The General Political Thread

[Duuring]

Trade is bad.

[Toffee]

“I don’t know why they don’t take care of a situation like that. I think it’s embarrassing for the country to allow protesters. You don’t even know what side the protesters are on.”

There you have it. Donald Trump doesn't like free speech when it goes against him.

I don't think Trump actually thinks that deeply about anything. His positions depend on his mood, who the last person to speak to him was, etc.

Exactly. Dangerous to such a volatile individual in power.

[Edwin]

I've so for only had 1 of my 5 profs not mention Donald Trump in a negative light and its day 2, the fuck is that.

What subject do you study?

[Sarado]

I think professors of any study can find something negative to say about him.

Sport science: His sport activity involves using a vehicle to avoid using your legs
History: Frederick Douglass is still alive
Economics: Claimed a billion dollar loss within a year
Law: Undermines the court system
English/literature: covfefe

[Edwin]

Some professors are obviously much more inclined than others as a result of the populism Trump propagates threatening the existence of many social/soft/fake sciences focusing on identity, culture and collective groups. You'll find Trump's name mentioned far more from professors of humanities than you would in STEM. That was my experience, at least (the unsung benefits of studying in a field that actually benefits society).

“I don’t know why they don’t take care of a situation like that. I think it’s embarrassing for the country to allow protesters. You don’t even know what side the protesters are on.”

There you have it. Donald Trump doesn't like free speech when it goes against him.

"Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or sanction."

When a grown woman stands up during a senate hearing and begins to screech hysterically, she is not exercising her right to free speech. That's a deliberate disturbance designed to hinder the progress of the hearing.

Context matters; Trump's lack of grammar and lack of specifying where protesters should be allowed to protest is what has landed him in trouble here. Letting the morons protest outside is within their rights, sure. But letting them inside the chamber itself? Now that's just ridiculous.

[Toffee]

If he meant that then it’s his responsibility to clarify. His statements should be taken at face value rather than you trying to defend him by claiming he actually just wrote it wrong. It’s a really shitty, flimsy and frankly embarrassing defence of what he said.

It’s not the first time he’s been against free speech. When American footballers knelt during the anthem (thereby exercising their constitutional right to free speech) he suggested that they should lose their jobs. If that had happened their rights would have been infringed upon. If it happened once then you might be able to put it down to grammar but this is clearly a consistent pattern within his statements.

[Edwin]

If he meant that then it’s his responsibility to clarify. His statements should be taken at face value rather than you trying to defend him by claiming he actually just wrote it wrong. It’s a really shitty, flimsy and frankly embarrassing defence of what he said.

I would not need to defend him if you had not taken that quote out of the context it was made in. It's obvious when the media does it and plain insulting when you do it. Trump would have to be mentally challenged or after career suicide to state "protesting should not be allowed generally".

It’s not the first time he’s been against free speech. When American footballers knelt during the anthem (thereby exercising their constitutional right to free speech) he suggested that they should lose their jobs. If that had happened their rights would have been infringed upon. If it happened once then you might be able to put it down to grammar but this is clearly a consistent pattern within his statements.

I give you the textbook definition of "free speech" and then you go and say this. The entire "kneeling during the anthem" performance was a juvenile flaunt of privilege than it was a protest. They did not articulate an opinion or opposition, and they achieved nothing.

Indeed, after seeing Colin Kaepernick and a few other black footballers kneel, the gangsters of Detroit and Chicago laid down their weapons, and all the corrupt white Sheriffs in the south resigned. Fuck off.

[Toffee]

Trump would have to be after career suicide? Or maybe he’s just fucking stupid. He should know that his statements are going to be taken how he says them. People shouldn’t have to infer and wade through his bullshit.

If you read into the explanations given by those who knelt then you would know that’s it’s a protest against racism. A juvenile flaunt of privilege? They used their position to try and do some good and raise awareness for a topic that they think is a real issue.

Maybe you should be the one to read the definition of free speech, as expressive conduct is viewed as a form of it and is therefore protected by the first amendment. http://law.jrank.org/pages/7019/Freedom-Speech-Expressive-Conduct.html

It’s irrelevant if the protest achieved anything or not, it’s still protected by the first amendment, meaning Trump has advocated for taking away the rights of these players. I wouldn’t expect you to understand all of this though since we’ve already established that you don’t like social sciences.

[Edwin]

Trump would have to be after career suicide? Or maybe he’s just fucking stupid. He should know that his statements are going to be taken how he says them. People shouldn’t have to infer and wade through his bullshit.

For the third and final time, context matters. That removes the need to infer and wade, no?

If you read into the explanations given by those who knelt then you would know that’s it’s a protest against racism. A juvenile flaunt of privilege? They used their position to try and do some good and raise awareness for a topic that they think is a real issue.

I don't care for the rhetoric made behind the scenes, I'm speaking of the act itself. What did the protest achieve other than get the footballers themselves on the front of CNN?
It's sadly not within their contract to make political statements, that is not what they are paid millions for. I'm glad the NFL gave them the boot, pun intended.

Maybe you should be the one to read the definition of free speech, as expressive conduct is viewed as a form of it and is therefore protected by the first amendment. http://law.jrank.org/pages/7019/Freedom-Speech-Expressive-Conduct.html

It’s irrelevant if the protest achieved anything or not, it’s still protected by the first amendment, meaning Trump has advocated for taking away the rights of these players. I wouldn’t expect you to understand all of this though since we’ve already established that you don’t like social sciences.

Not true, since the NFL reserves the right to fire whomever they wish as a private company via powers lent to NFL by their contracts. Free speech protections are typically limited to government, public employees and unionized employees (given the right negotiated terms).

Didn't you argue this when Google engineer James Damore released his memo and was subsequently fired? How interesting.

I wouldn’t expect you to understand all of this though since we’ve already established that you don’t like social sciences.

Liking =/= understanding.
Oh Toffee, your articulation has improved over the past year but the underlining arguments behind your posts are still the same fundamentally flawed shite they've always been. Thanks for the spacing between each flawed statement by the way, that made my life easier a bit.

[Toffee]

Context matters, which is why the president needs to clarify. He made a generalised statement without specification and he’s being punished for it. It’s not everyone else’s fault that his goons like you follow and pick up all the shit he leaves lying about.

The act got them on the front of CNN which got people talking about the issue - which is exactly what they wanted. The fact that you can’t see that is funny. The entire point of a protest is to shed light and gain publicity for an issue. Their protests have become an international talking point which is exactly what they intended.

The NFL does reserve the right to fire and might technically be within their rights to ban or fine players, but for the president of the USA to try and interfere by advocating for their firing when he is supposed to be a guardian of people’s rights to express themselves, sets a dangerous precedent of a member of government overstepping the mark. Trump does actually come close to breaking the law, as its illegal for a government official to attempt to influence a private entity’s employment decisions. The only thing that stops this code from applying is the partisan political motive, considering criticism received from within his own party for his comments. I’ll include he link to the code for reference.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/227

And please don’t try and patronise me. You spend your time thinking you’re better than everyone else but fail to understand a lot of basic concepts. For example, saying that social science has no use to society when it underpins the very rights you enjoy today.

[Edwin]

The act got them on the front of CNN which got people talking about the issue - which is exactly what they wanted. The fact that you can’t see that is funny. The entire point of a protest is to shed light and gain publicity for an issue. Their protests have become an international talking point which is exactly what they intended.

The NFL does reserve the right to fire and might technically be within their rights to ban or fine players, but for the president of the USA to try and interfere by advocating for their firing when he is supposed to be a guardian of people’s rights to express themselves, sets a dangerous precedent of a member of government overstepping the mark. Trump does actually come close to breaking the law, as its illegal for a government official to attempt to influence a private entity’s employment decisions. The only thing that stops this code from applying is the partisan political motive, considering criticism received from within his own party for his comments. I’ll include he link to the code for reference.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/227

You just repeat the same argument over and over again with added hyperbole. 5000 posts, no fucking wonder.

For example, saying that social science has no use to society when it underpins the very rights you enjoy today.

I did not say that Toffee, I alluded to people studying for degrees that have no use to society.

[Sarado]

I don't care for the rhetoric made behind the scenes, I'm speaking of the act itself. What did the protest achieve other than get the footballers themselves on the front of CNN?
It's sadly not within their contract to make political statements, that is not what they are paid millions for. I'm glad the NFL gave them the boot, pun intended.

But...that's the whole point of a protest? Raise awareness for the issue. When I organise a protest and the only person who hears about it is my neighbour, I'm doing something wrong.
If you only consider a protest a protest when it actually triggers a change, then that's not a very good definition. We would have hardly any events that we could call 'protest' by that definition

I mean, it's in the very name. 'Protest' the issue, not 'Fix' the issue. If they were in a position to fix it on their own, they wouldn't have to protest in the first place, would they.

You put it like it was never clear what the issue was about, that the only thing that was reported was 'Breaking news: Footballers kneel'.
I'd argue they were pretty clear about what the issue was.

[Duuring]

Trump is a shit president and history will record him as such.

[Riddlez]

His political proponents may be all in a merry fucking mood by what he does but Trump doesn't even understand the principles of how diploacy and politics work... even arguiing he is anti-system wouldn't work anymore because he isn't doing anything to change the system... and if he would... you cannot change a system by yelling at it how horrible it is...


Also his security decisions like what he is doing with Pakistan and completely ignoring the national security strategy and not even thinking ABOUT vital interests of the United States from a security perspective are hilariously incompetant...

[Toffee]

The act got them on the front of CNN which got people talking about the issue - which is exactly what they wanted. The fact that you can’t see that is funny. The entire point of a protest is to shed light and gain publicity for an issue. Their protests have become an international talking point which is exactly what they intended.

The NFL does reserve the right to fire and might technically be within their rights to ban or fine players, but for the president of the USA to try and interfere by advocating for their firing when he is supposed to be a guardian of people’s rights to express themselves, sets a dangerous precedent of a member of government overstepping the mark. Trump does actually come close to breaking the law, as its illegal for a government official to attempt to influence a private entity’s employment decisions. The only thing that stops this code from applying is the partisan political motive, considering criticism received from within his own party for his comments. I’ll include he link to the code for reference.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/227

You just repeat the same argument over and over again with added hyperbole. 5000 posts, no fucking wonder.

For example, saying that social science has no use to society when it underpins the very rights you enjoy today.

I did not say that Toffee, I alluded to people studying for degrees that have no use to society.

Because my argument is right and you’re not doing anything to disprove it. I just gave you enough reason to prove that Trump shouldn’t be tweeting about this stuff but you can’t accept the fact that you’re wrong as usual.

I literally provided you with a code of the US law that Trump came within a technicality of breaking. Then when you know you can’t defend your ridiculous stance anymore, you start talking about random stuff like my post count. There is no hyperbole, only the truth and facts. But we all know the real reason that you don’t like the kneeling. Because somebody is willing to stand up against the kind of discriminatory America that you would love to live in.