Trump Twitter rally goes hilariously/sadly wrong

[sunmaster14]

I think you're seriously lacking focus, here. None of this is relevant to the Executive Order being discussed or the claim that Trump's screwing over women.

Huh? Of course it's relevant. Your reading comprehension leaves something to be desired, to say the least.

 

[theprestige]

I think you're seriously lacking focus, here. None of this is relevant to the Executive Order being discussed or the claim that Trump's screwing over women.

Didn't this thread use to be about a twitter rally? You're a bit late to demand more focus.

 

[Belz...]

Huh? Of course it's relevant. Your reading comprehension leaves something to be desired, to say the least.

What does reading comprehension have to do with whether something is relevant or not? We're talking about TRUMP screwing over WOMEN. And Elgarak provided an example. When I pointed it out to you you instead went on a field trip about other administrations, ISIS and other stuff. How is any of that relevant, tell me?

 

[kookbreaker]

Didn't this thread use to be about a twitter rally? You're a bit late to demand more focus.

Sunmaster asked for an example of Trump's action and got them. He handwave dismissed it and rambled about something completely different.

Threaddrift is one thing, this was a hairpin turn.

 

[Aepervius]

Two questions: First, how is Trump screwing over women? Second, is skin actually a valuable resource so that it makes sense to talk about "wasting" it? I like to think of Trump as more of a waste of hair spray.

How about the defunding of planned parenthood as campaign promise ? Among other stuff. The "giving access to care" as described sound like they will allow to offer cheapo plan which cover nothing, especially women gynecology prevention.

@Elgarak even better : it was already done not announced.

 

[sunmaster14]

What does reading comprehension have to do with whether something is relevant or not? We're talking about TRUMP screwing over WOMEN. And Elgarak provided an example. When I pointed it out to you you instead went on a field trip about other administrations, ISIS and other stuff. How is any of that relevant, tell me?

I really don't know why I get involved in these kinds of discussions, because they're painfully tedious and annoying, but when somebody claims that a President is "screwing over women" there has to be some context. If Trump is doing precisely what any Republican President would do, and which was the status quo as of 2008, then it strikes me as a gross exaggeration to say that is "screwing over women." Also, it's not even American women. And arguably it's not even "screwing" anybody. Finally, it is quite relevant to talk about other policies and their effects on women. The effects of the "good" and "bad" policies should be netted. It's crazy to focus only on the "bad" and ignore the "good."

 

[Belz...]

I really don't know why I get involved in these kinds of discussions, because they're painfully tedious and annoying, but when somebody claims that a President is "screwing over women" there has to be some context.

The implication isn't that he's raping them, of course (though he might grab them by the pussy), but that he's signing or pushing legislation that hurts them, specifically in their ability to choose not to have kids.

If Trump is doing precisely what any Republican President would do, and which was the status quo as of 2008, then it strikes me as a gross exaggeration to say that is "screwing over women."

What a strange bit of logic. As if other people doing the same thing somehow means that he's not really doing it. A large portion of the American people being overweight doesn't mean that describing a particular one as fat is a gross exaggeration.

Also, it's not even American women.

That wasn't the claim for which you asked evidence for.

Finally, it is quite relevant to talk about other policies and their effects on women.

Except that they don't change the ones that we're talking about. If I punch you in the face and give you a thousand dollars, pointing to the money doesn't mean I'm not hurting you.

 

[wareyin]

The implication isn't that he's raping them, of course (though he might grab them by the pussy), but that he's signing or pushing legislation that hurts them, specifically in their ability to choose not to have kids.



What a strange bit of logic. As if other people doing the same thing somehow means that he's not really doing it. A large portion of the American people being overweight doesn't mean that describing a particular one as fat is a gross exaggeration.



That wasn't the claim for which you asked evidence for.



Except that they don't change the ones that we're talking about. If I punch you in the face and give you a thousand dollars, pointing to the money doesn't mean I'm not hurting you.

More relevantly to sunmaster14's claim, if you punched him in the face and then pointed out that someone else murdered someone else, that doesn't mean sunmaster14 wasn't punched in the face. Similarly, if you stole from sunmaster14's bank account every penny that he has earned since 2008 (thus "returning him to the status quo" of 2008), you have still taken something away from him.

 

[NoahFence]

Can you elaborate? I haven't heard about such proposed changes.

Well then open your *********** eyes and read something besides right wing echo chamber rags for once.

 

[Darat]

Pretty lame. That was the policy before Obama too anyway. Maybe it's good for women in the US because it saves their tax dollars. In any case, how about netting such a minuscule change in policy against Trump's dedication to eradicating ISIS? ISIS is about the most anti-woman organization on the planet. It keeps thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of women as sex slaves and is responsible for the murder of at least that many. How about his commitment to reducing the number of immigrants from countries where a medieval attitude towards women's rights is pervasive? That right there will do more for the future of women's rights in the US, as well as their physical safety now, than virtually anything else that has been on the table in decades. By similar reasoning (which I think is valid), Angela Merkel is the most anti-woman leader in the free world.

How does it do that?

 

[fagin]

Remember, the only birth control a woman needs is an aspirin. She holds it between her knees and she doesn't get pregnant.

Or even no asprin, then she can claim a headache.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Policies are not Karma: you don't get free bad ones to balance out the good ones.

 

[kookbreaker]

How does it do that?

Talking costs cash, apparently.

 

[thaiboxerken]

What does reading comprehension have to do with whether something is relevant or not? We're talking about TRUMP screwing over WOMEN. And Elgarak provided an example. When I pointed it out to you you instead went on a field trip about other administrations, ISIS and other stuff. How is any of that relevant, tell me?

It is a strategy used by conservatives and mastered by Kellyanne Conway. Instead of answering questions or taking responsibility, toss out tons of other "issues" and questions to deflect and confuse. None of it is relevant, they know it.

 

[Trakar]

Trump supporters attempted to get the hashtag #ThankYouTrump to trend on Twitter, only to have it be hijacked by people pointing out facts and thanking Trump for things his supporters likely wouldn't appreciate. A lovely sampling is included in the link if you care to be amused and saddened all at once. I think my favorite is the Ansel Adams quote listed first.

The results are funny, but also heartbreaking. We are five days into Trump's presidency and he's well on his way to becoming the most hated, vilified President in US history. He's attempted a gag order on releasing climate data (which the Park Service is rightfully choosing to ignore), he's screwing over women, he's screwing over the environment, and there's more coming. How anyone can think this waste of skin is good for the country is utterly beyond me.

Sounds like he's trying to unify the nation and bring us all together in the only way he knows how. Interestingly, his supporters seem to be the main ones who still don't get it.

 

[3point14]

Is there an agreed upon 'worst president in history' for Trump to be compared to?

 

[Belz...]

Obama, I think?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Is there an agreed upon 'worst president in history' for Trump to be compared to?

Nixon?

 

[3point14]

Obama, I think?

I did say 'agreed upon' (I realise this is politics and US politics at that, so I'm not actually expecting much in the way of agreement )

Nixon?

Sounds like a decent shot. He was good in Dr who though



These conversations always lead to me thinking about Ralph Wiggum singing "We are the lesser presidents"

 

[Belz...]

I did say 'agreed upon'

Yeah but we're in the post-fact, alternative fact world, so I can say whatever I want.

Sounds like a decent shot. He was good in Dr who though

And a fearsome opponent in Black Dynamite!