- Dragon Ball Z Forum
- →
- The Lounge
- →
- Deep Discussion
- →
- Why are people so childish about Trump?
| We hope you enjoy your visit to this forum. If you are reading this then it means you are currently browsing the forum as a guest, we don’t limit any of the content posted from guests however if you join, you will have the ability to join the discussions! We are always happy to see new faces at this forum and we would like to hear your opinion, so why not register now? It doesn’t take long and you can get posting right away. Click here to Register! If you are having difficulties validating your account please email us at admin@dbzf.co.uk If you're already a member please log in to your account: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Why are people so childish about Trump? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Dec 27 2016, 01:56 AM (1,702 Views) | |
| + Steve | Dec 27 2016, 01:56 AM Post #1 |
Greetings. I will be your waifu this season.
|
Talking generally here but this is in reference to the Rockettes refusing to dance for Trump at his inauguration. It just seems kind of sad really. No matter your opinion on Trump and his future Presidency you're still supposed to be a professional and do your job. This would just be like anyone saying they're not coming to work with the excuse that: "They just don't want to" The sort of person who'd soon be fired for ditching their responsibility as an employee and as an adult. I'm definitely on the left but the actions of many people in reaction to Trump have been really pathetic. It's a democracy and people have always been able to make stupid decisions. Choosing not to dance at a ceremony or serve members of the Trump family at a restaurant isn't going to make the appropriate authorities go: "Well that's it then, he can't be President can he? People think he's a meanie! Wake Hillary from her sarcophagus she has people to reign over" |
 Definitely not a succubus, fear not | |
 |
 
|
| Tinny | Dec 27 2016, 02:40 AM Post #2 |
 
|
Is there a particular reason the rockettes can't refuse service to him? Not to mention these are exactly the kind of people Trump has directly stated he has perved on (using the fact that he owns the place as a reason to walk on models while they're undressed/dressing, I can't exactly blame some of the dancers for not wanting to perform for someone like that, among other things. Not to mention from what I can tell, they aren't outright refusing either, they're just making it optional. "The Radio City Rockettes are proud to participate in the 58th Presidential Inaugural. For a Rockette to be considered for an event, they must voluntarily sign up and are never told they have to perform at a particular event, including the inaugural. It is always their choice. In fact, for the coming inauguration, we had more Rockettes request to participate than we have slots available. We eagerly await the inaugural celebrations." So... What's the issue here with the rocketts if the rockettes are dancing? And hell, it's a constant position I've heard repeated by the right that a person should be able to refuse service for any reason, so I still don't see what the issue is if some people (not even all the rockettes) refuse to work for someone who as they have said "a man that stands for everything we're against." Edited by Tinny, Dec 27 2016, 02:40 AM.
|
 Above signature created by Graffiti 
| |
|
|
| lazerbem | Dec 27 2016, 05:40 AM Post #3 |
 
|
Trump won through the electoral college, saying "it's a democracy" doesn't hold much when the majority voted against Trump. And while small rebellion won't change the results, it does put out a message to not agree with his message, which is important for mid-term elections of congress as well as just in general for the nation so that the likes of Stephen Bannon don't start poisoning rhetoric. No action is wasted, and to be passive and take it just simply isn't right. |
 Crazy cat cults in the woods | |
|
|
|
| Dingo | Dec 27 2016, 06:01 AM Post #4 |
 
|
I'm glad the electoral college saved us from the tyranny of California. |
|
Wisdom Wisdom Pack
| |
|
|
|
| Copy_Ninja | Dec 27 2016, 08:15 AM Post #5 |
Novacane for the pain
|
It's not childish at all. No one is under any obligation to perform for Trump or support him in any way. Him winning the election does not change who he is either as a person or a politician. It does not change what he has said during his campaign, what he plans to do as president and who he plans to give power to in his administration. Performing for a president at their inauguration is showing a level of support for that president. There's no way to characterise it as anything else because the inauguration is a celebration. If you are against Trump, why would you want to be involved in that? It's not like this is some regular performance at a theatre that they were booked for just for the sake of a performance, it's a political statement.
No, but it's a political statement of your own beliefs and to some people that's enough. |
 We'll never be those kids again
| |
|
|
|
| Cal | Dec 27 2016, 11:30 AM Post #6 |
I may not deserve to live, but I will protect those in my reach with my reverse blade!
|
Yea, but the American political system isn't about the majority of voters either. It's about the 538 people who actually do vote for president. This is more of an issue with people not understanding the difference between a democracy and a republic. Direct democracy doesn't work with a nation as large as ours anyway. We can tell this by recent enough history. -- On topic now... The whole political statement bulls*** is getting ridiculous. We have a list of whining celebrities who have claimed will leave the country since Trump won, but obviously will not. We have media outlets tainting news (if it can even be called that anymore) on a global scale that is largely false or hyperbolic... There's nothing wrong with making a political statement. I just find it ridiculous that garbage like this is even considered a headline. |
 | |
|
|
|
| + Steve | Dec 27 2016, 12:58 PM Post #7 |
|
Greetings. I will be your waifu this season.
|
Being hired to perform at something doesn't mean you're actually supporting what it is though you're just hired to do a job. It's not like they were going to be forced to wave anti-immigrant signs about and parade about a wall. If the Rockettes always or frequently perform at these things then I'm pretty sure people would see it as tradition rather than want to get the torches out and burn the witches for supporting Hitler 2. And people who do react that way are just idiots anyway really. No side should support that behaviour. There's making a political statement and then there's being unprofessional or a douche. What's the difference here for example between refusing to serve food for the Trump's and refusing to serve food for a gay couple? Most everyone comes out in force to support the discrimination against the gay couple, saying the restaurant owners are disgusting and should just do their job. But if it's a "political statement" it's totally fine? Human rights are being denied in both instances, one is supported and one generally isn't. Regardless of Trump and his families ideals they're still human beings and it's especially pathetic to attack his family for the actions of Donald himself. |
|
Definitely not a succubus, fear not | |
|
|
|
| Copy_Ninja | Dec 27 2016, 01:20 PM Post #8 |
|
Novacane for the pain
|
The inauguration is a celebration of the incoming president, it is the entire point of the event. Even just attending that event is showing support for the man. You have to consider the context of what it is for. Performing at a theatre when the attraction of the event is the show itself is just a job. Performing in celebration of another person is entirely different. It's not really new behaviour, people don't want to be associated with things that they disagree with politically. Pretty much every election story you hear about bands asking candidates not to use their music at rallies and such.
Don't see how it's unprofessional. All it is is some members of the Rockette's don't want to attend and have said as much well in advance. Besides, their performance is still going ahead anyway.
Because in one example you are targeting a public figure as a result of their own words and actions. It's completely personal to them. In the other, you are discriminating against an entire group of people who have done nothing wrong. It's not like anti-discrimination laws disallow refusing service to specific people if their actions deserve it, they just prevent marginal groups in society being wronged simply because of who they are.
His family act as political advisors and campaign surrogates, they've done plenty themselves to be criticised for. They're all on record supporting his policies and attitude. Especially his daughter who has been involved in his White House transition while running his companies, which makes a mockery of the concept of avoiding conflicts of interest. |
|
We'll never be those kids again
| |
|
|
|
| lazerbem | Dec 27 2016, 04:55 PM Post #9 |
|
I never said it was about the majority or that Trump cheated the system, I'm just saying that there's good reason for lots of people to be pissed since they essentially lost out to the interests of central states. Saying that he won democratically doesn't get to the heart of the issue of why people are angry, and it oversimplifies the way that he did win. Of course people are upset more so than with another president, not many other presidents would be hiring alt-righters in their staff. |
|
Crazy cat cults in the woods | |
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 27 2016, 06:08 PM Post #10 |
|
While I think that the level of hatred toward Trump is exaggerated, I still think that people have the right to refuse service to whomever they like. They should, however, be prepared for media backlash and (if this applies) a drop in clients that doing so will bring. It's similar to refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple. Stupid and foolish, yes, but if the owner decides to do so, he should be able to do whatever he likes, so long as he doesn't whine about the consequences after the fact. |
|
|
|
| Cal | Dec 28 2016, 09:29 AM Post #11 |
|
I may not deserve to live, but I will protect those in my reach with my reverse blade!
|
No, there isn't a good reason. The political system works the way it does because it has been established as the most fair. Obviously tons of people will always fail to see the forest for the trees right in front of them though.
Yet again, the only people who are upset are the same people trying to find something to complain about. Either through ignorance or simply being butthurt people are attempting to find things to either b*** about (ie all his staff are on the right) or trying to find headlines that serve as shock bait to the same people who haven't stopped bitching yet. |
|
| |
|
|
|
| Copy_Ninja | Dec 28 2016, 10:06 AM Post #12 |
|
Novacane for the pain
|
It's kind of impossible to say what system is considered the most fair or not. If one electoral method was well established as being the most fair then you'd think most other countries would adopt it, but most Western democracies have their own systems of elections that all differ. There's positives and negatives to the electoral college and it really depends on your point of view whether it's worth it. I get the argument about balancing state rights and not allowing the presidency to be decided by the big population centres but then this system kind of makes voters in a lot of states not really matter. What's the point of voting Republican in California/New York or Democrat in Texas? You're not going to effect the outcome of the election at all, it's pretty disenfranchising. That's a major problem considering how many people are in those States too but the same goes for the other solid blue/red States in the US. America's founders had their reasons for the electoral college but I think some of those reasons no longer apply/weren't very good reasons to begin with anyway.
This is unfair, there's plenty of legitimate reasons to be unhappy with Trump's cabinet picks especially if you are left leaning. Him winning the election doesn't mean people need to accept what he does. Also welcome back, hope you stick around for a bit this time 
Edited by Copy_Ninja, Dec 28 2016, 10:07 AM.
|
|
We'll never be those kids again
| |
|
|
|
| Cal | Dec 28 2016, 10:38 AM Post #13 |
|
I may not deserve to live, but I will protect those in my reach with my reverse blade!
|
I shouldn't have said most fair, simply more fair than an alternative resulting in a popular vote. A popular vote in America will result in most states picking homegrown candidates because they would already have an established base in these states. In doing so you're ensuring that lesser known candidates would have never made it to the national stage, just like Obama.
California and New York have a larger part than pretty much any other state in the Republican nominee primary though. They alone accounted for 261 of Trumps 1447 pledged delegates in the primary. Without these two states he would have had 1186 pledges delegates meaning he wouldn't have had the needed 1237 needed to run for president as the Republican nominee. Without which he would have likely lost the nominee through a brokered convention. Texas is also an interesting case. Due to a growing Hispanic population mainly democrats are begining to thrive there. The best example is the election last month where Trump beat Hillary by 9 percentage points. Last election Romney beat Obama by more than 15 percentage points. A 6 percent swing is pretty huge and the gap is narrowing more than people realize actually.
It is not about accepting it though. It's about having the common sense to realize this is the best thing to happen to push through an agenda. Now with the white house, senate, house, and a supreme court pick all leaning Republican it means he will have the ability to push through his agenda on a national stage like we haven't seen in decades. The man platformed on Republican ideals (mostly) and Republican leadership that supported him (some). Don't be surprised when the same people are the people put in leadership positions since he won. I agree you don't have to be happy with it or accept it. It's pretty ridiculous though that people are getting mad about it or are shocked by it.
Thanks, I'm going to try to stay mildly active. Edited by Cal, Dec 28 2016, 10:39 AM.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| Copy_Ninja | Dec 28 2016, 11:14 AM Post #14 |
|
Novacane for the pain
|
Can you explain this one a little bit more because I'm getting a little lost following. Whether a candidate would make it to the national stage would depend on how they go in the primaries, which is a matter for the parties themselves to choose rather than any mandated rules from the government. A popular vote would only effect the two candidates who made it to the general, by which point they're already front and centre.
Not many people vote in the primaries though, even when compared to the pretty dismal turnouts in the general elections. Less than 29% of voters turnout for them and that includes both Democrat and Republican primaries. And it also only really gives you a say in half the election. Sure, you can vote on a certain nominee but you can't effect much when it comes to the actual election that decides where they go.
Sure the demographic changes might swing things in Texas eventually but the point still stands for other red/blue states.
I don't think that many people are shocked by it, these are exactly the type of people that it's expected he would pick. It's just more proof that what people feared would happen if Trump were elected coming true. The only thing people who oppose what Trump's administration wants to do can act on it is by voicing their disapproval. Maybe it won't change anything right now but if enough people can get behind it, there might be an effect in 2018 and 2020 that might swing things the other way. |
|
We'll never be those kids again
| |
|
|
|
| Cal | Dec 28 2016, 02:10 PM Post #15 |
|
I may not deserve to live, but I will protect those in my reach with my reverse blade!
|
It is not really a matter for the parties. Bernie Sanders isn't even a Democrat but ran as a Democrat for the nominee. Parties still have to follow local/state regulations. If you're going to go with a popular vote for president then you would do the same for the primaries. Obama didn't win the popular vote in the 2008 Democratic nomination. He was never on the ballot in Michigan for the primary. Had the popular vote been the only consideration he would never have even been in the general election, more-less lasted as long as he did in the 2008 Democratic nominee election. The electoral college levels the playing field in many instances, people just think the whole process is as simple as 2+2 and it is simply not.
This is true.
Yea, but I think ideals within cultures like Texas are constantly swinging as well. I think the mindset of 'my vote doesn't count because more people will vote a certain way' is sort of a crap justification. It just means you're one election away from being a swing state.
That's just it though. I would say people with decent sense aren't shocked, but that isn't stopping the mainstream media accompanied by vulnerable liberals from being shocked by it and attempting to get a negative reaction from people all over the world and I find it astounding that it is working. Edited by Cal, Dec 28 2016, 05:09 PM.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
 |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Deep Discussion · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
 4:42 PM Jul 13
|
Theme Designed by McKee91
Powered by ZetaBoards Premium · Privacy Policy