Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 44

Tyrphanax said:

The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions has postponed the vote on Trump’s education pick Betsy DeVos, hours after receiving the completed ethics review for the Michigan billionaire.

The committee vote, originally scheduled to take place Tuesday has been rescheduled for Jan. 31 at 10 a.m., according to a statement from the HELP committee chairman Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.). The announcement arrived after the Office of Government Ethics, an agency that examines nominees’ financial disclosures and resolves potential conflicts of interest, released its long-awaited report Friday. Alexander said he wants to give each Senator on the committee time to review the documents.

Ethics Director Walter M. Shaub Jr. had said a full vetting of extremely wealthy individuals, such as DeVos, could take weeks, if not months, much to the chagrin of Senate Democrats who wanted to review it before DeVos’s confirmation hearing, which took place Tuesday evening.

Source.

Good. America needs an educated populace that can take the jobs that are replacing jobs lost to automation and progress, and DeVos is very likely not the one to deliver that America.

It would be nice to see some more of these ethics reports done on the rest of the insanely rich cabinet, most of which have ties to large corporations in conflict with their interests concerning the country.

These ethics reports you’re so happy about should be mandatory for ALL in lead government positions, not just the ones we may not like.

The electoral college was a counter-measure built in by the founders to help prevent a populist leader from taking office. The system failed.

TV’s Frink said:

Ugh, Barron Trump should not be a target.

http://www.lifezette.com/popzette/snl-writer-bullies-donald-trumps-son/

(I even used a site I dislike to show how fair I am :p)

Already posted about it.

http://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/1037522

I’m having a hard time forming a strong position on either side, probably because I actually thought the joke was funny. On one hand, Barron Trump is only like 10, and he may(?) be on the autism spectrum. On the other hand, he’s the son of the most powerful man in the world. I suppose it all comes down to whether making fun of Barron is “punching up” or “punching down”, or whether or not you subscribe to the “punching up/down” idea at all.

My big problem is with the people calling for her to be fired, it reeks of hypocrisy. All these anti-PC right-wingers immediately flip the script because it’s someone they like being joked about.

Handman said:

The electoral college was a counter-measure built in by the founders to help prevent a populist leader from taking office. The system failed.

The system did not fail. It just did not provide the outcome you would have liked. It happens every 4 years man, LOL, and every one is a crap shoot.

Jeebus said:

On the other hand, he’s the son of the most powerful man in the world.

I find this to be completely irrelevant. That’s not his fault, and unlike Trump’s other grown children who have been part of his campaign and his administration (to lesser extents), Barron is 10-years-old and has no involvement in Politics whatsoever. There’s zero reason to talk about him in any way on Twitter.

Jeebus said:

TV’s Frink said:

Ugh, Barron Trump should not be a target.

http://www.lifezette.com/popzette/snl-writer-bullies-donald-trumps-son/

(I even used a site I dislike to show how fair I am :p)

Already posted about it.

http://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/1037522

I’m having a hard time forming a strong position on either side, probably because I actually thought the joke was funny. On one hand, Barron Trump is only like 10, and he may(?) be on the autism spectrum. On the other hand, he’s the son of the most powerful man in the world. I suppose it all comes down to whether making fun of Barron is “punching up” or “punching down”, or whether or not you subscribe to the “punching up/down” idea at all.

My big problem is with the people calling for her to be fired, it reeks of hypocrisy. All these anti-PC right-wingers immediately flip the script because it’s someone they like being joked about.

Maybe Barron should be asked how it made him feel. She should be canned especially if someone’s life can be uprooted and ruined for something they might have said 30 years prior(Paula Dean). This woman is fair game too. He’s 10yrs old regardless of whose child he is. If someone said that about my daughter I’d be going to jail in the short amount of time it would take me to knock someone’s teeth out.

People should not be fired from their jobs for one error of judgement unrelated to the performance of that job, or for not adhering to whatever the popular opinion/values/political party of the time happens to be. It reeks of fascism any way you put it.

What she said is wrong, but no cause for loss of employment.

Handman said:

People should not be fired from their jobs for one error of judgement unrelated to the performance of that job, or for not adhering to whatever the popular opinion/values of the time happens to be. It reeks of fascism any way you put it.

I think a suspension, which I believe is what they’ve done, is appropriate. She should be punished but not with termination.

If you work for SNL, that makes you a public figure, and you are responsible for what you put out in the public with your name on it.

TV’s Frink said:

Jeebus said:

On the other hand, he’s the son of the most powerful man in the world.

I find this to be completely irrelevant. That’s not his fault, and unlike Trump’s other grown children who have been part of his campaign and his administration (to lesser extents), Barron is 10-years-old and has no involvement in Politics whatsoever. There’s zero reason to talk about him in any way on Twitter.

That’s true. As I said, I really don’t know how to feel about this. The only opinion I’m sure of is that she shouldn’t be fired.

TV’s Frink said:

Handman said:

People should not be fired from their jobs for one error of judgement unrelated to the performance of that job, or for not adhering to whatever the popular opinion/values of the time happens to be. It reeks of fascism any way you put it.

I think a suspension, which I believe is what they’ve done, is appropriate. She should be punished but not with termination.

If you work for SNL, that makes you a public figure, and you are responsible for what you put out in the public with your name on it.

That sounds reasonable enough to me.

FWIW, I tweet as TV’s Frink specifically so I don’t get fired from SNL.

I don’t understand why people want to fire her. Fire her for what? Making a joke? That’s her job. This joke was in poor taste, but we can’t fire every comedian that makes a joke that lands flat or hits a soft spot.

EDIT: I’m no longer responding to Frink but to the hypothetical people who do want her fired.

^^I didn’t know ShittyNuttyLaundry even had a working phone, more or less, a computer from which to twitter.

😉

Jeebus said:

I don’t understand why people want to fire her. Fire her for what? Making a joke? That’s her job. This joke was in poor taste, but we can’t fire every comedian that makes a joke that lands flat or hits a soft spot.

EDIT: I’m no longer responding to Frink but to the hypothetical people who do want her fired.

Welcome to the world of fair game. When people in the public eye say unethical things about a child, the company has every right to relieve her of her post. Why would they want to be associated with that kind of “humor”?

Jetrell Fo said:

Jeebus said:

I don’t understand why people want to fire her. Fire her for what? Making a joke? That’s her job. This joke was in poor taste, but we can’t fire every comedian that makes a joke that lands flat or hits a soft spot.

EDIT: I’m no longer responding to Frink but to the hypothetical people who do want her fired.

Welcome to the world of fair game. When people in the public eye say unethical things about a child, the company has every right to relieve her of her post.

Those sentences seem contradictory to me. If it’s a world of fair game, it’s fair game for company to fire someone for joking about Barron Trump because Barron isn’t fair game?

Jetrell Fo said:

Warbler said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Tyrphanax said:

Warbler said:

Tyrphanax said:

Trump seems to be signing an absolute shitload of executive orders despite having the entire government mostly in agreement with his policies.

and here I thought Republicans didn’t like rule by executive orders. I thought they wanted Congress to have a say in these things.

It’s okay when it’s their guy, but not when it’s a legally, democratically-elected President who’s being gaslit by the republican majority who openly vowed to gaslight him at every turn.

It’s a legally, democratically-elected Republican President that will have his own Congressional issues.

That is matter of opinion. Sure, he was legally elected. But is it really a democratically-elected when the majority of the voters didn’t vote for him?

As you know, it is not the Popular Vote that elects a President so I find your point a bit moot. It’s okay that you’re not happy about it but he was elected by the lawful process this nation uses to determine this.

I have already agreed he was legally elected. I also that it is not a popular vote the elects a President. But I do not think my point is moot. I guess what I asking is, since we don’t use a popular vote, can our election system be called a democratic election system. Can any President that fails to win the popular vote, be called democratically elected? Democratically elected doesn’t necessarily equal legally elected.

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Tyrphanax said:

Warbler said:

Tyrphanax said:

Trump seems to be signing an absolute shitload of executive orders despite having the entire government mostly in agreement with his policies.

and here I thought Republicans didn’t like rule by executive orders. I thought they wanted Congress to have a say in these things.

It’s okay when it’s their guy, but not when it’s a legally, democratically-elected President who’s being gaslit by the republican majority who openly vowed to gaslight him at every turn.

It’s a legally, democratically-elected Republican President that will have his own Congressional issues.

That is matter of opinion. Sure, he was legally elected. But is it really a democratically-elected when the majority of the voters didn’t vote for him?

In our democracy, yes he is.

technically, we are not a democracy. We are a democratic republic.

Then he is demoratic-republically elected. Regardless, he was legally elected, so the rest is all semantics.

I agree he was legally elected. But I am not so sure that the rest is all semantics.

Jeebus said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Jeebus said:

I don’t understand why people want to fire her. Fire her for what? Making a joke? That’s her job. This joke was in poor taste, but we can’t fire every comedian that makes a joke that lands flat or hits a soft spot.

EDIT: I’m no longer responding to Frink but to the hypothetical people who do want her fired.

Welcome to the world of fair game. When people in the public eye say unethical things about a child, the company has every right to relieve her of her post.

Those sentences seem contradictory to me. If it’s a world of fair game, it’s fair game for company to fire someone for joking about Barron Trump because Barron isn’t fair game?

If it happens to other public figures it should happen to her. And I certainly did not consider what she said a joke. She did not chose wisely.

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Tyrphanax said:

Warbler said:

Tyrphanax said:

Trump seems to be signing an absolute shitload of executive orders despite having the entire government mostly in agreement with his policies.

and here I thought Republicans didn’t like rule by executive orders. I thought they wanted Congress to have a say in these things.

It’s okay when it’s their guy, but not when it’s a legally, democratically-elected President who’s being gaslit by the republican majority who openly vowed to gaslight him at every turn.

It’s a legally, democratically-elected Republican President that will have his own Congressional issues.

That is matter of opinion. Sure, he was legally elected. But is it really a democratically-elected when the majority of the voters didn’t vote for him?

In our democracy, yes he is.

technically, we are not a democracy. We are a democratic republic.

Then he is demoratic-republically elected. Regardless, he was legally elected, so the rest is all semantics.

I agree he was legally elected. But I am not so sure that the rest is all semantics.

Will this help make you sure?

Definition of semantics

the study of meanings:a : the historical and psychological study and the classification of changes in the signification of words or forms viewed as factors in linguistic developmentb (1) : semiotics (2) : a branch of semiotics dealing with the relations between signs and what they refer to and including theories of denotation, extension, naming, and truth

the meaning or relationship of meanings of a sign or set of signs; especially : connotative meaningb : the language used (as in advertising or political propaganda ) to achieve a desired effect on an audience especially through the use of words with novel or dual meanings

Jetrell Fo said:

Jeebus said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Jeebus said:

I don’t understand why people want to fire her. Fire her for what? Making a joke? That’s her job. This joke was in poor taste, but we can’t fire every comedian that makes a joke that lands flat or hits a soft spot.

EDIT: I’m no longer responding to Frink but to the hypothetical people who do want her fired.

Welcome to the world of fair game. When people in the public eye say unethical things about a child, the company has every right to relieve her of her post.

Those sentences seem contradictory to me. If it’s a world of fair game, it’s fair game for company to fire someone for joking about Barron Trump because Barron isn’t fair game?

If it happens to other public figures it should happen to her.

It shouldn’t happen to other public figures. There shouldn’t ever be big witch hunts against people because we don’t like what they’ve said.

And I certainly did not consider what she said a joke.

It was.

Warbler said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Warbler said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Tyrphanax said:

Warbler said:

Tyrphanax said:

Trump seems to be signing an absolute shitload of executive orders despite having the entire government mostly in agreement with his policies.

and here I thought Republicans didn’t like rule by executive orders. I thought they wanted Congress to have a say in these things.

It’s okay when it’s their guy, but not when it’s a legally, democratically-elected President who’s being gaslit by the republican majority who openly vowed to gaslight him at every turn.

It’s a legally, democratically-elected Republican President that will have his own Congressional issues.

That is matter of opinion. Sure, he was legally elected. But is it really a democratically-elected when the majority of the voters didn’t vote for him?

As you know, it is not the Popular Vote that elects a President so I find your point a bit moot. It’s okay that you’re not happy about it but he was elected by the lawful process this nation uses to determine this.

I have already agreed he was legally elected. I also that it is not a popular vote the elects a President. But I do not think my point is moot. I guess what I asking is, since we don’t use a popular vote, can our election system be called a democratic election system. Can any President that fails to win the popular vote, be called democratically elected? Democratically elected doesn’t necessarily equal legally elected.

It doesn’t matter.

Jeebus said:

Jetrell Fo said:

And I certainly did not consider what she said a joke.

It was.

Agreed. Jokes that aren’t funny and jokes that are in poor taste are still jokes regardless of how much we might not like them.

Jeebus said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Jeebus said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Jeebus said:

I don’t understand why people want to fire her. Fire her for what? Making a joke? That’s her job. This joke was in poor taste, but we can’t fire every comedian that makes a joke that lands flat or hits a soft spot.

EDIT: I’m no longer responding to Frink but to the hypothetical people who do want her fired.

Welcome to the world of fair game. When people in the public eye say unethical things about a child, the company has every right to relieve her of her post.

Those sentences seem contradictory to me. If it’s a world of fair game, it’s fair game for company to fire someone for joking about Barron Trump because Barron isn’t fair game?

If it happens to other public figures it should happen to her.

It shouldn’t happen to other public figures. There shouldn’t ever be big witch hunts against people because we don’t like what they’ve said.

And I certainly did not consider what she said a joke.

It was.

I get that. If it was meant as a joke, she should have chosen a far less harmful topic and form of delivery.

I think that children(under 18) of politicians should be off limits or at least handled lightly. It should be remembered that children(especially those younger than 17) have no say in whether or not their parents run for office.