US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4948
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. | ||
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
| ||
Rebs
Pakistan10726 Posts
On September 11 2016 02:41 oBlade wrote: She called 10% of America deplorable, irredeemable, racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, and not America. Since the alt-right speech (tackling the real issues), she's going to keep insulting the voters like this. Trump might insult every opponent of his in the political arena, but he's so far been smart enough not to come out and say, you know what the problem is? that the opponent's supporters are entitled victims that are too stupid to learn personal responsibility and be convinced to vote for me. Do you know what no person said after hearing Romney's 47% comment 4 years ago? "Woohoo, he can't have been talking about me so I must be in that 5-10% of independents that he's trying to win over, I'm so elated to have this privilege of being condescended to, let me cast a ballot today!" I hope Clinton keeps doing this. lol what the fuck are you even talking about. Romneys comment was about literally half the country. Clintons comment is on one subsection of a subsection. The people she is talking about will not vote for her and everyone knows who shes talking about. If you are racist xenophobic islamophobic etc etc then you should be willing to hear it. OR stop fucking whining about PC culture. Unless you disagree that these are not conditions for someone to be deplorable ? Is it also not true that Trump has supporters who qualify under those categories ? I disagree with her making a blanket claim to say half. I think it would be safer to say some. On September 11 2016 02:48 TheYango wrote: I'm self-aware enough to accept that I'm at least 3 of those things, but I hope people don't necessarily consider me deplorable. If you exhibit behavior that qualifies those things then I would consider you deplorable and probably stay away from you. But thats just my opinion, other people might be ok with it. | ||
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 11 2016 02:48 TheYango wrote: I'm self-aware enough to accept that I'm at least 3 of those things, but I hope people don't necessarily consider me deplorable. Many leftists seek to classify people who disagree with their policy into any of a certain number of groups which they believe can be safely dismissed as morons not worth listening to. See also: the ever-expanding definition of what makes someone a "racist." | ||
GreenHorizons
United States22736 Posts
On September 11 2016 03:01 Rebs wrote: lol what the fuck are you even talking about. Romneys comment was about literally half the country. Clintons comment is on one subsection of a subsection. The people she is talking about will not vote for her and everyone knows who shes talking about. If you are racist xenophobic islamophobic etc etc then you should be willing to hear it. OR stop fucking whining about PC culture. Unless you disagree that these are not conditions for someone to be deplorable ? Is it also not true that Trump has supporters who qualify under those categories ? I disagree with her making a blanket claim to say half. I think it would be safer to say some. If you exhibit behavior that qualifies those things then I would consider you deplorable and probably stay away from you. But thats just my opinion, other people might be ok with it. I think we all have our ism's or whatever. Like privilege, it's not about pretending it doesn't exist/happen, it's about acknowledging it and working to correct it. Someone who says they're not any of those things (or at least do things that could reasonably be called such) immediately loses all credibility on the subject in my eyes. | ||
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
On September 11 2016 02:41 oBlade wrote:Trump might insult every opponent of his in the political arena, but he's so far been smart enough not to come out and say, you know what the problem is? that the opponent's supporters are entitled victims that are too stupid to learn personal responsibility Isn't that basically what he said about black voters? | ||
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
| ||
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On September 11 2016 03:30 Yoav wrote: Isn't that basically what he said about black voters? It doesn't matter because they're black. It's become clear over and over again that you can basically say any outrageous thing as long as the group that you're targeting isn't white men. No matter if you're calling Mexicans rapists or Muslims terrorists, don't accuse anybody of being racist because that's some real discrimination | ||
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On September 11 2016 03:37 TheTenthDoc wrote: I do hope that the Trump campaign does what they said Clinton should have done with the "I love war" quote and provides the full context of her statement, including the following bit about wanting to help and empathize with the other half of Trump supporters. /s ftfy | ||
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On September 10 2016 09:40 TheYango wrote: I feel like the Cruz campaign was constantly caught between trying to sell two different faces of itself. On the one hand he tried to sell himself to the voters as being the anti-establishment candidate who for years criticized the Republican elite for not sticking to true conservative values. But at the same time he was also trying to sell himself to said elite on being more of a proper Republican than Trump. He might have had a better chance of honing his message if he wasn't caught between two sides of the party and trying to appease them both. To the extent that when he was almost the last man standing, he did bill himself as the only way to stop Trump and talked about how the party didn't stand for what he stood for. Primary triangulation. On September 11 2016 02:41 oBlade wrote: She called 10% of America deplorable, irredeemable, racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, and not America. Since the alt-right speech (tackling the real issues), she's going to keep insulting the voters like this. Trump might insult every opponent of his in the political arena, but he's so far been smart enough not to come out and say, you know what the problem is? that the opponent's supporters are entitled victims that are too stupid to learn personal responsibility and be convinced to vote for me. Do you know what no person said after hearing Romney's 47% comment 4 years ago? "Woohoo, he can't have been talking about me so I must be in that 5-10% of independents that he's trying to win over, I'm so elated to have this privilege of being condescended to, let me cast a ballot today!" I hope Clinton keeps doing this. She's so full of herself, she might just do it. But she has good handlers. On September 11 2016 03:20 LegalLord wrote: Many leftists seek to classify people who disagree with their policy into any of a certain number of groups which they believe can be safely dismissed as morons not worth listening to. See also: the ever-expanding definition of what makes someone a "racist." You want to know the meaning of Trump resiliency amongst supporters? They've figured out in the soundbites from "cling to guns and religion" and "racist/sexist/xenophobic/homophobic/islamophobic," it's them that's being referred to. All for holding the wrong positions. There's the right policy, then there's the sexist policy and on down the line. And you're the scum of the earth for supporting them. I wager the left's blazing success on social issues has emboldened them to banish noble opposition in thought and word. | ||
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On September 11 2016 03:47 Danglars wrote: You want to know the meaning of Trump resiliency amongst supporters? They've figured out in the soundbites from "cling to guns and religion" and "racist/sexist/xenophobic/homophobic/islamophobic," it's them that's being referred to. All for holding the wrong positions. There's the right policy, then there's the sexist policy and on down the line. And you're the scum of the earth for supporting them. I wager the left's blazing success on social issues has emboldened them to banish noble opposition in thought and word. Isn't it a little ironic that apparent 'Conservatives' of all people have essentially adopted some kind of post modern 'anything goes' narrative? Are we supposed to tolerate racism in the discourse to celebrate diversity? Actual conservatives ought to denounce Trump as much as any leftist. You don't need to be a liberal to hate bigots | ||
oBlade
United States5294 Posts
On September 11 2016 03:01 Rebs wrote: lol what the fuck are you even talking about. Romneys comment was about literally half the country. Clintons comment is on one subsection of a subsection. The people she is talking about will not vote for her and everyone knows who shes talking about. Yes, we've been over that, Romney was talking about 47% of the country at most (though to the extent he was talking about people who don't vote for him but also don't vote for anybody, who cares? so then it'd be more like 20%) and Clinton "only" 10%. The people who do not know what HRC is on about are not going to be impressed with a candidate associating them with undesirables. Just like I just explained, nobody heard Romney's comments and thought they were lucky that they must be in the group of independents he wanted to rescue from entitled victimhood. + Show Spoiler + I don't know if I'm being too esoteric for people who don't remember Romney's full comments: On September 11 2016 03:01 Rebs wrote: Is it also not true that Trump has supporters who qualify under those categories ? I disagree with her making a blanket claim to say half. I think it would be safer to say some. Is there no bigot who votes Democrat? On September 11 2016 03:30 Yoav wrote: Isn't that basically what he said about black voters? He said blacks are poorer and worse off (and to please vote for him to fix it) which any adherent to the concept of "privilege" should admit is true. He said he'd get 95% of the black vote in 2020. Not oh, poor blacks, I'm not even going to bother since they're hopeless. I promise I'll be here if that kind of tape comes out. | ||
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On September 11 2016 04:07 oBlade wrote: Yes, we've been over that, Romney was talking about 47% of the country at most (though to the extent he was talking about people who don't vote for him but also don't vote for anybody, who cares? so then it'd be more like 20%) and Clinton "only" 10%. The people who do not know what HRC is on about are not going to be impressed with a candidate associating them with undesirables. Just like I just explained, nobody heard Romney's comments and thought they were lucky that they must be in the group of independents he wanted to rescue from entitled victimhood. + Show Spoiler + I don't know if I'm being too esoteric for people who don't remember Romney's full comments: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2gvY2wqI7M Is there no bigot who votes Democrat? He said blacks are poorer and worse off (and to please vote for him to fix it) which any adherent to the concept of "privilege" should admit is true. He said he'd get 95% of the black vote in 2020. Not oh, poor blacks, I'm not even going to bother since they're hopeless. I promise I'll be here if that kind of tape comes out. According to Trump, Judge Curiel is biased against him because he's Mexican and Trump's building the wall. That's a generalization that insults Mexicans, no matter how much you want to say "but let's just be realistic people are tribalistic so Trump is right". Saying that because Khizr Khan's wife didn't talk, it must be because her husband didn't allow her to, is a generalization that insults Muslims. Saying Kaepernick should leave the country if it doesn't work for him, and not apologizing for spearheading the birther movement, show at the very least that he has a giant blind spot when it comes to black people. And I could go on and on so you just can't credibly say Trump has not been insulting to groups of Americans. | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Prisoners in more than 20 states went on a coordinated strike Friday, refusing to go to their assigned jobs and demanding an "end to prison slavery." The work stoppage, staged on the 45th anniversary of the Attica prison uprising of 1971, marks one of the largest attempted prison strikes in decades. "Slavery is alive and well in the prison system, but by the end of this year, it won't be anymore," reads a statement by the Industrial Workers of the World's Incarcerated Workers Organizing Committee (IWOC), the group that put together and announced the strike. "This call goes directly to the slaves themselves." It may be no surprised that America's 2 million-plus inmates mop floors or scrub toilets in their prisons and jails, but the country's prison population is also a source of cheap and, in states like Texas, even free labor. As state budgets have shrunk in recent years, prisons have launched new work programs. Prisoners repair public plumbing, clean up roadkill, manage public spaces such as graveyards, and even do underwater welding. "Think about how much it costs to incarcerate someone," Republican Senator John Ensign said in 2011, advocating for more of these programs. "Do we want them just sitting in prison, lifting weights, becoming violent and thinking about the next crime? Or do we want them having a little purpose in life and learning a skill?" The true scope of prison labor goes beyond personal development and public works: It's good business. Prisoners scrub products for Wal-Mart, package coffee for Starbucks, sew clothes for Victoria's Secret, and man call centers for AT&T. Corporations cut deals with both private and public prisons, which gives them access to a labor force that has no choice but to work for, say, 20 cents an hour. Businesses and governments in turn save big. "At Holman prison, the industry we have there is the state tag plant, which produces license plates for the state, and also a sewing factory," said Robert Horton, public information manager for the Alabama Department of Corrections. Horton added that operations had not been interrupted by the strike. Prisoners are not permitted to unionize, as labor law does not consider them employees. That's something the IWOC is looking to change by clandestinely recruiting prisoners to join up with a guild free of union dues. Source | ||
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
GreenHorizons
United States22736 Posts
On September 11 2016 05:05 xDaunt wrote: Haha, I love "basket of deplorables." What a great, high-handed insult. I may steal that one for future use. Does sound like a classy way of saying "bag of dicks". I don't get why she's trying to make it sound like an accident though, it was in the prompter wasn't it? It's not like it would have been the first time she read it. She doesn't regret saying it (and she probably shouldn't) she regrets how it played in the media. | ||
CorsairHero
Canada9489 Posts
Hillary Clinton on Saturday walked back comments she made about supporters of Donald Trump at an event in New York City. Clinton said on Friday evening that you could put half of the Republican presidential nominee's supporters in a "basket of deplorables," which she said would include racists, xenophobes, and homophobes. But, following a firestorm of backlash, Clinton released a statement saying her comments were "grossly generalistic," and that she regretted denigrating "half" of Trump's supporters. While she offered remorse for her comments, Clinton also said it was "deplorable" that Trump has built his campaign "largely on prejudice and paranoia," and has "given a national platform to hateful views and voices." "As I said, many of Trump's supporters are hard-working Americans who just don’t feel like the economy or our political system are working for them," she added. Clinton resolved to try and "bring our country together" and "make our economy work for everyone." Trump, along with his running mate Mike Pence, responded on Saturday by criticizing the comments Hillary made on Friday. "Wow, Hillary Clinton was SO INSULTING to my supporters, millions of amazing, hard working people. I think it will cost her at the Polls!" Trump tweeted. Pence piled on, saying at the Values Voter Summit that Clinton's "low opinion" of Trump's supporters should be "denounced in the strongest possible terms." "Hillary, they are not a basket of anything," Pence said. "They are Americans and they deserve your respect." Source | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
WASHINGTON ― The Obama administration has proposed a new rule that would prevent states from defunding Planned Parenthood or any other family planning provider for political reasons. The new rule, which the Department of Health and Human Services proposed last week, says that states cannot withhold Title X federal family planning money from certain recipients for any reason other than the provider’s “ability to deliver services to program beneficiaries in an effective manner.” That means states can no longer vote to defund Planned Parenthood because some of its clinics offer abortion services. “This will make a real difference in so many people’s lives,” said Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood. “Thanks to the Obama administration, women will still be able to access the birth control they need to plan their families, and the cancer screenings they need to stay healthy.” The Title X program provides basic preventive health care and family planning services for 4 million low-income Americans. About 85 percent of patients who use Title X have incomes below $23,500. Planned Parenthood serves about a third of those patients, using the $70 million a year it receives in Title X grants to subsidize contraceptives and cancer and sexually transmitted infection screenings for people who can’t afford them. Title X does not allow any money to be used to pay for abortions for any reason. Still, politicians in 11 states have voted to block public funds from Planned Parenthood because its services include abortion. Republicans in Congress are also on a mission to defund the family planning provider, citing a series of debunked undercover videos produced by anti-abortion activists that purport to show Planned Parenthood selling fetal body parts. Rep. Diane Black (R-Tenn.), a member of the House select committee that’s investigating the video’s claims, called the Obama administration’s new rule to protect Planned Parenthood a “stunt.” “We must use the full force of Congress and the grassroots strength of the national pro-life movement to defeat this absurd rule and prevent the Obama Administration from acting unilaterally to carry out political favors and prop up a scandal-ridden abortion provider,” she said in a statement. The political problem for Republicans right now in their endeavor to demonize and defund Planned Parenthood is that family planning providers are on the front lines in the fight against Zika, the rapidly spreading virus that causes severe birth defects. The Centers for Disease Control said the “primary strategy” to reduce Zika-related pregnancy complications should be to help women avoid or delay pregnancy through family planning and birth control, and Planned Parenthood is already distributing Zika prevention kits and education in neighborhoods where the virus is spreading. But some of the most high-risk states for the mosquito-borne and sexually transmitted virus ― Florida, Louisiana and Texas ― have voted to block funds to Planned Parenthood. About 84 pregnant women in Florida are currently infected with Zika, officials have said. Source | ||
puerk
Germany855 Posts
| ||
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
I don't see how states would have any authority over who gets federal moneys anyways. I mean, if the money is given out by the federal gov't under Title X or whatever; why does this issue even come up? | ||
![]()
Falling
Canada11279 Posts
On September 11 2016 05:24 zlefin wrote: re: lastest Stealth article I don't see how states would have any authority over who gets federal moneys anyways. I mean, if the money is given out by the federal gov't under Title X or whatever; why does this issue even come up? Is it perhaps block transfers where the State can choose how specifically to spend the money provided certain standards are met? | ||
| ||