What's in a name?

jennontheisland

the world is at my command
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 17, 2006
Messages
7,270
Reaction score
2,125
Location
down by the bay
Giving people titles gives them power. I'm not going to give anyone power I don't want them to have. He's not my president in all kinds of ways (one being that though I'm physically in America, I'm not American), but I still have to live in a country where he has an unfortunate amount of influence. I'm not going to compound that with titles.

Arguments about respect for the office will go nowhere with me because my respect is earned, it's not there because you have a title. Separate classes of people who are treated specially because they have titles is something America wanted to get away from when they decided to be a separate country.
 
Last edited:

Venavis

Semi-benevolent overlord
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 22, 2017
Messages
58
Reaction score
12
Website
venavis.blog
If you're an American living in America, he's your president. Just like I had to suck it up with obama, you'll have to do the same for the next eight years.

I'm curious. What, exactly, did you have to 'suck up' with Obama?

How were you worse off during his presidency than you are now?
 

Lyv

I meant to do that.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 5, 2007
Messages
4,958
Reaction score
1,934
Location
Outside Boston
I borrow *45. I sure won't use the title for someone who bragged about (and told as a funny story) abusing his power as beauty pageant owner to bypass security and enter a women-only dressing area to leer at vulnerable naked women. I could give dozens of other reasons, any one of which makes him undeserving of any shred of respect from me (whose arms sometimes move like the reporter's *45 mocked. And yes he did mock his disability, because right before he did, he said, "You should see this guy."). Plus, I don't believe the election was fair, so there is definitely an asterisk is appropriate.
 

Venavis

Semi-benevolent overlord
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 22, 2017
Messages
58
Reaction score
12
Website
venavis.blog
as an objective and verifiable fact.

The main reason I don't consider him my president is because it is not an objective and verifiable fact. The objective and verifiable fact is that he lost the popular vote. There are far to many questions and hanky panky regarding the electoral vote for it to be a 'verified' fact.

He holds the office, just as the car thief drives the car.
 

William Haskins

poet
Kind Benefactor
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
29,114
Reaction score
8,867
Age
58
Website
www.poisonpen.net
The main reason I don't consider him my president is because it is not an objective and verifiable fact. The objective and verifiable fact is that he lost the popular vote. There are far to many questions and hanky panky regarding the electoral vote for it to be a 'verified' fact.

He holds the office, just as the car thief drives the car.

i'm not going to go back and forth with a bunch of writers about the simple distinction between "the president" and "my president."

look, at this point, there is no proof that votes were flipped. until there is, the electoral tally stands, and the popular vote is an ancillary stat.

unless you have flipped votes, you may well have obstruction and any number of other violations of law, perhaps even impeachable offenses, but the results of the election will never, in my opinion, be overturned.

so, yes you can say he is not your president, but he is, with all the responsibilities and privileges the office bestows, the president of the united states. that is an historical fact.

some people, in my opinion, need to get their heads out of their asses and start figuring out how to win back congress instead of spending so much time making up new nicknames and denying reality.

besides, no one will ever top my "circus peanut with a cotton candy combover."
 

AW Admin

Administrator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 19, 2008
Messages
18,772
Reaction score
6,286
1. False. 2. False. 3. False. 4. False 5. False and 6. Most false of all.

NYR94 you are expected to provide citations. I'm not going to say that again. You need to read and meet the room expectations as you've already been told.

Do it.
 

AW Admin

Administrator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 19, 2008
Messages
18,772
Reaction score
6,286
some people, in my opinion, need to get their heads out of their asses and start figuring out how to win back congress instead of spending so much time making up new nicknames and denying reality."

There's a national campaign to elect a brand new congress; not sure they're really thinking things through, so far.

But here's some tips about getting Congress to act on our behalf (whatever your politics, Congress is supposed to work for you; you can change Congress if if isn't).
 

MaeZe

Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 6, 2016
Messages
12,822
Reaction score
6,576
Location
Ralph's side of the island.
Giving people titles gives them power. I'm not going to give anyone power I don't want them to have. He's not my president in all kinds of ways (one being that though I'm physically in America, I'm not American), but I still have to live in a country where he has an unfortunate amount of influence. I'm not going to compound that with titles.

Arguments about respect for the office will go nowhere with me because my respect is earned, it's not there because you have a title. Separate classes of people who are treated specially because they have titles is something America wanted to get away from when they decided to be a separate country.

This is a more persuasive argument to me than a semantic debate about whether the person is or is not the POTUS. #Resist, in my opinion, includes choosing the labels we apply based on the value/meaning of the label.

Why must I recognize his legitimacy? What do I gain from it? Some may see lack of recognition as foolish perhaps because it is an alternative reality. If it was more than symbolism, like refusing to pay federal taxes or something, that would be an alt-reality. Such an action would get the individual nowhere.

But symbolic resistance by the narrative one chooses has a potential benefit that has no drawbacks I can see.
 

Venavis

Semi-benevolent overlord
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 22, 2017
Messages
58
Reaction score
12
Website
venavis.blog
but the results of the election will never, in my opinion, be overturned.

Frankly, we could prove beyond a doubt that votes were flipped, ballots stolen, individuals of color were turned away at the polls (all of which we have demonstrated) and that Russia hacked things, and it won't be overturned because too many wealthy people stand to lose a lot if it is.

some people, in my opinion, need to get their heads out of their asses and start figuring out how to win back congress instead of spending so much time making up new nicknames and denying reality.

Yeah, but in case you haven't noticed, most people can do two things at once. I can refuse to call him the president and campaign against my local congressman at the same time, and regularly do. Why, I can even refuse to call him the president and donate to groups such as the ACLU at the same time. Hell, I can refuse to call him the president and run against the local trump supporting school board members at the same time. It's surprisingly easy, since refusing to call him the president takes up almost as much of my time as not returning my ex's phone calls.

Also?

i'm not going to go back and forth with a bunch of writers

Comes off as very belittling. One, writers are usually a smart bunch of well-educated people, and Two - You'd be surprised at what some of us do in addition to writing.
 
Last edited:

regdog

The Scavengers
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 27, 2008
Messages
58,075
Reaction score
21,013
Location
She/Her
I will not give one sliver of respect to that man. He has done nothing to earn it. What he has done, is brag about sexually assaulting women, ridicule and body shame women, mock a disabled reporter, spew vile racist, Islamaphobic, hate filled rhetoric, which has embolden extremists. He very well may have colluded with a foreign power to undermine and usurp the last presidential election. He has openly boasted of obstructing justice. He has mocked and degraded the US Intelligence Community. He has offended, insulted and belittled our Allies, while praising Assad, Kim Jong Un, and Putin. All murdering despots. He defrauded people with his bogus university. He is in direct violation of the Emoluments Clause and is actively being supported by foreign money. He has whinged, whined and fussed like a petulant toddler not getting their way.

Respect him because he holds the title of president. Not a chance.


Link-Trust Fund

If you're an American living in America, he's your president. Just like I had to suck it up with obama, you'll have to do the same for the next eight years.

Obama has done none of what Donald Trump has done. Disliking Obama because of policy, political party is one thing. 45 is an affront to human decency and the very laws of this country.
 

Lyv

I meant to do that.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 5, 2007
Messages
4,958
Reaction score
1,934
Location
Outside Boston
Yeah, but in case you haven't noticed, most people can do two things at once. I can refuse to call him the president and campaign against my local congressman at the same time, and regularly do. Why, I can even refuse to call him the president and donate to groups such as the ACLU at the same time. Hell, I can refuse to call him the president and run against the local trump supporting school board members at the same time. It's surprisingly easy, since refusing to call him the president takes up almost as much of my time as not returning my ex's phone calls.

I somehow missed the comment you're responding to, but I agree with your response. I use *45 and some names/descriptions I can't use here. For most of my adult life, I've done what is now seen as resistance/daily activism, but have certainly ramped it up since November. I just spent 26 miserable days in the hospital (having major surgery, developing complications, yada yada) and have been home 13 days with home care. I missed a few days (not 39, probably not even half that), but I didn't stop calling/writing/sharing info/etc even in the hospital. I will never understand, "You should be doing this, not that" posts. Ask me what I am doing and you'll get an earful.
 

Venavis

Semi-benevolent overlord
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 22, 2017
Messages
58
Reaction score
12
Website
venavis.blog
I somehow missed the comment you're responding to, but I agree with your response. I use *45 and some names/descriptions I can't use here. For most of my adult life, I've done what is now seen as resistance/daily activism, but have certainly ramped it up since November. I just spent 26 miserable days in the hospital (having major surgery, developing complications, yada yada) and have been home 13 days with home care. I missed a few days (not 39, probably not even half that), but I didn't stop calling/writing/sharing info/etc even in the hospital. I will never understand, "You should be doing this, not that" posts. Ask me what I am doing and you'll get an earful.

I find it annoying. Also the whole 'why are you working on this cause when that cause involves a situation so much worse' line. Um, 1, I can care about more than one thing, and 2, often the causes are related and the first cause happens to be the one I can directly do something about and will ultimately lead to solutions to the other situation, and 3, you don't care about either cause and are just using that as an excuse to shut me up because you're one of the problems the first cause is looking to solve.
 

rugcat

Lost in the Fog
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
16,339
Reaction score
4,110
Location
East O' The Sun & West O' The Moon
Website
www.jlevitt.com
The main reason I don't consider him my president is because it is not an objective and verifiable fact. The objective and verifiable fact is that he lost the popular vote. There are far to many questions and hanky panky regarding the electoral vote for it to be a 'verified' fact.

He holds the office, just as the car thief drives the car.
We accept the results of elections, even when there are some issues in question. There's a good case to be made that George W. Bush did not win the original election, but in fact should have lost Florida, and would have if the Supreme Court had not stepped in. Not to mention he failed to win the popular vote.

A case can also be made that John F. Kennedy would not have won the 1960 election without his narrow win in the state of Illinois, which delivered the Democratic vote arguably with significant voter fraud.

https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20161019/downtown/vote-rigged-elections-history-fraud-stolen-trump

It's quite possible Trump would not have won the electoral college without Republican voter suppression, irrespective of any Russian meddling. But there's a long history of partisan tricks when it comes to elections – he is not unique in that respect. There is no point in claiming his presidency is illegitimate – it's horrible, but it's not illegitimate.

As far as sucking it up goes, I did so under eight years of GWB. Supporters of Bush did the same under Obama. Donald Trump is an entirely different animal, unique to politics in our time, and my belief is that no one, right or left, Democrat or Republican who has half a brain could possibly support this man as president of the United States.
 

Technophobe

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
147
Reaction score
21
I just find it... irksome that the same people I had to spend eight fragging years listening to as they brayed about Obama not being a legitimate president are the ones now saying "he's the president, suck it up. Just like I did". Especially when there are actual arguments to made about this guy's legitimacy, including multiple intelligence agencies saying that Russia did indeed try to interfere with the election.
 

BoF

Cautious Daredevil
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 28, 2009
Messages
599
Reaction score
38
Location
Fort Worth, Texas
If you're an American living in America, he's your president. Just like I had to suck it up with obama, you'll have to do the same for the next eight years.
Why are you assuming Trump will serve two terms?
 

nighttimer

No Gods No Masters
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
11,629
Reaction score
4,103
Location
CBUS
Don't Believe Any of that Hype

well in the name of accuracy, let's review. some folks have been conflating "not my president" with "not the president."

the first is a statement of performative activism, a refusal to identify with or dignify an abhorrent office-holder. i get it.

Really? It sure seems like you don't "get it."

William Haskins said:
but it holds not more legal weight than one of those sovereign citizen-types screaming "you have no authority over me!" to a cop as he's being cuffed and put in a cruiser.

"Sovereign citizen-types?" That's what you think the opposition to Trump is akin to? That's so wrong in so many ways it almost deserves a response all by itself. Almost.

Proclaiming Donald Trump is not MY president is for me one and the same as saying he is NOT the president. He's a reality TV clown with a dyed, dead rat on his head surrounded by greedheads, sniveling synchophants, alt-right racists, totalitarian thugs and the most sordid group of sociopaths since the heyday of Murder, Inc.

Legal weight means absolutely zero because I'm not filing suit against this doofus for illegally squatting at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, so I don't need no stinkin' "legal weight."

At present, the United States of America has no president. It only has a perverted usurper who enjoys grabbing women by their private parts and there should be a "Help Desperately Wanted" sign on the front lawn of the White House.

William Haskins said:
as sloganeering or escapism, it has its place. but it's clear virtue-signalling and meaningless in practical terms.

as for the statement (and the ONLY statement) i refuted, donald trump is, in fact, the president. that's sickening and unfortunate, but it's the truth. not an alt-fact, not fake news.

I call bullshit. Everything about this mook screams alt-facts and fake news. Anyone who tried to dream up Shit Trump Says and Does and write a book about it would see it sentenced to the darkest corner of the slush pile, rejected as too unrealistic and unbelievable to possess any literary merit.

William Haskins said:
he can spearhead legislation that you will be legally bound by, he can sign treaties and agreements that are every bit as legal as those signed by kennedy, reagan or obama, and he can and will do all of this in your name up to the point that you renounce your citizenship.

What? You mean President Steve Bannon can do all that? :Wha:

William Haskins said:
to say he is not president, as an objective and verifiable fact, is delusion.

Your opinion is your objective and verifiable fact but it cuts no ice with me. I make up my own mind and I live by the rules I find tolerable. The ones I find intolerable I ignore or I break. There is no rule which says I have to acknowledge or agree with your assessment of what Trump is to you. Nor is there any rule which says I must recognize him as president. So I don't. Acknowledge him however you wish, but to state how you do must therefore be the same for me as well is nonsense.

That's your opinion and there's nothing objective about it. From my way of seeing it, those whom blithely accept a racist, sexist vulgarian as president are the ones laboring under the delusion.

Some facts are not the truth and the truth is Trump is not the president. Not for me, not now and not ever and no matter what you say or he tweets changes my truth one iota. Live your truth, and don't tell me what mine is.

i'm not going to go back and forth with a bunch of writers about the simple distinction between "the president" and "my president."

Then stop trying to.

William Haskins said:
look, at this point, there is no proof that votes were flipped. until there is, the electoral tally stands, and the popular vote is an ancillary stat.

Not for the vast majority who voted for the other candidate.

William Haskins said:
unless you have flipped votes, you may well have obstruction and any number of other violations of law, perhaps even impeachable offenses, but the results of the election will never, in my opinion, be overturned.

In my opinion, we don't know if the 2016 presidential election yielded a legitimate result and until such time as it is known, there's no reason to recognize the result as legitimate.

William Haskins said:
so, yes you can say he is not your president, but he is, with all the responsibilities and privileges the office bestows, the president of the united states. that is an historical fact.

Hey, thanks for the permission to say he is not my president! :Thumbs:

Over the passage of time and through dogged pursuit of what really happened, today's "historical fact" can turn out to be tomorrow's yuge mistake, disproven fact and doggone, dirty lie. History is rife with examples of things many people believed to be so which simply wasn't, and the next meeting of the Flat Earth Society is Tuesday.

William Haskins said:
some people, in my opinion, need to get their heads out of their asses and start figuring out how to win back congress instead of spending so much time making up new nicknames and denying reality.

Then go lecture those people about what they need to be doing. The rest of us are already busy doing it and don't need to be told.
 
Last edited:

JCornelius

Banned
Joined
Nov 17, 2014
Messages
437
Reaction score
74
For over half a century after WWII the US and the UK were, in spite of their many faults, beacons of democracy for the rest of the world. Which included inside the concept also the sub-properties of "beacons of efficiency" and "beacons of prosperity". Especially when the rest of the world was divided mainly into 1) recently leveled by carpet bombing, 2) starving 3rd world village, 3) red concentration camp.

Those leveled by carpet bombings rebuilt; the red concentration camps reformed; some starving villages stopped starving, and they all looked up to "The West" when they did so. This was a standard to which you could point and say "This is how you do it, so let's stop messing around, shall we?"

Today this international standard of democracy is being undermined, publicly, in two ways.

1) Externally--foreign policy behavior. The whole pulling up the drawbridge mood, with suddenly pulling out of this and that, refusing to continue giving guarantees to allies, and so on. This attacks the idea of institutional continuity, and gives credibility to the old Mussolini, and even proto-Mussolini arguments against liberal democracy, that it is not fit for the modern world, because the elected representatives are too easily purchased by lobbies, and also you can't trust any government which changes every 4 or 5 or 7 years, depending on the system. What's the point of working for years on major international agreements, if at any point a newly elected government can come over and say "nope, we're pulling out, screw you"?
So this pooping all over the concept of continuity is indeed a threat to the very concept of democracy, and politics, just like markets, depend a lot on mood and interpretation. Had the center not won in the important EU elections this year, the world's belief in democracy would have been lying in a pool of blood, even just from the foreign policy behavior of what used to be the beacon of democracy.

2) Internally--peaceful handover of power and accepting that even if your candidate lost, the new government is legitimate for everyone. Both the US and the UK are split down the middle, very vocally, aggressively even, and one half keeps toying with the idea of the current government not being legitimate because of X, Y, and Z. Had liberal democracy not survived in the EU in 2017, this second internal undermining of the concept of democracy would have been the death blow, delivered by accident, through the best of intentions.

Democracy is only a legitimate concept if a) international deals and alliances are honored even when governments change, and b) internal election results are honored even if one really, really wanted one's party to win but it didn't. Everything else like peace, prosperity, predictability, and stability grows out of those two. One of those being under threat at the same time on both sides of the Atlantic is bad. Both being under threat is... If the EU and China had not been in a position to at least start pretending to take on the responsibility for the world while the Anglo-Americans go through their nervous breakdowns, we'd be back in 1939 by now.

We're not, only because enough carpet bombed places have been rebuilt, enough red concentration camps have reformed, and enough starving 3rd world villages have stopped starving, and the accumulated strength of these places is picking up the Anglo-American slack. For now. Because the reforms were inspired by the Anglo-American example* and if it discredits itself in front of the world, who knows what will take its place.

In Europe, in China, in Russia, in India, everywhere the resulting conceptual vacuum is likely to be filled by hate-peddling, history-rewriting, tradition-hijacking opportunists "See? This system didn't work even for them, how can it work for us? Enough reforms! Time to reclaim our roots and show the world that total obedience to the state and church is where it's at... Equality undermines the spirit of our people! Castes and hereditary rulers shall preserve us in eternity! Minorities that are not vile in the eyes of God and are to be exterminated, must know their place and be grateful! Cooperation and commerce is for losers! Only self-sacrifice on the fields of deadly conquest allows the soul to shine!" and so on.

When you've reached the top, and everyone is looking at you, trying to be you, while secretly hating you and being envious of you, fucking up isn't just about you anymore.

____
*Not only in Russia, not only in China, but even Vietnam!! Which was a mix of carpet bombed and starving third world village and red concentration camp, and the Anglo-American center was responsible for at least one of those three, and yet even Vietnam conceded the system of the enemy has many benefits and began reforming.
 
Last edited:

Venavis

Semi-benevolent overlord
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 22, 2017
Messages
58
Reaction score
12
Website
venavis.blog
2) Internally--peaceful handover of power and accepting that even if your candidate lost, the new government is legitimate for everyone. Both the US and the UK are split down the middle, very vocally, aggressively even, and one half keeps toying with the idea of the current government not being legitimate because of X, Y, and Z. Had liberal democracy not survived in the EU in 2017, this second internal undermining of the concept of democracy would have been the death blow, delivered by accident, through the best of intentions.

I have a significant number of friends in other countries, many of which didn't have a lot of respect for the US until recently. Why did that change? Because of the number of us that stood up to protest against Trump and his policies. We don't blindly accept and march in lockstep with racist and bigoted policies, and we are actively protesting injustice. In my experience, the opinion on our government has gone down, but the opinion of our people has started going up.

Suggesting we bow down to tyranny as a way to show others that tyranny isn't okay is an absolutely absurd argument to make. We won't get more stable if we follow Trump's policies. The exact opposite is true, as many of his policies (destroying education for starters) are intended to destabilize. What we are seeing here is in many ways a reemergence of the Civil Rights Era. Your argument that we should passively accept things as they are is no more true now than it was then.
 

JCornelius

Banned
Joined
Nov 17, 2014
Messages
437
Reaction score
74
/.../
Suggesting we bow down to tyranny as a way to show others that tyranny isn't okay is an absolutely absurd argument to make. We won't get more stable if we follow Trump's policies. The exact opposite is true, as many of his policies (destroying education for starters) are intended to destabilize. What we are seeing here is in many ways a reemergence of the Civil Rights Era. Your argument that we should passively accept things as they are is no more true now than it was then.

I'm also pretty buzzed every time I see "le resistance" in action around the current governments in the US and the UK.

It is, however disheartening, this apparent inability to differentiate between "accepting the current government as legitimate" and "bowing down to it and accepting everything it does". The whole point of democracy is that the political struggle can continue on a day to day basis, but without, for example rival presidents, prime ministers, popes, or warlords popping up, to give an extreme example.

If belief that the government being protested against is illegitimate provides the motivational rapture to brave sun and rain and pepper spray--that's understandable. It's the possible long-term results of such an approach to democratic politics that is worrisome.

It's not intellectually impossible to on one hand shout "you need to step down!" but on the other hand accept that until the stepping down or something similar actually takes place, the current government is legitimate*. In fact, being able to hold both beliefs simultaneously--a) "I deplore your policies" and b) "you are the legitimate government"--is what differentiates functioning democracies from everyone else. If this still sounds like a choice between heroic barricades on one side, and knuckling under on the other, with nothing in between these two ends of the spectrum, then it's perhaps best I simply go out for a walk and think of other things.

___
*Unless, of course, it starts barrel-bombing its own population, but that's a different matter entirely.