President Trump: Making America Great Again...

[Northwestcoug]

That's the only thing I have against Ted, tbh. He was asked by multiple people, over and over, to stop, but he just continued to poke various bears. Not to mention the wolverines, bobcats, squirrels, field mice, and the incidental insect.

Ted is undoubtedly highly intelligent, funny, kind, and a great family man. Yet, for some reason, he feels compelled to unrepentantly and constantly stir up hornets nests over charged political issues among a community of people he has known and engaged with for more than a decade.

It is the one head-scratcher for me.

Cue JL's response in 3, 2, 1...

Yes. Like trolling I get. But responding with links he never reads and reposting stuff from very unsavory people just gets tiring. There are legitimate criticisms about how we dealt with COVID and against democrats without resorting to Jack Posobiec and Catturd.

But yeah, those of us who don't know him personally only have his online presence to form an opinion of him. I mean it's the same with me, but more disciplined with my arguments dammit!

[Shaka]

You can be as glib as you want about it, but the fact remains that it's not entirely clear what Shaka means when he uses that phrase. But go on ahead and continue to scold frank for not jumping into Shaka's head and recognizing when Shaka's criticism of Trump is legit and when it's sarcastic.

Most of the time you're a smart fellow.... When I write, "Bad Trump" I mean I don't think he's doing the right thing. I just don't feel the need to bloviate about why I think it's bad. There's already enough of that around here. It's amazing you try to inject other intent into a very simple, succinct, opinion.

Simple, succinct opinions may be what grates on you. Lawyers often prefer long, drawn-out answers because they provide material to dissect and discredit. Short answers make that much more difficult.

Alternatively, perhaps you simply want the opportunity to correct grammatical errors.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I have been following it all day, and obviously before that. I admit I am pre-disposed to think that the Trump admin is the problem, but after consuming about as much as I can stand (including interviews with congressmen and senators), I am not sure what the democrats are doing here. The fact that this is a "clean" CR for 7 weeks is going to prevent a lot of people from supporting this move.

Exactly. There are no gimmicks or "poison pills" in the CR at all. The whole thing is 20 pages. The democrats have simply decided that they are going to try to use this as leverage to get some things they want. So I invite people to feel free to opine on why the things they are after are worth the shutdown, but please let's not pretend that this one is a republican shutdown because it clearly is not.

And early results indicate that Chuck Schumer was right that the shutdown is a strategic error by the democrats.

[Donuthole]

Most of the time you're a smart fellow.... When I write, "Bad Trump" I mean I don't think he's doing the right thing. I just don't feel the need to bloviate about why I think it's bad. There's already enough of that around here. It's amazing you try to inject other intent into a very simple, succinct, opinion.

Simple, succinct opinions may be what grates on you. Lawyers often prefer long, drawn-out answers because they provide material to dissect and discredit. Short answers make that much more difficult.

Alternatively, perhaps you simply want the opportunity to correct grammatical errors.

Maybe I just really want to hear you justify/rationalize your support when Trump does something anathema to your principles, but you still have to pretend you agree with it (or at a minimum, that it’s a small price to pay for the things Trump does that you do agree with). Because, after all, you voted for this.

But I think now I understand. “Bad Trump” basically gives you an out; it’s a way you can criticize Trump without actually criticizing him, so that you can later say you don’t agree with everything he does.

[Shaka]

Maybe I just really want to hear you justify/rationalize your support when Trump does something anathema to your principles, but you still have to pretend you agree with it (or at a minimum, that it’s a small price to pay for the things Trump does that you do agree with). Because, after all, you voted for this.

But I think now I understand. “Bad Trump” basically gives you an out; it’s a way you can criticize Trump without actually criticizing him, so that you can later say you don’t agree with everything he does.

I spend most of my days in meetings, managing projects, fixing problems, and wrangling clients. Much of the time I don't feel like elaborating. This, and other sites provide a respite from the work crap I deal with all day long. There, I have to be on my game all the time because I deal with some very sharp people who will attempt to get over on you if you make a wrong move. Here, I don't want to operate on that level. I don't want to have to worry about spelling, grammar, or attempting to defend an opinion that is likely not going to be accepted. Oftentimes, that opinion will merely be ridiculed by someone who'd rather just call me a MAGA shill.

Or maybe I want to chill, engage in my avocation, and play my guitar.

Here's a thought: If I give a short opinion, or refuse to engage beyond a certain point, assume that I've thought the opinion through. I don't feel like I need to justify anything to you.

Deal with it.

[Donuthole]

I spend most of my days in meetings, managing projects, fixing problems, and wrangling clients. Much of the time I don't feel like elaborating. This, and other sites provide a respite from the work crap I deal with all day long. There, I have to be on my game all the time because I deal with some very sharp people who will attempt to get over on you if you make a wrong move. Here, I don't want to operate on that level. I don't want to have to worry about spelling, grammar, or attempting to defend an opinion that is likely not going to be accepted. Oftentimes, that opinion will merely be ridiculed by someone who'd rather just call me a MAGA shill.

Or maybe I want to chill, engage in my avocation, and play my guitar.

Here's a thought: If I give a short opinion, or refuse to engage beyond a certain point, assume that I've thought the opinion through. I don't feel like I need to justify anything to you.

Deal with it.

You don’t owe me any explanations, that much is true. But I also don’t owe you the benefit of assuming you’ve thought stuff through. That’s not how it works. Words are how thoughts are expressed.

Sorry your job is stressful, though. Sounds like you have a lot on your plate.

[Shaka]

You don’t owe me any explanations, that much is true. But I also don’t owe you the benefit of assuming you’ve thought stuff through. That’s not how it works. Words are how thoughts are expressed.

Sorry your job is stressful, though. Sounds like you have a lot on your plate.

[Jeff Lebowski]

The other day I was a with a very close friend and we got into an intense debate about free speech (kimmel thing, etc) and I was arguing that private companies can do whatever they want but the government should never infringe on speech. At one point he said, "You just hate Trump so you have to criticize everything he does." That response really bugged me. Dissect and criticize my argument on the merits all you want, but don't give me this kind of bullshit response. It is lazy and disrespectful and implies and I am a mindless, unthinking robot.

I feel like this grilling of shaka for not clarifying opposition to Trump at a sufficient frequency or with sufficient detail is the same kind of BS. Hence my pushback.

[Donuthole]

The other day I was a with a very close friend and we got into an intense debate about free speech (kimmel thing, etc) and I was arguing that private companies can do whatever they want but the government should never infringe on speech. At one point he said, "You just hate Trump so you have to criticize everything he does." That response really bugged me. Dissect and criticize my argument on the merits all you want, but don't give me this kind of bullshit response. It is lazy and disrespectful and implies and I am a mindless, unthinking robot.

I feel like this grilling of shaka for not clarifying opposition to Trump at a sufficient frequency or with sufficient detail is the same kind of BS. Hence my pushback.

Only this is 180 degrees of that. The "grilling of Shaka" about his opposition to Trump was a result of him (or someone in his defense) claiming that he has been critical of Trump. At that point, questioning the intent and legitimacy of his sarcastic "Bad Trump" meme is valid, as that was proffered as part of his Trump criticism. But when questioned about that, he essentially says "I don't have to explain myself". That's fine, but that doesn't make us lazy or disrespectful for asking. How can we dissect or criticize his argument on the merits if he doesn't share the merits?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Only this is 180 degrees of that. The "grilling of Shaka" about his opposition to Trump was a result of him (or someone in his defense) claiming that he has been critical of Trump. At that point, questioning the intent and legitimacy of his sarcastic "Bad Trump" meme is valid, as that was proffered as part of his Trump criticism. But when questioned about that, he essentially says "I don't have to explain myself". That's fine, but that doesn't make us lazy or disrespectful for asking. How can we dissect or criticize his argument on the merits if he doesn't share the merits?

This entire discussion started with this:

I'm not sure we will see Shaka have any genuine disagreement with Trump/MAGA.

Which is exactly the kind of thing I was describing.

[myboynoah]

The other day I was a with a very close friend and we got into an intense debate about free speech (kimmel thing, etc) and I was arguing that private companies can do whatever they want but the government should never infringe on speech. At one point he said, "You just hate Trump so you have to criticize everything he does." That response really bugged me. Dissect and criticize my argument on the merits all you want, but don't give me this kind of bullshit response. It is lazy and disrespectful and implies and I am a mindless, unthinking robot.

I feel like this grilling of shaka for not clarifying opposition to Trump at a sufficient frequency or with sufficient detail is the same kind of BS. Hence my pushback.

Certainly a lot of that going around these days, and no one is immune to it.

Asking someone to clarify an expressed opinion doesn't strike me as lazy or disrespectful. It's engagement to interact and understand. It may have a motive behind it, but it isn't simply dismissing another opinion. And oftentimes inquiries are sincere attempts to understand. At least that's how I see it.

And if someone is too busy with things that really matter to respond to every comment from people shitposting on an obscure, yet awesome, BYU sports board, I'm very cool with that.

[Shaka]

Only this is 180 degrees of that. The "grilling of Shaka" about his opposition to Trump was a result of him (or someone in his defense) claiming that he has been critical of Trump. At that point, questioning the intent and legitimacy of his sarcastic "Bad Trump" meme is valid, as that was proffered as part of his Trump criticism. But when questioned about that, he essentially says "I don't have to explain myself". That's fine, but that doesn't make us lazy or disrespectful for asking. How can we dissect or criticize his argument on the merits if he doesn't share the merits?

I'll clarify. Frank keeps trying to put labels on me. His intent when insinuating I'm MAGA is meant as an insult. My politics are nuanced, and by any measure, I'm a moderate conservative. Think of me like Mitt, I'm going to agree with Trump about eighty percent of the time. The rest? Bad Trump!

I'll weigh in a bit on Jimmy Kimmel. I have a soft spot for Jimmy because I enjoyed aspects of The Man Show (Who doesn't enjoy girls on trampolines? ) and his hilarious bit with Donny Osmond.

Right after the Charlie Kirk assassination, many liberals made a desperate attempt to flip the narrative by claiming the shooter was a right-wing nutjob and tied to the Groyper movement. While the kid was raised by conservative parents, and even practiced the LDS religion for part of his youth, there was no credible evidence that he had turned into an ultra-right-wing Fuentes disciple. It was way too soon after the tragedy to start floating this unlikely conspiracy theory in a lame attempt to flip the narrative. Jimmy fell into the trap on national television and made himself look like a moron. The outrage was deserved.

Kimmel's ratings are in the toilet. Just like Colbert, there are valid reasons he is on the chopping block. It's the FCC's job to monitor everything that is broadcast on the public airwaves. If necessary, they can sanction. However, Kimmel's comments, as misguided as they were, didn't violate any rules. Carr's attempt to cite a public interest violation was stupid. It was a huge blunder for the FCC/Trump to go after Kimmel because it's entirely possible that ABC, under legitimate pressure from Sinclair, Nextar, and deserved public outrage, would have suspended him anyway. It's also possible that they could use Kimmel's blunder as an excuse to cancel his underperforming show.

By inserting themselves into the situation, Carr/Trump virtually guaranteed that The Kimmel Show, which will continue to underperform, will survive for at least another season. They missed a fine opportunity to get rid of that particular gadfly.

[Bo Diddley]

Fwiw, I wasn't sure if "Bad Trump" was sarcastic or not. Seemed like sometimes it was and sometimes it wasn't. But I do struggle with reading comprehension, so take that fwiw.

I do like smr's advice to grow thicker skin. Miss him... Along with that, I recognize I need to offer more grace to others.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Asking someone to clarify an expressed opinion doesn't strike me as lazy or disrespectful. It's engagement to interact and understand. It may have a motive behind it, but it isn't simply dismissing another opinion. And oftentimes inquiries are sincere attempts to understand. At least that's how I see it.

And if someone is too busy with things that really matter to respond to every comment from people shitposting on an obscure, yet awesome, BYU sports board, I'm very cool with that.

That is not at all what I am describing. Shaka's opinion on a matter was implicitly discredited because he is allegedly too pro-trump. Now people are asking him to prove that he is truly anti-trump in certain instances by "clarifying" those cases in more detail. The underlying assumption here is that he is under some kind of moral obligation to perform that anti-trump clarification or his overall opinions are invalid. I am sorry, that is BS.

[Donuthole]

That is not at all what I am describing. Shaka's opinion on a matter was implicitly discredited because he is allegedly too pro-trump. Now people are asking him to prove that he is truly anti-trump in certain instances by "clarifying" those cases in more detail. The underlying assumption here is that he is under some kind of moral obligation to perform that anti-trump clarification or his overall opinions are invalid. I am sorry, that is BS.

He is not under any moral obligation, and nobody has said or insinuated that he is. Nobody is demanding that Shaka lay out all of his political beliefs so we can scrutinize them or so that he can justify his participation on the board or in political threads. So let's stop painting this as if it were that. But when someone has displayed a history of looking the other way when Trump does something controversial or, worse, finding a way to spin something controversial into something he actually supports ("i'm all for blowing up all the drug dealers"), that person can't be upset when people assume he's a hard-core Trumper.

In other words, if he doesn't care if people assume he's in the bag for Trump, then this is a moot point. But if he wants people to believe that he isn't a Trumper, that burden is on him. That's all anyone is saying. He doesn't owe anyone any explanations, just like nobody owes him the assumption that he's not in the bag for MAGA.