|
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. |
I think if you rephrase "dumb to its merits" to "misinformed or deceived about current situation" you would probably capture more of the Democrat umbrella.
I think it's also important to distinguish between being motivated by subliminal bias and racism, because they're really not the same thing (I hope we can all agree on that at least).
On February 04 2017 00:12 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2017 00:05 Acrofales wrote:On February 03 2017 23:37 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 15:50 ChristianS wrote:On February 03 2017 15:16 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 15:10 ChristianS wrote:On February 03 2017 13:40 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 13:26 Scarecrow wrote:On February 03 2017 10:50 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 10:32 Scarecrow wrote:
[quote]
You're such a hypocrite. You said he gave the same 'cookie cutter' response you'd expect from most of the left and then that it was garbage. Sure the label is neutral but then you slam the group. It's like me talking about how the Right are a bunch of assholes. The Right is just a label too, then I judged them, just as you do. You basically said the left just spews cookie-cutter garbage and then you tried to claim the moral high ground because you're deluded into thinking you don't categorize the opposition negatively. Only people who waiver in their beliefs would be so offended by my statements. Man you post some ridiculous shit. Your source-less bullshit and extreme bias are what offends me. I guess plenty of us seem like the 'regressive left' when you're this far right. So what do you disagree with? Do you deny that the Left routinely uses the terms racist, sexist, bigot, etc when attacking the Right? Do you think that the use of those terms at their current frequency is warranted? I don't think anyone can reasonably debate that the Democrat Party's political playbook is largely based upon these tactics and the use of identity politics. I would certainly dispute that the Democratic Party largely operates based on calling people racists, sexists, etc. it might look that way because they just finished an election in which those were especially relevant topics, but that's to do with who they were running sgainst more than anything else. I mean I'm sure you can find some articles from somewhere or other in 2012 accusing Romney of sexism or something, but for the most part that campaign wasn't about race, sex, or xenophobia. But Donald Trump has a storied history with race. His campaign was built heavily on fearmongering about various types of foreigners. And if you can honestly look at the things Donald Trump has said to and about women and say the Democrats are just imagining he has a problem there, you're nowhere near the cool, detached analyst you seem to consider yourself. So yeah, Democrats used those words a lot. They applied. And they thought (wrongly, in retrospect) that Americans would consider those qualities deal-breakers in a president. So why do you think that the attacks did not work this time around? And for extra credit, what do you think my answer to that question is? A lot of reasons. One of the bigger ones is that conservatives have been poisoning the well on any "politically correct" labels so much that people no longer think of racism or sexism as the great societal evils they are. They just think of it as some nagging liberals whining about something or other. Notably, this makes it so that when people are faced with actual racism, they automatically assume it's not really racism. It's probably tongue-in-cheek, or just meant to protest against PC culture, or something. Thus you get a serious dispute about whether or not the alt-right is racist despite r/altright regularly going full anti-miscegenation (As an aside, I was going to link to some racist r/altright posts as proof but apparently that subreddit got banned). Another decent answer is that it did work in a sense – Donald Trump is the least popular winning candidate in history, after all. If both candidates are that unpopular, it seems reasonable to think both sides' mudslinging landed pretty well. I don't think most people heard much about DT's racism, and xenophobia is usually a bit too convoluted to make a very effective attack, but after the Access Hollywood tape I don't think anybody was about to argue Donald Trump didn't have a women problem. It just wasn't enough to stop his chances (I hesitate to even bring this up because I'm really tired of re-litigating this election, and if LL hears he'll come and say "electable" 20 more times). If I had to guess, I'm guessing you don't think Donald Trump is a racist, and the sexism stuff is overblown. As for "xenophobia," you probably think that's just a pejorative to dismiss legitimate fears about the effects of immigrants on the country. But hey, I don't want to put words in your mouth, feel free to share your reasons why Donald Trump's apparent racism, sexism, and xenophobia are not legitimate reasons to dislike him. First, let me just say that if I am inviting you to guess what I think on something, I'm clearly giving you license to do just that. So don't be shy. As for your answers on the merits, I find it curious that you'd blame conservatives' reception of the charges and their nagging about the use of the charges as opposed to the people actually wielding the charges. I don't think that I have seen one interview of a Trump a voter where the voter said something corroborating your explanation for why the charges didn't work against Trump. What I have seen, however, are many, many interviews of Trump voters who said that they were tired of the Left throwing around the charges so freely and simply didn't care about them anymore. It's a simple case of the boy who cried wolf too many times. And we're back where we started. Did "the left" really cry wolf too often, or did "the right" pick a few minority members out of a large crowd of "lefties" (and probably different minority members each time, see Christians' valid point about the "ambiguous they" argument) and repeatedly pointed at them to say "look, the left is crying wolf again"? Because there are indeed fringe feminists who have gone off the deep end. And some of the people claiming allegiance to BLM have gone and done some stupid shit. And there are college kids rightfully being ridiculed for their safe spaces. But that doesn't mean "the left" as a collective holds any of those opinions, or has called mainstream conservative thought racist, sexist or xenophobic. I don't think that you can pretend that only fringe elements of the Left and Democrat Party are guilty of this when their presidential candidate talked about the "basket of deplorables" to huge applause from an audience. Let's get real. The proof's in the pudding on this one.
The hilarity is that immediately after that line was how important it was to recognize the legitimate concerns of a lot of Republican voters that didn't fall in that basket but instead into another...
But the other basket -- and I know this because I see friends from all over America here -- I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas -- as well as, you know, New York and California -- but that other basket of people are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they're just desperate for change. It doesn't really even matter where it comes from. They don't buy everything he says, but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won't wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they're in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.
But of course this line doesn't have any zingers in it, so no one cares.
|
On February 04 2017 00:06 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +President Donald Trump will begin work Friday dismantling the financial regulations enacted after the 2008 economic crisis, hours after the first major economic report of his administration is released.
Trump's executive moves won't have an immediate effect on Wall Street oversight. But they're likely to draw sharp criticism from Democrats and reform proponents who say the regulations that the President is looking to scrap could prevent another meltdown.
In two executive actions, Trump plans to direct his administration to evaluate regulatory action taken by his predecessor, Barack Obama, with an eye toward eliminating what his advisers say are burdensome rules on financial services firms and consumers.
He'll also force the delay of an Obama-era rule that required retirement advisers to act in their clients' best interests.
The midday moves will come after the Labor Department releases jobs figures from January. Hiring rebounded sharply under Obama following the financial crisis, but Trump has previously questioned the accuracy of the monthly reports from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
He'll sign his actions following a planned meeting with US chief executives, including bosses at JPMorgan Chase, Blackstone, IBM, Tesla and General Motors. The CEO of Uber said Thursday he wouldn't participate in the meeting since he opposes Trump's executive order on refugees and immigration.
In his first order, Trump will issue a broad directive meant to garner input from the heads of federal regulatory agencies on areas for reform. The move won't make any immediate changes to the agencies or their policies; rather, it will solicit recommendations for changes to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law that was enacted in 2010.
"Everything is going to be looked at," said a senior administration official, speaking anonymously to preview the order before it was signed.
The official conceded a complete gutting of the law would require Congress to act -- "This is not an attempt to undo Dodd-Frank" -- but identified areas where Trump could make unilateral changes, like placing his own directors at key regulatory bodies.
The official demurred if that meant Trump planned to fire the current head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a brainchild of Sen. Elizabeth Warren that's expected to be on Trump's chopping block. Source
biggest bubble in history in the making,the following crash will have similar proportions.
|
On February 03 2017 23:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 21:53 oneofthem wrote:On February 03 2017 20:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 03 2017 19:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
So in an interview last night with Chris Matthews interviewed Kellyanne Conway who invented a terrorist attack called the Bowling Green Massacre. Luckily for her it was Chris Matthews so she got away with it.
Someone is going to pull this type of tweet from some hard drive from some rubble pile one day and wonder how people could have not seen it all coming. maybe you should ask those people who wrote in bernie or mickey mouse in florida. they seem to be your people Yeah, they told me to tell your people they shouldn't have run the least favorable Democrat since modern polling while under federal investigation against Trump, then they wouldn't be looking at the people that told them this was coming to fix it.
This is a pretty extreme logical fallacy. Regardless of how a situation came to be, once that situation is indeed reality, the decision making of that moment is not related to things in the past. Cost:benefit analysis does not consider the fault of what created the situation to begin with. In no uncertain terms, the choice was either shit or way shittier. The left failed themselves by "sticking to their guns" and creating this awful mess for Muslims and many others.
That being said, the Clinton crowd also failed all the same people by making exactly the mistake you described. By not seeing the writing on the wall and being so stubborn, they killed the party. The DNC and the Clinton elite were unbelievably arrogant, entitled and corrupt in the way that they dealt with the primary and tried to silence the most energetic portion of their party that also happens to be the FUTURE of the party.
So don't take this as me saying the bernie people are the only ones to blame. I do not think that at all. But the way you try to offset blame entirely is extremely questionable. You are ignoring logic and denying basic tenets of logical thought and physical reality. The Bernie crowd had the power to prevent this. So did the Clinton crowd. They BOTH failed the American people.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
uh the clinton team bent over backwards for bernie. it is just rather difficult for the witch to change the minds of the hunters
|
On February 04 2017 00:16 pmh wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2017 00:06 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:President Donald Trump will begin work Friday dismantling the financial regulations enacted after the 2008 economic crisis, hours after the first major economic report of his administration is released.
Trump's executive moves won't have an immediate effect on Wall Street oversight. But they're likely to draw sharp criticism from Democrats and reform proponents who say the regulations that the President is looking to scrap could prevent another meltdown.
In two executive actions, Trump plans to direct his administration to evaluate regulatory action taken by his predecessor, Barack Obama, with an eye toward eliminating what his advisers say are burdensome rules on financial services firms and consumers.
He'll also force the delay of an Obama-era rule that required retirement advisers to act in their clients' best interests.
The midday moves will come after the Labor Department releases jobs figures from January. Hiring rebounded sharply under Obama following the financial crisis, but Trump has previously questioned the accuracy of the monthly reports from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
He'll sign his actions following a planned meeting with US chief executives, including bosses at JPMorgan Chase, Blackstone, IBM, Tesla and General Motors. The CEO of Uber said Thursday he wouldn't participate in the meeting since he opposes Trump's executive order on refugees and immigration.
In his first order, Trump will issue a broad directive meant to garner input from the heads of federal regulatory agencies on areas for reform. The move won't make any immediate changes to the agencies or their policies; rather, it will solicit recommendations for changes to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law that was enacted in 2010.
"Everything is going to be looked at," said a senior administration official, speaking anonymously to preview the order before it was signed.
The official conceded a complete gutting of the law would require Congress to act -- "This is not an attempt to undo Dodd-Frank" -- but identified areas where Trump could make unilateral changes, like placing his own directors at key regulatory bodies.
The official demurred if that meant Trump planned to fire the current head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a brainchild of Sen. Elizabeth Warren that's expected to be on Trump's chopping block. Source biggest bubble in history in the making,the following crash will have similar proportions.
It's worrisome to me that the administration which couldn't be bothered to go through the proper channel INSIDE THE WHITE HOUSE for the 7 country travel ban, causing a massively incoherent mess in airports across the planet, thinks it's able to see the full picture enough to deregulate things?
Chill out and wait until you understand how this tangled mess works... If they're just going to wing it and see what happens, that's kinda dangerous -_-
|
On February 04 2017 00:12 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2017 00:05 Acrofales wrote:On February 03 2017 23:37 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 15:50 ChristianS wrote:On February 03 2017 15:16 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 15:10 ChristianS wrote:On February 03 2017 13:40 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 13:26 Scarecrow wrote:On February 03 2017 10:50 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 10:32 Scarecrow wrote:
[quote]
You're such a hypocrite. You said he gave the same 'cookie cutter' response you'd expect from most of the left and then that it was garbage. Sure the label is neutral but then you slam the group. It's like me talking about how the Right are a bunch of assholes. The Right is just a label too, then I judged them, just as you do. You basically said the left just spews cookie-cutter garbage and then you tried to claim the moral high ground because you're deluded into thinking you don't categorize the opposition negatively. Only people who waiver in their beliefs would be so offended by my statements. Man you post some ridiculous shit. Your source-less bullshit and extreme bias are what offends me. I guess plenty of us seem like the 'regressive left' when you're this far right. So what do you disagree with? Do you deny that the Left routinely uses the terms racist, sexist, bigot, etc when attacking the Right? Do you think that the use of those terms at their current frequency is warranted? I don't think anyone can reasonably debate that the Democrat Party's political playbook is largely based upon these tactics and the use of identity politics. I would certainly dispute that the Democratic Party largely operates based on calling people racists, sexists, etc. it might look that way because they just finished an election in which those were especially relevant topics, but that's to do with who they were running sgainst more than anything else. I mean I'm sure you can find some articles from somewhere or other in 2012 accusing Romney of sexism or something, but for the most part that campaign wasn't about race, sex, or xenophobia. But Donald Trump has a storied history with race. His campaign was built heavily on fearmongering about various types of foreigners. And if you can honestly look at the things Donald Trump has said to and about women and say the Democrats are just imagining he has a problem there, you're nowhere near the cool, detached analyst you seem to consider yourself. So yeah, Democrats used those words a lot. They applied. And they thought (wrongly, in retrospect) that Americans would consider those qualities deal-breakers in a president. So why do you think that the attacks did not work this time around? And for extra credit, what do you think my answer to that question is? A lot of reasons. One of the bigger ones is that conservatives have been poisoning the well on any "politically correct" labels so much that people no longer think of racism or sexism as the great societal evils they are. They just think of it as some nagging liberals whining about something or other. Notably, this makes it so that when people are faced with actual racism, they automatically assume it's not really racism. It's probably tongue-in-cheek, or just meant to protest against PC culture, or something. Thus you get a serious dispute about whether or not the alt-right is racist despite r/altright regularly going full anti-miscegenation (As an aside, I was going to link to some racist r/altright posts as proof but apparently that subreddit got banned). Another decent answer is that it did work in a sense – Donald Trump is the least popular winning candidate in history, after all. If both candidates are that unpopular, it seems reasonable to think both sides' mudslinging landed pretty well. I don't think most people heard much about DT's racism, and xenophobia is usually a bit too convoluted to make a very effective attack, but after the Access Hollywood tape I don't think anybody was about to argue Donald Trump didn't have a women problem. It just wasn't enough to stop his chances (I hesitate to even bring this up because I'm really tired of re-litigating this election, and if LL hears he'll come and say "electable" 20 more times). If I had to guess, I'm guessing you don't think Donald Trump is a racist, and the sexism stuff is overblown. As for "xenophobia," you probably think that's just a pejorative to dismiss legitimate fears about the effects of immigrants on the country. But hey, I don't want to put words in your mouth, feel free to share your reasons why Donald Trump's apparent racism, sexism, and xenophobia are not legitimate reasons to dislike him. First, let me just say that if I am inviting you to guess what I think on something, I'm clearly giving you license to do just that. So don't be shy. As for your answers on the merits, I find it curious that you'd blame conservatives' reception of the charges and their nagging about the use of the charges as opposed to the people actually wielding the charges. I don't think that I have seen one interview of a Trump a voter where the voter said something corroborating your explanation for why the charges didn't work against Trump. What I have seen, however, are many, many interviews of Trump voters who said that they were tired of the Left throwing around the charges so freely and simply didn't care about them anymore. It's a simple case of the boy who cried wolf too many times. And we're back where we started. Did "the left" really cry wolf too often, or did "the right" pick a few minority members out of a large crowd of "lefties" (and probably different minority members each time, see Christians' valid point about the "ambiguous they" argument) and repeatedly pointed at them to say "look, the left is crying wolf again"? Because there are indeed fringe feminists who have gone off the deep end. And some of the people claiming allegiance to BLM have gone and done some stupid shit. And there are college kids rightfully being ridiculed for their safe spaces. But that doesn't mean "the left" as a collective holds any of those opinions, or has called mainstream conservative thought racist, sexist or xenophobic. I don't think that you can pretend that only fringe elements of the Left and Democrat Party are guilty of this when their presidential candidate talked about the "basket of deplorables" to huge applause from an audience. Let's get real. The proof's in the pudding on this one.
I'd say things had escalated pretty badly before Clinton even pulled the "basket of deplorables" quote, but agree with you that that was a pretty stupid thing to say. Then again, we don't claim all the republicans are out-of-touch plutocrats just because Romney said that 47% of Americans depend on the government and believe they are victims.
But you may be right if we look at only the context of the elections, that Hillary lost all support from working class white Americans when she started talking about a basket of deplorables.
However, there's a fairly important caveat (and that goes for Romney's remark too, btw). There's a kernel of truth to it. 538 did a good article about Clinton's remark at the time: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/putting-hillarys-basket-of-deplorables-in-context/ Not that it really matters, because the way Clinton said it, there were far too many people who thought "hey, that woman just called me deplorable", while I don't think Clinton would actually think that person was deplorable at all when we get right down to it (although who knows, maybe she's just as out-of-touch and does believe that 20% of Americans are deplorable people).
And just for the record, here is Forbes on Romney's remark: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2013/12/19/romney-was-wrong-about-the-47-percent-the-problem-is-much-worse/#997f2436c1f8
|
On February 04 2017 00:13 pmh wrote:http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/02/technology/snapchat-ipo-filing/index.htmlValuation 25b for the whole. Most overvalued ipo I have seen since twitter. They have no business model other then selling adds,they have to sell 10 times as many adds as today while keeping the same cost of revenue and it would still be overvalued. Facebook is similar,also very overpriced now. Dot com bubble 2.0 is here.
Dotcom 2.0 has been here for a while. It's not nearly as dramatic as the first, but a lot of these companies are absurdly overpriced and without a genuine path forward into the future.
The best thing about stocks, though, is that you can cash out well before the company tanks and end up a billionaire for it.
|
On February 04 2017 00:22 oneofthem wrote:
uh the clinton team bent over backwards for bernie. it is just rather difficult for the witch to change the minds of the hunters
Of all the ways to characterize the opposition to Hillary, a witch hunt has to be one of the most disingenuous.
She made very surface-level and symbolic concessions while giving every indication that she planned to change nothing substantial. People had every right to think she didn't earn their vote.
|
On February 03 2017 23:36 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 23:25 ChristianS wrote:On February 03 2017 22:56 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2017 17:33 bardtown wrote:On February 03 2017 17:19 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 03 2017 16:47 bardtown wrote:On February 03 2017 16:14 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Lets cut the crap. The right uses terms till they've lost all meaning as well. Leftist, Liberal, Socialist, Regressive Left, Communist, SJW, Cuck, Libcuck, Fascist, etc. Let's not pretend only one side throws around words as insults until they're impotent. He mentioned specific terms. I responded regarding those terms. Stop being so pitifully defensive and acknowledge the problem rather than immediately crying 'but they do it too!' Have you entertained the idea that racism was much more widespread than you think and that the GOP operating its con on the basis of racial resentment, it is kind of normal to see those words flying a lot? I sincerely think that without the prism of racial tensions, american politics would make no sense at all. Now, I have seen the usual suspects here arguing that black people were natirally more prone to violent behaviour (cuz you know they are black) and then defending themselves from being racist. Racist is an overused word. But it is also way too quickly dimissed when used for very good reasons as "PC" attacks. I am a direct recipient of this behaviour because I am a vocal supporter of Brexit. You cannot imagine how many times I have been called a racist in the past 6 months or so, and I see exactly the same behaviour in the US. Have you ever entertained the idea that racism might be much less widespread than you think, and that people simply don't like illegal immigration, incompatible value systems and violent crime - regardless of their source? Many of these people voted Obama for 8 years. It's heartening to know both sides of the lake got it just as bad. It's like fuel to the fire--if you want to play this way, we'll turn you out at the ballot box, and read all the "Racism Won" columns the next day. Then we can settle down for a lovely game of "Who poisoned the debate first?" Also, "you cannot imagine the number of people that have called me a racist in the past 6 months" is the inception of "the Left does this." It's hard to give credence to "we're not all like that" arguments when it features so prominently in anti-strong southern border debate. Only xenophobes and racists would support that (Mostly or primary driving force behind it, if you prefer). Pardon me, but is it (1) a true statement on its face or (2) something a small minority of the left believes? Yes, I've been called both dumb for not accepting (1) and trying to slander a giant movement for (2) and it gets confusing after a while. A common characteristic of "ambiguous they" arguments is a focus on what the recipient has experienced without talking about who, specifically, is responsible. This is most easily done with the passive voice (I've been called...). The point is, sure, there are people who will say you're racist if you move into a cheap apartment in your city. But most people were talking about shit like "Mexicans are rapists" or the Central Park Five. Then people like you say because some people use them overbroadly, terms like "racist" just shouldn't be used. That's only a sensible response if actual racism ceased to exist in the world. It hasn't. I'm trying to lay some groundwork here. Would a self-respecting thread leftist say the primary motivation for supporting a strong southern border/border wall is irrational xenophobia and racism? Or, more often than not, is this just GOP members trumping up regional or minority Democrat voices because it's nowhere a typical Left judgment (maybe a defining one tbh)? Now you're a little famous for attempting generalizations with explanations of what Trump voters say and do. So moving beyond the whos and hows of neutered racism/sexism language, do you impute irrational fear/hatred/"phobia" to the viewpoint and is the former just as fair a generalization as you feel your latest "Trumpists" and bad faith speech was?
I think there is a confusion in this discussion, because we are mixing up racism and xenophobia. One has to admit the terms are indeed often mixed up, and although they often go together, they can come from different places.
Is the Trump phenomenon surfing, exploiting and creating xenophobia? That's just a fact. Xenophobia is the fear of strangers. Because apparently, the biggest threat to the united states that is worth banning a whole faith are muslim terrorists (they killed less people than toddlers in 2015 and 2016), and the mexicans are sending rapists and bad hombre and it's urgent to close the border. When you ask his supporters if you should bomb an imaginary city with an arab name, they love the idea.
Then you realize that his big project that gives a huge hard on to his supporters, building a Big, Dumb Wall, is extraordinarily costly and doesn't contribute to anything, since the vast majority of illegal immigrants fly witha tourist visa, and the irrationality of the whole thing gives you a hint of why people support that mind bogglingly stupid project.
Now, that's not to say all his supporters are hardcore racists. Just that his core message is built on xenophobia.
Brexit is the same. I know people who voted Brexit because they didn't think that Brussels worked well and didn't like the project. Fair enough. But that's not how the thing was sold. The thing was sold with the idea that there are too many brown people, and we don't like them too much, because they are not really as good as us, because they can't integrate and have "fundamentally different values", bla bla, all the usual bullshit. I was in London during the campaign, and that's basically all there were to it.
Do I think voting Brexit makes you a racist? No? Do I think Brexit was sold on a toxic and xenophobic message. Of course.
|
On February 04 2017 00:34 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2017 00:22 oneofthem wrote:
uh the clinton team bent over backwards for bernie. it is just rather difficult for the witch to change the minds of the hunters Of all the ways to characterize the opposition to Hillary, a witch hunt has to be one of the most disingenuous. She made very surface-level and symbolic concessions while giving every indication that she planned to change nothing substantial. People had every right to think she didn't earn their vote.
I think on the opposite that it describes it very accurately.
Considering the little scrutiny that has been given to Trump real scandals, I don't see any other way to talk about the way non-scandals such as the Clinton Foundation have been treated.
Let's be clear, Clinton problem was not that her scandals were terrible. Trump University, the Trump Foundation and so on dwarf everything substantial one could have against Clinton. Her problem was really that people didn't like her, because she is a powerful, established, politician while beings way too hard from what people expect from a woman. Had she been an elderly dude, the immense distrust she inspires wouldn't have been there.
Reverse the genders, and have Trump being a sleazy elderly female billionaire talking about grabing men by the cock, and you get a picture of why people talk about a witch hunt.
|
On February 03 2017 23:36 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 23:25 ChristianS wrote:On February 03 2017 22:56 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2017 17:33 bardtown wrote:On February 03 2017 17:19 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 03 2017 16:47 bardtown wrote:On February 03 2017 16:14 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Lets cut the crap. The right uses terms till they've lost all meaning as well. Leftist, Liberal, Socialist, Regressive Left, Communist, SJW, Cuck, Libcuck, Fascist, etc. Let's not pretend only one side throws around words as insults until they're impotent. He mentioned specific terms. I responded regarding those terms. Stop being so pitifully defensive and acknowledge the problem rather than immediately crying 'but they do it too!' Have you entertained the idea that racism was much more widespread than you think and that the GOP operating its con on the basis of racial resentment, it is kind of normal to see those words flying a lot? I sincerely think that without the prism of racial tensions, american politics would make no sense at all. Now, I have seen the usual suspects here arguing that black people were natirally more prone to violent behaviour (cuz you know they are black) and then defending themselves from being racist. Racist is an overused word. But it is also way too quickly dimissed when used for very good reasons as "PC" attacks. I am a direct recipient of this behaviour because I am a vocal supporter of Brexit. You cannot imagine how many times I have been called a racist in the past 6 months or so, and I see exactly the same behaviour in the US. Have you ever entertained the idea that racism might be much less widespread than you think, and that people simply don't like illegal immigration, incompatible value systems and violent crime - regardless of their source? Many of these people voted Obama for 8 years. It's heartening to know both sides of the lake got it just as bad. It's like fuel to the fire--if you want to play this way, we'll turn you out at the ballot box, and read all the "Racism Won" columns the next day. Then we can settle down for a lovely game of "Who poisoned the debate first?" Also, "you cannot imagine the number of people that have called me a racist in the past 6 months" is the inception of "the Left does this." It's hard to give credence to "we're not all like that" arguments when it features so prominently in anti-strong southern border debate. Only xenophobes and racists would support that (Mostly or primary driving force behind it, if you prefer). Pardon me, but is it (1) a true statement on its face or (2) something a small minority of the left believes? Yes, I've been called both dumb for not accepting (1) and trying to slander a giant movement for (2) and it gets confusing after a while. A common characteristic of "ambiguous they" arguments is a focus on what the recipient has experienced without talking about who, specifically, is responsible. This is most easily done with the passive voice (I've been called...). The point is, sure, there are people who will say you're racist if you move into a cheap apartment in your city. But most people were talking about shit like "Mexicans are rapists" or the Central Park Five. Then people like you say because some people use them overbroadly, terms like "racist" just shouldn't be used. That's only a sensible response if actual racism ceased to exist in the world. It hasn't. I'm trying to lay some groundwork here. Would a self-respecting thread leftist say the primary motivation for supporting a strong southern border/border wall is irrational xenophobia and racism? Or, more often than not, is this just GOP members trumping up regional or minority Democrat voices because it's nowhere a typical Left judgment (maybe a defining one tbh)? Now you're a little famous for attempting generalizations with explanations of what Trump voters say and do. So moving beyond the whos and hows of neutered racism/sexism language, do you impute irrational fear/hatred/"phobia" to the viewpoint and is the former just as fair a generalization as you feel your latest "Trumpists" and bad faith speech was?
Woah, I'm famous! Cool!
I should have realized that post was why you've soured on me so suddenly. I guess I should start by saying I didn't mean to paint all of his supporters with a broad brush. I mentioned that Trump supporters often feel disingenuous in their arguments; I should have clarified I mostly see this outside of the thread. A couple of the more infrequent posters (RiK, zeo) sure seem like it. I mentioned in that post that I get that vibe from xDaunt sometimes, although it seems to depend on the day. Worth noting that while I have certsinly disagreed with you, I have never felt that you were being disingenuous in your argument.
I can't speak with certainty about your motivations or those of others, but I will say that supporting a strong border, with or without a wall, is not an innately racist position. I have no reason to believe you're a racist. To the extent it's justified by racial slanders like "Mexico is sending them over to rape our women" then the motivation appears racist, especially considering the crime rate among illegal immigrants is lower than among citizens. When much of the discussion revolves around parading white victims of crimes committed by immigrants and talking about "keeping our country safe," it certainly starts to feel like race is playing a role.
|
On February 04 2017 00:50 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2017 00:34 LegalLord wrote:On February 04 2017 00:22 oneofthem wrote:
uh the clinton team bent over backwards for bernie. it is just rather difficult for the witch to change the minds of the hunters Of all the ways to characterize the opposition to Hillary, a witch hunt has to be one of the most disingenuous. She made very surface-level and symbolic concessions while giving every indication that she planned to change nothing substantial. People had every right to think she didn't earn their vote. I think on the opposite that it describes it very accurately. Considering the little scrutiny that has been given to Trump real scandals, I don't see any other way to talk about the way non-scandals such as the Clinton Foundation have been treated. Let's be clear, Clinton problem was not that her scandals were terrible. Trump University, the Trump Foundation and so on dwarf everything substantial one could have against Clinton. Her problem was really that people didn't like her, because she is a powerful, established, politician while beings way too hard from what people expect from a woman. Had she been an elderly dude, the immense distrust she inspires wouldn't have been there. Reverse the genders, and have Trump being a sleazy elderly female billionaire talking about grabing men by the cock, and you get a picture of why people talk about a witch hunt.
No Clinton's scale was far larger than Trump's.
Clinton jeopardized national security while Trump's magnitude is quarantined to himself and his brand only and he even settled to pay off people. The damage was very minimal to what Clinton's scandals are.
And stop being sexist.
People would gladly vote for a women like in Germany or South Korea but the woman have to show the ability to handle the job in which Hillary is incapable of.
|
On February 04 2017 01:05 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2017 00:50 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 04 2017 00:34 LegalLord wrote:On February 04 2017 00:22 oneofthem wrote:
uh the clinton team bent over backwards for bernie. it is just rather difficult for the witch to change the minds of the hunters Of all the ways to characterize the opposition to Hillary, a witch hunt has to be one of the most disingenuous. She made very surface-level and symbolic concessions while giving every indication that she planned to change nothing substantial. People had every right to think she didn't earn their vote. I think on the opposite that it describes it very accurately. Considering the little scrutiny that has been given to Trump real scandals, I don't see any other way to talk about the way non-scandals such as the Clinton Foundation have been treated. Let's be clear, Clinton problem was not that her scandals were terrible. Trump University, the Trump Foundation and so on dwarf everything substantial one could have against Clinton. Her problem was really that people didn't like her, because she is a powerful, established, politician while beings way too hard from what people expect from a woman. Had she been an elderly dude, the immense distrust she inspires wouldn't have been there. Reverse the genders, and have Trump being a sleazy elderly female billionaire talking about grabing men by the cock, and you get a picture of why people talk about a witch hunt. No Clinton's scale was far larger than Trump's. Clinton jeopardized national security while Trump's magnitude is quarantined to himself and his brand only and he even settled to pay off people. The damage was very minimal to what Clinton's scandals are.
Speaking of jeopardizing national security, is Trump still communicating presidential business with an off-the-shelf Android phone?
|
On February 04 2017 01:05 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2017 00:50 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 04 2017 00:34 LegalLord wrote:On February 04 2017 00:22 oneofthem wrote:
uh the clinton team bent over backwards for bernie. it is just rather difficult for the witch to change the minds of the hunters Of all the ways to characterize the opposition to Hillary, a witch hunt has to be one of the most disingenuous. She made very surface-level and symbolic concessions while giving every indication that she planned to change nothing substantial. People had every right to think she didn't earn their vote. I think on the opposite that it describes it very accurately. Considering the little scrutiny that has been given to Trump real scandals, I don't see any other way to talk about the way non-scandals such as the Clinton Foundation have been treated. Let's be clear, Clinton problem was not that her scandals were terrible. Trump University, the Trump Foundation and so on dwarf everything substantial one could have against Clinton. Her problem was really that people didn't like her, because she is a powerful, established, politician while beings way too hard from what people expect from a woman. Had she been an elderly dude, the immense distrust she inspires wouldn't have been there. Reverse the genders, and have Trump being a sleazy elderly female billionaire talking about grabing men by the cock, and you get a picture of why people talk about a witch hunt. No Clinton's scale was far larger than Trump's. Clinton jeopardized national security while Trump's magnitude is quarantined to himself and his brand only and he even settled to pay off people. The damage was very minimal to what Clinton's scandals are. And stop being sexist. People would gladly vote for a women like in Germany or South Korea but the woman have to show the ability to handle the job in which Hillary is incapable of.
Does the man have to show the ability to handle the job? Because you seem to have forgotten that requirement with Donald Trump.
|
I continue to think that the best avenue forward for Dems is to attack Trump and his nominees and many of his plans as incompetent and ill-thought out. He took a big favorability hit on pretty much every tracking poll, even Rasmussen, after the country-of-origin ban despite metrics some places showing a pretty even split on the concept of the ban.
I can only assume those favorability hits are people goggling at how badly he fucked up implementation. And given how many people have left the executive I doubt his "executing" is going to get any better.
It's easy to dismiss stories about your racism as fake news. It's harder to dismiss stories about how poorly thought out your entire policy was.
|
On February 04 2017 01:09 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2017 01:05 RealityIsKing wrote:On February 04 2017 00:50 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 04 2017 00:34 LegalLord wrote:On February 04 2017 00:22 oneofthem wrote:
uh the clinton team bent over backwards for bernie. it is just rather difficult for the witch to change the minds of the hunters Of all the ways to characterize the opposition to Hillary, a witch hunt has to be one of the most disingenuous. She made very surface-level and symbolic concessions while giving every indication that she planned to change nothing substantial. People had every right to think she didn't earn their vote. I think on the opposite that it describes it very accurately. Considering the little scrutiny that has been given to Trump real scandals, I don't see any other way to talk about the way non-scandals such as the Clinton Foundation have been treated. Let's be clear, Clinton problem was not that her scandals were terrible. Trump University, the Trump Foundation and so on dwarf everything substantial one could have against Clinton. Her problem was really that people didn't like her, because she is a powerful, established, politician while beings way too hard from what people expect from a woman. Had she been an elderly dude, the immense distrust she inspires wouldn't have been there. Reverse the genders, and have Trump being a sleazy elderly female billionaire talking about grabing men by the cock, and you get a picture of why people talk about a witch hunt. No Clinton's scale was far larger than Trump's. Clinton jeopardized national security while Trump's magnitude is quarantined to himself and his brand only and he even settled to pay off people. The damage was very minimal to what Clinton's scandals are. And stop being sexist. People would gladly vote for a women like in Germany or South Korea but the woman have to show the ability to handle the job in which Hillary is incapable of. Does the man have to show the ability to handle the job? Because you seem to have forgotten that requirement with Donald Trump.
Absolutely, man actually went out and created jobs in his lifetime.
Plus his stamina is amazing, Clinton couldn't campaign as much as him and was fainting all over the place.
User was warned for this post
|
On February 04 2017 01:05 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2017 00:50 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 04 2017 00:34 LegalLord wrote:On February 04 2017 00:22 oneofthem wrote:
uh the clinton team bent over backwards for bernie. it is just rather difficult for the witch to change the minds of the hunters Of all the ways to characterize the opposition to Hillary, a witch hunt has to be one of the most disingenuous. She made very surface-level and symbolic concessions while giving every indication that she planned to change nothing substantial. People had every right to think she didn't earn their vote. I think on the opposite that it describes it very accurately. Considering the little scrutiny that has been given to Trump real scandals, I don't see any other way to talk about the way non-scandals such as the Clinton Foundation have been treated. Let's be clear, Clinton problem was not that her scandals were terrible. Trump University, the Trump Foundation and so on dwarf everything substantial one could have against Clinton. Her problem was really that people didn't like her, because she is a powerful, established, politician while beings way too hard from what people expect from a woman. Had she been an elderly dude, the immense distrust she inspires wouldn't have been there. Reverse the genders, and have Trump being a sleazy elderly female billionaire talking about grabing men by the cock, and you get a picture of why people talk about a witch hunt. No Clinton's scale was far larger than Trump's. Clinton jeopardized national security while Trump's magnitude is quarantined to himself and his brand only and he even settled to pay off people. The damage was very minimal to what Clinton's scandals are. And stop being sexist. People would gladly vote for a women like in Germany or South Korea but the woman have to show the ability to handle the job in which Hillary is incapable of.
There is no proof Clinton ever jeopardized anything and you know it as well as I do. Several politicians have been using private servers, and that hasn't made the news for a year. If you think that using a private server is worse than, say, crooking thousand of vulnerable young people or engaging in open bribery, as is PROVEn in the case of Trump, you have weird morals.
I am sure americans could elect a woman. What I am saying is that it's 100 times harder to get a good image and people are WAY more unforgiving if you are not a man.
Again, answer me: do you think that if Trump was a woman, he would have got away with lewd comments about "grabbing men by the cock", and his general uber vulgar and generally morally flawed behaviour? Let's be serious a second, he (she in that case) would have scored 10%.
Also if Hillary, probably the most experienced politician to ever run for the White House, was inequipped to be POTUS, I'd love to hear your thought on the amazingly amateurish way Trump is doing his job right now. He runs the government with the efficiency of a teenager running a sandwich stand.
|
On February 04 2017 01:13 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2017 01:05 RealityIsKing wrote:On February 04 2017 00:50 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 04 2017 00:34 LegalLord wrote:On February 04 2017 00:22 oneofthem wrote:
uh the clinton team bent over backwards for bernie. it is just rather difficult for the witch to change the minds of the hunters Of all the ways to characterize the opposition to Hillary, a witch hunt has to be one of the most disingenuous. She made very surface-level and symbolic concessions while giving every indication that she planned to change nothing substantial. People had every right to think she didn't earn their vote. I think on the opposite that it describes it very accurately. Considering the little scrutiny that has been given to Trump real scandals, I don't see any other way to talk about the way non-scandals such as the Clinton Foundation have been treated. Let's be clear, Clinton problem was not that her scandals were terrible. Trump University, the Trump Foundation and so on dwarf everything substantial one could have against Clinton. Her problem was really that people didn't like her, because she is a powerful, established, politician while beings way too hard from what people expect from a woman. Had she been an elderly dude, the immense distrust she inspires wouldn't have been there. Reverse the genders, and have Trump being a sleazy elderly female billionaire talking about grabing men by the cock, and you get a picture of why people talk about a witch hunt. No Clinton's scale was far larger than Trump's. Clinton jeopardized national security while Trump's magnitude is quarantined to himself and his brand only and he even settled to pay off people. The damage was very minimal to what Clinton's scandals are. And stop being sexist. People would gladly vote for a women like in Germany or South Korea but the woman have to show the ability to handle the job in which Hillary is incapable of. There is no proof Clinton ever jeopardized anything and you know it as well as I do. Several politicians have been using private servers, and that hasn't made the news for a year. I am sure americans could elect a woman. What I am saying is that it's 100 times harder to get a good image and people are WAY more unforgiving if you are not a man. Again, answer me: do you think that if Trump was a woman, he would have got away with lewd comments about "grabbing men by the cock", and his general uber vulgar and generally morally flawed behaviour? Let's be serious a second, he (she in that case) would have scored 10%.
If he was a women and said that, all the DNC influenced mainstream medias would be applauding her, you'll have all those comedian hosts saying how Mrs. Trump is a strong independent woman who just want to express her sexuality in a "white patriarchy world" because right now the hot thing to do is to demonize white heterosexual males.
|
Remember Donny...it's only your voters who caused this war, not the rest of us.
|
On February 04 2017 00:50 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2017 00:34 LegalLord wrote:On February 04 2017 00:22 oneofthem wrote:
uh the clinton team bent over backwards for bernie. it is just rather difficult for the witch to change the minds of the hunters Of all the ways to characterize the opposition to Hillary, a witch hunt has to be one of the most disingenuous. She made very surface-level and symbolic concessions while giving every indication that she planned to change nothing substantial. People had every right to think she didn't earn their vote. I think on the opposite that it describes it very accurately. Considering the little scrutiny that has been given to Trump real scandals, I don't see any other way to talk about the way non-scandals such as the Clinton Foundation have been treated. Let's be clear, Clinton problem was not that her scandals were terrible. Trump University, the Trump Foundation and so on dwarf everything substantial one could have against Clinton. Her problem was really that people didn't like her, because she is a powerful, established, politician while beings way too hard from what people expect from a woman. Had she been an elderly dude, the immense distrust she inspires wouldn't have been there. Reverse the genders, and have Trump being a sleazy elderly female billionaire talking about grabing men by the cock, and you get a picture of why people talk about a witch hunt.
People didn't like her because she was unlikable, you can theorize the rest to fit your narrative tho.
No man or woman outside of Trump could have won an election with grab em by the pussy comments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
