American 2016 Elections Thread

Discussion in 'Mature Discussion' started by DARK MASTER, Jul 1, 2015.

  1. MW7

    MW7

    Rupees:
    ◊1,239
    There's a difference between facts and conjecture designed to create plausible deniability. I watched that whole video, and I didn't buy into the several assumptions that a person would have to believe to it's core argument. For example one point was that Trump said he didn't remember the reporter so he couldn't possibly be mocking him, but to present that as support for the argument, you'd have to make the assumption that Trump always tells the truth which is demonstrably false. What we have is a video of Trump doing sort of an impression of the reporter. I think impression is fair to say because he also throws his voice. He waves his arms around and even curls his hands at some points which is how the reporter's hands appear. The simple truth is that no one except for Trump can know for certain whether he had the reporter's disability in mind while he was imitating him. At best he mocked the reporter for supposedly being indecisive and coincidentally made hand motions that looked like they were also mocking his disability, and at worst he purposefully mocked the reporter's disability along with the supposed indecisiveness.

    He made fun of a disabled reporter either way. The nuance is whether he made fun of only indecisiveness or that along with the disability. The former is just Trump being a jerk and the latter is Trump being cruel.

    I don't understand what you're saying. He did stand up for himself and released the shorter birth certificate back in 2008. Then the crazy people kept questioning that one so he released the long form certificate in 2011. The crazy people continued to question whether both of these birth certificates were fake. He's made fun of people for questioning his heritage on numerous occasions. The most famous was when he mocked Trump at the White House Correspondents' Dinner to Trump's face.

    https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf
    There's the evidence. He does have egg on his face for people that see the ridiculousness of his accusation. What sickens me is that if you google Obama birth certificate, there are more articles still speculating that it's fake than any other topic about it.
     
  2. You are making the assumption that the mainstream media always tells the truth which is demonstrably false. Of cause we will never know Trump's true intentions but the evidence says he was mocking the reporter for being terrible at his job. Trump has done similar to others who were terrible at their jobs as well. This reporter's action were mocked just as Trump has mocked similar people who suck at their job.
    Trump mocked a terrible reporter (who just happened to be disabled) for being terrible at his job. Trump did not mock a disabled man for being disabled. Note the difference.
    Also you should not dismiss the video as false just you don't agree with the facts shown there. You can't buy into facts. You either accept them or deny them. The video I shared is proof that Trump acted like an idiot be doing what he did. It also proved that Trump did not mock anyone specifically for their disability.

    Should Trump have done what he did? No. There are better ways to point out people incompetent at their jobs.
    Did Trump specifically mock soemone's disability? No.

    This is correct. You need to take google searches with a grain of salt. Trump did make the mistake there. He had egg no his face at that point. Obama also has had egg no his face many times as well. Both men are no stranger to saying something and have that something be totally wrong.

    You will see me as not an Obama fan. After his 8 years in office and how badly that ended up for the US, the faith I had for the man is all gone. I admit he was not all bad, but his actiion and the outcomes of them in the 8 years speak louder than any words I could say. I want to like Obama. I tried hard to do so for 8 years. Obama's actions prevented me from doing that.
     
  3. Kaio-Kenshin

    Kaio-Kenshin Kaio-what?

    Rupees:
    ◊2,211
    I feel Obama had a great first term, but his second....just ugh. Bad deals all around.
     
  4. MW7

    MW7

    Rupees:
    ◊1,239
    What the media says is irrelevant. I'm looking at the video of Trump and looking at a picture of the reporter. I'm saying it really looks like he was also mocking the disability, but we can't know if it was just a coincidence. I'm not dismissing the video as totally false, but I think the definitive tone is excessive. Half of the video is just blaming the media to make Trump look sympathetic. It's not proof but a theory of plausible deniability that makes Trump look like a victim for the response to a stupid thing he did. There are so many underlying assumptions that the video makes that I think it's incorrect to call it proof. For instance it uses Trump waving his hands two other times as proof that he's not mocking a disability as if that definitively proves that it's a coincidence. It helps his defense to argue that it's a mannerism he's used before, but it doesn't prove anything.

    Basically I'm saying that we can't know if he mocked the reporter for the disability. This started when someone said he mocked a reporter and you responded that he didn't. The answer depends. It looks like he was imitating the disability, but if you believe he didn't intend that, it's certainly plausible that it was a coincidence. We simply can't know what he was thinking. The reason I believe he was imitating the disability is that he said, "Now the poor guy. You ought to see this guy." That implies that his impression takes the guys appearance into account which would include the disability. It's not proof, but it's a plausible theory. To definitively say anything, you'd have to know what Trump was thinking and no one does but him.

    I can see some sympathy for Trump because some parts of the media might drop the "appears to" from "Trump appears to mock reporter's disability." It shows the power of words that "Trump mocks disabled reporter" and "Trump mocks reporter's disability" are used interchangeably but mean two different things.
     
  5. I don't care if he mocked the reporters disability. When you mock someone you need to pick a recognisable trait to mock, wether it be appearance, voice or manner, and the movement style of the reporter in this case was a good one.

    Being disabled shouldn't give you immunity from being mocked. Any trait is fair game in my view.
     
  6. Jamie

    Jamie Till the roof comes off, till the lights go out...

    Firstly, the President shouldn't be mocking anybody, because it's extremely childish. Secondly, what the ****? Lmao you are so edgy dude.
     
  7. Kirino

    Kirino

    Rupees:
    ◊313
    The president isn't just an authority figure or the head of the executive branch, he's the official representative and chief diplomat of the United States, and as such, his behavior and temperment directly reflect on the U.S. and it's people. Even outside of a foreign or official context, the president is often, rightly or not, treated as a role model and is emulated, so if we find a behavior to be socially undesirable then it's probably best for the most well-known person in the nation not to engage in or encourage it, and sensible and fair to criticize him if he does.

    We already hold the president to a higher standard by generally expecting him to be more knowledgeable, experienced, and competent than others in a way suitable to his office, and I don't see any reason why temperament is an exception to that. You might argue that the other factors are directly related to his job performance whereas temperament isn't, but a poor temperament directly interferes with his capacity as the U.S.'s chief diplomat and his responsibility to project a positive image of the U.S. worldwide.

    To scrutinize the President more than others is already to hold him to a different and higher standard, and the President is already expected to be better in multiple regards, so I'm not sure why you're so against him being expected to be better in this particular regard, especially considering the way in which it affects his capacity as President.

    I'm also not sure why you consider this expectation to be so unfair and impossible, considering that nearly every President before this one has managed to follow it; while none have been perfect, most have certainly refrained from the kind of behavior being criticized here and have been better than the average citizen in terms of behavior/temperament, or at least have made the attempt. All it really takes is a moderate level of self-restraint and willpower.

    The difference is that the manager was appointed, whereas the President is elected (albeit indirectly) by the people, so the analogy doesn't apply. If the employees convened together and elected their manager from among their own ranks, then you very well could judge the employees by the behavior and actions of the manager, seeing as how they're responsible for him being in the position that he is; likewise with the people and the President. Even if we do assume that it's irrational to judge the country or the people for the behavior of the President, the point stands that it'll be done regardless, and therefore still have a negative impact on them.
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2017
  8. Misty

    Misty Savior of Christmas

    Rupees:
    ◊2,796
    That's foolishness on the part of others. We don't take France's leader to task for being a known philandering womanizer nor does anyone else. Being a good leader is not the same as being a good person and to think that it should be the same is putting useless and silly expectations on any human no matter how they got there.


    Certainly. However, I often think it best that we make the change in our own ranks before expecting them in any other human no matter who or what that human is. I personally see no issue with petty insults. They harm no one and do nothing of relevance. Focusing on them is as petty as the sentiment said. And strangely enough, it seems the majority who voted him into office agree. It isn't as if he started doing this stuff yesterday.

    All of the other things are requirements for the job. Many temperaments have been in office and performed the duties of the office. I do not see petty tweets getting in the way of the job performed and holding said person to this higher standard without holding ourselves to it is as I said: not relevant, not fair, and realistically unlikely.

    Not at all. One could see it as projecting exactly the sort of image we want to project. A strong leader who will fight back when something dirty and disrespectful is taking place. A leader who is engaged in public discourse, aware of the people and their platform, and willing to be involved with them instead of aloof and having teams handle their social media. That sort of image is great at home and abroad. Not as great as killing and ruining one's enemies, but not every leader can be Putin.

    Demonstrate an influence on his capacity as president. You have not.

    Demonstrate this standard is a fair one which is important for his duties as leader. You have not.

    I say the President has the same inalienable rights and fundamental values the rest of us live our lives by. I say that so long as he performs his duties to us the people that is all we have a right to ask for. Our desire to put him up on a pedestal is not laid out in any official document and is quite unnecessary to the functioning of our country. And we, the people, elected the man knowing exactly who he was and what he would say. We wanted him apparently. (I don't know, I didn't want anyone. I wanted an entirely different system and different citizen body. But I'm led to believe he won.)

    Unfair: because we elected him this way. To tell him "yeah, it's all great, we totally want you, just as an entirely different human if possible?" Unfair because no other citizen is held to this standard. Unfair because those who preach it do not practice it making it difficult to believe they really believe in it. Unfair because it is yet to be demonstrated that it will influence his job in any capacity.

    Impossible: because we elected a man who is not that. Because he is not the molly-coddling, empty suit robot that has been in office for a long time and we knew that. Because his supporters want this from him.

    As for talking about Presidents in recent memory, most have also been buffoons, liars, warmongers, corrupt, and failed to keep any of their promises. Personally, I don't find that inspirational in the slightest. I'd rather they spent less time looking the part and more time acting it.

    You're right. The people who elected Trump elected him knowing he was this way. They wanted this. Why don't we stop telling them they want old-hat when they clearly do not or they would have elected Hillary "I am not a crook" Clinton. Criticize away. That's what got us here. Empty criticisms, ad homs, and disrespect for people with the "wrong" values or modes of expressing themselves. It caused us to choose a man like this over more of the same old same old. I personally think it silly to assume any one man could speak for a country even if little more than half that country elected him, but I also don't think I'm wrong if I assume you're right that one man does represent my country. Fine, he does. This is what we want. -shrugs- Stop calling it improper. If it is what the majority wants, and clearly it is, it is not improper.
     
    Deus likes this.
  9. Why shouldn't he be mocking people? Thats just your opinion that he shouldn't. A president who mocks people is exactly the sort of president the people wanted and voted for so that is what they got.

    Leave my edginess out of this.
     
  10. Kaio-Kenshin

    Kaio-Kenshin Kaio-what?

    Rupees:
    ◊2,211
    I concur with this. General George S. Patton is considered to be one of the greatest leaders in the last century and everyone who met him said he's barely tolerable to be around, a very vulgar person.

    I must say @Misty you speak with ferocity and electricity, reminds me of.....dare I say.....Hitler?
     
    Misty likes this.
  11. Jamie

    Jamie Till the roof comes off, till the lights go out...

    I doubt Kirino at age 17 elected Donald Trump. Where is this collective "we" coming from? Clearly the people who have an issue with his tweets are not people who elected him for those same reasons.

    Where is this "majority" anyway? He lost the popular vote. The majority did not want this.

    On the topic of role models: I think lots of us are great role models. How is it that LeBron James, a ****ing basketball player, has managed to be a great role model but we can't expect the same out of the President of the United States?

    Because nobody should be mocking people in a serious setting. Because you are making fun of people for things like their voice, their disabilities, possibly in some cases their looks, and it has no relevancy to your point. When the President mocks human beings, there's a pretty good chance that person will feel bad about themselves as a result. I know you and your compatriots do not give a flying **** if people feel ****ty about themselves, and as a result I point you back to my video.
     
  12. It is the individual that chooses to be hurt by the President's words. Or anyone's words for that matter.

    A president that mocks and puts down his opponents in my view is not being childish but showing strength to his supporters rather than pandering to you lot who criticize it as childish.

    Again, people voted for a person like that full well knowing what they were voting for. Therefore for Trump to continue the way he began makes sense and shows he is true to his character rather than putting on a facade like the rest of them and accepting your opinion that he shouldn't mock people in a serious setting.
     
    Misty likes this.
  13. Jamie

    Jamie Till the roof comes off, till the lights go out...

    No, it really isn't. Emotions aren't choices, and neither are emotional reactions to comments. That's just idiotic. Reactions and emotions are impulsive.

    Mocking people is childish and petty. If you say something I believe to be stupid and I repeat it back in a stupid voice, that's childish, and doesn't strengthen my point at all.

    I didn't ****ing vote for him lol, I'm not even American. I don't give a **** what they voted for. This is one of the many reasons I've been criticizing him this entire election cycle. I guess all criticism becomes meaningless after they are elected?



    Not to mention, again, which you guys keep ignoring, Trump is only insulting her acting abilities because she said things about him. What he is saying is not something he believes; he does not believe Meryl Streep is a bad actress. So to say he's honest is a lie: he is not honest, he is lying about his opinion on Meryl Streep to get back at her. That is both petty and fake.
     
  14. Shroom

    Shroom :coolsar:

    Rupees:
    ◊432
    I agree. I don't want some weako weeny as a president. I want a strong man. Like, that man shouldn't be offended at all, but rather he should feel gracious for Trump even acknowledging him. I think anyone criticizing Trump is the one with the true disability, IGNORANCE.
     
    Jamie likes this.
  15. Unless you are a child you can indeed control your emotions. It's why you don't cry these days when someone taunts you and calls you a doodoohead. Well I imagine you don't anymore anyway.

    You didn't vote for him but the American people did. You can criticize away I just don't agree with your criticism in this instance. And the voters also do not agree as they actually wanted someone like that.

    Trump mocks his opponents and doesnt pander to the PC crowd. That's his character. To not do so would be the fake thing to do. He may lie but I never claimed otherwise, what I did say is he is true to his character.