|
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. |
United States41987 Posts
On August 23 2016 02:50 GGTeMpLaR wrote: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.Show nested quote +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 Did you not attempt to suggest that really it was Hillary that was sexist because she was talking about sexism and you thought that she was attempting to exploit her gender for votes which is the ultimate sexism which you then used to dismiss Trump's garden variety sexism? Because that's the bit I compared to blaming blacks talking about racism for racism.
|
On August 23 2016 02:47 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I actually liked the new season of X-Files, but I remember how I learned about infowars/Alex Jones (beyond random weirdo headlines) was the whole confronting David Gergen about the Bohemian Grove thing.
I have no idea what he thinks all that's about, but it's definitely some weird stuff.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On August 23 2016 02:57 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2016 02:57 SpiritoftheTunA wrote: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. jokes still have a target and a point and should not be immune to scrutiny, even if they are lazy first-order sarcasm
i mean i dont agree with ggtemplar's thinking on any level but "it was a joke, don't take it so seriously" is a pretty triggering response tbh
|
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.
The original posts didn't set me off
My valid criticisms of them, being misrepresented as something entirely different from what I was saying, set me off
I haven't started flaming people at least which is standard for most people in this thread when that happens
Do you prefer flaming like what happens to Zeo when he's incompetent or when I'm bitterly sarcastic towards the incompetence
|
On August 23 2016 02:58 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2016 02:50 GGTeMpLaR wrote: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 Did you not attempt to suggest that really it was Hillary that was sexist because she was talking about sexism and you thought that she was attempting to exploit her gender for votes which is the ultimate sexism which you then used to dismiss Trump's garden variety sexism? Because that's the bit I compared to blaming blacks talking about racism for racism.
No not at all
|
On August 23 2016 02:47 Danglars wrote: 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. I really hope they will, the callbacks to this will be glorious
|
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
I'm fairly moderate. I just have a low tolerance for pseudo-intellectualism and double-standards
|
pseudointellectual here; i don't believe that moderate's a meaningful term without further contexualization, and you calling yourself moderate doesn't really tell me much at all
i agree that there's something to be said for not always going to generalities in terms of talking about group marginalization, i.e., playing the sex or race card, but there's definitely truths to all the generalities at the same time
|
On August 23 2016 03:05 SpiritoftheTunA wrote: pseudointellectual here; i don't believe that moderate's a meaningful term without further contexualization, and you calling yourself moderate doesn't really tell me much at all
i agree that there's something to be said for not always going to generalities in terms of talking about group marginalization, i.e., playing the sex or race card, but there's definitely truths to all the generalities at the same time
It's more useful than alt-right or regressive-left
I have no problem with the underlined statement. We just seem to disagree what it is that criticism of Clinton's stamina falls under.
Even at its worst, that being a dishonest conservative mudslinging attempt, I don't think it has anything to do with sexism.
|
United States41987 Posts
On August 23 2016 03:00 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2016 02:58 KwarK wrote:On August 23 2016 02:50 GGTeMpLaR wrote: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 Did you not attempt to suggest that really it was Hillary that was sexist because she was talking about sexism and you thought that she was attempting to exploit her gender for votes which is the ultimate sexism which you then used to dismiss Trump's garden variety sexism? Because that's the bit I compared to blaming blacks talking about racism for racism. No not at all Please clarify what you meant by this for me.
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
|
On August 23 2016 03:06 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2016 03:05 SpiritoftheTunA wrote: pseudointellectual here; i don't believe that moderate's a meaningful term without further contexualization, and you calling yourself moderate doesn't really tell me much at all It's more useful than alt-right or regressive-left i completely disagree; i find alt-right to be a pretty discerning term that describes a certain demographic that tends to congregate on certain parts on the internet and hold certain views regarding... idk... pussification, regressive leftism, white supremacism, neo-nativism...
i also find regressive left to be a pretty discerning and accurate term for people who tend to be too liberal and sheltered in their thinking and tend to contextualize everything in "theres nothing these people can do about it" narratives in order to excuse/explain atrocious behavior/values
personally i have issues with free will existing at all and i certainly do sympathize with the "regressive left" in terms of thinking that tons of people born into ideologies that support, idk, marginalization of women as property or all-out "we're right they're wrong they have to die" tribalism," are just inevitably never going to get out of that mindset within their own generations, and maybe generational change will come with tolerance and responding to hate with love, but im not sure the cautious and sensitive approach of the "regressive left" is the best... not that i think the all-out condemnation from people such as in the alt-right is a good approach either.
tough all around tbh
|
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
I'm not sure what you think you're replying to, but my statement was only a comment on age. I didn't mention stamina, and I was just making a point that if age is supposed to be a factor in how able a presidential candidate is, then it should technically be less of a negative for Hillary than for Trump (although I'm fine with just calling it a draw between the two of them, since their ages are pretty similar, but it certainly can't be a point in Trump's favor). Obviously, there are many other factors to consider besides age when assessing a presidential candidate, but I was just making a remark about age because of LL's "So is being 70" statement. I also agree with LL that I don't think there will be anything damning about Hillary's health either. Or Trump's, for that matter.
|
Charlie Sykes’ conscience is nagging him.
Since last year, the most influential political talk show host in Wisconsin has found out just how hard it is to be a #NeverTrump conservative on right-wing radio. Ever since Sykes began denouncing Donald Trump on the air—which he does just about every time he talks about the presidential election—he’s strained his relationships with the listeners of his daily radio show.
Sykes’ many arguments with listeners over Donald Trump’s serial outrages have exposed in much of his audience a vein of thinking—racist, anti-constitutional, maybe even fascistic—that has shaken Sykes. It has left him questioning whether he and his colleagues in the conservative media played a role in paving the way for Trump’s surprising and unprecedented rise.
A few days before the Wisconsin congressional primary in early August, Sykes seized on remarks by Speaker of the House Paul Ryan’s opponent, Paul Nehlen, that raised the idea of deporting all Muslims, even American citizens. It’s the kind of inflammatory rhetoric that has become the norm during a presidential cycle that has featured Trump’s calls for immigration bans on Muslims, loyalty tests and mass deportations. A friendly and round-faced guy with glasses, Sykes, 61, doesn’t even try to conceal his disgust, but a large segment of his listeners, like Audrey from Oshkosh, are eager to defend ideas that Sykes believes violate fundamental conservative principles.
“Yeah! Let me make a comparison, and I don’t mean this in a bad way,” Audrey says. “They’re talking about phasing out breeding of pit bulls. Well, not all pit bulls are bad.”
“You’re comparing American citizens, Muslims, to rabid dogs,” Sykes responds.
“No, I’m saying, they’re talking about phasing out the breed because so many are bad. No one wants to phase out poodles! I mean, there’s no Lutherans doing this! We never know when one of these people are going to be radicalized.”
“One of these people,” says Sykes.
Sykes ends the call. He’s silent, broadcasting dead air. He looks upset, like he’s stopped breathing. He goes to a commercial break.
“OK, that doesn’t happen very often,” he says off-air. “I’m not usually absolutely speechless.” He says his listeners never talked like this until recently.
“Were these people that we actually thought were our allies?” he asks.
Sykes remains confident that Trump will lose badly in November, and he is equally fearful that Trump will drag longtime Republicans, like Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, down with him. This has Sykes thinking about the long-term future of the party and what might have precipitated its looming collapse. He wonders: Did “the faux outrage machine” of Breitbart.com and other right-wing outlets foment the noxious opinions that Trump has stoked so effectively on the trail?
“When I would deny that there was a significant racist component in some of the politics on our side, it was because the people I hung out with were certainly not,” Sykes says. “When suddenly, this rock is turned over, there is this—‘Oh shit, did I not see that?’
“I kind of had that reaction this morning, with that woman: Did we ignore this? There’s got to be some serious introspection, because of the things that we either didn’t see, or that we ignored, or that we enabled.” (It's a long piece, only quoted the first section of it here) http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/08/charlie-skyes-wisconsin-radio-conservatives-214175
|
On August 23 2016 02:55 LegalLord 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). 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.
They both have had stupid armchair medical "assessments" by people who don't know their personal records, so I'm not buying into any silly extrapolations about how either Hillary or Trump are secretly on their deathbed or the other crap that people fling around. I'd much rather assess the candidates on their beliefs and words and actions instead of speculating on their possible disorders and diseases (and I think you feel the same way).
|
On August 23 2016 03:08 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2016 03:00 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 23 2016 02:58 KwarK wrote:On August 23 2016 02:50 GGTeMpLaR wrote: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 Did you not attempt to suggest that really it was Hillary that was sexist because she was talking about sexism and you thought that she was attempting to exploit her gender for votes which is the ultimate sexism which you then used to dismiss Trump's garden variety sexism? Because that's the bit I compared to blaming blacks talking about racism for racism. No not at all Please clarify what you meant by this for me. 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
That they're both stupid things to say or worry about, both rooted in sexism
Clinton's play of the gender card 'You should vote for me and not him because I'm a female and he's a male' is blatantly sexist. Is it very harmful? No, but it's sexist. It's asking for you to vote for someone because of their gender.
Trump's disapproval of public breastfeeding as disgusting is blatantly sexist. Is it very harmful? No, but it's sexist. It's a disrespectful remark targeted specifically at women who are doing nothing wrong as being 'disgusting/gross'
I consider them both equally ridiculous and sexist in nature, even if they are rather harmless
I mean it's very straightforward what I said. You willingly warped what I said into something else
|
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). People get sick regardless of age. If you fall over one day and get a brain hemorrhage its going to impact your life weather it be through how you express emotions, or how you deal with multiple people in a room asking you questions. Though I guess age does play a part in how well you can recover. In the end older people that look after themselves can be just as quick witted as younger people.
|
'You should vote for me and not him because I'm a female and he's a male'
Clinton does not say this. You may see it as her saying that, but it is not what she says.
|
On August 23 2016 03:18 Plansix wrote:Clinton does not say this. You may see it as her saying that, but it is not what she says. regardless of the technical accuracy of that claim specifically, it'd be quite disingenuous to claim that she doesn't play up her status as the first viable female candidate
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On August 23 2016 03:18 Plansix wrote:Clinton does not say this. You may see it as her saying that, but it is not what she says. She has, however, pretty explicitly played the gender card multiple times in the past. Two examples that come to mind are "I can't be part of the establishment cuz im a woman" and Albright's "women who don't vote for Hillary will go to hell." Pretty explicit identity politics pandering going on there.
|
On August 23 2016 03:18 zeo 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). People get sick regardless of age. If you fall over one day and get a brain hemorrhage its going to impact your life weather it be through how you express emotions, or how you deal with multiple people in a room asking you questions. Though I guess age does play a part in how well you can recover. In the end older people that look after themselves can be just as quick witted as younger people.
I agree, which is why I'm not too concerned with the fact that our next president will be in their late 60's/ early 70's.
|
|
|
|