POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

[Kepler]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Another great way that con artists are ripping off the GOP gullibles.

tl; dr: The con men publish fake polls showing crazy conservative candidates competitive or ahead. The lemmings believe it and the betting markets move briefly, and the con men move in and buy up positions that have been discounted by the stupidity of the Echo Chamber captive audience.

These people are being milked even harder than the televangelists used to.

[Kepler]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Madame Defange and Tracey Flick were two that he used. I'll let him fill in the rest. I don't think those were terms of endearment

Defarge.

Tracy Flick is the most on-point description of Hillary Clinton that's ever been made. It's up there with Biff Tannen as Trump.

[Rover]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Such as? I feel like that's been the go-to for people who bash Bernie supporters.

Madame Defange and Tracey Flick were two that he used. I'll let him fill in the rest. I don't think those were terms of endearment

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Such as? I feel like that's been the go-to for people who bash Bernie supporters.

Nah, I prefer the lazy pothead jokes.

[Kepler]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Oh lovely, President McMaster is perpetuating war...

And you were so close.

Ready to admit you f-cked up? Have you sussed it out yet, or do you need a few more lessons?

[Kepler]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Pretty much a guarantee that in a few weeks we'll read a leak of Trump ordering the IRS to review these charities' tax status.

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Oh lovely, President McMaster is perpetuating war...

Afghanistan is Trump's war now. When does he become responsible?

[Kepler]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Such as? I feel like that's been the go-to for people who bash Bernie supporters.

Remember, everyone who raised an objection to Hillary was a SEXIST!!! Even the women, heck, especially the women. Dear Leader can never fail, She can only be failed.

And I'm sure that knee jerk college sophomore identity shtick didn't turn off moderate people one bit...

[trixR4kids]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Maybe it makes you feel better for making all those sexist comments last year.

Such as? I feel like that's been the go-to for people who bash Bernie supporters.

[alfablue]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

I'm not talking strictly about racial stuff. What if anti-trump was considered hate speech or things like that? My point is we should keep a close eye on it and make sure it doesn't creep into other areas.

Why do you consider the line for hate to be just about race? There is more to an individual than just their race.

MY point is that what you consider non race based politically correct speech can STILL be hate speech to someone else.

And that you don't get to be the moderator.

[Drew S.]

No, I'm not. It was not long ago that many of the racial slurs that we spoke of African Americans were just part of 'normal speech'. What we consider "universal" now wasn't always- it's evolving as more and more people are included fully into society. Heck, the words that the morons spoke with the tiki torches were pretty common back in the 30's, and widely accepted.

Again, what you consider normal may be very hateful to someone else.

One key think that you want to dismiss is that WORDS MATTER. dump is a great example of that- since he's such a great hypocrite for words- he slings them but can't take them. Words mean that you don't want to accept someone as an equal, and that's bad.

(and yes, I am aware that I'm a hypocrite, calling the neo nazis morons and the president dump. But the goal IS to be non-respectful. If the goal is to be respectful, is it so hard to just be nice?)

I'm not talking strictly about racial stuff. What if anti-trump was considered hate speech or things like that? My point is we should keep a close eye on it and make sure it doesn't creep into other areas.

[Kepler]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

The first time I heard anybody use the term "political correctness" it was to complain they couldn't drop the "N" word anymore, even when and I quote "they weren't around."

[alfablue]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

It seems to me you're discounting the possibility that 'normal speech' could be labeled 'hate speech' in order to suppress it. I think we're better off allowing more than less, except in cases like this one where there is basically universal agreement that it is hate speech.

No, I'm not. It was not long ago that many of the racial slurs that we spoke of African Americans were just part of 'normal speech'. What we consider "universal" now wasn't always- it's evolving as more and more people are included fully into society. Heck, the words that the morons spoke with the tiki torches were pretty common back in the 30's, and widely accepted.

Again, what you consider normal may be very hateful to someone else.

One key think that you want to dismiss is that WORDS MATTER. dump is a great example of that- since he's such a great hypocrite for words- he slings them but can't take them. Words mean that you don't want to accept someone as an equal, and that's bad.

(and yes, I am aware that I'm a hypocrite, calling the neo nazis morons and the president dump. But the goal IS to be non-respectful. If the goal is to be respectful, is it so hard to just be nice?)

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Oh lovely, President McMaster is perpetuating war...

[Drew S.]

One person's definition hate speech is dismissed by another as being politically correct. It was not long ago that many of the bile things that these morons said was just politically correct speech.

Which is a big problem.

And now we have dump, who freely insults a lot of people, and complains that it's just politically correct nonsense.

In other words, I'm 100% sure that some of what I would consider hate speech, you would not. So who gets to decide?

It's funny, as words become "hate speech"- those are the same times in history that actual rights are reluctantly given to the people being "hated".

It seems to me you're discounting the possibility that 'normal speech' could be labeled 'hate speech' in order to suppress it. I think we're better off allowing more than less, except in cases like this one where there is basically universal agreement that it is hate speech.