Your Favorite Politician to Dislike

[channonc 466]

12 hours ago, Grumps said:

You are one of my favorite posters on this forum. You seem to be intelligent and wise and mostly fair. This is perhaps your worst post here. I don't remember ever hearing anyone but liberals (or whatever term you prefer) making an issue of Obama's suit. If it were not for posters on the left on this forum, I would never have heard about it.

My post was a bit tongue in cheek but I do think that the tan suit is a good example of the things that some conservatives and conservative media nitpicked through the Obama years, but yet, these same people and media sources largely ignore some egregious things done by Trump. In fact, Josh Ernest had to actually respond at a daily press briefing (remember those back in the day) about the tan suit controversy because it had received so much (largely negative) coverage.

Video of Rep. King mad about Obama's tan suit

Josh Ernest responds at daily press briefing

[channonc 466]

12 hours ago, Grumps said:

You are also one of my favorite posters! I don't know what Rep. Peter King has to do with anything, but I apologize Channon for REALLY disliking your post! There!

Apology accepted. 😉

[alexava 6,973]

54 minutes ago, channonc said:

My post was a bit tongue in cheek but I do think that the tan suit is a good example of the things that some conservatives and conservative media nitpicked through the Obama years, but yet, these same people and media sources largely ignore some egregious things done by Trump. In fact, Josh Ernest had to actually respond at a daily press briefing (remember those back in the day) about the tan suit controversy because it had received so much (largely negative) coverage.

Video of Rep. King mad about Obama's tan suit

Josh Ernest responds at daily press briefing

Do you remember the first Obama tweet? We had shitgibbons on this board critical of him for that. It was a positive tweet. God forbid a president enjoy a round of golf.

[Grumps 3,704]

1 hour ago, channonc said:

My post was a bit tongue in cheek but I do think that the tan suit is a good example of the things that some conservatives and conservative media nitpicked through the Obama years, but yet, these same people and media sources largely ignore some egregious things done by Trump. In fact, Josh Ernest had to actually respond at a daily press briefing (remember those back in the day) about the tan suit controversy because it had received so much (largely negative) coverage.

Video of Rep. King mad about Obama's tan suit

Josh Ernest responds at daily press briefing

Thanks you for clarifying. I COMPLETELY agree that anyone complaining about Obama's suit color is being nitpicky. There are always SO MANY important issues that could be discussed that it is frustrating when people focus on the trivia.

[channonc 466]

1 minute ago, Grumps said:

Thanks you for clarifying. I COMPLETELY agree that anyone complaining about Obama's suit color is being nitpicky. There are always SO MANY important issues that could be discussed that it is frustrating when people focus on the trivia.

This.

Unfortunately, I think social media has not helped our ability (meaning our nation's) to have a robust, fruitful conversation about the real issues facing our country. Compromise needs to stop being a bad word.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

36 minutes ago, alexava said:

Do you remember the first Obama tweet? We had shitgibbons on this board critical of him for that. It was a positive tweet. God forbid a president enjoy a round of golf.

God doesn't but some shitgibbons (your word) here as you call them don't like our current POTUS playing.

[alexava 6,973]

11 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

God doesn't but some shitgibbons (your word) here as you call them don't like our current POTUS playing.

I have no problem whatsoever with anyone playing within reason. We all need to decompress at times. I personally am jealous because I don’t have the time to play much because of work. And the shift I work takes me away from family half the time anyway. So when I  do have time to enjoy myself I struggle with guilt of being away from family when I barely spend any time with them anyway.

My problem is the flack Obama caught from conservatives including the orange man himself on Twitter about excessive golf and vacationing. Then trump comes in and blows any amount of leisure or $( while profiting at his own resorts ) any president in resent history has ever attempted and gets excused for various reasons.

huge double standard.

[homersapien 11,396]

25 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

God doesn't but some shitgibbons (your word) here as you call them don't like our current POTUS playing.

Certainly not me!

Every minute this narcissistic psychopath is on a golf course is a minute he's out of the oval office.  The more golf the better!

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

35 minutes ago, alexava said:

I have no problem whatsoever with anyone playing within reason. We all need to decompress at times. I personally am jealous because I don’t have the time to play much because of work. And the shift I work takes me away from family half the time anyway. So when I  do have time to enjoy myself I struggle with guilt of being away from family when I barely spend any time with them anyway.

My problem is the flack Obama caught from conservatives including the orange man himself on Twitter about excessive golf and vacationing. Then trump comes in and blows any amount of leisure or $( while profiting at his own resorts ) any president in resent history has ever attempted and gets excused for various reasons.

huge double standard.

Certainly not the only double standard in play around here. Some even call other posters a-holes when they disagree.

[alexava 6,973]

14 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

Certainly not the only double standard in play around here. Some even call other posters a-holes when they disagree.

actually a poster said that people who wear MAGA hats "self identify" as a**holes. then that poster was called a ****head or dickhead or poophead. he didn't argue.

This was going on in two threads. Both disappeared for some reason(s).

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

18 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

Well obviously not because he didn't come close to receiving even half of the vote.

Please re-read the voting totals.

Wrong. You're incorrectly assuming that if the majority of Americans hate politicians, then that would be reflected in President Trump's vote count. The viability of Salty's statement does not hinge on the notion "he didn't come close to receiving even half of the vote."

For example, please re-read the number of eligible voters who did not vote. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

5 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Wrong. You're incorrectly assuming that if the majority of Americans hate politicians, then that would be reflected in President Trump's vote count. The viability of Salty's statement does not hinge on the notion "he didn't come close to receiving even half of the vote."

For example, please re-read the number of eligible voters who did not vote. 

Salty's statement was that the majority of Americans don't like politicians, thus being a direct cause of why Trump was elected.  When the raw numbers show that he didn't even get a majority of the votes, then Salty's statement becomes invalid.  We can't go off anything else because the data isn't there to qualify "liking politicians".  The only data we have is the vote total.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

4 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Salty's statement was that the majority of Americans don't like politicians, thus being a direct cause of why Trump was elected.  When the raw numbers show that he didn't even get a majority of the votes, then Salty's statement becomes invalid.  We can't go off anything else because the data isn't there to qualify "liking politicians".  The only data we have is the vote total.

Wrong again, and ironic. You're restricting his use of the qualifier, "Americans." He referenced "the majority of Americans," not the "majority of Americans that voted in the Presidential election." You say that we can't go off anything else... unless of course, per your standards, we can only consider the number of votes that were casts. 

In the context of voters (not even "the majority of Americans" - which is how he qualified his statement ), the "raw numbers" as you would use them only invalidate his assertion if you reject the inclusion of eligible voters who did not vote. 

In conclusion, one can generally disagree or agree with Salty's statement, but your refutation of it is patently insufficient. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

5 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Wrong again, and ironic. You're restricting his use of the qualifier, "Americans." He referenced "the majority of Americans," not the "majority of Americans that voted in the Presidential election." You say that we can't go off anything else... unless of course, per your standards, we can only consider the number of votes that were casts.  

In the context of voters (not even "the majority of Americans" - which is how he qualified his statement ), the "raw numbers" as you would use them only invalidate his assertion if you reject the inclusion of eligible voters who did not vote. 

In conclusion, one can generally disagree or agree with Salty's statement, but your refutation of it is patently insufficient. 

I'm saying we have no way of knowing what the "majority of Americans" think because there are no numbers to back that assertion up.  Until those numbers are otherwise provided, we can only reasonably make assumptions and conclusions based on the ones we have.  Otherwise we're just allowing ourselves to say anything and then have the ability to say "well you can't prove me wrong".

[homersapien 11,396]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Wrong again, and ironic. You're restricting his use of the qualifier, "Americans." He referenced "the majority of Americans," not the "majority of Americans that voted in the Presidential election." You say that we can't go off anything else... unless of course, per your standards, we can only consider the number of votes that were casts. 

In the context of voters (not even "the majority of Americans" - which is how he qualified his statement ), the "raw numbers" as you would use them only invalidate his assertion if you reject the inclusion of eligible voters who did not vote. 

In conclusion, one can generally disagree or agree with Salty's statement, but your refutation of it is patently insufficient. 

There is no data supporting Salty's statement, none.

The only data we have is the election, which refutes it.  There is also a lot of polling data that refutes it. (I have yet to see a poll that indicates more than half of the respondents prefer none of the above, much less no politicians.)

There is no case that can be made that Salty is correct.  None.  However, there is a good case - supported with data - to be made that it was incorrect, even if not totally conclusive.

All of this ignores the fact that anyone who runs for or holds public office is a politician by definition, which means that Salty is saying a majority of Americans oppose any sort of representative government.  So, a majority of Americans are anarchists?  I don't think so.

But you are of course free to assume they are if that makes sense to you.  Maybe some poll will ask do you favor representative government or anarchy and we can put this to bed once and for all. 

[McLoofus 35,182]

26 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Otherwise we're just allowing ourselves to say anything and then have the ability to say "well you can't prove me wrong".

I would say that this is Trump's entire ideology, except most of what he says is in fact quickly and easily proven wrong. 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

2 hours ago, alexava said:

actually a poster said that people who wear MAGA hats "self identify" as a**holes. then that poster was called a ****head or dickhead or poophead. he didn't argue.

This was going on in two threads. Both disappeared for some reason(s).

I assume because of your nasty allegation and language.

[alexava 6,973]

4 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

I assume because of your nasty allegation and language.

Did you ever watch the Bad News Bears?

[alexava 6,973]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

Certainly not me!

Every minute this narcissistic psychopath is on a golf course is a minute he's out of the oval office.  The more golf the better!

More chances he catches a shanked Titleist to the temple. LOL

[homersapien 11,396]

12 minutes ago, alexava said:

More chances he catches a shanked Titleist to the temple. LOL

Nah, his hair would protect him.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

7 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

I'm saying we have no way of knowing what the "majority of Americans" think because.... 

I did not gather that from your initial response. Facially, you based the "invalidity" of his statement, specifically placing emphasis on a certain portion, by making an appeal to a comparison of votes casts, clearly an insufficient means of refutation. If the application of his claim was narrowed to people who voted in the last presidential election (a narrower group than that which he used in qualifying his opinion), your response would've been much more sound.

Only judging by the votes cast completely changes the qualifier that was employed. It's hardly irrational in seeing the difference between using the qualifier "Americans" instead of "Americans who voted in the election." Your refutation is geared towards the latter qualifier, which was not the one initially employed.

This has been fun.

Kerryon and enjoy some Phoenix golf. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

6 hours ago, homersapien said:

There is no data supporting Salty's statement, none.

The only data we have is the election, which refutes it.  There is also a lot of polling data that refutes it. (I have yet to see a poll that indicates more than half of the respondents prefer none of the above, much less no politicians.)

There is no case that can be made that Salty is correct.  None.  However, there is a good case - supported with data - to be made that it was incorrect, even if not totally conclusive.

All of this ignores the fact that anyone who runs for or holds public office is a politician by definition, which means that Salty is saying a majority of Americans oppose any sort of representative government.  So, a majority of Americans are anarchists?  I don't think so.

But you are of course free to assume they are if that makes sense to you.  Maybe some poll will ask do you favor representative government or anarchy and we can put this to bed once and for all. 

The gleaming irrelevancy of your remarks is blinding. 

You have utterly missed the essence of the discussion. The validity [or lack thereof - choose one or the other, it makes no difference in this context] of Salty's point is not the issue. 

Save your rabbit trails. I will not venture down them. Try to keep up.

 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Kerryon and enjoy some Phoenix golf. 

Man, I was scheduled to play that course for free one year on a work thing and had to rush to Alabama from the resort there because of a death in the family.  Got hit with a double whammy.

[homersapien 11,396]

12 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

The gleaming irrelevancy of your remarks is blinding. 

You have utterly missed the essence of the discussion. The validity [or lack thereof - choose one or the other, it makes no difference in this context] of Salty's point is not the issue. 

Save your rabbit trails. I will not venture down them. Try to keep up.

 

"I win!"     

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

5 minutes ago, homersapien said:

"I win!"