting a reporter from the Guardian. Gianforte was convicted.

The message was clear. Our democratic norms (violence is wrong) and laws (assault is a crime) were undermined by the president. That's a pretty fundamental example of my problems with him.

Okay, your turn.

That's fair. And I don't approve of praising Gianforte for assaulting anyone.

Another norm he's destroyed, represented in the tweet I poasted in my last poast, is that he'll willingly refer to a Senator who lied about her ethnicity to obtain a job "Pocahontas". I love that change of norm, and it's more of a positive than the praising of the assault is a negative, in my mind.

 

[tarheel0910]

That's fair. And I don't approve of praising Gianforte for assaulting anyone.

Another norm he's destroyed, represented in the tweet I poasted in my last poast, is that he'll willingly refer to a Senator who lied about her ethnicity to obtain a job "Pocahontas". I love that change of norm, and it's more of a positive than the praising of the assault is a negative, in my mind.

I have to admit that even though it's inappropriate for a president to do that, I do enjoy the nicknames he comes up with.

 

[Raising Heel]

So you are ok as using this as an excuse to not vote for Trump, but when Bernie Sanders praises Fidel Fukking Castro, who killed millions of people (that's assault, right), it doesn't matter and you would still vote for him over Trump.

Makes complete sense

See, I knew you couldn't do it. You reverted to whataboutism* without actually bringing yourself to acknowledge what he did was wrong.

*Trump, too, has cozied up to brutal authoritarians who have murdered their own people. See how easy it is?

 

[Grayhead]

Ya, if we can get a list of norms and institutions that have been destroyed, maybe we can come to an agreement on which ones we care about and which ones we don't.

WTF is this, a game of "let me answer your question with another question"?

That's how OOTB rolls..

 

[heelmanwilm]

If we want to cut to the chase, let's cut to the chase. People who don't like Trump by and large just don't like his style. Ok fine.

Just don't try to claim some moral high ground as your reason for not liking him.

I would put the over under on the percentage of Americans that can claim moral high ground over Trump at around 85% and I include myself in that number

 

[Raising Heel]

Another norm he's destroyed, represented in the tweet I poasted in my last poast, is that he'll willingly refer to a Senator who lied about her ethnicity to obtain a job "Pocahontas". I love that change of norm, and it's more of a positive than the praising of the assault is a negative, in my mind.

I completely disagree. We all had to listen to eight years of @gunslingerdick complaining that the president is supposed to set the tone for the country. It's a point I happened to agree with him about, specifically Obama's comments about Trevon Martin.

These kinds of comments aren't constructive. They don't improve our political discourse. They divide us and foment anger. While you might find them appealing at a visceral level, that's not how the leader of the free world should conduct himself. Propriety matters.

 

[tarheel0910]

I would put the over under on the percentage of Americans that can claim moral high ground over Trump at around 85% and I include myself in that number

Are you saying you've never grabbed a woman by the pussy? If so, you clearly have a boring sex life.

 

[dadika13]

Are you saying you've never grabbed a woman by the pussy? If so, you clearly have a boring sex life.

 

[Raising Heel]

I would put the over under on the percentage of Americans that can claim moral high ground over Trump at around 85% and I include myself in that number

No kidding. If your best defense of Trump is the moral high ground, you should probably sit this one out.

 

[UNC71-00]

See, I knew you couldn't do it. You reverted to whataboutism* without actually bringing yourself to acknowledge what he did was wrong.

*Trump, too, has cozied up to brutal authoritarians who have murdered their own people. See how easy it is?

What are you talking about? I did say it was wrong.

But given that I don't see an alternative candidate who hasn't done something as equally reprehensible, if not more so, I don't allow nonsense like this to determine my vote.

 

[heelmanwilm]

Are you saying you've never grabbed a woman by the pussy? If so, you clearly have a boring sex life.

well the weekends coming up

 

[UNC71-00]

I would put the over under on the percentage of Americans that can claim moral high ground over Trump at around 85% and I include myself in that number

I'm sure you do.

And let's assume for a second that you do have the moral high ground. What difference does it make? You aren't running for President. We are discussing choosing a president based on morals, not the morality of any candidate relative to a person not in the election.

 

[Hark_The_Sound_2010]

I completely disagree. We all had to listen to eight years of @gunslingerdick complaining that the president is supposed to set the tone for the country. It's a point I happened to agree with him about, specifically Obama's comments about Trevon Martin.

These kinds of comments aren't constructive. They don't improve our political discourse. They divide us and foment anger. While you might find them appealing at a visceral level, that's not how the leader of the free world should conduct himself. Propriety matters.

I agree with all of this, except the last "propriety matters" piece.

The President should set the tone for the country. If you try to lie about your ethnicity to take advantage of affirmative action rules, you should be mocked.

They aren't constructive and don't improve discourse, this is true.

I get enjoyment out of seeing the people they make angry being angry. If they didn't get angry about it, most of the appeal would be gone, actually. Schadenfreude is my middle name.

 

[Raising Heel]

But given that I don't see an alternative candidate who hasn't done something as equally reprehensible, if not more so, I don't allow nonsense like this to determine my vote.

That's called tu quoque, or an appeal to hypocrisy. It's a logical fallacy and a weak defense for you simply choosing what you would've chosen anyway.

 

[UNC71-00]

That's called tu quoque, or an appeal to hypocrisy. It's a logical fallacy and a weak defense for you simply choosing what you would've chosen anyway.

No, that is not actually an example of tu quoque.

You made the claim that Trumps lack of morals matter to you and to prove that point, you will vote for another person with the same lack of morals.

 

[heelmanwilm]

I'm sure you do.

And let's assume for a second that you do have the moral high ground. What difference does it make? You aren't running for President. We are discussing choosing a president based on morals, not the morality of any candidate relative to a person not in the election.

you’re the one brought it up. But since you ask I expect the Person elected to be the most powerful person in the world to be smarter, better educated, more honest, have more integrity, and have better judgement than me. And that’s setting the bar pretty fuking low. Lol.