Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
bmags

2017 Democratic Thread

Recommended Posts

QUOTE (raBBit @ Feb 20, 2017 -> 02:45 PM)
Thankfully public opinion considers more than your own. You brought up him being on Maher legitimizing him. I brought up the fact that he was only on Maher because his notoriety was emboldened by all the socialist millenials.

And emboldening him means standing up to him actively ruining people's lives for no other reason than them being transgender, a minority, or a female game designer.

 

Well I guess those groups don't count as people so they don't deserve to be defended against actual threats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (raBBit @ Feb 20, 2017 -> 02:58 PM)
I am referring to the current state of affairs where everyone is a racist and the inability to accept any conservative appointments by the President because of their party. Anyone who doesn't agree with left POV hates poor people, lives in a bubble, has white privilege, is sexist, loves nazis and of course and uniformly, is a racist. Never mind the fact that this is the best country in the world that offers more opportunity to any sort of segmented minority.

 

If someone doesnt fit into your particular view of the "current state of affairs", where do they belong?

 

Asking for a friend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (raBBit @ Feb 20, 2017 -> 03:08 PM)
If your life gets ruined by someone's words that on you. The type of feeble minded people who get their lives ruined by words were never going to amount to anything anyways.

 

I am pretty sure Yiannopolous is the one getting death threats that the FBI is investigating. I am pretty sure the people that are against Yiannopolous are the ones tearing up communities. But to your point, I am sure this scant, gay, jewish man from England who is clad in jewelry and hair dye is going to lead an army murdering transgender people, minorities and a female game designer.

 

This is the stuff we need to be outraged about! Not the crippling debt, not the perpetual war, not the fact that that the land of the free incarcerates more people than any country in the world, not the fact that our government is compromised and has no regard for the American people's wishes, we need to direct our attention at a little mischievous gay man who talks s*** about trangsgenders, awful actors and a female game designer.

 

Sheep.

 

I understand that you are angry, but why do you keep referring to Milo as Jewish? Hes a Catholic. Just because he says he maybe had a Jewish grandmother doesnt make him a Jew.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.salon.com/2017/01/11/sorry-trum...-exist-anymore/

 

We've been over this territory numerous times.

 

Trump isn't bringing "good jobs" back...right now, there are hundreds of thousands of unfilled service jobs that Trump voters look down their noses at. Who do those jobs go to now? Largely legal and some illegal immigrants...just like the value-added tech jobs are mostly going to Indian and Chinese H1B visa holders who are asked to work for 50 cents on the dollar (this one not KW's doing). They have better STEM educations and are willing to work 2-3x as hard.

 

So opportunities will be there under Trump, just not for the people he promised or those who largely voted for him in the Rust Belt. Only the huge MNC's and Top 10% will continue to thrive (and see their investment income skyrocket.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (raBBit @ Feb 20, 2017 -> 05:08 PM)
If your life gets ruined by someone's words that on you. The type of feeble minded people who get their lives ruined by words were never going to amount to anything anyways. I am assuming we're talking about adults at least.

 

I am pretty sure Yiannopolous is the one getting death threats that the FBI is investigating. I am pretty sure the people that are against Yiannopolous are the ones tearing up communities. But to your point, I am sure this scant, gay, jewish man from England who is clad in jewelry and hair dye is going to lead an army murdering transgender people, minorities and a female game designer.

 

This is the stuff we need to be outraged about! Not the crippling debt, not the perpetual war, not the fact that that the land of the free incarcerates more people than any country in the world, not the fact that our government is compromised and has no regard for the American people's wishes, we need to direct our attention at a little mischievous gay man who talks s*** about trangsgenders, awful actors and a female game designer.

 

Sheep.

The bolded is complete and utter bulls***. Let's take the specific example in this case. First and foremost, I'm going to ignore the fact that you seem to think he's unimportant when the President of the United States has tweeted about him personally and when he's editor of the "news source" that the President's closest advisor runs, which makes him newsworthy anyway, but let's just focus on the specific sequence.

 

In December, this person stood up on stage, published personal information about a transgendered person at the University of Wisconsin. After that, although we don't have all the details, some combination of identity theft and threats happened to that person. That person was forced to leave the University of Wisconsin.

 

He has found a creative way around the law. It's illegal to yell fire in a crowded room, but he's realized that if he yells the "Fi" and has 10,000 people trained to yell the "RE" part, then he will not be prosecuted for encouraging a riot and when there are 10,000 people who each commit a small portion of the crime, law enforcement agencies will be overwhelmed and unable to prosecute.

 

He is actually hurting people and this is his schtick. It isn't just this case, that's one example, go all the way back to GamerGate and that was his thing - outing people who he believes deserves to be hurt. Hell, that's his literal defense against being labeled a pedophile today, "I'm not a pedophile, I outed people who were pedophiles!"

 

In this thread you have stated "The guy's notoriety has blown up because of young liberal's inability to allow people with differing opinions freedom of speech because the guy is, by their account, a Nazi." In other words, you believe it is a problem when people actually stand up against someone DOING ACTUAL HARM to the lives of people. The problem you choose to call out is not that he is actually hurting people, it's that people stand up and say they don't want harm done to people.

 

A few posts later you then state "Never understood the American ideal of supporting one party and compromising my beliefs on certain issues because of my affiliation to a party and social club." Ok, great. So why exactly did he get your attention other than him being a part of a social club that you felt compelled to defend? Either you had to wait until the person in your social club was hurt or you do not consider the people he hurt before that to be worth your defense.

 

You had nothing to say when he was going around actually hurting people, but the moment his right to paid speaking engagements at a university where he has demonstrated he will actually hurt people in that community was violated, you stepped in to say how inappropriate it was. You were ok with him hurting people as long as the groups he was hurting were not powerful enough for you to be forced to pay attention to it. You criticize a guy for going on Maher's show when Maher said other things and then getting outraged here. Your point is arguably correct. But then you criticize sheep on the left for actually stepping in to defend people who don't have the power to defend themselves. So why is this person worthy of your defense when a person outed for being transgender is not? Why is it such an outrage to you that a community like UC Berkeley would actually step forwards and defend the rights of their underprivileged students to not be harmed, but it isn't an outrage to you when he actually does harm to them in a way that cannot currently be prosecuted?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Milo's only gaining from all this attention, right Rabbit?

 

Oh wait... CPAC and his publisher both just ditched him... Huh. But no, you're right, it's just my vendetta against you that leads me to call you out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 20, 2017 -> 05:26 PM)
The bolded is complete and utter bulls***. Let's take the specific example in this case. First and foremost, I'm going to ignore the fact that you seem to think he's unimportant when the President of the United States has tweeted about him personally and when he's editor of the "news source" that the President's closest advisor runs, which makes him newsworthy anyway, but let's just focus on the specific sequence.

 

In December, this person stood up on stage, published personal information about a transgendered person at the University of Wisconsin. After that, although we don't have all the details, some combination of identity theft and threats happened to that person. That person was forced to leave the University of Wisconsin.

 

He has found a creative way around the law. It's illegal to yell fire in a crowded room, but he's realized that if he yells the "Fi" and has 10,000 people trained to yell the "RE" part, then he will not be prosecuted for encouraging a riot and when there are 10,000 people who each commit a small portion of the crime, law enforcement agencies will be overwhelmed and unable to prosecute.

 

He is actually hurting people and this is his schtick. It isn't just this case, that's one example, go all the way back to GamerGate and that was his thing - outing people who he believes deserves to be hurt. Hell, that's his literal defense against being labeled a pedophile today, "I'm not a pedophile, I outed people who were pedophiles!"

 

In this thread you have stated "The guy's notoriety has blown up because of young liberal's inability to allow people with differing opinions freedom of speech because the guy is, by their account, a Nazi." In other words, you believe it is a problem when people actually stand up against someone DOING ACTUAL HARM to the lives of people. The problem you choose to call out is not that he is actually hurting people, it's that people stand up and say they don't want harm done to people.

 

A few posts later you then state "Never understood the American ideal of supporting one party and compromising my beliefs on certain issues because of my affiliation to a party and social club." Ok, great. So why exactly did he get your attention other than him being a part of a social club that you felt compelled to defend? Either you had to wait until the person in your social club was hurt or you do not consider the people he hurt before that to be worth your defense.

 

You had nothing to say when he was going around actually hurting people, but the moment his right to paid speaking engagements at a university where he has demonstrated he will actually hurt people in that community was violated, you stepped in to say how inappropriate it was. You were ok with him hurting people as long as the groups he was hurting were not powerful enough for you to be forced to pay attention to it. You criticize a guy for going on Maher's show when Maher said other things and then getting outraged here. Your point is arguably correct. But then you criticize sheep on the left for actually stepping in to defend people who don't have the power to defend themselves. So why is this person worthy of your defense when a person outed for being transgender is not? Why is it such an outrage to you that a community like UC Berkeley would actually step forwards and defend the rights of their underprivileged students to not be harmed, but it isn't an outrage to you when he actually does harm to them in a way that cannot currently be prosecuted?

 

 

I'm not sure that should be construed as a compliment, although I suppose it was intended to validate him in a way.

 

For example, Tomi Lahren has "blown up" in the last 18 months, but what are the reasons? Well, she's blonde, fairly attractive and can sometimes come across as halfway articulate about the world of politics, but is that what our world is actually coming to...that our standards have fallen so far in terms of expectations of the press/media?

 

At least she's more in the "sheep" category, and it's hard to even accuse her of that, because she's going to make a good amount of money being "used" by the system. It's reciprocal.

 

The same thing applies to Milos or Alex Jones, but in a much more insidious way...in that they're actually dangerous (as pointed out), but they've figured out a way to game the system and come so close to that boundary of being prosecuted (of course, they feel even more protected now with Trump in office)...that they can turn around and cry wolf and use those examples of violence/protest to turn around and raise significant amounts of money in a knee-jerk reaction way (he's being denied his First Amendment rights!)

 

The worst thing for him would be for the crowd to ignore him or listen politely and make not a single comment, or refuse to engage with him...and for no media attention to come about due to that interaction. So it's obvious he's successful at baiting certain groups on college campuses and getting those inflammatory reactions he so craves...which then creates another cycle (rinse and repeat) of being denied the right to speak and then turning around to write another book or fundraise.

 

That's the scary part about any attempt to impeach Trump too early. First, Pence. Second, you have to have the RIGHT case to go forward with, and there's probably 100 different things you could choose, but there's no "smoking gun" as of yet that's compelling enough to get Republicans to cross the aisle. As it stands now, the GOP can use all these protests and town hall disruptions and anti-media conspiracy stuff to fund think tanks for years on end. Of course, so can the the ACLU, so you end up having a state of perpetual warfare and insults being lobbed back and forth, because it sells in the media, more than compromise and working together across party lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/22/politics/dnc...bate/index.html

 

DNC Leadership Council Debate/Contenders...future direction of Democratic Party, and united the two wings

 

Perez appears to be leading, but Ellison (Sanders' bloc) has a large number of votes, maybe both will need the votes of contenders #3-5 to get over the top and win.

 

One of those guys is the mayor of South Bend, IN.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Feb 22, 2017 -> 11:02 PM)
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/22/politics/dnc...bate/index.html

 

DNC Leadership Council Debate/Contenders...future direction of Democratic Party, and united the two wings

 

Perez appears to be leading, but Ellison (Sanders' bloc) has a large number of votes, maybe both will need the votes of contenders #3-5 to get over the top and win.

 

One of those guys is the mayor of South Bend, IN.

 

I feel like this basically Obama vs. Bernie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Feb 24, 2017 -> 09:40 AM)
Key Question About DNC Race: Why Did White House Recruit Perez to Run Against Ellison?

 

Watch the Democratic Party trip and fall over itself.

 

Electing Perez will be such a massive mistake from a PR standpoint. I cannot comprehend why the DNC is so f***ing tone-deaf and clueless.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, ultimately won't mean much to anyone except Bernie voters who think the DNC is like the CIA in power, which is the main reason it should go to Ellison.

 

But, the white house probably pushed for Perez because they like him and he wanted the position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It just seemed like such a smart choice to go with Ellison and they are going to mess it up.

 

That being said, Perez is a million times better than Wasserman Schultz and Brazile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And thankfully they voted to keep large corporate donations. Definitely not tone deaf in any way. Here's to losing more seats in 2018!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol

 

Iowa Pol’s Bio Changed After ‘Sizzler U’ Discrepancy Emerges

by CORKY SIEMASZKO

 

An Iowa lawmaker who is pushing a controversial bill that caps the number of Democrats that state universities can hire as professors claimed on a government website that he got a "business degree" from the "Forbco Management school."

 

But State Sen. Mark Chelgren's alleged alma mater is actually a company that operated a Sizzler steak house franchise in southern California and he doesn't have a "degree," Ed Failor, a spokesman for the Iowa State Republicans, told NBC News.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since it's International Women's Day, remember this famous quote from our President:

 

I moved on her like a b***h. [...] And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab ’em by the p***y.
Edited by BigSqwert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Mar 8, 2017 -> 11:30 AM)
Since it's Internationa Women's Day, remember this famous quote from our President:

 

Since it is Women's Day, let's also remember when the female House Minority Leader used that quote to justify blowjob jokes from Congressmen about female White House staff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×