(11-21-2017 01:12 PM)Baconator Wrote:  It only took 54 weeks and 2236 posts before we started arguing about elephant hunting. :)

Wonder where we'll be in another 54 weeks.

(12-14-2016 06:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-14-2016 05:55 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-14-2016 04:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-14-2016 04:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-14-2016 03:14 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  Agree with you on the above, but not sure what Obama being black has to do with anything. I think you'd be hard-pressed to say that Republicans' opposition towards Obama's policies is due to him being black.

Republican opposition was based more on the socialist/communist nature of many of his proposals. I do see something of a tangential relationship, in that as a young black male, Obama was was probably predetermined to favor many socialist/communist beliefs, and therefore his race helped shape him to adopt policies that republicans abhorred. But that's more of an incidental or coincidental relationship, and clearly not a causal one.

Opposition was probably some of that, mixed with the general disdain for Democrats (the other team), and some racism. If there hadn't been things like the birther movement, him being a secret Muslim, comments from political opponents about "shuckin' and jivin'", then I would buy that race played absolutely 0 role in obstruction. But since all those things happened, it's pretty clear that for many, race was a factor.
Now, that is not to say it was the only factor, or even close to being the most important factor for anyone, but yeah, some people really didn't like him because of his race.

If you are saying that some, as opposed to none, opposed him because of race, I'm sure there were a few. But I would be willing to bet that his race got him more votes than it cost him. It would have been by far the strongest reason why I would have considered him, but the socialist/communist policies totally turned me off.

No doubt about the vote getting. I think race in the election helped more than it hurt.
But as I pointed out in my other posts, there were too many racially tinged comments/statements during his time as president to think that no one of importance didn't dislike him because they just dislike black people. Plus, we could then get into the whole implicit vs explicit racism conversation as well.
On a similar note, Malcolm Gladwell in his first podcats called Revisionist History talked about the concept of "moral licensing" in which good deed is invariably followed by a bad one, and could also help explain some of the backlash. In the podcast he specifically discusses this idea in relation to Julia Gillard, the first female PM of Australia, and focuses the absolute torrent of sexist and misogynistic crap she dealt with being the first female PM of Australia. If you haven't seen some clips of her dressing down Tony Abbot, I suggest the highlights get a look: https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/...nist-video

I think that those on the extreme left (and the extreme right, too, for that matter) are so convinced of the superiority of their ideas that they cannot conceive how anyone could reasonably disagree, so any dissent must therefore be based upon some exogenous factor such as race or sex. Plus, it's a whole lot easier to argue against the exogenous factor than it is to debate the issues.

The fact that Obama is black, or that Hillary is a woman, are IMO their respective most attractive attributes. The fact that both embrace a collectivist/redistributionist domestic policy, which IMO leads inevitably to socialism/communism, which doesn't work, coupled with what often appears to be an "America last" foreign policy, disqualifies both of them from any active consideration on my part for any elective office.

The last presidential election was particularly difficult for me. I voted in the democrat primary, for Hillary, because I believed that her collectivism/socialism/communism was not nearly as far advanced as that of Bernie, whom I felt needed to be stopped. Then in the general, Trump was only slightly more attractive on the policy front--I agreed with him on more policies than I did with Hillary, but my biggest disagreements were over the policies he placed in the forefront--immigration and free trade. That plus his personality pretty much disqualified him as well. As I said at the time, I thought the best Trump could be was probably better than the best that Hillary could be, but the worst that he could be was worse. So I had them about even, with Trump having the higher beta. So far, Trump has been about the mid-range of what I expected, which puts his performance about the same on the good/bad scale as I expected from Hillary, with perhaps a slight uptick to Trump for Gorsuch.

I voted for Gary Johnson. "Aleppo" didn't concern me nearly as much as what I heard coming out of Trump's and Hillary's mouths on a daily basis. And still doesn't.

(11-22-2017 11:01 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-14-2016 06:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-14-2016 05:55 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-14-2016 04:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-14-2016 04:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Republican opposition was based more on the socialist/communist nature of many of his proposals. I do see something of a tangential relationship, in that as a young black male, Obama was was probably predetermined to favor many socialist/communist beliefs, and therefore his race helped shape him to adopt policies that republicans abhorred. But that's more of an incidental or coincidental relationship, and clearly not a causal one.

Opposition was probably some of that, mixed with the general disdain for Democrats (the other team), and some racism. If there hadn't been things like the birther movement, him being a secret Muslim, comments from political opponents about "shuckin' and jivin'", then I would buy that race played absolutely 0 role in obstruction. But since all those things happened, it's pretty clear that for many, race was a factor.
Now, that is not to say it was the only factor, or even close to being the most important factor for anyone, but yeah, some people really didn't like him because of his race.

If you are saying that some, as opposed to none, opposed him because of race, I'm sure there were a few. But I would be willing to bet that his race got him more votes than it cost him. It would have been by far the strongest reason why I would have considered him, but the socialist/communist policies totally turned me off.

No doubt about the vote getting. I think race in the election helped more than it hurt.
But as I pointed out in my other posts, there were too many racially tinged comments/statements during his time as president to think that no one of importance didn't dislike him because they just dislike black people. Plus, we could then get into the whole implicit vs explicit racism conversation as well.
On a similar note, Malcolm Gladwell in his first podcats called Revisionist History talked about the concept of "moral licensing" in which good deed is invariably followed by a bad one, and could also help explain some of the backlash. In the podcast he specifically discusses this idea in relation to Julia Gillard, the first female PM of Australia, and focuses the absolute torrent of sexist and misogynistic crap she dealt with being the first female PM of Australia. If you haven't seen some clips of her dressing down Tony Abbot, I suggest the highlights get a look: https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/...nist-video

I think that those on the extreme left (and the extreme right, too, for that matter) are so convinced of the superiority of their ideas that they cannot conceive how anyone could reasonably disagree, so any dissent must therefore be based upon some exogenous factor such as race or sex. Plus, it's a whole lot easier to argue against the exogenous factor than it is to debate the issues.

The fact that Obama is black, or that Hillary is a woman, are IMO their respective most attractive attributes. The fact that both embrace a collectivist/redistributionist domestic policy, which IMO leads inevitably to socialism/communism, which doesn't work, coupled with what often appears to be an "America last" foreign policy, disqualifies both of them from any active consideration on my part for any elective office.

The last presidential election was particularly difficult for me. I voted in the democrat primary, for Hillary, because I believed that her collectivism/socialism/communism was not nearly as far advanced as that of Bernie, whom I felt needed to be stopped. Then in the general, Trump was only slightly more attractive on the policy front--I agreed with him on more policies than I did with Hillary, but my biggest disagreements were over the policies he placed in the forefront--immigration and free trade. That plus his personality pretty much disqualified him as well. As I said at the time, I thought the best Trump could be was probably better than the best that Hillary could be, but the worst that he could be was worse. So I had them about even, with Trump having the higher beta. So far, Trump has been about the mid-range of what I expected, which puts his performance about the same on the good/bad scale as I expected from Hillary, with perhaps a slight uptick to Trump for Gorsuch.

I voted for Gary Johnson. "Aleppo" didn't concern me nearly as much as what I heard coming out of Trump's and Hillary's mouths on a daily basis. And still doesn't.

There are lots of black people/women I could, would, and did support for high(est) office. None of them are Democrats.

(11-22-2017 11:01 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-14-2016 06:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-14-2016 05:55 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-14-2016 04:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-14-2016 04:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Republican opposition was based more on the socialist/communist nature of many of his proposals. I do see something of a tangential relationship, in that as a young black male, Obama was was probably predetermined to favor many socialist/communist beliefs, and therefore his race helped shape him to adopt policies that republicans abhorred. But that's more of an incidental or coincidental relationship, and clearly not a causal one.

Opposition was probably some of that, mixed with the general disdain for Democrats (the other team), and some racism. If there hadn't been things like the birther movement, him being a secret Muslim, comments from political opponents about "shuckin' and jivin'", then I would buy that race played absolutely 0 role in obstruction. But since all those things happened, it's pretty clear that for many, race was a factor.
Now, that is not to say it was the only factor, or even close to being the most important factor for anyone, but yeah, some people really didn't like him because of his race.

If you are saying that some, as opposed to none, opposed him because of race, I'm sure there were a few. But I would be willing to bet that his race got him more votes than it cost him. It would have been by far the strongest reason why I would have considered him, but the socialist/communist policies totally turned me off.

No doubt about the vote getting. I think race in the election helped more than it hurt.
But as I pointed out in my other posts, there were too many racially tinged comments/statements during his time as president to think that no one of importance didn't dislike him because they just dislike black people. Plus, we could then get into the whole implicit vs explicit racism conversation as well.
On a similar note, Malcolm Gladwell in his first podcats called Revisionist History talked about the concept of "moral licensing" in which good deed is invariably followed by a bad one, and could also help explain some of the backlash. In the podcast he specifically discusses this idea in relation to Julia Gillard, the first female PM of Australia, and focuses the absolute torrent of sexist and misogynistic crap she dealt with being the first female PM of Australia. If you haven't seen some clips of her dressing down Tony Abbot, I suggest the highlights get a look: https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/...nist-video

I think that those on the extreme left (and the extreme right, too, for that matter) are so convinced of the superiority of their ideas that they cannot conceive how anyone could reasonably disagree, so any dissent must therefore be based upon some exogenous factor such as race or sex. Plus, it's a whole lot easier to argue against the exogenous factor than it is to debate the issues.

The fact that Obama is black, or that Hillary is a woman, are IMO their respective most attractive attributes. The fact that both embrace a collectivist/redistributionist domestic policy, which IMO leads inevitably to socialism/communism, which doesn't work, coupled with what often appears to be an "America last" foreign policy, disqualifies both of them from any active consideration on my part for any elective office.

The last presidential election was particularly difficult for me. I voted in the democrat primary, for Hillary, because I believed that her collectivism/socialism/communism was not nearly as far advanced as that of Bernie, whom I felt needed to be stopped. Then in the general, Trump was only slightly more attractive on the policy front--I agreed with him on more policies than I did with Hillary, but my biggest disagreements were over the policies he placed in the forefront--immigration and free trade. That plus his personality pretty much disqualified him as well. As I said at the time, I thought the best Trump could be was probably better than the best that Hillary could be, but the worst that he could be was worse. So I had them about even, with Trump having the higher beta. So far, Trump has been about the mid-range of what I expected, which puts his performance about the same on the good/bad scale as I expected from Hillary, with perhaps a slight uptick to Trump for Gorsuch.

I voted for Gary Johnson. "Aleppo" didn't concern me nearly as much as what I heard coming out of Trump's and Hillary's mouths on a daily basis. And still doesn't.

Trump tweeted this, this morning:

Quote: "It wasn't the White House, it wasn't the State Department, it wasn't father LaVar's so-called people on the ground in China that got his son out of a long term prison sentence - IT WAS ME. Too bad! LaVar is just a poor man's version of Don King, but without the hair. Just think LaVar, you could have spent the next 5 to 10 years during Thanksgiving with your son in China, but no NBA contract to support you. But remember LaVar, shoplifting is NOT a little thing. It's a really big deal, especially in China. Ungrateful fool!"

(11-22-2017 11:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 11:01 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-14-2016 06:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-14-2016 05:55 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-14-2016 04:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Opposition was probably some of that, mixed with the general disdain for Democrats (the other team), and some racism. If there hadn't been things like the birther movement, him being a secret Muslim, comments from political opponents about "shuckin' and jivin'", then I would buy that race played absolutely 0 role in obstruction. But since all those things happened, it's pretty clear that for many, race was a factor.
Now, that is not to say it was the only factor, or even close to being the most important factor for anyone, but yeah, some people really didn't like him because of his race.

If you are saying that some, as opposed to none, opposed him because of race, I'm sure there were a few. But I would be willing to bet that his race got him more votes than it cost him. It would have been by far the strongest reason why I would have considered him, but the socialist/communist policies totally turned me off.

No doubt about the vote getting. I think race in the election helped more than it hurt.
But as I pointed out in my other posts, there were too many racially tinged comments/statements during his time as president to think that no one of importance didn't dislike him because they just dislike black people. Plus, we could then get into the whole implicit vs explicit racism conversation as well.
On a similar note, Malcolm Gladwell in his first podcats called Revisionist History talked about the concept of "moral licensing" in which good deed is invariably followed by a bad one, and could also help explain some of the backlash. In the podcast he specifically discusses this idea in relation to Julia Gillard, the first female PM of Australia, and focuses the absolute torrent of sexist and misogynistic crap she dealt with being the first female PM of Australia. If you haven't seen some clips of her dressing down Tony Abbot, I suggest the highlights get a look: https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/...nist-video

I think that those on the extreme left (and the extreme right, too, for that matter) are so convinced of the superiority of their ideas that they cannot conceive how anyone could reasonably disagree, so any dissent must therefore be based upon some exogenous factor such as race or sex. Plus, it's a whole lot easier to argue against the exogenous factor than it is to debate the issues.

The fact that Obama is black, or that Hillary is a woman, are IMO their respective most attractive attributes. The fact that both embrace a collectivist/redistributionist domestic policy, which IMO leads inevitably to socialism/communism, which doesn't work, coupled with what often appears to be an "America last" foreign policy, disqualifies both of them from any active consideration on my part for any elective office.

The last presidential election was particularly difficult for me. I voted in the democrat primary, for Hillary, because I believed that her collectivism/socialism/communism was not nearly as far advanced as that of Bernie, whom I felt needed to be stopped. Then in the general, Trump was only slightly more attractive on the policy front--I agreed with him on more policies than I did with Hillary, but my biggest disagreements were over the policies he placed in the forefront--immigration and free trade. That plus his personality pretty much disqualified him as well. As I said at the time, I thought the best Trump could be was probably better than the best that Hillary could be, but the worst that he could be was worse. So I had them about even, with Trump having the higher beta. So far, Trump has been about the mid-range of what I expected, which puts his performance about the same on the good/bad scale as I expected from Hillary, with perhaps a slight uptick to Trump for Gorsuch.

I voted for Gary Johnson. "Aleppo" didn't concern me nearly as much as what I heard coming out of Trump's and Hillary's mouths on a daily basis. And still doesn't.

Trump tweeted this, this morning:

Quote: "It wasn't the White House, it wasn't the State Department, it wasn't father LaVar's so-called people on the ground in China that got his son out of a long term prison sentence - IT WAS ME. Too bad! LaVar is just a poor man's version of Don King, but without the hair. Just think LaVar, you could have spent the next 5 to 10 years during Thanksgiving with your son in China, but no NBA contract to support you. But remember LaVar, shoplifting is NOT a little thing. It's a really big deal, especially in China. Ungrateful fool!"

Is Trump incorrect on the facts?

(11-22-2017 12:19 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 11:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 11:01 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-14-2016 06:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-14-2016 05:55 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If you are saying that some, as opposed to none, opposed him because of race, I'm sure there were a few. But I would be willing to bet that his race got him more votes than it cost him. It would have been by far the strongest reason why I would have considered him, but the socialist/communist policies totally turned me off.

No doubt about the vote getting. I think race in the election helped more than it hurt.
But as I pointed out in my other posts, there were too many racially tinged comments/statements during his time as president to think that no one of importance didn't dislike him because they just dislike black people. Plus, we could then get into the whole implicit vs explicit racism conversation as well.
On a similar note, Malcolm Gladwell in his first podcats called Revisionist History talked about the concept of "moral licensing" in which good deed is invariably followed by a bad one, and could also help explain some of the backlash. In the podcast he specifically discusses this idea in relation to Julia Gillard, the first female PM of Australia, and focuses the absolute torrent of sexist and misogynistic crap she dealt with being the first female PM of Australia. If you haven't seen some clips of her dressing down Tony Abbot, I suggest the highlights get a look: https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/...nist-video

I think that those on the extreme left (and the extreme right, too, for that matter) are so convinced of the superiority of their ideas that they cannot conceive how anyone could reasonably disagree, so any dissent must therefore be based upon some exogenous factor such as race or sex. Plus, it's a whole lot easier to argue against the exogenous factor than it is to debate the issues.

The fact that Obama is black, or that Hillary is a woman, are IMO their respective most attractive attributes. The fact that both embrace a collectivist/redistributionist domestic policy, which IMO leads inevitably to socialism/communism, which doesn't work, coupled with what often appears to be an "America last" foreign policy, disqualifies both of them from any active consideration on my part for any elective office.

The last presidential election was particularly difficult for me. I voted in the democrat primary, for Hillary, because I believed that her collectivism/socialism/communism was not nearly as far advanced as that of Bernie, whom I felt needed to be stopped. Then in the general, Trump was only slightly more attractive on the policy front--I agreed with him on more policies than I did with Hillary, but my biggest disagreements were over the policies he placed in the forefront--immigration and free trade. That plus his personality pretty much disqualified him as well. As I said at the time, I thought the best Trump could be was probably better than the best that Hillary could be, but the worst that he could be was worse. So I had them about even, with Trump having the higher beta. So far, Trump has been about the mid-range of what I expected, which puts his performance about the same on the good/bad scale as I expected from Hillary, with perhaps a slight uptick to Trump for Gorsuch.

I voted for Gary Johnson. "Aleppo" didn't concern me nearly as much as what I heard coming out of Trump's and Hillary's mouths on a daily basis. And still doesn't.

Trump tweeted this, this morning:

Quote: "It wasn't the White House, it wasn't the State Department, it wasn't father LaVar's so-called people on the ground in China that got his son out of a long term prison sentence - IT WAS ME. Too bad! LaVar is just a poor man's version of Don King, but without the hair. Just think LaVar, you could have spent the next 5 to 10 years during Thanksgiving with your son in China, but no NBA contract to support you. But remember LaVar, shoplifting is NOT a little thing. It's a really big deal, especially in China. Ungrateful fool!"

Is Trump incorrect on the facts?

Did Trump only state facts?

(11-22-2017 12:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 12:19 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 11:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 11:01 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-14-2016 06:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  No doubt about the vote getting. I think race in the election helped more than it hurt.
But as I pointed out in my other posts, there were too many racially tinged comments/statements during his time as president to think that no one of importance didn't dislike him because they just dislike black people. Plus, we could then get into the whole implicit vs explicit racism conversation as well.
On a similar note, Malcolm Gladwell in his first podcats called Revisionist History talked about the concept of "moral licensing" in which good deed is invariably followed by a bad one, and could also help explain some of the backlash. In the podcast he specifically discusses this idea in relation to Julia Gillard, the first female PM of Australia, and focuses the absolute torrent of sexist and misogynistic crap she dealt with being the first female PM of Australia. If you haven't seen some clips of her dressing down Tony Abbot, I suggest the highlights get a look: https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/...nist-video

I think that those on the extreme left (and the extreme right, too, for that matter) are so convinced of the superiority of their ideas that they cannot conceive how anyone could reasonably disagree, so any dissent must therefore be based upon some exogenous factor such as race or sex. Plus, it's a whole lot easier to argue against the exogenous factor than it is to debate the issues.

The fact that Obama is black, or that Hillary is a woman, are IMO their respective most attractive attributes. The fact that both embrace a collectivist/redistributionist domestic policy, which IMO leads inevitably to socialism/communism, which doesn't work, coupled with what often appears to be an "America last" foreign policy, disqualifies both of them from any active consideration on my part for any elective office.

The last presidential election was particularly difficult for me. I voted in the democrat primary, for Hillary, because I believed that her collectivism/socialism/communism was not nearly as far advanced as that of Bernie, whom I felt needed to be stopped. Then in the general, Trump was only slightly more attractive on the policy front--I agreed with him on more policies than I did with Hillary, but my biggest disagreements were over the policies he placed in the forefront--immigration and free trade. That plus his personality pretty much disqualified him as well. As I said at the time, I thought the best Trump could be was probably better than the best that Hillary could be, but the worst that he could be was worse. So I had them about even, with Trump having the higher beta. So far, Trump has been about the mid-range of what I expected, which puts his performance about the same on the good/bad scale as I expected from Hillary, with perhaps a slight uptick to Trump for Gorsuch.

I voted for Gary Johnson. "Aleppo" didn't concern me nearly as much as what I heard coming out of Trump's and Hillary's mouths on a daily basis. And still doesn't.

Trump tweeted this, this morning:

Quote: "It wasn't the White House, it wasn't the State Department, it wasn't father LaVar's so-called people on the ground in China that got his son out of a long term prison sentence - IT WAS ME. Too bad! LaVar is just a poor man's version of Don King, but without the hair. Just think LaVar, you could have spent the next 5 to 10 years during Thanksgiving with your son in China, but no NBA contract to support you. But remember LaVar, shoplifting is NOT a little thing. It's a really big deal, especially in China. Ungrateful fool!"

Is Trump incorrect on the facts?

Did Trump only state facts?

I'm only asking about the facts.

Did he intervene?
If so, did that result in saving jail time for those kids?

I would hope that we are having ongoing negotiations with China about bigger issues than this. If this fell out of those negotiations as some kind of show of good faith, which is a very realistic possibility, then that is a good thing. But I would hope that nobody, least of all Trump, was negotiating this as an end result.

I expect that what I described as a good thing is what actually happened.

(11-22-2017 01:21 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 12:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 12:19 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 11:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 11:01 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think that those on the extreme left (and the extreme right, too, for that matter) are so convinced of the superiority of their ideas that they cannot conceive how anyone could reasonably disagree, so any dissent must therefore be based upon some exogenous factor such as race or sex. Plus, it's a whole lot easier to argue against the exogenous factor than it is to debate the issues.

The fact that Obama is black, or that Hillary is a woman, are IMO their respective most attractive attributes. The fact that both embrace a collectivist/redistributionist domestic policy, which IMO leads inevitably to socialism/communism, which doesn't work, coupled with what often appears to be an "America last" foreign policy, disqualifies both of them from any active consideration on my part for any elective office.

The last presidential election was particularly difficult for me. I voted in the democrat primary, for Hillary, because I believed that her collectivism/socialism/communism was not nearly as far advanced as that of Bernie, whom I felt needed to be stopped. Then in the general, Trump was only slightly more attractive on the policy front--I agreed with him on more policies than I did with Hillary, but my biggest disagreements were over the policies he placed in the forefront--immigration and free trade. That plus his personality pretty much disqualified him as well. As I said at the time, I thought the best Trump could be was probably better than the best that Hillary could be, but the worst that he could be was worse. So I had them about even, with Trump having the higher beta. So far, Trump has been about the mid-range of what I expected, which puts his performance about the same on the good/bad scale as I expected from Hillary, with perhaps a slight uptick to Trump for Gorsuch.

I voted for Gary Johnson. "Aleppo" didn't concern me nearly as much as what I heard coming out of Trump's and Hillary's mouths on a daily basis. And still doesn't.

Trump tweeted this, this morning:

Quote: "It wasn't the White House, it wasn't the State Department, it wasn't father LaVar's so-called people on the ground in China that got his son out of a long term prison sentence - IT WAS ME. Too bad! LaVar is just a poor man's version of Don King, but without the hair. Just think LaVar, you could have spent the next 5 to 10 years during Thanksgiving with your son in China, but no NBA contract to support you. But remember LaVar, shoplifting is NOT a little thing. It's a really big deal, especially in China. Ungrateful fool!"

Is Trump incorrect on the facts?

Did Trump only state facts?

I'm only asking about the facts.

Did he intervene?
If so, did that result in saving jail time for those kids?

Ok, so we're both focusing on two different things here, and for obvious reasons.

You're looking just at the situation with the players and China. As of this moment, there is no evidence to suggest anything happened besides Trump personally requesting the release of the players. In this regard, Trump acted as a POTUS should.

I'm looking at how Trump is conducting himself post-event. At which point he is singling out a father from his bully pulpit, degrading him publicly, and throwing in some racially tinged language to boot. In this regard, Trump is acting FAR from how a POTUS should.

Had Trump just focused on the facts, which you so want to focus on, there would be nothing to comment on, really. He would have done his job as he should. Instead, just as he is want to do, Trump interjected some truly boorish thoughts and opinions on the situation.

So I guess I should at least give him a pat on the back for not lying about the situation?

But now my question for you, just because Trump was correct on the facts, does that mean we should gloss over the absolutely classes response that he had to Big Baller? Should we not try and hold our POTUS to a standard that is better than that tweet?

(11-22-2017 01:36 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I would hope that we are having ongoing negotiations with China about bigger issues than this. If this fell out of those negotiations as some kind of show of good faith, which is a very realistic possibility, then that is a good thing. But I would hope that nobody, least of all Trump, was negotiating this as an end result.

I expect that what I described as a good thing is what actually happened.

I think what actually happened, the release of the basketball players at the behest of the Trump admin, is a good thing overall.

Trump's reaction, however, to Ball's less than effusive praise is downright troubling and abhorrent. But I'm not surprised by that as Trump has had similar responses to criticisms or less than glowing praise during his entire presidency.

(11-22-2017 02:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 01:36 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I would hope that we are having ongoing negotiations with China about bigger issues than this. If this fell out of those negotiations as some kind of show of good faith, which is a very realistic possibility, then that is a good thing. But I would hope that nobody, least of all Trump, was negotiating this as an end result.
I expect that what I described as a good thing is what actually happened.

I think what actually happened, the release of the basketball players at the behest of the Trump admin, is a good thing overall.
Trump's reaction, however, to Ball's less than effusive praise is downright troubling and abhorrent. But I'm not surprised by that as Trump has had similar responses to criticisms or less than glowing praise during his entire presidency.

Why abhorrent? The father is pretty much a jerk who has pissed just about everybody off. IMO he needed calling out.

(11-22-2017 02:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 01:21 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 12:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 12:19 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 11:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Trump tweeted this, this morning:

Is Trump incorrect on the facts?

Did Trump only state facts?

I'm only asking about the facts.

Did he intervene?
If so, did that result in saving jail time for those kids?

Ok, so we're both focusing on two different things here, and for obvious reasons.

You're looking just at the situation with the players and China. As of this moment, there is no evidence to suggest anything happened besides Trump personally requesting the release of the players. In this regard, Trump acted as a POTUS should.

I'm looking at how Trump is conducting himself post-event. At which point he is singling out a father from his bully pulpit, degrading him publicly, and throwing in some racially tinged language to boot. In this regard, Trump is acting FAR from how a POTUS should.

Had Trump just focused on the facts, which you so want to focus on, there would be nothing to comment on, really. He would have done his job as he should. Instead, just as he is want to do, Trump interjected some truly boorish thoughts and opinions on the situation.

So I guess I should at least give him a pat on the back for not lying about the situation?

But now my question for you, just because Trump was correct on the facts, does that mean we should gloss over the absolutely classes response that he had to Big Baller? Should we not try and hold our POTUS to a standard that is better than that tweet?

I am not aware of the behavior rules for presidents. I think we all like the self-effacing hero, the hero who saves the child and then goes his way expecting neither recognition or thanks. Sometimes the hero saves the child and hangs around to tell the story on the ten o'clock news. Still, though, a hero.

All of our presidents have had moments when they acted or spoke in ways that many of us would consider "unpresidential". Yes, all of them. Even your favorites.

Yep, I would have preferred Trump had kept his mouth shut about what he did. My question was, did he do what he said he did? Apparently so.

Owl69 has pointed out the important aspect of this.

(11-22-2017 02:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 01:36 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I would hope that we are having ongoing negotiations with China about bigger issues than this. If this fell out of those negotiations as some kind of show of good faith, which is a very realistic possibility, then that is a good thing. But I would hope that nobody, least of all Trump, was negotiating this as an end result.

I expect that what I described as a good thing is what actually happened.

I think what actually happened, the release of the basketball players at the behest of the Trump admin, is a good thing overall.

Trump's reaction, however, to Ball's less than effusive praise is downright troubling and abhorrent. But I'm not surprised by that as Trump has had similar responses to criticisms or less than glowing praise during his entire presidency.

Interesting question posed by the Times: did Trump’s decision to personally ask for the release of these players undermine and reduce leverage to release more important prisoners, like dissidents, activists, etc.

That is predicated on the fact that it was likely that the players would have been deported and not held prisoner for the crime.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/20/world...ights.html

(11-23-2017 09:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 02:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 01:36 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I would hope that we are having ongoing negotiations with China about bigger issues than this. If this fell out of those negotiations as some kind of show of good faith, which is a very realistic possibility, then that is a good thing. But I would hope that nobody, least of all Trump, was negotiating this as an end result.

I expect that what I described as a good thing is what actually happened.

I think what actually happened, the release of the basketball players at the behest of the Trump admin, is a good thing overall.

Trump's reaction, however, to Ball's less than effusive praise is downright troubling and abhorrent. But I'm not surprised by that as Trump has had similar responses to criticisms or less than glowing praise during his entire presidency.

Interesting question posed by the Times: did Trump’s decision to personally ask for the release of these players undermine and reduce leverage to release more important prisoners, like dissidents, activists, etc.

That is predicated on the fact that it was likely that the players would have been deported and not held prisoner for the crime.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/20/world...ights.html

Why are Chinese activists more important than American citizens?

(11-23-2017 09:47 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-23-2017 09:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 02:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 01:36 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I would hope that we are having ongoing negotiations with China about bigger issues than this. If this fell out of those negotiations as some kind of show of good faith, which is a very realistic possibility, then that is a good thing. But I would hope that nobody, least of all Trump, was negotiating this as an end result.

I expect that what I described as a good thing is what actually happened.

I think what actually happened, the release of the basketball players at the behest of the Trump admin, is a good thing overall.

Trump's reaction, however, to Ball's less than effusive praise is downright troubling and abhorrent. But I'm not surprised by that as Trump has had similar responses to criticisms or less than glowing praise during his entire presidency.

Interesting question posed by the Times: did Trump’s decision to personally ask for the release of these players undermine and reduce leverage to release more important prisoners, like dissidents, activists, etc.

That is predicated on the fact that it was likely that the players would have been deported and not held prisoner for the crime.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/20/world...ights.html

Why are Chinese activists more important than American citizens?

Well, this is predicated on the idea that the players would have been released anyways.

So it isn’t saying that Chinese activists are more important than American citizens. It’s saying that we lost leverage to advocate for those who advocate for democracy and against oppression in China, the most American ideal out there, no?

If you read the article you would understand a bit better.

(11-22-2017 05:16 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 02:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 01:21 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 12:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 12:19 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Is Trump incorrect on the facts?

Did Trump only state facts?

I'm only asking about the facts.

Did he intervene?
If so, did that result in saving jail time for those kids?

Ok, so we're both focusing on two different things here, and for obvious reasons.

You're looking just at the situation with the players and China. As of this moment, there is no evidence to suggest anything happened besides Trump personally requesting the release of the players. In this regard, Trump acted as a POTUS should.

I'm looking at how Trump is conducting himself post-event. At which point he is singling out a father from his bully pulpit, degrading him publicly, and throwing in some racially tinged language to boot. In this regard, Trump is acting FAR from how a POTUS should.

Had Trump just focused on the facts, which you so want to focus on, there would be nothing to comment on, really. He would have done his job as he should. Instead, just as he is want to do, Trump interjected some truly boorish thoughts and opinions on the situation.

So I guess I should at least give him a pat on the back for not lying about the situation?

But now my question for you, just because Trump was correct on the facts, does that mean we should gloss over the absolutely classes response that he had to Big Baller? Should we not try and hold our POTUS to a standard that is better than that tweet?

I am not aware of the behavior rules for presidents. I think we all like the self-effacing hero, the hero who saves the child and then goes his way expecting neither recognition or thanks. Sometimes the hero saves the child and hangs around to tell the story on the ten o'clock news. Still, though, a hero.

All of our presidents have had moments when they acted or spoke in ways that many of us would consider "unpresidential". Yes, all of them. Even your favorites.

Yep, I would have preferred Trump had kept his mouth shut about what he did. My question was, did he do what he said he did? Apparently so.

Owl69 has pointed out the important aspect of this.

Did I say there were behavior rules? At this point are we only allowed to criticize someone if they explicitly broke the law or some defined rule?

The behavior rules seem to be that if you're on the left you criticize Trump for any and all things, and if you're on the right you criticize anybody named Clinton for any and all things. The visceral hatred on both sides is IMO counterproductive.

Politics has gotten way too personal for my tastes. Let's discuss issues critically, not pick at every single action just because of the identity of the actor.

(11-23-2017 10:04 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 05:16 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 02:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 01:21 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 12:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Did Trump only state facts?

I'm only asking about the facts.

Did he intervene?
If so, did that result in saving jail time for those kids?

Ok, so we're both focusing on two different things here, and for obvious reasons.

You're looking just at the situation with the players and China. As of this moment, there is no evidence to suggest anything happened besides Trump personally requesting the release of the players. In this regard, Trump acted as a POTUS should.

I'm looking at how Trump is conducting himself post-event. At which point he is singling out a father from his bully pulpit, degrading him publicly, and throwing in some racially tinged language to boot. In this regard, Trump is acting FAR from how a POTUS should.

Had Trump just focused on the facts, which you so want to focus on, there would be nothing to comment on, really. He would have done his job as he should. Instead, just as he is want to do, Trump interjected some truly boorish thoughts and opinions on the situation.

So I guess I should at least give him a pat on the back for not lying about the situation?

But now my question for you, just because Trump was correct on the facts, does that mean we should gloss over the absolutely classes response that he had to Big Baller? Should we not try and hold our POTUS to a standard that is better than that tweet?

I am not aware of the behavior rules for presidents. I think we all like the self-effacing hero, the hero who saves the child and then goes his way expecting neither recognition or thanks. Sometimes the hero saves the child and hangs around to tell the story on the ten o'clock news. Still, though, a hero.

All of our presidents have had moments when they acted or spoke in ways that many of us would consider "unpresidential". Yes, all of them. Even your favorites.

Yep, I would have preferred Trump had kept his mouth shut about what he did. My question was, did he do what he said he did? Apparently so.

Owl69 has pointed out the important aspect of this.

Did I say there were behavior rules? At this point are we only allowed to criticize someone if they explicitly broke the law or some defined rule?

I guess rules is the wrong word. I don't know the criteria used to define what is presidential behavior. Is picking up a dog by its ears presidential? That was Johnson. How about puking at a state dinner? GHWB.

I guess it is like art or porn. You know it when you see it. However, some people see porn as art, and others see nothing at all. I am still totally mystified by Jackson Pollock.

(11-23-2017 10:12 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The behavior rules seem to be that if you're on the left you criticize Trump for any and all things, and if you're on the right you criticize anybody named Clinton for any and all things. The visceral hatred on both sides is IMO counterproductive.

Politics has gotten way too personal for my tastes. Let's discuss issues critically, not pick at every single action just because of the identity of the actor.

Pretty sure I have not criticized Chelsea Clinton, and I am very sure I have had nothing negative to say about DeWitt Clinton.

I don't "hate" Hillary any more than I "hate" rattlesnakes. Just think it best to avoid either one. I have my reasons.

Bill, I can at least understand. Young chicks? No hate there.

Now, wasps, that's a different story. I hate wasps. And broccoli. And ISIS.

(11-23-2017 10:12 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The behavior rules seem to be that if you're on the left you criticize Trump for any and all things, and if you're on the right you criticize anybody named Clinton for any and all things. The visceral hatred on both sides is IMO counterproductive.

Politics has gotten way too personal for my tastes. Let's discuss issues critically, not pick at every single action just because of the identity of the actor.

I agree to an extent. I’ve always felt that how someone running for President acted behind closed doors (in a legal marriage) was inconsequential. That’s why I never cared about Trump’s multiple marriages, and one reason I hated all of the hullabaloo some made over the made up fact that Obama was a Muslim (religion shouldn’t really matter).

However, how an elected official acts in public, what they say in an official capacity, and the causes they decide to bring attention to DO matter, and even more so when they’re president. The POTUS can move mountains with their words and it’s not a personal attack or criticism when the focus is on what they are doing publicly, especially while in office. Why do you consider it a personal criticism of Trump when I’m commenting on how he engages someone as POTUS? He was discussing a situation in which his status as POTUS wasn’t leveraged.

Also, it isn’t as if I was criticizing Trump’s time on the golf course, his choice of food condiments, or his clothing choices - all of which are on the personal side of the spectrum. Those are also all criticisms that Obama faced by Reps, and that Trump now faces from the left. So when I do go in that direction, feel free to bring out the bipartisan language, but for now, I don’t think that it is too personal to criticize how Trump decides to dress down someone over Twitter.