Trump booed at World Series

[Goalpost]

Gee I'm convinced. Where is a Covington kid that I can punch in the face.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-29-2019, 10:17 AM)GMDino Wrote: The proof of the "suckling" is in the Trump pudding..."sir".

His supporters (here and in the real world) jumped to his defense because he was booed.  And then tried to play it off as "beneath" people to boo someone they don't like when that "man" has brought shame to the office of the presidency with his behavior.

Who defended Trump in this thread?  All I've seen is people calling out boorish/hypocritical behavior that you (pre)tend to call out in others.

Quote:Same people who don't like "the way" some people protest...when it's really just they don't want to admit they support what is being protested.

A laughably childish argument.  Essentially, if someone doesn't agree with you then they support Trump.  Like I've said, and will continue to say, you are the exact person you claim to dislike.  

Quote:Truth hurts dude.

Must be why I'm sitting here pain free.

[CJD]

(10-29-2019, 10:09 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I will say this, this thread is a fascinating study in double think and the lengths some will go to excuse behavior they decry in others.  It's also a very interesting example of the concept of you either hate Trump and constantly rail against him or you suckle at his teat and lap up his every word and thought as gospel.  The black and white, us and them, childish world view on display is as disheartening as it is pathetic.  We are polarized as a nation more than any point in modern history, and you are proudly contributing to it.

I think there's space between the two to think critically and evaluate scenarios on more than just a "is it bad or is it good" scale. But what do I know? I imagine there's a fairly good chance that I am categorized as "constantly railing against Trump" in your book.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-29-2019, 10:31 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I think there's space between the two to think critically and evaluate scenarios on more than just a "is it bad or is it good" scale. But what do I know? I imagine there's a fairly good chance that I am categorized as "constantly railing against Trump" in your book.

No, I don't include you in that category.  You're critical of him when you feel it's appropriate and you avoid engaging in the same level of attacks that he deploys against others.  You also don't engage in McCarthy-esque behavior regarding anyone who dares not live in a state of perpetual rage over the fact that Trump was elected POTUS.

[Belsnickel]

(10-29-2019, 10:31 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I think there's space between the two to think critically and evaluate scenarios on more than just a "is it bad or is it good" scale. But what do I know? I imagine there's a fairly good chance that I am categorized as "constantly railing against Trump" in your book.

The issue at the heart of it isn't whether the booing is bad or good. One of the biggest and most accurate criticisms of Trump is the way in which he has lowered the esteem of the office of POTUS. He has taken a trend of divisive and uncivil partisanship and ratcheted it up to 11 as he violates so many of the norms that were in place as the guardrails of our democracy. The chanting at his rallies that he encourages is one of those examples. However, if you find yourself in disagreement with that chanting but don't feel the same about examples such as what occurred at the Nats' game, then it is likely your issue lies in a more partisan disagreement rather than the overall discouragement with the lack of civility in politics.

It's not about the chanting being right or wrong, that is a subjective judgement an individual has to make for themselves, it is about being honest with yourself about the current state of politics in this country.

Just my two cents.

[GMDino]

(10-29-2019, 10:40 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: The issue at the heart of it isn't whether the booing is bad or good. One of the biggest and most accurate criticisms of Trump is the way in which he has lowered the esteem of the office of POTUS. He has taken a trend of divisive and uncivil partisanship and ratcheted it up to 11 as he violates so many of the norms that were in place as the guardrails of our democracy. The chanting at his rallies that he encourages is one of those examples. However, if you find yourself in disagreement with that chanting but don't feel the same about examples such as what occurred at the Nats' game, then it is likely your issue lies in a more partisan disagreement rather than the overall discouragement with the lack of civility in politics.

It's not about the chanting being right or wrong, that is a subjective judgement an individual has to make for themselves, it is about being honest with yourself about the current state of politics in this country.

Just my two cents.

Personally I have only referred to the booing.

The chanting was just a little "right back at ya" for a campaign ran on his opponent being "dirty" and well, you can see how Trump is.  That's not just violating norms...that's possible impeachment level activity.

But the right has made it that even the booing was "wrong" because we must respect the office.  No one booed the office.  They booed Trump.

And his supporters are just in a tizzy that anyone would say the public can boo a president who called people "human scum" in a tweet while in office.

Makes me giggle that they then think everyone ELSE is "raging".  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-29-2019, 10:40 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: The issue at the heart of it isn't whether the booing is bad or good. One of the biggest and most accurate criticisms of Trump is the way in which he has lowered the esteem of the office of POTUS. He has taken a trend of divisive and uncivil partisanship and ratcheted it up to 11 as he violates so many of the norms that were in place as the guardrails of our democracy. The chanting at his rallies that he encourages is one of those examples. However, if you find yourself in disagreement with that chanting but don't feel the same about examples such as what occurred at the Nats' game, then it is likely your issue lies in a more partisan disagreement rather than the overall discouragement with the lack of civility in politics.

It's not about the chanting being right or wrong, that is a subjective judgement an individual has to make for themselves, it is about being honest with yourself about the current state of politics in this country.

Just my two cents.

Exceptionally well stated, you Trump supporter! 

[CJD]

(10-29-2019, 10:35 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, I don't include you in that category.  You're critical of him when you feel it's appropriate and you avoid engaging in the same level of attacks that he deploys against others.  You also don't engage in McCarthy-esque behavior regarding anyone who dares not live in a state of perpetual rage over the fact that Trump was elected POTUS.

I'm glad to hear that. I do my best to view each specific scenario as objectively as I can (often asking "would I view this as bad if a Democrat did it?") but, as the nature of bias goes, it's hard to objectively evaluate your own beliefs as partisan or not partisan.

(10-29-2019, 10:40 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: The issue at the heart of it isn't whether the booing is bad or good. One of the biggest and most accurate criticisms of Trump is the way in which he has lowered the esteem of the office of POTUS. He has taken a trend of divisive and uncivil partisanship and ratcheted it up to 11 as he violates so many of the norms that were in place as the guardrails of our democracy. The chanting at his rallies that he encourages is one of those examples. However, if you find yourself in disagreement with that chanting but don't feel the same about examples such as what occurred at the Nats' game, then it is likely your issue lies in a more partisan disagreement rather than the overall discouragement with the lack of civility in politics.

It's not about the chanting being right or wrong, that is a subjective judgement an individual has to make for themselves, it is about being honest with yourself about the current state of politics in this country.

Just my two cents.

It's an interesting discussion point. I ultimately fall on the side of "Politicians should act more civil than citizens." Citizens, after all, are directly affected by those politicians' beliefs and viewpoints, such that they can feel the actual impact of those politicians' beliefs (like getting your health care or other social services cut). So if those stances negatively impact you as a citizen, I think it's a natural response to voice your displeasure with that politician. It's done via polls, town halls and voting mostly, but in the rare opportunity where the President presents himself outside of his bubble at a nationally viewed event, booing him seems appropriate if you feel he is causing damage to your or your loved ones' lives, as we personally cannot directly remove him from office until 2020.

I have mixed feelings on the lock him up chant. I think that kind of rhetoric is dangerous because, taken to its extreme, you are discussing jailing your political opponents, which is insanely un-American and anti-democracy (as it is when Trump does it). Trump hasn't been convicted of anything yet, even if there is more and more evidence every day, so demanding he be put in jail is unpalatable at best. With that said, I do see the irony that he has so openly advocated for HIS political opponents to be thrown in jail, despite investigations showing that there is not enough evidence to justify prison time (whether you find that justification or not, it is what it is). 

There's a fair bit of schadenfreude in seeing a man so vehement about wanting to throw his political opponents in jail (whether that be Hillary, Joe/Hunter Biden or even Obama) actually end up on the wrong side of an investigation that could, realistically, result in him being imprisoned. Kind of a "hoisted by your petard" moment, which was undeniably ironic and comical.

I don't think coming to this conclusion is necessarily partisan although, as I said above, it is difficult to evaluate your own biases in such a partisan environment.

[BmorePat87]

(10-29-2019, 10:09 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I will say this, this thread is a fascinating study in double think and the lengths some will go to excuse behavior they decry in others.  It's also a very interesting example of the concept of you either hate Trump and constantly rail against him or you suckle at his teat and lap up his every word and thought as gospel.  The black and white, us and them, childish world view on display is as disheartening as it is pathetic.  We are polarized as a nation more than any point in modern history, and you are proudly contributing to it.

I don't see the "double think" in expecting elected officials and other government agents to be above a mob mentality. I think the false equivalency between the two is disingenuous. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-29-2019, 11:11 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I don't see the "double think" in expecting elected officials and other government agents to be above a mob mentality. I think the false equivalency between the two is disingenuous. 

You're arguing degree of culpability or responsibility.  I'm pointing out behavior.  I don't expect Trump to be "above" anything.  I do expect people who criticize him for such behavior to not engage in it or applaud it in others.  This is not disingenuous, it's expecting people to act as they claim to desire.  

[GMDino]

(10-29-2019, 11:19 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're arguing degree of culpability or responsibility.  I'm pointing out behavior.  I don't expect Trump to be "above" anything.  I do expect people who criticize him for such behavior to not engage in it or applaud it in others.  This is not disingenuous, it's expecting people to act as they claim to desire.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-29-2019, 11:22 AM)GMDino Wrote:

Yeah, his past behavior is a rather reliable prediction of his future behavior.  The guy is what he is, he's a lout.  You and people like you get in the mud with him and then criticize how dirty he is.  Like I said, you're completely blind to how much you emulate what you purport to dislike.

[GMDino]

(10-29-2019, 11:30 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yeah, his past behavior is a rather reliable prediction of his future behavior.  The guy is what he is, he's a lout.  You and people like you get in the mud with him and then criticize how dirty he is.  Like I said, you're completely blind to how much you emulate what you purport to dislike.

Trump: Says hateful thing.
Me and "people like me": Trump shouldn't say hateful things it makes him an awful person. Booo.
Trump supporters: Don't criticize Trump! He is who he is and it makes you like him!



Sorry that we point out Trump didn't "change" no many times we were told to "give him a chance" and that...checking notes..."people like you" thought he'd a better President than Clinton despite know that "his past behavior is a rather reliable prediction of his future behavior".

My sincerest apologies for reminding folks that they were and continue to be dreadfully wrong sir.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-29-2019, 11:45 AM)GMDino Wrote: Trump: Says hateful thing.
Me and "people like me": Trump shouldn't say hateful things it makes him an awful person. Booo.
Trump supporters: Don't criticize Trump! He is who he is and it makes you like him!

No, Trump says hateful things, it makes him an awful person.  You respond by saying hateful things but it's ok because your target is a hateful person or those who support him.  How much can you make selling pencils from a cup per day?

Quote:Sorry that we point out Trump didn't "change" no many times we were told to "give him a chance" and that...checking notes..."people like you" thought he'd a better President than Clinton despite know that "his past behavior is a rather reliable prediction of his future behavior".

I said from day one the guy was what he was.  People voted for him knowing this.  None of this is exactly a surprise.  Seeing as how I voted for neither Trump or Clinton I'm not sure what "people like me" you're referring to that actually makes a point in your favor.

Quote:My sincerest apologies for reminding folks that they were and continue to be dreadfully wrong sir.

If that was all you, or anyone else, was doing then none of my posts in this thread would have been made.  You are blind to your own behavior or you find it justified because of the target(s).  You are what you claim to hate.  

[BmorePat87]

(10-29-2019, 11:19 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're arguing degree of culpability or responsibility.  I'm pointing out behavior.  I don't expect Trump to be "above" anything.  I do expect people who criticize him for such behavior to not engage in it or applaud it in others.  This is not disingenuous, it's expecting people to act as they claim to desire.  

The fact that you do not hold the President to a higher standard does not mean that others can't. Holding public officials to a higher standard while supporting the free speech of the masses against them, however crass, is not a contradiction, it's the basis of our government.

[hollodero]

(10-29-2019, 08:42 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I think there's a fairly big difference between some baseball fans yelling it and having your National Security Advisor yell it at a campaign event. 

Of course. I wasn't argueing otherwise.
I'd simply argue either decry a certain behaviour or display it yourself - but doing both is fodder for a fairly simple and fairly persuasive hypocrisy counter-point. This in no way paints an equivalency in said instances, because sure, Flynn or Trump riling up a crowd is still uniquely shabby. Also, Trump sure deserves it, had it coming and there's no reason to feel bad for him.

Just, leading by a better example would look differently. Whoever shouts "lock him up" loses his right to be outraged about those that cried "lock her up". Not exactly, but pretty much. Imho.

[Dill]

(10-29-2019, 10:09 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I will say this, this thread is a fascinating study in double think and the lengths some will go to excuse behavior they decry in others.  It's also a very interesting example of the concept of you either hate Trump and constantly rail against him or you suckle at his teat and lap up his every word and thought as gospel.  The black and white, us and them, childish world view on display is as disheartening as it is pathetic.  We are polarized as a nation more than any point in modern history, and you are proudly contributing to it.

'nuther keeper.

How do those who deploy the anti-anti-Trump category fit in to this either/or?    

[BmorePat87]

(10-29-2019, 12:23 PM)hollodero Wrote: Of course. I wasn't argueing otherwise.
I'd simply argue either decry a certain behaviour or display it yourself - but doing both is fodder for a fairly simple and fairly persuasive hypocrisy counter-point. This in no way paints an equivalency in said instances, because sure, Flynn or Trump riling up a crowd is still uniquely shabby. Also, Trump sure deserves it, had it coming and there's no reason to feel bad for him.

Just, leading by a better example would look differently. Whoever shouts "lock him up" loses his right to be outraged about those that cried "lock her up". Not exactly, but pretty much. Imho.

If you're comparing the rally goers and the Nats fans, then absolutely that's a comparison that can be made. I just think the criticism is lobbed at Trump not the rally masses, so I'm not sure what hypocrisy there really is.

[fredtoast]

(10-28-2019, 07:59 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's this kind of stuff that really deadens me to the rabidly anti-Trump folks.  One of the biggest complaints about Trump is his complete lack of civility and hateful rhetoric.  The response from people making this complaint appears to frequently be to respond with a lack of civility and hateful rhetoric.  Hard to find anyone to sympathize with in this scenario.

Yep.

Reminds me of WWII.  People were complaining about the Nazis killing people but then we started killing Nazi's.

Impossible for me to see any difference at that point.  Guess we were just as bad as the Nazis.

[fredtoast]

(10-29-2019, 10:09 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:   We are polarized as a nation more than any point in modern history, and you are proudly contributing to it.

I disagree.  

This country was much more polarized in the 1960's.  The combination of the civil rights movement and the Viet Nam war divided the country more than today.

Today our heads explode if one person gets killed at a rally in Charlottesville.  In the sixties dozens of people died in race riots that destroyed major portions of many large cities and several college students were gunned down by authorities on multiple college campuses.