Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 130: Playing the Victims

(+) Yeah! (+)

Posted in the wrong topic last night.


Just fuckin kill me now. -.-
---

Age and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.


Yep, sounds qualified to me. It is the people who act like someone isn't because they disapprove of his performance which are amusing.



Chances on war with North Korea? 15%? Taking the higher or the lower on that number.
---

Corrik posted...

Age and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.


Yep, sounds qualified to me. It is the people who act like someone isn't because they disapprove of his performance which are amusing.



Chances on war with North Korea? 15%? Taking the higher or the lower on that number.

You realize "eligible" and "qualified" aren't the same thing, right.

Just because I'm eligible for the NFL doesn't mean I'm qualified to be on a team.
---

Lightning Strikes posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

LordoftheMorons posted...

Completely fucking unhinged:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/904377075049656322

I assume China trades with NK

So wouldn't that kill us?

Yep, as does most of the world. The EU, China, Mexico, Brazil, India, most of the US's biggest trading partners. What Trump is suggesting here would remove a large majority of the US's trade, and destroy its economy.

We all know this. Is there anybody left who actually thinks he's qualified for office?

But at least we wouldnt have a trade deficit anymore
---

StealThisSheen posted...

Corrik posted...

Age and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.


Yep, sounds qualified to me. It is the people who act like someone isn't because they disapprove of his performance which are amusing.



Chances on war with North Korea? 15%? Taking the higher or the lower on that number.

You realize "eligible" and "qualified" aren't the same thing, right.

Just because I'm eligible for the NFL doesn't mean I'm qualified to be on a team.

Those are the list of qualifications necessary for the job. Nothing else is required.

I suggest you separate from what you personally find acceptable for the job and what the actual qualifications are.

You are trying to be subjective with an objective matter which is clearly stated.



A lot of the countries listed would drop trade with NK to keep their trade with the US besides one major notable exception: China.
---

TheRock1525 posted...

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/03/politics/obama-trump-letter-inauguration-day/index.html

Seems a bit bog-standard but still an interesting read.

Obama is a class act all by himself. If every liberal acted like him, they would have won 2016 rather easily.

Corrik that is the lamest semantic argument.

Going purely off eligibility, Charles Manson is equally qualified.
---

CelesMyUserName posted...

why did ulti link to an image of two articles by completely different people in a span of two years as if it meant anything

A fast growing number of leftists agree that identity politics is ruining the public perception of democrats, regardless of what the children in this topic think.

Corrik posted...

hose are the list of qualifications necessary for the job. Nothing else is required.

I suggest you separate from what you personally find acceptable for the job and what the actual qualifications are.

You are trying to be subjective with an objective matter which is clearly stated.

Those are the qualifications to be eligible. There are obviously different qualifications expected to hold/maintain the position, or else impeachment wouldn't exist.

You can be qualified/deemed eligible to apply for a certain job, but then in the interview you can be deemed unqualified to actually be given the position.
---

Corrik posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

Corrik posted...

Age and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.


Yep, sounds qualified to me. It is the people who act like someone isn't because they disapprove of his performance which are amusing.



Chances on war with North Korea? 15%? Taking the higher or the lower on that number.

You realize "eligible" and "qualified" aren't the same thing, right.

Just because I'm eligible for the NFL doesn't mean I'm qualified to be on a team.

Those are the list of qualifications necessary for the job. Nothing else is required.

I suggest you separate from what you personally find acceptable for the job and what the actual qualifications are.

You are trying to be subjective with an objective matter which is clearly stated.



A lot of the countries listed would drop trade with NK to keep their trade with the US besides one major notable exception: China.

Qualified as in fit for the job, not qualified as in eligible. I wasn't aware it was an ambiguous statement.

Why would other countries kowtow to the US rather than just call this idiotic bluff? If they give in to the US on this they're basically just allowing the US to push them around. And being easily manipulated by a waning power is Trump's job...
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Corrik that is the lamest semantic argument.

Going purely off eligibility, Charles Manson is equally qualified.

You do get that politics as usual isn't what people want, right?

Hillary was seen as establishment in a change election. If democrats wanted to win instead of pushing a gimmick, they should have voted for Bernie Sanders. I have little doubt he would have gotten at LEAST 350 electoral votes if it was him against Trump. His biggest issue was "help the working class" and he was an outsider in a change election. He also wouldn't have bit when Trump tried pulling the election into the mud.

That's really where people went wrong. Identity politics and falling for the reality TV higher ratings nonsense. I love Trump, but the guy acts like an idiot a lot of the time when cooler heads should have prevailed. To say I have concerns about nuclear WW3 would be an understatement.

Hey I'm as qualified to be President as Trump!

In every sense of the word.
---

Lightning Strikes posted...

Qualified as in fit for the job, not qualified as in eligible. I wasn't aware it was an ambiguous statement.

It's not. Corrik's trying for Ulti-level trolling.
---

The most consistently annoying thing about the right is there refusal to admit when they don't know what words mean, or more often misconstrue them on purpose.

I guess they care more about what a word FEELS like it means.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Corrik that is the lamest semantic argument.

Going purely off eligibility, Charles Manson is equally qualified.

Most of America is qualified. There is a really low bar for Presidency of the United States. A lot of jobs set their bar higher by upping their requirements by say needing a Degree or so on.

The Presidency is a job that never has.

You can argue all day that the Presidency SHOULD require higher qualificationd if you wish. It does not change that those are the qualifications and he meets qualifications. Yes, the qualifications would bar a person who is 22 and cured Cancer or happened to be born in India and moved her when 8 years old and was deemed the smartest person ever to live with economic policies which cured lower class struggles, medical gouging, and world hunger.

Those are the qualifications, for better or worse.
---

Just admit that you can't understand the concept of "Qualifications for eligibility =/= qualifications for actually holding the position"
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Hey I'm as qualified to be President as Trump!

In every sense of the word.

You absolutely are (I guess). Now you just need to pass the rigorous election vetting/voting process to see if you are choice America feels is best.

America was fielded with a plethora of qualified individuals. And, they chose the best.

Just like a job. You have qualificationd. You set uo interviews with a bunch of them. You choose the one you feel is best.

Sometimes that choice works out or sometimes it doesn't. Doesn't change they were qualified. (Unless they lied about something and you did not properly vet them to uncover it)
---

Trump lied about a ton of things!
---

Corrik posted...

America was fielded with a plethora of qualified individuals. And, they chose the best.

Well

A minority of them did, yeah
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Trump lied about a ton of things!

He's actually only 32!
---

By Corrik's logic, if the Patriots dropped Tom Brady tomorrow and picked me up as their quarterback, nobody could say I'm unqualified, and they'd have to accept that I'm as qualified to be the team's QB as Brady is.
---

You can just admit you FEEL they should need to be more qualified to run. Your argument is pretty much the same
However, stating they are not qualified is factually false and leaves what I am assuming is an implied argument that they need to be more qualified to do the job competently..
---

Let's end this semantics battle

Let's just say that Trump is not CAPABLE of the job
---

StealThisSheen posted...

By Corrik's logic, if the Patriots dropped Tom Brady tomorrow and picked me up as their quarterback, nobody could say I'm unqualified, and they'd have to accept that I'm as qualified to be the team's QB as Brady is.

NFL teams DO hold open tryouts (at least some do - Steelers do / Invincible follows the Eagles open tryouts).

And you are allowed to tryout because you are as qualified to have a shot. (Some people go from working in a supermarket to NFL QBs. - has happened).

It does not mean you will get the job or you are as good as someone else. They have a rigorous vetting/tryout (interview) process many would not meet.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Let's end this semantics battle

Let's just say that Trump is not CAPABLE of the job I feel he should be doing

Ftfy and yes, that is a fair comment. He has been relatively subpar in my eyes so far. Lots of areas he can bump up my opinion of him in his term but so far I have little faith he will.
---

Corrik posted...

You can just admit you FEEL they should need to be more qualified to run. Your argument is pretty much the same
However, stating they are not qualified is factually false and leaves what I am assuming is an implied argument that they need to be more qualified to do the job competently..

Impeachment is basically for when it is felt that the president is no longer qualified to hold the role. for whatever reason.

If Trump were to get impeached, is he suddenly being de-aged so he no longer qualifies for eligibility? Or is your argument over semantics just dumb?
---

StealThisSheen posted...

Corrik posted...

You can just admit you FEEL they should need to be more qualified to run. Your argument is pretty much the same
However, stating they are not qualified is factually false and leaves what I am assuming is an implied argument that they need to be more qualified to do the job competently..

Impeachment is basically for when it is felt that the president is no longer qualified to hold the role. for whatever reason.

If Trump were to get impeached, is he suddenly being de-aged so he no longer qualifies for eligibility? Or is your argument over semantics just dumb?

Impeachment is usually reserved for breaking the law.

Bill Clinton was impeached. You, I bet, considered him a good president.
---

Corrik posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

Corrik posted...

You can just admit you FEEL they should need to be more qualified to run. Your argument is pretty much the same
However, stating they are not qualified is factually false and leaves what I am assuming is an implied argument that they need to be more qualified to do the job competently..

Impeachment is basically for when it is felt that the president is no longer qualified to hold the role. for whatever reason.

If Trump were to get impeached, is he suddenly being de-aged so he no longer qualifies for eligibility? Or is your argument over semantics just dumb?

Impeachment is usually reserved for breaking the law.

Bill Clinton was impeached. You, I bet, considered him a good president.

Answer the question.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

Corrik posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

Corrik posted...

You can just admit you FEEL they should need to be more qualified to run. Your argument is pretty much the same
However, stating they are not qualified is factually false and leaves what I am assuming is an implied argument that they need to be more qualified to do the job competently..

Impeachment is basically for when it is felt that the president is no longer qualified to hold the role. for whatever reason.

If Trump were to get impeached, is he suddenly being de-aged so he no longer qualifies for eligibility? Or is your argument over semantics just dumb?

Impeachment is usually reserved for breaking the law.

Bill Clinton was impeached. You, I bet, considered him a good president.

Answer the question.

Are you arguing Bill Clinton was not qualified? Lmfao.

Your argument makes no sense.

If someone is stealing from the register at work and are fired, are they no longer qualified to work the job? No. They just were removed for breaking a code of conduct.

You really struggle with the concept of qualified.
---

Corrik is the guy who argued that slavery wasn't a bad thing because it used to be legal. He's completely incapable of understanding nuance, or decency for that matter.
---

Corrik posted...

If someone is stealing from the register at work and are fired, are they no longer qualified to work the job? No. They just were removed for breaking a code of conduct.

You really struggle with the concept of qualified.

...Yes, they are absolutely not qualified to work the job, since they were unable to follow the rules. "Doesn't steal from the cash register" is definitely a qualification to hold a cashier job.

Are you insane?
---

Inviso posted...

Corrik is the guy who argued that slavery wasn't a bad thing because it used to be legal. He's completely incapable of understanding nuance, or decency for that matter.

Can someone pull out the previous topics and correctly prove that this quoted comment is untrue and of course (as always here) spun to try and debase the opposing sides argument through nonsense.
---

BTW, this argument about impeachment is dumb because congress has the right to remove a president from office without impeachment.
---

topic title becoming scarily relevant in here
---

StealThisSheen posted...

Corrik posted...

If someone is stealing from the register at work and are fired, are they no longer qualified to work the job? No. They just were removed for breaking a code of conduct.

You really struggle with the concept of qualified.

...Yes, they are absolutely not qualified to work the job, since they were unable to follow the rules. "Doesn't steal from the cash register" is definitely a qualification to hold a cashier job.

Are you insane?

Let's just agree that we view qualifications differently. I view them as objectively stated, and you view them as implied by your own thoughts of qualifications.
---

Corrick you know when people are saying qualified here they're referring to a person's ability to competently perform the job, not their fulfillment of the official minimum requirements. This isn't the same as just not doing what we want in office. I would never, for example, say that Mitch McConnell is unqualified despite hating everything for which he stands. We're making a point about things like Trump's incompetence, his reckless temperament, and the fact that he prioritizes personal grievances over any sort of policy agenda and the wellbeing of the American people.
---

Corrik posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

Corrik posted...

If someone is stealing from the register at work and are fired, are they no longer qualified to work the job? No. They just were removed for breaking a code of conduct.

You really struggle with the concept of qualified.

...Yes, they are absolutely not qualified to work the job, since they were unable to follow the rules. "Doesn't steal from the cash register" is definitely a qualification to hold a cashier job.

Are you insane?

Let's just agree that we view qualifications differently. I view them as objectively stated, and you view them as implied by your own thoughts of qualifications.

If you think inability to stop stealing doesn't make somebody unqualified for a job involving money, I'm not sure that you're viewing things objectively.
---

Corrik posted...

Inviso posted...

Corrik is the guy who argued that slavery wasn't a bad thing because it used to be legal. He's completely incapable of understanding nuance, or decency for that matter.

Can someone pull out the previous topics and correctly prove that this quoted comment is untrue and of course (as always here) spun to try and debase the opposing sides argument through nonsense.

No, no one can do that, because you absolutely refused to say unambiguously that slavery was bad.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Corrick you know when people are saying qualified here they're referring to a person's ability to competently perform the job, not their fulfillment of the official minimum requirements. This isn't the same as just not doing what we want in office. I would never, for example, say that Mitch McConnell is unqualified despite hating everything for which he stands. We're making a point about things like Trump's incompetence, his reckless temperament, and the fact that he prioritizes personal grievances over any sort of policy agenda and the wellbeing of the American people.

I agree you are referring to what you feel is doing well in your eyes. I stated this from the very start.

There are also people who think Trump is the best president we have ever had.

The term qualified here in your usage is supremely subjective here.

I do not like to take my terms into a subjective territory when they have objective standards to fall back upon.
---

Kenri posted...

Corrik posted...

Inviso posted...

Corrik is the guy who argued that slavery wasn't a bad thing because it used to be legal. He's completely incapable of understanding nuance, or decency for that matter.

Can someone pull out the previous topics and correctly prove that this quoted comment is untrue and of course (as always here) spun to try and debase the opposing sides argument through nonsense.

No, no one can do that, because you absolutely refused to say unambiguously that slavery was bad.

Someone logs these topics and can prove the quote from Inviso completely FALSE. Someone can live their dream today and be Snopes.
---

Corrik, last question I have on this:

If there are two people applying for a cashier job, and they're equal in everything else except:

Person A has a clean record.
Person B has been fired multiple times from previous jobs for stealing from the cash register.

You don't think Person B should be deemed less qualified for a cashier job?
---

Kenri posted...

Corrik posted...

Inviso posted...

Corrik is the guy who argued that slavery wasn't a bad thing because it used to be legal. He's completely incapable of understanding nuance, or decency for that matter.

Can someone pull out the previous topics and correctly prove that this quoted comment is untrue and of course (as always here) spun to try and debase the opposing sides argument through nonsense.

No, no one can do that, because you absolutely refused to say unambiguously that slavery was bad.

Exactly this. The discussion was about how slavery was morally wrong and under his "letter of the law" interpretation of the constitution, then slavery was fine because it was legal. When questioned on this, Corrik dodged the question entirely, specifically to avoid either saying something that undercut his stupid position (that slavery was morally wrong and shouldn't have been legal) or saying something that unequivocally made him look like a monster (that slavery was perfectly acceptable because it was written into law.)

It's like in that one topic where Smuffin was arguing that the rights of gay people are abnormal because they're such a small portion of the population, but when I pointed out that there are more gay people than Jews, he refused to call Jewish people "abnormal" by the same logic he used against gays. People like Corrik and Smuffin heavily imply shit, but don't actually say things outright so they can fall back on the "I didn't say that" defense and play the victims of "liberal slander".
---

StealThisSheen posted...

Corrik, last question I have on this:

If there are two people applying for a cashier job, and they're equal in everything else except:

Person A has a clean record.
Person B has been fired multiple times from previous jobs for stealing from the cash register.

You don't think Person B should be deemed less qualified for a cashier job?

I think Person A would be chosen because they are the best person for the job.

I think if only Person B applied and Person C applied who robbed an elderly lady at gunpoint that Person B would be chosen for the job if the interviewer had a good interview with the person.



See as far as qualified goes, Person A and Person B wouldn't even be a decision if past misdemeanors was non-qualifier. The application wouldn't be accepted.

There are jobs that qualifications do not allow people with past felonies to apply. Or say a Dui.

For example, a person with a DUI is not qualified to be a trucker in most companies.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Corrick you know when people are saying qualified here they're referring to a person's ability to competently perform the job, not their fulfillment of the official minimum requirements.

But in his mind the word "qualified" means the latter, so this whole argument is dumb because you're all disagreeing on what the word even means
---

Inviso posted...

Kenri posted...

Corrik posted...

Inviso posted...

Corrik is the guy who argued that slavery wasn't a bad thing because it used to be legal. He's completely incapable of understanding nuance, or decency for that matter.

Can someone pull out the previous topics and correctly prove that this quoted comment is untrue and of course (as always here) spun to try and debase the opposing sides argument through nonsense.

No, no one can do that, because you absolutely refused to say unambiguously that slavery was bad.

Exactly this. The discussion was about how slavery was morally wrong and under his "letter of the law" interpretation of the constitution, then slavery was fine because it was legal. When questioned on this, Corrik dodged the question entirely, specifically to avoid either saying something that undercut his stupid position (that slavery was morally wrong and shouldn't have been legal) or saying something that unequivocally made him look like a monster (that slavery was perfectly acceptable because it was written into law.)

It's like in that one topic where Smuffin was arguing that the rights of gay people are abnormal because they're such a small portion of the population, but when I pointed out that there are more gay people than Jews, he refused to call Jewish people "abnormal" by the same logic he used against gays. People like Corrik and Smuffin heavily imply shit, but don't actually say things outright so they can fall back on the "I didn't say that" defense and play the victims of "liberal slander".

There is nothing to imply. I outright stated Slavery was wrong and should have been ended. I also stated I was unsure of how that ever could have been accomplished in the United States without the civil war.

I, however, refused to state every single person who fought for the confederacy or lived in the South was a bad person. There was good and bad people in the South just as in the North.

Your comment is entirely false and has zero accuracy to my before stated comments.
---

Corrik posted...

See as far as qualified goes, Person A and Person B wouldn't even be a decision if past misdemeanors was non-qualifier. The application wouldn't be accepted.

There are jobs that qualifications do not allow people with past felonies to apply. Or say a Dui.

For example, a person with a DUI is not qualified to be a trucker in most companies.

Let's say the amounts Person B stole were small enough that no charges were pressed, they were just terminated immediately. So, no misdemeanors. Do you consider Person A and B equally qualified?
---

StealThisSheen posted...

Corrik posted...

See as far as qualified goes, Person A and Person B wouldn't even be a decision if past misdemeanors was non-qualifier. The application wouldn't be accepted.

There are jobs that qualifications do not allow people with past felonies to apply. Or say a Dui.

For example, a person with a DUI is not qualified to be a trucker in most companies.

Let's say the amounts Person B stole were small enough that no charges were pressed, they were just terminated immediately. So, no misdemeanors. Do you consider Person A and B equally qualified?

Yes. They are equally qualified even with a misdemeanor theft if the job doesn't deem that as a non-qualifier also.

I would expect that Person A would be chosen for being what the interviewer felt was the right choice, however, in the misdemeanor scenario.

I expect Person A is more likely to be chosen if they have an impeccable work record compared to the fired Person b after the interview process.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

LordoftheMorons posted...

Corrick you know when people are saying qualified here they're referring to a person's ability to competently perform the job, not their fulfillment of the official minimum requirements.

But in his mind the word "qualified" means the latter, so this whole argument is dumb because you're all disagreeing on what the word even means

I get that. I'm just trying to fully understand a baseline for what he considers "qualified." Like, if it's strictly only the bare minimum that is written down, and doesn't include conduct breaches, etc.
---

I have seen people with shittier resumes including crimes get jobs over better resumes after having much better interviews (or heavily behind the scene strings being pulled).
---

It only counts conduct breaches if the employer lists conduct breaches.

I told you guys before he is strictly Lawful Neutral
---