President 'The Donald' Trump and Surprising Consequences - Mod warning in OP

Billy86

Kitsunegari wrote: »

Christy42 wrote: »

To begin with you are picking and choosing your own causes here. Did you protest against apple's work practices and yet you are deciding to stand up for Hannity? Picking and choosing what you stand for (no I don't believe this logic but apparently you do).

What because they don't support every cause ever they can't support this one. Does this mean no one is ever allowed to support anything as they have obviously not supported every other cause?

I am not oversimplifying. It is a simple situation. You have been twisting the situation by using phrases which are not appropriate to the situation and one which has happened many times before on both sides of the aisle. This is the first complaint I have seen about the practice.

Are you seriously asking those questions? You say you aren't oversimplifying yet you produce the above.

Honestly, what's the point in talking about these issues when it's clear that it's beyond reason for people to have an actual debate here and not attack everything that doesn't agree with their political viewpoints.

Oversimplification to the absurd.

Come on now, you're trying to defend the constitutional right of free speech while calling the constitutional usage of censorship too "narrow minded" to be relevant. Consistency and an unwillingness to jump through the same labyrinth of mental loopholes as you are eager to does not equal "over simplification".

Overheal

Rjd2 wrote: »

Initial rumour it was Orban he pushed, which would have been absolutely amazing for the fall out.
Viktor however is beaming.:D

Goodbye shoulder rubs hello shoving!

ancapailldorcha

Kitsunegari wrote: »

Are you seriously asking those questions? You say you aren't oversimplifying yet you produce the above.

Honestly, what's the point in talking about these issues when it's clear that it's beyond reason for people to have an actual debate here and not attack everything that doesn't agree with their political viewpoints.

Oversimplification to the absurd.

Overheal wrote: »

Goodbye shoulder rubs hello shoving!

Less of this nonsense please.

Christy42

Kitsunegari wrote: »

Are you seriously asking those questions? You say you aren't oversimplifying yet you produce the above.

Honestly, what's the point in talking about these issues when it's clear that it's beyond reason for people to have an actual debate here and not attack everything that doesn't agree with their political viewpoints.

Oversimplification to the absurd.

I am attempting to debate these. I did not attack. For someone who gave out about snowflake tendencies a few pages back you have a flair for a dramatic phrase.

You changed the definitions of words, you claimed that you can't be annoyed at this if you are not annoyed at apple sweatshops, you claimed that it would be OK to boycott the sponsors but the issue was that someone was asking others if they would join in. To debate for more than a post or so I need an actual argument to counter.

Now all you can do is repeat oversimplification over and over.

_Kaiser_

Watching Trump on the news here criticising the other NATO leaders and whatever else he might be, he's no politician. The speech was obviously targeted at his home audience, but you get the impression that he doesn't give a fook either way and will just say what he thinks!

It's refreshing in a way!

Overheal

I'm just waiting for the Montana results to come in, now that they've clamored for my interest. Gianforte already canceled his scheduled TV appearances today and bigheads like Paul Ryan are condemning what he did. Papers have yanked endorsements, etc. and his deeds are plastered all over state and local news and paper outlets.

But before this, most polling data had him leading in single digits around a 50% vs. 40% split for likely voters. Are there enough moderates in Montana to swing the vote away from him after all or is this debacle to close to ballot time?

Kitsunegari

Christy42 wrote: »

I am attempting to debate these. I did not attack. For someone who gave out about snowflake tendencies a few pages back you have a flair for a dramatic phrase.

You changed the definitions of words, you claimed that you can't be annoyed at this if you are not annoyed at apple sweatshops, you claimed that it would be OK to boycott the sponsors but the issue was that someone was asking others if they would join in. To debate for more than a post or so I need an actual argument to counter.

Now all you can do is repeat oversimplification over and over.

No what I am saying is that picking and choosing your causes based on your political allegiance isn't something that we should be defending. I confess that it may not be censorship per se as I originally said but that doesn't change the fact that we shouldn't be defending people who abuse market forces to suit their political allegiance. Aside from definitions and other semantics you have people on here defending partisan actions in the US. As an Irishman I find it hard to believe why any person can defend either party or their lobby groups and supporters.

Our inductive reasoning isn't very good. A lot of people take advantage of that. How can you honestly argue that people choosing to boycott sponsors based on a show that they don't watch becuase of their political allegiance is a good idea or principle to hold? This is a television show that people are gullible enough to watch. Politicising Seth Rich's murder is incredibly disturbing and distasteful but are we really going to start drawing lines in the sand now. Was the cheerleading of the Iraq war not a line in the sand? Supporting people who selectively choose what they become morally outraged over based on their political allegiance is an incredibly troubling view to harbour.

As I said before a lot of critical thinking would have us Trump proof.

Overheal

How can you honestly argue that people choosing to boycott sponsors based on a show that they don't watch becuase of their political allegiance is a good idea or principle to hold?

What is the alternative you propose? What you're arguing against is the whole basis for free market capitalism. People are free to spend their money however they want. For example if you have a choice of companies to patronize, and you discover that one gives funding or endorses a cause that you disagree with, you have every right in the world to spend your money with a competitor; you will not be forced to continue spending money at said company, ostensibly watching your own money be sent to those causes.

This is why people staged a boycott of Chik Fil A, because the CEO supported the Defense of Marriage/Opposed same sex marriage. People staged a boycott of Starbucks because they announced they would be increasing their hiring of foreign nationals at home and abroad. Previously (and actively) they are boycotted by devout 2nd Amendment defendents who do not agree with their policy to request customers don't bring guns into their cafes. Folks are boycotting companies who are exporting jobs to other countries. People boycott Hobby Lobby because they fought against covering women's contraceptives. I myself actively avoid companies like Verizon and Comcast for instance, doing my business elsewhere as much as possible (and I've been successful so far) because they are happy to try and undermine Net Neutrality and attempts to open the telecom industry to competition. Similarly, folks have the right when they become aware of something abhorrent (like Hannity's behavior of late), to discover who his sponsors are and make contact with them to say "FYI, I note that you support this person, who supports this position, and I will actively avoid doing business with your company. My money will not end up supporting this practice." Much the same way I closed my Bank of America account some years ago, because of their deplorable business and legal practices and lobbying of the government to be allowed to do more of the same.

Itssoeasy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7u5T3gRY0kw

I wonder at what point in this did Rep tom MacArthur think "I wish I'd never voted for that bill ?"

Overheal

To be fair, MacArthur ran that town hall for hours and hours and gave pretty much everyone their chance to hit the mic. Haven't followed up on him since though or what his positions now are, but you can't say he didn't hear people.

Kitsunegari

Overheal wrote: »

What is the alternative you propose? What you're arguing against is the whole basis for free market capitalism. People are free to spend their money however they want. For example if you have a choice of companies to patronize, and you discover that one gives funding or endorses a cause that you disagree with, you have every right in the world to spend your money with a competitor; you will not be forced to continue spending money at said company, ostensibly watching your own money be sent to those causes.

This is why people staged a boycott of Chik Fil A, because the CEO supported the Defense of Marriage/Opposed same sex marriage. People staged a boycott of Starbucks because they announced they would be increasing their hiring of foreign nationals at home and abroad. Previously (and actively) they are boycotted by devout 2nd Amendment defendents who do not agree with their policy to request customers don't bring guns into their cafes. People boycott Hobby Lobby because they fought against covering women's contraceptives. I myself actively avoid companies like Verizon and Comcast for instance, doing my business elsewhere as much as possible (and I've been successful so far) because they are happy to try and undermine Net Neutrality and attempts to open the telecom industry to competition. Similarly, folks have the right when they become aware of something abhorrent (like Hannity's behavior of late), to discover who his sponsors are and make contact with them to say "FYI, I note that you support this person, who supports this position, and I will actively avoid doing business with your company." Much the same way I closed my Bank of America account some years ago, because of their deplorable business and legal practices and lobbying of the government to be allowed to do more of the same.

Free market capitalism is regulated. The US system is a mix of free market capitalism and a command economy. I support people individually making the choice of how they wish to use their influence upon the economy. What I'm actually arguing against is this new wave of online moral outrage that allows mobs of partisan idiots to be the only the only voice. The US system is corrupt to the hilt because it assumes that the people in power will always be responsible with their position and for their actions. The reality is that the checks and balances system in the US is lined with corruption. While it stops people like Obama from doing good it prevents people like Trump doing harm. The real influence in the US political system is corporate and personal interest.

If the media did their job properly you wouldn't have silly arguments over which health care plan plan is worse when the reality is that the US needs a universal health care system. We should leave idiots like Hannity alone and let him talk to his audience. He will just be replaced by another stooge at Fox pandering to their audience but don't let that get in the way of the fight exposing the micro issues in the United States that the online media and its consumers are obsessed with.

Christy42

Kitsunegari wrote: »

No what I am saying is that picking and choosing your causes based on your political allegiance isn't something that we should be defending. I confess that it may not be censorship per se as I originally said but that doesn't change the fact that we shouldn't be defending people who abuse market forces to suit their political allegiance. Aside from definitions and other semantics you have people on here defending partisan actions in the US. As an Irishman I find it hard to believe why any person can defend either party or their lobby groups and supporters.

Our inductive reasoning isn't very good. A lot of people take advantage of that. How can you honestly argue that people choosing to boycott sponsors based on a show that they don't watch becuase of their political allegiance is a good idea or principle to hold? This is a television show that people are gullible enough to watch. Politicising Seth Rich's murder is incredibly disturbing and distasteful but are we really going to start drawing lines in the sand now. Was the cheerleading of the Iraq war not a line in the sand? Supporting people who selectively choose what they become morally outraged over based on their political allegiance is an incredibly troubling view to harbour.

As I said before a lot of critical thinking would have us Trump proof.

I remember plenty of protests around the Iraq war. As you say using Rich's murder was wrong but people are not allowed do anything about it?

You seem to have gotten very annoyed at this particular instance of a form of protest that has been used repeatedly.

I would also be wondering what are the regulars of the show doing? Are they still watching it? Supporting the man seems more distasteful to me.

I agree both parties have issues but you make it sound like there is some sort of equality there. Democrats seem like generic center right politicians with the baggage that goes along with it. Republican politicians tend to be parodies of Disney villains ffs. I mean just recently we had "poverty is a state of mind", 4 years ago it was women can't get pregnant from legitimate rape. Now we just have a bill that cuts healthcare for the poor and gives a near equivalent tax break that mostly benefits the rich. Then you have the hyper religious section of the party...

Jamiekelly

Overheal wrote: »

I'm just waiting for the Montana results to come in, now that they've clamored for my interest. Gianforte already canceled his scheduled TV appearances today and bigheads like Paul Ryan are condemning what he did. Papers have yanked endorsements, etc. and his deeds are plastered all over state and local news and paper outlets.

But before this, most polling data had him leading in single digits around a 50% vs. 40% split for likely voters. Are there enough moderates in Montana to swing the vote away from him after all or is this debacle to close to ballot time?

Quite incredible for the reporter to have reacted so calmly.

Only looking at Gianforte's background now it's kind of laughable that the Republican candidate for Montana is from Liberal California while the Democratic candidate is a country singer from Montana.

Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome to the Twilight Zone

BoatMad

If the media did their job properly you wouldn't have silly arguments over which health care plan plan is worse when the reality is that the US needs a universal health care system.

The fact that this is blindingly obvious, is irrelevant. The media in a free market, must play to its customers and that is what corrupts the media in modern times, especially since a huge number of its former customers doesnt see traditional media at all. This then compounds the medias partisanship

Billy86

Jamiekelly wrote: »

Only looking at Gianforte's background now it's kind of laughable that the Republican candidate for Montana is from Liberal California while the Democratic candidate is a country singer from Montana.

Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome to the Twilight Zone

Yeah but one has an (R) beside his name. The rest on a scale of 1 - 100 matters exactly "f*** all".

Overheal

But these 'mobs' are neither new or outrageous. It comes with the right to peacefully assemble. There's really nothing immoral about people using the internet to communicate, research, or coordinate political action including boycotts. Further, they aren't the only voice at all, and I don't know how that impression gets across.

Expanding further still on past examples let's look back at the Chik Fil A boycott, which was a real doozie (or at least rather noticeable if you live near one) because, let's face it, they are a hugely successful - I dare say model, fast food outlet but I won't digress. They're busy, alright, on a normal day, with cars wrapped around the building or overflowing into the road during breakfast rush. So imagine if you will, that the boycott movement for Chik Fil A was met by an arguably equal-or-larger Pro-Consumer action by customers that either a) supported the Defense of Marriage, b) were protesting the Boycott, c) ****ing loved their food and were scared it was being threatened. For a couple weeks that summer, you couldn't drive near a Chik Fil A, because it was packed. Incidentally they came out of that pretty well.

I wouldn't be concerned at all that there is too much unilateral force one way or the other. Free market forces work themselves out, and sure Hannity may lose his desk, but that's nothing new. BTW, this was the Beck thing, his guest/show suggested violence be used against Trump, and SiriusXM stopped carrying his show. It was a big blow to his production, financially. http://www.salon.com/2016/05/31/glenn_beck_suspended_from_radio_show_for_advocating_harm_to_donald_trump/

As equally as people can ask his sponsors to withdraw support, others can approach him with support.

EDIT: As if to further illustrate my point, now people want to boycott Alamo Drafthouse (Yeah that one) because they are hosting all-women (and woman-identifying) screenings of Wonder Woman, including all-woman staff during the events.

http://io9.gizmodo.com/a-women-only-wonder-woman-screening-is-predictably-upse-1795542295

aloyisious

I get the notion that people who are annoyed about a high profile public media person who is spreading a fake news story should feel the need to call the sponsors who's ads are providing the funding for the media outlet the person is using to take the last thing a dead person has on earth; his good name.

The media person knows by this time that the story is not only fake, it's BS. The quoted sources have long since pointed out how they were misrepresented and a separate media outlet Fox News admitted as much, withdrawing the fake news story and apologized for running it on their network. Continuing in the same manner toward the dead person is gone way past acceptable, defensible or allowable to "protect free speech rights", it's sick.

If it takes Joe Public taking the issue to the sponsors of them funding a purveyor of fake news about a dead person, then so be it. The media person has himself only to blame if the money supporting his show and fake news spreading is pulled. It's not censorship, it's about calling a liar out on his lies, stopping him in his tracks.

Overheal

In Hannity's own words, he is not a journalist. So I'm not sure where he gets the new idea that he is one now when it suits him.

https://twitter.com/seanhannity/status/791132954298818561?lang=en

aloyisious

This I like as a clear view of where Donald Trump is coming from, laughable but sad when it came to the NATO meeting and what it was reputedly for. To be fair to the man, there's probably more in the can but optics [as shown on media outlets and sources] can sink deals. I can imagine the cartoonists working on wordings to put coming out of the leaders mouths.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjmuKzy74vUAhVLJcAKHSdlD-gQFgg1MAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnato.trendolizer.com%2F2017%2F05%2Fwatch-pres-trump-places-his-hand-on-a-fellow---nbc-nightly-news-with-lester-holt-watch-pres-trump-pl.html&usg=AFQjCNGxqBlROYb9aCj0_-Olo8UtoxtYAw

BoatMad

aloyisious wrote: »

This I like as a clear view of where Donald Trump is coming from, laughable but sad when it came to the NATO meeting and what it was reputedly for. To be fair to the man, there's probably more in the can but optics [as shown on media outlets and sources] can sink deals. I can imagine the cartoonists working on wordings to put coming out of the leaders mouths.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjmuKzy74vUAhVLJcAKHSdlD-gQFgg1MAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnato.trendolizer.com%2F2017%2F05%2Fwatch-pres-trump-places-his-hand-on-a-fellow---nbc-nightly-news-with-lester-holt-watch-pres-trump-pl.html&usg=AFQjCNGxqBlROYb9aCj0_-Olo8UtoxtYAw

Its all for domestic consumption . this is a man that has flip flopped on NATO so overtly as to be ridiculous

The 2% funding is merely a guideline, countries do not have to match that

merely because the US decides to route a riducloius amount of tax dollars intro deference ( and NATO ) spending , is not a reason other countries have to do the same

Should it so desire, the US could reduce funding , bit since the US benefits largely from that spending , I dont see it doing so

BabyCheeses

I dont mean to distract from the whole people using their right to free speech is censorship thing but the Muslim ban ban has been upheld. It has nearly been 120 days that Trump wanted so he could implement the new vetting process, it should be unveiled any day now and the ban is no longer required. Given the vetting Trump puts those he works with through we can expect this Muslim vetting to be top notch with 1 month travel visas to anyone who can confirm ISIS membership.

BoatMad

BabyCheeses wrote: »

I dont mean to distract from the whole people using their right to free speech is censorship thing but the Muslim ban ban has been upheld. It has nearly been 120 days that Trump wanted so he could implement the new vetting process, it should be unveiled any day now and the ban is no longer required. Given the vetting Trump puts those he works with through we can expect this Muslim vetting to be top notch with 1 month travel visas to anyone who can confirm ISIS membership.

its will an awesome travel ban , truly, great , believe me ( if It every gets passed )

"A federal appeals court upheld Thursday a ruling blocking President Donald Trump's travel ban against six Muslim-majority countries." ( thats today )

Overheal

People are even getting mad at Ben and Jerrys because they're raising awareness about Gerrymandering on their page. How dare an ice cream company have an opinion right

http://www.benjerry.com/whats-new/2017/04/district-or-inkblot-quiz

Whole lot of opinions on money and free speech alright.

Overheal

Oh snap! Sean Hannity taking an abrupt extended Memorial Day weekend, starting today, no coincidences!

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/05/hannity-takes-abrupt-vacation-as-advertisers-continue-to-flee-his-fox-news-show/

Kitsunegari

Overheal wrote: »

People are even getting mad at Ben and Jerrys because they're raising awareness about Gerrymandering on their page. How dare an ice cream company have an opinion right

http://www.benjerry.com/whats-new/2017/04/district-or-inkblot-quiz

Whole lot of opinions on money and free speech alright.

If a party attempts to gerrymander votes into their district then that party should have their candidate removed from the ballot. Both parties have tried it but the Republicans are currently abusing their power to the extreme in some areas of the US. Again another complete abnormality in the US where the elected party is allowed to redraw voting districts. This should be only done by an independent census agency with no political interference or appointments.

aloyisious

BoatMad wrote: »

its will an awesome travel ban , truly, great , believe me ( if It every gets passed )

"A federal appeals court upheld Thursday a ruling blocking President Donald Trump's travel ban against six Muslim-majority countries." ( thats today )

The "ban" [supposedly for the security of the US from muslim terrorist attacks] makes clear reference to Muslim-majority which seems to infer there are other faiths and religions practiced in those 6 countries. I'd be surprised if that point had not been raised in the presentations by the anti-ban side to argue the ban was [as the courts have ruled] unconstitutional.

In view of the Admins plans, is it the Admin's line that the non-muslims are an equal terrorist threat to US national security as muslims from those countries, or that ALL passport holders from the 6 countries must be presumed to be muslim? it's like a presumption of guilt has been made by the admin in regard to all the passport holders from the 6 countries, regardless to their faith-beliefs, something that might offend against the christian beliefs of a lot of US citizens.

BuilderPlumber

America needs radical reform if truth be known. The one good thing to come from Donald Trump may well be that he will bring people to notice how rotten American politics is. Trump is not doing anything different to most of his predecessors but he has a bigger mouth.

I feel that America has for years come to believe its own propaganda and that it sees itself as the good guy even when it is the bad guy. Leaders like Reagan are admired and are pin up posters for what a good US president is supposed to be. However, while he had good points, it is not noted that Reagan was deeply flawed and his first term in office was reckless.

American atrocities in WW2, Vietnam and more recently, Iraq, are supposed to be excused while anything done by an American enemy of a similar nature is supposed to horrify us. I can only imagine America's reaction if Russia bombed 2 cities in say New Zealand with nuclear weapons. This is the total hypocrisy of the whole thing.

American foreign policy needs reform. In the period from 1991 to date, America has been constantly involved in war with each president since then adding another war to the ones they inherited from the last one. Sadly, this is what is causing a lot of the world instabilities. Ill thought out strategies based on 'liberating' countries and thinking the 1989 fall of the Eastern European dictatorships could be duplicated in places like Iraq and Libya is sadly what is behind a lot of the disasters and yet each president does not learn.

Professor Moriarty

More blood in the water surrounding The Donald. Kuschner being investigated by the FBI. No wonder Comey was fired. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40054753

Frank Bullitt

Looking forward to hearing the few supporters he has left defend him on this.

This is just getting bigger and bigger.

Rjd2

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

America needs radical reform if truth be known. The one good thing to come from Donald Trump may well be that he will bring people to notice how rotten American politics is. Trump is not doing anything different to most of his predecessors but he has a bigger mouth.

I feel that America has for years come to believe its own propaganda and that it sees itself as the good guy even when it is the bad guy. Leaders like Reagan are admired and are pin up posters for what a good US president is supposed to be. However, while he had good points, it is not noted that Reagan was deeply flawed and his first term in office was reckless.

American atrocities in WW2, Vietnam and more recently, Iraq, are supposed to be excused while anything done by an American enemy of a similar nature is supposed to horrify us. I can only imagine America's reaction if Russia bombed 2 cities in say New Zealand with nuclear weapons. This is the total hypocrisy of the whole thing.

American foreign policy needs reform. In the period from 1991 to date, America has been constantly involved in war with each president since then adding another war to the ones they inherited from the last one. Sadly, this is what is causing a lot of the world instabilities. Ill thought out strategies based on 'liberating' countries and thinking the 1989 fall of the Eastern European dictatorships could be duplicated in places like Iraq and Libya is sadly what is behind a lot of the disasters and yet each president does not learn.

I think the other good thing is the media and many on the left took the last 8 years off to bask in the charisma of Obama rather than actually scrutinising him. Trump getting elected meant those who have not been paying attention are well paying attention:P