Next in the political playbook: The 25th Amendment...

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

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.

[Canarr]

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.

[mjr]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[mjr]

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.

[Greenday]

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.

[mjr]

To be fair, I bet the vast majority of Gen X and Baby Boomers can't do it either.

That's probably true.

But don't you think it's kind of important to know those kinds of things? Especially with the amount of times we see/hear people screaming "It's my right..." or "I know my rights..."

Personally, I think the Federalist Papers, Declaration of Independence, and Constitution should be compulsory learning in the U.S. in Public Schools.

[Greenday]

That's probably true.

But don't you think it's kind of important to know those kinds of things? Especially with the amount of times we see/hear people screaming "It's my right..." or "I know my rights..."

Personally, I think the Federalist Papers, Declaration of Independence, and Constitution should be compulsory learning in the U.S. in Public Schools.

There's a lot of basic stuff that just doesn't get taught...like the states and their capitols. That was a surprise to me when I got to college.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

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.

Do you honestly not see how addicted you are to HRC? She isn't the president. She hasn't been news since November of last year. We are talking about things happening in reality, not hypotheticals. HRC never has been president.

And dude - that's a wall 'o text so let me quick hit (because I don't have this level of time.)

Anything Re: Obama - bit of a topic switch, don't you think?

Re: Liberals aren't as... - we already had this discussion or do you not remember it?

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:

It's incumbent on the person making claims to prove their position, not on the other person to prove a negative. However to your question about mythologizing - mythologizing is just that - filling in gaps in knowledge with something else. My guess is, in an effort to keep cognititive dissonance at a minimum - that something else ain't good. So lets just take a look at those claims at face value:

They use their media to assassinate real news.

Problematic in two places - 1, the definition of real news here is non-existent. I've seen plenty of reporting of facts on both sides. Some more reputable than others and easily debunked when false. People do it. Here's Politifact http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...news-channels/. And who the fuck is "they?"

2. They use their schools to teach children that their President is another Hitler.

Again there's two problems here - There are 3.1 million teachers in the US and if I'm just being nice and saying 1 in 10,000 are batshit, then there are at least 300 batshit teachers running around. So again, who are "they" and why do they own the crazy? When a school district or board gets wacky, that's a local board issue.

They use their movie stars, and singers, and comedy shows and award shows to repeat their narrative over and over again.

Again, who are they? Susan Sarandon is not Sarah Silverman who is not Stephen Colbert who is not James Woods, who is not Michael Bay. Entertainers tend to skew liberal for the same reason sports figures tend to skew conservative - peer groups. There's no they - just people. And if you want to go there, than please let me know how the current DCEU or Marvel is all that liberal and not just candy-coated consumerism. Really would like to hear that one.

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.

So Obama picks up the bat-phone and the mysterious "they" tells him to what exactly? I mean the rhetorical slippery slope is obvious in this statement if you just read it. Protest, call out racism, sexism, xenophobia, and homophobia are valid to call out if someone has cause. But the conjunction of those with excesses of protesting with no break rhetorically reads that one begets the other.

The people who break the law may believe the same thing as the other, but they are not representative of the whole group. Or at least they're not if you wouldn't want me making the case Conservatives shoot up black schools, take over public land, etc., etc.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

Sorry, did we just bring up the Federalist Papers?

To judge from the conduct of the opposite parties, we shall be led to conclude that they will mutually hope to evince the justness of their opinions, and to increase the number of their converts by the loudness of their declamations and the bitterness of their invectives. An enlightened zeal for the energy and efficiency of government will be stigmatized as the offspring of a temper fond of despotic power and hostile to the principles of liberty. An over-scrupulous jealousy of danger to the rights of the people, which is more commonly the fault of the head than the heart, will be represented as mere pretense and artifice, the stale bait for popularity at the expense of the public good.

It will be forgotton, on the one hand, that jealousy is the usual concomitant of love, and that the noble enthusiasm of liberty is apt to be infected with a spirit of narrow and illiberal distrust. On the other hand, it will be equally forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty; that in the contemplation of a sound and well-informed judgement, their interest can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction to despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.


<-- probably one of my favorite documents.

[mjr]

Do you honestly not see how addicted you are to HRC? She isn't the president. She hasn't been news since November of last year. We are talking about things happening in reality, not hypotheticals. HRC never has been president.

Only reason I brought her up is that she was the "other" major candidate.

Anything Re: Obama - bit of a topic switch, don't you think?

Eh, just checking for some consistency.

Problematic in two places - 1, the definition of real news here is non-existent. I've seen plenty of reporting of facts on both sides. Some more reputable than others and easily debunked when false. People do it. Here's Politifact http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...news-channels/. And who the fuck is "they?"

I think, in the context of the video, "they" is the far left, SJWs, ANTIFA, and "snowflakes".

Again there's two problems here - There are 3.1 million teachers in the US and if I'm just being nice and saying 1 in 10,000 are batshit, then there are at least 300 batshit teachers running around. So again, who are "they" and why do they own the crazy? When a school district or board gets wacky, that's a local board issue.

Again, I think they meant to extend this into the university level. And one doesn't have to be "crazy" to push an ideology -- would you agree? And "they" again, is the people referenced above.

Again, who are they? Susan Sarandon is not Sarah Silverman who is not Stephen Colbert who is not James Woods, who is not Michael Bay. Entertainers tend to skew liberal for the same reason sports figures tend to skew conservative - peer groups.

While I agree that people tend to be lumped into general "groups", those people you mentioned likely have the same general mentality toward conservatives and conservative groups. I'm sure you've heard the things they've said. Likewise the other way around. And I'm sure you'd agree that just because someone is "friendly" to you politically, doesn't make everything they say about "the other side" appropriate -- or correct.

So Obama picks up the bat-phone and the mysterious "they" tells him to what exactly?

I think the video meant it the other way around. I think the video implies that Obama is somehow telling these groups what do do. He was, after all, a "community organizer".

Protest, call out racism, sexism, xenophobia, and homophobia are valid to call out if someone has cause. But the conjunction of those with excesses of protesting with no break rhetorically reads that one begets the other.

True, but we both know the difference in a "protest" and a "riot". When people are burning things down and attacking people, that's not a "protest" by any definition.

The people who break the law may believe the same thing as the other, but they are not representative of the whole group. Or at least they're not if you wouldn't want me making the case Conservatives shoot up black schools, take over public land, etc., etc.

I'm glad we're on the same page.

[Gravekeeper]

I am honestly and continually stunned that anyone is defending any of what is currently going on.

The excuses are amazing. Every new level of rock bottom Trump digs down to, his cult of personality struggles to defend. Then he usually undercuts them, and his own press secretary, before they can even finish defending *that* new level of bullshit.

None of this is normal. None of it is okay. Get your head out of the sand and/or the President's asshole. You're fucking America, not North Korea.

And that's probably as politely as I can articulate my thoughts on the current situation. -.-