Jim_Smith
New
The way to protect a child is to keep them out of politics, not use them as political tools. The Trump's are doing it right.
Trump Consciousness
- Thread starter Jim_Smith
- Start date
Silence
Member
Pathetic David, really. You and Jim are confirming what I had hoped wasn't the case. There is so much wrong with your stance on this and it reflects incredibly poorly on your character. I'm sorry to state that so bluntly.
The girl, Greta, is a child. If she is being propped up as a political tool as you've insinuated, that is unfortunate and reflects incredibly poorly on the adults who would be manipulating her if that's the case. Now, you don't know this to be a fact of course. You have likely read some things, some where that indicate as much. Regardless, let presume you are 100% factually correct on this point as its really irrelevant to the issue.
What should an ethical leader do in the case of a political opponent/group using a child as a political weapon?
There are likely a number of potential courses of action, but there is not one that would include "shooting the messenger" especially when that messenger is a minor. Leaders should inspire and strive to be models of high ethical fiber and other classical measures of what it is to be exceptional. Publicly belittling a child isn't on that list.
But even you go beyond the pale and suggest this girl, who you don't know, has "limited intelligence" and has "emotional difficulties" and should fit into whatever definition you've set for her as to how she should "enjoy her teenage years" while analogizing her to a "performing monkey"? Shocking actually David, quite shocking. The close-mindedness exhibited in your response should be something you stop to reflect upon, but understand you'd be risking a dangerous fall from your towering high horse.
Silence
Member
Yup, double down huh Jim? Your opponents take the low road; just find a road even lower in response.
Silence
Member
Sure you are. Only the extremists on the left are seeking to silence, just as the extremists on the right seek the same course through bullying.
Its not a question of being able to disagree, its the manner in which Trump does it.
And you guys have twisted your own moral compasses to such an extreme you can't see the lack of clothing on the emperor. This type of blind allegiance to a leader is really scary. When you can't find any fault in a man, you've lost perspective. That's where you sit, and it should be a wake up call.
David Bailey
Member
Silence
Member
Doesn't help me but here's a hint: I don't need the help. ;)
Greta, unfortunately, is a useful idiot.
David Bailey
Member
I see a man who has brought prosperity and peace to the US, and who might - just might - have brought Iran to heel without any military action. I know from my private source - an Iranian who fled the country recently - that his country is just aching to be free of the oppressive regime, and if they do, they will thank Trump and the US. If they had been attacked they would obviously have ended up hating the US. There is a president worth re-electing! But maybe I set my moral compass wrongly, I really need a digital one.
The Left seem to have adopted a strategy whereby they try to limit their opponents' freedom to debate by PC rules of their own invention. Too many politicians have been trapped by that strategy, but President Trump doesn't do PC, and neither do I.
David
Vortex
Member
David, what do you think about: 1) Venezuela, 2) Bolivia and 3) Hong Kong? Do people there also desire to see the oppressive regimes fall, and would be grateful to Trump and the USA if they will assist them without starting a war? Or not?
Silence
Member
I have been eminently clear on separating criticism of Trump's politics from criticism of the man. They are not mutually exclusive.
Either you are being purposefully obtuse or you have not understood this point.
In plain English: You can support Trump as a politician while criticizing the man and/or his behavior. So, for purposes of responding to me on this specific tweet, your response here is meaningless. That is, unless, you wish to make a case that Trump the asshole and Trump the effective world leader (as you see it) are inextricably linked.
I can respect the Trump supporter that agrees with his political views and feels he is the best choice of those presented. Its rational and to some it rises above the threshold of "ends justifying means". Those who go beyond this to rationalize, defend, and otherwise justify behavior such as the tweet in question are much less understandable. Without any further insight, it reeks of a poor moral and ethical compass.
David Bailey
Member
Well, first I'd ask you whether you support Trump morally or pragmatically? I suspect you do neither.
You gave an example of what you thought was wrong with Trump morally - that he would write a fairly innocuous tweet against Greta. I mean isn't the true fault with those who would put a fairly innocent child into a position of prominence and tell her to spout rubbish? We live in rough times - people do that sort of thing, so how is President Trump supposed to respond?
One death has more weight than all the waffle you come out with. A man who sits in the White House and clearly works to prevent bloodshed and resolve things peacefully, deserves more respect than a man who talks the most elegant talk and then "authorises a limited military intervention" that ends up as a horrible war. The people here that respect President Trump do so (I hope I speak for them all), above all because he tries to avoid bloodshed. If you lived in a poor part of the US, and your son had just joined the military, you might do the same.
If you are more affluent, you need to use your imagination!
David
Silence
Member
Irrelevant. Must I be labeled a supporter or detractor to discuss Trump? Must psi proponents declare themselves supporters or detractors to discuss topics on Skeptiko broadly? Should scientists declare themselves supporters or detractors FIRST before discussing various theories, etc?
I would expect a world leader to respond in a moral and ethical manner, especially to something as inconsequential as an award given by a magazine.
So tiring David. What does war and loss of lilfe have to do with Trump's derogatory Tweet regarding a child?
Are you asserting that Trump's political position of which you support is dependent on Trump being an asshole? That the new standard for an effective world leader requires such behavior? Or, perhaps, you share Trump's ethics? Do you, regularly yourself, take to public forums to insult other people's children? Do you associate with other adults who regularly resort to public insults of others for wrongs real or imagined?
I mean is it really so hard to say, "Damn, Trump's my boy and I love that he's fighting the war mongers, but that was a real dick move to go after that girl."? Seems the man can do no wrong with his sycophants.
Again, not sure what my or your level of affluence has to do with this discussion. Further irrelevant as we're both likely of similar affluence; whatever that may be.
David Bailey
Member
Why was that child put on the podium - just to make it hard for others to criticise what she was saying. So was the President supposed to just give way to that trick? That illustrates the inherently false nature of so much of the anti-Trump rhetoric.
Debate honestly - not by trying to put a very naive child up, who then cannot be criticised.
David
David, BULLSEYE!
Laird
Member
I find all of this invalidation of Greta's agency to be pretty poor form. Sixteen is old enough in some countries (e.g., Australia) to legally move out of home without your parents' permission, to have intercourse without your partner being liable for criminal charges on the basis that you are too young, and to be held responsible for your crimes even if the age of criminal responsibility is raised. It is an age where you are studying complex subjects at a level of sophistication just below university (and large parts of which, in my experience, the early year(s) of university simply reiterate), and forming your own personal views about a range of issues. It is (for many/some) an age of idealism, in which a vision of what is possible for the world is formed, and acted upon, before cynicism and apathy have had the chance to set in. It is easily old enough to be held accountable for your actions in general, and in particular for your idealised vision of the world and the activism you undertake on that basis.
Jim_Smith
New
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnel says if impeachment passes the House and comes to a trial in the Senate, how it is conducted will be coordinated according to how the President Trump's lawyers want to do it. The US Constitution gives the Senate a lot of latitude on how a trial is conducted.
This bit is also interesting, they are talking about vacancies in positions for Federal Judges. There are so many vacancies for Trump to fill ... because McConnell would not schedule votes for them in the Senate the last two years of Obama's presidency.
>> Sean: I WAS SURPRISED
10:21
PRESIDENT OBAMA LEFT SO MANY
10:21
VACANCIES AND DIDN'T FILL THOSE
10:24
VACANCIES.
10:24
>> I WILL TELL YOU WHY, I WAS IN
10:26
CHARGE OF WHAT WE DID THE LAST
10:27
TWO YEARS OF THE OBAMA
10:30
ADMINISTRATION.
This bit is also interesting, they are talking about vacancies in positions for Federal Judges. There are so many vacancies for Trump to fill ... because McConnell would not schedule votes for them in the Senate the last two years of Obama's presidency.
>> Sean: I WAS SURPRISED
10:21
PRESIDENT OBAMA LEFT SO MANY
10:21
VACANCIES AND DIDN'T FILL THOSE
10:24
VACANCIES.
10:24
>> I WILL TELL YOU WHY, I WAS IN
10:26
CHARGE OF WHAT WE DID THE LAST
10:27
TWO YEARS OF THE OBAMA
10:30
ADMINISTRATION.
Last edited:
Jim_Smith
New
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...r-turn-huge-climate-change-demonstration.html
Think about what that means: to put someone against the wall.
Greta Thunberg tells cheering crowd 'we will make sure we put world leaders against the wall' if they do not tackle global warming as she attends climate protest in Turin.
Think about what that means: to put someone against the wall.
Laird
Member
Presumably it means to put extreme pressure on them - when you're "against a wall" and faced by those to whom you have a responsibility which you have failed, you have nowhere to go, and are forced to confront your responsibilities.
I love this from the article:
Trump utterly outclassed by a sixteen-year-old. Brilliant.
David Bailey
Member
All those cases are less extreme than Iran, where you have a country seemingly hell bent on building a nuclear bomb, and destabilising the Middle East (something the US has done itself under previous administrations). The regime is obviously dangerous, and hopefully Trump's approach will dislodge the leadership - which I am told has vary little support - without the huge loss of life involved in a war.
Your other examples are not quite the same because they don't endanger other countries. Hong Kong is obviously particularly tricky - certainly there has been no attempt by China to invade Hong Kong - partly because they get a lot of money from the financial centre there.
What would you do with Iran if you were president?
David