|
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 August 23 2016 02:31 KwarK wrote:
GGTemplar, firstly for that claim to be true Trump would need to be doing better than Hillary on foreign policy and I don't know of anyone who thinks that. Secondly, that's just the sexism equivalent of the very old claim that racism would be long gone if the blacks would just stop talking about it.
I'm pretty sure I've seen a pew poll where voters believed overall that Trump would take a tougher (stronger) stance on dealing with terrorism. Not the same thing as foreign policy but my criticism of his statement on 'strength and stamina' stands.
And no, it's not equivalent to that at all.
An actual fair analogy would be saying a black guy crying 'racist! I should have won if I was white' because he polled worse in the audience at some random competition than white guy is as racist as some random white guy making a stupid black joke.
Honestly if you think Passive made a good point then I'd love to hear you defend why you agree with his post about criticisms of Clinton's stamina being rooted in sexism
|
On August 23 2016 02:35 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2016 02:26 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
If you want to talk about sexism then Clinton's perpetual play of the gender card is just as sexist than any of the stupid remarks Trump has made about public breastfeeding, Rosie, etc Could have voted for a woman at least once the last 44 times and the gender card would be less effective
Maybe you should have voted for Jill Stein then in 2012 derp
|
On August 23 2016 02:31 KwarK wrote:
GGTemplar, firstly for that claim to be true Trump would need to be doing better than Hillary on foreign policy and I don't know of anyone who thinks that. Secondly, that's just the sexism equivalent of the very old claim that racism would be long gone if the blacks would just stop talking about it.
I am preparing myself for the upcoming debate of if sexism is real and, if so, what is an appropriate way to discuss it so men won’t be upset by it. So basically every discussion about sexism since forever.
But of course the discussion is hard because is a large part of the population that believe sexism is solved.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/08/16/in-both-parties-men-and-women-differ-over-whether-women-still-face-obstacles-to-progress/
Sadly, the vast majority of them are men. With the exception of Republican women, who are pretty split on the issue.
|
Not to mention that passive is just blatantly wrong to say Clinton is the first female candidate for president
|
On August 23 2016 02:39 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2016 02:31 KwarK wrote:
GGTemplar, firstly for that claim to be true Trump would need to be doing better than Hillary on foreign policy and I don't know of anyone who thinks that. Secondly, that's just the sexism equivalent of the very old claim that racism would be long gone if the blacks would just stop talking about it. I am preparing myself for the upcoming debate of if sexism is real and, if so, what is an appropriate way to discuss it so men won’t be upset by it. So basically every discussion about sexism since forever.
Thanks for contributing your daily passive-aggressive shitpost. I expect to see another tomorrow
On August 23 2016 02:39 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2016 02:31 KwarK wrote:
GGTemplar, firstly for that claim to be true Trump would need to be doing better than Hillary on foreign policy and I don't know of anyone who thinks that. Secondly, that's just the sexism equivalent of the very old claim that racism would be long gone if the blacks would just stop talking about it. I am preparing myself for the upcoming debate of if sexism is real and, if so, what is an appropriate way to discuss it so men won’t be upset by it. So basically every discussion about sexism since forever. But of course the discussion is hard because is a large part of the population that believe sexism is solved.http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/08/16/in-both-parties-men-and-women-differ-over-whether-women-still-face-obstacles-to-progress/Sadly, the vast majority of them are men. With the exception of Republican women, who are pretty split on the issue.
I'm sure the numbers would be different if that's actually what the poll stated
|
On August 23 2016 02:40 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
Not to mention that passive is just blatantly wrong to say Clinton is the first female candidate for president
idk if its "blatantly wrong" if it takes some googling to find the other ones and if the statement can be saved by adding the simple modifier of "with any hope of winning"
|
Um, she is the first to be nominated by one of the major political parties.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Ideally we would have a (underrepresented group) have a candidate win the election when that person is genuinely the best candidate, and not just because "it's about time to have a X for president." Which is how it tends to happen, but not without more than a little bit of identity politics stupidity.
|
On August 23 2016 02:43 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2016 02:40 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
Not to mention that passive is just blatantly wrong to say Clinton is the first female candidate for president idk if its "blatantly wrong" if it takes some googling to find the other ones and if the statement can be saved by adding the simple modifier of "with any hope of winning"
Okay you got me. It's wrong, but to many people it isn't obviously wrong because they'd have to google to find the others.
I concede! Good point!
On August 23 2016 02:44 Plansix wrote:
Um, she is the first to be nominated by one of the major political parties.
Thanks captain obvious
|
Can she appear to be in good health to voters in the presidential debates? All the spin in the world will be no use to her if not.
Trump's tax records? Let's see an impartial panel of doctors examine Hillary and produce current health records. Trump's campaign might even call for it.
|
Canada11278 Posts
On August 22 2016 12:03 GoTuNk! wrote:
Does it matter? It has the link to the damn poll. Or use google yourself:
Feel free to keep discreding sources, but the images and emails plus the avoiding press conferences is pretty damn suspicious. At this point the majority of americans finds this fishy enough to want to see her medical records.
Why don't we have the same fuss as when McCain's Health was considered?
Don't get so huffy when people complain about you using InfoWars as a source. Yes, people can be quick to say 'x is a rag, source no good.' But I can think of few sources that are worse than Alex Jones, who is without doubt one of the most hyper-ventilating conspiracy theorist. He is either one of the most cynical and dishonest peddler and panderer of panic and lies or else one of the most undiscerning seekers of conspiracy, finding networks of evil in his own shadow. In any case, he is a bastion of bad thought.
In him, FEMA camps are death camps in waiting, 9/11 was an inside job, Bilderberg group runs the world, devil-worshiping pedofiles basically run the New World Order, some tornadoes are weaponized weather, typical fluoridation conspiracy. Big Pharma is part of the NWO, so naturally he's anti-vaxx, anti-GMO and into alternative medicine, most mass shootings in the US are orchestrated by the government in order to pass gun control laws.
Y2K, he had a running play by play of nuclear missiles being launched (5), claiming nuclear power plants were shut down (6-7), Russian helicopters are getting shot down. Fresno is blacked out, America is under siege. Notice all present tense, NOT future tense predictions. Don't remember those events? Welcome to Alex's Alternate Reality. (Oh, and Putin is a demon.) He was either cynically creating his own Orwell radio theatre as a fearmonger or else actually living in his own reality.
For heaven's sake, find me a better source and never, ever, ever use the InfoWars again. Do not trade skepticism for cynicism and a naive embracing of any alternative to MSM. Not any port in a storm will do- when you combine all his positions, it is very nearly the (not so) Grand Unified Conspiracy Theory of Conspiracy Theories.
|
TIL if you criticize a false cry of racism or sexism in this thread, the liberal masses will pick apart your posts and attack you on grounds of criticizing that any racism or sexism still exists.
Despite the fact that the two are very different statements, and me making one in no way shape or form necessitates the other
Social justice for all
I need to go I'm grumpy right now and not in the mood for this shit
tldr
-yes sexism and racism still exist. No, criticizing Clinton's stamina because she is old and has been photographed several times requiring assistance climbing stairs is not an instance of sexism.
On August 23 2016 01:17 PassiveAce wrote:
The first female candidate for presidents strength and stamina is being questioned?
Color me shocked
Original post I criticized that you aren't allowed to criticize. Continue defending it
|
On August 23 2016 02:02 LegalLord wrote:
That time Hillary lost consciousness as SoS is cause for concern. So is being 70. I haven't seen anything damning and I don't think there will be. Definitely absurd to think a 70 year old won't have health problems though.
Hillary is 68 and Trump is 70, so it would be quite the double standard to be overly critical of Hillary's age but not of Trump's age (and I'm pretty sure that women live a few years longer than men too, on average).
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On August 23 2016 02:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2016 02:02 LegalLord wrote:
That time Hillary lost consciousness as SoS is cause for concern. So is being 70. I haven't seen anything damning and I don't think there will be. Definitely absurd to think a 70 year old won't have health problems though. Hillary is 68 and Trump is 70, so it would be quite the double standard to be overly critical of Hillary's age but not of Trump's age (and I'm pretty sure that women live a few years longer than men too, on average).
The way I see it, Trump already had his armchair medical examination so it's not a double standard. Doesn't mean it isn't pointless and stupid though.
|
On August 23 2016 02:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2016 02:02 LegalLord wrote:
That time Hillary lost consciousness as SoS is cause for concern. So is being 70. I haven't seen anything damning and I don't think there will be. Definitely absurd to think a 70 year old won't have health problems though. Hillary is 68 and Trump is 70, so it would be quite the double standard to be overly critical of Hillary's age but not of Trump's age (and I'm pretty sure that women live a few years longer than men too, on average).
Yes age is the only metric of stamina
Well done
|
It is weird because the two posts that set you off were pretty light hearted and not attacking anyone specifically. Mine was mocking the traditional sexist questions asked by the media.
|
On August 23 2016 02:02 LegalLord wrote:
That time Hillary lost consciousness as SoS is cause for concern. So is being 70. I haven't seen anything damning and I don't think there will be. Definitely absurd to think a 70 year old won't have health problems though.
As I said before, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that someone that's 70 years old has some health problems.
Where it goes from "reasonable assumption" to "right-wing conspiracy theory" is the jump from her being physically unhealthy to her not having the mental capacity/fitness-of-mind to be president. If you take it as purely an issue of physical stamina, then I'm not going to disagree, but where it starts going into bullshit territory is people who think she's mentally unsound and that's clearly where infowars/Breitbart were going with it.
It's just as ridiculous as people armchair-psychoanalyzing Trump for psychiatric disorders.
|
On August 23 2016 02:56 Plansix wrote:
It is weird because the two posts that set you off were pretty light hearted and not attacking anyone specifically. Mine was mocking the traditional sexist questions asked by the media.
its not weird, the alt-right gets triggered by this kind of liberal sarcasm all the time
|
On August 23 2016 02:55 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2016 02:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 23 2016 02:02 LegalLord wrote:
That time Hillary lost consciousness as SoS is cause for concern. So is being 70. I haven't seen anything damning and I don't think there will be. Definitely absurd to think a 70 year old won't have health problems though. Hillary is 68 and Trump is 70, so it would be quite the double standard to be overly critical of Hillary's age but not of Trump's age (and I'm pretty sure that women live a few years longer than men too, on average). Yes age is the only metric of stamina Well done
What is the other metric?
On August 23 2016 02:57 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2016 02:56 Plansix wrote:
It is weird because the two posts that set you off were pretty light hearted and not attacking anyone specifically. Mine was mocking the traditional sexist questions asked by the media. its not weird, the alt-right gets triggered by this kind of liberal sarcasm all the time
Yeah, jokes are hard on the internet sometimes.
|
If we're talking health concerns, I'm pretty sure Trump has impending skin cancer from all the time he spends on tanning beds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
