Not at all what I asked.

My impression of you is that you just want to fling mud. I'm not interested.

I am sure that is your typical approach to the world, but I have made several reasoned arguments filled with relative content.

I could have one with you, though. — frank

I really doubt you have the grit for it.

The stance is not specifically about Trump. The stance is that if the conversation, any conversation, is in the Lounge and the OP specifically describes the nature of the conversation as being inclusive of "laughing, crying, hating" (Trump in this case) then a less formal level of discourse, certainly including use of the word "idiot", is legitimate. If, on the other hand, someone starts a conversation on an aspect on the Trump presidency in 'Politics and Current Affairs' or especially, 'Political Philosophy', a more formal level of discourse would be required and use of the word "idiot" would be less acceptable and expected at least to be qualified and supported. Note that 'Politics and Current Affairs' is a less formal category than 'Political Philosophy', and 'The Lounge' is a less formal category than 'Politics and Current Affairs'. i.e. The site is set up with categories of various levels of formality that are expected to be adhered to.

And I don't know anything about what's been folded in here. You can take that up with Street. The OP is the OP and we're in the Lounge. That's the context as it stands. If something gets folded in in future that shouldn't be, let us know.

If it's ok for people to shout "idiot", then it must be equally fine for people to ask that the tone be tempered.

You want me to notify you the next time a political topic is folded into this one because it's about Trump? You want me to flag your own moderators?

If it's ok for people to shout "idiot", then it must be equally fine for people to ask that the tone be tempered. — frank

Yes, it is, which is why I answered you and Phil O Sophy and Free Emotion. It's just getting repetitive. The answer's not going to change: I'd like to see reasoned discourse here as everywhere but it's less formal here in the Lounge, it doesn't have to be philosophical, and words like "idiot" about a third party are certainly OK.

You want me to notify you the next time a political topic is folded into this one because it's about Trump? You want me to flag your own moderators? — frank

Yes, of course I want you to notify any of us on this if you have reason to think the topic shouldn't have been folded in and a mistake has been made.

(They're not "my moderators" by the way nor am I theirs. We all can be flagged equally and we have modded each other and will no doubt again).

He just made peace with freaking North Korea. — fishfry

North Korea has increased nuclear production at secret sites, say U.S. officials

lol

The problem is he's painted himself into a corner about the whole thing being a massive success and by the time he manages to admit he's made a mess of it, it'll be too late. Kim will just string him out. Played.

Trump has done and said many things which demonstrates he is on the lower end of the intelligence scale and his lack of experience is well known; — Jeremiah

I prefer the above wording, Niceties aside, I believe it falls into the category of 'fighting words'. In any case it is difficult not to get defensive or annoyed if in a discussion between supporters and enemies of a president, words like 'idiot' are used. Is Hilary Clinton a clueless idiot or and idiot with clues? It really gets bad. Points have been made, however, and knowledge has been gained so lets move on.

It bodes well for the American Dream if a clueless idiot can become a multi billionaire and president.

If you don't want to read my post then don't; but reading them then complaining about them kind of seems like you enjoy the engagement on some level.

I have always found that odd, as much as people complain about trolls they are attracted to them like flies on shit. They also think about what the troll has said much more fully than what Mr. Agree-to-disagree said. I mean here you are, already written me off as a troll, yet you keep engaging me.

It bodes well for the American Dream if a clueless idiot can become a multi billionaire and president. — FreeEmotion

That has to be one of the most thoughtless sentences I have ever heard expressed.

I am starting to wonder if people are really offended by the crudeness of the word idiot, or the fact that it is targeted at Trump.

Also, calling Obama an idiot does not bother me one bit. It never has, and that is because it is not true. Say what you will about Obama, but the man clearly is moderately intelligent. He is not super intelligent, but he a bit above average.

Which makes me wonder if calling Trump a clueless idiot causes such discord because it rings too close to home for some people. Perhaps they don't want to face the truth that the current President of the most powerful army on the planet is a moron.

I think it is beyond dispute that we are comfortable with different ways of using the language to communicate, I think we can leave the lines drawn they stand.

Also, calling Obama an idiot does not bother me one bit. It never has, and that is because it is not true. Say what you will about Obama, but the man clearly is moderately intelligent. He is not super intelligent, but he a bit above average. — Jeremiah

He is intelligent. But that's my opinion. Trump is intelligent, that is also my opinion. What was impressed on me during my stay in the USA, when there were Nazis permitted to march the streets, was that we should respect another person's opinion, even if we hate it. I thought this was admirable.

Which makes me wonder if calling Trump a clueless idiot causes such discord because it rings too close to home for some people. Perhaps they don't want to face the truth that the current President of the most powerful army on the planet is a moron. — Jeremiah

The discord or whatever it causes is simply because I see a simple, stubborn pattern here:

1) Insult the person when you do not agree with his policies
2) Assume that (1) will provide validity the the argument against his policies.

You have to deal with the fact than many many people voted for this 'idiot'. What is the explanation for that, well maybe I have to accept the fact that they too, were 'clueless idiots'.

Which is the point, it causes those who judged Trump's character and policies as those which are good for America, it calls the judgement of those people into question. Yes, I see it now. I am also being called a clueless idiot for thinking Trump is not a clueless idiot. So be it. At least there is honesty.

Of course a total nuclear war will change my mind but if Kim Jing Un gets what he wants he is not going to need a nuclear war option.

when there were Nazis permitted to march the streets, was that we should respect another person's opinion, even if we hate it. — FreeEmotion

I value freedom and the right of free expression and only in that interest do I tolerate their presence but in no way do I respect their views. There is such a thing as being too open minded and I draw that line at respecting the views of Nazis.

If that was your take away from the USA then you failed to understand what was really happening. That has nothing to do with respecting the views of Nazis, it was about respecting the Constitution.

1) Insult the person when you do not agree with his policies
2) Assume that (1) will provide validity the the argument against his policies. — FreeEmotion

You missed.

You have to deal with the fact than many many people voted for this 'idiot'. What is the explanation for that, well maybe I have to accept the fact that they too, were 'clueless idiots'. — FreeEmotion

Never said that anywhere. I think you are actually driving to make me worst than I am so that I fit your caricature better.

was that we should respect another person's opinion, even if we hate it. — FreeEmotion

I don't think we should respect other's opinions. The point you may have been attempting to make is we ideally respect a right to HAVE an opinion (that we might hate). The right to have an opinion and then expressing it is what is meant by freedom of speech.

This is an important article that I think @ArguingWAristotleTiff (and several others) should read, which touches upon why immigrants from Central America, in particular the Northern Triangle are immigrating to America and why deterrence policies (e.g. family separation, detaining) will not be effective.

Another interesting read identifying Trump's rhetoric and policies with pre-Cold War American conservatism.

However, I think it can be argued that all previous administrations, “the Swamp”, orchestrated those conditions.

It is therefore incumbent on a new administration to not only stop those heinous manipulations of other countries but to also not make USA citizens continually pay for them. After all, the political and corporate elites are not the ones who ultimately pay for the all of those acts.

After all, the political and corporate elites are not the ones who ultimately pay for the all of those acts. — raza

So implement a progressive tax on corporations and the elite, create clean, hospitable centers to temporarily house immigrants who are escaping the countries we fucked over (the article does state that the US Government had a hand in this), and treat them with respect, provide healthcare services, etc. rather than separate them, detain them, and further demonize them as this Swamp-filled administration is currently doing.

Nah. just back right out of interfering in other countries and plug the holes in the border. Taxing corporations merely causes corporations to pass that tax bill on to ordinary consumers of their businesses.

Stop "fucking over" countries is how it should start.

After all, the US is only a colony of the British monarchy and their financiers such as the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers and their ilk. A full independence for the US is the only hope. A 2nd revolution is required as the 1st one was eventually countered over time by the usual war bandits.

Nah. just back right out of interfering in other countries and plug the holes in the border. Taxing corporations merely causes corporations to pass that tax bill on to ordinary consumers of their businesses. — raza

The damage is clearly already done, and merely removing ourselves from interference in foreign affairs will not magically solve the humanitarian crisis in the Northern Triangle. Neither will "plugging the holes in the border" whatever the hell that's supposed to entail. Corporations should be taxed progressively regardless, and the US Government should be strong-arming them so that costs don't trickle down to consumers or the general public, but that's a long argument that's neither here nor there. Suffice it to say, if the US Government can spend trillions on a war we lost, and add over $1.4 trillion to the deficit thanks to a needless and fallacious tax cut, I think we can afford to spend on taking better care of people whose countries we helped spiral into chaos and violence.

After all, the US is only a colony of the British monarchy and their financiers such as the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers and their ilk. A full independence for the US is the only hope. A 2nd revolution is required as the 1st one was eventually countered over time by the usual war bandits. — raza

Damn, you are really going full tin-foil hat aren't you?

Damn, you are really going full tin-foil hat aren't you? — Maw

You would make the ideal patsy due to your naivety. They would have you dressed up in a brown shirt before you know it.

War is the finance game. When do these financiers make inroads? First wars are orchestrated causing depressions. This is when assets are accumulated because they go for a song. Therefore when the tide comes back assets are inflated accordingly. It's an obvious and successful business model.

Did the Germans bomb Buckingham Palace during the London blitz? Such an obvious and strategic target IF one was trying to undermine British morale.

But no.

Further; Do I believe Donald Trump would heroically lead a 2nd revolution for American independence?

Ah, no I do not.

You would make the ideal patsy due to your naivety. They would have you dressed up in a brown shirt before you know it. — raza

Na, I'm Jewish, they would have murdered me.

Did the Germans bomb Buckingham Palace during the London blitz? Such an obvious and strategic target IF one was trying to undermine British morale.

But no. — raza

Except Buckingham Palace was hit by several bombs during The Blitz

Except Buckingham Palace was hit by several bombs during The Blitz — Maw

Comparatively minimally for an easy sore thumb of what should have been a prime target.

So first you state that Buckingham Palace wasn't bombed, presumably because of some conspiracy involving the British Monarchy, despite the fact that not only was it bombed, but Queen Elizabeth wrote about how she and her Father the King were nearly killed during one of the strikes.

The Nazis' prime targets were strategic sites such as boatyard docks, factories, etc. that were not located near Buckingham Palace. It's also important to note that the bombs used in WW2 weren't very precise. That said, Buckingham palace was directly hit around nine times.

This is a pretty dumb conspiracy.