Thomas

About

Banned
Username
Thomas
Location
North Carolina
Joined
Visits
577
Last Active
Roles
Supporter
Points
233
Badges
0
  • U.S. Politics the Third

    anubus21 said:
    asmallcat said:
    Thomas said:
    Well, anyway, a lot of people dislike Trump and a lot of artists have come out against him, so I doubt it's going to hurt the bottom line for any one of them.

    The Dixie Chicks comparison might not be apples to apples either- W was strongly disliked by the left, and over time more and more people grew to dislike or distrust him, but overall he was more popular at the beginning of his term than Trump has been. He also gained some traction for a while after 9-11 when he was seen to be "doing something" or whatever.  The general environment around W wasn't as toxic as it is around Trump, as W was/is not as toxic as Trump as a person, and social media also wasn't what it is now either, so we didn't have that layer of unfiltered discourse both amongst politicians as well as the general public. 
    Big difference is that W is actually a good person.  He was a terrible president, but a compassionate person who loved America (he was just a puppet of Cheney and Rumsfeld).  Trump is just a terrible person and, so far, a terrible president.  
    Right. That's what I was saying but you said it more succinctly. :)

    Such fucking Bullshit. Why on earth do you think Bush was a compassionate person who loved america? If he actually cared at all about this country, he wouldn't have let everything that happened on his watch happen. At best, he was a nothing president who was there because his family pushed him to do it and he felt he "deserved" it, and at worst he was complicit in the deaths of hundreds of thousands in a war based on lies (and countless more based on the destabilization of the middle east, although there were lots of other factors), spiraling deregulation that led to the financial crisis, and taking zero steps to combat the ever-growing income inequality in this country. 

    This revisionist history on Bush has got to stop. Just because we now have literally the worst president in the history of the country doesn't suddenly make Bush better. He was still one of the worst presidents of all time. And frankly, I don't care what he might have personally thought about what he was doing. It's your actions that matter, and Bush's action as president made abundantly clear he cared for no one in America except his rich friends. 
    Drinking the hateraid on Bush 
    Some people will always refuse to acknowledge the good in someone like Bush.  It goes back to the tribalism and refusal to praise the out-group.  Unlike past presidents, you can clearly see that the decisions to send kids to war in Afghanistan and Iraq has taken an emotional toll on him.  He spends a lot of his time working with vets now.  He used to hang out at the airport in Houston and welcome home vets after he had left office.  When someone asked him about it, he said it was because he sent them to war so he should be there to welcome them home.

    Republicans will say the same thing about Obama.  "Oh he was a terrible president and is a terrible person." just because he is a Democrat.  I personally think he was a pretty decent president, but you can't deny how good of a person he is outside of office as well.

    Just Google Cory Remsburg.  He was a Ranger who first met Obama at Normandy back around 2009.  After Cory got blown up in Afghanistan Obama again met with him in the hospital.  Once Cory received his new home in Arizona a few years later, Obama just randomly showed up to the welcome party with no cameras, media, or anything.  It was genuine.  He then brought Cory as his final State of the Union address guest.  Yet out-group types will say the same things about him as a person as Democrats say about Bush.

    At think we can almost all agree though when Trump leaves office he will go down as just a shitty person though haha.
    Alkaid13anubus21CretanBulljazzminawa
  • U.S. Politics the Third

    Well, anyway, a lot of people dislike Trump and a lot of artists have come out against him, so I doubt it's going to hurt the bottom line for any one of them.

    The Dixie Chicks comparison might not be apples to apples either- W was strongly disliked by the left, and over time more and more people grew to dislike or distrust him, but overall he was more popular at the beginning of his term than Trump has been. He also gained some traction for a while after 9-11 when he was seen to be "doing something" or whatever.  The general environment around W wasn't as toxic as it is around Trump, as W was/is not as toxic as Trump as a person, and social media also wasn't what it is now either, so we didn't have that layer of unfiltered discourse both amongst politicians as well as the general public. 
    Big difference is that W is actually a good person.  He was a terrible president, but a compassionate person who loved America (he was just a puppet of Cheney and Rumsfeld).  Trump is just a terrible person and, so far, a terrible president.  
    CretanBull
  • U.S. Politics the Third

    I think ESPN has a journalism issue they need to figure out with what's going on with Jemele Hill.  I don't really watch ESPN much anymore, but from what I remember, she really wasn't a straight, facts on the ground, reporter for them.  She would do opinion pieces and long form reports.  So, shouldn't she in fact be allowed to give her takes in real time?  It might be different if she was a beat reporter or someone who was supposed to appear impartial. 
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/09/sports/football/jemele-hill-suspended-espn.html?_r=0

    Paul Krugman certainly does.
    She threatened advertisers, that's a no-go. 
    She has pushed the limits quite a few times.  I personally have never been able to stand her because she is the female version f Stephen A Smith.  She just says polarizing things to get attention.  She kept pushing buttons and ignoring the warnings of ESPN.  You are an employee, not self-employed.

    Either way, ESPN has gone so far down the drain with the over-coverage of LaVar Ball and Kaepernick instead of actual sports.
    TaraC73
  • U.S. Politics the Third

    More importantly, 3 Green Berets were killed yesterday in Niger while training their military to defend itself.  As much as I despise Fox News, they were the only people to front page it.  CNN put the story at the bottom of its page beneath Trump this, Trump that, Tillerson this, Tillerson that, bump stocks OMG, and Cam Newton a sexist?  Fucking pathetic.
    TaraC73
  • U.S. Politics the Third


    Skipped most of the last 15 comments.  But no, my response was not directed at you.  But we have had far more firearms for a far longer time than Australia did.  Not to mention we have Mexico, a huge gun running country that brings illegal weapons in. Australia is on an island.  It is almost as flawed of an argument as when right wingers say they need AR's to defend themselves for when the government tries to take them over.



    Umm. Doesn't Mexico get its guns from the US? think you may need to research that a bit more mate. So actually your argument is the flawed one. 




    Do you think guns disappear over time?  If there are 20,000 illegal weapons in Mexico (there are far more than that) then they won't be disappearing after 10 uses until the next shipment comes.  You are also expecting every American to turn their guns in, which they won't do because some have put thousands upon thousands of dollars towards those weapons.  

    It is a pointless argument, it is not applicable.  Please tell me how an island of 24 million compares to a land locked country of over over 370 million?

    The simple answer is you CANT prevent shootings like this, but you can reduce the chances they might occur by making it a lot harder to get a gun.  Making bump stocks, bigger magazines, mag release locks, etc illegal is pointless because if someone wants to shoot a place up all they have to do is remove it or swap out parts.


    @akritenbrink Yeah, I don't know what you guys thought you were doing.  There's three US politics threads, all have 30+ pages, with 30 posts per page.  That's about 3K worth of posts of back and forth bullshit.

    I remember there was a shooting or something and @emnofseattle started quoting Fundementals of Modern Police Impact Weapons from his "personal collection".  I know rule #1 is don't be a dick, but let that sink in for a second.  Who the fuck is quoting from that book and what do you think is going to be accomplished by discussing politics with said person?

    Hate to break it to you, but I'm pretty sure rightfully or wrongfully his mind is made up on specific issues, guys.  Game over man! Nobody is winning or changing anything by dragging this out.  STAHHPPP!
    I used to think climate change was a hoax for about 10 straight years.  Then on a social media page a bunch of educated people made me look like an idiot.  I started to do research on my own, reading dozens of journal articles and books, because I hated being embarrassed.  Now I am fully aware climate change is real and I ended up studying it heavily in graduate school.  So saying arguing on the internet about politics stuff is pointless is just wrong.  Most people won't change their minds, yes, but plenty do.
    jazzminawa