Trump General Discussion IV: Unpresidented! Very sad!

[LuckyNumber7]

I also have a few liberal friends(outside this forum) and we have discussed this shutting down of any discussion. by those calling themselves liberals. We all agree their (my friends) liberalism is more in line with classic liberalism. We can actually discuss and exchange ideas and even agree on issues every now and then. Not so with some who think of themselves liberals today.



I think what we see now in some people is not liberalism in play, but the radical left.



The left does not discuss, they slander and accuse. They do not seek compromise, they seek utter compliance.



Thoughts?

This is one of your best posts.

But do you really think it's us who shuts down conversation? I think it's you, who ignores legitimate criticisms, plugs your ears, and only answers what is convenient.

I'll happily admit to seeking compliance and not compromise on certain subjects. One of which is progressive human rights. As society progresses, we see a beautiful desire to achieve simple rights for everyone.

We don't talk about economics, which is arguably the only place a rift should exist. Instead, we are still stuck at square one: why is it okay for you to treat people the way you do?

 

[mama cass]

Conway on NBC - saying they might need to "rethink their relationship with the press" - is that a veiled threat to freedom of the press? someone needs to tell her she's being unpatriotic

https://www.facebook.com/MeetThePress/videos/10155087697837871/?hc_ref=PAGES_TIMELINE

 

[digitize]

Little terrifies me more about Trump than his relationship with the press. I realize that the president is legally empowered to personally handle the press however he or she wishes, as long as he or she isn't attempting to wield government power to influence them. But it does make me nervous that Trump could somehow attempt to cross the line.

I tend to be very touchy about all public and public-ish institutions protecting freedoms of speech and of the press as much as possible. I think that the left has a bit of guilt on this over recent years too, but Trump & Co.'s rhetoric takes it up a level.

A very, very free press is vital to democracy. I can't stand Fox News or the lies they peddled and encouraged about Obama, but I'm incredibly glad that they were allowed to act as they did in a completely unfettered way.

Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[bono_212]

I also have a few liberal friends(outside this forum) and we have discussed this shutting down of any discussion. by those calling themselves liberals. We all agree their (my friends) liberalism is more in line with classic liberalism. We can actually discuss and exchange ideas and even agree on issues every now and then. Not so with some who think of themselves liberals today.

I think what we see now in some people is not liberalism in play, but the radical left.

The left does not discuss, they slander and accuse. They do not seek compromise, they seek utter compliance.

Thoughts?

So what is it that I'm doing as a moderate, then, when I confront "alternate facts" with facts?

Conway on NBC - saying they might need to "rethink their relationship with the press" - is that a veiled threat to freedom of the press? someone needs to tell her she's being unpatriotic

https://www.facebook.com/MeetThePress/videos/10155087697837871/?hc_ref=PAGES_TIMELINE

Oh, the sentence in context makes it anything BUT a veiled threat.

 

[kiwilad]

Little terrifies me more about Trump than his relationship with the press. I realize that the president is legally empowered to personally handle the press however he or she wishes, as long as he or she isn't attempting to wield government power to influence them. But it does make me nervous that Trump could somehow attempt to cross the line.

I tend to be very touchy about all public and public-ish institutions protecting freedoms of speech and of the press as much as possible. I think that the left has a bit of guilt on this over recent years too, but Trump & Co.'s rhetoric takes it up a level.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

It certainly does, and it's where most of my fear stems from. History, and the present day for that matter, shows it is completely possible to convince a large population that flase doctrine is true.
Depending on the false doctrine, the downstream can be horrifying.
DaveC mused on the possibility of troops opening fire on protestors. Perhaps today that seems unrealistic. Perhaps in a year or two it won't.
A healthy 4th estate is as essential to democracy as free and fair elections. No matter which side of the political fence you sit on you must admit Trump wants the 4th estate to tell the truth as he sees it and wants it.
That's what gives me the willys. Farage is the same.
And without relitigating the Trumpism v Fascism debate, it's this trend that has me fearing a 1930s repeat.

Sent from my SM-G920I using U2 Interference mobile app

 

[the iron horse]

And do your friends ever say it's the pot calling the kettle black?

Republicans have done nothing but obfuscate and slander for 8 years. You're liking and sharing sources that still call Obama a Muslim.

I find it curious that you believe you "discuss". Just recently you posted about 2 stories that were not true. One was very easy to disprove and the other was disproved by a bipartisan investigation years ago. Instead of admitting you were wrong or apologizing for posting false information, you threw a small tantrum accusing me of walking a party line and then threw in climate change for the heck of it even though it had absolutely nothing to do with the conversation.

Is this what you call discussion or compromise? If so then I want no part of conservative "discussion".

If you are ever truly ready, then please let us know.

Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

See what I mean?

My credibility is immediately attacked. Therefore whatever I post should be ignored as a pack of lies. This means what I just posted on the left and liberals is not worth thinking about or discussing.

Also, any links I post are all lies. Therefore ignore. Do not read them.

I'm also accused of throwing a tantrum. Did I do that?

It is also pointed out I'm a skeptic on climate. This means I am a complete idiot for questioning something.

Because of my stupidity and complete failure to be open and honest any discussion with me is canceled for now.

If I change my mind and get ready for some real discussion I am told to let us know.

"Us" meaning I guess that every member and guests agrees with these accusations. Therefore I must repent of my wicked low down ways and get with the collective.

 

[Vincent Vega]

I'm all for compromise.

I'm all for working together.

I do actually agree that both sides are guilty for failing to compromise.

This... this is different.

You can not compromise with an administration who ignore facts.

You can't compromise with people who spew radical conspiracy theories like "pizza gate" or, on the left, the 9/11 truthers.

You can't compromise science.

There are theories and ideas. Sometimes they're right, sometimes they're wrong.

Facts are facts. There are no "alternative facts.". There are only facts.

I readily welcome a time where we can get back to actually discussing things that are debatable, as opposed to trying to argue against fact.

Great point. I was also reminded of a conversation I read about a few days ago between Neil DeGrasse Tyson and a "science sceptic" blogger:
I Watched Neil DeGrasse Tyson Take On A Science Sceptic | Gizmodo Australia

AL: Black holes don't make a lot of sense right now.

NDT: The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you.

AL: It has a duty to make sense to you.

NDT: It doesn't give a rat's arse how your five cents [someone else transcribed it with your five senses] interact with this world. Rattle off 10 things and I'll tell you where we are.

[...]

NDT: No, it's good! We have competent people thinking about this stuff. We're not just making shit up.

Over the last decade, both Iran and Russia started trying to open up the discussion about human rights being relative to a country's culture. Therefore, a country should be allowed to discriminate (and even kill) people who the country's culture (i.e. state defined culture) deems wrong.
We cannot compromise on that. We went through hell to arrive at the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and it would be a moral catastrophe to seek a compromise.

One also doesn't have to compromise on a person claiming people of a certain nationality are all rapists, or who thinks that imitating the disability of another person is ok as long as he can claim he didn't do it.

With the success of Trump, but also in the discussion e.g. here in Germany about a series of attacks on refugee shelters the point often made was that the liberals/progressives need to reach out, talk to, try to understand and try to find common ground with the people on "the other side". Tellingly, you never hear that "other side" saying, "Maybe we should try and sit down, talk and learn."

 

[BVS]

See what I mean?



My credibility is immediately attacked. Therefore whatever I post should be ignored as a pack of lies. This means what I just posted on the left and liberals is not worth thinking about or discussing.



Also, any links I post are all lies. Therefore ignore. Do not read them.

Nowhere did I state any of this. I didn't tell anyone to ignore your posts or links.

In fact I recently in a pm supported you and said I thought the Trump 100 days thread was locked prematurely because its intention was separate than this thread and that Sunday Dispatch didn't belong in GIS.

I'm also accused of throwing a tantrum. Did I do that?



It is also pointed out I'm a skeptic on climate. This means I am a complete idiot for questioning something.



Because of my stupidity and complete failure to be open and honest any discussion with me is canceled for now.

False once again. It was a tantrum, instead of discussing the topic at hand you attacked and went on an off topic rant.

If I change my mind and get ready for some real discussion I am told to let us know.



"Us" meaning I guess that every member and guests agrees with these accusations. Therefore I must repent of my wicked low down ways and get with the collective.

US as in FYM. You do have a reputation as not sticking around and discussing or answering questions, and it's been posters of all sides of the spectrum that have tried to ask you to do so.





Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[the iron horse]

Nowhere did I state any of this. I didn't tell anyone to ignore your posts or links.

In fact I recently in a pm supported you and said I thought the Trump 100 days thread was locked prematurely because its intention was separate than this thread and that Sunday Dispatch didn't belong in GIS.

False once again. It was a tantrum, instead of discussing the topic at hand you attacked and went on an off topic rant.

US as in FYM. You do have a reputation as not sticking around and discussing or answering questions, and it's been posters of all sides of the spectrum that have tried to ask you to do so.

Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

BVS,

Thank you for your comments. Can you send the PM again? I missed it somehow.
During the past year I have experience a few computer problems and life issues that have limited my time here. Hopefully I can be more engaged weekly this year.

I will keep your comments in mind as we move on this year.

 

[bono_212]

I also have a few liberal friends(outside this forum) and we have discussed this shutting down of any discussion. by those calling themselves liberals. We all agree their (my friends) liberalism is more in line with classic liberalism. We can actually discuss and exchange ideas and even agree on issues every now and then. Not so with some who think of themselves liberals today.

I think what we see now in some people is not liberalism in play, but the radical left.

The left does not discuss, they slander and accuse. They do not seek compromise, they seek utter compliance.

Thoughts?

And another thing. I have tried again and again, with you and others, to ask a question about your opinions, without deflection onto another person, without links to someone else's opinion, how you felt about certain topics, and received NO response. I've asked Oregoropa over and over again to answer my question about how he truly felt about the appointment of the empty SCOTUS seat, and he never once acknowledged I said anything. How am I supposed to have a conversation with people who won't acknowledge that there's a conversation going on?

 

[LuckyNumber7]

See what I mean?



My credibility is immediately attacked. Therefore whatever I post should be ignored as a pack of lies. This means what I just posted on the left and liberals is not worth thinking about or discussing.



Also, any links I post are all lies. Therefore ignore. Do not read them.



I'm also accused of throwing a tantrum. Did I do that?



It is also pointed out I'm a skeptic on climate. This means I am a complete idiot for questioning something.



Because of my stupidity and complete failure to be open and honest any discussion with me is canceled for now.



If I change my mind and get ready for some real discussion I am told to let us know.



"Us" meaning I guess that every member and guests agrees with these accusations. Therefore I must repent of my wicked low down ways and get with the collective.

See what I mean? You ignored the prompt and evaded me, rather than discussing. You speak to an audience but selectively choose which individuals you will respond to. You refuse dialogue. Who is it that won't discuss? This "echo chamber," or you?

 

[the iron horse]

This is one of your best posts.

But do you really think it's us who shuts down conversation? I think it's you, who ignores legitimate criticisms, plugs your ears, and only answers what is convenient.

I'll happily admit to seeking compliance and not compromise on certain subjects. One of which is progressive human rights. As society progresses, we see a beautiful desire to achieve simple rights for everyone.

We don't talk about economics, which is arguably the only place a rift should exist. Instead, we are still stuck at square one: why is it okay for you to treat people the way you do?

What can I say about your first two statements? I do think a lot more of "shutting" down conversations is by the left. That is my observation based on what I read, see, and hear. I don't have a problem with legitimate criticisms of my views. If I am wrong, I will confess up. I also do my best to answer questions. Please take note that some of these threads go for pages and I might miss a question. If I do, it is not intentional.

I also agree every human being has basic human rights. I have not seen these basic rights being taken away by the U.S government. I do see a lot of areas in the world where millions of people suffer for lack of these basic rights. It would be nice to see some massive world protest for these people.

Yes, some discussions on economics would be in order. I miss the financeguy here.

 

[Vincent Vega]

Trump hasn't had enough time for that.
On a more serious note, though, his government doesn't need to go all the way and literally take away these rights. Infringing upon these rights works as well.
Further, Guantanamo, solitary confinement, the "Drone wars" or restricting the access to seeking sanctuary in the US do in many ways reflect an infringement of these rights.

Protests are an important means in the repertoire of citizens in a democracy, but they are by no means the right tool to solving everything. To really change things around the world, it needs action in the countries, as well as access to justice. In many ways the US through USAID, through special programs implemented by their embassies, and through the various UN bodies has helped a great deal. We are treating torture survivors in Iraq thanks to initial funding from USAID. That's something a protest won't solve.
With Trump's administration, however, I don't know what kind of funding we will see over the next four years.

 

[Cheeks]

I personally feel Hitler, sorry I meant Trump, won't hit the 2 yr mark before he is removed as president.
Something will come out and/or be exposed about him. Can't come soon enough.

 

[BVS]

Conway on NBC - saying they might need to "rethink their relationship with the press" - is that a veiled threat to freedom of the press? someone needs to tell her she's being unpatriotic

https://www.facebook.com/MeetThePress/videos/10155087697837871/?hc_ref=PAGES_TIMELINE

Finally got around to watching this, what a shit show.

Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, it doesn't matter; this should send a shiver down your spine. The fact that your first press conference as a President and you send out your Press Secretary to flat out lie about something so arbitrary and easily proven wrong is scary.




Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[PennyLanePHINS]

Electoral College is a joke anyway. Getting 3 million more votes and still losing an election is like a baseball team scoring 10 runs to their opponent's 6 runs in the World Series...yet they lose the game because the opponent scored those 6 runs in a larger variety of ways.

I understand the smaller states not wanting the big states to decide everything for them, but its not like the big states have it fair either. California, NY, Texas, Florida all get the same number of senators as states like Wyoming, Vermont, & Idaho to keep it fair.

That's fine, but we should still go by whoever gets the most votes in the Pres election. And I thought that way before 2016...as Trump himself did back in 2012. Of course now he loves the electoral college because its the only way he can be President.

As for the protests, its nice to send a message and it was fantastic to see. But now going forward, people need to see if actually talking to Trump in a positive, friendly manner works. He has a big ego, working with him might actually work. His mind can easily be changed, because he changes his mind on so many issues all the time. And if that doesn't work, people can start lashing out at him more.

 

[anitram]

So what do the Trumpists here think of "alternative facts"? Or are you guys all too eager to excuse blatant lying?

 

[Vlad n U 2]

Not that anyone here is guilty of this, but I wish some liberals would stop talking up Hitler in order to deride Trump. I've seen this on occasions on relevant social media pages and it's ridiculous.

 

[gareth brown]

god, "Alternative Facts" is pretty depressing...

 

[dazzledbylight]

Raise your hand if you think Trumpets would have quietly accepted a Hillary victory and resolved to move on and support the new commander in chief. I mean, after he spent the final weeks of the campaign saying that if he lost it would only be because the system was "fixed."

I think all we need to do is look back at the 8 years of the Obama presidency for the sort of "respect" Republicans afford a president they lost to.

#notraisingmyhand#

As I mentioned soon after the election-
I wondered how many Trump supporters would have brought guns to their protest rallies if Hillary had won.

 

[digitize]

Electoral College is a joke anyway. Getting 3 million more votes and still losing an election is like a baseball team scoring 10 runs to their opponent's 6 runs in the World Series...yet they lose the game because the opponent scored those 6 runs in a larger variety of ways.

I understand the smaller states not wanting the big states to decide everything for them, but its not like the big states have it fair either. California, NY, Texas, Florida all get the same number of senators as states like Wyoming, Vermont, & Idaho to keep it fair.

That's fine, but we should still go by whoever gets the most votes in the Pres election. And I thought that way before 2016...as Trump himself did back in 2012. Of course now he loves the electoral college because its the only way he can be President.

As for the protests, its nice to send a message and it was fantastic to see. But now going forward, people need to see if actually talking to Trump in a positive, friendly manner works. He has a big ego, working with him might actually work. His mind can easily be changed, because he changes his mind on so many issues all the time. And if that doesn't work, people can start lashing out at him more.

We just need to start splitting liberal areas into smaller states to overcome the Republican advantage. Turn NYC into 16 Wyoming-sized states and Los Angeles into another 8 and we are well on our way.

Just make sure to slice Staten Island into sixteenths when drawing the new states.

#PowerOfArbitraryLines

 

[Bluer White]

Electoral College is a joke anyway. Getting 3 million more votes and still losing an election is like a baseball team scoring 10 runs to their opponent's 6 runs in the World Series...yet they lose the game because the opponent scored those 6 runs in a larger variety of ways.

I understand the smaller states not wanting the big states to decide everything for them, but its not like the big states have it fair either. California, NY, Texas, Florida all get the same number of senators as states like Wyoming, Vermont, & Idaho to keep it fair.

That's fine, but we should still go by whoever gets the most votes in the Pres election. And I thought that way before 2016...as Trump himself did back in 2012. Of course now he loves the electoral college because its the only way he can be President.

Hi Penny, there's an avenue to change the process.

Until then, every candidate strategizes and campaigns under the same rules.

If and when the process changes, we can expect candidates to change strategy too.

 

[Diemen]

It's pretty rich to accuse everyone else of "shutting down" dialogue when you have an extremely well documented & extensive history of ignoring direct questions posed to you.

 

[Cheeks]

Not that anyone here is guilty of this, but I wish some liberals would stop talking up Hitler in order to deride Trump. I've seen this on occasions on relevant social media pages and it's ridiculous.

Lmao! What's the difference between the two? Both are two peas in a pod.

 

[LemonMelon]

"Alternative facts" is classic doublespeak. Orwell himself couldn't write it up any better.

 

[LemonMelon]

Not that anyone here is guilty of this, but I wish some liberals would stop talking up Hitler in order to deride Trump. I've seen this on occasions on relevant social media pages and it's ridiculous.

To be fair, librulz aren't the only ones throwing around Nazi comparisons carelessly:

[TWEET]819164172781060096[/TWEET]

Dude may not be Hitler, but he is fucking pathetic.

 

[Vlad n U 2]

I'm not talking about simply comparing, I'm talking things like speaking positively of Hitler in relation to Trump.

[TWEET]823046269333544960[/TWEET]

Of course, this is likely to be a small minority, but I'm shocked this is something even some liberals are thinking.

 

[bono_212]

This is awesome:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/put-picture-again-chris-wallace-170700584.html

(Good on ya, Fox News)

 

[LuckyNumber7]

I'm not talking about simply comparing, I'm talking things like speaking positively of Hitler in relation to Trump.

[TWEET]823046269333544960[/TWEET]

Of course, this is likely to be a small minority, but I'm shocked this is something even some liberals are thinking.

I mean, it's not appropriate, but that certainly looks like satire to me.

 

[bono_212]

I mean, it's not appropriate, but that certainly looks like satire to me.

It doesn't really read like satire to me :\