In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On April 30 2016 08:55 kwizach wrote: Pretty funny seeing at least one Bernie supporter declaring they'd support Trump over Hillary. It's basically an indication you don't actually care much about policy issues (or, possibly, that you're ignorant on the subject).
Also, although he can - and should - obviously be opposed on plenty of other levels, including his absolutely terrible policy proposals, his laughable (and outright embarrassing) ignorance of the issues, and his wildly contradictory claims and positions, Trump has also clearly displayed xenophobia/racism and sexism. Saying that it's more important to criticize him on policy is one thing, but let's not pretend he hasn't made plenty of bigoted statements.
Suppose for a second that any of the accusations of racism, sexism, or whatever unspecified bigotry were true - can you explain why a voter would be supposed to care?
I don't have to suppose anything, since they are true. A voter should care if that voter is interested in reducing, among other things, systemic discrimination, social inequality, fear of discriminatory persecution, and interpersonal racism, xenophobia and sexism in the US. A xenophobic and sexist asshole is indeed less likely to achieve progress on those fronts, and would in fact likely worsen the current situation -- for example by legitimizing racist and sexist attitudes through his own discourse, behavior and policies.
The Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee have a message for their Republican counterparts, who are leading the blockade on President Obama's Supreme Court nominee: If you care so much about giving America a voice, give us a hearing on voting rights!
The nine Democrats on the committee sent a letter Friday to its Republicans leaders -- Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), the chair of the Judiciary Committee, and Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), chair of its subcommittee on the Constitution -- demanding a hearing on voting rights, which the committee has not hosted since the GOP took over the Senate. They pointed to the 2013 Supreme Court decision that gutted the Voting Rights Act and the electoral and legal chaos that has ensued since. But they also used the letter to call out the same Republicans for refusing to grant Obama's nominee Merrick Garland a hearing.
"It is ironic that Senate Republicans would claim to give the American people a voice, but at the same time allow sweeping voting restrictions to be enacted that would silence many of these Americans - a disproportionate number of whom are minorities," the letter said.
The letter noted that when Democrats controlled the committee, then-Chair Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) held nine hearings on voting rights, in addition to the three voting rights hearings held by the subcommittee on the Constitution, which was then chaired by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL).
"However, since taking over the majority last January, Republicans have held no hearings to examine voting rights," the letter said.
On April 30 2016 08:55 kwizach wrote: Pretty funny seeing at least one Bernie supporter declaring they'd support Trump over Hillary. It's basically an indication you don't actually care much about policy issues (or, possibly, that you're ignorant on the subject).
Also, although he can - and should - obviously be opposed on plenty of other levels, including his absolutely terrible policy proposals, his laughable (and outright embarrassing) ignorance of the issues, and his wildly contradictory claims and positions, Trump has also clearly displayed xenophobia/racism and sexism. Saying that it's more important to criticize him on policy is one thing, but let's not pretend he hasn't made plenty of bigoted statements.
Suppose for a second that any of the accusations of racism, sexism, or whatever unspecified bigotry were true - can you explain why a voter would be supposed to care?
I don't have to suppose anything, since they are true. A voter should care if that voter is interested in reducing, among other things, systemic discrimination, social inequality, fear of discriminatory persecution, and interpersonal racism, xenophobia and sexism in the US. A xenophobic and sexist asshole is indeed less likely to achieve progress on those fronts, and would in fact likely worsen the current situation -- for example by legitimizing racist and sexist attitudes through his own discourse, behavior and policies.
I don't think it's true, which is why it's useful to suppose something for the sake of argument.
It sounds like what's going on is you want to paint with a broad brush because it looks more severe. For example, if you said "Donald Trump insults presidential candidate and former CEO Carly Fiorina's appearance - another battlefield in the war on women," it would sound suspect. Many of us don't see any issue. But if you abstract and use the magic word, like in this case "sexism," it gets people to associate the worst, and you end up with these articles and rants and Guardian blogs that make the candidate sound like Ted Bundy.
On April 30 2016 08:55 kwizach wrote: Pretty funny seeing at least one Bernie supporter declaring they'd support Trump over Hillary. It's basically an indication you don't actually care much about policy issues (or, possibly, that you're ignorant on the subject).
Also, although he can - and should - obviously be opposed on plenty of other levels, including his absolutely terrible policy proposals, his laughable (and outright embarrassing) ignorance of the issues, and his wildly contradictory claims and positions, Trump has also clearly displayed xenophobia/racism and sexism. Saying that it's more important to criticize him on policy is one thing, but let's not pretend he hasn't made plenty of bigoted statements.
Suppose for a second that any of the accusations of racism, sexism, or whatever unspecified bigotry were true - can you explain why a voter would be supposed to care?
I don't have to suppose anything, since they are true. A voter should care if that voter is interested in reducing, among other things, systemic discrimination, social inequality, fear of discriminatory persecution, and interpersonal racism, xenophobia and sexism in the US. A xenophobic and sexist asshole is indeed less likely to achieve progress on those fronts, and would in fact likely worsen the current situation -- for example by legitimizing racist and sexist attitudes through his own discourse, behavior and policies.
I don't think it's true, which is why it's useful to suppose something for the sake of argument.
It sounds like what's going on is you want to paint with a broad brush because it looks more severe. For example, if you said "Donald Trump insults presidential candidate and former CEO Carly Fiorina's appearance - another battlefield in the war on women," it would sound suspect. Many of us don't see any issue. But if you abstract and use the magic word, like in this case "sexism," it gets people to associate the worst, and you end up with these articles and rants and Guardian blogs that make the candidate sound like Ted Bundy.
I know you don't think it's true. You also "had no idea" whether the woman doing as obvious a Nazi salute as can be outside a Trump rally was indeed doing a Nazi salute (spoiler alert: she was). I'm not painting with a broad brush, I am describing Trump's rhetoric. The fact that you don't like that description doesn't make it any less accurate.
On April 30 2016 08:55 kwizach wrote: Pretty funny seeing at least one Bernie supporter declaring they'd support Trump over Hillary. It's basically an indication you don't actually care much about policy issues (or, possibly, that you're ignorant on the subject).
Also, although he can - and should - obviously be opposed on plenty of other levels, including his absolutely terrible policy proposals, his laughable (and outright embarrassing) ignorance of the issues, and his wildly contradictory claims and positions, Trump has also clearly displayed xenophobia/racism and sexism. Saying that it's more important to criticize him on policy is one thing, but let's not pretend he hasn't made plenty of bigoted statements.
Suppose for a second that any of the accusations of racism, sexism, or whatever unspecified bigotry were true - can you explain why a voter would be supposed to care?
I don't have to suppose anything, since they are true. A voter should care if that voter is interested in reducing, among other things, systemic discrimination, social inequality, fear of discriminatory persecution, and interpersonal racism, xenophobia and sexism in the US. A xenophobic and sexist asshole is indeed less likely to achieve progress on those fronts, and would in fact likely worsen the current situation -- for example by legitimizing racist and sexist attitudes through his own discourse, behavior and policies.
I don't think it's true, which is why it's useful to suppose something for the sake of argument.
It sounds like what's going on is you want to paint with a broad brush because it looks more severe. For example, if you said "Donald Trump insults presidential candidate and former CEO Carly Fiorina's appearance - another battlefield in the war on women," it would sound suspect. Many of us don't see any issue. But if you abstract and use the magic word, like in this case "sexism," it gets people to associate the worst, and you end up with these articles and rants and Guardian blogs that make the candidate sound like Ted Bundy.
I know you don't think it's true. You also "had no idea" whether the woman doing as obvious a Nazi salute as can be outside a Trump rally was indeed doing a Nazi salute (spoiler alert: she was). I'm not painting with a broad brush, I am describing Trump's rhetoric. The fact that you don't like that description doesn't make it any less accurate.
You're talking about the woman who isn't a Nazi again?
We definitely agree that my liking or disliking your characterization of Trump's rhetoric isn't what makes it inaccurate.
On April 30 2016 08:55 kwizach wrote: Pretty funny seeing at least one Bernie supporter declaring they'd support Trump over Hillary. It's basically an indication you don't actually care much about policy issues (or, possibly, that you're ignorant on the subject).
Also, although he can - and should - obviously be opposed on plenty of other levels, including his absolutely terrible policy proposals, his laughable (and outright embarrassing) ignorance of the issues, and his wildly contradictory claims and positions, Trump has also clearly displayed xenophobia/racism and sexism. Saying that it's more important to criticize him on policy is one thing, but let's not pretend he hasn't made plenty of bigoted statements.
Suppose for a second that any of the accusations of racism, sexism, or whatever unspecified bigotry were true - can you explain why a voter would be supposed to care?
Why do you act like the accusations of racism and sexium are questionable in any way. The guy literaly started out by saying that mexicans that come to america were all rapists and drug dealers and that he wasn't sure any of them were any good here. If thats not racism in your world then you need to come back to earth.
And after the shit he said during the debates hes obviously a sexist. Like I'm as WASPy as you can get and I can spot the racist and sexist in the room.
Hes a shitty person thats why they should care. the racism and sexist explains why he is so shitty of a person. At least hillary is incompetent and corrupt.
Making fun of that disabled reporter was the thing that really stuck with me. That's some A+ President of the United States of America material right there. That move makes you a complete shit head if you're Joe Sixpack. It's completely unacceptable if you're running to be the leader of the free world and doing the cripple arm act on the campaign trail making fun of someone.
I can understand supporting people with incoherent policies if they display integrity that demonstrates they can hammer out the incoherency and make progress in their ideas.
I can understand supporting assholes with little integrity if they have coherent, well-executed policies and demonstrate an incredible grasp of the world.
I cannot understand supporting someone who has incoherent policies, virtually no integrity, and constant asshole behavior.
On April 30 2016 08:55 kwizach wrote: Pretty funny seeing at least one Bernie supporter declaring they'd support Trump over Hillary. It's basically an indication you don't actually care much about policy issues (or, possibly, that you're ignorant on the subject).
Also, although he can - and should - obviously be opposed on plenty of other levels, including his absolutely terrible policy proposals, his laughable (and outright embarrassing) ignorance of the issues, and his wildly contradictory claims and positions, Trump has also clearly displayed xenophobia/racism and sexism. Saying that it's more important to criticize him on policy is one thing, but let's not pretend he hasn't made plenty of bigoted statements.
Suppose for a second that any of the accusations of racism, sexism, or whatever unspecified bigotry were true - can you explain why a voter would be supposed to care?
Why do you act like the accusations of racism and sexium are questionable in any way. The guy literaly started out by saying that mexicans that come to america were all rapists and drug dealers and that he wasn't sure any of them were any good here. If thats not racism in your world then you need to come back to earth.
And after the shit he said during the debates hes obviously a sexist. Like I'm as WASPy as you can get and I can spot the racist and sexist in the room.
Hes a shitty person thats why they should care. the racism and sexist explains why he is so shitty of a person. At least hillary is incompetent and corrupt.
Well, to be discerning, based on what you say he said that wouldn't be racism. Racism is about race. That quote is about nationality/origin. It's also not actually a quote of what he said. So, if you are going to claim he made racist statements(which I don't know if he did or not), then please provide a quote of it.
On April 30 2016 08:55 kwizach wrote: Pretty funny seeing at least one Bernie supporter declaring they'd support Trump over Hillary. It's basically an indication you don't actually care much about policy issues (or, possibly, that you're ignorant on the subject).
Also, although he can - and should - obviously be opposed on plenty of other levels, including his absolutely terrible policy proposals, his laughable (and outright embarrassing) ignorance of the issues, and his wildly contradictory claims and positions, Trump has also clearly displayed xenophobia/racism and sexism. Saying that it's more important to criticize him on policy is one thing, but let's not pretend he hasn't made plenty of bigoted statements.
Suppose for a second that any of the accusations of racism, sexism, or whatever unspecified bigotry were true - can you explain why a voter would be supposed to care?
Why do you act like the accusations of racism and sexium are questionable in any way. The guy literaly started out by saying that mexicans that come to america were all rapists and drug dealers and that he wasn't sure any of them were any good here. If thats not racism in your world then you need to come back to earth.
And after the shit he said during the debates hes obviously a sexist. Like I'm as WASPy as you can get and I can spot the racist and sexist in the room.
Hes a shitty person thats why they should care. the racism and sexist explains why he is so shitty of a person. At least hillary is incompetent and corrupt.
Well, to be discerning, based on what you say he said that wouldn't be racism. Racism is about race. That quote is about nationality/origin. It's also not actually a quote of what he said. So, if you are going to claim he made racist statements(which I don't know if he did or not), then please provide a quote of it.
Trump attacks on Obama as not being born in this country are entirely race-based. Despite Mccain not being born in this country he had nothing to say about the old white man but harps on the fact the black man must have been born in Africa.
Calling Muslims a "problem" for this country may not technically constitute racism, but it's damn close, and just as harmful.
On April 30 2016 08:55 kwizach wrote: Pretty funny seeing at least one Bernie supporter declaring they'd support Trump over Hillary. It's basically an indication you don't actually care much about policy issues (or, possibly, that you're ignorant on the subject).
Also, although he can - and should - obviously be opposed on plenty of other levels, including his absolutely terrible policy proposals, his laughable (and outright embarrassing) ignorance of the issues, and his wildly contradictory claims and positions, Trump has also clearly displayed xenophobia/racism and sexism. Saying that it's more important to criticize him on policy is one thing, but let's not pretend he hasn't made plenty of bigoted statements.
Suppose for a second that any of the accusations of racism, sexism, or whatever unspecified bigotry were true - can you explain why a voter would be supposed to care?
I don't have to suppose anything, since they are true. A voter should care if that voter is interested in reducing, among other things, systemic discrimination, social inequality, fear of discriminatory persecution, and interpersonal racism, xenophobia and sexism in the US. A xenophobic and sexist asshole is indeed less likely to achieve progress on those fronts, and would in fact likely worsen the current situation -- for example by legitimizing racist and sexist attitudes through his own discourse, behavior and policies.
I don't think it's true, which is why it's useful to suppose something for the sake of argument.
It sounds like what's going on is you want to paint with a broad brush because it looks more severe. For example, if you said "Donald Trump insults presidential candidate and former CEO Carly Fiorina's appearance - another battlefield in the war on women," it would sound suspect. Many of us don't see any issue. But if you abstract and use the magic word, like in this case "sexism," it gets people to associate the worst, and you end up with these articles and rants and Guardian blogs that make the candidate sound like Ted Bundy.
I know you don't think it's true. You also "had no idea" whether the woman doing as obvious a Nazi salute as can be outside a Trump rally was indeed doing a Nazi salute (spoiler alert: she was). I'm not painting with a broad brush, I am describing Trump's rhetoric. The fact that you don't like that description doesn't make it any less accurate.
You're talking about the woman who isn't a Nazi again?
We definitely agree that my liking or disliking your characterization of Trump's rhetoric isn't what makes it inaccurate.
Yes, I am talking about that woman -- I'm not saying she was a Nazi, I'm saying she was doing a Nazi salute, which anyone with an ounce of honesty agreed was the case. She said so as well. You, on the other hand, could not even bring yourself to admit she was doing a Nazi salute.
There's nothing that makes it inaccurate, since it is perfectly accurate, but your usual "nuh-uh!" whenever people "tell it like it is" with respect to Trump's statements is unsurprising.
On April 30 2016 14:58 TheTenthDoc wrote: I can understand supporting people with incoherent policies if they display integrity that demonstrates they can hammer out the incoherency and make progress in their ideas.
I can understand supporting assholes with little integrity if they have coherent, well-executed policies and demonstrate an incredible grasp of the world.
I cannot understand supporting someone who has incoherent policies, virtually no integrity, and constant asshole behavior.
but didn't you hear hillary accepts donations from CORPORATIONS
In Mississippi an abused spouse must remain in a violent marriage, according to the state legislature.
A bill that would have made domestic abuse grounds for divorce died in the state senate last week. And the decision shocked victims’ rights advocates around the state.
“We have an epidemic here,” said Lorine Cady, founder of the House of Grace, a center for victims in Southaven. “I think domestic abuse should be at the very top of the list of reasons for divorce.”
It’s a decision that will affect thousands of spouses across the state, both men and women. One in three women, and one in four men, have been abused by partners in the state, according to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence. Those figures are for physical abuse alone, and do not include mental and emotional abuse.
Senator Sally Doty, a Republican who represents three counties in the southern half of the state, proposed the bill in February. It drew some questions at first – must the abuse be documented for divorce? Or should it be granted base on one party’s word? Should it require arrest? But the bill appeared on track to become a law, as it moved from the senate judiciary committee and into the house.
The house passed the bill, but legislators added a clause to the proposal: A divorce could also be granted after a two-year separation.
Then the bill died in the senate.
“That additional grounds is actually what ended up killing the bill,” Doty told local television station WMC5. “I think certainly all of my colleagues in the senate understand the seriousness of domestic violence.”
There are 12 other grounds for divorce already on the books in Mississippi, including impotence and habitual drunkenness. But the clause including two years of separation went too far for the legislators. “I think people here tend to lean on the bible in their decision-making about divorce,” said Cady, the women’s shelter founder. “They’re not considering what it says about helping women.”
The Bible includes abandonment among the reasons for legitimate divorce. So, Cady said, by rejecting the two-year clause, the Mississippi senate seems to be reaching for stricter limitations than the bible itself.
On April 30 2016 08:55 kwizach wrote: Pretty funny seeing at least one Bernie supporter declaring they'd support Trump over Hillary. It's basically an indication you don't actually care much about policy issues (or, possibly, that you're ignorant on the subject).
Also, although he can - and should - obviously be opposed on plenty of other levels, including his absolutely terrible policy proposals, his laughable (and outright embarrassing) ignorance of the issues, and his wildly contradictory claims and positions, Trump has also clearly displayed xenophobia/racism and sexism. Saying that it's more important to criticize him on policy is one thing, but let's not pretend he hasn't made plenty of bigoted statements.
Suppose for a second that any of the accusations of racism, sexism, or whatever unspecified bigotry were true - can you explain why a voter would be supposed to care?
Why do you act like the accusations of racism and sexium are questionable in any way. The guy literaly started out by saying that mexicans that come to america were all rapists and drug dealers and that he wasn't sure any of them were any good here. If thats not racism in your world then you need to come back to earth.
And after the shit he said during the debates hes obviously a sexist. Like I'm as WASPy as you can get and I can spot the racist and sexist in the room.
Hes a shitty person thats why they should care. the racism and sexist explains why he is so shitty of a person. At least hillary is incompetent and corrupt.
Well, to be discerning, based on what you say he said that wouldn't be racism. Racism is about race. That quote is about nationality/origin. It's also not actually a quote of what he said. So, if you are going to claim he made racist statements(which I don't know if he did or not), then please provide a quote of it.
He mentions more then just mexico but the entire hispanic central americna world, And then includes musliums there at the end. This is the first result on youtube when I searched "doland trump mexicans are rapists.
On April 30 2016 08:55 kwizach wrote: Pretty funny seeing at least one Bernie supporter declaring they'd support Trump over Hillary. It's basically an indication you don't actually care much about policy issues (or, possibly, that you're ignorant on the subject).
Also, although he can - and should - obviously be opposed on plenty of other levels, including his absolutely terrible policy proposals, his laughable (and outright embarrassing) ignorance of the issues, and his wildly contradictory claims and positions, Trump has also clearly displayed xenophobia/racism and sexism. Saying that it's more important to criticize him on policy is one thing, but let's not pretend he hasn't made plenty of bigoted statements.
Suppose for a second that any of the accusations of racism, sexism, or whatever unspecified bigotry were true - can you explain why a voter would be supposed to care?
I don't have to suppose anything, since they are true. A voter should care if that voter is interested in reducing, among other things, systemic discrimination, social inequality, fear of discriminatory persecution, and interpersonal racism, xenophobia and sexism in the US. A xenophobic and sexist asshole is indeed less likely to achieve progress on those fronts, and would in fact likely worsen the current situation -- for example by legitimizing racist and sexist attitudes through his own discourse, behavior and policies.
I don't think it's true, which is why it's useful to suppose something for the sake of argument.
It sounds like what's going on is you want to paint with a broad brush because it looks more severe. For example, if you said "Donald Trump insults presidential candidate and former CEO Carly Fiorina's appearance - another battlefield in the war on women," it would sound suspect. Many of us don't see any issue. But if you abstract and use the magic word, like in this case "sexism," it gets people to associate the worst, and you end up with these articles and rants and Guardian blogs that make the candidate sound like Ted Bundy.
I know you don't think it's true. You also "had no idea" whether the woman doing as obvious a Nazi salute as can be outside a Trump rally was indeed doing a Nazi salute (spoiler alert: she was). I'm not painting with a broad brush, I am describing Trump's rhetoric. The fact that you don't like that description doesn't make it any less accurate.
You're talking about the woman who isn't a Nazi again?
We definitely agree that my liking or disliking your characterization of Trump's rhetoric isn't what makes it inaccurate.
Yes, I am talking about that woman -- I'm not saying she was a Nazi, I'm saying she was doing a Nazi salute, which anyone with an ounce of honesty agreed was the case. She said so as well. You, on the other hand, could not even bring yourself to admit she was doing a Nazi salute.
The implications of what people were trying to do with that picture (woman with Trump shirt and arm in the air) were obvious. I didn't dismiss that she could be making the gesture. She did it because people were harassing her, which was something I found likely (along with the possibility of it being a staged photo).
On April 30 2016 20:48 kwizach wrote: There's nothing that makes it inaccurate, since it is perfectly accurate
On April 30 2016 08:55 kwizach wrote: I don't have to suppose anything, since they are true.
We know how you feel, and you seem to be aware I disagree. You're obviously not going to convince me by childish repetition.
On April 30 2016 14:58 TheTenthDoc wrote: I cannot understand supporting someone who has incoherent policies, virtually no integrity, and constant asshole behavior.
anyone who supports bernie and considers supporting trump over hillary obviously has 0 understanding of the political platform of at least one out of those two candidates. You might argue that they are both anti-establishment - but when they both essentially define each other or each other's supporters as the embodiment of the establishment, that stops being a trait they share.
preferring either sanders or trump over hillary can be logically consistent, but thinking bernie>trump>hillary, sorry, that just doesn't work.
Well, for the angry ones who don't want (or can not) to see it in a more rational way, it may sound as two birds with one stone. In one hand, they lapidate the republican party, and while doing so they also punish the democratic party for not supporting their current choice.
But anyone who has even the remotest support for bernie sanders, both as a person and politician, should consider donald trump a disaster, both as a person and as a politician, and be far more concerned with the state of the world than that of the republican party. Sanders is basically a hippie, Trump is whatever the very opposite of a hippie would be.
On May 01 2016 03:06 Liquid`Drone wrote: But anyone who has even the remotest support for bernie sanders, both as a person and politician, should consider donald trump a disaster, both as a person and as a politician, and be far more concerned with the state of the world than that of the republican party. Sanders is basically a hippie, Trump is whatever the very opposite of a hippie would be.
Does that mean I can't disagree with Sanders and agree with Trump on some issues?
EPT
