1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Moderator1, Nov 12, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. BTExpress

    BTExpress Well-Known Member

    This is nuts.

    The line, "When they go low, we go high" ASSUMES that they are going to go low and that "we will be above it."

    Just say, "Yes, the line was utter bullshit" and we all can agree.
     
  2. Baron Scicluna

    Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

    I may be viewing this wrong, but is that a guy holding up the "Women for Trump" sign?
     
  3. BTExpress

    BTExpress Well-Known Member

    It's the woman in yellow holding the sign. Face is obscured for the first half of the clip.
     
  4. Baron Scicluna

    Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

    The flaw in your point is that the GOP already had gone low. Numerous times over the previous 20 plus years. There is no need to assume.
     
  5. BTExpress

    BTExpress Well-Known Member

    Then we won't call it an "assumption." The line is presumed to work in any tense.

    "When they (have, had, will, are) go low, we go high."

    All possibilities are there. It's a bullshit line.
     
  6. service_gamer

    service_gamer Well-Known Member

    Trump’s nomination and victory proves the line isn’t utter bullshit. He is the human embodiment of going low.

    Or maybe you meant that refusing to go cost Hillary the election and that heeding the line was utter bullshit. I could get behind that idea.
     
  7. Slacker

    Slacker Well-Known Member

  8. John B. Foster

    John B. Foster Well-Known Member

  9. qtlaw

    qtlaw Well-Known Member

    You're going to have to focus on the granular, which is what exactly is the action that's at issue? Stealing something, even with the good intent, is still stealing and would be a crime. To use the cliche, the ends (protecting your country) do not typically justify the means. However, many a jury has sympathized with the actor under the cliche (which is another reason why our jury system is great.)
     
  10. TigerVols

    TigerVols Well-Known Member

    Repeating my prediction from months back...Trump will (attempt to?) pull Obama's Secret Service protection at some point in the near future.
     
  11. qtlaw

    qtlaw Well-Known Member

    As much as I despise Mr. Kavanaugh's expressed views, and the fact that the GOP Senators flat out breached their constitutional duty to hold hearings on Merrick Garland, I'm resigned to his appointment to the Supreme Court. The rules are what they are due to the Harry Reid led short-sighted removal of the filibuster rules; the Dem Sens need to eat crow now. Kavanaugh is eminently qualified and therefore deserves his appointment. I am disgusted that like prior legislation this is being rammed down our throats without adequate disclosure however.
     
  12. typefitter

    typefitter Well-Known Member

    This is helpful, thank you. I was thinking of the stealing the letter off the desk scenario (which is incredible, when you think about it). This is the kind of thing I could nerd out on for a long time.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page