President Trump's Team

CrimsonRuss

1st Team
Sep 30, 2015
783
617
117
...and we have the mid-east wars to prove it.
Yes we do! The one thing that I really like about Donnie Tiny Hands is that he can't hide who he is an puts it right out in the open. So now when we start bombing more third world countries for oil it will be blatant, nothing to debate about why we're doing it.
 

NationalTitles18

TideFans Legend
May 25, 2003
29,635
34,733
362
Mountainous Northern California
http://reason.com/blog/2016/12/13/bernie-sanders-donald-trump-won-because

Wasn't quite sure where else to put it.

Sen. Bernie Sanders understands something that mainstream liberals do not: Donald Trump won the presidency in part because he channeled populist resentment toward political correctness into a winning issue.
During a fascinating and free-wheeling town hall-style event on Chris Hayes' show on MSNBC Monday night, Sanders was explicit: Trump's criticisms of political correctness spoke to the American people's legitimate fury toward a political class and media regime th
 

NationalTitles18

TideFans Legend
May 25, 2003
29,635
34,733
362
Mountainous Northern California
i don't doubt it at all. but in some respects, politically incorrect is just a politically correct term for a-hole. ;)
Unfortunately, that cuts both ways. Yes, Trump is more than just not PC - he is a jerk, big league! But so are the folks who shout down (and insult) people in the name of PC causes. Sanders has a valid point and so do you. I do believe that part of the magic of Trump has been his ability to not let the PC police paralyze him and trap him into a hole of self doubt and self criticism. The downside of that is that his narcissism is probably partially the reason for that - and narcissism can be a bad trait; but his no apologies approach offers somewhat of a blueprint for how to defeat some of the Alinsky style tactics used by the PC police at the other extreme. That approach negates one of their more potent weapons of late which had befuddled Republicans, conservatives, and even those on the left not leftist enough. He has broken through the mold of paying lip service and giving in to look more "centrist" (for lack of a better description). If you don't like it, too bad (I'm expressing his thoughts as I imagine them here). Some of that is absolutely needed. Does he take it from something constructive into something potentially destructive and definitely insensitive, insulting, and uncaring? Absolutely. Not so much too much of a good thing as applying a good thing to his worse traits.
 

92tide

TideFans Legend
May 9, 2000
58,154
44,876
287
54
East Point, Ga, USA
Unfortunately, that cuts both ways. Yes, Trump is more than just not PC - he is a jerk, big league! But so are the folks who shout down (and insult) people in the name of PC causes. Sanders has a valid point and so do you. I do believe that part of the magic of Trump has been his ability to not let the PC police paralyze him and trap him into a hole of self doubt and self criticism. The downside of that is that his narcissism is probably partially the reason for that - and narcissism can be a bad trait; but his no apologies approach offers somewhat of a blueprint for how to defeat some of the Alinsky style tactics used by the PC police at the other extreme. That approach negates one of their more potent weapons of late which had befuddled Republicans, conservatives, and even those on the left not leftist enough. He has broken through the mold of paying lip service and giving in to look more "centrist" (for lack of a better description). If you don't like it, too bad (I'm expressing his thoughts as I imagine them here). Some of that is absolutely needed. Does he take it from something constructive into something potentially destructive and definitely insensitive, insulting, and uncaring? Absolutely. Not so much too much of a good thing as applying a good thing to his worse traits.
the thing is the "shouting down in the name of pc causes" is in a lot of cases response to a long history of insults, etc. you cannot continually tell people they are second class citizens (many times in the name of authority, e.g. god, the founders) and not expect them to eventually tell you (the royal you) to jump off a cliff. i think what we are seeing with trump is a populist backlash against groups that are speaking out for themselves, and in many cases "winning" on issues (e.g. gay marriage)

at least in my experience, most of the whining about the "pc police" comes about when people are called on for being dis-respectful jerks, especially against historically "marginalized" groups.

but that's just me.
 

NationalTitles18

TideFans Legend
May 25, 2003
29,635
34,733
362
Mountainous Northern California
the thing is the "shouting down in the name of pc causes" is in a lot of cases response to a long history of insults, etc. you cannot continually tell people they are second class citizens (many times in the name of authority, e.g. god, the founders) and not expect them to eventually tell you (the royal you) to jump off a cliff. i think what we are seeing with trump is a populist backlash against groups that are speaking out for themselves, and in many cases "winning" on issues (e.g. gay marriage)

at least in my experience, most of the whining about the "pc police" comes about when people are called on for being dis-respectful jerks, especially against historically "marginalized" groups.

but that's just me.
Well darn. My post disappeared due to a connection issue on my end. The basics of it were this: While you have a point about marginalized groups, many of those groups have become unreasonable - and not just to those who are not allied with them. Take the recent treatment of the director of the movie Boys Don't Cry at Reed College. This kind of behavior continues to become more common. When people are unreasonable it is difficult to reason with them. Sometimes it makes you want to flip the bird and say "forget you" (the non-scrubbed version) even when you want good things for them. I guess I'm an oddity in that I want respectful treatment for everyone from everyone and I'm inclined to reject the jackasses on all sides.

PS Reason has an article about the Reed College incident. Can't link due to language.
 
Last edited:

NationalTitles18

TideFans Legend
May 25, 2003
29,635
34,733
362
Mountainous Northern California
I would imagine (because there's nothing to actually read) this bill goes too far in one direction, while knowing that some state laws and actions have gone too far in the opposite direction concerning the conflict between LGBT right and religious rights. You have right to be concerned about that as do some on the religious side of the argument. Being for both sides (to a degree) leaves me looking to most like I'm in a pickle, but that's only because most take the oft criticized George Bush approach of "if you're not with us then you're against us". I actually believe more people when they think about it can see both sides and want a reasonable approach that respects everyone's rights. Then we have the unreasonable on both sides offering a false choice that will be the focus of the "debate" for years.
 

92tide

TideFans Legend
May 9, 2000
58,154
44,876
287
54
East Point, Ga, USA
I would imagine (because there's nothing to actually read) this bill goes too far in one direction, while knowing that some state laws and actions have gone too far in the opposite direction concerning the conflict between LGBT right and religious rights. You have right to be concerned about that as do some on the religious side of the argument. Being for both sides (to a degree) leaves me looking to most like I'm in a pickle, but that's only because most take the oft criticized George Bush approach of "if you're not with us then you're against us". I actually believe more people when they think about it can see both sides and want a reasonable approach that respects everyone's rights. Then we have the unreasonable on both sides offering a false choice that will be the focus of the "debate" for years.
i get what you're saying, but i find it hard to "both sides" issues like this (bathroom bills/marriage bills) when inevitably, the antis resort to labelling people as abominations and/or freaks that are going to come and get you or are ruining a sacred institution by their uncleanliness and not seeing them as equals.
 

CharminTide

Hall of Fame
Oct 23, 2005
7,319
2,032
187
I would imagine (because there's nothing to actually read) this bill goes too far in one direction, while knowing that some state laws and actions have gone too far in the opposite direction concerning the conflict between LGBT right and religious rights. You have right to be concerned about that as do some on the religious side of the argument. Being for both sides (to a degree) leaves me looking to most like I'm in a pickle, but that's only because most take the oft criticized George Bush approach of "if you're not with us then you're against us". I actually believe more people when they think about it can see both sides and want a reasonable approach that respects everyone's rights. Then we have the unreasonable on both sides offering a false choice that will be the focus of the "debate" for years.
Growing up in a very religious environment, I completely support everyone's right to practice the faith of their choosing. But it's very hard for me to see a legitimate reason that businesses need legal enshrinment of their right to fire employees on the basis of their LGBT identity. Or for an employer to forbid a gay man from adding his husband to their employee health coverage. We had these same conversations around race many decades ago, and it would be unthinkable for any politician to propose legislation permitting similar discrimination against blacks.
 

NationalTitles18

TideFans Legend
May 25, 2003
29,635
34,733
362
Mountainous Northern California
i get what you're saying, but i find it hard to "both sides" issues like this (bathroom bills/marriage bills) when inevitably, the antis resort to labelling people as abominations and/or freaks that are going to come and get you or are ruining a sacred institution by their uncleanliness and not seeing them as equals.
Don't confuse the issues with the rhetoric on the extremes of it.
 

NationalTitles18

TideFans Legend
May 25, 2003
29,635
34,733
362
Mountainous Northern California
Growing up in a very religious environment, I completely support everyone's right to practice the faith of their choosing. But it's very hard for me to see a legitimate reason that businesses need legal enshrinment of their right to fire employees on the basis of their LGBT identity. Or for an employer to forbid a gay man from adding his husband to their employee health coverage. We had these same conversations around race many decades ago, and it would be unthinkable for any politician to propose legislation permitting similar discrimination against blacks.
I agree with you and that would constitute "taking it too far".
 

CharminTide

Hall of Fame
Oct 23, 2005
7,319
2,032
187
I agree with you and that would constitute "taking it too far".
Unfortunately, Trump has already said he will sign it. Perhaps with ~70% of the population supporting gay marriage, a few GOP senators can be shamed into opposing this. Otherwise, it will most likely become law.
 

NationalTitles18

TideFans Legend
May 25, 2003
29,635
34,733
362
Mountainous Northern California
Unfortunately, Trump has already said he will sign it. Perhaps with ~70% of the population supporting gay marriage, a few GOP senators can be shamed into opposing this. Otherwise, it will most likely become law.
Fortunately, it would stand a decent chance of being ruled unconstitutional. There are limited instances where it would be appropriate (say, a directly church affiliated program) and others it would not (a large corporation). There is room for the uncommon common sense.
 

Tide1986

Suspended
Nov 22, 2008
15,670
2
0
Birmingham, AL
Fortunately, it would stand a decent chance of being ruled unconstitutional. There are limited instances where it would be appropriate (say, a directly church affiliated program) and others it would not (a large corporation). There is room for the uncommon common sense.
But, the Supreme Court has shown sensitivity to the religious freedoms of closely held corporations, so I would assume only publicly held corporations would be exempted from such a law.
 

sabanball

All-American
Jan 4, 2006
2,360
41
67
55
High Cotton
Unfortunately, Trump has already said he will sign it. Perhaps with ~70% of the population supporting gay marriage, a few GOP senators can be shamed into opposing this. Otherwise, it will most likely become law.
So if "~70% of the population" is against such a thing becoming law, you think Trump would push it through regardless?
 

CharminTide

Hall of Fame
Oct 23, 2005
7,319
2,032
187
So if "~70% of the population" is against such a thing becoming law, you think Trump would push it through regardless?
Why not? It hasn't stopped the GOP from trying. And as you know, most things in this country are not decided by popular vote -- after all, 2% more voters wanted Clinton as president, yet here we are. ;)
 

Latest threads

TideFans.shop : 2024 Madness!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.