Obama's tweet in response to Charlottesville violence is the most liked ever

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 hour ago, Bill & Katya said:

Didn't we get excuses for eight years already?  What else is new?  Six Dallas police officers gunned down by a BLM supporter and did Obama call out BLM as a racist hate group?  Didn't think so.  The point of this thread is how Obama is treated by the Left Wing press compared to Trump.  Trump could have called out the Right Wing hate groups only right from the start and that would not have satisfied those that hate him no matter what.  He is in a lose lose situation regardless, people are going to label him a fascist, a racist, a homophobe or whatever with no evidence.  It is insincere to not point out that there are bad actors on both sides regardless of how much the MDL and their allies in the press bury their heads in the sand with respect to those hate groups that share some of their ideologies.

    

   I doubt that. People are going to label him for what he is and what he does. He's had several opportunities where he could have helped himself out.

 

   I'm not sure what the point of this thread was. How the press treated Obama is irrelevant. Obama was criticized for 8 years. I'm pretty sure you must had something to say about him during that time, but he is not the president now. Obama did X, so it's ok for Trump to do Y is just another example of moral equivalency. 

[IAMX 3,055]

14 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

    Most of the current sanctions on Russia were initiated by Obama. Trump has been reluctant to sign anything unless congress forces him to. In imaginary land, we can have it however we want. In real life, there's no comparison between the reactions of the two towards Putin.

You say sanctions like that means anything. This isn't the isolated USSR we're talking about. 

 

And Trump did sign sanctions, whether you say reluctantly or otherwise, he did it as soon as the bill got to him (throwing this "reluctant" term in the trash where it belongs), but again, they're useless. Putin just ups his trade with China and other Asian countries, as well as South American and Middle Eastern countries. Likewise, European countries are starting to feel the brunt of their trade rhetoric and actions against Russia. Leaders in the EU are already talking about undoing sanctions against Russia because they need the trade a lot more than Russia does. They do meaningless sanctions on Russia, Russia retaliates with sanctions that actually hurt. Then you factor the dramatic cost increase of the EU bringing in millions of unfettered refugees, and the excessive costs of their social programs. Russia knows they are at an advantage. Trying things we did in the 70s-90s isn't going to have the same impact. Likewise, trying to instigate world war 3 for losing elections is a bad idea too. People need to think of something new, but moreover, Dems had the chance to send stronger messages to Putin. Just like Kim Jong Un.. sanctions, sanctions, sanctions. Sanctions clearly doesn't do anything.

[IAMX 3,055]

26 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

    

   I doubt that. People are going to label him for what he is and what he does. He's had several opportunities where he could have helped himself out.

 

   I'm not sure what the point of this thread was. How the press treated Obama is irrelevant. Obama was criticized for 8 years. I'm pretty sure you must had something to say about him during that time, but he is not the president now. Obama did X, so it's ok for Trump to do Y is just another example of moral equivalency. 

Moral equivalency was done throughout the last 8 years. It's pretty clear that:

 

- The fanatics of the party in power love moral equivalencies

- The fanatics of the party not in power love to embellish the things the party in power does

 

That being said, Obama had a chance to actually be useful.. he made his name as an IL/US Senator lambasting Bush's spying. 

 

However, as soon as his prospects of becoming President became very realistic (at the 2008 DNC), he parties with the AT&T execs who contributed countless dollars to the Dems, helped financially fund their 2008 DNC in Denver Colorado, and Obama conveniently and completely flips on his stances on spying -- he declares he might actually need this, he defends Bush's spying in court, then he signs a revised FISA bill giving retroactive immunity to the telcos (AT&T, Verizon, and at the time I believe one was called Qwest) regarding the lawsuits filed against them to unmask the spying that they participated in with the NSA by real-time relaying all data from their trunks over to the NSA to sift through -- effectively nullifying all lawsuits against the companies and even against the NSA itself. The left's roar regarding spying during the Bush administration had turned into a mere peep under Obama, even though countless leaks occurring show that spying was only ramped up, even more broad and clandestine, under Obama. Moral equivalence is clearly the status quo as shown over the last 8 years.

 

That's why I'm an independent and not a Democrat or Republican.

 

The left right now are howling about things they themselves did under Obama. Their memory is just conveniently piss poor.

Edited August 18, 2017 by IAMX

[LionessDeon 2,060]

[Steeleballz 7,550]

36 minutes ago, IAMX said:

Moral equivalency was done throughout the last 8 years. It's pretty clear that:

 

- The fanatics of the party in power love moral equivalencies

- The fanatics of the party not in power love to embellish the things the party in power does

 

That being said, Obama had a chance to actually be useful.. he made his name as an IL/US Senator lambasting Bush's spying. 

 

However, as soon as his prospects of becoming President became very realistic (at the 2008 DNC), he parties with the AT&T execs who contributed countless dollars to the Dems, helped financially fund their 2008 DNC in Denver Colorado, and Obama conveniently and completely flips on his stances on spying -- he declares he might actually need this, he defends Bush's spying in court, then he signs a revised FISA bill giving retroactive immunity to the telcos (AT&T, Verizon, and at the time I believe one was called Qwest) regarding the lawsuits filed against them to unmask the spying that they participated in with the NSA by real-time relaying all data from their trunks over to the NSA to sift through -- effectively nullifying all lawsuits against the companies and even against the NSA itself. The left's roar regarding spying during the Bush administration had turned into a mere peep under Obama, even though countless leaks occurring show that spying was only ramped up, even more broad and clandestine, under Obama. Moral equivalence is clearly the status quo as shown over the last 8 years.

 

That's why I'm an independent and not a Democrat or Republican.

 

The left right now are howling about things they themselves did under Obama. Their memory is just conveniently piss poor.

 

    For an independent, it's been my observation that your posts generally have a rather partisan overture to them. 

 

    Anyway the right did a lot of howling for 8 years too. It would seem everyone's memory is suffering from the same lapse. Politicians in general do dwell in the realm of moral equivalencies more than the rest of us.  Still, I'm not sure I know of anyone who voted for Trump, the political outsider, because they wanted Obama2. Regardless of how the left acted during Obama's presidency, we are not there any  more. It makes no sense that the right tries to rationalize their behavior based on what the left did after criticizing that behavior for years.

 

[CaliCat 3,957]

15 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

    For an independent, it's been my observation that your posts generally have a rather partisan overture to them. 

 

    Anyway the right did a lot of howling for 8 years too. It would seem everyone's memory is suffering from the same lapse. Politicians in general do dwell in the realm of moral equivalencies more than the rest of us.  Still, I'm not sure I know of anyone who voted for Trump, the political outsider, because they wanted Obama2. Regardless of how the left acted during Obama's presidency, we are not there any  more. It makes no sense that the right tries to rationalize their behavior based on what the left did after criticizing that behavior for years.

 

 

This entire "but Obama, but Hillary, but JFK, but..." conversation gets stale, and shows some childish ingenuity. It also shows how disappointed Trump supporters are with him, that they can only compare him to other political figures they abhor. If  there was ever a definition of race to the bottom, they nailed it. 

 

I would rather they judge Trump by the bar he himself set, but that happened before we were dealing with alternate facts.

 

The forecast calls for more wintery weather. Bundle up. Winter is coming. 

[IAMX 3,055]

44 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

    For an independent, it's been my observation that your posts generally have a rather partisan overture to them. 

 

    Anyway the right did a lot of howling for 8 years too. It would seem everyone's memory is suffering from the same lapse. Politicians in general do dwell in the realm of moral equivalencies more than the rest of us.  Still, I'm not sure I know of anyone who voted for Trump, the political outsider, because they wanted Obama2. Regardless of how the left acted during Obama's presidency, we are not there any  more. It makes no sense that the right tries to rationalize their behavior based on what the left did after criticizing that behavior for years.

 

I don't claim to be unpartisan. I don't claim to be a moderate. I don't claim to be unbiased. I'm simply an independent. You seem to think independents are confused fence-sitters. It's very typical of non-independents to assume that independents have no views, or can't/don't/shouldn't actually forcefully criticize people, or that they should only criticize the "other" side instead of theirs. Independent means I have no affiliation with a party.

 

Most of my views are actually liberal (pro gay marriage [and even pro-polygamy for any gender/orientation], pro-choice, pro universal healthcare, pro-secularism, pro-euthanasia, against drug restrictions, pro every freedom that is guaranteed by the Constitution), the problem is, I refuse to associate with conspiracy nuts, and likewise refuse to agree with people who are throwing tantrums. If someone wants to demonstrate that they have their own thought process, I'll join them in intellectual discussion, if they want to go the route of conspiracy nuts and act like mad children, I'll just discuss at their level (as I did for right wing Obama birther nuts a decade ago here, and as I do with NeverTrump leftist conspiracy nuts). Doesn't matter to me either way. 

 

Anyways, moral equivalencies of Trump supporters are not surprising, this is the nature of partisanship. It would be expected regardless of whether the President was Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Hillary, Bernie, Biden, etc.

 

The real issue here is, for me, the left going the route of conspiracy. Recall that this was partly why the right got hammered so badly in elections throughout 2006-2010. The right were acting like petulant children. The country had enough. The same thing is happening here. The left got their way for too long, they think they're entitled to their way, people decide they don't want to endorse this attitude, they go another way. The left double down on their conspiracy and throw massive tantrums combined with support from the MSM and countless leftist leaders placating to this attitude, and they somehow think the results will be different. 

 

The next time the left win elections it will be because they learned that other parts of the country exist, as well as different points of view.. it won't be because of approving of their tantrums. Rest assured, many independents and moderates (which are the main group that tips elections in favor of one or another candidate in the silly two party system) are watching and will side with Trump again. Not as an approval of Trump, but even further disapproval of leftist behavior.

 

And that gets me to the marketing of Trump.. his marketing style is perfectly placed to his audience. He, like Obama, know the demographic they are catering to, and they are excellent brand representatives. Trump knows how off the deep end the left have gone, it's been happening since Obama's second term started. He simply jumped on the opportunity presented. He knows that no matter how crazy he looks, as long as the left look crazier, he's golden. The left aren't helping themselves whatsoever. Not that I mind the entertainment, because it is quite entertaining watching them shoot themselves in the foot. But if they didn't act this way, what would the Trump appeal be? If we go back to his campaign, while he specified what he wanted for his healthcare plans, it wasn't really a plan. He also clearly isn't the "swamp draining" person he claimed to be. He had a chance to have a far different stance on Julian Assange, Manning, etc. and totally flopped on that. This is the case on numerous issues. I personally was hoping his vindictive style would have him ruffle and shake up the GOP tree, but it's clear they've been undermining him left and right. So.. in the end, no changes. I didn't vote for him in 2016 and it's very unlikely I will vote for him in 2020, but I save my decision until I do my FPCA and absentee ballot. He's not even a year into his Presidency so, despite my expectations of him to not fulfill most of his promises, he still has like 80% of his first term left to do so. Of course, I also know two things: Dems will obstruct like no tomorrow, and even the GOP are throwing a wrench into his plans. As an independent, this is disappointing. Even if it was Bernie as President, I'd liked to have seen him succeed and change the way these parties are set up. Everything is clearly tipped in favor of the establishments.

Edited August 18, 2017 by IAMX

[Boiler 46,372]

Crooked or Trump.

 

What a choice.

[JimandChristy 1,689]

37 minutes ago, IAMX said:

I don't claim to be unpartisan. I don't claim to be a moderate. I don't claim to be unbiased. I'm simply an independent. You seem to think independents are confused fence-sitters. It's very typical of non-independents to assume that independents have no views, or can't/don't/shouldn't actually forcefully criticize people, or that they should only criticize the "other" side instead of theirs. Independent means I have no affiliation with a party.

 

Most of my views are actually liberal (pro gay marriage [and even pro-polygamy for any gender/orientation], pro-choice, pro universal healthcare, pro-secularism, pro-euthanasia, against drug restrictions, pro every freedom that is guaranteed by the Constitution), the problem is, I refuse to associate with conspiracy nuts, and likewise refuse to agree with people who are throwing tantrums. If someone wants to demonstrate that they have their own thought process, I'll join them in intellectual discussion, if they want to go the route of conspiracy nuts and act like mad children, I'll just discuss at their level (as I did for right wing Obama birther nuts a decade ago here, and as I do with NeverTrump leftist conspiracy nuts). Doesn't matter to me either way. 

 

Anyways, moral equivalencies of Trump supporters are not surprising, this is the nature of partisanship. It would be expected regardless of whether the President was Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Hillary, Bernie, Biden, etc.

 

The real issue here is, for me, the left going the route of conspiracy. Recall that this was partly why the right got hammered so badly in elections throughout 2006-2010. The right were acting like petulant children. The country had enough. The same thing is happening here. The left got their way for too long, they think they're entitled to their way, people decide they don't want to endorse this attitude, they go another way. The left double down on their conspiracy and throw massive tantrums combined with support from the MSM and countless leftist leaders placating to this attitude, and they somehow think the results will be different. 

 

The next time the left win elections it will be because they learned that other parts of the country exist, as well as different points of view.. it won't be because of approving of their tantrums. Rest assured, many independents and moderates (which are the main group that tips elections in favor of one or another candidate in the silly two party system) are watching and will side with Trump again. Not as an approval of Trump, but even further disapproval of leftist behavior.

 

And that gets me to the marketing of Trump.. his marketing style is perfectly placed to his audience. He, like Obama, know the demographic they are catering to, and they are excellent brand representatives. Trump knows how off the deep end the left have gone, it's been happening since Obama's second term started. He simply jumped on the opportunity presented. He knows that no matter how crazy he looks, as long as the left look crazier, he's golden. The left aren't helping themselves whatsoever. Not that I mind the entertainment, because it is quite entertaining watching them shoot themselves in the foot. But if they didn't act this way, what would the Trump appeal be? If we go back to his campaign, while he specified what he wanted for his healthcare plans, it wasn't really a plan. He also clearly isn't the "swamp draining" person he claimed to be. He had a chance to have a far different stance on Julian Assange, Manning, etc. and totally flopped on that. This is the case on numerous issues. I personally was hoping his vindictive style would have him ruffle and shake up the GOP tree, but it's clear they've been undermining him left and right. So.. in the end, no changes. I didn't vote for him in 2016 and it's very unlikely I will vote for him in 2020, but I save my decision until I do my FPCA and absentee ballot. He's not even a year into his Presidency so, despite my expectations of him to not fulfill most of his promises, he still has like 80% of his first term left to do so. Of course, I also know two things: Dems will obstruct like no tomorrow, and even the GOP are throwing a wrench into his plans. As an independent, this is disappointing. Even if it was Bernie as President, I'd liked to have seen him succeed and change the way these parties are set up. Everything is clearly tipped in favor of the establishments.

 

I stopped reading after Independent...

 

 

[JimandChristy 1,689]

Even Mitt Romney who lost to Obama in 2012 is showing Donald Trump how to act presidential. Good on him.

[IAMX 3,055]

1 hour ago, JimandChristy said:

 

I stopped reading after Independent...

 

 

Good, more fun for me. 

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

2 hours ago, JimandChristy said:

Even Mitt Romney who lost to Obama in 2012 is showing Donald Trump how to act presidential. Good on him.

 

 

The 'establishment' is the one who has common sense in this matter.

Mr. Independent is more concerned with what he perceives as tantrum behavior (persona as he calls it himself) than common sense, morals and

policy that makes good sense for the country. Mr. Independent just sees tantrums everywhere....I suggest new glasses.
 

[IAMX 3,055]

2 minutes ago, Ebunoluwa said:

 

 

The 'establishment' is the one who has common sense in this matter.

Mr. Independent is more concerned with what he perceives as tantrum behavior (persona as he calls it himself) than common sense, morals and

policy that makes good sense for the country. Mr. Independent just sees tantrums everywhere....I suggest new glasses.
 

tfw tantrum throwers are the ones with common sense and morals.. real morality is whining about when an election doesn't go your way.

 

Funny that 4 and 8 years ago the thinking was different. Quite convenient pair of glasses you put on there. 

 

I'm thinking the grocery incident wasn't at a grocery store but at daycare.

Edited August 18, 2017 by IAMX

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

2 hours ago, JimandChristy said:

 

I stopped reading after Independent...

 

 

All I read is TANTRUMS.

It's like a compulsive twitch. Must be inserted in each and every post like a ... stop ....in a telegram.

[CaliCat 3,957]

4 minutes ago, Ebunoluwa said:

 

 

The 'establishment' is the one who has common sense in this matter.

Mr. Independent is more concerned with what he perceives as tantrum behavior (persona as he calls it himself) than common sense, morals and

policy that makes good sense for the country. Mr. Independent just sees tantrums everywhere....I suggest new glasses.
 

 

In North Korea there is only a small number of hair styles that are allowed by the party. The idea is that the people should emulate the Supreme Leader's looks.

 

It could be that in America, people feel that if they emulate the so-called president's hissy fits, they might feel closer to Supreme Leader, by emulating His antics.

 

 

Edited August 18, 2017 by CaliCat