Trump booed at World Series

[GMDino]

(10-30-2019, 11:24 AM)hollodero Wrote: Standing up to a bully is not the same as using the same bullying tactics. One stands up to a bully by being better, not by resoponding in his kind.

I've always been a walk away guy versus a fight guy.  Be the bigger man.

But I won't criticize someone responding in kind to a bully either.

Being the bigger person is the goal.  But there are those who won't respond to that.

Trump is all ego.  When a stadium full of people puncture that by chanting his own phrase back at him? That's more devastating for him than SSF and "people like him" saying we should just ignore the POTUS acting like he does.

Trump,  of all people and as an individual example, deserves every "boo" and chant because "he is who he is".  That's my take.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-30-2019, 11:07 AM)GMDino Wrote: Ever stand up to a bully?  Or did you not want to "act like him" because "he started it:?  

"denial"

(10-30-2019, 11:24 AM)hollodero Wrote: Standing up to a bully is not the same as using the same bullying tactics. One stands up to a bully by being better, not by resoponding in his kind.

Thank you for saving me the time. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-30-2019, 11:22 AM)hollodero Wrote: This is quite an inaccurate equivalency. This is not about an act of self-defense and the baseball chanters were not directly under attack to begin with. Also it does nothing to resolve or stop the attacks. It serves no purpose in that regard.

Also, again, I do not draw a moral equivalency between the Trump rally chanters and the baseball chanters. Sure one instance can be painted as "worse" and I'd agree with that. And also as I said, Trump sure had it coming. But for the reasons stated, I remain critical of "lock him up" chants, because I am critical of "lock xyz up" chants to begin with and think this mob rule approach to justice is to be refused under any circumstances. And until that incident, I thought the "left" seemed to agree with that. 

"...but the other one did it first, or else I would NEVER have done that, because in principle I'm actually better than that" is a atrange argument to make. There's hypocrisy in it, as is in finding the one instance reprehensible and the other similar instance a perfectly fine response.

But, if we were to look at the electoral map of the stadium, the majority of the chanting was concentrated in two small, but densely populated areas behind 3rd base and the home plate. Whereas in the sparsely populated areas that covered more square footage from 3rd base stretching behind the entire outfield and 1st base and ending back at home plate there was nary a peep of chanting. So really, most of the chanting we heard doesn’t even count. Many of those chanting were illegals who weren’t registered to chant anyway.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-30-2019, 11:37 AM)GMDino Wrote: I've always been a walk away guy versus a fight guy.  Be the bigger man.

But I won't criticize someone responding in kind to a bully either.

Standing up to a bully is not the same thing as using a bully's tactics against him.  When you grasp this concept you'll actually understand the argument being made against your position in this thread.

Quote:Being the bigger person is the goal.  But there are those who won't respond to that.

Responding to a bad person in kind is the antithesis of what you just described.  The bully understanding is not the goal, it's those around him that you're trying to convince.  Your failure to perceive this is honestly confusing.

Quote:Trump is all ego.  When a stadium full of people puncture that by chanting his own phrase back at him? That's more devastating for him than SSF and "people like him" saying we should just ignore the POTUS acting like he does.

There is a wide variety of responses between acting in kind and ignoring.  Your black and white world view in this matter is inhibiting your potential understanding.

Quote:Trump,  of all people and as an individual example, deserves every "boo" and chant because "he is who he is".  That's my take.

That's fine.  Just don't complain about Trump's incivility when you endorse the exact same behavior as a response.  Either own that or own being a massive hypocrite.  

[GMDino]

(10-30-2019, 11:43 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Standing up to a bully is not the same thing as using a bully's tactics against him.  When you grasp this concept you'll actually understand the argument being made against your position in this thread.



Responding to a bad person in kind is the antithesis of what you just described.  The bully understanding is not the goal, it's those around him that you're trying to convince.  Your failure to perceive this is honestly confusing.



There is a wide variety of responses between acting in kind and ignoring.  Your black and white world view in this matter is inhibiting your potential understanding.


That's fine.  Just don't complain about Trump's incivility when you endorse the exact same behavior as a response.  Either own that or own being a massive hypocrite.  

Your entire response is wrong, but the bold is the most telling.

"tsk tsking" as you and "people like you" do has done nothing.  Mixed in among the GOP members of congress are butt kissing and lapping up everything DJT says there are a few who, like you, want simply say Trump should "be better" and what is does and says is "beneath the office".  Trump doesn't care.  He responds to strong people.  That's why he loves dictators and guys like Putin.

There is no one size fits all method for dealing with bad people.  Something I would have thought you would understand more than most.

I'm kind of disappointed that you feel that way.  I almost expected more of a stronger response to someone like Trump and his actions and words.  Guess I was wrong.

[Belsnickel]

(10-30-2019, 12:13 PM)GMDino Wrote: Your entire response is wrong, but the bold is the most telling.

"tsk tsking" as you and "people like you" do has done nothing.  Mixed in among the GOP members of congress are butt kissing and lapping up everything DJT says there are a few who, like you, want simply say Trump should "be better" and what is does and says is "beneath the office".  Trump doesn't care.  He responds to strong people.  That's why he loves dictators and guys like Putin.

There is no one size fits all method for dealing with bad people.  Something I would have thought you would understand more than most.

I'm kind of disappointed that you feel that way.  I almost expected more of a stronger response to someone like Trump and his actions and words.  Guess I was wrong.

What does acting in kind achieve with Trump? Will he feel bad? Maybe. But the more likely answer here, because he appears to lack any ability for realistic self-reflection is that it will only entrench him further, it will inflame his base, cause more of the same behavior resulting in a tit-for-tat, and turn off a lot of voters that we would like to sway. Acting in kind achieves nothing positive. It's a bad look and can definitely have a boomerang effect.

If you want to hold Trump accountable for his actions then that has to happen at the ballot box and it has to happen in Congress. There is no alternative. A bunch of people booing him at the stadium achieves nothing good. We should put all of our efforts into demanding Congress hold him accountable for questionable conduct and anyone that doesn't should be voted out. That's the game, here. I don't want to just tut-tut at Trump, I want him reined in or gone because his behavior is abhorrent, disgusting, and it makes our country the laughing stock of the western world. Playing down to his level of boorishness isn't going to change that, though.

[GMDino]

(10-30-2019, 12:22 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: What does acting in kind achieve with Trump? Will he feel bad? Maybe. But the more likely answer here, because he appears to lack any ability for realistic self-reflection is that it will only entrench him further, it will inflame his base, cause more of the same behavior resulting in a tit-for-tat, and turn off a lot of voters that we would like to sway. Acting in kind achieves nothing positive. It's a bad look and can definitely have a boomerang effect.

How is it possible that Trump or his supporters could be "more" entrenched? I don't feel bad if they are offended or somehow like Trump more because they are not responding to facts, truth, reality or anything that would work with sane, reasonable people.

If an undecided voter suddenly decides to support Trump because people booed him then they are probably the same ones who figured "give him a chance, we 'know' how bad Clinton will be" in the first place.

So if a crowd wants to boo, protest, chant so be it. Nothing else works...might as well let Trump know how you feel in person.

(10-30-2019, 12:22 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: If you want to hold Trump accountable for his actions then that has to happen at the ballot box and it has to happen in Congress. There is no alternative. A bunch of people booing him at the stadium achieves nothing good. We should put all of our efforts into demanding Congress hold him accountable for questionable conduct and anyone that doesn't should be voted out. That's the game, here. I don't want to just tut-tut at Trump, I want him reined in or gone because his behavior is abhorrent, disgusting, and it makes our country the laughing stock of the western world. Playing down to his level of boorishness isn't going to change that, though.

Everything else from impeachment to voting will happen anyway. I am in favor of public officials facing the public. Just like when members of the GOP stopped having town halls because people were angry with them. If the answer is going to be "be nice, never let an official know you are upset by (gasp) booing them" then what's the point of having them in public at all. You cannot rationally debate with Trump or his supporters. Period. I've tried. I know them personally. Trump is right, the libs are on a witch hunt. Period. Some are lifelong friends and family members. I have tried multiple ways and times to point out anything bad Trump has done...it is quickly ignored with "deep state" and more talking points. So I don't engage them anymore. It's not worth the effort at all. They have bought in hook line and sinker. I have one good friend that I can talk about it with. He is middle of the road enough (although he did vote for Trump) to acknowledge facts and debate about them. The rest are MAGA hat wearing we're voting for Trump no matter what.

Seeing and hearing thousands of people finally get to respond directly to DJT was a good thing. And it should show his supporters (especially the elected ones) that the public is tired of his act and they better get with either keeping him line or getting him out of the way.

I'll repeat: Boo, protest, march, do things in public for others and especially elected officials to see. That's all good in my book. It wasn't rude or crude ("human scum") it was organic and reflects what he has created.

Trump probably loves a good fight...as long as he doesn't actually have to fight and can hide behind twitter and his lawyers. The Emperor went out with no clothes and thousands pointed and laughed. It was refreshing to see.

[fredtoast]

(10-30-2019, 12:22 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: What does acting in kind achieve with Trump? Will he feel bad? Maybe. But the more likely answer here, because he appears to lack any ability for realistic self-reflection is that it will only entrench him further, it will inflame his base, cause more of the same behavior resulting in a tit-for-tat, and turn off a lot of voters that we would like to sway. Acting in kind achieves nothing positive. It's a bad look and can definitely have a boomerang effect.

If you want to hold Trump accountable for his actions then that has to happen at the ballot box and it has to happen in Congress. There is no alternative. A bunch of people booing him at the stadium achieves nothing good. We should put all of our efforts into demanding Congress hold him accountable for questionable conduct and anyone that doesn't should be voted out. That's the game, here. I don't want to just tut-tut at Trump, I want him reined in or gone because his behavior is abhorrent, disgusting, and it makes our country the laughing stock of the western world. Playing down to his level of boorishness isn't going to change that, though.

This is like saying people shouldn't march on public streets or hold sit-ins as forms of protest because it is "poor behavior".

I would consider it my civic duty to let Trump know how I feel about his performance as President.  So I see no real difference between booing and chanting "Lock him up."

This public display is also a signal to our elected representatives about how we feel.  Even though private citizens don't vote on impeachment I keep hearing commentators saying that the Dems have to sell the idea to the public before they can move forward.  So this is a good way to let them know we are buying.

[NATI BENGALS]

Play nice with the guy who adores and no doubt would love to emulate some of the worst dictators in the world...?

If some of you havent noticed. There are many republicans in congress who have proven they will turn a blind eye to some down right un-American shit that is happening at the very top.

At some point playing nice isnt going to get it done. The dude was actively using his power to help undermine our next election... Gtfo of here with the nice shit

[fredtoast]

Can anyone think of another time that a sitting president was booed at a public (non-partisan) event?

[fredtoast]

(10-30-2019, 12:37 PM)GMDino Wrote: I'll repeat:  Boo, protest, march, do things in public for others and especially elected officials to see.  That's all good in my book.  It wasn't rude or crude ("human scum") it was organic and reflects what he has created.

This.

When you are elected President you have to deal with what comes with the position.  People are allowed to protest and make their feelings known.  Trump has made a political career out of bragging about being an asshole.  There is no "moral high ground" lost when protesting his behavior.  

[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.

It is easy for me.  I sympathize with the people who are responding to the behavior because they did not start it.

[Goalpost]

Congress's approval rating is 17 percent.

65 percent think that the mainstream media presents news that is not trusted or factual

I continue to maintain that a large chunk of Trump's support is that he is an outsider

[Arturo Bandini]

(10-30-2019, 04:25 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Can anyone think of another time that a sitting president was booed at a public (non-partisan) event?

In France ?

Everyone  

[*bfine32*]

(10-30-2019, 04:25 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Can anyone think of another time that a sitting president was booed at a public (non-partisan) event?

I know the Clintons were recently booed at a Billy Joel concert. 

Bush Jr got booed throwing out a first pitch a couple years back

Kanye said Bush don't care about Black People during a Katrina fund raiser.

I think the current VP got booed at Hamilton

Perhaps there were others.

As a Service Member I was always instructed to respect the position even if you didn't respect the person. It is why my negative comments toward Trump are always framed as "Action(s) beneath the office of POTUS". I have 0 doubt that as a person he is a self-righteous narcissist, but I respect the position he currently holds to think I have any grounds to boo it. 

[Dill]

(10-30-2019, 03:41 AM)hollodero Wrote: And it's possibly more irony (or mockery) than anything - as I said there are nuances, and I do not equate the two groups 1:1 - but in a certain context that does not matter too much. It's not just about what it is with all nuances - it's also about how it's percieved. Every person on the fence of leaving Trump becaue of his and his supporter's conduct now has a reason to reiterate that they are all the same left or right... and it sure might look like that to such a person, does it not?

"Possibly more irony (or mockery)" is not a small detail. Nor is the degree of evident criminality in each case.

I doubt very much that someone about to leave the Trump camp will hear the chants and just think "both sides do it." Even they will understand the chants as a spontaneous reaction to "the guy who started it." Not a ritual cementing of coached mob-hatred again and again and again in every state in the Union except Alaska and Hawaii, led by the highest representative of the nation.  Same for the protestors who shouted "lock him up" at Mike Flynn, another leader of the Hillary chant. Irony.

But yes, there will be people want the 1:1 equation for sure--those rationalizing their decision to remain with Trump, or to continue bashing anti-Trumpers. The Trump defense has always worked via equivocation, the elision of "small details"--like degree of criminality and ironic reframing--that make all the difference.  If I'm a Trump defender making that equivalence, and people are trying to reintroduce balance via small details, I'll cast that as a double standard and "typical left hypocrisy" and insist it's "the same whoever does it."

[fredtoast]

(10-30-2019, 05:59 PM)Goalpost Wrote: Congress's approval rating is 17 percent.  

65 percent think that the mainstream media presents news that is not trusted or factual

I continue to maintain that a large chunk of Trump's support is that he is an outsider

1.  Congress approval rating seems about right.

2.  Everytime I see the term "mainstream" before "media" I check the source.  Where did you get that number?

3.  Trump is not an "outsider".  I understand that is how he tries to sell himself, but what is he "outside" of?

[Dill]

(10-30-2019, 03:41 AM)hollodero Wrote: Both sides sport a mob demanding jailtime for a political opponent. Of course one of the nuances would probably be that those who demand it for Trump have more basis in fact for that. Also he started it, he sure deserved a taste of his own medicine, I do not dispute all that. But it's still behavior that is spooky, and how that can not be seen as losing some moral highground is baffling to me. I just can repeat it, one can either be appalled by a certain behaviour (like participating in a "lock her up" chant) or display the same behaviour at the next best chance - but with doing the latter, the first goes out of the window. And a similar logic applies for denouncing the rally goers for their chants and at the same time cheering for the baseball chanters. @hypocrisy question, that is the hypocrisy.

Hmmm. Let's do a MORAL HIGH GROUND check here. Has anyone had it, lost some and how much? Which hypocrites denounce Trump chants but cheer for the baseball chanters?

Mob #1 is coached by the POTUS to demand jailtime for someone acquitted of a crime, thereby breaking a social/political norm of decency in place for decades. This mob comes to Trump rallies to chant the chant, to target and punish scapegoats.

Can we say NO HIGH GROUND ANYWHERE there, AT ALL, from the top down? I.e., including the LEADER of THE REPUBLICAN PARTY?

"Mob" #2, on the other hand, came to watch baseball, likely included as many Trump supporters and independents whose degree of participation is unclear. But in an apparent spontaneous protest--ie. not orchestrated by any LEADER(s) of THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY--a fraction of the baseball "mob" ironically turned the jail chant on its originator, who does appear guilty of many crimes, and whom you (justly assuming the high moral ground) agree "deserved a taste of his own medicine."  

If jailing an innocent person is not the moral equivalent of jailing a guilty person (even though charges against them are "the same"), then I don't see how chanting "lock her up" (and meaning it) regarding an innocent person can be the moral equivalent of chanting "lock him up" regarding someone whose behavior is legally defined as criminal--especially if a primary motive to the chant may be mockery or ironic reprimand rather than full on endorsement of such chants or even just locking people up.

Further, HIGH GROUND CHECK tells me that the baseball chant was not orchestrated by any LEADER(S) of THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY (point made by C-Dawg). Neither dem leaders/candidates nor the party predicate rallies on such behavior. And this one off protest doesn't have the party endorsement of ritual, repeated behavior at rallies.  So this incident does not touch the Democratic party leaders at all. HIGH GROUND INTACT.

Still, does not the baseball "mob" at least lose SOME high ground? I suppose a little for some Dem rank and file and probably some independents who will chant "jail'em" if the other side started it. And they lost that little only because it is the first step down a slippery slope whose bottom the other side has already plumbed. So I agree with you, Hollo, best not take that step at all.  Just don't agree that that first step rises, in this case, to any concerning equivalency.  Dem leadership and party, though, has lost no high ground--until they endorse such chants as campaign ritual.

Ergo--there is no logical path from "But the words are the same" to a moral equivalence between the party of Trump and the party opposing him. Not that you were making that leap, but there are people who do do so just because they want to, and any ol' "same" will do the trick for them.  That people want to embrace such equivocation bodes far more ill for democracy than spontaneous Trump mockers.

Finally, the "hypocrisy" of people who denounce orchestrated mob chants targeting scapegoats, while cheering such chants when ironically turned on the Scapegoater-in-chief. I re-read the posts on this thread looking for cheerleaders. I just find people like yourself who don't approve but think Trump called it upon himself and admit to a bit of Schadenfreude.  Some are arguing against equivalence, which Trump defenders (framing only black/white either/or options) could equivocate to cheerleading. (Extreme far left radicals Fred and Dino have endorsed booing Trump, at least, and, in the post-truth world of equivalence gone wild, thereby incurred charges they are on the same level as a president who mocks sexual assault victims.)

Do we know that the fraction of baseball chanters have previously denounced the Trump chanters?  Since none are available for questioning, we can only guess.  Maybe some are fine with Trump chanters striking their targets, just as most baseball fans are fine with the other side cheering their own team.  So in that case not hypocritical.  Maybe some are against scapegoating chants, and so think it an opportunity to teach Trump a lesson; so they don't at all see themselves as mobbing a scapegoat, doing "the same thing" Trump voters do, endorsing the same for Dem rallies. We don't really know.

What we do know is that there is no reason to stretch that spontaneous chanting of one fraction of a "mob" at one baseball game to cover people who are not chanting, or defending the chanting, like Democratic leaders or anti-Trumpers on this list--the whole "other side" protesting Trump's behavior on ethical grounds-- and then calling THEM all hypocrites who just ARE what they protest.

[Belsnickel]

(10-30-2019, 01:51 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This is like saying people shouldn't march on public streets or hold sit-ins as forms of protest because it is "poor behavior".

I would consider it my civic duty to let Trump know how I feel about his performance as President.  So I see no real difference between booing and chanting "Lock him up."

This public display is also a signal to our elected representatives about how we feel.  Even though private citizens don't vote on impeachment I keep hearing commentators saying that the Dems have to sell the idea to the public before they can move forward.  So this is a good way to let them know we are buying.

That's all fine and dandy. I don't expect you to say anything negative about folks at Trump rallies that chant "lock her up" or anything else like that, then. After all, they are only expressing their displeasure with public figures. They have that right to free speech and should be allowed to express their opinions in such a way. I certainly hope this opinion you hold has been consistent with those sorts of chants from the 2016 campaign onward.

[NATI BENGALS]

(10-30-2019, 08:35 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: That's all fine and dandy. I don't expect you to say anything negative about folks at Trump rallies that chant "lock her up" or anything else like that, then. After all, they are only expressing their displeasure with public figures. They have that right to free speech and should be allowed to express their opinions in such a way. I certainly hope this opinion you hold has been consistent with those sorts of chants from the 2016 campaign onward.

Thats like forcing me to feel pity for the sucker who received a scam phone call and went and drained their life savings on gift cards so they wouldnt be arrested to pay off some debt they didnt know about.

Zero pity. But I 100% question their intelligence and simultaneously understand why a bunch of white boomers voted for a career conman.