Why isn't Trump getting Dixie Chicked?

Jarod said:
It took a while but a good percent of Republicans are finally seeing the truth.
Click to expand...

Well, I hated him from the start. Also, there is a contingent of supporters that aren't Republicans, and are merely participating in our primary this year to support The Donald. That said, I hope you are correct about the party members who have been supporting him thus far. There were interviews of Iowa voters who were for Trump right up until the last few days (specifically his childish boycott of the Fox debate).
 
Thing1 said:
Amazing, isn't it? All those years ago, the Dixie Chicks were hit by a tornado from the right when they dared to question the Iraq War. They were effectively ostracized from the country music establishment, boycotted, condemned as traitors and even received death threats.

Now, the Republican FRONTRUNNER openly says that the Iraq War was a huge mistake, and even takes it a step further to imply that Bush was to blame for 9/11. And many of the same group who lambasted the Dixie Chicks are tripping over themselves to support him.

Things that make you go hmmmm....
Click to expand...

The Dixie Chicks had troubles for saying "Just so you know we're ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas." Not for questioning the war.
 
here is all the reasons the republican party is in tatters

look at the comments



they hate everyone

if you don't embrace the lies they hate you



they call you names like rino and chase you OUT of their party


then they wonder why outsiders are doing better than their lying hacks.


lies make you stupid

stop embracing lies




bad information in

means bad decisions out



lies fuck the liar too
 
What is left of those defending GWB over his justification for war is a fraction of the Republican party.
 
Damocles said:
The Dixie Chicks had troubles for saying "Just so you know we're ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas." Not for questioning the war.
Click to expand...

"Just so you know, we're on the good side with y'all. We do not want this war, this violence, and we're ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas."
 
Thing1 said:
Amazing, isn't it? All those years ago, the Dixie Chicks were hit by a tornado from the right when they dared to question the Iraq War. They were effectively ostracized from the country music establishment, boycotted, condemned as traitors and even received death threats.

Now, the Republican FRONTRUNNER openly says that the Iraq War was a huge mistake, and even takes it a step further to imply that Bush was to blame for 9/11. And many of the same group who lambasted the Dixie Chicks are tripping over themselves to support him.

Things that make you go hmmmm....
Click to expand...

Except, they don't make anyone of intelligence say hmmmm...

1) Dissent is patriotic, disrespect is not. You can do the former without the latter. What caused the backlash was in large part to saying they were 'ashamed Bush was from TX'.

2) Stating what they did in 2003 is not the same thing as doing it today as Trump has the benefit of hindsight. The Dixie comments were prior to the war even starting.

So no... a logical person isn't going to pretend that the two comments are the same.
 
Thing1 said:
No one is saying that people shouldn't be allowed to burn their records. But those people are now going to vote for someone saying the same thing they said.

And I always find the whole counter-chick argument to be pretty lame. The Dixie Chicks (and left) were expressing an actual opinion. If you don't like it, counter it with a better opinion, or a more persuasive one.

All people wanted to do was shut the Dixie Chicks up. That's not an opinion. They just didn't want to hear something that countered their own POV.
Click to expand...

The dixie Chicks had a right to say what they did. But that doesn't mean that the radio stations, fans etc... didn't have a right to also stop playing/listening to their music.
Pretending it was about 'shutting them up' is ridiculous. No one should be forced to play the songs of those that make such public comments they disagree with. Freedom of speech goes both ways.

If you don't want someone to potentially boycott you or your group... then stay clear of politics and religion when making public comments, as both of those will likely get some people/groups pissed at you. In the case of the ditzie chicks... they should know their audience better. If they were pop or rock, probably not the same backlash. But when your music is listened to predominantly in the south by white conservatives... probably should have expected the backlash.
 
Superfreak said:
The dixie Chicks had a right to say what they did. But that doesn't mean that the radio stations, fans etc... didn't have a right to also stop playing/listening to their music.
Pretending it was about 'shutting them up' is ridiculous. No one should be forced to play the songs of those that make such public comments they disagree with. Freedom of speech goes both ways.

If you don't want someone to potentially boycott you or your group... then stay clear of politics and religion when making public comments, as both of those will likely get some people/groups pissed at you. In the case of the ditzie chicks... they should know their audience better. If they were pop or rock, probably not the same backlash. But when your music is listened to predominantly in the south by white conservatives... probably should have expected the backlash.
Click to expand...

The intent of the boycotts was clear: intimidation & silence. They just wanted to shut the Dixie Chicks up.

It's denial to argue otherwise. They weren't adding anything to the marketplace of ideas - they just didn't want to hear ideas that countered their own.
 
Superfreak said:
Except, they don't make anyone of intelligence say hmmmm...

1) Dissent is patriotic, disrespect is not. You can do the former without the latter. What caused the backlash was in large part to saying they were 'ashamed Bush was from TX'.

2) Stating what they did in 2003 is not the same thing as doing it today as Trump has the benefit of hindsight. The Dixie comments were prior to the war even starting.

So no... a logical person isn't going to pretend that the two comments are the same.
Click to expand...

LOL @ "disrespect." I don't suppose you've had a chance to hear how Trump framed his comments?

Best response so far.
 
Thing1 said:
The intent of the boycotts was clear: intimidation & silence. They just wanted to shut the Dixie Chicks up.

It's denial to argue otherwise. They weren't adding anything to the marketplace of ideas - they just didn't want to hear ideas that countered their own.
Click to expand...

That sounds very intimidating.
 
Thing1 said:
The intent of the boycotts was clear: intimidation & silence. They just wanted to shut the Dixie Chicks up.

It's denial to argue otherwise. They weren't adding anything to the marketplace of ideas - they just didn't want to hear ideas that countered their own.
Click to expand...

The intent was clear... 'we disagree with your political positions, thus we aren't going to listen to your music anymore'

There was NOTHING they could do to 'silence' them. That is simply the bullshit the left continually tosses out when someone they agree with gets boycotted.

Did you say the same thing about Chik-Fila's owner? Was the left trying to silence and intimidate him?

and no moron... it isn't denial. It is freedom of speech. You seem to think it only goes one way.
 
Thing1 said:
LOL @ "disrespect." I don't suppose you've had a chance to hear how Trump framed his comments?

Best response so far.
Click to expand...

I was referring to what the Ditzie Chicks stated about the sitting President. Not to what Trump said while trying to run for President against a FORMER President who hasn't been in office for over 7 years. There is a difference. You are just too much of a moron to comprehend it.
 
Superfreak said:
The intent was clear... 'we disagree with your political positions, thus we aren't going to listen to your music anymore'

There was NOTHING they could do to 'silence' them. That is simply the bullshit the left continually tosses out when someone they agree with gets boycotted.

Did you say the same thing about Chik-Fila's owner? Was the left trying to silence and intimidate him?

and no moron... it isn't denial. It is freedom of speech. You seem to think it only goes one way.
Click to expand...

Oh, bull SF. For starters, I am generally against boycotts as a tool for speech. I am not ideological on this.

And the intent was absolutely to silence. This wasn't people choosing not to listen - they were proactively organizing boycotts and petitioning radio not to play the Chicks. That is why it's now called getting "Dixie Chicked" - it ultimately had a chilling effect on free speech. That is 100% fact.

Beyond that, it's consistent with everything we saw from the right at that time. Protestors and anyone who didn't agree w/ Bush's policy were called traitors and terrorist sympathizers.

Blind partisans simply didn't want to hear dissenting opinion. They weren't interested in an honest debate. They just wanted to shut people up.
 
Superfreak said:
I was referring to what the Ditzie Chicks stated about the sitting President. Not to what Trump said while trying to run for President against a FORMER President who hasn't been in office for over 7 years. There is a difference. You are just too much of a moron to comprehend it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, nice spin. You framed your argument around "respect."

Sorry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top