Trump and his cabinet/buffoonery- Get your bunkers ready!

[skinsmarydu]

52 minutes ago, twa said:

I am noted for my patience as well. 

 

 

This is true. ?

[Going Commando]

3 hours ago, Busch1724 said:

 

I get where you're coming from. However, rightly or wrongly, him and many others feel persecuted because they're being called racists, dumbasses, etc. An intelligent conversation isn't unhealthy. 

 

It's not intelligent conversation.  It's him spamming the thread with lies and attempts at gaslighting.  It's the opposite of intelligent conversation.

[Larry]

7 hours ago, Ax said:

I have never heard a logical explanation how requiring proper ID is a problem.

Because there are so many resources that can enable everyone to acquire valid ID.

It is simply a talking point/scare tactic of the D's.

 

Foe eight years, I was the sole caregiver for my mother, who had dementia and arthritis.  

 

After several years, I found that I needed to get photo ID for her.  (I had intentionally let her DL expire, because I didn't want her to have one.  But I needed photo ID so that I could do things like get documents for her notarized.)  

 

I had her Power of Attorney, a functional internet connection, a valid email address for her, a valid mailing address, a phone, and a fax machine (that I bought so that I could fax documents to government agencies, for her.)  

 

I took me over a year, and over $300, to get her ID.  

 

The main delay was getting her birth certificate from Oklahoma, because apparently her maiden name was spelled differently on her birth certificate than the way she (and her mother) spelled it, during my lifetime.  

 

(In fact, during the fight to get her birth certificate, I actually found a decades-old, notarized copy of her birth certificate.  Which still wasn't enough to get Oklahoma to cough up her birth certificate.)  

 

OTOH, I also caught a break, too.  When I was getting Mom's paperwork, I had to show proof of her SSN.  At the time, it was sufficient to produce some of her tax documents, to prove her SSN.  Since I did her taxes, I had her 1099s.  But the next year, Florida changed the rules so that, to get photo ID, you had to present an original Social Security card.  This is a kinda significant change, since in order to get a Social Security card, (so you can get photo ID), you have to show a current photo ID.  Yes, to get photo ID, you must produce an SS card, and to get an SS card, you must have photo ID.  

 

So, OK, I had one fluke problem getting documents for her.  But I also caught some breaks, too.  

 

Over a year, and $300.  To get a photo ID.  

 

Now, though.  Suppose she's in a nursing home.  Or homeless.  Or just doesn't have me to jump through hoops for her.  Suppose she's living on $800/mo Social Security, instead of the $4,000 a month government employee pension my dad left her, when he died.  Now what are the odds of her successfully getting an ID, so that she can vote?  (Something that she's been legally doing, for 60 years.)  

 

We live in a society where voter turnout goes down noticeably is it looks like rain, on election day.  Do you really want to try to claim that requiring people to go jump through multiple DMV-style hoops (and spend money), with multiple government agencies, will not cause any people to just decide that voting isn't worth that much work?  (Heck, a good number of citizens think that registering is too much work..)  

 

Yes, requiring photo ID is absolutely guaranteed to suppress the vote.  To suppress legal voters.  It won't suppress everybody.  But it will suppress maybe 1% of the vote.  

 

(To fix a problem which doesn't exist in the first place.)  

 

Oh, and the votes it suppresses?  The people who make up most of the people who don't have that ID, already?  Seniors, minorities, and the very young.  Guess which way those groups tend to vote.

 

That's why those laws are being passed.  Suppressing minority votes isn't some unfortunate side effect of the law.  It's the law's purpose.  

[TheGreatBuzz]

3 hours ago, twa said:

I never use should in a order, do ya'll?

How often do you give orders?  I do it a lot.

 

I often say "would you mine taking out the trash?" instead of "you take out the trash now."  Or "you should probably go fix this mess" instead of "go do this and that".  People working under you know that it isn't a request, it is a direction.  But your people will be a lot happier if you talk to them instead of just barking orders.

 

It's called leadership.  Maybe the leader of the country should try it sometime.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

4 hours ago, Busch1724 said:

An intelligent conversation isn't unhealthy. 

Yeah bro, there was nothing intelligent about it.

[tshile]

3 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

I understand that, but there are a lot of legal scholars that believe the Constitution shouldn't be read ONLY as a literal document and that we can interpret it based on our modern society and as new situations arise that the founding fathers didn't anticipate.  (Like, when a sitting President might have clearly committed a crime, but the House won't carry out a legitimate investigation to figure out if impeachment is required for political reasons).

 

And there are a whole bunch of legal scholars that claim it should be read as a literal document until the reading of it as a literal document disagrees what they actually think is best.

 

And I know you didn't, but it is the only punishment actually described in the Constitution.

 

Right but I don’t think the issue is about literal interpretation 

 

it’s about having a procedure laid out and saying: well, since one exists, we’re going to do that instead of making something else up 

 

which (from what I understand) is historically how the constitution has been handled. 

 

I’m not trying to be disingenuous here. I think there is a clear and meaningful difference between 

 

- living and breathing document vs literal interpretation 

 

And

 

- if a specific thing is outlined to handle a situation, we do it that way and don’t make something else up vs well it doesn’t say we can’t do it this way

 

 

 

Which is why I think we have liberal legal minds ( that usually fall on the living and breathing document side of things ) saying they hate trump and want him out but they don’t think this will hold up in court. 

 

[Larry]

6 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

it’s about having a procedure laid out and saying: well, since one exists, we’re going to do that instead of making something else up

 

Admiring the level of spin that it takes, to refer to our entire criminal justice system as "making something up". 

[twa]

31 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

How often do you give orders?  I do it a lot.

 

I often say "would you mine taking out the trash?" instead of "you take out the trash now."  Or "you should probably go fix this mess" instead of "go do this and that".  People working under you know that it isn't a request, it is a direction.  But your people will be a lot happier if you talk to them instead of just barking orders.

 

It's called leadership.  Maybe the leader of the country should try it sometime.

 

Every day, my people are happier if they anticipate my orders.

That is also leadership.

 

I rarely bark, but I do bite.

[skinny21]

4 hours ago, twa said:

I never use should in a order, do ya'll?

If my boss says, “You should work through lunch today”... I’m probably working through lunch that day...

 

or quitting.  

 

 

[TheGreatBuzz]

11 minutes ago, twa said:

 

Every day, my people are happier if they anticipate my orders.

That is also leadership.

 

I rarely bark, but I do bite.

Anticipation has nothing to do with saying should or not though.

 

And if they anticipate your order, than you don't have to give it.  So then you aren't giving orders, your machine is running because of your guidance.

 

And one who bites without a bark is one that gets put down quickly.  A bark is a warning so you don't have to bite.

 

I do think it is cute you trying to give me insights on leadership though.

[PeterMP]

50 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

Right but I don’t think the issue is about literal interpretation 

 

it’s about having a procedure laid out and saying: well, since one exists, we’re going to do that instead of making something else up 

 

which (from what I understand) is historically how the constitution has been handled. 

 

I’m not trying to be disingenuous here. I think there is a clear and meaningful difference between 

 

- living and breathing document vs literal interpretation 

 

And

 

- if a specific thing is outlined to handle a situation, we do it that way and don’t make something else up vs well it doesn’t say we can’t do it this way

 

 

 

Which is why I think we have liberal legal minds ( that usually fall on the living and breathing document side of things ) saying they hate trump and want him out but they don’t think this will hold up in court. 

 

 

Prosecuting somebody for criminal behavior is not exactly making things up.  Procedure are well laid out for prosecuting somebody for criminal behavior.

 

What is making things up is saying since somebody is President that they can't be prosecuted for a crime in the normal criminal justice system.  The Constitution doesn't say that.

 

I don't think it'll hold up either because we'll have a bunch of people that say they support a literal interpretation interpret something into the document that literally isn't there.

[twa]

20 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

 

I do think it is cute you trying to give me insights on leadership though.

 

Ditto

 

[twa]

35 minutes ago, skinny21 said:

If my boss says, “You should work through lunch today”... I’m probably working through lunch that day...

 

or quitting.  

 

 

 

if you quit you can't get unemployment

[AsburySkinsFan]

10 minutes ago, twa said:

 

if you quit you can't get unemployment

Not true, that’s a myth perpetuated by bosses.

[mistertim]

I love the semantic pretzels about the "should" in that tweet. Generally, if you have to base your entire argument on an extremely specific and rather torturous definition or interpretation of a single word in a statement then you're probably on pretty shaky ground and you likely look pretty bad. There's a reason that Bill Clinton was (rightly) ridiculed for his "definition of 'is' is" defense.

 

Don't be that guy.

 

Anyway, nobody is claiming that tweet is a smoking gun or anything. It is, however, another likely piece of evidence in a long long line of other Trump statements and actions that can be used by Mueller to build a credible case that Trump is attempting to obstruct "with corrupt intent". 

[TheGreatBuzz]

25 minutes ago, twa said:

 

Ditto

 

Apparently you could use it.  My job description literally is "leadership" yet you want to parse if saying "should" can be an order.  If you dont realize it can be, you aren't an effective leader. 

[twa]

Can be and is are fundamentally different

[mistertim]

I think the next time everyone in here has their boss tell them "you should do x" they ought to start a long winded semantic debate about the definition of "should" and whether or not it is an order and report the results.   

[TheGreatBuzz]

4 minutes ago, twa said:

Can be and is are fundamentally different

Exactly!  Another part of being a leader is ensuring the receiver clearly understands that.  And since he decided to put it on Twitter, he needs to be clear to every receiver.  He wasn't.  Hence the debate.

 

Anymore leadership lessons and I may have to start charging.

[twa]

1 minute ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Exactly!  Another part of being a leader is ensuring the receiver clearly understands that.  And since he decided to put it on Twitter, he needs to be clear to every receiver.  He wasn't.  Hence the debate.

 

Anymore leadership lessons and I may have to start charging.

 

Trump being clear is a tall order 

[TheGreatBuzz]

1 minute ago, twa said:

 

Trump being clear is a tall order 

So are you willing to admit it is at least possible that his "should" COULD be an order?

[CousinsCowgirl84]

anything is possible. I don’t think that should be a crime, though,

[twa]

3 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

So are you willing to admit it is at least possible that his "should" COULD be an order?

 

Possibilities are endless.....I agree some could perceive it a order.

 

I prefer less ambivalence.

[TheGreatBuzz]

3 minutes ago, twa said:

I agree some could perceive it a order.

Thus why a leader needs to make sure the receiver understands clearly the direction given.  

[twa]

1 minute ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Thus why a leader needs to make sure the receiver understands clearly the direction given.  

 

So now you think it wasn't a order because it was unclear?