Individual-1 (Donald Trump)

This forum is for discussion about anything else.
Slaxx
Jack of All Trades
 
User avatar
Joined: January 01, 2010
Location: Indy
Pronoun: He

Post Post #19625  (ISO)  » Fri Feb 08, 2019 8:47 pm

The whole point of protest is for it not to be a good time to protest.

Slaxx
Jack of All Trades
 
User avatar
Joined: January 01, 2010
Location: Indy
Pronoun: He

Post Post #19626  (ISO)  » Fri Feb 08, 2019 8:48 pm

“Excuse me sir or mam I’ve got some grievances about how minorities in this country continue to be treated and I would like to schedule a time when you are free and couldn’t possibly be doing anything else in a location that won’t even remotely be out of your way, would you like to hear the ploy of my people?”

Flubbernugget
Survivor
 
User avatar
Joined: June 26, 2014
Pronoun: He

Post Post #19627  (ISO)  » Fri Feb 08, 2019 8:48 pm

In post 19621, YellowSnow wrote:
In post 19620, Flubbernugget wrote:What happens when a white person and a black person share opinions?


We live in a brave new world.

This is fucking garbage.

Slaxx
Jack of All Trades
 
User avatar
Joined: January 01, 2010
Location: Indy
Pronoun: He

Post Post #19628  (ISO)  » Fri Feb 08, 2019 8:49 pm

In post 19628, Flubbernugget wrote:
In post 19621, YellowSnow wrote:
In post 19620, Flubbernugget wrote:What happens when a white person and a black person share opinions?


We live in a brave new world.

This is fucking garbage.


Yes, it’s concentrated bullshit. So many implications in such a backhanded way.

YellowSnow
Goon
 
User avatar
Joined: December 04, 2018
Pronoun: He

Post Post #19629  (ISO)  » Fri Feb 08, 2019 8:55 pm

I don't have an issue with non violent protest in general but if you are an employee and your actions create fiinancial reprecussions for your employer then you accept that there could be reprecussios for your job. The NFL is a business not a social justice platform. I get that lots of progress on race relations have been made through sports(Jackie Robinson, Muhammad Ali, Jesse Owens). My point is its unfair to make an example of the NFL for problems of the nation as a whole.

Maruchan
Noodles
 
User avatar
Joined: July 06, 2011
Location: Norfolk, VA

Post Post #19630  (ISO)  » Fri Feb 08, 2019 8:58 pm

It's unfair well drats. Not oike weve ever asked something of those proteating that was unfair to gove them a reason to protest snd cause unfairness towards me roght? Phew. Close one
Show

rb
Survivor
 
User avatar
Joined: June 13, 2016
Location: sp00ky
Pronoun: It

Post Post #19631  (ISO)  » Fri Feb 08, 2019 9:00 pm

In post 19630, YellowSnow wrote:I don't have an issue with non violent protest in general but if you are an employee and your actions create fiinancial reprecussions for your employer then you accept that there could be reprecussios for your job. The NFL is a business not a social justice platform. I get that lots of progress on race relations have been made through sports(Jackie Robinson, Muhammad Ali, Jesse Owens). My point is its unfair to make an example of the NFL for problems of the nation as a whole.


how are abstract entities more important than actual lives
beep beep im a jeep

Slaxx
Jack of All Trades
 
User avatar
Joined: January 01, 2010
Location: Indy
Pronoun: He

Post Post #19632  (ISO)  » Fri Feb 08, 2019 9:05 pm

Technically you’re right to my knowledge, the NFL could fire them.

But that would only be the case if enough fans boycotted or complain.

So one group of people is protesting a very real issue and risking their career, while the other doesn’t want their bubble popped by pregame antics.

And society is split on who should give.

The whole concept proves the point.

u r a person 2
Mafia Scum
 
User avatar
Joined: December 09, 2018

Post Post #19633  (ISO)  » Fri Feb 08, 2019 9:09 pm

In post 19633, Slaxx wrote:Technically you’re right to my knowledge, the NFL could fire them.

But that would only be the case if enough fans boycotted or complain.

So one group of people is protesting a very real issue and risking their career, while the other doesn’t want their bubble popped by pregame antics.

And society is split on who should give.

The whole concept proves the point.


You're correct about firing him, I think, but not hiring him is a lot murkier. That's not because of anti-discrimination laws, btw. If the owners got together and decided that nobody would hire him - something which seems likely given his skill and lack of offers - that's collusion, and collusion IS illegal.

You're whole point is correct, and the more important issue. I'm just adding a detail
8-5 0-1

Kublai Khan
Khan Man
 
User avatar
Joined: August 05, 2008
Location: Sarasota, FL

Post Post #19634  (ISO)  » Fri Feb 08, 2019 10:00 pm

In post 19614, YellowSnow wrote:NFL Owner Jerry Jones:
"At all times, if I am anything, I am first and foremost a proponent of making the NFL strong. Making us have as many people watching the game as we can and watching in light of what we are doing and that's playing football. If all this makes you stronger to represent messages, let's don't do it in a way that tears down the strength of the NFL."

Basically he's saying that the NFL shouldn't be a political battlefield, and I understand his position. The protests are effecting the NFL's bottom line, and that effects the NFL's ability to pay their players and support their families. I think the spirit behind the protests is fine but I don't think the NFL can be blamed for drawing a line in the sand when it comes to their product. I'm not in favor of calling anyone who disagrees with a protest method racist.

Think further, though. Isn't all the pageantry a type of political statement? What is the reason for even having the national anthem played? With all the players out with hands over their hearts, no less. Or flyovers with missing man formation? The platoons of soldiers being saluted and honored while a giant flag is unfurled? Military bands?

The NFL made itself a benign political entity (for the sake of protecting it's players from future war drafts, but that's a long story), and in doing so they opened themselves to protests. The NFL players protested in the most unobtrusively way possible. Just being a small blight on the image of a perfect strong America. And conservative America lost their shit in anger and proceeded to blame and punish the messenger. Are you part of that problem?

Sorry, but fuck Jerry Jones. He's so damn far awat from "wow, it's so hard to pay people to support families because of all those liberal protesters" that I can't believe he says it with a straight face.
Occasionally intellectually honest

u r a person 2
Mafia Scum
 
User avatar
Joined: December 09, 2018

Post Post #19635  (ISO)  » Fri Feb 08, 2019 10:05 pm

kublai khan, well put

also i didn't know about the draft bit but it makes a lot of sense
8-5 0-1

T-Bone
Jack of All Trades
 
User avatar
Joined: February 18, 2011
Location: Shrug City
Pronoun: He

Post Post #19636  (ISO)  » Fri Feb 08, 2019 10:08 pm

The NFL is definitely a political entity. It signed a contract with the US Military to promote it with displays of patriotism. Before that contract was signed in the late 2000s, the National Anthem was not televised, and players were not required to be on the field for it. The NFL didn't drag giants flags onto the field, didn't have military bands present as a matter of course, and didn't go out of their way to promote the military.

But when the NFL signed that contract to receive money is exchange for displays of overt patriotism...it made a political statement.

So the characterization of the NFL not being a political entity is not correct.
#TeamLizzy (or I will ban you)

"Playing in a Newbie game doesn't count" ~ PenguinPower, Feb 2019

Untrod Tripod
Fat and Sassy
 
User avatar
Joined: September 01, 2003
Location: Âu Lạc

Post Post #19637  (ISO)  » Fri Feb 08, 2019 10:13 pm

In post 19614, YellowSnow wrote:He's basically calling anyone who disagrees with the kneel protest racist and if you can call the GOP racist because of the president then you can call the NFLPA a black organization for supporting the black position on the social justice movement.

oh no he's doing that thing where he assumes a bunch of things that he never proved
Oh my gosh. Hold on to your hooves – I am just about to be brilliant!

Kublai Khan
Khan Man
 
User avatar
Joined: August 05, 2008
Location: Sarasota, FL

Post Post #19638  (ISO)  » Fri Feb 08, 2019 10:19 pm

In post 19636, u r a person 2 wrote:kublai khan, well put

also i didn't know about the draft bit but it makes a lot of sense

Thanks. There's a good Washington Post article about it awhile back: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mad ... -own-good/
Occasionally intellectually honest

McMenno
Man of Many Faces
 
User avatar
Joined: February 18, 2015
Location: In spaaaace
Pronoun: He

Post Post #19639  (ISO)  » Sat Feb 09, 2019 12:54 am

Yellowsnow has pulled off the mask already stop arguing with him
Show

Porkens
Jack of All Trades
 
User avatar
Joined: June 21, 2008

Post Post #19640  (ISO)  » Sat Feb 09, 2019 2:13 am

In post 19630, YellowSnow wrote:I don't have an issue with non violent protest in general but if you are an employee and your actions create fiinancial reprecussions for your employer then you accept that there could be reprecussios for your job. The NFL is a business not a social justice platform. I get that lots of progress on race relations have been made through sports(Jackie Robinson, Muhammad Ali, Jesse Owens). My point is its unfair to make an example of the NFL for problems of the nation as a whole.


Are you kidding? FUCK the NFL.

AniX
UCalled
 
User avatar
Joined: September 14, 2003
Location: Top of the OkCupid Food Chain

Post Post #19641  (ISO)  » Sat Feb 09, 2019 2:48 pm

In post 19614, YellowSnow wrote:He's basically calling anyone who disagrees with the kneel protest racist and if you can call the GOP racist because of the president then you can call the NFLPA a black organization for supporting the black position on the social justice movement.


Surely you cannot believe that. A racist is a categorical term. If you engage in racism and endorse a racist, you are a racist definitionally.

RACE is not a categorical term. If you support racial equality, you are nevertheless not necessarily a black organization because blackness isn't a position to be taken or not taken.

Is this website a black website? I can guarantee "segregation is bad" is the black position on a social justice movement. There is demonstrated evidence that this website will ban you if you support racial segregation, so this website is certainly taking that "black position".
Official Gimmick List:
INVENTOR OF UPICK! PLAYS BY SENSE OF SMELL! ONE TRUE ADMIN OF MAFIASCUM! LORD OF THE 11TH HOUR! RADICAL SEX-NEGATIVE ASEXUAL! KING SCAR APOLOGIST! FOE OF SKIRTS AND DRESSES!

Untrod Tripod
Fat and Sassy
 
User avatar
Joined: September 01, 2003
Location: Âu Lạc

Post Post #19642  (ISO)  » Sat Feb 09, 2019 8:35 pm

In post 19642, AniX wrote:
In post 19614, YellowSnow wrote:~a manifestly racist opinion argued in bad faith~
~any amount of engaging with a person who is obviously not arguing in good faith~

Image
Oh my gosh. Hold on to your hooves – I am just about to be brilliant!

Kublai Khan
Khan Man
 
User avatar
Joined: August 05, 2008
Location: Sarasota, FL

Post Post #19643  (ISO)  » Sun Feb 10, 2019 4:57 pm



So many issues.
1) The borders aren't open
2) Nobody is fighting for open borders
3) 42 million Latin Americans aren't trying to get through the border. The Gallup poll asked "if they could leave their country, would they?" and "would you move to the US if you could?" and Trump extrapolated the percentage to 42 million
4) So even if they were to move to the US, there is nothing to suggest they would do so illegally
5) If a percentage were to do so illegally, they would likely do it the most proven safest way: go through a border checkpoint.
6) Which a wall would not prevent
7) It's really, really, really racist to assume that all Latin Americans must be poor and therefore financially dependent on the US.
Occasionally intellectually honest

theplague42
Mafia Scum
 
User avatar
Joined: October 31, 2010
Location: Denver, CO
Pronoun: He

Post Post #19644  (ISO)  » Mon Feb 11, 2019 12:01 am

I mean, I want open borders. But no actual politicians are arguing for that.
Part of the problem.

Psyche
mr. personality
 
User avatar
Joined: April 28, 2011
Location: pacing the road to damascus
Pronoun: He

Post Post #19645  (ISO)  » Mon Feb 11, 2019 12:24 am

open borders most charitably interpreted as a policy still requires very strong border security as otherwise lots of forms of law enforcement become incredibly difficult
for example, supposing you're also in favor of gun control, that becomes a lot harder without border security at least as strong as what we have now
i know all the words to this song

Maruchan
Noodles
 
User avatar
Joined: July 06, 2011
Location: Norfolk, VA

Post Post #19646  (ISO)  » Mon Feb 11, 2019 12:58 am

I think what most people who use open borders mean is lax immigration and not physically open borders. Better immigration laws while still having secure borders = good
Show

Psyche
mr. personality
 
User avatar
Joined: April 28, 2011
Location: pacing the road to damascus
Pronoun: He

Post Post #19647  (ISO)  » Mon Feb 11, 2019 1:36 am

the interesting thing is that donald's sort of pulling a catch-22 when he talks of "open borders"
instead of always distinguishing between the security position and the immigrant count position, he appropriates the support base for both where it's convenient (ie to build public support) and for just the former when it's time to sound moderate (despite a track record of limiting legal immigration as well!)
using this tactic he gets to accuse pro-immigration opponents of being lax on law enforcement (and defend his own anti-immigration policy with this same jab); the key downside of this is that it leaves him open to criticism for equating potential immigrants with low-lifes/criminals
maybe it's not a tactic, the distinction has never occurred to him, and he's just too stupid to tell the difference
who knows
i know all the words to this song

RadiantCowbells
Smooth Criminal
 
User avatar
Joined: February 24, 2013
Pronoun: He

Post Post #19648  (ISO)  » Mon Feb 11, 2019 1:44 am

i think it's probably extremely intuitive to him how to take the optimal positions, like it probably comes without thinking from all his practice deceiving people.
If you're Macho and someone tries to rolestop you, you never realise you're being targeted for a kill, so your machismo never gets challenged

Kublai Khan
Khan Man
 
User avatar
Joined: August 05, 2008
Location: Sarasota, FL

Post Post #19649  (ISO)  » Mon Feb 11, 2019 6:54 am

Whenever Trump says "Open Borders" as the oppositional stance to "The Wall", it makes me think that Trump believes that without the wall it's literally barren open desert between the US and Mexico. There's no roads, or checkpoints, or river, or towns, or anything else... Just nothing. Openness.

And if he puts a wall there, then people would try to cross, but see a wall and turn back. Stymied.

This is Trump's understanding of the problem. This is Trump's solution. And he has contempt for anyone that doesn't see things his way.
Occasionally intellectually honest

PreviousNext
[ + ]

Return to General Discussion