EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 3947
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
Slaughter
United States20255 Posts
On June 05 2016 09:57 Introvert wrote: But this is exactly the issue. This isn't the hill they should die on? Why not? They should just sit around and take it. A little bit here, a little bit there....I mean it's scary that you say they shouldn't because in your opinion it's irrational. That's not a good standard. The baker subject is cut and dry. We were told for years that gay marriage won't affect anyone else. Whoops. I don't want to get into the weeds, but I did want to point out people do have legitimate concerns about what comes next. They should take it because it would be something Jesus would do.He would handle the whole debate around "if churches should cover contraceptives in health plans" or just their whole stance on sex period. He would be out there professing that it is the righteous way to abstain while handing out condoms and telling people to be safe. He understood the reality of humanity and didn't judge them for when they inevitably failed. Churches go so ham on things like this when that isn't actually what Jesus was all about. They try so hard to be righteous they lose sight of things and its a big part of why they are losing people turned off by these kind of lines in the sand they draw. All I can say to the Baker thing is: Same thing happened in the civil rights era. Your right to be a dick doesn't Trump someone else's rights to be served. | ||
|
OuchyDathurts
United States4588 Posts
On June 05 2016 10:03 Nyxisto wrote: Amateur question here, isn't it guaranteed that under the civil rights act discrimination of protected classes in the marketplace is outlawed? Gays are only a protected class in certain states. Thats why the argument of "Zomg, see the gays want cakes!!!!!!" is silly. A baker discriminating against a gay couple was ALREADY against the law in Oregon. There is zero new issue here, they're just trying to make a big deal out of something that's been the case for years. | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On June 05 2016 10:01 KwarK wrote: It's not offensive or sexist. However I don't see any issues with a feminist group saying that the image of a strong man choking a woman is problematic due to the degree to which it normalizes that kind of violence against women. It's not sexist, wrong or anything else, it's problematic due to issues that they care about more than most people. Man choking woman is just a lazy shorthand for villain and it's a little tasteless given the degree to which domestic abuse is still a thing. Imagine if blacks were still routinely getting lynched and you used a black guy swinging from a branch as an image shorthand for "bad". It's not racist but it's problematic. That make any sense? I think it's silly and hypocritical. They want equality for women, strong women characters like strong men characters, etc But they don't want them to be subject to the same beating no one would bat an eyelash over if it was a male character? You can't have your cake and eat it. It all just seems very absurd and whiney. No matter what you do someone in the regressive left is always going to whine and cry 'racism, sexism, patriarchy, white privilege' Unless you villainize heterosexual white males, then it's okay. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
On June 05 2016 09:23 GGTeMpLaR wrote: Love this guy. Pretty much sums up why Trump will win and deserves to win in November. Man... I really tried. I mean I did... but I couldn't make it through the video. @Testie, I never said the uneducated aren't useful members of society. My point, which I thought was self evident, is that the uneducated are less likely to care about Trumps hypocrisy, inconsistencies, and general policy failings. Without a significant number of people who actually thought he is somebody who "Tells it like it Is" and is best suited to fix the economy or beat ISIS, Trump could never have gotten to where he is. | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On June 05 2016 10:08 On_Slaught wrote: Man... I really tried. I mean I did... but I couldn't make it through the video. @Testie, I never said the uneducated aren't useful members of society. My point, I thought was self evident, is that the uneducated are less likely to care about Trumps hypocrisy, inconsistencies, and general policy failings. Without a significant number of people who actually thought he is somebody who "Tells it like it Is" and is best suited to fix the economy or beat ISIS, Trump could never have gotten to where he is. As opposed to Hillary Clinton's? That's laughable. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On June 05 2016 09:54 Introvert wrote: You could read the court arguments, but it doesn't matter because you already set it up as mistreatment. The issue is, the law told them they had to do something they found objectionable, and the Obama administration tried to make them do it anyway. And while it's not a church, it is a religious institution. There are a lot of word games, but in the end all you need to know is that (Edit: many) liberals here and around the country certainly believe the baker is obliged to cater the wedding. This is after years of saying "gay marriage won't affect you." So pardon me if I don't believe a word they say. It wouldn't be American liberalism if it didn't come with government forced compliance. what the nuns found objectionable was a very generous accommodation to their beliefs. i'm quite familiar with the arguments on that case. There's limits to just how far the government should have to go, and they were quite generous on that one. Having to cater the wedding would just be the standard laws that already apply for other equivalencies (if its covered under public accommodation laws), nothing new or problematic there; and it's really all a literal handful of cases, so it's not a significant imposition. Reasonable people can handle it all fine. | ||
|
Introvert
United States5001 Posts
On June 05 2016 10:06 Slaughter wrote: They should take it because it would be something Jesus would do. Churches go so ham on things like this when that isn't actually what Jesus was all about. They try so hard to be righteous they lose sight of things and its a big part of why they are losing people turned off by these kind of lines in the sand they draw. All I can say to the Baker thing is: Same thing happened in the civil rights era. Your right to be a dick doesn't Trump someone else's rights to be served. Neither of those things are true. I don't recall Jesus saying "do things that you think are morally wrong." I disagree with the nuns here, but that's just me. I'm not going to force them to do otherwise. And this is a religious institution. So again, pardon for thinking that eventually churches will be on the list. Nevermind churches are already prevented from talking too much about politics. Setting aside what I would do: gays can't be discriminated for being gay. And that's the not the issue. The issue is forced participation in a ceremony that has a deep religious value to the people participating. If someone walks into the store, wants a cake, and the owner refuses because they are gay, that's illegal. If they come in wanting a wedding cake for their ceremony then the baker is easily within their first amendment right to refuse. but the overall point is, as I stated, the lie that this was just going to happen and everyone would be fine. The government wouldn't be coming after you! edit: On June 05 2016 10:19 zlefin wrote: Introvert -> are you aware of what the government wants the nuns to do? (i.e. can you accurately state it) oh and on the bakers, it's a nonissue; having like 4 cases in an entire country of 320 million is a nonissue. it doesn't count as a serious imposition. yes, but I feel it won't matter. I now recall that you've commented on this issue several times. I won't expend more words. I'm not really concerned with how generous you think the government was. And for the bakers, it is issue because they want to go to court and make it law for everyone. They made it a big deal, not me. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + "I'm going to tell you what I really think of Donald Trump. This man is a pathological liar. He doesn't know the difference between truth and lies. He lies practically every word that comes out of his mouth. And in a pattern that I think is straight out of a psychology textbook, his response is to accuse everybody else of lying. He accuses everybody on that debate stage of lying. And it's simply a mindless yell. Whatever he does, he accuses everyone else of doing. The man cannot tell the truth, but he combines it with being a narcissist. A narcissist at a level I don't think this country has ever seen. Donald Trump is such a narcissist that Barack Obama looks at him and goes, 'Dude, what's your problem?' Everything in Donald's world is about Donald. And he combines being a pathological liar, and I say pathological because I actually think Donald, if you hooked him up to a lie detector test, he could say one thing in the morning, one thing at noon and one thing in the evening, all contradictory and he's pass the lie detector test each time. Whatever lie he's telling, at that minute he believes it. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/05/03/cruz_explodes_pathological_liar_trump_a_narcissist_at_a_level_i_dont_think_this_country_has_ever_seen.html " | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
oh and on the bakers, it's a nonissue; having like 4 cases in an entire country of 320 million is a nonissue. it doesn't count as a serious imposition. | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On June 05 2016 10:15 On_Slaught wrote: Hillary is par for the course. Trump brings a special level of cognitive dissonance and demagoguery that we have never before seen. I think Cruz put it best. + Show Spoiler + "I'm going to tell you what I really think of Donald Trump. This man is a pathological liar. He doesn't know the difference between truth and lies. He lies practically every word that comes out of his mouth. And in a pattern that I think is straight out of a psychology textbook, his response is to accuse everybody else of lying. He accuses everybody on that debate stage of lying. And it's simply a mindless yell. Whatever he does, he accuses everyone else of doing. The man cannot tell the truth, but he combines it with being a narcissist. A narcissist at a level I don't think this country has ever seen. Donald Trump is such a narcissist that Barack Obama looks at him and goes, 'Dude, what's your problem?' Everything in Donald's world is about Donald. And he combines being a pathological liar, and I say pathological because I actually think Donald, if you hooked him up to a lie detector test, he could say one thing in the morning, one thing at noon and one thing in the evening, all contradictory and he's pass the lie detector test each time. Whatever lie he's telling, at that minute he believes it. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/05/03/cruz_explodes_pathological_liar_trump_a_narcissist_at_a_level_i_dont_think_this_country_has_ever_seen.html " Trump isn't wrong. They're all liars. | ||
|
SK.Testie
Canada11084 Posts
Should link the site though as well, seeing as that it has government sources to back up what he's bringing to the table. I haven't fact checked every single source yet but the 5 or so I did check out and were valid at least and linked to government data. http://www.untruthaboutdonaldtrump.com/ | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Edit: sry guy, some of us are not going to wade through every random video you find. | ||
|
SK.Testie
Canada11084 Posts
On June 05 2016 10:32 Plansix wrote: "Trump isn't a lier, watch this YouTube video by some random jobber to see why media lies." Edit: sry guy, some of us are not going to wade through every random video you find. Everything you guys have tried to discredit me on with a youtube vid, I've backed up in spades with legitimate sources like "cnn, NYT, .gov websites" etc. | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On June 05 2016 10:32 Plansix wrote: "Trump isn't a lier, watch this YouTube video by some random jobber to see why media lies." Edit: sry guy, some of us are not going to wade through every random video you find. Okay dismiss evidence without even looking at it as being wrong because it doesn't adhere to what you want to believe. Stay open-minded friend. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
|
GoTuNk!
Chile4591 Posts
On June 05 2016 10:07 GGTeMpLaR wrote: I think it's silly and hypocritical. They want equality for women, strong women characters like strong men characters, etc But they don't want them to be subject to the same beating no one would bat an eyelash over if it was a male character? You can't have your cake and eat it. It all just seems very absurd and whiney. No matter what you do someone in the regressive left is always going to whine and cry 'racism, sexism, patriarchy, white privilege' Unless you villainize heterosexual white males, then it's okay. Why does this "normalizes that kind of violence against woman?" What does that even mean. Why doesn't a categorically evil entity chocking a female mutant trying to save the world convey the opposite meaning? (That domestic violence is wrong) What Surth said sums it up. This type of whining makes feminism look bad (trivial, unimportant?) and liberals by extension. Would you agree on that? | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On June 05 2016 10:46 GoTuNk! wrote: Why does this "normalizes that kind of violence against woman?" What does that even mean. Why doesn't a categorically evil entity chocking a female mutant trying to save the world convey the opposite meaning? (That domestic violence is wrong) What Surth said sums it up. This type of whining makes feminism look bad (trivial, unimportant?) and liberals by extension. Would you agree on that? I'm not entirely sure what you're asking or if you're agreeing/disagreeing with my take on it. I try to be as gender/color blind as possible and you can't go wrong with that. I agree 100% with this video as well I think the regressive left has it all wrong and is doing more to perpetuate and promote racism than it is to stop it. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
On June 05 2016 10:27 GGTeMpLaR wrote: Trump isn't wrong. They're all liars. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gw8c2Cq-vpg I don't need to see this video because I already know Im right. I've seen the contradicting quotes of his with my own two eyes. I've heard the changes in his beliefs across a single day. I've seen the facts that prove he is wrong on any number of issues beyond a reasonable doubt. Hell, why don't we make a game out of this? You list a Trump position and we will point out a blatant lie, or ten, related to it he has spewed. I have to go but I can always respond later. As for the video, I only saw a few minutes, but it seems to focus a lot on how Trump is actually doing all this according to some grand media plan. My response is simple. Being a media and real estate genius and being an idiot about every other issue is not mutually exclusive. | ||
|
Slaughter
United States20255 Posts
On June 05 2016 10:46 GoTuNk! wrote: Why does this "normalizes that kind of violence against woman?" What does that even mean. Why doesn't a categorically evil entity chocking a female mutant trying to save the world convey the opposite meaning? (That domestic violence is wrong) What Surth said sums it up. This type of whining makes feminism look bad (trivial, unimportant?) and liberals by extension. Would you agree on that? I don't even know why this is even an issue? Some people (sounds like a couple of vocal people) didn't like a fucking poster so a studio said "sure we will change it because its just a fucking poster". How big of a deal is this? | ||
| ||
