Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
It's out job to point this out if for nothing else, ensures a civil society. Because, if we don't... as frazzled mentions... we're one step closer to chaos.
I get what you are saying, and I agree to a certain extent, but where the heck was your civil society during Obamas 8 years of total conservative bullgak? It is a continuation of a problem that has always existed to some degree in politics but the conservative response to Barry O pushed this crap right out of the seedy fringes and into the mainstream of public discourse. Does anyone remember the Glenn Beck nazi board? I am sure it's been mentioned but we have a president that encouraged people to respond violently on the campaign trail and offered to pay the legal bills(lol). Getting upset about this NOW is what people here have a problem with. It all sucks and this country is doomed because politics and policy has become a team sport not subject to thoughtful discourse nor governed by facts but by feels(thanks newt G) and I hate sports.
Dude... the "opposition" to the Obama years were done mainly in the Political Sphere. There wasn't this level of outrage...
Unless I'm totally missing the riots happening shortly after Obama's election?
Implying that Obama was as morally reprehensible, racist, sexist, and scummy as trump
But you had no terrible and serious fear that politics in the US was descending into something dark and nasty? Because I will tell you what, I did. And that fether is president now. We have bigger problems than Maxine Waters, whoever she is.
On Saturday in Los Angeles, California Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters had some thoughts about the Trump administration. Here's the key bit:
"Let's make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere. We've got to get the children connected to their parents."
What she is urging is harassment: If you see someone who works for President Donald Trump, you confront them. You build a crowd. You "push back on them."
That sentiment, which Waters reiterated Sunday on MSNBC, came just after White House press secretary Sarah Sanders was asked to leave a restaurant in Lexington, Virginia, due to her work on Trump's behalf. And it follows Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen being forced to leave a Mexican restaurant in Washington last week.
It's one that plenty of Democrats and liberals will cheer. It's also totally and completely self-indulgent, self-defeating and wrong.
Let's start here: There is nothing -- and I mean nothing -- that can be said of Trump and those who work for him that would be a bridge too far for many Democratic activists. They hate Donald Trump. They believe he is a racist. A xenophobe. Someone who is using the presidency to enrich himself. The worst President ever. And so on and so forth.
They also believe -- and this is the fundamental mistake inherent in what Waters urged on Saturday -- that the behavior of Trump and those who work with him justifies anything and everything. Trump is a bully. Trump always takes the low road, they believe. Therefore, the only proper response is to give him some of his own medicine and give it to him worse than he got it.
Waters is the most high-profile example of this belief, but she is far from the only one. My Twitter feed is filled on a daily basis with liberals insisting that there is nothing too awful to say about Trump, his daughters, his sons or his wife. Whether or not these attacks are fact-based appears to be of little consequence to this element of the Democratic base; they are literally blinded with hatred for Trump.
There's a moral and a political argument to make against that approach.
The moral one is simple: Two wrongs don't make a right. Or: An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.
The "well, he did it first" argument is one any parent is familiar with -- and familiar with responding "Well, that doesn't mean you should do it too." No matter how noxious Trump's behavior and policies may be to you, the idea that his nastiness somehow allows you to say and do anything you want in response is a self-defeating proposition.
Bullying Trump supporters or those who work for him makes the likes of Waters no better than Trump himself at a rally encouraging the police to rough up a protester or personally attacking members of the media who are simply there doing their jobs. It's small, low and dangerous. And just because someone else did it doesn't mean you can -- or should -- do it too.
Then there is the political argument: No one gets down in the mud with Trump and comes out clean. Or, in the words of George Bernard Shaw: "I learned long ago never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."
As if on cue, Trump responded on Twitter Monday: "Congresswoman Maxine Waters, an extraordinarily low IQ person, has become, together with Nancy Pelosi, the Face of the Democrat Party. She has just called for harm to supporters, of which there are many, of the Make America Great Again movement. Be careful what you wish for Max!"
There's ample evidence of how an attempt to play the low game Trump has perfected fails every time. Remember back to those few days during the 2016 Republican primary fight when Florida Sen. Marco Rubio decided to go full Trump?
"You know what they say about men with small hands," Rubio said of Trump's hands at one campaign stop. He then paused -- for a while. "You can't trust them." Trump, of course, responded in a GOP debate a few days later. "Look at those hands, are they small hands?" Trump said. "And, he referred to my hands — 'if they're small, something else must be small.' I guarantee you there's no problem. I guarantee."
Rubio later apologized -- articulating a sentiment that would come up time and again during Trump's campaign and his presidency. Rubio told CNN's Jake Tapper:
"I mean, this guy is out there every day mocking people, saying horrible things about people, but if you respond to him and somehow, you're hitting him below the belt? That was my sense at the time. What I didn't realize at the time was it's not who I am. And if you're not being who you are, it doesn't come across well."
There's just nothing to be gained from trying to out-Trump Trump. People have very low expectations when it comes to how he acts and carries himself personally. Just one in three people in exit polling in 2016 said Trump was honest and trustworthy; just 38% said he was qualified to be president and 35% said he had the temperament to be president.
He didn't win because people liked him or his tactics. He won because he was a change agent in a time when people were desperate for a change.
It felt like gutter politics was everywhere this weekend. Mike Huckabee tweeted a picture of tattooed men who appeared to be making MS-13 gang signs, with this text: "Nancy Pelosi introduces her campaign committee for the take back of the House." Jimmy Fallon issued a sort-of apology to the left for his infamous hair-tousling interview with Trump during the 2016 campaign; Trump tweeted back at Fallon, urging the late night host to "be a man."
Taken together, the past three days felt like a new tear in our collective culture -- the latest in a series of reminders that what separates us may not be all that large, but man oh man is it powerful.
Bullying and harassing Trump administration officials or supporters -- as Waters is advocating -- might make some people feel good. How's that taste?! -- and all that. But morally and politically, it's a stone-cold loser.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I'm not happy with Waters' statement nor the idea behind it. Harassing people because of their political position is a problem, not a solution.
This administration has strayed a bit far from 'political positions' in my opinion due to the constant lying, racism, and corruption. I wouldn't support this for the Bush administration (either of them). But the Trump administration sure. This is a matter of common decency, not politics.
Common decency would say we don't harass people. And even from a strictly pragmatic perspective this isn't going to help.
Vaktathi wrote: While I dont agree with Waters' statement, if thats the hill we're gonna choose to die on over common decency, well, I feel comfortable stating that we should probably be aiming elsewhere.
These are public officials leading public lives driving public policy in positions of wealth and power, who ran on a platform of "feth your feelings", and have been caustic, divisive, belligerent, insulting and offensive, and intentionally so, for the last several years since Trump started his campaign and have only kicked it into higher gear since entering office, and who are currently pushing policies that not too long ago would have been thought impossible in the US by common standards of decency.
So, while I dont condone people going out and harrassing others, if we're complain about common decency, that's a hard pill to swallow in this case.
I agree with NinthMusketeer. This is heading nowhere good. I don't think partisan politics becoming even more weaponized is going to help anything. I agree with everyone that the Trump administration is rather terrible at their job from an objective viewpoint but these are public government employees, there's already a process to send feedback to them when we're unhappy with their job performance. Physically stalking and harassing government officials in the hopes of intimidating them to the point where they change policy positions isn't a good way to govern a nation or uphold civic responsibilities. It's just circumventing the system of representative democracy in favor of mob rule and a might makes right mentality.
This is an extremely dangerous slippery slope because it encourages direct physical confrontations to resolve political disagreements or effect govt policy changes. If we as a society are going to decide that physical intimidation is an acceptable form of political discourse then we're not going to be able to put the toothpaste back in the tube. We're not going to have some kind of gentleman's agreement that stalking and harassing govt officials is only acceptable if the conduct of said officials meets certain requirements or checks off enough boxes on an agreed upon checklist. What's going to happen is that people are going to decide that as long as their subjective opinion of a politician/official is low enough that they are justified in harassing, intimidating and disrupting the personal life of said politician/official is not only acceptable but also noble and laudable behavior. An eye for an eye leaves the world blind. We really don't need to escalate confrontational behavior to the point where every person in the Trump administration really does need insane Scott Pruitt levels of security details.
I am terribly sorry, but where were you when Trump was inciting violence at his rallies? What we have right now is people being asked to leave restaurants or receiving criticism from members of the public. I too am concerned with the level of discourse in America, but please do not pretend it started happening with Sarah Huckabee Sanders being asked to leave a restaurant.
How are you getting that from what I posted? I don't think I've ever said a single word in the defense or praise of Sarah Huckabee Sanders anywhere ever. Where was I when Trump was on the campaign trail? I was either at work or spending time with my family. I didn't vote for Trump, I never uttered a complimentary word about Trump, in every conversation I had with people who were going to vote for Trump I discouraged them from doing so.
I'm not pretending that it started with Huckabee Sanders being asked to leave a restaurant. I'm pointing out that acceptance of an escalating level of personal harassment is bad. We don't want to push the Overton window to the point of accepting this level of incivility as commonplace and laudable. I don't want things to get worse, I want things to get better. Engaging in a tit for tat clickbaity cycle of faux outrage, victimization and indignation is stupid. Trump's presidency is unlikely to end anytime soon and given the path we're currently on by the time it ends whomever wins the 2020 election will preside over an administration that endures unprecedented levels of incivility from the opposition. That's not a good thing.
I'm a father, our kids can sometimes get into fights over sharing toys or whatever and exchange punches. In those instances I do not care at all about who started it or who hit first because what I do care about is our children being able to play together without resorting to violence. I want all of them to learn how to get along because we're family, we're all in this together and we need each other. I don't build them a Thunderdome so they can resolve their Minecraft disputes in a more violent and entertaining manner.
Are the Republicans incredibly gakky in extreme hyperbolic and misleading ways on a whole host of issues? Yes, but that doesn't mean the correct response is to plunge headlong into accepting new lows of acceptable political discourse to combat it. The poor behavior of others isn't an excuse to behave badly yourself.
Da Boss wrote: But you had no terrible and serious fear that politics in the US was descending into something dark and nasty? Because I will tell you what, I did. And that fether is president now. We have bigger problems than Maxine Waters, whoever she is.
No because this is not my first rodeo. This was nothing in comparison to a good union rally a candidate goes to. Johnson's speeches were way better. But then again, Johnson was a Texan.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/25 19:27:01
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
One is the leader of your country, the commander in chief of your military, the leader of your party. The other is a random democrat. And she has not even advocated violence, unlike Trump. Seriously, check out the beam in your own eye, mate.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Prestor Jon, I get the impression from your posts that you are a supporter of the Republicans. If that is incorrect, I am sorry and retract my statement.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/25 19:28:28
Da Boss wrote: One is the leader of your country, the commander in chief of your military, the leader of your party. The other is a random democrat. And she has not even advocated violence, unlike Trump. Seriously, check out the beam in your own eye, mate.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Prestor Jon, I get the impression from your posts that you are a supporter of the Republicans. If that is incorrect, I am sorry and retract my statement.
He wasn't President at the time. This is a simple game. "whataboutism" only spirals and deepens the problem.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
On Saturday in Los Angeles, California Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters had some thoughts about the Trump administration. Here's the key bit:
"Let's make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere. We've got to get the children connected to their parents."
What she is urging is harassment: If you see someone who works for President Donald Trump, you confront them. You build a crowd. You "push back on them."
That sentiment, which Waters reiterated Sunday on MSNBC, came just after White House press secretary Sarah Sanders was asked to leave a restaurant in Lexington, Virginia, due to her work on Trump's behalf. And it follows Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen being forced to leave a Mexican restaurant in Washington last week.
It's one that plenty of Democrats and liberals will cheer. It's also totally and completely self-indulgent, self-defeating and wrong.
Let's start here: There is nothing -- and I mean nothing -- that can be said of Trump and those who work for him that would be a bridge too far for many Democratic activists. They hate Donald Trump. They believe he is a racist. A xenophobe. Someone who is using the presidency to enrich himself. The worst President ever. And so on and so forth.
They also believe -- and this is the fundamental mistake inherent in what Waters urged on Saturday -- that the behavior of Trump and those who work with him justifies anything and everything. Trump is a bully. Trump always takes the low road, they believe. Therefore, the only proper response is to give him some of his own medicine and give it to him worse than he got it.
Waters is the most high-profile example of this belief, but she is far from the only one. My Twitter feed is filled on a daily basis with liberals insisting that there is nothing too awful to say about Trump, his daughters, his sons or his wife. Whether or not these attacks are fact-based appears to be of little consequence to this element of the Democratic base; they are literally blinded with hatred for Trump.
There's a moral and a political argument to make against that approach.
The moral one is simple: Two wrongs don't make a right. Or: An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.
The "well, he did it first" argument is one any parent is familiar with -- and familiar with responding "Well, that doesn't mean you should do it too." No matter how noxious Trump's behavior and policies may be to you, the idea that his nastiness somehow allows you to say and do anything you want in response is a self-defeating proposition.
Bullying Trump supporters or those who work for him makes the likes of Waters no better than Trump himself at a rally encouraging the police to rough up a protester or personally attacking members of the media who are simply there doing their jobs. It's small, low and dangerous. And just because someone else did it doesn't mean you can -- or should -- do it too.
Then there is the political argument: No one gets down in the mud with Trump and comes out clean. Or, in the words of George Bernard Shaw: "I learned long ago never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."
As if on cue, Trump responded on Twitter Monday: "Congresswoman Maxine Waters, an extraordinarily low IQ person, has become, together with Nancy Pelosi, the Face of the Democrat Party. She has just called for harm to supporters, of which there are many, of the Make America Great Again movement. Be careful what you wish for Max!"
There's ample evidence of how an attempt to play the low game Trump has perfected fails every time. Remember back to those few days during the 2016 Republican primary fight when Florida Sen. Marco Rubio decided to go full Trump?
"You know what they say about men with small hands," Rubio said of Trump's hands at one campaign stop. He then paused -- for a while. "You can't trust them." Trump, of course, responded in a GOP debate a few days later. "Look at those hands, are they small hands?" Trump said. "And, he referred to my hands — 'if they're small, something else must be small.' I guarantee you there's no problem. I guarantee."
Rubio later apologized -- articulating a sentiment that would come up time and again during Trump's campaign and his presidency. Rubio told CNN's Jake Tapper:
"I mean, this guy is out there every day mocking people, saying horrible things about people, but if you respond to him and somehow, you're hitting him below the belt? That was my sense at the time. What I didn't realize at the time was it's not who I am. And if you're not being who you are, it doesn't come across well."
There's just nothing to be gained from trying to out-Trump Trump. People have very low expectations when it comes to how he acts and carries himself personally. Just one in three people in exit polling in 2016 said Trump was honest and trustworthy; just 38% said he was qualified to be president and 35% said he had the temperament to be president.
He didn't win because people liked him or his tactics. He won because he was a change agent in a time when people were desperate for a change.
It felt like gutter politics was everywhere this weekend. Mike Huckabee tweeted a picture of tattooed men who appeared to be making MS-13 gang signs, with this text: "Nancy Pelosi introduces her campaign committee for the take back of the House." Jimmy Fallon issued a sort-of apology to the left for his infamous hair-tousling interview with Trump during the 2016 campaign; Trump tweeted back at Fallon, urging the late night host to "be a man."
Taken together, the past three days felt like a new tear in our collective culture -- the latest in a series of reminders that what separates us may not be all that large, but man oh man is it powerful.
Bullying and harassing Trump administration officials or supporters -- as Waters is advocating -- might make some people feel good. How's that taste?! -- and all that. But morally and politically, it's a stone-cold loser.
I will add my voice to the chorus condemning Maxine Waters for her statement, and explicitly say that she is promoting a worsening of an already toxic culture.
So......we have quite a few people on this board speaking against her, we have other Democratic politicians disagreeing with her and now the liberal bastion of the Fake News media CNN (which apparently isn't fake this time around) is doing the same.
That, of course, means that in the future, when a honest person of integrity and intellectual fortitude hears it said that Democrats and "The Left" is hopelessly partisan and will never criticise "their own", that person can, should and will say; "Well, that isn't entirely true".
-------------------------------------------------------
"He died because he had no honor. He had no honor and the Emperor was watching."
Da Boss wrote: One is the leader of your country, the commander in chief of your military, the leader of your party. The other is a random democrat. And she has not even advocated violence, unlike Trump. Seriously, check out the beam in your own eye, mate.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Prestor Jon, I get the impression from your posts that you are a supporter of the Republicans. If that is incorrect, I am sorry and retract my statement.
I'm mostly conservative and libertarian in my politics so I should be somebody that the Republican Party appeals to except that they've shown a remarkable propensity to nominate candidates that I would never vote for in a million years. For several presidential election cycles I've protest voted for 3rd party candidates, I want cast a vote so that it shows up that I turned out and voted but neither Party has put out a Presidential candidate that I wanted to vote for since I was old enough to vote. Down ballot for state and local positions I've voted for both Republicans and Democrats. I have pretty strong views on the 2nd amendment but I've been consistently voting for a Democrat county sheriff for over a decade because I've had positive experiences with the department and that means a lot more to me than whether it's an (R) or (D) next to his name.
Trump is a bad president, on the whole his campaign, election and administration has been consistently awful. The country can survive a bad presidency and bounce back pretty easily but it depends on the people. While Trump is a gakky human being we all get to choose how we respond to his gakkiness. Just because Trump behaves badly doesn't mean I should respond with bad behavior of my own. I need to follow Voltaire's advice and tend my own garden, vote my conscience, take care of my family and weather the political storm of Trump.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
I consider standing up to these people and making them understand that what they are doing is unacceptable (peacefully) is a very important part of "tending your garden" but thank you very much for a thoughtful response. I am gonna go take a break because I am probably responding overly snarkily to people due to having a bad day.
Fraz, whembly, whoever else, I'm not trying to say that this democrat is 100% right, but I do think it is okay to make your views heard to politicians in public. That's the breaks when you chose public office, in my opinion.
On Saturday in Los Angeles, California Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters had some thoughts about the Trump administration. Here's the key bit:
"Let's make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere. We've got to get the children connected to their parents."
What she is urging is harassment: If you see someone who works for President Donald Trump, you confront them. You build a crowd. You "push back on them."
That sentiment, which Waters reiterated Sunday on MSNBC, came just after White House press secretary Sarah Sanders was asked to leave a restaurant in Lexington, Virginia, due to her work on Trump's behalf. And it follows Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen being forced to leave a Mexican restaurant in Washington last week.
It's one that plenty of Democrats and liberals will cheer. It's also totally and completely self-indulgent, self-defeating and wrong.
Let's start here: There is nothing -- and I mean nothing -- that can be said of Trump and those who work for him that would be a bridge too far for many Democratic activists. They hate Donald Trump. They believe he is a racist. A xenophobe. Someone who is using the presidency to enrich himself. The worst President ever. And so on and so forth.
They also believe -- and this is the fundamental mistake inherent in what Waters urged on Saturday -- that the behavior of Trump and those who work with him justifies anything and everything. Trump is a bully. Trump always takes the low road, they believe. Therefore, the only proper response is to give him some of his own medicine and give it to him worse than he got it.
Waters is the most high-profile example of this belief, but she is far from the only one. My Twitter feed is filled on a daily basis with liberals insisting that there is nothing too awful to say about Trump, his daughters, his sons or his wife. Whether or not these attacks are fact-based appears to be of little consequence to this element of the Democratic base; they are literally blinded with hatred for Trump.
There's a moral and a political argument to make against that approach.
The moral one is simple: Two wrongs don't make a right. Or: An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.
The "well, he did it first" argument is one any parent is familiar with -- and familiar with responding "Well, that doesn't mean you should do it too." No matter how noxious Trump's behavior and policies may be to you, the idea that his nastiness somehow allows you to say and do anything you want in response is a self-defeating proposition.
Bullying Trump supporters or those who work for him makes the likes of Waters no better than Trump himself at a rally encouraging the police to rough up a protester or personally attacking members of the media who are simply there doing their jobs. It's small, low and dangerous. And just because someone else did it doesn't mean you can -- or should -- do it too.
Then there is the political argument: No one gets down in the mud with Trump and comes out clean. Or, in the words of George Bernard Shaw: "I learned long ago never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."
As if on cue, Trump responded on Twitter Monday: "Congresswoman Maxine Waters, an extraordinarily low IQ person, has become, together with Nancy Pelosi, the Face of the Democrat Party. She has just called for harm to supporters, of which there are many, of the Make America Great Again movement. Be careful what you wish for Max!"
There's ample evidence of how an attempt to play the low game Trump has perfected fails every time. Remember back to those few days during the 2016 Republican primary fight when Florida Sen. Marco Rubio decided to go full Trump?
"You know what they say about men with small hands," Rubio said of Trump's hands at one campaign stop. He then paused -- for a while. "You can't trust them." Trump, of course, responded in a GOP debate a few days later. "Look at those hands, are they small hands?" Trump said. "And, he referred to my hands — 'if they're small, something else must be small.' I guarantee you there's no problem. I guarantee."
Rubio later apologized -- articulating a sentiment that would come up time and again during Trump's campaign and his presidency. Rubio told CNN's Jake Tapper:
"I mean, this guy is out there every day mocking people, saying horrible things about people, but if you respond to him and somehow, you're hitting him below the belt? That was my sense at the time. What I didn't realize at the time was it's not who I am. And if you're not being who you are, it doesn't come across well."
There's just nothing to be gained from trying to out-Trump Trump. People have very low expectations when it comes to how he acts and carries himself personally. Just one in three people in exit polling in 2016 said Trump was honest and trustworthy; just 38% said he was qualified to be president and 35% said he had the temperament to be president.
He didn't win because people liked him or his tactics. He won because he was a change agent in a time when people were desperate for a change.
It felt like gutter politics was everywhere this weekend. Mike Huckabee tweeted a picture of tattooed men who appeared to be making MS-13 gang signs, with this text: "Nancy Pelosi introduces her campaign committee for the take back of the House." Jimmy Fallon issued a sort-of apology to the left for his infamous hair-tousling interview with Trump during the 2016 campaign; Trump tweeted back at Fallon, urging the late night host to "be a man."
Taken together, the past three days felt like a new tear in our collective culture -- the latest in a series of reminders that what separates us may not be all that large, but man oh man is it powerful.
Bullying and harassing Trump administration officials or supporters -- as Waters is advocating -- might make some people feel good. How's that taste?! -- and all that. But morally and politically, it's a stone-cold loser.
I will add my voice to the chorus condemning Maxine Waters for her statement, and explicitly say that she is promoting a worsening of an already toxic culture.
So......we have quite a few people on this board speaking against her, we have other Democratic politicians disagreeing with her and now the liberal bastion of the Fake News media CNN (which apparently isn't fake this time around) is doing the same.
That, of course, means that in the future, when a honest person of integrity and intellectual fortitude hears it said that Democrats and "The Left" is hopelessly partisan and will never criticise "their own", that person can, should and will say; "Well, that isn't entirely true".
Agreed but unfortunately there aren't enough honest people of integrity and intellectual fortitude in politics today. The anti war protestations of the Democrats were loud when Bush was president but got very quiet when Obama was finding more countries to bomb and governments to topple. The Republicans made the debt and deficit spending a huge issue when Obama was president but now that Trump is in the white house Republicans think deficits don't matter.
Politics has become a hyper partisan team game and too many policy positions are treated like the athletes that you love to hate but would love to have on your team. Deficit spending is terrible and will ruin the country, but now that we're in charge deficit spending is awesome, who wants some money?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/25 19:56:09
Relapse wrote: This is the kind of thing that stirs up conservatives to hit the polls in large numbers.
Sorry, I thought the rule was that conservatives always show up and liberals have to get stirred up?
It's like how the right makes excuses for a man mocking the disabled on national television, but saying that you don't have to be polite to the people literally stealing children is a no-no.
Relapse wrote: This is the kind of thing that stirs up conservatives to hit the polls in large numbers.
Which is why is Maxine Waters is suddenly getting a whole lot of attention on media outlets like Fox News. Wedge issues = ratings. The issue of political discourse in civil society is immaterial to the "news" the only thing that is important is ramping up outrage and the feels so that people have a good tempest in a teapot to get worked up over and tune into for some patronizing self righteous indignation to be a soothing balm to the stressors of their every day life.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skyth wrote: I just see it as people using their first amendment rights to 'petition the government for a redress of grievances'
I don't think anybody is saying that people shouldn't petition the government for a redress of grievance but there's a right way and a wrong way to do that. You can call your representatives, write your representatives, sign petitions, attend protests/marches/rallies, petition for recall elections, vote for candidates based on their position on policies, etc. Stalking and harassing people is the proper way to go about trying to get what you want. We don't want to fall into a trap and be myopic about changing the parameters of political discourse just because it might accomplish something good in this particular instance. Once we start condoning incivility it becomes extremely difficult to get people to be polite again. We don't have to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/25 20:06:35
It's out job to point this out if for nothing else, ensures a civil society. Because, if we don't... as frazzled mentions... we're one step closer to chaos.
I get what you are saying, and I agree to a certain extent, but where the heck was your civil society during Obamas 8 years of total conservative bullgak? It is a continuation of a problem that has always existed to some degree in politics but the conservative response to Barry O pushed this crap right out of the seedy fringes and into the mainstream of public discourse. Does anyone remember the Glenn Beck nazi board? I am sure it's been mentioned but we have a president that encouraged people to respond violently on the campaign trail and offered to pay the legal bills(lol). Getting upset about this NOW is what people here have a problem with. It all sucks and this country is doomed because politics and policy has become a team sport not subject to thoughtful discourse nor governed by facts but by feels(thanks newt G) and I hate sports.
Dude... the "opposition" to the Obama years were done mainly in the Political Sphere. There wasn't this level of outrage...
Unless I'm totally missing the riots happening shortly after Obama's election?
Perhaps not riots, but the Tea Party appeared immediately thereafter, and boy, having to walk through those protests on the way to and from grad school every day certainly was...not a positive and engaging experience that uplifted the public discourse.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Frazzled wrote: And another post comparing Trump to Nazis. Excellent.
Gee, I wonder why anybody would do such a thing.
Just because some of his noisiest supporters publicly claim that title. You know, marching through streets carrying the flag of Nazi Germany? Ringing any bells?
And just because many of his own spoken positions parallel positions taken by the Nazi party during it's nascent years.
Or, you know, maybe there is a reason that people are worried about his politics and policies, eh?
We are not there yet - but there is reason to be worried. Hyper-nationalism, and a willingness to tell whatever lie he feels will further his claims is not helping. (So, Canada has a thriving industry in shoe smuggling? Really?)
And being worried can help prevent it from happening.
If we become complacent about this behavior, then we may start taking the actual steps towards becoming a fascist nation. (Not all fascists are Nazis.)
The Auld Grump
Kilkrazy wrote:When I was a young boy all my wargames were narratively based because I played with my toy soldiers and vehicles without the use of any rules.
The reason I bought rules and became a real wargamer was because I wanted a properly thought out structure to govern the action instead of just making things up as I went along.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Hey guys, remember all the times people were comparing Obama to Hitler while talking about how his brownshirts are going to round up all your children and put them in the FEMA death camps and enact his socialist agenda to turn the USA into Nazi Germany?
Remember how the liberals decided that if you call them mean names, they will turn to the radical extreme left elements and the Democrats in power decided to pander to the fringe elements of the liberal sphere?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/25 21:09:15
Do I dare post a news article about another republican running for a senate seat saying the civil war was not about slavery? I feel like it is important, but at the same time I know exactly what some posters will say despite all the evidence pointing to the contrary
Frazzled wrote:You know he's serious when he puts 25,000% tariffs on French wine (something that might impact him).
That wouldn't work like that. Trump doesn't drink alcohol because his brother died of alcoholism (although it might accidentally benefit his winery).
TheAuldGrump wrote:
Spoiler:
Frazzled wrote: And another post comparing Trump to Nazis. Excellent.
Gee, I wonder why anybody would do such a thing.
Just because some of his noisiest supporters publicly claim that title. You know, marching through streets carrying the flag of Nazi Germany? Ringing any bells?
And just because many of his own spoken positions parallel positions taken by the Nazi party during it's nascent years.
Or, you know, maybe there is a reason that people are worried about his politics and policies, eh?
We are not there yet - but there is reason to be worried. Hyper-nationalism, and a willingness to tell whatever lie he feels will further his claims is not helping. (So, Canada has a thriving industry in shoe smuggling? Really?)
And being worried can help prevent it from happening.
If we become complacent about this behavior, then we may start taking the actual steps towards becoming a fascist nation. (Not all fascists are Nazis.)
The Auld Grump
It's funny how how all the talk about "it can't ever happen here, people will do something" also comes from the same people who are not that worried, defend similar practices, or even think some of the ideas are actually acceptable. The problem with fascism is if you don't fight it early you'll need something much harsher later on to dislodge it. It uses the tools of democracy to get into positions of power (and it relies on your civility) and then destroys those tools so other can't fight it as easily. Stuff like Trump's rhetoric about immigrants contributed to that change in climate. Because people are outraged by Nazi comparisons but excuse his choice of words as "but he didn't mean it like that", "he was joking", or "that was just an exaggeration".
In the grand scheme of things a restaurant saying "we don't want to serve people who defend the government putting kids into cages" is rather mild resistance.
Relapse wrote: This is the kind of thing that stirs up conservatives to hit the polls in large numbers.
Sorry, I thought the rule was that conservatives always show up and liberals have to get stirred up?
It's like how the right makes excuses for a man mocking the disabled on national television, but saying that you don't have to be polite to the people literally stealing children is a no-no.
You clearly didn’t pay attention in the previous election.
The Wall Street Journal reported late on Sunday that President Trump planned to block Chinese companies from investing in U.S. tech companies and stop U.S. tech exports to China.
The newspaper reported that the Treasury Department is drafting rules that would prevent companies with a minimum of 25 percent Chinese ownership from buying companies that take part in “industrially significant technology.”
if true, this could be...awkward. From Mnuchins blustering, Im guessing the policy will be pretty close to the above, but applied in a way that looks like it hits everyone. We'll see how it turns out, but if so, this leaves a lot of US interests vulnerable to Chinese retaliation.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Vaktathi wrote: While I dont agree with Waters' statement, if thats the hill we're gonna choose to die on over common decency, well, I feel comfortable stating that we should probably be aiming elsewhere.
These are public officials leading public lives driving public policy in positions of wealth and power, who ran on a platform of "feth your feelings", and have been caustic, divisive, belligerent, insulting and offensive, and intentionally so, for the last several years since Trump started his campaign and have only kicked it into higher gear since entering office, and who are currently pushing policies that not too long ago would have been thought impossible in the US by common standards of decency.
So, while I dont condone people going out and harrassing others, if we're complain about common decency, that's a hard pill to swallow in this case.
Spinner wrote: I dunno, "supports abducting and transporting children across the country to scare people into not wanting to come here" seems like a pretty good line to draw for not getting to go out for enchiladas in peace.
I feel this, I really do. As you say these are some of the most powerful and wealthy people in the country, and they are doing reprehensible things while being paid on the taxpayer dime all the time - getting yelled at in public seems pretty fair. It feels right. As their crowd is so fond of saying over and over and over again, feth your feelings, snowflake. Right?
But I have been thinking about this for days and ultimately although my heart - my very angry heart - agrees with that idea, my head agrees more with this one.
I agree with NinthMusketeer. This is heading nowhere good. I don't think partisan politics becoming even more weaponized is going to help anything. I agree with everyone that the Trump administration is rather terrible at their job from an objective viewpoint but these are public government employees, there's already a process to send feedback to them when we're unhappy with their job performance. Physically stalking and harassing government officials in the hopes of intimidating them to the point where they change policy positions isn't a good way to govern a nation or uphold civic responsibilities. It's just circumventing the system of representative democracy in favor of mob rule and a might makes right mentality.
This is an extremely dangerous slippery slope because it encourages direct physical confrontations to resolve political disagreements or effect govt policy changes. If we as a society are going to decide that physical intimidation is an acceptable form of political discourse then we're not going to be able to put the toothpaste back in the tube.
It's a much harder argument to swallow emotionally, but ultimately eradicating social and political norms as retribution for eradicating social and political norms just leaves the whole world blind, or something like that.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/25 22:17:42
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Where does refusing Sanders service fall into that though?
I can agree that having a mob following people or getting yelled at everywhere is a shaky standard. It’s not illegal, but is it the right form of discourse?
But refusing service? I’m not sure about that particular approach. For me, part of it depends on the motivation (which isn’t always obvious). “No service to Republicans because they are gakky people” would be a hard motivation for me to swallow. “No service for members of the administration because they are gakky people” is more specific, but I’m still on the fence. “I don’t want the money that you make for defending policies that I think are hurting everything we stand for in my register” is more acceptable to me. This also goes for the approach used. It’s one thing to pull someone aside and quietly tell them you don’t want their business, but it’s another to make a spectacle about your refusal with a big sign or by making the act of refusal some big spectacle for everyone to see.
Maybe it would be better to serve them and donate your profits from that meal (or the total amount of the bill) to a charity that opposes the actions of the administration? Would it be better to do that silently, or do you let her know something along the line “we appreciate that you chose us for your business, but I have serious concerns about these policies and I want to let you know that the total of your bill will be donated to legal aid for immigrant families separated at the border”?
d-usa wrote: Where does refusing Sanders service fall into that though?
I can agree that having a mob following people or getting yelled at everywhere is a shaky standard. It’s not illegal, but is it the right form of discourse?
But refusing service? I’m not sure about that particular approach. For me, part of it depends on the motivation (which isn’t always obvious). “No service to Republicans because they are gakky people” would be a hard motivation for me to swallow. “No service for members of the administration because they are gakky people” is more specific, but I’m still on the fence. “I don’t want the money that you make for defending policies that I think are hurting everything we stand for in my register” is more acceptable to me. This also goes for the approach used. It’s one thing to pull someone aside and quietly tell them you don’t want their business, but it’s another to make a spectacle about your refusal with a big sign or by making the act of refusal some big spectacle for everyone to see.
Maybe it would be better to serve them and donate your profits from that meal (or the total amount of the bill) to a charity that opposes the actions of the administration? Would it be better to do that silently, or do you let her know something along the line “we appreciate that you chose us for your business, but I have serious concerns about these policies and I want to let you know that the total of your bill will be donated to legal aid for immigrant families separated at the border”?
...all I know, is that if I were an owner or investor, I'd be pissed at said restaurant turning down money and refusing service on political grounds.
At most, I'd simply have a sign that says "We proudly donate to 'x causes', thank you for you patronage.'
Perhaps it is my appreciation of the history of the term, but I believe in a boycott in the traditional sense - an absolute refusal to provide any kind of non-legally mandated service to a person, a refusal to aid or speak to them in any way. A policy of total social isolation.
This was originally applied by Irish peasants to the agent of an absentee landlord during the Land War. It was extremely effective and totally non-violent. I see this non-service in a restaurant as being directly in this tradition, and would be perfectly fine with it going even further. After all, they can always find SOMEONE to help them out, it will just cost more and be inconvenient as hell.
As an alternative to violent resistance it is quite civil, really.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Hey guys, remember all the times people were comparing Obama to Hitler while talking about how his brownshirts are going to round up all your children and put them in the FEMA death camps and enact his socialist agenda to turn the USA into Nazi Germany?
Remember how the liberals decided that if you call them mean names, they will turn to the radical extreme left elements and the Democrats in power decided to pander to the fringe elements of the liberal sphere?
No one's forgetting that... derpage isn't exclusive to "the other" size. But, at the end of the day, by-and-large the Tea Party arose because of the Democrat's and Obama's policies.
Yes, there are lunacy every... just like some people thought that a Trump presidency would put gays in concentration camps for electro-shock therapy:
I mean...sheesh...
Are you saying that the #TheResistance is akin like the Tea Party movement?>
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/25 22:38:23
18.000 
3.500 
8.200 
3.300 
2.400 
3.100 
5.500 
2.500 
3.200 
3.000
