BOZO

[grasping the after wind]

Thanks
And then there are voters like me who wrote in the name of someone who wasn't on the ballot and people who just didn't choose anyone for president even though they did vote for other positions. So if we are talking about the percentage or even actual numbers of people who didn't want Trump to be president, it's far more than 3,000,000.
I've tried to find the total number of ballots that were processed but I haven't been able to find yet. If we had that number....

By the logic you seem to be using, we may have not had a President who people wanted as President in the history of the country as I do not know if any President ever got 50 % of all potential votes. One cannot say with any certainty that a person that did not vote for a candidate failed to do so out of a serious objection to that particular candidate. They may just have preferred the one they voted for or they may have been completely indifferent and not voted for any candidate or not voted at all or they may have objected seriously to several or all of the candidates. All those, along with a complete distaste for one specific candidate, are probably the case for any number of individual voters. It would be fallacious to ascribe motives or reasons to the Y portion of the general voting public based on the fact that only the X portion of voters voted for the specific candidate that ended up winning the election. My personal motivation for the vote I cast in the last Presidential election was to show my displeasure for the way government was being used in prior administrations and my distress over what the status quo candidate would do as President. I did not vote for, I voted against. That, however, is anecdotal and cannot be seen as universal.

 

[section9+1]

A) you assume I disrespect Trump, and
B) no it's not an artificial exception. We live in a democracy- the people are the ruling officials. That is the entire point.

A,B Both jokes. If we use the democratic process to elect our leaders, we have a responsibility to them as well. It would make a lot more sense to disrespect leaders whom we had no control over their placement. The leaders in Peter's time were pure despots who had no benevolent interest in anybody. Trump is a Sunday school teacher alongside them. The people are the ruling officials? Another joke. I don't recall making anyone follow any of my edicts on how to run things. All I did was vote to put people in place to make these decisions and they are the ones in charge. Voters can put them in or take them out, but while they are in they are the leaders of the country. Of course you people disrespect Trump. I really am not a big fan either, but the bible says what it says and it expects me to give it credibility and try to arrange my life accordingly. It's not about Trump or how worthy or unworthy he may be. It's about believing in the truth of scripture and applying it to ourselves. Excuses fly all over the place when people try to get around what it says.

 

[EpiscipalMe]

By the logic you seem to be using, we may have not had a President who people wanted as President in the history of the country as I do not know if any President ever got 50 % of all potential votes. One cannot say with any certainty that a person that did not vote for a candidate failed to do so out of a serious objection to that particular candidate. They may just have preferred the one they voted for or they may have been completely indifferent and not voted for any candidate or not voted at all or they may have objected seriously to several or all of the candidates. All those, along with a complete distaste for one specific candidate, are probably the case for any number of individual voters. It would be fallacious to ascribe motives or reasons to the Y portion of the general voting public based on the fact that only the X portion of voters voted for the specific candidate that ended up winning the election. My personal motivation for the vote I cast in the last Presidential election was to show my displeasure for the way government was being used in prior administrations and my distress over what the status quo candidate would do as President. I did not vote for, I voted against. That, however, is anecdotal and cannot be seen as universal.

I would not include those who did not vote as voter turnout is traditionally poor in this country. However, we have had a number of presidents who got more than half of all votes cast - including Obama (twice).

List of United States presidential elections by popular vote margin - Wikipedia

 

[miamited]

Hi grasping,

Thanks for your reply. You responded:

A people reap what they sow. Trump is simply a slightly cruder version of what politicians have become. Calling one's opposition and the supporters of one's opposition names in place of using a reasoned argument to attempt to convince people of the correctness of the course of action on advocates has been in vogue for a lot longer than Trump has been in politics.

I disagree. Yes, there has always been this undertow of separation concerning 'being' a Democrat or 'being' a Republican and that has gotten worse, but the crude and vulgar name calling? We've had a growing unease in pegging people as 'liberal' because they don't agree with someone else. Sure, we've had cases where some politician has, on rare occasion, gotten too personal and made some derogatory remark about another politican's words or actions, but this? Making fun of someone's name? I'd ask for some evidence that such a thing as that has happened before in our national politics.

I'd challenge you to provide evidence on the national level of politics that other politicians have made fun of President Trump's name. This particular issue isn't about calling someone names, although I'd also challenge you to show evidence that national level politicians have called President Trump names. This is about making fun of someone's name. What name does President Trump use when he wants to mention Elizabeth Warren? How about Adam Schiff? Disrespecting someone's name is a fairly grave injustice to people. Most people take it as deeply personal when someone makes fun of their name.

You also responded:

Trump's behavior is not really out of the ordinary, it just hasn't been targeted at the same people in the past nor with as blunt an instrument as Trump.

If you honestly in your heart believe that to be a true statement after examining the evidence, then you and I live in a different dimension of American life.

Here's a 'fun' video for everyone and if you make it to the end it will be explained why many of the American people put full blame on the Republican side of the Senate for not already having the government open. ‘The Trump administration's new face of cruelty’

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[tulc]

You are forgetting the vast number of people that found no candidate worthy of a vote at all.

Actually, that's a good point: the number of people who voted was about 58.1% of the possible voters over 18 eligible to vote. Which is lower then in 2008 (61.8%) and just slightly lower then 2012 (58.6%).
found here: Library Guides: Post-Election 2016 Recap & Resources: Voter Turnout
tulc(good question grasping the after wind!)

 

[JackRT]

Hi all,

Today the leader of our nation wrote out a tweet, as is his regular practice. This tweet started off by calling someone that he was discussing by a derogatory name, which is also his regular practice. I'm asking, are we tired enough now of hearing the person who holds the highest and most respected and honored office of our nation responding to others on a world wide open forum by derogatory and sometimes downright vulgar names? Have we had enough of this yet? Here's the President's tweet:

So sorry to hear the news about Jeff Bozo being taken down by a competitor whose reporting, I understand, is far more accurate than the reporting in his lobbyist newspaper, the Amazon Washington Post. Hopefully the paper will soon be placed in better & more responsible hands!

I'm asking for those who may feel as I do, and I'm not at all referring to his policies or agendas, about his repeated derogatory name calling to make their voices heard and google their state representatives and make their feelings known. It takes about all of 15-20 minutes to do this. I think it's time, especially now with his use of the name BOZO, that we really show him who the BOZO is. President Trump may not like Jeff Bezos for any number of personal reasons. That's ok. But, when the person who holds the highest and most respected and honored office that our nation has to offer feels that the only way he can talk about others is to use immature name calling, then I think it's time to work to put a stop to it.

BTW I also sent requests to all those on my email list to also consider doing this. If you have the time, then I'd encourage any of you who are in agreement with me on this issue, to do the same.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

When you elect a clown the circus will follow shortly ........... and it has.

 

[Albion]

I'd challenge you to provide evidence on the national level of politics that other politicians have made fun of President Trump's name. This particular issue isn't about calling someone names, although I'd also challenge you to show evidence that national level politicians have called President Trump names. This is about making fun of someone's name. What name does President Trump use when he wants to mention Elizabeth Warren? How about Adam Schiff? Disrespecting someone's name is a fairly grave injustice to people. Most people take it as deeply personal when someone makes fun of their name.

Anyone who tries that line on me instantly loses credibility. Sure, the president has responded to what some of his critics have said of him, but his jibes do not rise to the level of the hate, vulgarity, and vicious misrepresentation that many in that political camp have used on him--Nazi, Racist, warmonger, child molester, would-be dictator, tyrant, and even that choice unmentionable-in-decent-society term the new Congresswoman from Michigan became well-known for hurling at him recently.

To be accused of such things is worse on every level, and they are obviously not meant to be humorous like his often are, but I somehow am not reading anything about it from the people who claim to be shocked--shocked, I tell you!--by such insults as "Widdle" Bob Corker and "Low Energy" Jeb Bush.

 

[miamited]

Anyone who tries that line on me instantly loses credibility. Sure, the president has responded to what some of his critics have said of him, but his jibes do not rise to the level of the hate, vulgarity, and vicious misrepresentation that many in that political camp have used on him--Nazi, Racist, warmonger, child molester, would-be dictator, tyrant, and even that choice unmentionable-in-decent-society term the new Congresswoman from Michigan became well-known for hurling at him recently.

To be accused of such things is worse on every level, and they are obviously not meant to be humorous like his often are, but I somehow am not reading anything about it from the people who claim to be shocked--shocked, I tell you!--by such insults as "Widdle" Bob Corker and "Low Energy" Jeb Bush.

HI albion,

What line? The one about asking for evidence? Or the one about it being quite obnoxious to make fun of people's names? I appreciate your pointing out the Congresswoman from Michigan and I'm just as disappointed in her as I am in President Trump's name calling, however...

Congresswoman Tlaib did not in any of her rant make fun of the Donald J. Trump's name. She used very vulgar language which I am also against. Sadly, up until 2 years ago, it would have been pretty much unthought of for someone on the national political level to spew filth like that, Just more lowering of the bar that we are finding when the leader of the nation puts the bar so low.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Albion]

HI albion,

What line? The one about asking for evidence? Or the one about it being quite obnoxious to make fun of people's names? I appreciate your pointing out the Congresswoman from Michigan and I'm just as disappointed in her as I am in President Trump's name calling, however...

Ted, its just about the obvious absence of balance. We read this kind of thing all the time and it is always about how awful it is that the president said something sarcastic or glib or even engaged in name-calling the people who have attacked him. BUT much worse is said about him--like nothing ever circulated openly before in our lifetimes by highly-placed public figures--and that goes on daily without any similar expression of outrage from the people bemoaning the behavior of the president.

So that's it.

Congresswoman Tlaib did not in any of her rant make fun of the Donald J. Trump's name.

That's right. She did something MUCH WORSE. (and there are those who have made fun of his name, if not her.)

But it is in the same general area of verbal insults, so it is not as though these are apples and oranges. What's more, she is merely a recent example of what comes every day from endless numbers of anti-Trump people.

She used very vulgar language which I am also against.

Oddly enough, I did not notice such a concession being made...until I brought up the marked disparity between the actions of the president and his name-calling detractors. That's the way it always seems to be.

Just more lowering of the bar that we are finding when the leader of the nation puts the bar so low.

Well, I can see that nothing I have tried to explain to you in good faith has made any impact, but I still enjoy talking with you.

 

[miamited]

Hi albion,

Thanks for your reply. You wrote:

Ted, its just about the obvious absence of balance. We read this kind of thing all the time and it is always about how awful it is that the president said something sarcastic or glib or even engaged in name-calling the people who have attacked him. BUT much worse is said about him--like nothing ever circulated openly before in our lifetimes by highly-placed public figures--and that goes on daily without any similar expression of outrage from the people bemoaning the behavior of the president.

I think that you and I use different sources for truth.

You then wrote: and there are those who have made fun of his name, if not her.

Ok, well that's what I was asking for. Show me your evidence where a national leader has made fun of President Trump's name in a public forum. Your just saying so, I'm sorry, but, that's not going to be accepted by me as evidence. Others may be perfectly ok with someone telling them the moon is made of green cheese and believe it, but I'm more inclined to seek evidence. Especially when I haven't really seen it.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Albion]

You then wrote: and there are those who have made fun of his name, if not her.

Ok, well that's what I was asking for.

Yes, but that simply sidesteps what I said in my reply, that which concerned me about the unfairness of those claims. I will discuss that further if there are questions about it.

 

[miamited]

Yes, but that simply sidesteps what I said in my reply, that which concerned me about the unfairness of those claims. I will discuss that further if there are questions about it.

Hi albion,

Thanks for the offer. If you'd like to answer the questions I've asked that's fine. Which was: evidence of national politicians making fun of President Trump's name on public forums. I would certainly agree that a lot of people have said some rather derogatory claims regarding President Trump, although many of them, I believe, were describing him more than calling him some name. For example: If I make the claim that President Trump is a liar, and that can be reasonably proven to be true, then that's not calling him a name. If I say of him that he's a blasphemer and arrogant man, and that can be reasonably proven to be true about him, then that's not calling him a name.

Now, as in the case of your example where Rep. Tlaib used the word that would infer that he has had sexual relations with his mother, yes, I imagine that cannot be reasonably proven to be true and definitely meets the definition of name calling, but it is not making fun of his actual name as President Trump so often does.

Of course, the line at the bottom for a christian shouldn't be that it's ok for him to speak from the gutter just because some others may to him. That's really where a great leader rises above and shows his real metal. But the denigration of someone's name in his public attacks on others is not something that I can really find much evidence that other national politicians do on public forums. However, you're free to offer up your evidence, if you aren't concerned that it may be 'sidestepping' the issue.

I've always defined sidestepping as moving attention to some other issue without addressing the issue at hand. In looking over our discussion, I'm honestly confused about who is actually doing the sidestepping here. I did address your complaint concerning Rep. Tlaib, but then tried to refocus to the issue that I am addressing. It seems that I'm not the one that is sidestepping the issue. If you go back and read my OP, I think you'll find that on this thread the issue has always been President Trump's penchant for making fun or denigrating name changes to someone's name. For the purposes of this thread it has never been about speaking vulgarly about others, outside of the name issue.

So, you have a couple of choices here. You can ignore my response and our lives will continue as they will. You can answer my question for evidence of the issue that I'm seeking evidence for and our lives will still go on as they will. Or, you can 'sidestep' the issue of my thread and continue to refer to others speaking poorly of President Trump. If you take that last choice, then to be fair in our discussion, we're going to have to open up a whole lot more of President Trump's public dialogue.

Using President Obama as an example of a great leader showing their class and civility. I'm sure there are reams of twitters and blogs where he has been called just about every name in the book, but President Obama, so far as I know, never stooped to the level or below those who attacked him. He was a better person than that. It would appear that his mother raised him to know that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Albion]

Hi albion,

Thanks for the offer. If you'd like to answer the questions I've asked that's fine. Which was: evidence of national politicians making fun of President Trump's name on public forums.

All right. That is your issue. You don't like the president making jokes about the names of some of his detractors.

My point is that this is to adopt a completely unbalanced attitude towards the basic issue of political insults. Some people would use less polite terms for it.

While it is reasonable to be against such banter, it is not reasonable to brush off or to completely ignore the fact that hundreds of politicians have called our president such awful things as Racist, Warmonger, Fascist, Hitler, Nazi, child molester, thief, not fit to be a human, and on and on. If I understood your reply correctly, you even questioned the truth of such occurrences although they are all over the internet and the newspapers, TV, and CF itself.

If you do not want to take up the matter of such verbal attacks--the whole of the issue, that is--then there is nowhere to go with this discussion.

 

[tulc]

All right. That is your issue. You don't like the president making jokes about the names of some of his detractors.

My point is that this is to adopt a completely unbalanced attitude towards the basic issue of political insults. Some people would use less polite terms for it.

While it is reasonable to be against such banter, it is not reasonable to brush off or to completely ignore the fact that hundreds of politicians have called our president such awful things as Racist, Warmonger, Fascist, Hitler, Nazi, child molester, thief, not fit to be a human, and on and on. If I understood your reply correctly, you even questioned the truth of such occurrences although they are all over the internet and the newspapers, TV, and CF itself.

If you do not want to take up the matter of such verbal attacks--the whole of the issue, that is--then there is nowhere to go with this discussion.

uhmmm...shouldn't you have some links to show who those "hundreds of politicians " are and where they called the President "Racist, Warmonger, Fascist, Hitler, Nazi, child molester, thief, not fit to be a human"?
tulc(is just wondering)

 

[The Barbarian]

A great idea. No matter what you think of the president, surely it would be a good thing if he acted like an adult. It's been an embarrassment; we don't need to go through a list. But if people asked their representatives to encourage him to conduct himself like a leader, that might help.

It's worth a try. I'm letting my senators and representative know how I feel.

 

[The Barbarian]

uhmmm...shouldn't you have some links to show who those "hundreds of politicians " are and where they called the President "Racist, Warmonger, Fascist, Hitler, Nazi, child molester, thief, not fit to be a human"?
tulc(is just wondering)

Before I realized who wrote this, I thought you were serious. I realize you didn't intend it so, but Poe's law strikes again.

 

[miamited]

All right. That is your issue. You don't like the president making jokes about the names of some of his detractors.

My point is that this is to adopt a completely unbalanced attitude towards the basic issue of political insults. Some people would use less polite terms for it.

While it is reasonable to be against such banter, it is not reasonable to brush off or to completely ignore the fact that hundreds of politicians have called our president such awful things as Racist, Warmonger, Fascist, Hitler, Nazi, child molester, thief, not fit to be a human, and on and on. If I understood your reply correctly, you even questioned the truth of such occurrences although they are all over the internet and the newspapers, TV, and CF itself.

If you do not want to take up the matter of such verbal attacks--the whole of the issue, that is--then there is nowhere to go with this discussion.

Hi albion,

Thanks for your agreement.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[miamited]

Hi albion,

Thanks for your agreement. You also responded:

While it is reasonable to be against such banter, it is not reasonable to brush off or to completely ignore the fact that hundreds of politicians have called our president such awful things as Racist, Warmonger, Fascist, Hitler, Nazi, child molester, thief, not fit to be a human, and on and on.

Let's go through that list.

Racist
a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles
a political or social system founded on racism
racial prejudice or discrimination

There have been some words said by President Trump that many do believe indicate a basically racist or superior race attitude. Calling someone a racist is not name calling if it's a truthful assessment of someone's character. I suppose we could all go the long way around and write out whole sentences to describe him as a person who seems to project a superior/inferior race attitude about people and steer clear of using the word 'racist', but the end result is the same and everyone would then read that round about long winded sentence and then say, "Oh, he's a racist."

His referring to Mexicans as pretty much being murderers and rapists, although he then shrugs and allows that there may be a few that are good people, displays a racist worldview of people. Mexicans are, on the whole, less murderous and vicious towards one another than Americans are. They are generally a nation of people who just want to get along like most of us should want to, but we don't. That's not to say that there aren't wicked Mexicans, but Americans actually far outnumber them in personal wickedness on a per capita basis.

Warmonge
A warmonger is someone strongly pro-war. Warmongers favor war above all other options. ... A warmonger is someone who is constantly promoting war: they always want to invade or attack another country, and they're very loud and persistent.

I haven't heard a lot of that word being directed towards President Trump, although I know that a lot of people are fearful that the way he scrapes against other nation leaders who have just as much sovereign authority as he does, could land us in a pitched battle over power. There have been instances where he has been considered a warmonger. His recent attack on Turkey claiming that he's going to devastate their economy if his ways aren't followed could be seen as the attitude of a warmonger. His opening salvo with Kim Jung Un in which he referred to him as 'little rocket man' and once threatened to wipe the nation of North Korea off the map if they didn't heel to his plan, were also considered war like attacks.

Again, we could go the long way around and say that he likes to inflate and conflate international tensions rather than call him a warmonger, but if the shoe fits, then that also isn't name calling. Do you find it to be name calling when someone says to someone who drinks too much and stumbles around---a drunk?

Fascist
a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control.

I'm not sure that anyone would look at these last two years of political upheavel and administrative chaos and not see some similarities to what's been going on and drawing a conclusion of fascism. I can't imagine that anyone who has worked in President Trump's administration wouldn't think it ruled with a strong autocratic and dictatorial control. Even WH spokesperson Sarah Sanders has made the comment that President Trump wants what President Trump wants in a fairly emphatic tone of voice.

So, calling someone who displays such tendencies a fascist wouldn't actually be name calling, but merely describing in terms that everyone can understand, the kind of man that President Trump is.

Friend, we all use 'names' that are single words that describe a rather longer description of something. Even in the christian communities we call people who seem to indulge Calvin's Tulip, as 'Calvinists'. Is that name calling? Or, is that just the way we naturally refer to someone who holds to the six principles that Calvin defined as an explanation of God's foreknowledge and predestination without having to write out a long treatise of the beliefs expressed by John Calvin?

Hitler
No, he's not Hitler, but does he display some of the authoritarian rule and possible belief in some super race? I'd agree that it's certainly possible. There are even hints that he tries to appear as some Aryan man of Adolph Hitler's design. According to his ex-wife Ivanka, he's dyed his hair for at least 40 years. In early pictures of him in the eighties, he had dark brown hair. So, I'm sure he's not Hitler, but he may well be like Hitler.

Nazi
Well, there are indications that he's ok with some of the Nazi underpinnings.

Child molester
I haven't heard that one and I'm fairly confident that he isn't particularly. However, he brought that charge on himself when he spoke freely about his behavior in the dressing rooms of some of the beauty pageants that he's been a part of. Some of those women are much younger than he is, although I don't think they'd be classified as children at the level of his pageants. I'd agree with you that that is name calling because it likely isn't true.

Thief
Oh, absolutely! I don't think there's any doubt about that and we find out about more and more of his thievery every couple of months or so.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Albion]

Can we agree, then, that being offended by name-calling can be a very selective thing?

 

[miamited]

Can we agree, then, that being offended by name-calling can be a very selective thing?

Good morning albion,

We certainly can. I think we can likely agree, also, that in today's world, words can be skewed and misunderstood for the thought or idea that they were meant to convey by the speaker. Many times someone speaks and somehow someone takes offense at what 'their words may or could have meant' rather than what the speaker really intended them to mean.

God bless,
In Christ, ted