|
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 06:40 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +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 
Hard to win when you are trying to lose.
|
Billionaire businessman and philanthropist David Koch has pledged “tens of millions of dollars” to help bankroll the campaign of Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson, according to a source within Johnson’s campaign.
Koch’s money will be made available should Johnson, a former two-term Republican governor of New Mexico, secure his second consecutive Libertarian Party presidential nomination, the source said.
The Libertarians will select their presidential ticket during the party’s national convention later this month in Orlando.
When asked about Koch’s eight-figure pledge to support Johnson, a source close to David Koch did not deny that such an agreement is in place.
A Koch spokesman initially declined to comment on the record.
But after publication, the spokesman told TheDC: “Reports that David Koch has pledged his support to Gary Johnson – or any candidate running for president for that matter – are untrue.”
Despite that denial, a source with a leadership position in the Libertarian Party told The Daily Caller Thursday afternoon that Johnson’s on track to receive the billionaire’s support.
“In the event that a Johnson/[Bill] Weld ticket emerges from the convention, a pathway is in place for significant funding from Koch, [Steve] Wynn and other large donors,” the source said.
Source
|
Interestingly, I think Johnson would have a better (although approximately zero) chance than most other 3rd party dreams.
However, still need 50% of the vote in order for it to be valid, so the 3rd party will never ever happen.
|
- source did not deny
- source declined to comment
- source denied
sounds legit
|
I strongly recommend viewing the authors previous works to get the full scope what he feels needs to be brought to the public's attention. He focusing in on the critical issues facing America.
|
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.
Of course I can argue against that, and I did by pointing out that his obsession with Obama's birth place was rightly denounced for its racist nature. That was four or five years before he announced he was running. And in any case, like Nebuchad said, the narrative is based on facts, which makes oBlade's point irrelevant.
|
On May 20 2016 06:04 oBlade 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 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? 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. 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.
That's 2 examples of comments on a male's actual looks although I'd need to confirm the ted cruz one. Do you wanna know how outgunned you are by the number of comments on women's looks?
|
On May 20 2016 06:37 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +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.
And he's going to point back to her, or to his own business. he is an ahole, but trying to tie him up as a sexist won't work.
On May 20 2016 06:40 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +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
She's obviously not actually trying to lose, but campaigning this way might as well be the equivalent.
|
On May 20 2016 07:33 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2016 06:37 Mohdoo wrote: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. And he's going to point back to her, or to his own business. he is an ahole, but trying to tie him up as a sexist won't work.
Not alone, it won't. But I think it is just a part of the package. The subtle/subconscious stuff needs to start being repeated right away. The other parts seem to come later, historically.
|
Trump needs to pull in a large number of independent women to win race. Sexism is not the way to get that done.
|
On May 20 2016 07:44 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2016 07:33 Introvert wrote:On May 20 2016 06:37 Mohdoo wrote: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. And he's going to point back to her, or to his own business. he is an ahole, but trying to tie him up as a sexist won't work. Not alone, it won't. But I think it is just a part of the package. The subtle/subconscious stuff needs to start being repeated right away. The other parts seem to come later, historically.
I've said before her goal should be to keep out of the spotlight and just keep his negatives as high as possible. If possible, let him do it himself. But even then "binders full of women" isn't going to have nearly the impact it had (whatever that was) with Romney.
But if Hillary starts calling it sexist and the like it's going to backfire. There's a fine line, and Hillary so bad at this she might overstep.
|
The House erupted in chaos Thursday morning with Democrats crying foul after Republicans hastily convinced a few of their own to switch their votes and narrowly block an amendment intended to protect lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people from discrimination.
It was an unruly scene on the floor, with Democrats chanting "shame!" after GOP leaders just barely muscled up the votes to reject, 212-213, an amendment by Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-N.Y.) that would have effectively barred federal contractors from getting government work if they discriminate against the LGBT community.
At one point, a monitor in the House gallery showed there were 217 votes supporting the legislation, eliciting cheers of joy from Democrats who thought the measure might actually pass. But over the course of about 10 minutes, those votes suddenly dropped one by one to 212 — and the amendment failed.
A number of lawmakers from western states, who originally voted yes, changed their votes. According to a list tweeted out an hour after the vote by House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer’s (D-Md.) office, they included: Reps. Darrell Issa (Calif.), David Valadao (Calif.), Jeff Denham (Calif.), Greg Walden (Ore.), Mimi Walters (Calif.), David Yong (Iowa) and Bruce Poliquin (Maine). Their offices have not yet responded to request for comment.
Amendment author Maloney was furious with Republicans for how they handled the floor fight over his offering. He singled out Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) in particular for criticism, saying the number two House Republican personally lobbied GOP members to change their votes when it looked like Maloney's proposal would pass.
"The leader [McCarthy] went around and twisted their arms, and they voted for discrimination," Maloney said. When Maloney complained directly to McCarthy, he said the majority leader told him "to get back on your own side."
"The members who switched are going to hold a very special place in American history as the people who didn't have the guts to stand up and support the will of the House," Maloney said off the chamber floor after the vote. "They literally snatched discrimination out of the jaws of equality."
A GOP aide on the floor at the time said Maloney was actually the instigator, telling POLITICO that he came over to the Republican side and was angrily taunting conservatives for their votes. Republicans are saying privately that if the amendment had passed it would have killed the appropriations bill because Republicans would no longer vote for it.
Sourc
|
I found this pretty great blog thing
It pretty much encapsulates my position on economics
Source
|
Much like black people didn't exist until white people discovered them
Trump's racism didn't exist until the media discovered it
That's just like, how white people world works man
#wtfhashappenedthepastfewpagesohgodohgodwhythestupid
|
On May 20 2016 08:03 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +The House erupted in chaos Thursday morning with Democrats crying foul after Republicans hastily convinced a few of their own to switch their votes and narrowly block an amendment intended to protect lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people from discrimination.
It was an unruly scene on the floor, with Democrats chanting "shame!" after GOP leaders just barely muscled up the votes to reject, 212-213, an amendment by Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-N.Y.) that would have effectively barred federal contractors from getting government work if they discriminate against the LGBT community.
At one point, a monitor in the House gallery showed there were 217 votes supporting the legislation, eliciting cheers of joy from Democrats who thought the measure might actually pass. But over the course of about 10 minutes, those votes suddenly dropped one by one to 212 — and the amendment failed.
A number of lawmakers from western states, who originally voted yes, changed their votes. According to a list tweeted out an hour after the vote by House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer’s (D-Md.) office, they included: Reps. Darrell Issa (Calif.), David Valadao (Calif.), Jeff Denham (Calif.), Greg Walden (Ore.), Mimi Walters (Calif.), David Yong (Iowa) and Bruce Poliquin (Maine). Their offices have not yet responded to request for comment.
Amendment author Maloney was furious with Republicans for how they handled the floor fight over his offering. He singled out Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) in particular for criticism, saying the number two House Republican personally lobbied GOP members to change their votes when it looked like Maloney's proposal would pass.
"The leader [McCarthy] went around and twisted their arms, and they voted for discrimination," Maloney said. When Maloney complained directly to McCarthy, he said the majority leader told him "to get back on your own side."
"The members who switched are going to hold a very special place in American history as the people who didn't have the guts to stand up and support the will of the House," Maloney said off the chamber floor after the vote. "They literally snatched discrimination out of the jaws of equality."
A GOP aide on the floor at the time said Maloney was actually the instigator, telling POLITICO that he came over to the Republican side and was angrily taunting conservatives for their votes. Republicans are saying privately that if the amendment had passed it would have killed the appropriations bill because Republicans would no longer vote for it. Sourc
The rest of that article is crazy. Changing the vote is supposed to be public and before the entire house, not done secretly. If a vote looks like it is going to pass, it should pass unless someone comes forward.
|
On May 20 2016 08:04 ticklishmusic wrote:I found this pretty great blog thing It pretty much encapsulates my position on economics Source
Spot on. No matter how much crap about Corruption, Riggedness, or the Establishment Bernie throws at Hillary, it will never fix his terrible on the merits tax and spending proposals. His plans are legitimately disastrous and don't add up. His healthcare plan is 16 trillion in the whole over ten years, even with his staggering tax increases. This is compounded with the fact that there is zero chance even a 60% Democratic house would ever consider voting for such profound tax increases, let alone a single Republican ever. All Bernie has left is ad hominem because on the merits he is wrong.
|
On May 20 2016 08:04 ticklishmusic wrote:I found this pretty great blog thing It pretty much encapsulates my position on economics Source
It's definitely well worth the read. Liked it a lot the last time it was posted.
|
On May 20 2016 07:48 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2016 07:44 Mohdoo wrote:On May 20 2016 07:33 Introvert wrote:On May 20 2016 06:37 Mohdoo wrote: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. And he's going to point back to her, or to his own business. he is an ahole, but trying to tie him up as a sexist won't work. Not alone, it won't. But I think it is just a part of the package. The subtle/subconscious stuff needs to start being repeated right away. The other parts seem to come later, historically. I've said before her goal should be to keep out of the spotlight and just keep his negatives as high as possible. If possible, let him do it himself. But even then "binders full of women" isn't going to have nearly the impact it had (whatever that was) with Romney. But if Hillary starts calling it sexist and the like it's going to backfire. There's a fine line, and Hillary so bad at this she might overstep.
The Super PACs will do all the Trump quote attacks. The recent women targeted one was all Super PAC, no Hillary. She is cautious and scared all the time, she isn't going to run her mouth. Doubtless at least one of her advisers has mentioned that Trump is going to try to run up the male spread by arguing that her advancement demeans their fragile egos. I doubt she ever says the word "sexist" all campaign. Hillary never plays the victim and always the tank (see her Benghazi hearing).
|
On May 20 2016 08:04 ticklishmusic wrote:I found this pretty great blog thing It pretty much encapsulates my position on economics Source
This has been a fascinating election and this blog highlights just how crazy we've become. It's bizarre to realize the sorts of ideas are totally acceptable for leading our country to a lot of people. Certainly a strong argument to be made against democracy in this election. Emotional appeal is accomplishing too much.
|
On May 20 2016 06:39 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2016 06:33 oBlade wrote: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:
[quote]
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: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 ? 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.
That's the reason we shouldn't suddenly care about things that would otherwise be non-issues like the NYT's invented hit piece against Trump about Rowanne Brewer Lane. I assume that counts as one of the scoops you meant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
