President Donald Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at
The previous commander of the Greenland military base (a woman) was swiftly removed from that role after she criticized the administration stance on the topic of Greenland during Vance visit
What happened to the chain of command? Subordinates now want to call the shots?
It was rhetorical. You and I both know the answer is no. Therefore, the distinction you are trying to make is irrelevant. Women were singled out for being the ones to get mad when they weren't the only ones that would get mad. Unless you can tell us what the purpose of the distinction is, there aren't many conclusions we can draw from here.So the essence of my question is: why
It's pretty much the same as saying that if truck prices double, dudes are going to be pissed off, and more so than women. Conversely its probably similar to some extent with new phones and women. It isn't a big deal
Trump and GOP: Judge shopping to thwart our plans must become illegal
Also Trump: finds a judge in Louisiana to green light Khalil’s deportation
We did it, Victor!
Almost all the women I know have iPhones, and almost all the men I know have not iPhones.
Just chillax, cats and dolls.
Trump and GOP: Judge shopping to thwart our plans must become illegal
Also Trump: finds a judge in Louisiana to green light Khalil's deportation
We did it, Victor!
the right considers winning the most important moral outcome, there is no incoherence.
whatever the rules are doing absolutely anything to try to win is always moral for the right.
the left pretends otherwise because they live in a world of lies and hypocrisy starting with their own inner selves. they would like the exhilarating freedom of morals that are indistinguishable from self interest but their whole projected world view is opposite to that.
so they must dance and maintain a purported decorum and so on.
the right identifies forum shopping ad detrimental for society. but until it's fixed they will abuse it to the last drop possible and there is absolutely nothing wrong morally for them in doing so
yep different morals.
if a party is ok with overt homosexuality and the other is not, would you call it hypocrisy if the pro homosexuality politician is... homosexual? I don't think so.
while you would be enraged if the anti homosexual rights politicians was discovered to be homosexual right?
I guess the phone is ringing off the hook at the White House as up to 75 countries are lining up to negotiate trade deals with the US.
As a Canadian, I can tell you that we are sure happy that we have an existing agreement with the US, and it was signed by Trump during his first term.
He called it a great deal for the US.
As a reward for already having an agreement, only China has more tariffs against them than Canada does.:(
yep different morals.
if a party is ok with overt homosexuality and the other is not, would you call it hypocrisy if the pro homosexuality politician is... homosexual? I don't think so.
while you would be enraged if the anti homosexual rights politicians was discovered to be homosexual right?
Wait, are you saying the politician who is anti-homosexual rights being homosexual would not be hypocritical in this scenario? Because that's an exact analogy with the right "identify[ing] forum shopping as detrimental for society" but actively engaging in forum shopping.
It's blatant hypocrisy. You can make the argument that they don't care about being hypocritical if it helps them achieve their goals but you can't make any sane argument that it's not hypocritical.
the right considers winning the most important moral outcome, there is no incoherence.whatever the rules are doing absolutely anything to try to win is always moral for the right.the left pretends otherwise because they live in a world of lies and hypocrisy starting with their own inner selves. they would like the exhilarating freedom of morals that are indistinguishable from s
Brain dead.
Lay off the fentanyl ….
Wait, are you saying the politician who is anti-homosexual rights being homosexual would not be hypocritical in this scenario? Because that's an exact analogy with the right "identify[ing] forum shopping as detrimental for society" but actively engaging in forum shopping.It's blatant hypocrisy. You can make the argument that they don't care about being hypocritical if it helps
i am saying the anti-homosexual would be an hypocrite the other wouldn't.
the right is open about he idea that naked use of power to accomplish the will of the people they represent is always moral and the ultimate goal of politics (these days).
there is no messing around with the idea of "preserving" gentlemen agreements, or "the spirit of the law" or any other such thing: winning is what is moral on the right. everything that makes the vision of the right possible is moral and viceversa, at any cost, in an existential fight against the enemy of the america: the political opposition.
that's the transparent ideology. so they can always do that without hypocrisy.
the left can't. the left here is the anti-homosexual discovered having same sex friends with benefits: ofc the left as everyone all the time always does as in all human history everything it can to try to win, but they have to hide a lot of it because they talk differently.
they pretend to "defend democracy and institutions". they pretend to be "respectable". they pretend their DOJ is independent (lololol) when the president is a democrat. they pretend their judicial picks aren't partisan (lololol).
and so on and on.
so the right can forum shop as long as it is viable with no incoherence.
the left supposedly shouldn't, every time it does it's a blatant dishonest hypocritical move, because they say forum shopping is bad (but block reforms to it).
As I said, you can argue that they don't care about being hypocritical but it is absolutely, inarguably, hypocritical to claim something is detrimental to society but then do it anyway. It is the literal definition of hypocrisy.
The moral difference you're arguing is that the right can be hypocritical to achieve their goals and it align with their moral values - essentially the ends justify the means - not that they aren't hypocritical.
Aside from the fact that we were talking laptops and not iphones, what's gender coded is the unwillingness to tinker with your devices changing options from the default ones.
Apple devices require less customization to work properly.
I don't think that claim is controversial.
Mac OS is based on Unix and is much more flexible than windows and most programmers outside of gaming use macintosh.
the right considers winning the most important moral outcome, there is no incoherence.whatever the rules are doing absolutely anything to try to win is always moral for the right.the left pretends otherwise because they live in a world of lies and hypocrisy starting with their own inner selves. they would like the exhilarating freedom of morals that are indistinguishable from s
The two things are so close that you can be forgiven for not being able to tell the difference, but you're talking about sociopathy.
As I said, you can argue that they don't care about being hypocritical but it is absolutely, inarguably, hypocritical to claim something is detrimental to society but then do it anyway. It is the literal definition of hypocrisy.The moral difference you're arguing is that the right can be hypocritical to achieve their goals and it align with their moral values - essentially the
Then we're all hypocrites or an exceptional saint. For example pretty much everyone who believes in climate change uses energy/products that they think are detrimental to society. Even for saints I think you are wrong as I dont believe any meaningful set of ethics avoids dilemmas.
I dont agree it's hypocritical (I argue for 80:20 ethics) but
Of course we are all hypocrites to some degree. At the risk of sounding like our resident lil mussolini, we have a moral obligation to act in our own self interest to some degree. Otherwise we leave a vacuum that will be occupied by others who may be worse actors (from our perspective).
This doesn't mean that we can't also hold social and political beliefs that contradict our actions. I take advantage of every legal tax exploit available to me while voting to tighen these same loopholes.
Just because you have to live and act in the reality you live in, doesn't mean you can't advocate for progress. Most of the right is just extremely limited on their ability to understand multiple perspectives. The rest are sociopaths.
It's too simplistic an analysis.
Or it makes hypocrisy OK which I'm fine with. What matters is the argument, not the arguer
I think a much better view of hypocrisy is believing it's ok for us to do it but not ok for others to do it.
i am saying the anti-homosexual would be an hypocrite the other wouldn't.the right is open about he idea that naked use of power to accomplish the will of the people they represent is always moral and the ultimate goal of politics (these days).
The left isn’t hypocritical because it’s not acting like the right with power .
It’s because they actually believe in democracy , which it’s based on compromise to try to accommodate everyone the best they can .
What you describe has “moral right” (which I bolded) doing evrything they can to win and once they have power to aim at destroying or subjugating any form of dissent is what fascism is .
Especially when the party winning an election was so close in parity like the last election in the US.
Even you admitting the spirit of the law means nothing and shouldn’t is actually frightening .
Democracy isn’t about domination even tho this is what you believe .
It’s about finding amicable understanding and accept different views of life while living in a common social contract .
After all , people living in a country shouldn’t be enemies .
Hard to fathom ain’t it ?
It's too simplistic an analysis.
Or it makes hypocrisy OK which I'm fine with. What matters is the argument, not the arguer
I think a much better view of hypocrisy is believing it's ok for us to do it but not ok for others to do it.
Exactly.
Which the right and maga excelled at …
I have absolutely no idea what you are even referring to. Are you insinuating that I have ever said "what can candidates do to obtain votes from black and brown voters?" If not, what on earth are you saying?This is all moot, anyway, as the context made it clear that diebitter was not being sexist, which I've already pointed out and said "my bad" to (resulted from me not seeing
I was speaking broadly about posters who are quick to call out sexism, etc., over fairly innocuous comments, yet see no racism in separating races and discussing in detail which candidates are good or bad for x or y race of people, as if their identity is in a group and not as individuals.
Best take on tariffs came from the NYT's David Brooks:
What is a tariff? It's an amassing of political power over the economy. And what do people do who are in the economy and want to keep their business alive? They have to find a way to bribe the political leaders who run the tariffs. And so the countries are going to come in, hiring the local lobbyist here, to lobby the Trump administration - what do we have to give, who do we have to give it to? Companies are going to be asking for waivers - what do we have to give, how much do you want Mr Trump? And so the fact the Trump is at the center of these negotiations puts him at the center of a web of corruption.
Source (starts at 1:50):
People commonly refer to Republicans as "conservatives", why?
The only thing being conserved is antiquated technology and geezer feelings. There won't be anything left to conserve in 100 years. RIP USA.
I'm going to buy orange makeup and join the cult.
Um, It Turns Out No One at the Ports Is Collecting Trump’s Tariffs
the right considers winning the most important moral outcome, there is no incoherence.whatever the rules are doing absolutely anything to try to win is always moral for the right.the left pretends otherwise because they live in a world of lies and hypocrisy starting with their own inner selves. they would like the exhilarating freedom of morals that are indistinguishable from s
Nah, the problem with always trying to win is drawing the limits. I mean, if we are in the middle of a dispute in a game and I realize I will probably lose to you, I just cheat. Or depending on the seriousness of the stuff, I grab my gun and kill you and win. Etc etc.
