Slippery Slope: Right!?

[ebacon]

My wife divorced me a few years ago. As I venture back into the world of women I notice that their speech pattern has changed. They seem to answer with, "Right?!"

What is going on? Are they being prodded to believe that they are always right? To prod men into believing that they are always right?

There is something afoot and it's big IMO. I have never been told that I am right so much.

[donquixote99]

'Right!' might be a simple affirmation. 'Right...' can also be used in a sarcastic, ironic manner, indicating the speaker's actual feeling of disbelief.

'Right?' is used to seek confirmation, or perhaps to prompt a person with the suggestion that agreement is expected.

All long-standing usage. Fashions and fads in language do not, to the best of my belief, constitute evidence that 'something is afoot,' in the sense that someone is manipulating usage to further some agenda.

[Chicks]

Right? ;)

[Dondilion]

'Right!' might be a simple affirmation. 'Right...' can also be used in a sarcastic, ironic manner, indicating the speaker's actual feeling of disbelief.

'Right?' is used to seek confirmation, or perhaps to prompt a person with the suggestion that agreement is expected.

All long-standing usage. Fashions and fads in language do not, to the best of my belief, constitute evidence that 'something is afoot,' in the sense that someone is manipulating usage to further some agenda.
At times just another filler to language.

[Dondilion]

My wife divorced me a few years ago. As I venture back into the world of women I notice that their speech pattern has changed. They seem to answer with, "Right?!"

What is going on? Are they being prodded to believe that they are always right? To prod men into believing that they are always right?

There is something afoot and it's big IMO. I have never been told that I am right so much.

Do you feel that majority of the times you are wrong?

[JJIII]

So, I mean, things change, right?

[ebacon]

Do you feel that majority of the times you are wrong?

Interesting question and that you asked it. I trust you.

When I began discussing politics on the internet I learned from a fellow gamer in South America. He taught me about the delicate nature of communication. For example we discussed something along the nature of politics and the three R's in America. The R's during the 1970's were Reading, Writing, and Arithmetic. During the 1980's I heard the three R's reduced to the three L's of real estate. The L's during the 1980's were Location, Location, and Where It's At.

Those were good discussions for me in the 1970s. Not so much in the 1980s. The recordings of AC/DC overwhelmed walking and talking among teenage boys.

During my gaming peak around 2008 that fellow gamer in South America further refined the game to continental scale. He taught me that politics is about who gets what. Bam. No flags. He reduced nationalism to common sense of riparian law. Earth science.

[donquixote99]

The other thing politics is about is 'who gets to decide who gets what,' that is, who holds power.

[Jack Horner]

The other thing politics is about is 'who gets to decide who gets what,' that is, who holds power.

A Dem house is killing Trump.

[Dondilion]

A Dem house is killing Trump.
Indeed.
That is why I could never understand the inordinate fear of Trump to the point where the Dems have become opposites of themselves...such as warmongers, anti free speech fanatics.

The American system has enough check and balance to tie up any president.

[donquixote99]

Some Dems have always been hawks, and fanaticism about free speech is pretty much a function of who is clubbing who.

[donquixote99]

Ordinate fear is a useful spur to necessary action. Inordinate fear leads to paralysis and denial. That’s how you tell them apart.

[Jack Horner]

Indeed.
That is why I could never understand the inordinate fear of Trump to the point where the Dems have become opposites of themselves...such as warmongers, anti free speech fanatics.

The American system has enough check and balance to tie up any president.

Not when one party controls all three branches.

[Dondilion]

Not when one party controls all three branches.

Judges and media have a lot of power in the system.
With a 2 year political cycle in play, it is easy to outflank a president.

[donquixote99]

A lot of authoritarian cards remain unplayed. Let's hope they remain so.

[Jack Horner]

Judges and media have a lot of power in the system.
With a 2 year political cycle in play, it is easy to outflank a president.

Not when a President has support from congress. There wasn't a damned thing the DEMs could do about that tax bill in 2017.

[Dondilion]

Check how many times judges have thwarted Trump.

[Jack Horner]

Check how many times judges have thwarted Trump.

That was the constitution that thwarted Trump. The judges were just doing their jobs.

[Dondilion]

That was the constitution that thwarted Trump. The judges were just doing their jobs.
And so by you there is no variance in interpretation.

[Jack Horner]

And so by you there is no variance in interpretation.

Trump's BS that got shot down in court was poorly written unconstitutional laws. Sure there is interpretation but these laws had a snowballs chance in hell of surviving. Just like everything else Trump does it was all theatre no substance. If he has actually taken time to craft these policies they may have had a chance. Trump's failures fall squarely on Trump. He needs no help from the courts or anyone else to fail.

[Dondilion]

But in general Judges have power to restrict, constrain any president. And there is no unanimity in interpretation, hence the need for judges voting in the decision process.

[Jack Horner]

But in general Judges have power to restrict, constrain any president. And there is no unanimity in interpretation, hence the need for judges voting in the decision process.

Sure, but Trump restricted himself by trying to pass bills that were idiotic at best. It was all theatre, never meant to pass.