|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.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 May 20 2016 05:38 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Solar, ZasZ.'s post does not contain the word 'all'. So he didn't say all.
Secondly, I really am baffled with the 'he's not sexist, he's equally much of an asshole towards everyone' as a way of defending a candidate.
But didnt you know, if you are consistent in your offensive behavior. well then thats ok.
|
If we are going to dig into the specifics of the dumpster fire quote, Trump said that he wasn’t sure, but he assumed some of them were good people too. But Mexico was sending rapists.
Without torturing specific wording to death again, the entire statement is so terrible that people can take it any way they want. Its pure race baiting garbage to pander to a based that loves the idea that Mexico is sending criminals. And it was given in the context of building a wall to keep out the criminals and rapists that Trump claims are coming over. There is no way to talk about that statement without addressing the fact that it is a racially charged statement.
But hey, bend over backward to make that statement not be the shit that it was. Try to paint it in a good light if that is what you think needs to be done.
On May 20 2016 05:41 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2016 05:38 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Solar, ZasZ.'s post does not contain the word 'all'. So he didn't say all.
Secondly, I really am baffled with the 'he's not sexist, he's equally much of an asshole towards everyone' as a way of defending a candidate. But didnt you know, if you are consistent in your offensive behavior. well then thats ok.
The guy who is a jerk to everyone equally should be in charge of international relations and our nukes.
|
On May 20 2016 05:38 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Solar, ZasZ.'s post does not contain the word 'all'. So he didn't say all.
Secondly, I really am baffled with the 'he's not sexist, he's equally much of an asshole towards everyone' as a way of defending a candidate.
And here was see the absolute master that Trump is. Somehow, the worst parts about him are his selling points and are in fact positives which earn him votes.
|
On May 20 2016 05:37 radscorpion9 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2016 05:17 ZasZ. wrote:On May 20 2016 05:04 SolaR- wrote:On May 20 2016 04:31 kwizach wrote:On May 20 2016 04:07 SolaR- wrote:On May 20 2016 03:53 kwizach wrote:On May 20 2016 03:51 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2016 03:27 Toadesstern wrote:On May 20 2016 03:22 GoTuNk! wrote:On May 20 2016 01:59 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
What would be sufficient evidence of sexism for you to accept Drumpf is sexist? Please provide several options, as we may not have an example that exactly hits all the points you are looking for. Certainly not off-hand remarks and jokes to bait the media and the left in general to complaint and look stupid. True sexism implies stuff like having a great person for a job position and not hiring them simply because they are a woman. it isn't even about wether or not he's a sexist. The guy said Drumpf being CALLED (wether true or not) sexist etc is all new and only started because of the election. Then someone pointed out that that's wrong. Wether the statements about his personality are correct or not wasn't even discussed. The racism/sexism narrative did basically start because of the election Again, false. That huffington post source gots me convinced. The Clinton's racist history is far more frightening. I can post articles too. www.thenation.com Convinced of what? oBlade made an assertion, namely that the "Drumpf is racist" narrative started because of the election. I showed that to be factually false. If you'd like to argue that it's true, then present arguments in defense of that position instead of deflecting to Hillary. I think you should know what Oblade is saying. Sure you can find some stuff here and there where people accused trump of sexism or racism. Hell, you can find dirt like that on pretty much any popular figure. He is saying that this consensus that trump is a racist/sexist across all media didnt start until he ran for president. I don't think you can argue against that. At least for the racism piece, it didn't start until he ran for presidency because he announced his candidacy by calling illegal immigrants rapists. He has also repeatedly denigrated the looks of his female competition (Fiorina) and the wives of his competition (Cruz). It really doesn't get much more sexist than implying ability is somehow tied to appearance. I swear the whole world has collectively lost their understanding of what the word 'racism' means. Mexico, and the Mexican people, are not a race. They are a country, a nation. If Drumpf said that all dark-skinned people are criminals, then he would be racist. The most you can say about Drumpf is that he is a conspiracy theorist who thinks global warming is a Chinese hoax, or that the Mexican government is purposely sending its criminal elements over the border (this was his original charge; i.e. that instead of keeping them in jail or taking the effort to rehabilitate them, they just send them to America). Completely separate, mind you, of saying that White people are superior to dark skinned people, who happen to live in Mexico in larger numbers. And not remotely implied through any logical stretch. I think its funny that people are so concerned with these issues. As if whether what Drumpf did 20-30 years ago (or more recently) is too offensive, that he might hurt people's feelings. We should be focusing on his policies, or lack thereof, and how they impact the lives of millions of people. Unless you're saying you can predict what Drumpf's policies are based on how he treated black tenants 40 years ago, which I am deeply skeptical of. Or because he has made a few choice sexist remarks, I guess that means that his presidency will be devoted to subjugating women?? Its hard to take any of that seriously. I think personally he has his issues, but as a president, in terms of his policies, that's a totally different matter, especially considering he needs the help of the house and the senate to pass any kind of bill.
Rhetoric is generally reflective atleast in theory regarding policy. When your foreign policy mandates building a wall and getting Mexico to pay for it, whining about NAFTA + Show Spoiler +which btw will hurt Canada like a bitch more than it will hurt Mexico,( I work in customs consulting, literally my job is working duty recovery on misclassified items. or well part of my job.)
and thats just a basic issue with the protectionist angle hes running.
If you are an asshole and your policies are reflecting that then yes its worth taking a look at that. You can only disassociate the 2 if there is evidence to the contrary. There isnt.
|
On May 20 2016 05:41 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2016 05:38 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Solar, ZasZ.'s post does not contain the word 'all'. So he didn't say all.
Secondly, I really am baffled with the 'he's not sexist, he's equally much of an asshole towards everyone' as a way of defending a candidate. But didnt you know, if you are consistent in your offensive behavior. well then thats ok.
Ok for a social outcast, maybe
Ok for President of the United States? how about no.
|
On May 20 2016 05:04 SolaR- wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2016 04:31 kwizach wrote:On May 20 2016 04:07 SolaR- wrote:On May 20 2016 03:53 kwizach wrote:On May 20 2016 03:51 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2016 03:27 Toadesstern wrote:On May 20 2016 03:22 GoTuNk! wrote:On May 20 2016 01:59 Plansix wrote:On May 20 2016 01:52 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2016 01:13 TheTenthDoc wrote:
[quote]
That's so far from the truth that I'm not sure what makes you believe that. There was an entire book written about him in 1993 that touched on sexism/misogyny repeatedly; regardless of whether it's true, the narrative has been there for ages. The racism narrative was birthed (heh) during the birther movement, maybe, but his women issues are an old, old media plaything. I think you're confusing sexism with sex. That was just a book about the personal life of a famous rich guy. What would be sufficient evidence of sexism for you to accept Trump is sexist? Please provide several options, as we may not have an example that exactly hits all the points you are looking for. Certainly not off-hand remarks and jokes to bait the media and the left in general to complaint and look stupid. True sexism implies stuff like having a great person for a job position and not hiring them simply because they are a woman. it isn't even about wether or not he's a sexist. The guy said Trump being CALLED (wether true or not) sexist etc is all new and only started because of the election. Then someone pointed out that that's wrong. Wether the statements about his personality are correct or not wasn't even discussed. The racism/sexism narrative did basically start because of the election Again, false. That huffington post source gots me convinced. The Clinton's racist history is far more frightening. I can post articles too. www.thenation.com Convinced of what? oBlade made an assertion, namely that the "Trump is racist" narrative started because of the election. I showed that to be factually false. If you'd like to argue that it's true, then present arguments in defense of that position instead of deflecting to Hillary. I think you should know what Oblade is saying. Sure you can find some stuff here and there where people accused trump of sexism or racism. Hell, you can find dirt like that on pretty much any popular figure. He is saying that this consensus that trump is a racist/sexist across all media didnt start until he ran for president. I don't think you can argue against that.
Most people in the media, if the idea really catches on that they're somehow prejudiced, like Don Imus, they lose their jobs, status, and so forth. Trump bringing up birth certificates in 2011 was part of his overtures to possibly running in 2012. The idea is obvious, fling shit at the sitting president -> attention. But NBC and everyone still kept him around. What really stuck? Not much, right, it didn't explode until after he announced last summer and everyone ran with the anti-Hispanic charge.
|
On May 20 2016 05:48 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2016 05:04 SolaR- wrote:On May 20 2016 04:31 kwizach wrote:On May 20 2016 04:07 SolaR- wrote:On May 20 2016 03:53 kwizach wrote:On May 20 2016 03:51 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2016 03:27 Toadesstern wrote:On May 20 2016 03:22 GoTuNk! wrote:On May 20 2016 01:59 Plansix wrote:On May 20 2016 01:52 oBlade wrote:
[quote]
I think you're confusing sexism with sex. That was just a book about the personal life of a famous rich guy. What would be sufficient evidence of sexism for you to accept Drumpf is sexist? Please provide several options, as we may not have an example that exactly hits all the points you are looking for. Certainly not off-hand remarks and jokes to bait the media and the left in general to complaint and look stupid. True sexism implies stuff like having a great person for a job position and not hiring them simply because they are a woman. it isn't even about wether or not he's a sexist. The guy said Drumpf being CALLED (wether true or not) sexist etc is all new and only started because of the election. Then someone pointed out that that's wrong. Wether the statements about his personality are correct or not wasn't even discussed. The racism/sexism narrative did basically start because of the election Again, false. That huffington post source gots me convinced. The Clinton's racist history is far more frightening. I can post articles too. www.thenation.com Convinced of what? oBlade made an assertion, namely that the "Drumpf is racist" narrative started because of the election. I showed that to be factually false. If you'd like to argue that it's true, then present arguments in defense of that position instead of deflecting to Hillary. I think you should know what Oblade is saying. Sure you can find some stuff here and there where people accused trump of sexism or racism. Hell, you can find dirt like that on pretty much any popular figure. He is saying that this consensus that trump is a racist/sexist across all media didnt start until he ran for president. I don't think you can argue against that. Most people in the media, if the idea really catches on that they're somehow prejudiced, like Don Imus, they lose their jobs, status, and so forth. Drumpf bringing up birth certificates in 2011 was part of his overtures to possibly running in 2012. The idea is obvious, fling shit at the sitting president -> attention. But NBC and everyone still kept him around. What really stuck? Not much, right, it didn't explode until after he announced last summer and everyone ran with the anti-Hispanic charge.
ok fine you can obfuscate the issue all you want and argue timing, but whats your point ? That someone who is running for president shouldnt be subject to having his rhetoric examined ?
|
nah dont you know it was just a prank (suggestion) bro
trumps wall is now metaphorical. or rhetorical. either way its not a actual 30 foot tall concrete wall.
|
I don't think the Clintons want to make the election slogan character matters. Because she's losing on the issue of honesty and trustworthiness to Donald Trump of all people.
|
On May 20 2016 05:17 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2016 05:04 SolaR- wrote:On May 20 2016 04:31 kwizach wrote:On May 20 2016 04:07 SolaR- wrote:On May 20 2016 03:53 kwizach wrote:On May 20 2016 03:51 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2016 03:27 Toadesstern wrote:On May 20 2016 03:22 GoTuNk! wrote:On May 20 2016 01:59 Plansix wrote:On May 20 2016 01:52 oBlade wrote:
[quote]
I think you're confusing sexism with sex. That was just a book about the personal life of a famous rich guy. What would be sufficient evidence of sexism for you to accept Trump is sexist? Please provide several options, as we may not have an example that exactly hits all the points you are looking for. Certainly not off-hand remarks and jokes to bait the media and the left in general to complaint and look stupid. True sexism implies stuff like having a great person for a job position and not hiring them simply because they are a woman. it isn't even about wether or not he's a sexist. The guy said Trump being CALLED (wether true or not) sexist etc is all new and only started because of the election. Then someone pointed out that that's wrong. Wether the statements about his personality are correct or not wasn't even discussed. The racism/sexism narrative did basically start because of the election Again, false. That huffington post source gots me convinced. The Clinton's racist history is far more frightening. I can post articles too. www.thenation.com Convinced of what? oBlade made an assertion, namely that the "Trump is racist" narrative started because of the election. I showed that to be factually false. If you'd like to argue that it's true, then present arguments in defense of that position instead of deflecting to Hillary. I think you should know what Oblade is saying. Sure you can find some stuff here and there where people accused trump of sexism or racism. Hell, you can find dirt like that on pretty much any popular figure. He is saying that this consensus that trump is a racist/sexist across all media didnt start until he ran for president. I don't think you can argue against that. At least for the racism piece, it didn't start until he ran for presidency because he announced his candidacy by calling illegal immigrants rapists. He has also repeatedly denigrated the looks of his female competition (Fiorina) and the wives of his competition (Cruz). It really doesn't get much more sexist than implying ability is somehow tied to appearance.
So, for example:
-Saying "there's a lot of subject matter to work with" if he wanted to insult Rand Paul's appearance
-Kicking a candidate out of the race by calling him "little Marco" and saying he sweats a lot
-Saying John Kasich eats like a pig
-Ted Cruz's face
Would that be more sexism, or how do you interpret that?
On May 20 2016 05:38 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Solar, ZasZ.'s post does not contain the word 'all'. So he didn't say all.
Secondly, I really am baffled with the 'he's not sexist, he's equally much of an asshole towards everyone' as a way of defending a candidate.
If the accusation is specifically sexism, why not? It's not an endorsement of someone, it doesn't mean you'd have to vote for them if they weren't a sexist.
|
United States4748 Posts
If the DNC wants to lose a race they are favored to win, they should keep up with the sexism stuff.
The racism stuff may work because of Florida, but even then I'm not convinced. Hillary Clinton, trying her hardest to lose.
|
On May 20 2016 05:38 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Solar, ZasZ.'s post does not contain the word 'all'. So he didn't say all.
Secondly, I really am baffled with the 'he's not sexist, he's equally much of an asshole towards everyone' as a way of defending a candidate.
I think all was implied from his sentence. Also, i am intrigued by someone who is willing to be an asshole. Quite frankly, i am sick of this pc media game. I want someone who represents strength.
At that point it is just preference.
|
On May 20 2016 05:49 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2016 05:48 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2016 05:04 SolaR- wrote:On May 20 2016 04:31 kwizach wrote:On May 20 2016 04:07 SolaR- wrote:On May 20 2016 03:53 kwizach wrote:On May 20 2016 03:51 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2016 03:27 Toadesstern wrote:On May 20 2016 03:22 GoTuNk! wrote:On May 20 2016 01:59 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
What would be sufficient evidence of sexism for you to accept Drumpf is sexist? Please provide several options, as we may not have an example that exactly hits all the points you are looking for. Certainly not off-hand remarks and jokes to bait the media and the left in general to complaint and look stupid. True sexism implies stuff like having a great person for a job position and not hiring them simply because they are a woman. it isn't even about wether or not he's a sexist. The guy said Drumpf being CALLED (wether true or not) sexist etc is all new and only started because of the election. Then someone pointed out that that's wrong. Wether the statements about his personality are correct or not wasn't even discussed. The racism/sexism narrative did basically start because of the election Again, false. That huffington post source gots me convinced. The Clinton's racist history is far more frightening. I can post articles too. www.thenation.com Convinced of what? oBlade made an assertion, namely that the "Drumpf is racist" narrative started because of the election. I showed that to be factually false. If you'd like to argue that it's true, then present arguments in defense of that position instead of deflecting to Hillary. I think you should know what Oblade is saying. Sure you can find some stuff here and there where people accused trump of sexism or racism. Hell, you can find dirt like that on pretty much any popular figure. He is saying that this consensus that trump is a racist/sexist across all media didnt start until he ran for president. I don't think you can argue against that. Most people in the media, if the idea really catches on that they're somehow prejudiced, like Don Imus, they lose their jobs, status, and so forth. Drumpf bringing up birth certificates in 2011 was part of his overtures to possibly running in 2012. The idea is obvious, fling shit at the sitting president -> attention. But NBC and everyone still kept him around. What really stuck? Not much, right, it didn't explode until after he announced last summer and everyone ran with the anti-Hispanic charge. ok fine you can obfuscate the issue all you want and argue timing, but whats your point ? That someone who is running for president shouldnt be subject to having his rhetoric examined ?
Oblade challenges almost every assertion of sexism or racism on any subject, only to never accept any evidence as sufficient to prove it exists. Its pretty much the “if I keep asking questions, then it isn’t real” approach to discussion.
On May 20 2016 06:10 SolaR- wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2016 05:38 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Solar, ZasZ.'s post does not contain the word 'all'. So he didn't say all.
Secondly, I really am baffled with the 'he's not sexist, he's equally much of an asshole towards everyone' as a way of defending a candidate. I think all was implied from his sentence. Also, i am intrigued by someone who is willing to be an asshole. Quite frankly, i am sick of this pc media game. I want someone who represents strength. At that point it is just preference.
People who say they are willing to be an asshole at all times and say what is on their mind hold zero appeal to me. That is just a person who lacks self control and can’t pick their moment. The greatest minds of our time and the past think about what they are going to say and the best way to say it. Attempting to imitate a youtube comment section is not a virtue
|
On May 20 2016 06:11 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2016 05:49 Rebs wrote:On May 20 2016 05:48 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2016 05:04 SolaR- wrote:On May 20 2016 04:31 kwizach wrote:On May 20 2016 04:07 SolaR- wrote:On May 20 2016 03:53 kwizach wrote:On May 20 2016 03:51 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2016 03:27 Toadesstern wrote:On May 20 2016 03:22 GoTuNk! wrote:
[quote]
Certainly not off-hand remarks and jokes to bait the media and the left in general to complaint and look stupid.
True sexism implies stuff like having a great person for a job position and not hiring them simply because they are a woman. it isn't even about wether or not he's a sexist. The guy said Drumpf being CALLED (wether true or not) sexist etc is all new and only started because of the election. Then someone pointed out that that's wrong. Wether the statements about his personality are correct or not wasn't even discussed. The racism/sexism narrative did basically start because of the election Again, false. That huffington post source gots me convinced. The Clinton's racist history is far more frightening. I can post articles too. www.thenation.com Convinced of what? oBlade made an assertion, namely that the "Drumpf is racist" narrative started because of the election. I showed that to be factually false. If you'd like to argue that it's true, then present arguments in defense of that position instead of deflecting to Hillary. I think you should know what Oblade is saying. Sure you can find some stuff here and there where people accused trump of sexism or racism. Hell, you can find dirt like that on pretty much any popular figure. He is saying that this consensus that trump is a racist/sexist across all media didnt start until he ran for president. I don't think you can argue against that. Most people in the media, if the idea really catches on that they're somehow prejudiced, like Don Imus, they lose their jobs, status, and so forth. Drumpf bringing up birth certificates in 2011 was part of his overtures to possibly running in 2012. The idea is obvious, fling shit at the sitting president -> attention. But NBC and everyone still kept him around. What really stuck? Not much, right, it didn't explode until after he announced last summer and everyone ran with the anti-Hispanic charge. ok fine you can obfuscate the issue all you want and argue timing, but whats your point ? That someone who is running for president shouldnt be subject to having his rhetoric examined ? Oblade challenges almost every assertion of sexism or racism on any subject, only to never accept any evidence as sufficient to prove it exists. Its pretty much the “if I keep asking questions, then it isn’t real” approach to discussion. Show nested quote +On May 20 2016 06:10 SolaR- wrote:On May 20 2016 05:38 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Solar, ZasZ.'s post does not contain the word 'all'. So he didn't say all.
Secondly, I really am baffled with the 'he's not sexist, he's equally much of an asshole towards everyone' as a way of defending a candidate. I think all was implied from his sentence. Also, i am intrigued by someone who is willing to be an asshole. Quite frankly, i am sick of this pc media game. I want someone who represents strength. At that point it is just preference. People who say they are willing to be an asshole at all times and say what is on their mind hold zero appeal to me. That is just a person who lacks self control and can’t pick their moment. The greatest minds of our time and the past think about what they are going to say and the best way to say it. Attempting to imitate a youtube comment section is not a virtue
Virtues are relative and dependant on an individual's values. I won't go down that road though.
|
On May 20 2016 06:18 SolaR- wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2016 06:11 Plansix wrote:On May 20 2016 05:49 Rebs wrote:On May 20 2016 05:48 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2016 05:04 SolaR- wrote:On May 20 2016 04:31 kwizach wrote:On May 20 2016 04:07 SolaR- wrote:On May 20 2016 03:53 kwizach wrote:On May 20 2016 03:51 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2016 03:27 Toadesstern wrote:
[quote]
it isn't even about wether or not he's a sexist. The guy said Drumpf being CALLED (wether true or not) sexist etc is all new and only started because of the election.
Then someone pointed out that that's wrong.
Wether the statements about his personality are correct or not wasn't even discussed. The racism/sexism narrative did basically start because of the election Again, false. That huffington post source gots me convinced. The Clinton's racist history is far more frightening. I can post articles too. www.thenation.com Convinced of what? oBlade made an assertion, namely that the "Drumpf is racist" narrative started because of the election. I showed that to be factually false. If you'd like to argue that it's true, then present arguments in defense of that position instead of deflecting to Hillary. I think you should know what Oblade is saying. Sure you can find some stuff here and there where people accused trump of sexism or racism. Hell, you can find dirt like that on pretty much any popular figure. He is saying that this consensus that trump is a racist/sexist across all media didnt start until he ran for president. I don't think you can argue against that. Most people in the media, if the idea really catches on that they're somehow prejudiced, like Don Imus, they lose their jobs, status, and so forth. Drumpf bringing up birth certificates in 2011 was part of his overtures to possibly running in 2012. The idea is obvious, fling shit at the sitting president -> attention. But NBC and everyone still kept him around. What really stuck? Not much, right, it didn't explode until after he announced last summer and everyone ran with the anti-Hispanic charge. ok fine you can obfuscate the issue all you want and argue timing, but whats your point ? That someone who is running for president shouldnt be subject to having his rhetoric examined ? Oblade challenges almost every assertion of sexism or racism on any subject, only to never accept any evidence as sufficient to prove it exists. Its pretty much the “if I keep asking questions, then it isn’t real” approach to discussion. On May 20 2016 06:10 SolaR- wrote:On May 20 2016 05:38 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Solar, ZasZ.'s post does not contain the word 'all'. So he didn't say all.
Secondly, I really am baffled with the 'he's not sexist, he's equally much of an asshole towards everyone' as a way of defending a candidate. I think all was implied from his sentence. Also, i am intrigued by someone who is willing to be an asshole. Quite frankly, i am sick of this pc media game. I want someone who represents strength. At that point it is just preference. People who say they are willing to be an asshole at all times and say what is on their mind hold zero appeal to me. That is just a person who lacks self control and can’t pick their moment. The greatest minds of our time and the past think about what they are going to say and the best way to say it. Attempting to imitate a youtube comment section is not a virtue Virtues are relative and dependant on an individual's values. I won't go down that road though.
That is fine, but rebelling against the purported “PC culture” isn’t really much of a selling point. It just means the person is as asshole that feels being considerate of others isn’t worth his time. Not really a skill set for the leader of a nation and head of international relations. Trump is incapable of handling the oval office and the powers that come with it, including control of the FBI and CIA.
I get that PC culture can be annoying on the internet. People progressives agree on that subject. But that is just the internet. When someone is discussing issues facing transgender folks, they are talking about assault, murder, an alarming high suicide rate and so on.
|
On May 20 2016 06:11 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2016 05:49 Rebs wrote:On May 20 2016 05:48 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2016 05:04 SolaR- wrote:On May 20 2016 04:31 kwizach wrote:On May 20 2016 04:07 SolaR- wrote:On May 20 2016 03:53 kwizach wrote:On May 20 2016 03:51 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2016 03:27 Toadesstern wrote:On May 20 2016 03:22 GoTuNk! wrote:
[quote]
Certainly not off-hand remarks and jokes to bait the media and the left in general to complaint and look stupid.
True sexism implies stuff like having a great person for a job position and not hiring them simply because they are a woman. it isn't even about wether or not he's a sexist. The guy said Drumpf being CALLED (wether true or not) sexist etc is all new and only started because of the election. Then someone pointed out that that's wrong. Wether the statements about his personality are correct or not wasn't even discussed. The racism/sexism narrative did basically start because of the election Again, false. That huffington post source gots me convinced. The Clinton's racist history is far more frightening. I can post articles too. www.thenation.com Convinced of what? oBlade made an assertion, namely that the "Drumpf is racist" narrative started because of the election. I showed that to be factually false. If you'd like to argue that it's true, then present arguments in defense of that position instead of deflecting to Hillary. I think you should know what Oblade is saying. Sure you can find some stuff here and there where people accused trump of sexism or racism. Hell, you can find dirt like that on pretty much any popular figure. He is saying that this consensus that trump is a racist/sexist across all media didnt start until he ran for president. I don't think you can argue against that. Most people in the media, if the idea really catches on that they're somehow prejudiced, like Don Imus, they lose their jobs, status, and so forth. Drumpf bringing up birth certificates in 2011 was part of his overtures to possibly running in 2012. The idea is obvious, fling shit at the sitting president -> attention. But NBC and everyone still kept him around. What really stuck? Not much, right, it didn't explode until after he announced last summer and everyone ran with the anti-Hispanic charge. ok fine you can obfuscate the issue all you want and argue timing, but whats your point ? That someone who is running for president shouldnt be subject to having his rhetoric examined ? Oblade challenges almost every assertion of sexism or racism on any subject, only to never accept any evidence as sufficient to prove it exists. Its pretty much the “if I keep asking questions, then it isn’t real” approach to discussion.
You've said "we are all racist" and yet still expect people to lap it up uncritically every time someone cries wolf.
On May 20 2016 05:49 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2016 05:48 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2016 05:04 SolaR- wrote:On May 20 2016 04:31 kwizach wrote:On May 20 2016 04:07 SolaR- wrote:On May 20 2016 03:53 kwizach wrote:On May 20 2016 03:51 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2016 03:27 Toadesstern wrote:On May 20 2016 03:22 GoTuNk! wrote:On May 20 2016 01:59 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
What would be sufficient evidence of sexism for you to accept Drumpf is sexist? Please provide several options, as we may not have an example that exactly hits all the points you are looking for. Certainly not off-hand remarks and jokes to bait the media and the left in general to complaint and look stupid. True sexism implies stuff like having a great person for a job position and not hiring them simply because they are a woman. it isn't even about wether or not he's a sexist. The guy said Drumpf being CALLED (wether true or not) sexist etc is all new and only started because of the election. Then someone pointed out that that's wrong. Wether the statements about his personality are correct or not wasn't even discussed. The racism/sexism narrative did basically start because of the election Again, false. That huffington post source gots me convinced. The Clinton's racist history is far more frightening. I can post articles too. www.thenation.com Convinced of what? oBlade made an assertion, namely that the "Drumpf is racist" narrative started because of the election. I showed that to be factually false. If you'd like to argue that it's true, then present arguments in defense of that position instead of deflecting to Hillary. I think you should know what Oblade is saying. Sure you can find some stuff here and there where people accused trump of sexism or racism. Hell, you can find dirt like that on pretty much any popular figure. He is saying that this consensus that trump is a racist/sexist across all media didnt start until he ran for president. I don't think you can argue against that. Most people in the media, if the idea really catches on that they're somehow prejudiced, like Don Imus, they lose their jobs, status, and so forth. Drumpf bringing up birth certificates in 2011 was part of his overtures to possibly running in 2012. The idea is obvious, fling shit at the sitting president -> attention. But NBC and everyone still kept him around. What really stuck? Not much, right, it didn't explode until after he announced last summer and everyone ran with the anti-Hispanic charge. ok fine you can obfuscate the issue all you want and argue timing, but whats your point ? That someone who is running for president shouldnt be subject to having his rhetoric examined ?
I think the media is in the business of peddling tons of bullshit, which is fun to watch if we don't let ourselves take it seriously. And that you should be suspicious when people wait 30 years to stir up outrage.
|
On May 20 2016 06:08 Introvert wrote:
If the DNC wants to lose a race they are favored to win, they should keep up with the sexism stuff.
The racism stuff may work because of Florida, but even then I'm not convinced. Hillary Clinton, trying her hardest to lose.
This is a function of time. Seeding a general feeling of racism and sexism is really valuable early on. Right now its all about seed planting and repetition so that people are somewhat forced into having a vague idea of Trump just being sexist and racist. From there, months later, you inject a hard example or something like that, now that someone is more receptive to internalizing thoughts like that. It's the whole reason Clinton's Benghazi hearing was when it was. Same with emails. It's all about the slow, acidic dismantling of someone's public image.
|
On May 20 2016 06:33 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2016 06:11 Plansix wrote:On May 20 2016 05:49 Rebs wrote:On May 20 2016 05:48 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2016 05:04 SolaR- wrote:On May 20 2016 04:31 kwizach wrote:On May 20 2016 04:07 SolaR- wrote:On May 20 2016 03:53 kwizach wrote:On May 20 2016 03:51 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2016 03:27 Toadesstern wrote:
[quote]
it isn't even about wether or not he's a sexist. The guy said Drumpf being CALLED (wether true or not) sexist etc is all new and only started because of the election.
Then someone pointed out that that's wrong.
Wether the statements about his personality are correct or not wasn't even discussed. The racism/sexism narrative did basically start because of the election Again, false. That huffington post source gots me convinced. The Clinton's racist history is far more frightening. I can post articles too. www.thenation.com Convinced of what? oBlade made an assertion, namely that the "Drumpf is racist" narrative started because of the election. I showed that to be factually false. If you'd like to argue that it's true, then present arguments in defense of that position instead of deflecting to Hillary. I think you should know what Oblade is saying. Sure you can find some stuff here and there where people accused trump of sexism or racism. Hell, you can find dirt like that on pretty much any popular figure. He is saying that this consensus that trump is a racist/sexist across all media didnt start until he ran for president. I don't think you can argue against that. Most people in the media, if the idea really catches on that they're somehow prejudiced, like Don Imus, they lose their jobs, status, and so forth. Drumpf bringing up birth certificates in 2011 was part of his overtures to possibly running in 2012. The idea is obvious, fling shit at the sitting president -> attention. But NBC and everyone still kept him around. What really stuck? Not much, right, it didn't explode until after he announced last summer and everyone ran with the anti-Hispanic charge. ok fine you can obfuscate the issue all you want and argue timing, but whats your point ? That someone who is running for president shouldnt be subject to having his rhetoric examined ? Oblade challenges almost every assertion of sexism or racism on any subject, only to never accept any evidence as sufficient to prove it exists. Its pretty much the “if I keep asking questions, then it isn’t real” approach to discussion. You've said "we are all racist" and yet still expect people to lap it up uncritically every time someone cries wolf. Show nested quote +On May 20 2016 05:49 Rebs wrote:On May 20 2016 05:48 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2016 05:04 SolaR- wrote:On May 20 2016 04:31 kwizach wrote:On May 20 2016 04:07 SolaR- wrote:On May 20 2016 03:53 kwizach wrote:On May 20 2016 03:51 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2016 03:27 Toadesstern wrote:On May 20 2016 03:22 GoTuNk! wrote:
[quote]
Certainly not off-hand remarks and jokes to bait the media and the left in general to complaint and look stupid.
True sexism implies stuff like having a great person for a job position and not hiring them simply because they are a woman. it isn't even about wether or not he's a sexist. The guy said Drumpf being CALLED (wether true or not) sexist etc is all new and only started because of the election. Then someone pointed out that that's wrong. Wether the statements about his personality are correct or not wasn't even discussed. The racism/sexism narrative did basically start because of the election Again, false. That huffington post source gots me convinced. The Clinton's racist history is far more frightening. I can post articles too. www.thenation.com Convinced of what? oBlade made an assertion, namely that the "Drumpf is racist" narrative started because of the election. I showed that to be factually false. If you'd like to argue that it's true, then present arguments in defense of that position instead of deflecting to Hillary. I think you should know what Oblade is saying. Sure you can find some stuff here and there where people accused trump of sexism or racism. Hell, you can find dirt like that on pretty much any popular figure. He is saying that this consensus that trump is a racist/sexist across all media didnt start until he ran for president. I don't think you can argue against that. Most people in the media, if the idea really catches on that they're somehow prejudiced, like Don Imus, they lose their jobs, status, and so forth. Drumpf bringing up birth certificates in 2011 was part of his overtures to possibly running in 2012. The idea is obvious, fling shit at the sitting president -> attention. But NBC and everyone still kept him around. What really stuck? Not much, right, it didn't explode until after he announced last summer and everyone ran with the anti-Hispanic charge. ok fine you can obfuscate the issue all you want and argue timing, but whats your point ? That someone who is running for president shouldnt be subject to having his rhetoric examined ? I think the media is in the business of peddling tons of bullshit, which is fun to watch if we don't let ourselves take it seriously. And that you should be suspicious when people wait 30 years to stir up outrage.
Pretty sure the guy becoming the GOP’s nominee for President of the United States is the reason why all this stuff is being written about now. I don’t think anyone was sitting on these hot scoops hope for the day when he would become the nominee.
|
On May 20 2016 06:08 Introvert wrote:
If the DNC wants to lose a race they are favored to win, they should keep up with the sexism stuff.
The racism stuff may work because of Florida, but even then I'm not convinced. Hillary Clinton, trying her hardest to lose.
imma laugh when trumpo loses to someone trying her hardest to lose 
|
On May 20 2016 06:33 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2016 06:11 Plansix wrote:On May 20 2016 05:49 Rebs wrote:On May 20 2016 05:48 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2016 05:04 SolaR- wrote:On May 20 2016 04:31 kwizach wrote:On May 20 2016 04:07 SolaR- wrote:On May 20 2016 03:53 kwizach wrote:On May 20 2016 03:51 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2016 03:27 Toadesstern wrote:
[quote]
it isn't even about wether or not he's a sexist. The guy said Drumpf being CALLED (wether true or not) sexist etc is all new and only started because of the election.
Then someone pointed out that that's wrong.
Wether the statements about his personality are correct or not wasn't even discussed. The racism/sexism narrative did basically start because of the election Again, false. That huffington post source gots me convinced. The Clinton's racist history is far more frightening. I can post articles too. www.thenation.com Convinced of what? oBlade made an assertion, namely that the "Drumpf is racist" narrative started because of the election. I showed that to be factually false. If you'd like to argue that it's true, then present arguments in defense of that position instead of deflecting to Hillary. I think you should know what Oblade is saying. Sure you can find some stuff here and there where people accused trump of sexism or racism. Hell, you can find dirt like that on pretty much any popular figure. He is saying that this consensus that trump is a racist/sexist across all media didnt start until he ran for president. I don't think you can argue against that. Most people in the media, if the idea really catches on that they're somehow prejudiced, like Don Imus, they lose their jobs, status, and so forth. Drumpf bringing up birth certificates in 2011 was part of his overtures to possibly running in 2012. The idea is obvious, fling shit at the sitting president -> attention. But NBC and everyone still kept him around. What really stuck? Not much, right, it didn't explode until after he announced last summer and everyone ran with the anti-Hispanic charge. ok fine you can obfuscate the issue all you want and argue timing, but whats your point ? That someone who is running for president shouldnt be subject to having his rhetoric examined ? Oblade challenges almost every assertion of sexism or racism on any subject, only to never accept any evidence as sufficient to prove it exists. Its pretty much the “if I keep asking questions, then it isn’t real” approach to discussion. You've said "we are all racist" and yet still expect people to lap it up uncritically every time someone cries wolf. Show nested quote +On May 20 2016 05:49 Rebs wrote:On May 20 2016 05:48 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2016 05:04 SolaR- wrote:On May 20 2016 04:31 kwizach wrote:On May 20 2016 04:07 SolaR- wrote:On May 20 2016 03:53 kwizach wrote:On May 20 2016 03:51 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2016 03:27 Toadesstern wrote:On May 20 2016 03:22 GoTuNk! wrote:
[quote]
Certainly not off-hand remarks and jokes to bait the media and the left in general to complaint and look stupid.
True sexism implies stuff like having a great person for a job position and not hiring them simply because they are a woman. it isn't even about wether or not he's a sexist. The guy said Drumpf being CALLED (wether true or not) sexist etc is all new and only started because of the election. Then someone pointed out that that's wrong. Wether the statements about his personality are correct or not wasn't even discussed. The racism/sexism narrative did basically start because of the election Again, false. That huffington post source gots me convinced. The Clinton's racist history is far more frightening. I can post articles too. www.thenation.com Convinced of what? oBlade made an assertion, namely that the "Drumpf is racist" narrative started because of the election. I showed that to be factually false. If you'd like to argue that it's true, then present arguments in defense of that position instead of deflecting to Hillary. I think you should know what Oblade is saying. Sure you can find some stuff here and there where people accused trump of sexism or racism. Hell, you can find dirt like that on pretty much any popular figure. He is saying that this consensus that trump is a racist/sexist across all media didnt start until he ran for president. I don't think you can argue against that. Most people in the media, if the idea really catches on that they're somehow prejudiced, like Don Imus, they lose their jobs, status, and so forth. Drumpf bringing up birth certificates in 2011 was part of his overtures to possibly running in 2012. The idea is obvious, fling shit at the sitting president -> attention. But NBC and everyone still kept him around. What really stuck? Not much, right, it didn't explode until after he announced last summer and everyone ran with the anti-Hispanic charge. ok fine you can obfuscate the issue all you want and argue timing, but whats your point ? That someone who is running for president shouldnt be subject to having his rhetoric examined ? I think the media is in the business of peddling tons of bullshit, which is fun to watch if we don't let ourselves take it seriously. And that you should be suspicious when people wait 30 years to stir up outrage.
I'm pretty sure there's shit like that out on the Kardashians as well. Certainly not related at all but there's stuff out there for... a lot of people
And just like the Kardashians Trump managed to get some articles here and there inbetween on some of that shit (someone even linked one of them from years ago just last page to show that those always existed!), but ultimatively the difference is that he decided to run for president.
I can assure you that if kanye west runs for president in 2020 like he said he would there will be lots more negative articles about him and how much of an asshole he is outside the yellow press (or insert something else, idk)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
