Colin Kaepernick: dbag or not?

[zoogs]

I like reactions that are proportionate to events. Your statements and your call for optimism are fair only if near the entire sum of the Trump administration to date is whitewashed.

 

Hence, perspective.

 

You're free to make your case for how thoroughly positive a development it is that the National Park Service received a donation of $80,000. Try to make it a good case. You may, of course, refer to the administration's budget agenda. Or simply respond to this:

 

Trump’s budget calls for a punishing 12 percent cut to the department, which manages the United States’ public lands. It would eliminate some of the department’s programs altogether, including the $13.2 million National Wildlife Refuge Fund and the $20 million funding for the nation’s 49 National Heritage Areas. It would also decrease funding for land acquisition — such as land that would be added to the nation’s national parks, and then stewarded by the NPS — by $120 million.

This goes to show that Trump is quite good at pulling the wool over people's eyes and manufacturing credit to take for himself.

[Redux]

Again, hopefully it's the start of something positive. That's all I said. I know you're eager to argue over this but I'm not. I'm just glad he followed through on something, hoping tbag happens more often.

 

Find a Trump lover to have a battle with dude.

[zoogs]

You know, for someone who doesn't love Trump, you've proven awfully eager both to cheerlead and to defend him.

 

I'm arguing against your suggestion that this is cause for optimism, because frankly I think that's absurdly devoid of context. Of course, there's no need for you to defend the point if you weren't so interested in doing so to begin with. No worries.

[Landlord]

You know, for someone who doesn't love Trump, you've proven awfully eager both to cheerlead and to defend him.

 

I'm arguing against your suggestion that this is cause for optimism, because frankly I think that's absurdly devoid of context. Of course, there's no need for you to defend the point if you weren't so interested in doing so to begin with. No worries.

 

 

 

It's not unnatural for people to continue on a train of thought, regardless of how trivial it is, if people keep responding to it with disagreement. This is a messageboard, after all.

 

 

Redux is defending his words; not Trump. He said he hopes this is the start of a positive trajectory. He didn't say the act was, on it's own merit, good. He made a throwaway statement of what he hopes it could be, people jumped on him for it, and he responded. That doesn't translate at all into defending or cheerleading on behalf of Donald Trump.

[zoogs]

I disagree and I'll try to explain. He characterized this as an appeal to both sides of the aisle and as a hopeful start to #MAGA. This is a statement about the act itself, which could be more or less ridiculous depending on the nature of the act that precipitated it. I would further argue that it's a clear celebration of an event that, while positive, should not necessarily be celebrated. In addition, the lengthy discussion that preceded this was precisely a defense of Trump. Lastly, a call to unity is at least an implicit statement that this administration has now shown itself worthy of it.

 

I do not mean to make this about Redux. However, I do think it's important to point out when statements belie one another. I believe that he's not a fan of Trump. What I want to point out is that he's been reacting very favorably and sympathetically. At some point, what's the distinction? I'd like to point out that these sympathies are misplaced, but of course, feel free to agree to disagree.

 

To circle back to the issue, let's take a long view of what happened: Trump has a litany of ethics questions swirling around him and his many promises, many of which turn out to be pretty disingenuous ("blind trust"?). Some people expected this to be true of his salary donation as well, but it wasn't. But because Trump, while being vastly enriched by his presidency, donates $80k of salary to a department to which he has proposed an orders of magnitude greater cut, now is the time to sound the bell for unity? It should not be.

 

And to circle back even further, "people being too unfair about Trump's dishonesties" is probably a far less significant issue than people giving him too much credence.

[ZRod]

Zoogs, you're just looking for a fight. A lot of people in this forum are right now. Redux literally said "he hopes it's the start of appealing to both sides." He made no judgement of Trump or his previous actions. He was simply having a positive outlook, what's wrong with that? Why can't we want the best from a turd sandwich? Why should we only be happy if things are burning?

[Redux]

I disagree and I'll try to explain. He characterized this as an appeal to both sides of the aisle and as a hopeful start to #MAGA. This is a statement about the act itself, which could be more or less ridiculous depending on the nature of the act that precipitated it. I would further argue that it's a clear celebration of an event that, while positive, should not necessarily be celebrated. In addition, the lengthy discussion that preceded this was precisely a defense of Trump. Lastly, a call to unity is at least an implicit statement that this administration has now shown itself worthy of it.I do not mean to make this about Redux. However, I do think it's important to point out when statements belie one another. I believe that he's not a fan of Trump. What I want to point out is that he's been reacting very favorably and sympathetically. At some point, what's the distinction? I'd like to point out that these sympathies are misplaced, but of course, feel free to agree to disagree.To circle back to the issue, let's take a long view of what happened: Trump has a litany of ethics questions swirling around him and his many promises, many of which turn out to be pretty disingenuous ("blind trust"?). Some people expected this to be true of his salary donation as well, but it wasn't. But because Trump, while being vastly enriched by his presidency, donates $80k of salary to a department to which he has proposed an orders of magnitude greater cut, now is the time to sound the bell for unity? It should not be.And to circle back even further, "people being too unfair about Trump's dishonesties" is probably a far less significant issue than people giving him too much credence.

Allow me to explain why you think I'm acting favorably. As I've mentioned before, I tend to look at the other side of the discussion or argument when an oveewhelming consensus of the discussion leans one way. I have these discussions with my wife all the time. Someome at work will say something fairly conservative, she will agree with it and then I'll have to explain why I disagree.

 

It's not a need to argue, I just lije trying to offer some alternative perspective. It's up to those who hear/read it to interpret it that way. So far at every turn you have decided to take it quite personally. I'm not invested in Trump or his policies. But I know people who are and I know why they are and a lot of those reasons aren't reasonable.

[BigRedBuster]

You know, for someone who doesn't love Trump, you've proven awfully eager both to cheerlead and to defend him.

 

I'm arguing against your suggestion that this is cause for optimism, because frankly I think that's absurdly devoid of context. Of course, there's no need for you to defend the point if you weren't so interested in doing so to begin with. No worries.

This has been a strange tactic of yours lately.

[Danny Bateman]

Let me just say this, as one of the most anti-Trump people on the board:

 

I never said Trump wouldn't do this. I simply said that based on everything I knew about the guy up until now led me to believe it wouldn't happen. Trump strikes me as the type of guy to try to get away with whatever people let him get away with.

 

That said, good for him. Whether he's simply using it as an opportunity to generate some good pub is up for debate, but nonetheless, he gave the money, so kudos.

 

However, it IS important to look at the big picture.

 

He donated $76K to help restore battlefields. But his budget slashed $2B from the Department of the Interior. That's what we're supposed to use to protect and maintain our lands and natural resources. The math isn't good.

[QMany]

He's been getting paid for more than 2 months. Despite his previous pledges, he didn't donate a dime and then was called out on it by the "fake media." Excuse me if I don't give him a standing ovation here.

[Danny Bateman]

He's been getting paid for more than 2 months. Despite his previous pledges, he didn't donate a dime and then was called out on it by the "fake media." Excuse me if I don't give him a standing ovation here.

 

I can go back and dig up quotes saying the leftover funds from inauguration would go to charity. We have no evidence that happened.

 

In addition to the amazing job Fahrenthold did digging into the charities he allegedly donated to over the years. End result:

 

Trump promised millions to charity. We found less than $10,000 over 7 years.

 

And of courses, who can forget how he used his own "charity" as a slush fund to buy Tebow jerseys and $10K paintings of himself... for his own hotels...

 

My view of the guy and his underlying motives is cumulative.

[SandhillshuskerW]

So.......clicked on this to see what everyone thought about Kaepernick and realized that a lot of people don't like Trump! I never have been a fan of Kaepernick and everything that centered around him last season didn't change my perception about him. I'm done talking about him now though.......please continue the Trump talk. It's sad that a lot of threads change in to a Trump thread these days.

[Pedro Guerrero]

Not a D-bag

[Redux]

Posts 211-296 should be moved, get this back on track.

[zoogs]

Allow me to explain why you think I'm acting favorably. As I've mentioned before, I tend to look at the other side of the discussion or argument when an oveewhelming consensus of the discussion leans one way.

I understand that you're making a devil's advocate argument. I am simply attempting to rebut it. Alternative perspectives should be justified.

 

Also, there's been a lot of attempting to couch an argument in a default high ground by claiming neutrality. I don't think anyone is *feigning* that neutrality, but arguments that claim this impartiality should be scrutinized against that claim.

 

Lastly, and again I don't mean this personally, but you've emphasized that you don't have a lot of stake in this and aren't interested in the policy details of it all. Therefore I find it hard to accept the argument that is is a serious look at the other side. Devil's advocacy should necessarily be investigative. Otherwise it's casting doubt on all consensus by default.

 

This isn't a personal fight, again. This is a debate over what sorts of arguments that claim reasonable ground should be admitted as such. Challenging consensus negativity on Trump is a reasonably important point of discussion, in my opinion.