Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 45

TV’s Frink said:

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.

I think it does matter.

Show me one practical way that it does.

Jetrell Fo said:

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

sorry, no.

A joke is a display of humour in which words are used within a specific and well-defined narrative structure to make people laugh. It takes the form of a story, usually with dialogue, and ends in a punch line. It is in the punch line that the audience becomes aware that the story contains a second, conflicting meaning. This can be done using a pun or other word play such as irony, a logical incompatibility, nonsense or other means. Linguist Robert Hetzron offers the definition:

A joke is a short humorous piece of oral literature in which the funniness culminates in the final sentence, called the punchline… In fact, the main condition is that the tension should reach its highest level at the very end. No continuation relieving the tension should be added. As for its being “oral,” it is true that jokes may appear printed, but when further transferred, there is no obligation to reproduce the text verbatim, as in the case of poetry.[1]

TV’s Frink said:

Show me one practical way that it does.

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.

it matters in that it brings to question: is the above fact or alternative fact?

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Show me one practical way that it does.

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.

it matters in that it brings to question: is the above fact or alternative fact?

IMO, you’re grasping thin air warbler, sorry.

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Show me one practical way that it does.

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.

it matters in that it brings to question: is the above fact or alternative fact?

He is legally elected.

Whether he was democratically-elected by your definition thereof is completely meaningless.

Is this how dictators get their start?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/01/23/trump-names-his-inauguration-day-a-national-day-of-patriotic-devotion/?utm_term=.5679bf5d4deb

On Monday, the paperwork was filed with the federal government declaring officially that Jan. 20, 2017 — the day of Trump’s inauguration — would officially be known as the “National Day of Patriotic Devotion.”

“Now, therefore, I, Donald J. Trump, president of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim Jan. 20, 2017, as National Day of Patriotic Devotion, in order to strengthen our bonds to each other and to our country — and to renew the duties of government to the people,” the order says.

I mean, obviously I’m exaggerating, but this is pretty stupid and meaningless.

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Show me one practical way that it does.

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.

it matters in that it brings to question: is the above fact or alternative fact?

He is legally elected.

Whether he was democratically-elected by your definition thereof is completely meaningless.

We will have to agree to disagree.

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Show me one practical way that it does.

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.

it matters in that it brings to question: is the above fact or alternative fact?

He is legally elected.

Whether he was democratically-elected by your definition thereof is completely meaningless.

We will have to agree to disagree.

I’m still waiting for you to show that it has some meaning that matters to anyone but you, but okay.

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Show me one practical way that it does.

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.

it matters in that it brings to question: is the above fact or alternative fact?

He is legally elected.

Whether he was democratically-elected by your definition thereof is completely meaningless.

We will have to agree to disagree.

You do know they don’t just change a policy or definition of just because one person doesn’t define it the same, right?

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/315768-gop-lawmaker-breaks-with-trump-on-government-hiring-freeze

I have no doubt Trump will ask Pence if the President has authority to jail her for something like this.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/01/23/sean-spicer-donald-trump-white-house/96953692/

After a weekend blowup about inaugural crowd sizes, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said Monday that reporters are too negative toward President Trump — part of an initial media briefing that displayed a new approach to choosing questioners and the Trump administration’s desire to get credit for its early work in office.

“It’s not about one Tweet, it’s not about one picture — it’s about a constant theme … the default narrative is always negative, and it’s demoralizing,” Spicer said during his first formal briefing as presidential spokesman.

Now I feel really bad for Trump.

Jetrell Fo said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Show me one practical way that it does.

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.

it matters in that it brings to question: is the above fact or alternative fact?

He is legally elected.

Whether he was democratically-elected by your definition thereof is completely meaningless.

We will have to agree to disagree.

You do know they don’t just change a policy or definition of just because one person doesn’t define it the same, right?

yes.

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Show me one practical way that it does.

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.

it matters in that it brings to question: is the above fact or alternative fact?

He is legally elected.

Whether he was democratically-elected by your definition thereof is completely meaningless.

We will have to agree to disagree.

I’m still waiting for you to show that it has some meaning that matters to anyone but you, but okay.

Could of sworn I did that, but okay.

SilverWook said:

Warbler said:

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.

The line has been a little fuzzy at times. With the rare exception of Glenn Beck, (who was soundly criticized for remarks made on his radio show) everybody avoided touching the Obama daughters. Bush II’s twin daughters were in their late teens as stories of their partying antics, (and giving their secret service detail migraines) began circulating. Robot Chicken regularly made fun of them.

Obama’s children were much younger than Bush II’s.

It’s hard to tell who you are addressing.

CatBus said:

The past few days have been, to me, the definition of how Democrats always, always, always fall for it.

For the past decade or so, Republicans have made a habit of getting the name of the Democratic Party wrong,

???

CatBus said:

The past few days have been, to me, the definition of how Democrats always, always, always fall for it.

For the past decade or so, Republicans have made a habit of getting the name of the Democratic Party wrong, just for yuks. Democrats then spend half their available airtime/screentime/op-ed space explaining what the name of their party is, and their available space for talking about actual policy issues is diminished. Trump spends a surprising proportion of the primary talking about the size of his penis. Democrats then go into a tizzy about who was talking about what idiotic things in the Republican Party debates, instead of, you know, meaningful issues. Now we’re talking about crowd sizes instead of the DOJ switching sides on the Voting Rights Act, or any other major issue of the day.

Yeah, I get it. Getting the name of a major political party wrong makes you look like an idiot. Talking about your penis size makes you look like an idiot. Having a loud and public on-camera argument with reality makes you look like an idiot.

But you know what else makes you look like an idiot? When you’ve got actual important things to talk about and you let your opposition sideline your entire message with this nonsense. Ultimately, it does not matter what the names of our political parties are, or how big our respective body parts are, or if we’re really bad at counting people. But if we can spend four years talking about stuff that doesn’t matter when so much critical stuff is happening all around us, we are really, really done for.

I don’t remember any Presedential debate that ONLY discussed the size of anyone’s “member”. What was it you were watching?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-first-days-inside-trumps-white-house-fury-tumult-and-a-reboot/2017/01/23/7ceef1b0-e191-11e6-ba11-63c4b4fb5a63_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_trumpturmoil-0902pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.6d7e242318fa

Lol, it’s been three days.

Jetrell Fo said:

CatBus said:

The past few days have been, to me, the definition of how Democrats always, always, always fall for it.

For the past decade or so, Republicans have made a habit of getting the name of the Democratic Party wrong, just for yuks. Democrats then spend half their available airtime/screentime/op-ed space explaining what the name of their party is, and their available space for talking about actual policy issues is diminished. Trump spends a surprising proportion of the primary talking about the size of his penis. Democrats then go into a tizzy about who was talking about what idiotic things in the Republican Party debates, instead of, you know, meaningful issues. Now we’re talking about crowd sizes instead of the DOJ switching sides on the Voting Rights Act, or any other major issue of the day.

Yeah, I get it. Getting the name of a major political party wrong makes you look like an idiot. Talking about your penis size makes you look like an idiot. Having a loud and public on-camera argument with reality makes you look like an idiot.

But you know what else makes you look like an idiot? When you’ve got actual important things to talk about and you let your opposition sideline your entire message with this nonsense. Ultimately, it does not matter what the names of our political parties are, or how big our respective body parts are, or if we’re really bad at counting people. But if we can spend four years talking about stuff that doesn’t matter when so much critical stuff is happening all around us, we are really, really done for.

I don’t remember any Presedential debate that ONLY discussed the size of anyone’s “member”. What was it you were watching?

I remember watching a Republican Presidential debate where that was discussed.