|
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 September 08 2016 08:13 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2016 03:11 KwarK wrote:
You know I might quite like a Trump presidency. It'd be hilarious and I could probably convert all my hoarded pre-tax dollars to post-tax at 0% in his term. If it got too bad I could fuck off back to Europe and take advantage of the weak pound to set myself up pretty nicely. Political satire would be of the highest quality and the first of the great meme wars would emerge between the alt-right and the old conservatives. We'd all get to say Merry Christmas on every holiday without fail and we wouldn't have to bake cakes for anyone. Is this where I point out that being able to say such a thing is what white privilege looks like?
Kwark is being satirical. He is saying Trump would be good because he could peace out and leave.
But yes, that is exactly what it looks like.
|
United States42655 Posts
On September 08 2016 08:13 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2016 03:11 KwarK wrote:
You know I might quite like a Trump presidency. It'd be hilarious and I could probably convert all my hoarded pre-tax dollars to post-tax at 0% in his term. If it got too bad I could fuck off back to Europe and take advantage of the weak pound to set myself up pretty nicely. Political satire would be of the highest quality and the first of the great meme wars would emerge between the alt-right and the old conservatives. We'd all get to say Merry Christmas on every holiday without fail and we wouldn't have to bake cakes for anyone. Is this where I point out that being able to say such a thing is what white privilege looks like?
It's absolutely white privilege. Nobody anywhere wants to persecute people who look like me. Although I may get deported. The alt-right neo-Nazis could take over and I'd be fine with my good Aryan credentials. I don't want Trump to win but if he does it certainly won't be people like me who suffer.
|
On September 08 2016 08:37 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2016 08:13 Yoav wrote:On September 08 2016 03:11 KwarK wrote:
You know I might quite like a Trump presidency. It'd be hilarious and I could probably convert all my hoarded pre-tax dollars to post-tax at 0% in his term. If it got too bad I could fuck off back to Europe and take advantage of the weak pound to set myself up pretty nicely. Political satire would be of the highest quality and the first of the great meme wars would emerge between the alt-right and the old conservatives. We'd all get to say Merry Christmas on every holiday without fail and we wouldn't have to bake cakes for anyone. Is this where I point out that being able to say such a thing is what white privilege looks like? It's absolutely white privilege. Nobody anywhere wants to persecute people who look like me. Although I may get deported.
And then we will build a wall to stop all the UK immigrants. a big wall, and the UK will pay for it.
|
On September 08 2016 06:42 kwizach wrote:Another piece that is spot-on about the differences in treatment of Clinton and Trump in the media: Show nested quote +Trump’s history of corruption is mind-boggling. So why is Clinton supposedly the corrupt one?
In the heat of a presidential campaign, you’d think that a story about one party’s nominee giving a large contribution to a state attorney general who promptly shut down an inquiry into that nominee’s scam “university” would be enormous news. But we continue to hear almost nothing about what happened between Donald Trump and Florida attorney general Pam Bondi. [...]
The big difference is that there are an enormous number of reporters who get assigned to write stories about those issues regarding Clinton. The story of something like the Clinton Foundation gets stretched out over months and months with repeated tellings, always with the insistence that questions are being raised and the implication that shady things are going on, even if there isn’t any evidence at a particular moment to support that idea.
When it comes to Trump, on the other hand, we’ve seen a very different pattern. Here’s what happens: A story about some kind of corrupt dealing emerges, usually from the dogged efforts of one or a few journalists; it gets discussed for a couple of days; and then it disappears. Someone might mention it now and again, but the news organizations don’t assign a squad of reporters to look into every aspect of it, so no new facts are brought to light and no new stories get written.
The end result of this process is that because of all that repeated examination of Clinton’s affairs, people become convinced that she must be corrupt to the core. It’s not that there isn’t plenty of negative coverage of Trump, because of course there is, but it’s focused mostly on the crazy things he says on any given day.
But the truth is that you’d have to work incredibly hard to find a politician who has the kind of history of corruption, double-dealing, and fraud that Donald Trump has. The number of stories which could potentially deserve hundreds and hundreds of articles is absolutely staggering. Source
I'd say that the difference is that Hillary was "corrupt" while serving as a public official, where her responsibility has been to the American people, not herself or he donors.
This was never the case during the times that trump was "corrupt".
|
lmao cnn doing a bit on how trump supporters on college campuses get attacked. Most of them keep quiet about their beliefs because sjws can be insufferable. I suspect the polls are heavily skewed if done by phone simply because being a trump supporter openly is unwise unless you are in a very conservative area. PC culture folks
|
On September 08 2016 08:37 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2016 08:13 Yoav wrote:On September 08 2016 03:11 KwarK wrote:
You know I might quite like a Trump presidency. It'd be hilarious and I could probably convert all my hoarded pre-tax dollars to post-tax at 0% in his term. If it got too bad I could fuck off back to Europe and take advantage of the weak pound to set myself up pretty nicely. Political satire would be of the highest quality and the first of the great meme wars would emerge between the alt-right and the old conservatives. We'd all get to say Merry Christmas on every holiday without fail and we wouldn't have to bake cakes for anyone. Is this where I point out that being able to say such a thing is what white privilege looks like? It's absolutely white privilege. Nobody anywhere wants to persecute people who look like me.
In that case I suggest settling in Zimbabwe.
|
United States42655 Posts
On September 08 2016 08:58 biology]major wrote:
lmao cnn doing a bit on how trump supporters on college campuses get attacked. Most of them keep quiet about their beliefs because sjws can be insufferable. I suspect the polls are heavily skewed if done by phone simply because being a trump supporter openly is unwise unless you are in a very conservative area. PC culture folks
I certainly don't advocate attacking Trump supporters, or indeed anyone, but if they're just afraid of being judged by people around them and are afraid of negative judgement from their peers then I suggest they proceed to their nearest safe space.
There is a long, long history of conservatives being offended by the world and needing everyone to cater to their preferences. From needing homosexuals to keep quiet about their sexuality and not hold hands in public to getting triggered by Starbucks cups, it's not the left but the right that gets offended by everything. The difference is that a few people on the left want designated safe spaces on campus whereas the majority of the right demands that the entire nation be their safe space.
|
On September 08 2016 08:59 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2016 08:37 KwarK wrote:On September 08 2016 08:13 Yoav wrote:On September 08 2016 03:11 KwarK wrote:
You know I might quite like a Trump presidency. It'd be hilarious and I could probably convert all my hoarded pre-tax dollars to post-tax at 0% in his term. If it got too bad I could fuck off back to Europe and take advantage of the weak pound to set myself up pretty nicely. Political satire would be of the highest quality and the first of the great meme wars would emerge between the alt-right and the old conservatives. We'd all get to say Merry Christmas on every holiday without fail and we wouldn't have to bake cakes for anyone. Is this where I point out that being able to say such a thing is what white privilege looks like? It's absolutely white privilege. Nobody anywhere wants to persecute people who look like me. In that case I suggest settling in Zimbabwe.
Make sure to mention your love for agriculture.
|
On September 08 2016 07:53 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2016 07:12 xDaunt wrote:On September 08 2016 07:09 kwizach wrote:On September 08 2016 06:53 xDaunt wrote:A Wall Street Analyst has turned his talents on the Clinton Foundation. His report is less than flattering. Finding that the Clinton Foundation doesn't appear to meet the criteria of a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, he basically concludes that it's a giant slush fund where the vast majority of its proceeds were sent to family and friends for their own gain through one means or another. For example, in 2013, the Clinton Foundation took in $140 million in grants and pledges, but spent just $9 million on direct aid, with the vast majority of the funds being spent on "administration, travel, salaries, and bonuses." From 1997 though 2014, $2 billion has been donated to the Clinton Foundation. His most interesting conclusion is that the Clinton Foundation and affiliated entities created "illegal private gains" in the amount of $100 billion or more since 1997. I can't speak to the validity of the analysis (and the full analysis isn't available yet), but the raw numbers that he cites in his report are damning if nothing else. I also think that it is interesting that the Clinton Foundation has never been audited (not that the lack of an audit is surprising). These numbers are "damning" if you take them out of context and ignore how the Clinton Foundation actually operates. The line of attack about the Foundation's 2013 expenses that you just cited has actually repeatedly been brought up dishonestly by the GOP -- here's a thorough debunking. Asked for backup, the CARLY for America super PAC noted that the Clinton Foundation’s latest IRS Form 990 shows total revenue of nearly $149 million in 2013, and total charitable grant disbursements of nearly $9 million (see page 10). That comes to roughly 6 percent of the budget going to grants. And besides those grants, the super PAC said, “there really isn’t anything that can be categorized as charitable.”
That just isn’t so. The Clinton Foundation does most of its charitable work itself.
Katherina Rosqueta, the founding executive director of the Center for High Impact Philanthropy at the University of Pennsylvania, described the Clinton Foundation as an “operating foundation.”
“There is an important distinction between an operating foundation vs. a non-operating foundation,” Rosqueta told us via email. “An operating foundation implements programs so money it raises is not designed to be used exclusively for grant-making purposes. When most people hear ‘foundation’, they think exclusively of a grant-making entity. In either case, the key is to understand how well the foundation uses money — whether to implement programs or to grant out to nonprofits — [to achieve] the intended social impact (e.g., improving education, creating livelihoods, improving health, etc.).” [...]
Daniel Borochoff, president and founder of CharityWatch, told us by phone that its analysis of the finances of the Clinton Foundation and its affiliates found that about 89 percent of the foundation budget is spent on programming (or “charity”), higher than the 75 percent considered the industry standard.
By only looking at the amount the Clinton Foundation doled out in grants, Fiorina “is showing her lack of understanding of charitable organizations,” Borochoff said. “She’s thinking of the Clinton Foundation as a private foundation.” Those kinds of foundations are typically supported by money from a few people, and the money is then distributed to various charities. The Clinton Foundation, however, is a public charity, he said. It mostly does its own charitable work. It has over 2,000 employees worldwide.
“What she’s doing is looking at how many grants they write to other groups,” Borochoff said. “If you are going to look at it that way, you may as well criticize every other operating charity on the planet.”
In order to get a fuller picture of the Clinton Foundation’s operations, he said, people need to look at the foundation’s consolidated audit, which includes the financial data on separate affiliates like the Clinton Health Access Initiative.
“Otherwise,” he said, “you are looking at just a piece of the pie.”
Considering all of the organizations affiliated with the Clinton Foundation, he said, CharityWatch concluded about 89 percent of its budget is spent on programs. That’s the amount it spent on charity in 2013, he said.
We looked at the consolidated financial statements (see page 4) and calculated that in 2013, 88.3 percent of spending was designated as going toward program services — $196.6 million out of $222.6 million in reported expenses.
We can’t vouch for the effectiveness of the programming expenses listed in the report, but it is clear that the claim that the Clinton Foundation only steers 6 percent of its donations to charity is wrong, and amounts to a misunderstanding of how public charities work. The charge in the Ortel report is that the Foundation isn't doing valid 501(c)(3) charitable work, so it isn't a valid operating charity. Here is what you wrote in your post: Show nested quote +On September 08 2016 06:53 xDaunt wrote:
[...] For example, in 2013, the Clinton Foundation took in $140 million in grants and pledges, but spent just $9 million on direct aid, with the vast majority of the funds being spent on "administration, travel, salaries, and bonuses." [...] A quick google search reveals that you directly copied that line (and not only the part in quotes), with minimal edits, from one of the numerous pages that include it, mostly blog posts by conservatives and/or conspiracy theorists that have tried to push that false narrative about the Clinton Foundation. Perhaps was it taken from this post from zerohedge (written by "Tyler Durden" no less, because of course he picked that username), which was put online yesterday to mention Ortel's analysis? In any case, I literally just presented you with an analysis which utterly debunks this line of attack about the Clinton Foundation being a "slush fund". Your entire post, and your comment that the "raw numbers" are "damning", are built on a complete misunderstanding (or, perhaps, from the actual authors of that narrative, a deliberate lie) of how the Clinton Foundation operates. Now that we've cleared this up, there remains the information that a random individual named Charles Ortel believes the Clinton Foundation doesn't qualify as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, and that he has yet to explain why that is the case. It seems like the government and private experts who've looked into the Foundation have never brought up this charge, so I would argue the reasonable thing to do would be to wait for him to actually release his analysis of why that would be the case, and see how it's assessed by experts. I would add that a two-minute look at his website should tell you all you need to know about how serious and unbiased you can expect his "analysis" to be, but what do I know 
Ladies and gentlemen, you may recall that kwizach drew quite a bit of fire from some of the posters in this thread at various points during the summer. His post above is very good example of why no one with half of a brain enjoys engaging him. Let's break it down.
I made my first post citing to the Ortel report. Kwizach then responds by correctly pointing out that direct aid numbers don't mean much if you're talking about a charity that does its charitable work through operations as opposed to simply passing out money to people, and he cited an article supporting his point. I then respond with this:
On September 08 2016 07:12 xDaunt wrote:
The charge in the Ortel report is that the Foundation isn't doing valid 501(c)(3) charitable work, so it isn't a valid operating charity.
In other words, what I said is that kwizach's point is inapplicable in this situation because Ortel is claiming that the Clinton Foundation's operations don't qualify as operational work. What his conclusion means is that the only remaining valid charitable use of the funds that the Clinton Foundation would be direct aid -- IE distributing money for charitable causes. And the problem here is that the Clinton Foundation spends a miniscule fraction of its funds on direct aid, with the vast majority of those funds being spent on "other" things that Ortel has defined as not charitable uses. This is the essence of Ortel's argument.
Now, this is a fairly nuanced point, and normally I would cut people some slack for not fully grasping it. But kwizach is an exception. He gets it, and he's just strawmanning and misconstruing arguments as he always does. Here's the proof. Take a look at his response above and how he selectively edits my first post:
On September 08 2016 07:53 kwizach wrote:Here is what you wrote in your post: Show nested quote +On September 08 2016 06:53 xDaunt wrote:
[...] For example, in 2013, the Clinton Foundation took in $140 million in grants and pledges, but spent just $9 million on direct aid, with the vast majority of the funds being spent on "administration, travel, salaries, and bonuses." [...]
Now look at what he left out:
On September 08 2016 06:53 xDaunt wrote:A Wall Street Analyst has turned his talents on the Clinton Foundation. His report is less than flattering. Finding that the Clinton Foundation doesn't appear to meet the criteria of a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, he basically concludes that it's a giant slush fund where the vast majority of its proceeds were sent to family and friends for their own gain through one means or another. For example, in 2013, the Clinton Foundation took in $140 million in grants and pledges, but spent just $9 million on direct aid, with the vast majority of the funds being spent on "administration, travel, salaries, and bonuses."
Oh look, there's the critical piece of information that's central to showing that the article that kwizach cited is likely irrelevant to Ortel's analysis!
And again, I say "likely" because I haven't fully adopted Ortel's analysis as my own (and because we can't see the entirety of his analysis), which I made clear in my original post and in subsequent ones, but kwizach can never be bothered with such details.
|
On September 08 2016 09:01 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2016 08:58 biology]major wrote:
lmao cnn doing a bit on how trump supporters on college campuses get attacked. Most of them keep quiet about their beliefs because sjws can be insufferable. I suspect the polls are heavily skewed if done by phone simply because being a trump supporter openly is unwise unless you are in a very conservative area. PC culture folks I certainly don't advocate attacking Trump supporters, or indeed anyone, but if they're just afraid of being judged by people around them and are afraid of negative judgement from their peers then I suggest they proceed to their nearest safe space. There is a long, long history of conservatives being offended by the world and needing everyone to cater to their preferences. From needing homosexuals to keep quiet about their sexuality and not hold hands in public to getting triggered by Starbucks cups, it's not the left but the right that gets offended by everything. The difference is that a few people on the left want designated safe spaces on campus whereas the majority of the right demands that the entire nation be their safe space.
Getting labeled as a racist when you are in college because you support trump is not something you should carry around with you. It affects your job prospects massively, you never know who says what on social media and nowadays all employers check facebook/twitter/instagram to get an idea of who you are. Atleast they do in medicine. It's the shaming tactics that bother me, each person has their own reason for supporting trump, but because of the labels you basically shut down any attempt at conversation.
|
United States42655 Posts
On September 08 2016 08:59 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2016 08:37 KwarK wrote:On September 08 2016 08:13 Yoav wrote:On September 08 2016 03:11 KwarK wrote:
You know I might quite like a Trump presidency. It'd be hilarious and I could probably convert all my hoarded pre-tax dollars to post-tax at 0% in his term. If it got too bad I could fuck off back to Europe and take advantage of the weak pound to set myself up pretty nicely. Political satire would be of the highest quality and the first of the great meme wars would emerge between the alt-right and the old conservatives. We'd all get to say Merry Christmas on every holiday without fail and we wouldn't have to bake cakes for anyone. Is this where I point out that being able to say such a thing is what white privilege looks like? It's absolutely white privilege. Nobody anywhere wants to persecute people who look like me. In that case I suggest settling in Zimbabwe.
I'd be fine. I'd go to one of the white areas, buy one of their walled fortress houses in a gated community and keep an automatic rifle by the door. I'm white, not poor. And hell, even in Zimbabwe white guys are the professional connected class. If a native comes on my land and I execute him I'm not gonna have to explain that shit, he was black, what the fuck more explanation do you want.
|
The key take away from this is that Xdaunts feelings were hurt and he needs to insult people to make himself feel better.
|
United States42655 Posts
On September 08 2016 09:07 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2016 09:01 KwarK wrote:On September 08 2016 08:58 biology]major wrote:
lmao cnn doing a bit on how trump supporters on college campuses get attacked. Most of them keep quiet about their beliefs because sjws can be insufferable. I suspect the polls are heavily skewed if done by phone simply because being a trump supporter openly is unwise unless you are in a very conservative area. PC culture folks I certainly don't advocate attacking Trump supporters, or indeed anyone, but if they're just afraid of being judged by people around them and are afraid of negative judgement from their peers then I suggest they proceed to their nearest safe space. There is a long, long history of conservatives being offended by the world and needing everyone to cater to their preferences. From needing homosexuals to keep quiet about their sexuality and not hold hands in public to getting triggered by Starbucks cups, it's not the left but the right that gets offended by everything. The difference is that a few people on the left want designated safe spaces on campus whereas the majority of the right demands that the entire nation be their safe space. Getting labeled as a racist when you are in college because you support trump is not something you should carry around with you. It affects your job prospects massively, you never know who says what on social media and nowadays all employers check facebook/twitter/instagram to get an idea of who you are. Atleast they do in medicine. It's the shaming tactics that bother me, each person has their own reason for supporting trump, but because of the labels you basically shut down any attempt at conversation.
He's a racist candidate, the candidate of the racists who want him to carry out his stated racist policies. If you don't want people thinking you're a racist maybe don't support racist candidates. This isn't difficult shit here. It's like the members of the explicitly all white fraternities who get mad when people judge them. You don't have a right to not get judged for the shit that you do. But again, if you want to be able to say whatever you like without fear of criticism or social stigma please proceed to your local safe space. That's what they're there for.
|
On September 08 2016 09:09 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2016 09:07 biology]major wrote:On September 08 2016 09:01 KwarK wrote:On September 08 2016 08:58 biology]major wrote:
lmao cnn doing a bit on how trump supporters on college campuses get attacked. Most of them keep quiet about their beliefs because sjws can be insufferable. I suspect the polls are heavily skewed if done by phone simply because being a trump supporter openly is unwise unless you are in a very conservative area. PC culture folks I certainly don't advocate attacking Trump supporters, or indeed anyone, but if they're just afraid of being judged by people around them and are afraid of negative judgement from their peers then I suggest they proceed to their nearest safe space. There is a long, long history of conservatives being offended by the world and needing everyone to cater to their preferences. From needing homosexuals to keep quiet about their sexuality and not hold hands in public to getting triggered by Starbucks cups, it's not the left but the right that gets offended by everything. The difference is that a few people on the left want designated safe spaces on campus whereas the majority of the right demands that the entire nation be their safe space. Getting labeled as a racist when you are in college because you support trump is not something you should carry around with you. It affects your job prospects massively, you never know who says what on social media and nowadays all employers check facebook/twitter/instagram to get an idea of who you are. Atleast they do in medicine. It's the shaming tactics that bother me, each person has their own reason for supporting trump, but because of the labels you basically shut down any attempt at conversation. He's a racist candidate, the candidate of the racists who want him to carry out his stated racist policies. If you don't want people thinking you're a racist maybe don't support racist candidates. This isn't difficult shit here. It's like the members of the explicitly all white fraternities who get mad when people judge them. You don't have a right to not get judged for the shit that you do. But again, if you want to be able to say whatever you like without fear of criticism or social stigma please proceed to your local safe space. That's what they're there for.
get off your high horse bro, we have two candidates to pick from. If I agree with one candidate on policy and he happens to say racist shit, and I support him, It doesn't make me a racist.
edit: Also it's not the idiotic conclusion people reach about labeling trump supporters that worries me, but rather the real consequences that follow. I defend people to be jerks, but in these situations people get hurt physically or get their shit stolen or hurt their future employment prospects.
|
On September 08 2016 09:13 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2016 09:09 KwarK wrote:On September 08 2016 09:07 biology]major wrote:On September 08 2016 09:01 KwarK wrote:On September 08 2016 08:58 biology]major wrote:
lmao cnn doing a bit on how trump supporters on college campuses get attacked. Most of them keep quiet about their beliefs because sjws can be insufferable. I suspect the polls are heavily skewed if done by phone simply because being a trump supporter openly is unwise unless you are in a very conservative area. PC culture folks I certainly don't advocate attacking Trump supporters, or indeed anyone, but if they're just afraid of being judged by people around them and are afraid of negative judgement from their peers then I suggest they proceed to their nearest safe space. There is a long, long history of conservatives being offended by the world and needing everyone to cater to their preferences. From needing homosexuals to keep quiet about their sexuality and not hold hands in public to getting triggered by Starbucks cups, it's not the left but the right that gets offended by everything. The difference is that a few people on the left want designated safe spaces on campus whereas the majority of the right demands that the entire nation be their safe space. Getting labeled as a racist when you are in college because you support trump is not something you should carry around with you. It affects your job prospects massively, you never know who says what on social media and nowadays all employers check facebook/twitter/instagram to get an idea of who you are. Atleast they do in medicine. It's the shaming tactics that bother me, each person has their own reason for supporting trump, but because of the labels you basically shut down any attempt at conversation. He's a racist candidate, the candidate of the racists who want him to carry out his stated racist policies. If you don't want people thinking you're a racist maybe don't support racist candidates. This isn't difficult shit here. It's like the members of the explicitly all white fraternities who get mad when people judge them. You don't have a right to not get judged for the shit that you do. But again, if you want to be able to say whatever you like without fear of criticism or social stigma please proceed to your local safe space. That's what they're there for. get off your high horse bro, we have two candidates to pick from. If I agree with one candidate on policy and he happens to say racist shit, and I support him, It doesn't make me a racist. edit: Also it's not the idiotic conclusion people reach about labeling trump supporters that worries me, but rather the real consequences that follow. I defend people to be jerks, but in these situations people get hurt physically or get their shit stolen or hurt their future employment prospects.
Don't be grumpy when people don't like that you plan to vote for someone that will repress them.
|
United States42655 Posts
On September 08 2016 09:13 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2016 09:09 KwarK wrote:On September 08 2016 09:07 biology]major wrote:On September 08 2016 09:01 KwarK wrote:On September 08 2016 08:58 biology]major wrote:
lmao cnn doing a bit on how trump supporters on college campuses get attacked. Most of them keep quiet about their beliefs because sjws can be insufferable. I suspect the polls are heavily skewed if done by phone simply because being a trump supporter openly is unwise unless you are in a very conservative area. PC culture folks I certainly don't advocate attacking Trump supporters, or indeed anyone, but if they're just afraid of being judged by people around them and are afraid of negative judgement from their peers then I suggest they proceed to their nearest safe space. There is a long, long history of conservatives being offended by the world and needing everyone to cater to their preferences. From needing homosexuals to keep quiet about their sexuality and not hold hands in public to getting triggered by Starbucks cups, it's not the left but the right that gets offended by everything. The difference is that a few people on the left want designated safe spaces on campus whereas the majority of the right demands that the entire nation be their safe space. Getting labeled as a racist when you are in college because you support trump is not something you should carry around with you. It affects your job prospects massively, you never know who says what on social media and nowadays all employers check facebook/twitter/instagram to get an idea of who you are. Atleast they do in medicine. It's the shaming tactics that bother me, each person has their own reason for supporting trump, but because of the labels you basically shut down any attempt at conversation. He's a racist candidate, the candidate of the racists who want him to carry out his stated racist policies. If you don't want people thinking you're a racist maybe don't support racist candidates. This isn't difficult shit here. It's like the members of the explicitly all white fraternities who get mad when people judge them. You don't have a right to not get judged for the shit that you do. But again, if you want to be able to say whatever you like without fear of criticism or social stigma please proceed to your local safe space. That's what they're there for. get off your high horse bro, we have two candidates to pick from. If I agree with one candidate on policy and he happens to say racist shit, and I support him, It doesn't make me a racist.
Don't tell that to me, tell it to the prospective employer who sees your Trump support on facebook when he looks you up. Or maybe you should just keep it to yourself. It's not like some employers won't take the opposite angle and judge Hillary or Bernie supporters. You're not immune to judgement, the world is not your safe space. Happy Holidays.
|
@xDaunt:
On September 08 2016 07:53 kwizach wrote:... Now that we've cleared this up, there remains the information that a random individual named Charles Ortel believes the Clinton Foundation doesn't qualify as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, and that he has yet to explain why that is the case. It seems like the government and private experts who've looked into the Foundation have never brought up this charge, so I would argue the reasonable thing to do would be to wait for him to actually release his analysis of why that would be the case, and see how it's assessed by experts. I would add that a two-minute look at his website should tell you all you need to know about how serious and unbiased you can expect his "analysis" to be, but what do I know
Kwizach did actually address the question of the Clinton Foundation's status as a 501(c)(3) non-profit, with the conclusion that "at this stage there isn't a good enough reason to believe it isn't".
I'm going to ask you nicely to stop with the grandstanding, personal attacks and shitstirring now.
|
United States42655 Posts
On September 08 2016 09:13 biology]major wrote:
I defend people to be jerks, but in these situations people get hurt physically or get their shit stolen or hurt their future employment prospects.
One of these is not like the others. We live in a country where it's still legal in many states to discriminate in employment based on sexuality but you're here complaining that people might not want to hire you just because you support the racist candidate and demanding that it be not allowed.
This is the face of privilege right here. Sure, discriminate against the faggots, fuck those guys, but don't you dare judge me for that thing I said.
|
On September 08 2016 09:09 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2016 09:07 biology]major wrote:On September 08 2016 09:01 KwarK wrote:On September 08 2016 08:58 biology]major wrote:
lmao cnn doing a bit on how trump supporters on college campuses get attacked. Most of them keep quiet about their beliefs because sjws can be insufferable. I suspect the polls are heavily skewed if done by phone simply because being a trump supporter openly is unwise unless you are in a very conservative area. PC culture folks I certainly don't advocate attacking Trump supporters, or indeed anyone, but if they're just afraid of being judged by people around them and are afraid of negative judgement from their peers then I suggest they proceed to their nearest safe space. There is a long, long history of conservatives being offended by the world and needing everyone to cater to their preferences. From needing homosexuals to keep quiet about their sexuality and not hold hands in public to getting triggered by Starbucks cups, it's not the left but the right that gets offended by everything. The difference is that a few people on the left want designated safe spaces on campus whereas the majority of the right demands that the entire nation be their safe space. Getting labeled as a racist when you are in college because you support trump is not something you should carry around with you. It affects your job prospects massively, you never know who says what on social media and nowadays all employers check facebook/twitter/instagram to get an idea of who you are. Atleast they do in medicine. It's the shaming tactics that bother me, each person has their own reason for supporting trump, but because of the labels you basically shut down any attempt at conversation. He's a racist candidate, the candidate of the racists who want him to carry out his stated racist policies. If you don't want people thinking you're a racist maybe don't support racist candidates. This isn't difficult shit here. It's like the members of the explicitly all white fraternities who get mad when people judge them. You don't have a right to not get judged for the shit that you do. But again, if you want to be able to say whatever you like without fear of criticism or social stigma please proceed to your local safe space. That's what they're there for.
In other words, if you support the wrong candidate, find a safe space by leaving your universities, preserving them as safe spaces for progressives.
|
United States42655 Posts
On September 08 2016 09:20 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2016 09:09 KwarK wrote:On September 08 2016 09:07 biology]major wrote:On September 08 2016 09:01 KwarK wrote:On September 08 2016 08:58 biology]major wrote:
lmao cnn doing a bit on how trump supporters on college campuses get attacked. Most of them keep quiet about their beliefs because sjws can be insufferable. I suspect the polls are heavily skewed if done by phone simply because being a trump supporter openly is unwise unless you are in a very conservative area. PC culture folks I certainly don't advocate attacking Trump supporters, or indeed anyone, but if they're just afraid of being judged by people around them and are afraid of negative judgement from their peers then I suggest they proceed to their nearest safe space. There is a long, long history of conservatives being offended by the world and needing everyone to cater to their preferences. From needing homosexuals to keep quiet about their sexuality and not hold hands in public to getting triggered by Starbucks cups, it's not the left but the right that gets offended by everything. The difference is that a few people on the left want designated safe spaces on campus whereas the majority of the right demands that the entire nation be their safe space. Getting labeled as a racist when you are in college because you support trump is not something you should carry around with you. It affects your job prospects massively, you never know who says what on social media and nowadays all employers check facebook/twitter/instagram to get an idea of who you are. Atleast they do in medicine. It's the shaming tactics that bother me, each person has their own reason for supporting trump, but because of the labels you basically shut down any attempt at conversation. He's a racist candidate, the candidate of the racists who want him to carry out his stated racist policies. If you don't want people thinking you're a racist maybe don't support racist candidates. This isn't difficult shit here. It's like the members of the explicitly all white fraternities who get mad when people judge them. You don't have a right to not get judged for the shit that you do. But again, if you want to be able to say whatever you like without fear of criticism or social stigma please proceed to your local safe space. That's what they're there for. In other words, if you support the wrong candidate, find a safe space by leaving your universities, preserving them as safe spaces for progressives.
You might want to reread what I wrote because it appears you may be struggling with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
3963
3475
304
EPT
