• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: The Trump Presidency IX: Nein, Nein!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, just like terrorists and freedom fighters are different things. Unfortunately which one is which often depends on your perspective, which is the point I'm trying to make.

If you want to think that only slowing and not stopping at a stop sign is the same thing as the Greensboro sit ins, and it's simply a matter of perspective, like the terrorist vs freedom fighter distinction, that's on you.

Have fun with that. :con2:
 
Trump Tweets

"“When Trump visited the island territory last October, OFFICIALS told him in a briefing 16 PEOPLE had died from Maria.” The Washington Post. This was long AFTER the hurricane took place. Over many months it went to 64 PEOPLE. Then, like magic, “3000 PEOPLE KILLED.” They hired...."

"....GWU Research to tell them how many people had died in Puerto Rico (how would they not know this?). This method was never done with previous hurricanes because other jurisdictions know how many people were killed. FIFTY TIMES LAST ORIGINAL NUMBER - NO WAY!"
 
trump Tweets

"When President Obama said that he has been to “57 States,” very little mention in Fake News Media. Can you imagine if I said that...story of the year! "


No mention of the flip yet.
 
There really aren't hardly any liberals who want open borders, or borders so un-policed that they might as well be declared officially open. The only leftwingers I know of who advocate that are fringy left-anarchist types.
"#abolishICE" is NOT about open borders. It's about abolishing the whole Patriot Act, actually, and returning to the immigration enforcement we had before 9/11 (when we actually had far fewer undocumented immigrants), maintaining closed borders, and moving back to something akin to amnesty for people who've been here for a long time, with stuff like the DREAM Act.

Dems have a hard time, and have been very poor at, fighting back against the way the Reps frame the Dems' points.

This is a perfect case in point. Apart from who you mentioned, a few fringy left-anarchist types, I can't imagine anyone wanting truly open borders and no national integrity.

The same with abortion. I have yet to meet someone who is pro-abortion. I've met many who are pro-choice. But the way the Reps seems to be able to frame the discussion - and I have yet to see the Dems successfully batter it down - is that Dems are pro-abortion and are willing to drive you to the clinic.
 
If you live around here (Durham, NC) all you have heard about since then is Hurricane Florence.

WRAL, the biggest local station, has pre-empted everything, including the national news, for 24/7 coverage of the storm.

Other local stations have been much the same.

I'm in Clayton and I turned off coverage about 9 am yesterday. The same crapola over and over and over and over again.
 
Dems have a hard time, and have been very poor at, fighting back against the way the Reps frame the Dems' points.

I don't know how rightwing messaging can be defeated. The causes of it's effectiveness are:

1) republican "elites" who lie big and lie often
2) a voter base with a religious-type "faith" in the GOP and anything that seems hyper "conservative", and little in the way of critical thinking skills
3) commercial media selling outrage-inducing confirmation bias more than anything else

I might be missing a few things, but I think those are the biggest ones.

How do you defeat that?
 
trump Tweets

"When President Obama said that he has been to “57 States,” very little mention in Fake News Media. Can you imagine if I said that...story of the year! "


No mention of the flip yet.

What an idiot! How does he think he heard of it? Because it has never left the media as a whataboutism topic. I love when the right wing talks about a common gossip theme like this that's been running the circuit for years or a current news article that was already in fourteen journals and on two dozen mainstream websites and some troll will post a Youtube video or a message on a board "Here's another story you won't see on the mainstream Fake News".

And we all laugh and point! But this here is the ******* President of the United States of America wasting his time and all our money on petty gossip that any school kid can disprove in ten seconds.
 
trump Tweets

"When President Obama said that he has been to “57 States,” very little mention in Fake News Media. Can you imagine if I said that...story of the year! "

Except for hyperpartisan GOPers bringing it up every 3 seconds despite it happening almost a decade ago.

Plus Orangeboy makes a worse error almost every day.
 
Dems have a hard time, and have been very poor at, fighting back against the way the Reps frame the Dems' points.

This is a perfect case in point. Apart from who you mentioned, a few fringy left-anarchist types, I can't imagine anyone wanting truly open borders and no national integrity.
They are getting Liberals and Libertarians confused.

https://www.lp.org/issues/immigration/
 
If you want to think that only slowing and not stopping at a stop sign is the same thing as the Greensboro sit ins, and it's simply a matter of perspective, like the terrorist vs freedom fighter distinction, that's on you.

Have fun with that. :con2:

Now come on, Kelly. You know that's not what we're talking about.

The issue is setting precedents where we ignore laws we find unjust, but complain when other people ignore laws THEY find unjust.
 
Also, Obama said that he'd made that mistake the same day that he actually made it. Trump couldn't even admit to making a ******* typo.
 
Also, Obama said that he'd made that mistake the same day that he actually made it. Trump couldn't even admit to making a ******* typo.

My son and his friends use "covfefe" to mean any old word at any old time.


The President of the United States of America is a source of mirth among nine year olds living in a foreign country.
 
There really aren't hardly any liberals who want open borders, or borders so un-policed that they might as well be declared officially open. The only leftwingers I know of who advocate that are fringy left-anarchist types.
I can't believe I'm going to link to an article in the Daily Caller - gulp - but they have a video posted up of Keith Ellison, deputy chair of the DNC, wearing a t-shirt that says "yo no creo en fronteras" (I don't believe in borders). Linky

To be clear, it's the video I'm accepting here, not anything else at that link.

ETA: One person wearing one t-shirt does not a political party policy position make, but Ellison is certainly not on the anarchist fringe. So this makes me wonder if there are other Dems, not fringe types, who would adopt this position, too.
 
Last edited:
Now come on, Kelly. You know that's not what we're talking about.

The issue is setting precedents where we ignore laws we find unjust, but complain when other people ignore laws THEY find unjust.

This only makes any sense if you ignore the merits of the arguments on why they find them unjust.

It is the exact same thinking as pretending Hillary is as corrupt as Trump because the accusations are there. People saying or believing something does not mean those things are of equal merit.
 
False Dichtonomy: it's not Iron Curtain vs. inner-Schengen.
At this point, why argue about No Borders vs. Comply with obligations under the UNHCR when the reality is children in cages.
once we have anything like a normal migration policy again, we can discuss who open we want borders to be.
 
This trump tweet stood out to me

Great job FEMA, First Responders and Law Enforcement - not easy, very dangerous, tremendous talent. America is proud of you. Keep it all going - finish strong!

That helps explain why so many died in Puerto Rico. Where smart people see the beginning of months of work, trump sees the finish line.
 
This only makes any sense if you ignore the merits of the arguments on why they find them unjust.

Actually, no. Because what you might find to have merit is a judgment call that others might not share. In other words, what you find just or unjust is not necessarily something you can convince anyone else of. But regardless, the process of ignoring the law for ideological reasons is the same no matter who does it. If you can ignore the law when you see it as unjust, others can ignore it even if you see that law as just. I didn't think that would be controversial.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom