[POLL] United States Presidential Elections 2016

[ryzno]

Where has the term "President Elect" come from?
I don't recall Obama being called president elect...

 

[Scaff]

It doesn't really matter whether Joey has an issue with whatever stupid thing Trump said. It's not a freedom of speech issue unless he actually takes steps to act on it after he is actually put in a position of power, and that was the foundation you framed your original post on.

I framed it as a question.

Where has the term "President Elect" come from?
I don't recall Obama being called president elect...

It been the term used to describe the person who has been elected president, but is not yet in office for as long as I can remember.

 

[Joey D]

You will note that I haven't said that Trump can't say what he did, I asked the question of if doing so was something he should be doing (given his position and how it may well be viewed by people on both sides of the political divide).

What I said was "Should the President elect really be saying that criticism of the incoming administration 'should not happen'?"

I also mentioned that it "could be seen as a free speech issue", which I think (again given his position and influence) it could well be.

At no point have I said he wasn't allowed, or should not be allowed to do it (so no I'm not close to be hypocritical); however I do find the manner in which a perfectly polite question was misrepresented (it wasn't harassment) and responded to reflects badly on both Trump the person and the office he is soon to hold.

You claimed that it seemed to be a free speech issue:

....would seem to be both inaccurate and a free speech issue. Should the President elect really be saying that criticism of the incoming administration 'should not happen'?

I'm telling you it's not a free speech issue because he hasn't attempted to make a law saying it's illegal to criticize the government.

I framed it as a question.

No, you framed it as a statement:

....would seem to be both inaccurate and a free speech issue.

===

Where has the term "President Elect" come from?
I don't recall Obama being called president elect...

It just means he's been elected but hasn't taken office yet.

President Obama was considered the same thing until he took the oath of office during the inauguration.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

....would seem to be both inaccurate and a free speech issue. Should the President elect really be saying that criticism of the incoming administration 'should not happen'?

I mean, strictly speaking, he didn't say that. He said "harassment" of a VP-elect should not happen. Of course, how Trump could consider this "harassment" is beyond me:

"We sir, we are the diverse America who are alarmed and anxious that your new administration will not protect us, our planet, our children, our parents, or defend us and uphold our inalienable rights, sir," Dixon added. "But we truly hope, that this show has inspired you to uphold our American values and to work on behalf of all of us."

Maybe they should've waited until Pence was in a change room and walked in to push the subject. Maybe they should've just grabbed him by the 🤬. Definitely more appropriate times.

 

[Tornado]

I framed it as a question.

....would seem to be both inaccurate and a free speech issue.

That's not a question. That's a statement.

Whether or not Trump should continue to say things just as stupid and untrue as those he said in the run up to the election, it is not at present time a free speech issue. That has what Joey has been saying pretty much from the start

 

[BobK]

an administration that literally burns their opponents down to the ground in public.

Pretty sure that burning people to the ground is very much illegal.

Again, not saying that last part is a bad thing.

...and you're okay with it?!?

 

[Scaff]

You claimed that it seemed to be a free speech issue:



I'm telling you it's not a free speech issue because he hasn't attempted to make a law saying it's illegal to criticize the government.



No, you framed it as a statement:



===



It just means he's been elected but hasn't taken office yet.

President Obama was considered the same thing until he took the oath of office during the inauguration.

That's not a question. That's a statement.

Whether or not Trump should continue to say things just as stupid and untrue as those he said in the run up to the election, it is not at present time a free speech issue. That has what Joey has been saying pretty much from the start

With 'seem' being the operative word and further qualified with the question in the very next sentence

 

[Spurgy 777]

With 'seem' being the operative word and further qualified with the question in the very next sentence

It seems like you're trying to make a big deal out of nothing, this is far from a free speech issue. Trump hasn't implied that they shouldn't be allowed to say what they said, he just thinks they were rude and should apologize. Now I disagree with him, at least based on that speech as I don't know if anything else was said, and saying they were harassing him, even if he were talking about the booing crowd, is a bit of an exaggeration, but that still doesn't make it a free speech issue.

 

[Tornado]

With 'seem' being the operative word

And hence why Joey has been explaining extensively why it isn't what it seemed and only that.

 

[Scaff]

It seems like you're trying to make a big deal out of nothing, this is far from a free speech issue. Trump hasn't implied that they shouldn't be allowed to say what they said, he just thinks they were rude and should apologize. Now I disagree with him, at least based on that speech as I don't know if anything else was said, and saying they were harassing him, even if he were talking about the booing crowd, is a bit of an exaggeration, but that still doesn't make it a free speech issue.

I personally think how he reacts to situations like this is a big deal, certainly given that it's not an accurate recount of what was actually said. Framing as harassment that shouldn't happen is a concern.

And hence why Joey has been explaining extensively why it isn't what it seemed and only that.

The point was, in my opinion, worth challenging and exploring.

I remain of the opinion it's a concerning way to deal with the situation.

 

[Rich S]

Well so far im dissapointed with trumps picks. I was hoping he'd be more moderate but also he has to try and pick "anti establishment" folks which can mean a kook. His big advertising moto in swing states was that he was a friend to the Lgbt but his domestic policy head and Attorney gen are brutal to that group at every chance.

I still think the media and particular the "east of the beltway" group in the newz caused the GOP win. I was thinking trump might win but that the dems would win back the senate but the media has done it for the "conservatives" handing it to them on silver platter. The media is so biased on every program against trump in particular not even the gop mainstays like mike pence but its all aimed at donald trump as being this satanic figure who is every stereotype cliche in the book. Its so unintelligent in nature i cant understand this gaff by ALL THE MEDIA not just some.

 

[Imari]

His big advertising moto in swing states was that he was a friend to the Lgbt...

Oh. People actually believed that?

 

[McLaren]

I'm not really saying that. Your a Texan too, right? Do you really think it will be legal here? I kind of doubt it.

As do I.

There was a discussion about it after it had become legalized at the same time of the election, & 1 researcher on the topic thought any state bordering Mexico (bar California) would find difficulty legalizing pot for recreational use as he believed it could possibly encourage the illegal drug trade.

They thanked Pence for coming and made this statement: "We, sir, we, are the diverse America who are alarmed and anxious that your new administration will not protect us, our planet, our children, our parents, or defend us and uphold our inalienable rights. We truly hope that this show has inspired you to uphold our American values and to work on behalf of all of us."

That's not harassment in any way. Trump realizes this very well too and decides to incite his followers anyway. At the same time, he's completely silent about people drawing swastikas in his name at the Adam Yauch playground. What does that tell you about your future president?

An over exaggerated statement not only from the cast, but from you as well, trying to use the word, "incite" to add more punch to your statement. Except....

he's completely silent about people drawing swastikas in his name at the Adam Yauch playground

Someone must have missed the 60 Minutes interview where Trump said, "Stop it" to the remarks of his supporters harassing minorities.

Steve Bannon, Jeff Sessions. Flynn, though technically his anti-islam rethoric is not racism. Though of course none of those are in office just yet.

BTW, where's the why to @mister dog's question as well, please? I'm genuinely interested to know why Bannon's name is being thrown around & defended so much.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Someone must have missed the 60 Minutes interview where Trump said, "Stop it" to the remarks of his supporters harassing minorities.

Did he wave a rolled-up newspaper at them, too?

Once again, you're calling out people on a technicality in their language and ignoring the point: the cast of Hamilton were not rude to Pence. What they said was eloquent and succinct, and perfectly summarised the concerns of the people they were speaking for. Trump's comments misrepresented the situation, marginalised the cast and implied that criticism of his administration will not be tolerated.

So is Trump about to become the leader of the free world, or a tinpot dictator?

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I know, I shook my head when I read about the Trump Starbucks thing.

Eh that's a lie at the end of the article and any current or former barista in an actual starbucks owned shop will tell you that you are trained and suppose to write and call out names. I worked at one for two years and when I first started I had a bad habit of calling out names because it was easy for me to remember faces and drinks since everyone orders pretty different. Plus I worked a drive through so I was there more than the front counter.

 

[Dotini]

So is Trump about to become the leader of the free world, or a tinpot dictator?

Neither. Both concepts are threadbare.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Neither. Both concepts are threadbare.

Refusing to allow any criticism of the government is usually the first sign of a tyrant

 

[Dotini]

Refusing to allow any criticism of the government is usually the first sign of a tyrant

Did you see Fareed Zakaria's interview with Henry Kissinger on his impressions of his meeting with Trump? You should.

http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2016/11/19/exp-gps-kissinger-on-trump-foreign-policy.cnn

 

[Spurgy 777]

Refusing to allow any criticism of the government is usually the first sign of a tyrant

Just as well he hasn't done that yet then, so must be the former option.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Just as well he hasn't done that yet then

What else do you think that Tweet was, if not criticism of the cast for voicing a concern about the way his administration will be run?

 

[Dotini]

Refusing to allow any criticism of the government is usually the first sign of a tyrant

Refusing to to allow any consideration of the positive objectives of government is usually the first sign of a nattering nabob of negativism.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Refusing to to allow any consideration of the positive objectives of government is usually the first sign of a nattering nabob of negativism.

I fail to see how misrepresenting a situation and criticising those involved for simply engaging with the political process is in any way positive.

 

[Spurgy 777]

What else do you think that Tweet was, if not criticism of the cast for voicing a concern about the way his administration will be run?

My guess would be he was criticising the way they did it rather than what they said, as in publicly singling him out when he's just gone to watch their play, but who knows what goes through Trump's head.

Either way it's irrelevant, you said he was refusing to allow them to do what they did, which just isn't true. He's just said that he thought they were rude and harassing and should apologise, not that they had to apologise, or that they should apologise or else, he's not forcing them to take back what they said in any way, so how is he not allowing them to say what they said?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

My guess would be he was criticising the way they did it rather than what they said

Even though he wasn't there to witness it.

as in publicly singling him out when he's just gone to watch their play

Trump is a public figure. Does he not understand what that means?

but who knows what goes through Trump's head.

And you don't find that slightly terrifying?

He's just said that he thought they were rude and harassing and should apologise,

Apparently he doesn't understand irony, either.

he's not forcing them to take back what they said in any way,

I'm sure it's only a matter of time before he tries. His skin is so thin that wet paper towel would offer more resistance.

so how is he not allowing them to say what they said?

You seem intent on positioning this in such a way that Trump technically hasn't done anything wrong. Doesn't it bother you that he has been so quick to take to Twitter to criticise people who criticised his administration?

 

[NLxAROSA]

Someone must have missed the 60 Minutes interview where Trump said, "Stop it" to the remarks of his supporters harassing minorities.

Which was long before the incident I referred to, on a show that none of his typical followers watch. For someone that tweets about anything that bothers him, the silence with regards to this particular incident is telling. If two incidents happen on one day and he decides to rant about one and completely ignores the other...

He should realize that his statements (or absence of them) carry more weight now that he's president-elect.

Pretty sure that burning people to the ground is very much illegal.

Wrong choice of words, sorry.

...and you're okay with it?!?

I'm okay with him playing hardball. But if he plays hard he should expect the same behavior in return. Don't cry and demand an apology, especially because he has failed to apologize in any case where he actually insulted or harassed people.

BTW, where's the why to @mister dog's question as well, please? I'm genuinely interested to know why Bannon's name is being thrown around & defended so much.

Google Steve Bannon quotes.

Fact is, for someone who's claiming to 'drain the swamp', Trump is surrounding himself with a lot of questionable people: racists, creationists, climate deniers, former Goldman Sachs lobbyists (combined with a proposal to drastically roll back legislation for financials, hello next financial crisis!), his own family members (conflict of interest). Is the swamp being cleaned or just one set of cronies being exchanged for the other?

Anyway, the whole Hamilton incident is a good way to divert attention from the fact that he has settled his lawsuit for 25 million.

Like I said, trying to keep an open mind here, but if you add all of it up it's hard, very hard.

He's just said that he thought they were rude and harassing and should apologise, not that they had to apologise

He simply stated 'Apologize!' which is not asking nicely.. And he literally just posted a tweet saying they should apologize immediately. We can fiddle with words, but that sounds like another demand to me. But like I said, smart of him to keep this the center of attention rather than his settlement.

 

[PeterJB]

So apparently democracy should be a capital crime now.

 

[Spurgy 777]

In response to the parts of your post that I haven't quoted, I never said I agreed with him, so there's no point in replying to my posts as if I do.

And you don't find that slightly terrifying?

No, I'm not psychic, I can't read peoples minds, without further clarification beyond a couple of tweets I can't really tell what he's thinking.

I'm sure it's only a matter of time before he tries. His skin is so thin that wet paper towel would offer more resistance.

You're sure are you? Do you have a crystal ball as well as mind reading powers? Or does having thin skin automatically mean he will abuse his power and become a dictator? (Not that it's possible in the US anyway)

You seem intent on positioning this in such a way that Trump technically hasn't done anything wrong. Doesn't it bother you that he has been so quick to take to Twitter to criticise people who criticised his administration?

Well, he hasn't done anything wrong, so why would I position this in any other way? He's just voiced his opinion on Twitter, may be a stupid opinion, but until he actually does something wrong, I don't care. So to answer your question, no it doesn't, not even slightly.

 

[Sanji Himura]

I'm not really saying that. Your a Texan too, right? Do you really think it will be legal here? I kind of doubt it.

My apologies for not getting to you so soon, I had a minor internet hiccup, but I honestly don't think it should be legal anywhere. I just think that it would take some court decision that would take the question of legalization out of Texas' hands just like a court decision took the ability Texas to recognize traditional marriage away and legalized gay marriage in all 50 states (which is a whole other can of worms to argue). Pot was on the ballot in 8 states this year, and all but one passed (Arizona was the only one that failed). It would eventually take some court case from one of those states to make it legal in all 50.

 

[Famine]

You seem intent on positioning this in such a way that Trump technically hasn't done anything wrong

Has he?

I mean I'm no fan of the insane tangerinutang but what, technically, has he done wrong here?

Some actors have used their platform to single out a member of the audience and tell them how concerned they are about that audience member's statements and intent in political office. It's a bit rude (I'm sure some in the audience were there to enjoy a play, not a political sermon), but they're entitled to do so. Trump (assuming he has control of own Twitter again) has used his platform to say how rude he thought it was and he is similarly entitled to do so.

There's no Constitutional crisis here*. It's two groups of people with different points of view but a relatively similar concept of manners exchanging their views. Sure, one of them is the President- elect and his Vice-President-elect - but that's a meaningless distinction as they have zero political power or sway right now.


*Even if there were, look how much success Obama had with the Second Amendment. Reckon people will be more willing to let the First Amendment go?

 

[Sanji Himura]

Ted Cruz has signaled a willingness to accept the appointment to the late Anton Scalia's seat in the Supreme Court, the Daily Caller is reporting.

He was quoted as saying, “What I will say is that history is long and can take unexpected paths. I think it is absolutely vital that that seat and every other seat that comes vacant on the court be filled by principled constitutionalists who will be faithful to the law and will check their own policy preferences at the door and simply honor their oath.”

“I can also tell you that I have right now the privilege of serving in the United States Senate, of representing 27 million Texans,” he said. “That is a privilege and a responsibility I take very, very seriously. And I look forward to continuing to carry out that responsibility and continuing to fight for the principles of freedom and the principles embodied in the Constitution and Bill of Rights,”