The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

Reasons to Vote for Democrats Options
FounDit
Posted: Thursday, March 09, 2017 3:54:38 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 7,665
Neurons: 40,098
I thought some balance was in order considering most of the posts in the politics section...and I love a good laugh.

Reasons to Vote for Democrats


A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~
Gary98
Posted: Thursday, March 09, 2017 5:05:19 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/23/2014
Posts: 1,541
Neurons: 1,758,274
Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
Thanks for the laugh. My headache with Clinton/Trump candidacy still lingers.
Andrew Schultz
Posted: Thursday, March 09, 2017 6:04:12 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/7/2015
Posts: 188
Neurons: 377,335
Location: Chicago, Illinois, United States
Pfft, it's been done :)

https://www.amazon.com/Going-Rouge-Candid-Political-Conservative/dp/1449587941

I particularly enjoy the idiom section of this fine website.
hedy mmm
Posted: Thursday, March 09, 2017 9:10:17 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/29/2014
Posts: 767
Neurons: 332,215
Location: Borough of Bronx, New York, United States
Dancing Dancing Touché FounDit...a good laugh & so true! Applause Applause


"God graced us with today....don't waste it." hedy
Epiphileon
Posted: Friday, March 10, 2017 4:57:51 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 3,873
Neurons: 50,102
I would suggest that unless we seek balanced thinking, the application of critical thinking, and stop buying into the bullshit that both parties sling, pretty much evenly, and oust the big money backed politicians in Washington nothing is going to really change.

The fact that Bernie Sanders was discriminated against by the Democratic party should be just as much of a issue as anyone else messing with the electoral process.

The fact that the current President is acting on his promises does not mean all of them were good. Some of the people he is populating positions of power with are highly suspect, and in some cases grossly unqualified.

The fact that even reasonable people are buying into the bullshit being peddled by both parties, and moving ever more towards entrenched, intractable, recalcitrant, positions, is only going to guarantee a dysfunctional government. A government by oligarchy, and not in any way a government of, for, and by the people.

Sorry Foundit this rant is in no way directed at you, its just that some of what I see on this subforum just leaves me shaking my head. The powers that be have pretty successfully moved the general population to a us/them mentality among ourselves instead of looking to where the real problems lie.


Question authority. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
FounDit
Posted: Friday, March 10, 2017 10:11:28 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 7,665
Neurons: 40,098
Epiphileon wrote:


I would suggest that unless we seek balanced thinking, the application of critical thinking, and stop buying into the bullshit that both parties sling, pretty much evenly, and oust the big money backed politicians in Washington nothing is going to really change.
I can agree with this, though I think it will be pretty much impossible to do. Power and money always go together; always have, always will. It seems to me the only real threat they pay attention to is being ousted from their cushy government jobs, but they have, in the past, even managed to get that covered by leaving government and becoming lobbyists for so many years.

The fact that Bernie Sanders was discriminated against by the Democratic party should be just as much of a issue as anyone else messing with the electoral process.
I agree again. This was a major example of political corruption, and one that should not ever be tolerated. So it seems to be not only ironic, but hypocritical in the extreme to wail about someone “rigging” an election when they did it themselves.

The fact that the current President is acting on his promises does not mean all of them were good. Some of the people he is populating positions of power with are highly suspect, and in some cases grossly unqualified.
True enough, although even having “qualified” persons in office hasn’t been much of an example of good government either, when it has brought us to this place in history.

I don’t think the population is filled with “qualified” people from which to choose. It’s not that, in my opinion, so much as the goals and the vision of those in office for the country and its people that should serve as qualifications.

This, I believe, is more important than “qualifications”. Besides that, who determines those qualifications? What makes one person an excellent choice, may make another person decide they are a horrible choice, so we’re back to the same place. I do believe, however, that people who have a positive related history, or record, of accomplishment in a field, or in life, can count as "qualified" to offer advice or direction to the country, regardless of party.

The fact that even reasonable people are buying into the bullshit being peddled by both parties, and moving ever more towards entrenched, intractable, recalcitrant, positions, is only going to guarantee a dysfunctional government. A government by oligarchy, and not in any way a government of, for, and by the people.
This looks like a specious argument to me. Wealth doesn’t necessarily negate consideration for one’s fellow humans. If that were true, there would be no foundations established, no grants given, etc. It really depends on the personality traits of the individual.

Wealthy people have, throughout history, contributed mightily to the advancement of civilization, sometimes purposefully, sometimes accidentally, and sometimes in spite of a greediness of wealth, as was seen with historical guilds and associations. I don't see wealth as a negative for leadership. The only leadership we commonly see among the poor is in criminal gangs, and I wouldn't suggest any of them for National positions...Not talking

Sorry Foundit this rant is in no way directed at you, its just that some of what I see on this subforum just leaves me shaking my head. The powers that be have pretty successfully moved the general population to a us/them mentality among ourselves instead of looking to where the real problems lie.
No offense taken (Edit: but I do appreciate your pointing that out). I always enjoy a good, reasoned discussion. And I agree again that our population has become much too polarized. This process has been going on for quite some time, and it does need to stop.

My point in posting these things is to draw attention to that polarization; to describe as objectively as I can my views (though it can be fun, and very tempting, to "poke the bear" in his cage), and to provide some insight from those who describe it well, in my opinion, and some levity concerning it. If we can’t laugh at ourselves, we’ll never be able to make any progress. We have to be able to disagree without name-calling and vituperation.





A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~
Andrew Schultz
Posted: Friday, March 10, 2017 11:21:57 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/7/2015
Posts: 188
Neurons: 377,335
Location: Chicago, Illinois, United States
FoundIt wrote:
If we can’t laugh at ourselves, we’ll never be able to make any progress. We have to be able to disagree without name-calling and vituperation.


Humor is a tricky thing, though. People can make fun of others and then say "Gee, I was just trying to help you have a sense of humor." With the implication that if the subject doesn't drop their reservations and laugh along, they're just not open-minded. And that's not cool, whether politics is involved or not. Humor should not be about punching down. And it should be about more than a cheap gotcha, for instance, when Barack Obama pointed out to Hillary Clinton back in 2008 the contradictions when she said

* she said he wasn't ready for the big time
* she'd consider him for VP

To me, this is a wonderful way to fight back against backhanded compliments that would be useful from a politician or anyone.

And that's where I think you stepped over the line, claiming the poor can't possess leadership.

FoundIt wrote:
The only leadership we commonly see among the poor is in criminal gangs, and I wouldn't suggest any of them for National positions...


Because if you're trying to make a joke here, I can only see this as straight out of Rush Limbaugh's playbook and horribly wrong. It's "I'm not name-calling, but..." And if you genuinely feel this way, I can only feel sorry for you. I really don't see how to make a joke about it, and I suspect I'm just writing this for other people's attention, so they can say, hmm, I always found this wrong, and I'm not sure why--and not yours.

Community organizers (remember them? How Obama was mocked for being one?) count. People who march for increased minimum wage count. People who take time to help others, or to badger representatives about not cutting critical social services, count. Pastors who don't make big salaries running a megachurch count.

They may not be displayed enough on the news, because it doesn't keep people captivated, but they count. In fact, they're vital to keeping society stable, regardless of how democratic it is. In more repressive societies, some people have given away wealth, or had it confiscated, instead of climbing a corrupt power structure.

Wealth is not a negative for leadership, but wealth for wealth's sake is, or when people use that wealth to buy power, it's wrong. It happens in the public or private sector.

Oh, and Joe Biden? Not particularly wealthy. But he made it to VP. I suppose you can weave conspiracy theories, but his financial disclosure forms showed a relatively low net worth.

Funny guy, too! At least, I think so.

(Note: edited to change who I quoted. I got 2 people confused.)

I particularly enjoy the idiom section of this fine website.
FounDit
Posted: Friday, March 10, 2017 2:19:01 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 7,665
Neurons: 40,098
Andrew Schultz wrote:

FoundIt wrote:
If we can’t laugh at ourselves, we’ll never be able to make any progress. We have to be able to disagree without name-calling and vituperation.

Humor is a tricky thing, though. True, humor is a tricky thing, but why do you automatically go to the idea of it being defined as “making fun of others”?
I, in fact, do not find making fun of others funny, and that was not my intention, nor the point of the humor.

It isn’t making fun of someone to say you can’t find a reason to vote for them. It does say something about you – that your beliefs and ideas are not in alignment with the candidate – and I just happened to find the blank sheets a funny juxtaposition. It would be no different than to title a book The Wisdom of Trump and fill it with blank pages. That would make me laugh also, because of the juxtaposition of “wisdom” and blank pages.

I don’t automatically equate humor with making fun of someone. So it seems to me to say something about you that you do, but that is just a first impression from what you wrote. I could be wrong. You’ll have to let me know.

People can make fun of others and then say "Gee, I was just trying to help you have a sense of humor." With the implication that if the subject doesn't drop their reservations and laugh along, they're just not open-minded. And that's not cool, whether politics is involved or not. Humor should not be about punching down. And it should be about more than a cheap gotcha, for instance, when Barack Obama pointed out to Hillary Clinton back in 2008 the contradictions when she said

* she said he wasn't ready for the big time
* she'd consider him for VP

To me, this is a wonderful way to fight back against backhanded compliments that would be useful from a politician or anyone.

And that's where I think you stepped over the line, claiming the poor can't possess leadership. I didn’t say the poor can’t possess leadership, I said gang leaders were a very common example.
FoundIt wrote:
The only leadership we commonly see among the poor is in criminal gangs, and I wouldn't suggest any of them for National positions...


Because if you're trying to make a joke here, I can only see this as straight out of Rush Limbaugh's playbook and horribly wrong. Is that right? I’m not sure about that, since I don’t listen to talk radio hosts to find out what to think. I tend to think for myself, and believe little I see or hear on the news until I can verify it myself through a couple of competing sources. Even then, I remain skeptical. There is just too much outright lying going on.

It's "I'm not name-calling, but..." And if you genuinely feel this way, I can only feel sorry for you. That’s your characterization, not mine, nor my thinking.

I really don't see how to make a joke about it, and I suspect I'm just writing this for other people's attention, so they can say, hmm, I always found this wrong, and I'm not sure why--and not yours.

Community organizers (remember them? How Obama was mocked for being one?) count. People who march for increased minimum wage count. People who take time to help others, or to badger representatives about not cutting critical social services, count. Pastors who don't make big salaries running a megachurch count.
There are multiple levels of leadership to be sure in all levels of society, but I was talking about leadership at the class level between the wealthy and the poor, and the kind of leadership the poor might offer would not be the kind we might want at a National level.

To your point, however, we’ve seen that the skills of a community organizer didn’t work out very well in so far as uniting the country. And societies were stable long before community organizers were known as such. Also, marching in the streets demanding FROM representatives isn’t what I’d call leadership. It’s demanding FROM leadership.

They may not be displayed enough on the news, because it doesn't keep people captivated, but they count. In fact, they're vital to keeping society stable, regardless of how democratic it is. In more repressive societies, some people have given away wealth, or had it confiscated, instead of climbing a corrupt power structure. Helping one another is what creates a society, is the very definition of a society, so that isn’t leadership. But it appears that, in your mind, wealthy people are always climbing a corrupt power structure and do nothing else for the benefit of their society; no art, no jobs, no provisioning during bad times, no funding of experimentation, of exploration?

Wealth is not a negative for leadership, but wealth for wealth's sake is, or when people use that wealth to buy power, it's wrong. It happens in the public or private sector.
Finally, we agree on something. The only caveat is that wealth IS power in all societies. One doesn’t have to buy it; but as with all things, it is how wealth is used that matters, not wealth itself.

Oh, and Joe Biden? Not particularly wealthy. But he made it to VP. I suppose you can weave conspiracy theories, but his financial disclosure forms showed a relatively low net worth.

Funny guy, too! At least, I think so.
I fail to see the point you're trying to make here, with Biden.

(Note: edited to change who I quoted. I got 2 people confused.)



A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~
Andrew Schultz
Posted: Friday, March 10, 2017 7:46:55 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/7/2015
Posts: 188
Neurons: 377,335
Location: Chicago, Illinois, United States
I do think that many people don't realize that humor is about more than getting a big laugh. And so we're at an impasse here. I think a lot of people equate big laugh with a good joke. And, well, when someone comes along and has a joke to share and it's a bit one-sided, well, that's dirty pool. Not enough to spoil my day, but still worth pointing out. And, well, I felt compelled to point out that with a bit of research you could've made it a more balanced laugh. It's also potentially bad form to laugh at, well, someone who lost and who has by all accounts been a good sport about it.

Laughter's a tricky thing. I think many people use it as a bargaining chip. As if to say, I gave you a laugh, or I TRIED to, now sit back and calm down...and it doesn't really work that way. Maybe this is off-topic, but I'm not so sure. Politics is about people convincing others they have their best interests at heart, so even if we are not politicking, we are still engaging in politics, whether it's on a national or local scale.

FoundIt wrote:
But it appears that, in your mind, wealthy people are always climbing a corrupt power structure and do nothing else for the benefit of their society; no art, no jobs, no provisioning during bad times, no funding of experimentation, of exploration?


Hmm, I think you misread my quote. I said "In more repressive societies, some people have given away wealth, or had it confiscated, instead of climbing a corrupt power structure." In this case, I wanted to point out a specific counterexample where wealth and leadership would be exclusive.

I'd also disagree that society is by default about helping people. Society has, sadly, been rough and nasty. There's been slavery and serfdom and so forth. In this case, there's a lot of exploitation, and while it's true some serfs might be even worse off without an organizational structure, that doesn't mean the landowners are being terribly helpful.

As I see it leadership starts with getting people to go along with something, for better or worse. Maybe it's something they only believed but never fought for.

Also I don't think you can have it both ways re: representatives and protests and leadership. You say "It seems to me the only real threat they pay attention to is being ousted from their cushy government jobs." But, then, how do we get rid of these people? And how do we let them know their actions won't be okay in the future, and how do we send a message we won't tolerate the same stuff from a different person? And if you believe society is about helping people, well, then, the protesters are asking for a more advanced society by saying, yes, more accessible and affordable care helps people and not just Asking For Stuff.

I agree about the public/private revolving door, but I think back to how Obama's executive order looked to put a stop to that sort of thing, or at least slow it down.

My point with Joe Biden is that, well, there are people of modest means who can do very well and show courage and decency and make doing the right thing not seem stuffy and boring.

Oh, and my point about your comment about the poor--you throw in an emoticon, I generally conclude that's for (attempted) humor emphasis. A "commonly" doesn't water it down.

I particularly enjoy the idiom section of this fine website.
Hope123
Posted: Friday, March 10, 2017 10:56:30 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 5,350
Neurons: 32,948
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
LOL.

Really brilliant editors!

(Who is spending all that money they don't have on an empty book? Making the author rich.)

Twenty years ago there was this blank pages book - "Everything Men Know About Women"

Later - "What Every Man Thinks About Apart From Sex

Sometimes the longest way around is the shortest way home. Anon
FounDit
Posted: Sunday, March 12, 2017 1:14:08 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 7,665
Neurons: 40,098
Andrew Schultz wrote:


I do think that many people don't realize that humor is about more than getting a big laugh. And so we're at an impasse here. I think a lot of people equate big laugh with a good joke. And, well, when someone comes along and has a joke to share and it's a bit one-sided, well, that's dirty pool. Not enough to spoil my day, but still worth pointing out. And, well, I felt compelled to point out that with a bit of research you could've made it a more balanced laugh. It's also potentially bad form to laugh at, well, someone who lost and who has by all accounts been a good sport about it.
"by all accounts been a good sport about it"? Seriously? Can you honestly say Democrats have been a “good sport” about losing the election?

Laughter's a tricky thing. I think many people use it as a bargaining chip. As if to say, I gave you a laugh, or I TRIED to, now sit back and calm down...and it doesn't really work that way. Maybe this is off-topic, but I'm not so sure. Politics is about people convincing others they have their best interests at heart, so even if we are not politicking, we are still engaging in politics, whether it's on a national or local scale.
That you see laughter as a bargaining chip seems strange to me, but that’s okay. It is your opinion. I see it as a spontaneous thing that usually is the result of a surprise, something not expected, which jars the normal flow of thought. How it is used is variable, however. It can be used accidentally, purposefully, or innocently. It depends on the user or the circumstances.

And "politics" as I see it is always about "appearances". The truth is not important, it is how it appears that counts. This is the reason I have often said that in politics, "it's not what it is, it's what we say it is". That's why politicians have such a reputation as being liars, promising much and delivering little to nothing at all. It was this, in part, that propelled Trump into the White House. Many have grown tired of the lies and the never-ending problems that are allowed to fester, or grown greater, by "politicians". Only time will tell how this will work out, but one thing seems certain at this point: "politicians" hate the fact that a non-politician has been put in the place of tremendous power, rather than one of their own. And they have most certainly not "been good sports about it".

FoundIt wrote:
But it appears that, in your mind, wealthy people are always climbing a corrupt power structure and do nothing else for the benefit of their society; no art, no jobs, no provisioning during bad times, no funding of experimentation, of exploration?


Hmm, I think you misread my quote. I said "In more repressive societies, some people have given away wealth, or had it confiscated, instead of climbing a corrupt power structure." In this case, I wanted to point out a specific counterexample where wealth and leadership would be exclusive.
It doesn’t seem to me that I did misread it. Your final sentence brings some clarity in that you say you “wanted to point out a specific counterexample where wealth and leadership would be exclusive. “

So my question would then be: In what societies has there ever been an example of wealth residing at the poverty level and the leadership level being poor?

I submit that in all societies, wealth always resides at the leadership level, precisely because wealth is always equated with power.

I'd also disagree that society is by default about helping people. Society has, sadly, been rough and nasty. There's been slavery and serfdom and so forth. In this case, there's a lot of exploitation, and while it's true some serfs might be even worse off without an organizational structure, that doesn't mean the landowners are being terribly helpful.
I think you have misunderstood what I wrote. I said, “Helping one another is what creates a society, is the very definition of a society, so that isn’t leadership.” By that I meant that people helping one another is what forms and creates a society. It would be impossible to have a society where people do not help one another; where every individual is fighting against every other individual.

As I see it leadership starts with getting people to go along with something, for better or worse. Maybe it's something they only believed but never fought for.

Also I don't think you can have it both ways re: representatives and protests and leadership. You say "It seems to me the only real threat they pay attention to is being ousted from their cushy government jobs." But, then, how do we get rid of these people? And how do we let them know their actions won't be okay in the future, and how do we send a message we won't tolerate the same stuff from a different person? And if you believe society is about helping people, well, then, the protesters are asking for a more advanced society by saying, yes, more accessible and affordable care helps people and not just Asking For Stuff.
But this isn’t leadership, which was the topic. Protesting isn’t leadership when it is about asking for stuff, or complaining about what the LEADERS are doing.

The simple logic is: leaders don’t protest in the streets, citizens do. Ergo, protesters are not the leaders of the society; they are attempting to influence the leaders.

I agree about the public/private revolving door, but I think back to how Obama's executive order looked to put a stop to that sort of thing, or at least slow it down.
Which executive order of Obama’s was that? I must have missed it.

My point with Joe Biden is that, well, there are people of modest means who can do very well and show courage and decency and make doing the right thing not seem stuffy and boring.

Oh, and my point about your comment about the poor--you throw in an emoticon, I generally conclude that's for (attempted) humor emphasis. A "commonly" doesn't water it down.
No? I thought it was humorous. But humor is an individual taste so you might not see it as humorous. But if you take me to be serious, then I would ask which gang leader would you recommend for a National leadership position?




A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~
Andrew Schultz
Posted: Sunday, March 12, 2017 3:59:18 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/7/2015
Posts: 188
Neurons: 377,335
Location: Chicago, Illinois, United States
Ouch! This got long, but I hope it is informative.

FounDit wrote:
Seriously? Can you honestly say Democrats have been a “good sport” about losing the election?
[/color]


Better sports than the Republicans and their "deal with it." What the opposition party does *is* resist what they feel is wrong. If not, they are not doing their jobs. It's what the Republicans did in 2009, with fewer Senators and Representatives. Politics is messy. Feelings get hurt. Having had Republican Facebook acquaintances pass around pictures of Hillary Clinton and comparing them to Ivanka and Melania Trump is flat out skeevy, and "OMG Liberal tears" mugs are just silly. So: we have to decide whether we find this sort of thing funny, too, and if this is an example of being a bad winner.

I think it's more than okay to be upset and want to change things, or not back down from core values, and I think by and large Democrats have done that. If they haven't acted exactly as you expect, well, they don't owe you anything.

(from my old post)Laughter's a tricky thing. I think many people use it as a bargaining chip. As if to say, I gave you a laugh, or I TRIED to, now sit back and calm down...and it doesn't really work that way.

FoundIt wrote:
That you see laughter as a bargaining chip seems strange to me, but that’s okay. It is your opinion. I see it as a spontaneous thing that usually is the result of a surprise, something not expected, which jars the normal flow of thought. How it is used is variable, however. It can be used accidentally, purposefully, or innocently. It depends on the user or the circumstances.


I agree with the last sentence, but I think you missed something I (subsequently) bolded. Laughter at its best should be about spontaneity, but often it isn't. Many people do use laughter to control. And I think if people use it to cut others down, especially those they have power over or have recently bested, that's a lack of class regardless of political views.

I'm saying that there are people who laugh at others to say "Boy, you should feel stupid about doing/thinking that" or "Boy, Person X is weird, aren't they?" and laughing. And then maybe saying, well, you're a poor sport or not self-aware if you don't laugh. It's not pleasant, but it does happen, and it's worth checking off on. Of course, you can go too far in the other direction. I'm not arguing it's not spontaneous, there...but I think what we laugh about shows what sort of person we are, and laughing at others' misfortunes shows a lot. It's hard to resist that temptation, though.

FoundIt wrote:
So my question would then be: In what societies has there ever been an example of wealth residing at the poverty level and the leadership level being poor?

I submit that in all societies, wealth always resides at the leadership level, precisely because wealth is always equated with power.


Just because it is this way doesn't mean it should be, or that we shouldn't track how much wealth is where. There will be inequality, but that doesn't excuse inequity. And the agents of change may themselves be poor, and sometimes a bunch of poor people with a mission and persistence can get people to change things. Or they may come to deserve wealth for their efforts.

FoundIt wrote:
I said, “Helping one another is what creates a society, is the very definition of a society, so that isn’t leadership.” By that I meant that people helping one another is what forms and creates a society. It would be impossible to have a society where people do not help one another; where every individual is fighting against every other individual.


I don't see helping one another as separate from leadership. And my point was that people can settle into where they're helping each other minimally to keep society going. And yes, it'd be impossible for society where everyone is fighting against each other. But it's a sad reality we often do the minimum we have to, or we only do what we're obliged to.

As I see it leadership starts with getting people to go along with something, for better or worse. Maybe it's something they only believed but never fought for. It's about more than grabbing a formal role associated with power. I've seen TedTalks on the subject, etc.

FoundIt wrote:
But this isn’t leadership, which was the topic. Protesting isn’t leadership when it is about asking for stuff, or complaining about what the LEADERS are doing.


But then protesting or fighting for change can never be leadership by your definition. And leadership is not the same thing as leaders. So it may not be the topic, but then the topic may not be terribly relevant.

FoundIt wrote:
The simple logic is: leaders don’t protest in the streets, citizens do. Ergo, protesters are not the leaders of the society; they are attempting to influence the leaders.


They may not be THE leaders with formal power, but they are leading in a specific cause. Martin Luther King was a leader. Harvey Milk was a leader. Mother Teresa was a leader. Reverend William Barber is (in my mind) a leader. As I see it, leadership is about doing more than just helping. It's about trying to get others to do so, or giving them a way to do so easier.

FoundIt wrote:
Which executive order of Obama’s was that? I must have missed it.


https://www.justice.gov/jmd/ethics-pledge-executive-order-13490 -- Whether it's unachievable is one thing. There's a case for not having too strict a lobbyist ban. But it happened.

FoundIt wrote:
But if you take me to be serious, then I would ask which gang leader would you recommend for a National leadership position?


I can't really take you to be serious if you say something like that. I'd like to, and it's been useful to state my own views, but I can't, so I'm not going to hit my head against a wall, here, except maybe to spell things out to others who are curious. There are examples other than gang leaders. People who work at community centers and take time out of their day that they barely have. I'd argue this is vitally important to have non-formal leadership at the non-national level in order to check top-level leaders and their blind spots.

I really can't name names of someone who has helped reform inner cities for a national post. And it would probably be wrong to pluck someone from a position of small influence to have national oversight. But people do work their way up. And I think I've articulated that leadership doesn't need to be national. It can be local. And it can be without ambition for a higher post.

In fact, it needs to be, or we are going to have a lot of silly us vs. them fights. And I think this may've transformed people's disappointment with national government into someone like Trump instead of having more people take care of things at the local level. So it seems to me we need to make the distinction between leadership and just taking charge.

I particularly enjoy the idiom section of this fine website.
Verbatim
Posted: Sunday, March 12, 2017 4:18:31 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/3/2012
Posts: 1,827
Neurons: 187,524
FounDit wrote:
I thought some balance was in order considering most of the posts in the politics section...and I love a good laugh.

Reasons to Vote for Democrats


It appears from Mediaproject Wesleyan 2016-election-study-published March 6, 2017 (accepts Google search)
that some reasons to the contrary have also been present in the recent presidential election.

"The article published in The Forum: A Journal of Applied Research in Contemporary Politics (open access through mid-April 2017) shows that the presidential race featured far less advertising than the previous cycle, a huge imbalance in the number of ads across candidates, and one candidate who almost ignored discussions of policy."
FounDit
Posted: Sunday, March 12, 2017 9:08:29 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 7,665
Neurons: 40,098
Andrew Schultz wrote:
Ouch! This got long, but I hope it is informative.

FounDit wrote:
Seriously? Can you honestly say Democrats have been a “good sport” about losing the election?


Better sports than the Republicans and their "deal with it." What the opposition party does *is* resist what they feel is wrong. If not, they are not doing their jobs. It's what the Republicans did in 2009, with fewer Senators and Representatives. Politics is messy.
Resistance is one thing, organizing marches declaring the newly elected President "Hitler" by Hollywood people is different. Marching in the streets and setting fires to your neighbor's property is also a different thing than "resistance". Looking to impeach the newly elected President within a week or so of his election is a bit different than simple "resistance".

Feelings get hurt. Having had Republican Facebook acquaintances pass around pictures of Hillary Clinton and comparing them to Ivanka and Melania Trump is flat out skeevy, and "OMG Liberal tears" mugs are just silly. So: we have to decide whether we find this sort of thing funny, too, and if this is an example of being a bad winner.
True, feelings get hurt, but a few examples of bad behavior or attitude certainly cannot be applied to the whole of the other party. These kinds of things always happen and always will. They can't be taken as a serious representation of those on the other side. I saw some nasty things done in the name of "humor" on the web and in emails after Obama was elected, but I wrote them off as being part of our "fringe element" and didn't pass them along, or find them funny. I would like to see the same from the Left.

I think it's more than okay to be upset and want to change things, or not back down from core values, and I think by and large Democrats have done that. If they haven't acted exactly as you expect, well, they don't owe you anything.
So they don't owe their fellow citizens any respect? They don't owe their fellow citizens safety in their homes or businesses from vandalism and fires? They don't owe them the right to respect and civil discourse? I think you have to agree there are some things that are owed. And you must acknowledge, I think, that these things did not happen when Obama was elected.

(from my old post)Laughter's a tricky thing. I think many people use it as a bargaining chip. As if to say, I gave you a laugh, or I TRIED to, now sit back and calm down...and it doesn't really work that way.

FoundIt wrote:
That you see laughter as a bargaining chip seems strange to me, but that’s okay. It is your opinion. I see it as a spontaneous thing that usually is the result of a surprise, something not expected, which jars the normal flow of thought. How it is used is variable, however. It can be used accidentally, purposefully, or innocently. It depends on the user or the circumstances.


I agree with the last sentence, but I think you missed something I (subsequently) bolded. Laughter at its best should be about spontaneity, but often it isn't. Many people do use laughter to control. And I think if people use it to cut others down, especially those they have power over or have recently bested, that's a lack of class regardless of political views.
I agree, and it works from both sides. There is a difference between humor and simply being nasty.

I'm saying that there are people who laugh at others to say "Boy, you should feel stupid about doing/thinking that" or "Boy, Person X is weird, aren't they?" and laughing. And then maybe saying, well, you're a poor sport or not self-aware if you don't laugh. It's not pleasant, but it does happen, and it's worth checking off on. Of course, you can go too far in the other direction. I'm not arguing it's not spontaneous, there...but I think what we laugh about shows what sort of person we are, and laughing at others' misfortunes shows a lot. It's hard to resist that temptation, though.
I agree with that, and don't approve of that kind of humor either.

FoundIt wrote:
So my question would then be: In what societies has there ever been an example of wealth residing at the poverty level and the leadership level being poor?

I submit that in all societies, wealth always resides at the leadership level, precisely because wealth is always equated with power.


Just because it is this way doesn't mean it should be, or that we shouldn't track how much wealth is where. There will be inequality, but that doesn't excuse inequity. And the agents of change may themselves be poor, and sometimes a bunch of poor people with a mission and persistence can get people to change things. Or they may come to deserve wealth for their efforts.

FoundIt wrote:
I said, “Helping one another is what creates a society, is the very definition of a society, so that isn’t leadership.” By that I meant that people helping one another is what forms and creates a society. It would be impossible to have a society where people do not help one another; where every individual is fighting against every other individual.


I don't see helping one another as separate from leadership. And my point was that people can settle into where they're helping each other minimally to keep society going. And yes, it'd be impossible for society where everyone is fighting against each other. But it's a sad reality we often do the minimum we have to, or we only do what we're obliged to.

As I see it leadership starts with getting people to go along with something, for better or worse. Maybe it's something they only believed but never fought for. It's about more than grabbing a formal role associated with power. I've seen TedTalks on the subject, etc.

FoundIt wrote:
But this isn’t leadership, which was the topic. Protesting isn’t leadership when it is about asking for stuff, or complaining about what the LEADERS are doing.


But then protesting or fighting for change can never be leadership by your definition. And leadership is not the same thing as leaders. So it may not be the topic, but then the topic may not be terribly relevant.

FoundIt wrote:
The simple logic is: leaders don’t protest in the streets, citizens do. Ergo, protesters are not the leaders of the society; they are attempting to influence the leaders.


They may not be THE leaders with formal power, but they are leading in a specific cause. Martin Luther King was a leader. Harvey Milk was a leader. Mother Teresa was a leader. Reverend William Barber is (in my mind) a leader. As I see it, leadership is about doing more than just helping. It's about trying to get others to do so, or giving them a way to do so easier.

FoundIt wrote:
Which executive order of Obama’s was that? I must have missed it.


https://www.justice.gov/jmd/ethics-pledge-executive-order-13490 -- Whether it's unachievable is one thing. There's a case for not having too strict a lobbyist ban. But it happened.
Thanks for that. I had, indeed, missed that.

FoundIt wrote:
But if you take me to be serious, then I would ask which gang leader would you recommend for a National leadership position?


I can't really take you to be serious if you say something like that. I'd like to, and it's been useful to state my own views, but I can't, so I'm not going to hit my head against a wall, here, except maybe to spell things out to others who are curious. There are examples other than gang leaders. People who work at community centers and take time out of their day that they barely have. I'd argue this is vitally important to have non-formal leadership at the non-national level in order to check top-level leaders and their blind spots.

I really can't name names of someone who has helped reform inner cities for a national post. And it would probably be wrong to pluck someone from a position of small influence to have national oversight. But people do work their way up. And I think I've articulated that leadership doesn't need to be national. It can be local. And it can be without ambition for a higher post.

In fact, it needs to be, or we are going to have a lot of silly us vs. them fights. And I think this may've transformed people's disappointment with national government into someone like Trump instead of having more people take care of things at the local level. So it seems to me we need to make the distinction between leadership and just taking charge.

I think we are talking past one another here. The original source of this discussion on leadership was from Epiphileon's post:
Epiphileon wrote:
The fact that even reasonable people are buying into the bullshit being peddled by both parties, and moving ever more towards entrenched, intractable, recalcitrant, positions, is only going to guarantee a dysfunctional government. A government by oligarchy, and not in any way a government of, for, and by the people.

There can certainly be leadership on a local level, but we were talking about National leadership, governmental leadership, and it was to that level my comments were referring.



A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~
Hope123
Posted: Sunday, March 12, 2017 10:23:58 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 5,350
Neurons: 32,948
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Very interesting discussions in these two threads, FD.

Discussion is just to share ideas. It may happen the odd time but it woud be an unproductive expectation that anyone would change their views. Or to demand such change. But I do now understand more of where you and some Americans are coming from.

One opinion and one two-part question :

Opinion -

I agree violence at any time by any group is dreadfully wrong and doesn't solve anything. But it seems to me that it is comparing apples and oranges when anyone compares what happened after any previous election with whichever election just happened.

And that would be especially true for this one. The atmosphere during this campaign was altogether different. Violence was alluded to, encouraged, and condoned, with hints there would be no reprisals for his supporters - and by the candidate on the right. (Lock her up. Get rid of Hillary's secret service and and let the second amendment people etc. - whatever it was he actually said).

If he had lost I hoped I was wrong but I thoroughly expected there to be a lot more violence than I have heard about around the inauguration. (I don't know if violence is still happening or not. I have tuned out. And I never heard the results of the investigations into professional hijackers of peaceful demonstrations.)

With the emphasis on the necessity of guns to protect the Second Amendment against government (I even overheard such discussions in shops while shopping in FL) and with the rhetoric about revolution by some Trump supporters, if he had lost I fully expected some sort of organized revolution complete with automatic rifles.

I'm not saying there's ever any excuse for violence. What I'm saying is that you can't compare by making two situations with different environments equal.
:::

The question - and please take it not as criticism but as just that, as a question and as curiosity because I can't make the disparity go away in my mind.


Part one - Do you believe Trump lies? (I don't mean does he believe what he is saying at that particular moment. Comedians have juxtaposed him saying the exact opposite several times depending upon to whom he is speaking.) I mean - is he dispensing truth and provable facts? Or is it the truth only if it agrees with or is complimentary to him? For example - the election was only rigged if he lost. Then he won so it wasn't rigged and he accepted the results. But then it became apparent he did not win the popular vote. So then it was rigged but only in states Hillary won. And is he telling the truth with daily happenings now etc.?

If your answer is "No" you don't believe he lies, then that answers part two so you can skip that.

You have mentioned many times how all politicians lie and therefore you wanted someone who is not a politician. All Politicians in every country used to use spin. I doubt there would be one person on TFD who has not used spin to get their viewpoint across. Or at least used confirmation bias in their choice of material. (If they say they haven't they would be lying. 😀) Anyhow, more and more politicians seem to cross the line from spin to outright lying.

So - If "Yes" you think he lies then :

What is the difference? Did you just want different kinds of lies?



Sometimes the longest way around is the shortest way home. Anon
FounDit
Posted: Monday, March 13, 2017 12:24:41 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 7,665
Neurons: 40,098
Hope123 wrote:
Very interesting discussions in these two threads, FD.

Discussion is just to share ideas. It may happen the odd time but it woud be an unproductive expectation that anyone would change their views. Or to demand such change. But I do now understand more of where you and some Americans are coming from.

One opinion and one two-part question :

Opinion -

I agree violence at any time by any group is dreadfully wrong and doesn't solve anything. But it seems to me that it is comparing apples and oranges when anyone compares what happened after any previous election with whichever election just happened.

And that would be especially true for this one. The atmosphere during this campaign was altogether different. Violence was alluded to, encouraged, and condoned, with hints there would be no reprisals for his supporters - and by the candidate on the right. (Lock her up. Get rid of Hillary's secret service and and let the second amendment people etc. - whatever it was he actually said).
Which is exactly why this election can be compared to others -- because it was a different kind of election. It offered candidates from both parties and an individual who was not a politician in any previous elections. It offered a blunt-spoken extremely successful business man who straight-talked in terms the common individual found appealing.

If he had lost I hoped I was wrong but I thoroughly expected there to be a lot more violence than I have heard about around the inauguration. (I don't know if violence is still happening or not. I have tuned out. And I never heard the results of the investigations into professional hijackers of peaceful demonstrations.)
That was a possibility I thought might have happened also had Hillary won and IF she would have furthered the administrative state's march, which so many found offensive.

But as for investigating peaceful demonstrations, what would be the reason for that? Investigations would only be required for violent demonstrations. In those, some were arrested, but many escaped any punishment for their violence.

With the emphasis on the necessity of guns to protect the Second Amendment against government (I even overheard such discussions in shops while shopping in FL) and with the rhetoric about revolution by some Trump supporters, if he had lost I fully expected some sort of organized revolution complete with automatic rifles.
I heard some of that kind of talk also, but it was always tempered with, "if they don't start listening to us when we voice our opinions". That's why things go so emotional. There were a great many in the country who felt their voice was being shut out or ignored.

I'm not saying there's ever any excuse for violence. What I'm saying is that you can't compare by making two situations with different environments equal.
:::
I wasn't aware that I was making two situations with different environments equal. I still don't see what two situations you mean.

The question - and please take it not as criticism but as just that, as a question and as curiosity because I can't make the disparity go away in my mind.


Part one - Do you believe Trump lies? (I don't mean does he believe what he is saying at that particular moment. Comedians have juxtaposed him saying the exact opposite several times depending upon to whom he is speaking.) I mean - is he dispensing truth and provable facts? Or is it the truth only if it agrees with or is complimentary to him? For example - the election was only rigged if he lost. Then he won so it wasn't rigged and he accepted the results. But then it became apparent he did not win the popular vote. So then it was rigged but only in states Hillary won. And is he telling the truth with daily happenings now etc.?
Well, now you're comparing two different things here. The "rigging" Trump referred to was the deliberate attempt to block Bernie Sanders from getting anywhere in the candidate selection department. This was proven by the emails that were exposed when John Podesta fell for a phishing scam and he allowed access to emails among Democrats.

But then when Hillary lost, the Democrats then said the election was rigged by the Russians -- a different "rigging". No proof of that nor any evidence has been found or uncovered to verify that assertion. When he referred to "rigging" at that time, it was as a joke, teasing the Democrats over the 3,000 emails that Hillary deleted. He said if the Russians had "hacked" the Democrat National committee's emails (through John Podesta's mistake), then perhaps they could find Hillary's emails also. It was a joke because they didn't "hack" the Democrats, Podesta ALLOWED them access through a mistake by clicking a link in an email.

And if didn't matter that he didn't win the popular vote. That's not how our system works. He won the majority of the counties and states and that gave him the majority of the electoral college votes, and that's how our system was designed to work.

Does he tell the truth with daily happenings now? I think he tells the truth as he sees it. But he isn't a polished speaker. He is blunt, speaks without trying to couch his language in politically correct speech, and this gets him in trouble with those who take what he says literally without any understanding of what he means. To most regular folks, he is as plain as day. But to those who don't want him to be in office, he is a puzzle precisely because he isn't a politician.

If your answer is "No" you don't believe he lies, then that answers part two so you can skip that.

You have mentioned many times how all politicians lie and therefore you wanted someone who is not a politician. All Politicians in every country used to use spin. I doubt there would be one person on TFD who has not used spin to get their viewpoint across. Or at least used confirmation bias in their choice of material. (If they say they haven't they would be lying. 😀) Anyhow, more and more politicians seem to cross the line from spin to outright lying.

So - If "Yes" you think he lies then :

What is the difference? Did you just want different kinds of lies?



A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~
Hope123
Posted: Monday, March 13, 2017 10:57:53 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 5,350
Neurons: 32,948
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Thanks FD. I'm very glad for the reassurance that no American really takes the idea of revolution against your government seriously - that it is just talk.

My point was just that ALL variables of circumstances must be considered when comparing two events such as what occurred AFTER the elections. The psychological atmosphere created by two very different campaigns cannot be ignored when comparing their aftermaths.

You would need two universes with opposite election results to compare accurately.

The investigation was about professional anarchists taking over a peaceful demonstration. I vaguely remember a thread where we discussed it when it happened.


Sometimes the longest way around is the shortest way home. Anon
Hope123
Posted: Monday, March 13, 2017 11:54:05 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 5,350
Neurons: 32,948
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
FD,

What I understand from your answer to my question is that you think Trump doesn't lie because he believes what he says and it is his opponents' fault for taking him too literally and (deliberately?) misunderstanding him. Right? And that does happen - all parties in any government are guilty of that.

Spicer was asked today this same question except I called a spade a spade. For instance the reporter said that Trump called the UI numbers phony on Friday, and then on Monday Trump touted improvement in UI numbers and tried to take credit for things that take longer than a month to happen. Anyhow, when pushed, Spicer finally said you can trust Trump's word "If he's not joking". This UI example is similar to a variety of responses Trump gave about his personal relationship or non relationship with Putin, depending upon when he was asked. (As well, I believe the still ongoing investigation into the hacking of the election by Russia by releasing Hillary's emails to help Trump was started BEFORE Hillary lost. 17 (I think that was the number) of intelligence agencies agreed it was Russia. Maybe they can trace where they hacked Canada's too while they are at it. Russia has it in for our Chrystia Freeland.)

I was talking about the rigging Trump mentioned when he said he might not accept the will of the people and that was long past Sanders. It was Trump himself who made a big deal about the illegals giving her the popular vote and who exaggerated the size of the crowd at his inauguration and the size of the electoral vote win in spite of proof to the contrary.

Also Today - it was supposed to be the deadline for when Trump et al were to provide proof of Trump's claim that Obama wiretapped his lines at Trump Towers during the campaign, but the Justice Dept just asked for more time.

Would you say that when you or any regular/common person read the following tweets you/they understood that he DIDN'T really mean it that Obama wiretapped Trump Towers? I (and others) just misunderstood? Yet it seems "plain as day to me". And it did not seem like any joke I've ever heard of.

QUOTE TRUMP-
"Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!"
"Is it legal for a sitting President to be "wire tapping" a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW!"
"How low has President Obama gone to tapp (sic) my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!"

A week earlier, Spicer said Trump's tweet "speaks for itself" and declined to provide any further explanation. Today (was the deadline day for proof) White House press secretary Sean Spicer said Trump wasn't referring to specific wiretapping when he tweeted about wiretapping and he wasn't referring to Obama specifically.

Conway was asked - "Do you know whether Trump Tower was wiretapped?"
"What I can say is there are many ways to surveil each other," Conway said, before suggesting that surveillance could take place through phones, TVs or "microwaves that turn into cameras."
(latest Wikileaks re CIA?)

Please, FD, tell me you don't believe this "walking back" by Spicer and Conway or even that that is how you interpreted it in the first place. Rumors once started have a way of never being completely eradicated.

It will be interesting how all this plays out legally in the coming days, weeks, and months. Right now no one knows exactly what the truth is here, except there are denials and now there is the walking back.

Anyhow, thanks for your prompt response.





Sometimes the longest way around is the shortest way home. Anon
FounDit
Posted: Saturday, March 18, 2017 1:38:13 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 7,665
Neurons: 40,098
Hope123 wrote:

FD,

What I understand from your answer to my question is that you think Trump doesn't lie because he believes what he says and it is his opponents' fault for taking him too literally and (deliberately?) misunderstanding him. Right? And that does happen - all parties in any government are guilty of that.
I don’t recall where I heard it said, but someone said that Trump’s detractors take him literally, but not seriously, and his supporters take him seriously, but not literally. This seems to be what is happening.

Do some deliberately misunderstand him? Of course they do, especially those such as Sen. Chuck Schumer who deliberately mischaracterize him for political purposes. It’s the same with Hollywood snowflakes like Ashley Judd who compare him to Hitler.

But politics is always about making your opponent look bad while trying to make your own side look good – that’s a given, and that colors all that you wrote below.

Spicer was asked today this same question except I called a spade a spade. For instance the reporter said that Trump called the UI numbers phony on Friday, and then on Monday Trump touted improvement in UI numbers and tried to take credit for things that take longer than a month to happen. Anyhow, when pushed, Spicer finally said you can trust Trump's word "If he's not joking". This UI example is similar to a variety of responses Trump gave about his personal relationship or non relationship with Putin, depending upon when he was asked. (As well, I believe the still ongoing investigation into the hacking of the election by Russia by releasing Hillary's emails to help Trump was started BEFORE Hillary lost. 17 (I think that was the number) of intelligence agencies agreed it was Russia. Maybe they can trace where they hacked Canada's too while they are at it. Russia has it in for our Chrystia Freeland.)
Here again, there is no evidence Russia had anything to do with Hillary’s emails. Those were released by Wikileaks, who claims their source was not Russia. So who to believe? You apparently still believe the Russians had something to do with it, since you state there was a “… hacking of the election by Russia by releasing Hillary's emails.” Okay. I don’t, because I don’t know who did it.

I was talking about the rigging Trump mentioned when he said he might not accept the will of the people and that was long past Sanders. It was Trump himself who made a big deal about the illegals giving her the popular vote and who exaggerated the size of the crowd at his inauguration and the size of the electoral vote win in spite of proof to the contrary.
I think you are referring to the debate where he said he would not state at that time that he would accept the outcome of the election. Trump specifically mentioned the “rigging” of the Democrats to keep Sanders from getting the nomination, and that “rigging” has been proven to be true.

As for illegals voting, that also is true. As to how many, no one truly knows, but it is a fact that in some places, such as California, illegals can get driver’s licenses, and with that a person CAN vote, no questions asked. The point was that it does happen, not the exact number, so here again, it is taking him literally and ignoring the seriousness of improper voting, regardless of how many there are.

Also Today - it was supposed to be the deadline for when Trump et al were to provide proof of Trump's claim that Obama wiretapped his lines at Trump Towers during the campaign, but the Justice Dept just asked for more time.
Who gets to set the deadline? And why would an investigation have a deadline?

This is all theater. The political Left accuses Trump of being in collusion with the Russians, and Trump accuses the Left of “tapping” his communications. Neither allegation has had any evidence provided so far, except for the fact that Gen. Flynn’s phone conversation HAD TO HAVE BEEN RECORDED because it was leaked to the press.

Would you say that when you or any regular/common person read the following tweets you/they understood that he DIDN'T really mean it that Obama wiretapped Trump Towers? I (and others) just misunderstood? Yet it seems "plain as day to me". And it did not seem like any joke I've ever heard of.

QUOTE TRUMP-
"Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!"
"Is it legal for a sitting President to be "wire tapping" a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW!"
"How low has President Obama gone to tapp (sic) my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!"

A week earlier, Spicer said Trump's tweet "speaks for itself" and declined to provide any further explanation. Today (was the deadline day for proof) White House press secretary Sean Spicer said Trump wasn't referring to specific wiretapping when he tweeted about wiretapping and he wasn't referring to Obama specifically.

Conway was asked - "Do you know whether Trump Tower was wiretapped?"
"What I can say is there are many ways to surveil each other," Conway said, before suggesting that surveillance could take place through phones, TVs or "microwaves that turn into cameras." (latest Wikileaks re CIA?)

Please, FD, tell me you don't believe this "walking back" by Spicer and Conway or even that that is how you interpreted it in the first place. Rumors once started have a way of never being completely eradicated.

That rumor part is true, and exactly what the Left was trying to accomplish with the Russian allegations. Trump is playing the same game as the Left: make accusations, because it is the seriousness of the allegation that matters, not the truth. There is zero evidence of Russian collusion, but there is evidence of communication recordings. But if he is pushed, he pushes back. No surprise, since he told everyone that is what he will do.

It will be interesting how all this plays out legally in the coming days, weeks, and months. Right now no one knows exactly what the truth is here, except there are denials and now there is the walking back.
It’s not a “walking back” to explain what you meant by “wire tapping”. This is another case of taking him literally, while any reasonable person would know that wires don’t have to be literally “tapped” anymore. It’s almost comical that anyone would take this literally, but such is the state of our politics today.


Anyhow, thanks for your prompt response.



A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~
Hope123
Posted: Saturday, March 18, 2017 7:27:55 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 5,350
Neurons: 32,948
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
I already acknowledged that spinning or "coloring" happens by all parties and people, including me. To be fair, I would include you too.
::::
So supporters believe it is not necessary, in fact in this case incorrect, to take the word of the President of the United States literally!

But he is no longer a private citizen. Every word any president or authority figure utters is scrutinized carefully and should be taken literally. Markets, companies, and economies have been shaken with just one word. Wars have been started! Words count. Furthermore he accused someone of a felony and has not provided any proof except what he thought he saw in the media (and we know how scrupulously Trump checks out his info and its sources. Whistle ) I hope they get that sorted this week.
:::
The hacking -
Obama - "And we determined — and announced — in October that it was the consensus of all the intelligence agencies in law enforcement that organizations affiliated with Russian intelligence were responsible for the hacking of the DNC materials that were being leaked,” he said. “That was a month before the election. This was not a secret.” He's not going to put sanctions on an enemy country without being pretty sure of his facts. So they did not suddenly try to use it as an excuse after the fact. That was the point I was making.
:::::
Trump promised in January to launch an investigation into illegal voting. Has he? If the "seriousness is ignored" that's on his watch. If there is an investigation, it should be for the whole country and not just in the states he lost.

Three million is a lot of people - and strangely enough is the same number as the difference in popular votes. Officials admit there will always be some illegals but not to that extent. (The gerrymandering in Republican favor has not been forgotten - I saw something about them trying to correct that in some areas but don't remember details.)

::::

He was asked if he would commit now to the principle (as Ivanka and Pence already had) that "there is a peaceful transition of power where the loser concedes to the winner and the country comes together for the good of the country". He replied, "What I’m saying is that I will tell you at the time. I'll keep you in suspense, okay?"

He was NOT asked if he would contest it if there was any illegality. That is taken for granted. He was asked if he was committed to a major principle of democracy. There is no mention of Sanders at this point in the transcript of the debate three where he first discussed this in public. It was a shock to everyone so I assumed this was the first time. And yes, if what they did to Sanders was considered rigging, then the Democrats shot themselves in the foot. But I'm not sure it was rigging against him.


Sometimes the longest way around is the shortest way home. Anon
Hope123
Posted: Saturday, March 18, 2017 7:52:04 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 5,350
Neurons: 32,948
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Continued with what is happening now -

The House Intelligence Committee made the deadline. The DOJ asked for "additional time" to collect evidence to support President Donald Trump's accusation that the Obama administration wiretapped his phones at Trump Tower during the campaign. The Republicans want this resolved just as much as the Democrats. (I'm assuming so they can go after Obama if it turns out there is evidence he is guilty and/or to get the country to spend the time and money on its pressing problems.)

Of course there has to be a deadline in any investigation for proof to be submitted. Otherwise the investigation cannot be suspended or go forward. And there especially needs to be one with anything to do with Trump - that's his favorite tactic in his court cases and when he says he'll release his tax returns and so forth - to delay, delay, delay - for years.

::::

Yes it is all theatre and deflection started by Trump's tweet. The authorities have not accused him or his campaign of collusion. I saw a "mainstream" journalist say exactly that. They know they talked but have not released about what. They are investigating the possibility - innocent till proven guilty. And yes, there has to have been communication intercept. I am not sure if they they have explicitly admitted they were listening to the Russians talk to each other, but that info seems to be out there. The government does not release the identity of a US citizen overheard by accident unless there is a problem, such as with Flynn. They are referred to as X. Trump's campaign then had to admit they had talked to the Russians because they knew they'd been overheard. But it being right in Trump Towers?

As for the "walking back" it was not so much the "wiretapping" but that it was not Obama but his administration. After he had specifically said "a sitting president" and called him a "bad or sick" man etc. It doesn't matter if he meant wiretapping or general surveillance - he still accused Obama personally of a very serious crime. A felony, I would think.

And BTW - Trump has admitted he saw the word "wiretapping" in a title when he misread a piece in the New York Times. It was picked up by Levin and then Breitbart who added more unrelated "proof". And yes, Trump is not up on technology so I can see him and many Americans as well not knowing.

I have seen lists of facts by Snopes, Politfact, the Toronto Star journalists, and many others of the media etc. where even adjusting for being taken too literally if that is possible for a president, that Trump spun situations to his advantage or outright lied - and doesn't care. As long as his followers believe him. He doesn't even try to remember what he said previously.

I specifically remember seeing two videos - one where Obama told his crowd to listen and be respectful to a heckler who was a veteran. I was totally shocked when later I saw the other video of Trump telling his crowd Obama had been disrespectful to the veteran. An outright lie caught on two videos. I even mentioned it on the Forum. Nothing figurative about it. Not even spin. To me once someone gets the reputation of being a liar, everything they say is then suspect.

Maybe you haven't seen any of the videos where they have asked him the same question and he has said exactly the opposite several times. yes, no, yes, no, yes, no. Wish I could find one but they were put together by comedians because they really are quite funny - if it weren't so serious.

You excuse him because you think they take him too literally so he doesn't lie. And it is all right to accuse an ex president of a crime because he is just "pushing back" against those who see the smoke and are looking for the fire.

I don't trust a word he says.

So never the twain shall meet. But at least I see, I will not say understand, why you are able to say The Liberals and Hillary lie, but Trump doesn't.

Sorry, I cannot be more succinct. I did try but too much to cover. Anyhow, you can be relieved 😌 there is not much more I can say...

Sometimes the longest way around is the shortest way home. Anon
tunaafi
Posted: Saturday, March 18, 2017 9:29:01 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/3/2014
Posts: 3,802
Neurons: 50,554
Location: Karlín, Praha, Czech Republic
FounDit wrote:
I don’t recall where I heard it said, but someone said that Trump’s detractors take him literally, but not seriously, and his supporters take him seriously, but not literally. This seems to be what is happening.

[...]

here again, it is taking him literally

[...]


Trump is playing the same game as the Left: make accusations, because it is the seriousness of the allegation that matters, not the truth.

[...]

This is another case of taking him literally, while any reasonable person would know


My apologies to Precedent Trump and his ardent supporters everywhere.

As an ignorant foreigner, I obviously completely misunderstood the American constitution and the duties and responsibilities of the President of the United States of America. I stupidly imagined that the POTUS was expected to mean what he said and say what he meant, and that he would be expected to tell the truth.

My hysterical rants about Precedent Trump were based on my complete ignorance of the fact that we weren't expected to take anything (including the oath he swore on taking office?) literally. I feel such a fool. May God give Trump everything he deserves (I mean that literally).

I have just one tiny question. If Commander-in-Chief Trump orders his admirals and generals to nuke (or not to nuke), for example, North Korea, how do they know if he means it literally? Nit-picky, I know, but I am interested.

Far away is close at hand in images of elsewhere – The Master of Paddington.
progpen
Posted: Sunday, March 19, 2017 5:55:11 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 1,157
Neurons: 127,032
Location: Princeton, Minnesota, United States
The current occupant of the White House can say what he wants, when he wants, about whomever he wants. He cannot be wrong because his words mean whatever he wants them to mean at the time.

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. ― Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
tunaafi
Posted: Sunday, March 19, 2017 6:15:48 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/3/2014
Posts: 3,802
Neurons: 50,554
Location: Karlín, Praha, Czech Republic
progpen wrote:
The current occupant of the White House can say what he wants, when he wants, about whomever he wants. He cannot be wrong because his words mean whatever he wants them to mean at the time.


Quite. And of course, he never contradicts himself. Here he is, truthful and consistent in his own words: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wrEQhuzRDE.

Far away is close at hand in images of elsewhere – The Master of Paddington.
Hope123
Posted: Sunday, March 19, 2017 11:55:49 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 5,350
Neurons: 32,948
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
tunaafi wrote:
progpen wrote:
The current occupant of the White House can say what he wants, when he wants, about whomever he wants. He cannot be wrong because his words mean whatever he wants them to mean at the time.


Quite. And of course, he never contradicts himself. Here he is, truthful and consistent in his own words: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wrEQhuzRDE.


Thank you, thank you, Tuna.

I looked for one of these videos but didn't find it. This is even better with more topics than the one I saw which showed him as friends with Putin, how he spoke to him, and then when the heat hit he denied he ever spoke to him. Of course that video also had other instances of him saying whatever is politcally expedient for him at the time.

I saw an article yesterday that said he got into office by bulls********.

Sometimes the longest way around is the shortest way home. Anon
progpen
Posted: Sunday, March 19, 2017 1:45:35 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 1,157
Neurons: 127,032
Location: Princeton, Minnesota, United States
It is fun, though, watching the Republican Party tie themselves in knots trying not only to keep up with the latest spittle-flecked decree written in red crayon in all caps with lots of exclamation points, but to also make it sound like it's all normal.

"Move along, nothing to see here. We always change our minds halfway through a sentence and drift off on several tangents before saying things that are so blatantly false that we can hear the collective gasp of every thinking person on the planet."

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. ― Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
FounDit
Posted: Monday, March 20, 2017 2:01:14 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 7,665
Neurons: 40,098
My apologies to Precedent Trump and his ardent supporters everywhere.
Apology accepted. And electing President Trump did likely set a precedent. But if anyone knows what it’s like to live under a President one cannot take literally, it is those of us who lived under Obama for eight years.

You remember:
The one who said there were 57 states
The one who repeatedly referred to the Marine Corps as a dead body, calling them the Marine Corpse.
Now, applying some logic and reason, one might conclude the President misspoke, had his brain out of gear as they say.

But then we see him on TV saying things such as: if we like our healthcare plan, we can keep it
If we like our doctor, we can keep him and
Declared that he was going to bend the cost-curve of insurance down.
He also agreed that it was a video that caused the attack on the embassy in Benghazi.

But as we as we apply logic and reason to these statements, we find all these were flat-out lies because he knew they weren’t true when he said them, and events proved that to be true.

As an ignorant foreigner, I obviously completely misunderstood the American constitution and the duties and responsibilities of the President of the United States of America. I stupidly imagined that the POTUS was expected to mean what he said and say what he meant, and that he would be expected to tell the truth.
I know, I know! We thought so, too. But it turns out that you can’t take them literally. Who knew?

My hysterical rants about Precedent Trump were based on my complete ignorance of the fact that we weren't expected to take anything (including the oath he swore on taking office?) literally. I feel such a fool. May God give Trump everything he deserves (I mean that literally).
Thanks. It’s nice to have another member added to those who have learned to use common sense and logic to understand what Presidents say.

I have just one tiny question. If Commander-in-Chief Trump orders his admirals and generals to nuke (or not to nuke), for example, North Korea, how do they know if he means it literally? Nit-picky, I know, but I am interested.
Well, since you have learned that reason and common sense have to be used for what they say, you can reason this out for yourself. Obviously, you would look for clues such as facial expressions that might indicate a joke, or even, *gasp* investigate yourself to determine if he was serious! I know that one is a shocker, but sometimes you just have to take some responsibility for your thinking. I know you aren’t used to that, but you can learn. After all, you did learn a new thing when you made this post.

So when Trump, limited by 140 characters on twitter, said he was “wire tapped” and put that in quotation marks, logic and reason would indicate that he didn’t mean a literal wire-tap, since the intelligence community has more sophisticated means of surveillance today. And since we know for a fact they do this, it makes sense then to understand he meant surveillance.

And when he said Trump Tower was “wire-tapped”, logic and reason would once again suggest he was referring to his campaign people, since it was the people who were monitored, and that Trump Tower would stand for where his campaign was headquartered. See? Easy, when you use logic and reason.

At any rate, perhaps your example will help others learn how to use reason and common sense when analyzing things said (thought I don’t hold out much hope based on what I see posted in the politics section). It would be nice to be able to move beyond this silly juvenile criticizing here on the forum. I mean, after all, what does it really change? Nothing. And the only opinions that matter are those than can be backed up with a vote. Ultimately, the silly criticism is akin to shouting into the gale. One winds up listening only to oneself. But it doesn’t take much to entertain a tiny mind…is that too snarky?...Think It may be. Oh, well...Dancing



A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~
Hope123
Posted: Monday, March 20, 2017 4:00:08 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 5,350
Neurons: 32,948
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Surveillance or wiretap. Who cares.

Trump Tower or Campaign. Who cares.

Missing from argument - Bad sick Obama - 63% of the American public now and the rest of the free world care!

The FBI this morning said there was no surveillance by Obama OR his administration. That is slander and libel. And I doubt he will but it would be nice if Obama AND his administration sued his butt off for billions. Maybe then Trump couldn't meet all his loans.

(Any American who mistakes (true on video) Australia and New Zealand for North and South Korea probably doesn't know that there are more sophisticated methods of surveillance.)

There IS an investigation into Russia. Depending upon what they find about the campaign, what happens then IF there was collusion? Is Trump still legit?

Edited - and why no mention by Comey of the Russian investigation and the campaign members that they were doing then but just before the election Hillary's emails were brought up again?


As for p in the wind, 2018 is not that far off. American politicians campaign 24/7/365. Trump himself campaigns every time he speaks, including in front of foreign dignitaries.

And he embarrassed himself and the Intelligence Agencies that still have to work with Germany and the UK by involving them.

See - logic and reason. Easy peasy. Even here on the Politics Forum.

Snarky is used when arguments fail.


Sometimes the longest way around is the shortest way home. Anon
Hope123
Posted: Monday, March 20, 2017 4:05:52 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 5,350
Neurons: 32,948
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada


Sometimes the longest way around is the shortest way home. Anon
Hope123
Posted: Monday, March 20, 2017 4:12:29 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 5,350
Neurons: 32,948
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
You mention the problems with Obamacare. Trump promised lower premiums and everyone covered. Now he promotes but doesn't want his name on what is being promoted.




Sometimes the longest way around is the shortest way home. Anon
tunaafi
Posted: Monday, March 20, 2017 5:27:16 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/3/2014
Posts: 3,802
Neurons: 50,554
Location: Karlín, Praha, Czech Republic
FounDit wrote:
You remember:
The one who said there were 57 states

That may have been, as some have claimed, a joke. If it wasn't, I accept that it was an embarrassing blunder.

Quote:
The one who repeatedly referred to the Marine Corps as a dead body, calling them the Marine Corpse.


So on how many separate occasions did he make this blunder 'repeatedly'?

It does not really matter. To the best of my memory, I have never in these forums made any claim that Obama, or indeed any other president, Republican or Democrat , was more honest than Trump. Indeed, I have made some negative assertions about both Clintons, the actual and the would-be president. Claiming (or even proving) that some of Trump's predecessors were less than honest does not justify any dishonesty from the present incumbent. Indeed, if his supporters were to claim that the dishonesty of his predecessors justified his dishonesty, then that would rather nullify the claims that he would be a fresh voice from outside, untainted by the vices of the establishment.

tuna wrote:
I stupidly imagined that the POTUS was expected to mean what he said and say what he meant, and that he would be expected to tell the truth.
FD wrote:
I know, I know! We thought so, too. But it turns out that you can’t take them literally. Who knew?

So are you saying that you were deceived by some of his lies, but that it doesn't matter because, basically, he is doing what you want him to?

Quote:

Thanks. It’s nice to have another member added to those who have learned to use common sense and logic to understand what Presidents say.

I may be wrong (It's not unknown!), but you seem to be saying that everybody (Americans at least) expects the POTUS to lie, and that this is acceptable because common sense and logic enable them to know when he is lying?

Quote:
Well, since you have learned that reason and common sense have to be used for what they say, you can reason this out for yourself. Obviously, you would look for clues such as facial expressions that might indicate a joke, or even, *gasp* investigate yourself to determine if he was serious! I know that one is a shocker, but sometimes you just have to take some responsibility for your thinking. I know you aren’t used to that, but you can learn. After all, you did learn a new thing when you made this post.


So, when the POTUS orders his admirals and generals to nuke North Korea (or China, Russia, Vatican City, Obama's residence, etc), it is part of their role to interpret his facial expressions to attempt to discover whether he is 'joking' or not? What if they guess wrong?

Quote:
So when Trump, limited by 140 characters on twitter, said he was “wire tapped” [... it makes sense then to understand he meant surveillance.


My flabber is gasted.

FD, your political views are nearly as far to the right of the spectrum as mine are to the left. I have enjoyed the occasional discussion with you (hell, there can be no discussion in politics if everybody agrees) because you, unlike some on your side of the spectrum and (I must admit) unlike some on my side, have been prepared to offer some evidence for at least some of your claims. In this thread, you appear to me to be suggesting that it is completely understandable and acceptable for the POTUS to lie. If that is so, then (to slightly misquote hedy),

God Help America!

Far away is close at hand in images of elsewhere – The Master of Paddington.
progpen
Posted: Monday, March 20, 2017 5:38:43 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 1,157
Neurons: 127,032
Location: Princeton, Minnesota, United States
It's ok for the current occupant of the White House to lie, but it is a high crime for a Democrat to do so?

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. ― Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Hope123
Posted: Monday, March 20, 2017 5:56:16 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 5,350
Neurons: 32,948
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
And he was at it as the hearing proceeded telling his gullible followers on Twitter lies and taking things out of context about what Comey et al had said.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/donald-trump-falsely-represents-evidence-about-russias-interference-in-us-election-175104228.html

Since he has the gullibles convinced the media is lying, they will believe him and spread what he wants. No wonder he likes Twitter better.

Edited - I wonder how many will actually watch the available videos of the hearing.


Sometimes the longest way around is the shortest way home. Anon
tunaafi
Posted: Monday, March 20, 2017 6:19:19 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/3/2014
Posts: 3,802
Neurons: 50,554
Location: Karlín, Praha, Czech Republic
progpen wrote:
It's ok for the current occupant of the White House to lie, but it is a high crime for a Democrat to do so?


Of course! What's the point of stating the obvious? Whistle

On a slightly more serious note, I have to admit that there are some on the anti-Trump side who are willing enough to expose his faults, but a little reticent about conceding that some opponents of Trump may not be as pure as the driven snow.

As one who loathes deception and hypocrisy in politics (as in life in general), I feel that there is no virtue in highlighting the (glaring) faults of those whose political views I oppose if I simultaneously claim that those whose political views I agree with are paragons of virtue.

One of (many) reasons for the growth of support for less moderate right- and left-wing views in North America and in Europe is, in my opinion, immense dissatisfaction with the hypocrisy and smugness of establishment figures on both sides of the political spectrum. If 'moderately liberal' politicians hope to regain the respect of ordinary voters, then they need to be moderately honest.

As a Brit, I support Corbyn. If I were American, I would have supported Bernie. If I were to discover that either had been as economical with the truth as the Donals, they would lose my support, no matter how much I agree with their political views.


Far away is close at hand in images of elsewhere – The Master of Paddington.
progpen
Posted: Monday, March 20, 2017 11:14:21 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 1,157
Neurons: 127,032
Location: Princeton, Minnesota, United States
Tunaafi, I agree with every word of your latest post. I have found it almost as uncomfortable talking to some Democrats as I have found it talking to many hardline Trump supporters. I've not been associated with either of the big two parties for almost 20 years, which puts me at odds with a significant portion of the country. The major party faithful see their own party as having the only possible answer to all of the country's issues, but more importantly they see people outside of the big two parties as:

1). A future supporter of their party. Or if this doesn't happen.
2). Worse than a supporter of the other party. A traitor.

The Democratic party has its own problems with corruption and playing fast and loose with the law (mostly at the state and local level). The DNC has just recently shat on the Bernie wing of the party when they chose the status quo Tom Perez over Keith Ellison for the DNC Chair. All this did was show the rest of the country that the Democratic Party leadership have chosen their moneyed interests over everyone else. The Democratic party leadership continue to drag their party further to the right to fill the vacancy made when the Republican party leadership took their party out of the center right spot and firmly into the far right.

All this means to me is that both parties have given up even trying to be anything but multibillion dollar businesses. That doesn't mean they are equally bad or equally good. Both the Republican and Democratic party have given up trying to be about the middle or lower economic classes and have decided that the moneyed interests are more important. The Republican party waves the flag of freedom (from responsibility mostly), while the Democratic party waves the flag of equality (as long as the 1% remain more equal). Each party has to throw their followers the occasional bone just to keep the illusion that they are the party of change, but both parties must keep the status quo in order to continue to make money. Change is bad if they can't control it entirely and ensure that the right people benefit.

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. ― Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines. Copyright © 2008-2017 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.