What does the future hold for Donald Trump? - threadbans in OP

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122082733#Comment_122082733

Why are you infantilising people? A photo of a cute dog with big eyes...

It's a photo of Commander Biden, the First Dog.

It being "cute" and having "big eyes" is your editorialization. You're bringing that in. That's just a photo of the actual dog. If you think he's cute, that's on you. The image is not manipulated.

This is "the worst kind of hackery" however, couldn't find enough black americans to fit inside a photo frame in support of him so AI was used to generate this image:

https://www.thestar.com/entertainment/ai-is-so-powerful-it-is-tricking-voters-into-believing-donald-trump-loves-black-people/article_f76c2ec2-dbe8-11ee-85a6-1f30129c0a29.html

and see also

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68440150

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122082733#Comment_122082733

Why are you defending this of all things?

Flaneur OBrien

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122082907#Comment_122082907

Because they feel that someone has to? I dunno, it strikes me as contrarianism for the sake of contrarianism.

Overheal

Photo of Trump going into court this morning

pjohnson

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122082733#Comment_122082733

Some people need infantilising tbh.

Some folks are so incredibly detatched from reality that being too blunt with them could lead them to a complete meltdown.

growleaves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122082866#Comment_122082866

'It being "cute" and having "big eyes" is your editorialization. You're bringing that in.'

Just look at the photo though. Whether it's the camera angle, the lens or the dog's expression at the moment of photographed - I'm not exactly sure what it is - the dog is 'big eyed'.

That and the fact the dog is 'speaking' and re-assuring people that he's been "sent to a good home"…

All of these things are meant to appeal to children - or Peter Pan adults who indulge child-like emotions in themselves.

Also if it is true that that particular dog bit multiple humans several times, it would not have been scandalous if Biden or one of his people had put it down.

pjohnson

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122082991#Comment_122082991

No it wouldnt if it was properly done.

It'd be a scandal if Biden decided to to a DIY job and chuck it in a ditch after, before deciding that that nearby horse smelled bad and blowing its brains out aswell.

And you wonder why people need to be treated like children when incredibly basic details are utterly beyond them.

growleaves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122082907#Comment_122082907

Good question.

Because I find the childishness around the way this is being discussed in the media provocative.

Even though people here on boards have made good points around the way it was handled, the lack of training etc., etc. the core of is that if you are an adult you understand that putting down a dangerous animal (that has deemed, rightly or wrongly, 'untrainable') is not a "murder".

For McCain, Filipowski and others saying that…do they even believe what they're saying or do they just see a big mass audience of overgrown infants who they can mold, pander to, and squeeze tears out of? I don't know which is worse honestly.

A person with dignity and self-respect should resist this kind of discourse, if you could even call such meme-ing 'discourse'.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122082991#Comment_122082991

It would have been put down following proper procedure.

This has been pointed out to you in multiple posts by different posters and you have run away from it.

So are you pitching your argument to those who follow political debate at the level of children and respond to child like glib insults as a substitute for following an argument? Seems like it.

Because anyone paying attention can see right through such tactics.

They are the resort of those defending the indefensible conduct if MAGA types such as Noem. Because they cannot be defended based on facts or evidence.

growleaves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122082930#Comment_122082930

But if you take away the shock value - conservatives are shooting puppies now! - what has happened except that an animal was put down after it was getting dangerous? Which is unremarkable.

Then once a person realises that, it is just on debating surrounding details ('Why didn't Noem contact a reputable vet' etc.)

pjohnson

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122083034#Comment_122083034

Adults can see its a pretty big detail.

Children might miss the significance.

growleaves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122083016#Comment_122083016

I mis-typed there because what I meant to convey is that I wouldn't consider it scandalous - even if Biden personally shot that dog. That is not actually as unusual as it sounds, as a dangerous animal can become suddenly difficult to control. If you can bring him to a vet in relative calm that is good but if you can't? It isn't pleasant obviously but there you go.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122083021#Comment_122083021

The way Noem went about it was exactly the conduct of an overgrown infant. A person with dignity and self respect? Nope. Was it a demonstration of childishness. Certainly. It was not the considered action of an adult following correct protocol.

Arent you supposed to be bothered by such things?

Incredible you cannot see that and it is a safe bet you would not be defending a Democrat in similar circumstances.

The pandering is all yours and her defenders. To her emotional childishness.

Incredible you are more worked up about the reaction of her critics

Keep defending the indefensible.

growleaves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122083028#Comment_122083028

Oh I disagree that it's just a debate about 'proper procedure'.

The emotionalism of M McCain saying Noem had "murdered a puppy", Filipowski accusing "murder", photos of cute dogs etc.

Hysterical stuff. I would tell any of these people to their faces - Judge Pirro whoever that is - that they are fools and they are embarassing themselves.

Besides which alleviating suffering of animals is not the no. 1 priority when it comes to dealing with a dangerous animal. The no. 1 priority is safety of human people.

eightieschewbaccy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122083034#Comment_122083034

We haven't been provided with much in the vein of proof that the dog was dangerous. The story amounts to a woman thinking that shooting her dog proves that she's salt of the earth and it might help her with the maga demographic. Instead it comes across as a terrible human.

growleaves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122083064#Comment_122083064

I've given my reasons why I think the controversy is overblown which you can accept or not.

'it is a safe bet you would not be defending a Democrat in similar circumstances'

You couldn't be more wrong.

Though I am by a long stretch more far critical of progressivism than the average person, I don't actually have a grudge against a foreign political party or a brief to defend their opponents.

Whereas many Irish progressives speak as if Biden was 'their guy', as if they have a connection to him and to the Democratic Party and were actual members of the Democratic Party themselves. No doubt they would vote for Biden in a heartbeat whereas I wouldn't vote for Trump if I somehow could.

What's more, the least reasonable 'voices' driving this controversy are conservative Republicans (from a faction of the Republican Party opposed to Trump).

everlast75

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122083075#Comment_122083075

Don't stress about it.

Some people believe dogs to be part of the family, and love them accordingly. Therefore, they understandably are upset that

1) rather than rehouse a dog

2) acknowledging that they failed in their duty to train or

3) have the dog put down humanely

She brings it to a gravel pit and shoots it.

You're okay with that.

Fine.

Some people are okay with drowning kittens, or driving a dog out to the forest and kicking them out of the car.

Different standards I suppose.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122083075#Comment_122083075

This is entirely a fiction of your invention.

The animal was not a present danger when she shot it. The dog was not killed as it was about to attack. Your claims are entirely false and without foundation.

It was a failure of her to teach and control the puppy. There was ample opportunity to bring the dog to vet, follow proper course of action.

In the reasons for shooting the dog Noem listed that she never liked the dog!

Her action was guided by a petulant emotional childish reaction. The action of a fool who is now embarrassing herself on an international stage. The actions of someone who has never achieved emotional control and maturity.

You claim to be concerned about such things.

Thereby completelt discrediting your entire 'defence' of Noem as completely hypocritical.

growleaves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122083105#Comment_122083105

Putting down a dangerous animal is not akin to drowning kittens. I think you know that.

And by dangerous animal I mean perceived to be dangerous after it had, apparently, started to kill several animals one after the other then turned on a human.

And before odyssey chimes in, it's not up to me to prove that the dog was about to attack someone in that exact moment.

The context given was that Noem said the dog turned on a human and was 'untraineable'. If that was true, and I have no idea if it was true but that is - taken at face value - what we are discussing, then the core of the episode (the actual killing) is unremarkable.

From that to cries of "murder"?

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122083162#Comment_122083162

The opening line of her explanation of killing the dog was that she hated it.

The dog was not a present danger and there is nothing to suggest that even in Noem's self serving account which we only have her word for. There was ample time for an adult considered reaction to the situation. But thats not what we got from Noem.

She failed to control the dog in the presence of neighbours animals.

There is a reason why vets follow a process when putting down an animal. Those are the unemotional trained adults. Why do you think they have such procedures?

No such response for Noem.

She hated.

"I hated that dog,”

Hate is an emotional reaction. It drove her response and conduct.

Werent you concerned above about such behaviour?

Proof positive your entire line of argument here is hypocritical and you are the one pandering to the childish emotional conduct of Noem.

growleaves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122083237#Comment_122083237

I didn't get the impression from the account that it was an emotion-driven killing from spite. She said she hated the dog because she considered it untraineable iirc? She also said it 'turned on a human' after killing several animals one after the other, i.e. that it became dangerous in that moment (in her perception, obviously).

I think I said in my opening post or maybe second post that you can second-guess something like this endlessly. But her account of what happened isn't meant to be read like a defence in a murder trial.

There are people with no connection to controversial politics who have put down animals spontaneously because they made that judgement call. Bringing to a vet is ideal but it doesn't always happen that way. Surely you know this.

I think your use of word 'protocol' - which means something like 'official procedure or system of rules' - is a bit misleading here.

Veterinarians follow protocols yes. Everyday people suddenly and spontaneously confronted with a dangerous animal* don't have a set of official bureaucratic procedures.

*Perceived to be dangerous, or claimed to be dangerous etc.

Overheal

simply amazing

In 2019 Donald Trump signed an animal cruelty criminalization law that passed Congress unanimoulsy. UNANIMOUSLY. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/724/all-actions

And now because someone with an R in front of their name has shot a few of her pet animals, we nonetheless see people crawl out of the woodworks to defend and handwring and minimize acts of animal cruelty.

I can’t say I’m surprised - I predicted it would happen last week - I’m just still disappointed to see people peeing on that electric fence.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122083354#Comment_122083354

She was not "suddenly and spontaneously confronted" with a dangerous animal implying in some way that she had to act in the heat of the moment to protect humans or livestock. She did not shoot "in that moment". Had she or the neighbour shot the dog to prevent or interrupt an attack that would match your description. The dog was under her control after the attack or she could not have brought it to the gravel pit to shoot it but would have had to shoot it on the spot.

"I hated that dog".

Yeah, she made a judgement call. Her judgement was informed by hate. It was emotional. Zero indication of any serious adult considered response as to alternative options for the dog. And yes everyday people do consider going to vets for such circumstances, now maybe they have to rule it out for practical reasons. But there's no indication that was considered here.

Her own words discredit your line of argument here and your criticisms of those attacking her as being "emotional". From her own mouth.

Given that she is being rightly castigated from all sides of politics, and also by people who don't normally dabble in 'controversial politics', your defence of her here and such defences of her elsewhere appear to be in vain.

We can debate the rights and wrongs of the action all night, second guess it - but what is a safe bet this will damage her standing in a general election, if Trump was thinking about her as a VP. That she put such words in a book now, even if it is how she acted at a time, betrays a lack of political awareness. The mask slipped and people do not like what they see.

everlast75

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1785409745299623940

Not the sharpest knife in the drawer...

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122082991#Comment_122082991

Also if it is true that that particular dog bit multiple humans several times, it would not have been scandalous if Biden or one of his people had put it down.

Indeed - But it's not the "putting an animal down" that's the problem.

It's the "dragging it to a quarry and shooting it in the head" that's the problem and then liking it so much you drag another "unruly pet" to the same quarry and shoot it in the head too , although this time it took two shots to get the job done.

Animal need to be euthanized for a variety of reasons , behavioural problems being one , but most normal people take the animal to a f*cking vet to do it rather than going all dirty Harriet on the poor yoke.

growleaves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122083468#Comment_122083468

I don't agree and I've already given my explanation for what I think so we can leave it at that.

The last thing I would say though is that the fact that people from "all sides of politics" take a different view to me is neither here nor there. I'm not overawed by "consensus" as I've my own opinion.

As for US elections, I don't particularly care about that. Yes it is probably a PR blunder so I agree with your political analysis.

randomuser02125

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122083075#Comment_122083075

The number one priority was her telling a story about how big her dick is. Ffs, get a grip. (Fnar)

nachouser

I think we can all agree that this is f*cking ridiculous and a mod is going to have to pick through the nonsense on this thread. Good work lads.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122083533#Comment_122083533

I fully believe Republicans would have utterly seized on Biden putting the dog down for biting people at the White House. Not even a question.

Manic Moran

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122081520#Comment_122081520

An excellent question, which thus even more focuses on the point of "how are the Democrats managing to screw this up?" If the Republicans have no positive messaging on top of the negative messaging that Trump provides, surely all the Democrats would have to do is 'do no harm' and they would sail to victory, no? Yet such seems not to be the case.

Again, I believe that they will attain victory on the current trajectory, but I think we can all agree that it is a lot closer than one would ordinarily anticipate. It -shouldn't- be close. And since we are generally agreed that the Republicans aren't doing themselves all that many favors right now, it is reasonable to presume that there is negative sentiment towards Biden which is making up the difference with no effective counters as yet having been provided.