Go Back   Fratching! > General > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes

  #11  
Old 07-03-2017, 07:44 PM
s_stabeler s_stabeler is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,186
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Barracuda View Post
He bowed to every foreign potentate he came across.
um, that's because bowing is a gesture of respect, not submission.Considering that potentates- for them to actually be potentates, rather than ti being an exaggeration- actually wield greater power in their own territory than the President does...

what you're thinking of is either genuflexion or prostration ( genuflexion is when you go down on one knee, prostration is when part of your body above the knee touches the ground (aside from (presumably) a hand used for balance when genuflexing) which would indeed be wildly inappropriate for a President to a foreign power.

oh, and mjr, actually, some of those points actually CAN be indcative of a President that needs removing, even if it's true tyhe 25th amendment might not be the right vehicle to do it with.
1.the President shouldn't be twisting people's arms to vote for policies. If they can't convince people that a policy shouldn't be adopted, it probably shouldn't be.
2. pissing off historical allies is an excellent way to turn allies into enemies. Remember that for a short period, one absolute asshole in Trump's administration got the intelligence sharing between the UK and US cut off.
3. neopotism isn't acceptable. enough said.
4. his entire JOB is to ensure executive offices are run properly.

oh, and it's always amusing to hear republicans complain about people not "gettingiover" Trump winning when the Republicans were no better to Obama.
Reply With Quote

  #12  
Old 07-03-2017, 08:05 PM
Greenday's Avatar
Greenday Greenday is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 7,002
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by s_stabeler View Post
oh, and it's always amusing to hear republicans complain about people not "gettingiover" Trump winning when the Republicans were no better to Obama.
At least Obama outright won both his elections.
__________________
Violence has resolved more conflicts than anything else. The contrary opinion that violence doesn't solve anything is merely wishful thinking at its worst. - Starship Troopers
Reply With Quote

  #13  
Old 07-03-2017, 09:00 PM
mjr mjr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,149
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greenday View Post
At least Obama outright won both his elections.
That will be relevant when the NFL starts using yards to determine who wins.
Reply With Quote

  #14  
Old 07-03-2017, 09:06 PM
D_Yeti_Esquire's Avatar
D_Yeti_Esquire D_Yeti_Esquire is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 563
Default

No mjr.

The 25th is a mechanism to utilize when someone does not appear to be stable. And I'm sorry if you don't realize this, but if you are doing those things with any sort of regularity - then yea, your mental health is going to be in question at most, and at least your temperment to execute the office as outlined by the constitution and about 238 years of prior presidential behavior is going to come into question.

I really don't care that he "won" insofar as a Republican won a national election which pretty much happens every 8 years or so. The behavior of the American electorate is nothing if not predictable.

However I DO care that:
1) The US is not imperiled by moronic behavior both economically or militarily
2) He really has no check on him largely because at least in practice the Republican Senate has been mostly talk.
3) His supporters at this point very obviously do not trust any news source that in any way disparriages dear leader.

So I'm basically just waiting for a Reichstag fire and hoping there isn't one. Because at this point, the party of "Don't Get Fooled again" seems to have checked out on any fact they don't like and that's entirely how dictatorships start. There's being partisan, but then there's being obtuse and I'm afraid things are at the point that both sides want to watch it burn or sever the other side's ability to take the wheel.

There's only so much of
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrnIVVWtAag

and

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAGv2LAfnng

you can see before you believe that either:
1) A large portion of the country is mythologizing liberal thought (and believe me they are if you can call me reasonable)
2) Political rhetoric has now entered the domain of declaring the other side enemies of the state

Ultimately, if I'm as reasonable as you've previously claimed - then take my word of caution and concern at face value. Something very, very wrong is going on right now. I don't need Republicans to become Democrats. I do need them to freely acknowledge warning signs when they see them and put a stop to them when they're the ones in power.

So to your original question YES you absolutely could use the 25th to put Mike Pence in charge if the president's behavior was believe to be caused by sinility or insanity. Will it happen? No, and for the reason I outlined above.

Last edited by D_Yeti_Esquire; 07-03-2017 at 09:12 PM.
Reply With Quote

  #15  
Old 07-03-2017, 10:47 PM
Barracuda Barracuda is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 33
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greenday View Post
So, "we are sick of hearing the truth so the truth doesn't mean anything anymore"? Got it.

No, we're sick of you misrepresenting anyone who disagrees with you as racist, sexist, bigoted, etc. Hell, a white professor who is a liberal Democrat refused to "voluntarily" absent himself from campus of Evergreen College during the "Day of Absence" so now HE'S being called racist for being on campus while white. Average Americans are sick of the "racist" label being misapplied. Like claiming anyone who voted for Trump is racist. Or anyone who voted AGAINST Obama is racist. Or anyone who didn't vote for Hillary is sexist. You can't read our minds, and you're not really making a point about us so much as you are virtue-signaling and acting conceited and self-righteous. Oh yes, and projecting.



Trump's approval rating is at 37%. Pretty sure that means 63%, a large majority of the country, don't like his policies.

Try 44% overall. And that's constantly fluctuating. A couple weeks ago one poll showed it at 53%. Totally depends on current events AND where the poll asked the questions. If you take a poll in Portland, OR, it's going to get different results than in, say, Idaho.

You act as though things are so obviously one sided when they are far from it. You aren't as wise and smart as you think you are, and other people can think differently than you do without necessarily automatically being wrong. People like you claim to espouse tolerance---start showing some of it to people who don't always agree with you.
Reply With Quote

  #16  
Old 07-03-2017, 11:30 PM
D_Yeti_Esquire's Avatar
D_Yeti_Esquire D_Yeti_Esquire is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 563
Default

Well as long as everyone's sick of it. Can we get all the people who are "sick" of something in a room together instead of in rooms with like-minded people?

That's really the problem here.

FFS - I was on The Root this afternoon and their headline was Never Forget that St. Louis burned 100 years ago. I'm like, really? We don't have enough going on in 2017 that we need Alamo like steel-trap memories?

And by the way Barracuda - the problem with the racist/sexist angle is this - whether or not a majority of the people voting for Trump were that, it can be demonstrably proven via Google statistics "hate maps" that there's a commonality. And that's really the problem - the states that broke for Trump were largely - well in the trend. Which is weird when you think they broke for Obama, but we also know racist searches spiked during his election. That's not on this post but I can get it to you if you want.

This is from google a year prior to the election. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.f091e75bc4b7

So whether it's white people cloistering themselves of with other whites and saying "no problem here" or black people talking to each other and convincing themselves of existential crisis, we have a large segment of the population that choose to talk to themselves and form their ideas of what other people think remotely.

Well - that never ends well. Never.
Reply With Quote

  #17  
Old 07-04-2017, 08:48 AM
Canarr Canarr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 863
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greenday View Post
At least Obama outright won both his elections.
Honestly, this is getting tiresome. I'm not a fan of Trump, but it's a fact that he won the election. Full stop.

No, he did not win the popular vote, but that is not actually important. He won according to all relevant rules and regulations of US presidential elections, and that is what counts.

Seriously: get over it.
__________________
"You are who you are on your worst day, Durkon. Anything less is a comforting lie you tell yourself to numb the pain." - Evil
"You're trying to be Lawful Good. People forget how crucial it is to keep trying, even if they screw it up now and then." - Good
Reply With Quote

  #18  
Old 07-04-2017, 11:13 AM
mjr mjr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,149
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by D_Yeti_Esquire View Post
No mjr.

The 25th is a mechanism to utilize when someone does not appear to be stable. And I'm sorry if you don't realize this, but if you are doing those things with any sort of regularity - then yea, your mental health is going to be in question at most, and at least your temperment to execute the office as outlined by the constitution and about 238 years of prior presidential behavior is going to come into question.
I see the point you're making here. However, I will point out that there are many who thought HRC mentally unfit, too. Some thought she was unfit, period.

The 25th was put in after JFK, because the thought was if he had actually survived, he would not have been able to make decisions as President.


Quote:
However I DO care that:
1) The US is not imperiled by moronic behavior both economically or militarily
2) He really has no check on him largely because at least in practice the Republican Senate has been mostly talk.
3) His supporters at this point very obviously do not trust any news source that in any way disparriages dear leader.
Does this apply to both sides? Remember how Obama ridiculed and disparaged Fox News? Now, I'm not a watcher of major cable news, but isn't this a case of consistency? Some could point to those same three items and say "Obama". And they might have a point. Some feel he made poor economic and military decisions, had no check for part of his tenure, and his supporters didn't trust anything but friendly news. There are a lot of people who thought the media was too friendly with Obama. Simply because he was a Democrat.

I even tried to have a discussion with someone about the "You didn't build it" comment that Obama made. I wanted them to see a specific article, but they refused to listen and even click on the article or consider it's data. I understand not liking a source (Infowars, anyone??), but I thought the guy in the article made some decent points, and I wanted to get a perspective from someone of a different political bent. I guess that person wasn't reasonable enough. ;-)

And on that note, here's an article I referenced in a different thread, titled "Why Liberals Aren't as Tolerant as They Think"

http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...y-think-215114

I think it does a good job of being fairly neutral WRT both Liberals and Conservatives. But I'd like your opinion.

The news is skewed. And I think that's part of the problem. Look at what's being reported about Trump. I didn't vote for the guy, but it seems like every news article is about Russia or a tweet. I saw an article the other day that went into things beyond that. Did you know he gave a speech just yesterday or the day before? I didn't. But he did. News media didn't really cover it.

There's also been a lot lately about retractions, anonymous sources, and "not meeting editorial standards". We didn't see that nearly as much under Obama. I'm curious why you think that is.

Did you also know there's been other legislation passed and signed by him, not just executive orders? Most people don't.

I'm like you. I don't want to see us devolve into some kind of Orwellian society where news is whatever the news organizations say it is (i.e. "We've always been at war with Eastasia").

Though I think the hard part is that a lot of people are so far apart on issues that it's actually hard to come together. And what ends up happening is that one side ends up ridiculing the other. I mean, you live in Texas (I think) like I do. How often do you see "liberals" ridiculing people in the south or in rural areas as a bunch of uneducated, obese, toothless, dumb hick rednecks (since, you know, those are the only people who vote Republican) who are voting against their best interests and too dumb to know what's good for them? Or "conservatives" ridiculing people in places like LA or NY as out of touch "coastal elites" who believe in "white guilt", "white privilege", "triggering", "safe spaces", and who want sky-high taxes, choose gays and minorities over straight whites, and are anti-religion of any kind? I see it a lot from both sides. Just read comments sections. That's a problem, too. Wouldn't you agree?

Again, this goes back to a thread I started a while back that referenced the Buffalo Springfield song "For What It's Worth", with the lyric "Nobody's right, if everybody's wrong".

Also, it'd be really helpful, I think, if people would quit automatically assuming that because someone disagrees with someone else, that doesn't make them a hateful bigot. It's been brought up before that overuse of those words leads to a certain numbness. So if a person believes that there are only two genders, and none of this "zhe" stuff and the singluar "them", why should that person be labeled a hateful bigot?

If someone says a male to female transgender is still a male biologically, that's not hateful. It's fact. It may be mean, but "mean" isn't "hateful". So why is that person labeled a hateful bigot? We should really use caution and exercise care when we throw around those terms.

And I see a lot of this "party over country" thing. What the heck does that even mean? And the people saying it are usually the ones who have been voting for Democrats or Republicans their whole lives. Me? The last three elections I've voted for Independent candidates each time for President.

Quote:
There's only so much of
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrnIVVWtAag

and

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAGv2LAfnng

you can see before you believe that either:
1) A large portion of the country is mythologizing liberal thought (and believe me they are if you can call me reasonable)
2) Political rhetoric has now entered the domain of declaring the other side enemies of the state
I don't quite follow when you say "mythologizing liberal thought". I really want to be reasonable here. I do agree that the first commercial has a certain tone to it (being the NRA), but can we have a discussion about the validity (or not) of the points in the video:

1. They use their media to assassinate real news.
2. They use their schools to teach children that their President is another Hitler.
3. They use their movie stars, and singers, and comedy shows and award shows to repeat their narrative over and over again.
4. They use their ex President to endorse "the resistance", all to make them march, make them protest, make them scream racism and sexism and xenophobia and homophobia, to smash windows, burn cars, shut down interstates and airports, bully and terrorize the law abiding, until the only option left is for the police to do their jobs and stop the madness. And when that happens, they'll use it as an excuse for their outrage.


Quote:
Ultimately, if I'm as reasonable as you've previously claimed - then take my word of caution and concern at face value. Something very, very wrong is going on right now. I don't need Republicans to become Democrats. I do need them to freely acknowledge warning signs when they see them and put a stop to them when they're the ones in power.
While I concur, shouldn't Democrats work on getting their own house in order, too? Like it or not, I think there is some validity to the points above in the video. What about rhetoric like "Republicans only care about the Rich"? or "Republicans just want sick people to die"? I saw a comment the other day where a commenter said that the Republicans were going to murder 22 million people because of the healthcare bill. And yes, he literally said "murder 22 million people". You and I both know that isn't true. Republicans get attacked in similar ways. So neither party is really innocent here, I'm sure you'd agree.

And I've yet to see anyone provide a reasonable explanation as to what "the resistance" is. Again, is it resisting a donut? The Galactic Empire? Working? The reality that HRC lost? What?

And I've said you're reasonable before, because I think you are. I don't think you're one of those "special snowflake", perpetually offended SJWs that I read about so often that want scales taken out of gyms because they're "triggering". I think you can politely disagree, make your point intelligently, and listen to the other side -- even if you disagree. And I think you've shown that you can do that. I hope that, at times, I've shown the same. That's what I mean by "reasonable". You don't just automatically go on the attack when you hear/see something you don't like.

With regard to your comments on the 25th, I don't know how old you are, but you seem knowledgeable about the Constitution and government stuff in general.

I would wager if you asked a lot of people (especially millennials) who voted how many Amendments the Constitution has, they couldn't tell you without looking it up. I would be willing to wager that a good number of them had never even heard of the 25th Amendment until it was brought up.

And I say that regardless of political stripe.

But I do have to wonder how people would feel if the tables were reversed. If HRC were to have been elected President and Congress was throwing whatever they could against the wall to see what stuck to try to get HER out of office (impeachment, 25th Amendment, email, etc...). I wonder how people would feel then. I wonder how often charges of "sexism" would be thrown out. I mean, HRC used that as one of the many excuses as to why she lost.

Last edited by mjr; 07-04-2017 at 12:06 PM.
Reply With Quote

  #19  
Old 07-04-2017, 11:16 AM
mjr mjr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,149
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canarr View Post
Honestly, this is getting tiresome. I'm not a fan of Trump, but it's a fact that he won the election. Full stop.

No, he did not win the popular vote, but that is not actually important. He won according to all relevant rules and regulations of US presidential elections, and that is what counts.

Seriously: get over it.
And in all reality, neither candidate (because of "other" candidates) got over 50% of the vote, either. I've seen people say that HRC got over 50%. She didn't. Which technically means she didn't get a majority, either. She got a plurality of the popular vote.
Reply With Quote

  #20  
Old 07-04-2017, 02:41 PM
Greenday's Avatar
Greenday Greenday is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 7,002
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mjr View Post
I would wager if you asked a lot of people (especially millennials) who voted how many Amendments the Constitution has, they couldn't tell you without looking it up. I would be willing to wager that a good number of them had never even heard of the 25th Amendment until it was brought up.
To be fair, I bet the vast majority of Gen X and Baby Boomers can't do it either.
__________________
Violence has resolved more conflicts than anything else. The contrary opinion that violence doesn't solve anything is merely wishful thinking at its worst. - Starship Troopers
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT. The time now is 01:50 PM.


vBulletin skins developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.