CrimsonWeltall

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 18, 2016 -> 06:44 PM) yeah great comparison, excellent point. Who knew that the idea of "don't blame women for their own sexual assaults because they went to a party with alcohol (gasp!)" would be so controversial? It's not controversial. It's also not what anyone is arguing about. The argument is whether or not Kasich blamed women for their own sexual assaults in the first place.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Apr 18, 2016 -> 06:04 PM) The exact quote is "Well, I would give you, I'd also like to give one bit of advice. Don't go to parties where there's a lot of alcohol. Ok? Don't do that." I'm not sure that I see where it's clear the message is "don't get totally wasted." But rather "don't put yourself around drunk boys." Fair enough. Not being around drunk boys may be part of it, but I took it as primarily about not getting drunk yourself, or as a general notion that parties with a lot of alcohol are more likely to be dangerous situations.

QUOTE (bmags @ Apr 18, 2016 -> 04:57 PM) No, he's saying that women are smart enough to read that statement by Kasich and see the pervasive attitude that women that participate in social events are by the nature of being there "asking for it". You really believe that John Kasich thinks any women that goes to parties with alcohol are "asking for" rape? That's ignoring the obvious (and charitable) subtext in favor of one that produces maximum outrage.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 18, 2016 -> 05:32 PM) When the advice comes in the form of telling an entire gender not to participate in common social activities rather than focusing on the perpetrators and their behavior, it is victim-blaming. I thought it was pretty clear that the real message was "don't get totally wasted", not simply avoiding parties where alcohol is present.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 18, 2016 -> 05:12 PM) Whether you say it before or after, it's a crap argument that puts the blame for sexual assault on women It doesn't put blame on them at all. It just points out an action that can be taken to help avoid being victimized. Is any advice geared towards crime-avoidance a case of victim-blaming?

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Apr 15, 2016 -> 01:10 PM) Or the worst when people in 'safe' states or places where one sides primary is already decided, can go try and put in the worst candidate for the other side. Thats one reason Trump does so well in open primaries. Is there any evidence showing that Democrats are going out to vote for Trump just so the GOP gets the worst candidate?

QUOTE (Reddy @ Apr 11, 2016 -> 10:12 PM) Pure popular vote is the reason a populist demagogue like Trump has been able to rise to prominence in the GOP. Trump has won 37% of the popular vote in the GOP primaries/caucuses, but 45% of the delegates. Under a popular vote, Donald Trump would be doing worse.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Apr 4, 2016 -> 05:20 PM) I thought it did a great job highlighting just how strong the saviors were and built up the tension for Rick and the group for how screwed they really were. Yeah, they've mostly be schlubs up until now. Then they run into a roadblock of 7 dudes. Then 20 dudes. Then 50 dudes. And it's not even the same dudes. This is an army. QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Apr 4, 2016 -> 05:20 PM) I do agree that I would have much preferred everything to happen. If I were the writers, I'd have all of them "supposedly filming" new scenes just to throw the scent off. I'm sure they can have [victim actor] show up on set and hang out for a bit, but it would be pretty difficult (or at least very labor/money intensive) to do it in a way that actually seems convincing. Like, all the characters actually interacting and performing scenes. And if that was the case, that leak would probably go to the internet as "cliffhanger was bulls*** - none of those characters died", creating a lot of ill will.

QUOTE (Brian @ Apr 4, 2016 -> 05:05 PM) Your loss. I've never found anything mob/mafia related to be even slightly interesting. Just not a genre that does anything for me. Glad it's entertaining for others though.

QUOTE (OmarComing25 @ Apr 4, 2016 -> 04:55 PM) Yeah the Saviors started it all. Plus Rick didn't want another attack on Alexandria like what happened with the Wolves. It was a pre-emptive strike, there's no way he could have known they'd have this many people. But I'm surprised at the overall positive reaction to the cliffhanger here, I thought that was a horrible decision. Really ruined what could have been a great episode, this was their "Red Wedding" moment and they completely blew it. People are going to find out who it is when they start shooting the next season anyway, and having to wait 6 months to see who got the bat ruins a lot of emotional impact the death could have had. Not sure who thought this was a good idea. This cliffhanger decision is going to wreck what is supposed to be one of the most iconic and horrific moments in the series. It didn't take long after the Glenn midseason "death" for images to come out of Steven Yeun filming new scenes and the same thing will happen this time. Hey look, everybody except [victim] is on set filming season 7. I wonder who Negan killed. I enjoyed the rest of the episode with the RV trip though. A lot of people are describing it as boring and repetitive but I thought it ramped up the tension.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Apr 4, 2016 -> 04:46 PM) Honestly, I don't see how any of us could expect anything less. Either way, I thought it was a fantastic episode. I am betting on Glenn / Daryl or my wild card is they kill Rick's son. Before the mystery beating, Negan told his goons that if anyone moved, they should cut out Carl's other eye and feed it to Rick. So I'm confident Rick and Carl are 100% in the clear.

QUOTE (Tony @ Apr 4, 2016 -> 03:09 PM) Also, never watch the Sopranos. I have no interest whatsoever.

QUOTE (Tony @ Apr 4, 2016 -> 03:08 PM) When? Rick and his group made a deal and attacked the Saviors for the Hilltoppers. They made that choice to kill as many of them as possible. If Ricks group wanted be "left in peace", they would have never made that move in the 1st place. The Saviors didn't even know about Rick's group, Rick brought that on his group. The Saviors attacked Sasha, Abe, and Daryl on the road. Daryl was also there when Saviors were hunting Dwight's group. And they know through the Hilltoppers (who are reasonably trustworthy and helpful) that the Saviors are aggressive and in the area. There's no chance Alexandria wouldn't have been found. Rick's miscalculation was thinking that a pre-emptive strike on that satellite building would kill all the Saviors, when they apparently have HUNDREDS more dudes and satellite intelligence and construction vehicles.

QUOTE (Tony @ Apr 4, 2016 -> 04:42 AM) Man, safest and least creative finale ever. Will they ever surprise the viewers again? They should just flip the script and make Negan the anti-hero we all root for. Our "heros" brought this all on themselves by attacking the Saviors first, and Rick's dumb decisions are hair pulling. They basically deserved this. Negan looks and feels like a total bad-ass, make us root for him. Why would anyone root for murderous thieves? And it was the Saviors who attacked first, and remained a threat of attacking again. Rick's group just wants to be left in peace. They made an aggressive move, but they're not the aggressors.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 31, 2016 -> 10:07 PM) I will leave it with this thought. The two examples we have of the government being involved in health care are medicare and the VA. And Medicaid.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Mar 31, 2016 -> 06:22 PM) Does the healthcare I get for that 2.2% cover everything that my current plan covers? Yes but your doctor is now Bernie Sanders.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Mar 31, 2016 -> 04:12 PM) No, see in that example the Bernie Sanders headline would be "Sanders wants to raise taxes" without qualifying that he only means to the rich. After all, that's his policy that's he stated, so why the need for context? Well he doesn't only mean to the rich. AFAIK, Sanders' tax plan increases taxes on a lot of people. It just hits the rich the most. The point of my example was that reporting on a topic doesn't require explicitly excluding crazy s*** just so to prevent people from jumping to crazy conclusions. The reporting on Trump's statements would cause any reasonable person to believe he was in favor of making abortion illegal and that includes legal punishments for women. And that was true. The only potentially unfair thing I could see about the reporting would be if it caused people to believe that Trump supported punishments in 100% of abortions, when his actual position included some exceptions for rape, incest, and the mother's life.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Mar 31, 2016 -> 04:01 PM) 1) Abortion is barbaric. Odd how you have that flipped around, but whatever, I respectfully disagree with your position without calling it garbage. 2) Look who is leading the polls. I don't think "everyone" takes those headlines with the appropriate context or understanding that he doesn't mean today, regardless of the law, nor do I think the media wrote them in that way so people would understand the context. They wanted the "Trump wants to punish women! He's anti-female!" reaction, and they got it. 2) All the full articles I read on Trump's gaffe gave the full conversation with Trump supporting an abortion ban and saying that it would include punishments for women. Trump does want to punish women for abortion and is anti-female...so I'm not sure how the media is doing anything wrong there.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Mar 31, 2016 -> 03:50 PM) I appear to have a similar policy position as him. I'd like abortions to be more illegal than they are, and if/when that happens, i'd like women to be punished for obtaining them in most cases. Yet, as we sit here today, it is not true that I want to punish women for having an abortion that is legally allowed. I DO if/when abortions becomes illegal, but I do not at present. You guys are making a leap in his position, which he may ultimately agree with, but he didn't say that in that interview and it wasn't reported accurately. He explicitly said in that interview that he wanted abortions banned. Moreover, in any interview with politicians, you can infer that they're talking about legal changes they desire to make. When Bernie Sanders says he wants the rich to be taxed more, you can infer that he's talking about changing tax laws to increase the tax rates on the rich. You don't assume he's talking about IRS agents illegally mugging rich people and snatching benjamins out of their wallets. The only leap being made here is by you.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Mar 31, 2016 -> 02:37 PM) Yes, of course people think that Trump wants to punish women who get abortions, regardless of the law. Hence why he had to back track with a statement yesterday. No, he backtracked because the position is extremely unpopular, even to pro-life people, as noted by HickoryHuskers and many pro-life groups. I haven't heard of a single person (outside of those looking to make excuses for Trump) who took the interpretation that Trump wanted to illegally round up women. And if we're really saying that Trump is so bonkers that his policy positions could mean breaking the rule of law and that he wants some kind of secret police force to arrest women on non-existent laws, then we're basically declaring it impossible to contextualize his statements. Trump wants Mexico to build the wall? Whoa whoa whoa, you forgot to mention that he wants to put some kind of trade pressure on them to get them to do it. If you don't mention that, people might think he wants to invade Mexico and enslave their population and have the slave Mexicans build the wall! QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Mar 31, 2016 -> 02:37 PM) The whole discussion was premised on the fact that abortion gets outlawed and that women would therefore be doing something illegal. I'm not sure how ignoring that isn't a huge, huge problem. It's not being ignored; it was taken as a given because it was already known he wants it to be illegal. Your defense only makes sense if the hypothetical was in contradiction to his preferred policy. I want the 35 mph major road near my house to be a 45 mph zone. If I was asked if someone should get a ticket for going well over 35, I'd say yes because that's the law right now. Now, if someone quoted me saying only "Crimson wants people to get tickets for people speeding over 35", THAT technically true statement would be misleading because it's not being made known that I oppose the 35 mph speed limit to begin with. QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Mar 31, 2016 -> 02:37 PM) Nor do I understand why it's a "garbage" position. If an act is illegal and you commit the act, why shouldn't you be held accountable? Drugs are illegal. We arrest people who use and possess drugs. We don't ignore the low level user and focus only on drug dealers. Driving while drunk is illegal. We don't ignore the driver and charge the person supplying the alcohol. If you take part in an illegal activity, guess what, you should be charged. You're a criminal. That's not a question for me to answer. I don't know if Strange was referring to Trump's punishment-for-women statement or the actual mainstream Republican punishment-for-doctors position. I don't support either one. You'd have to ask HH or most pro-life groups why they like the punishment-for-doctors-only position. To me, it seems to portray women as ignorant idiot victims who got suckered into something, rather than people making a conscious decision for themselves.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 30, 2016 -> 10:37 PM) Trumps position on abortion is garbage but it's the standard conservative position. The standard conservative position is that doctors should be punished; not women. That being said, Trump just released a statement taking exactly that position. That was a very quick flip-flop.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Mar 30, 2016 -> 09:18 PM) Those are still two different positions that you're not articulating in 140 character tweets. They make it seem like, right now, before anything is outlawed, Trump wants to round up women who get abortions and put them in jail. The implication being he does not support the rule of law. How do you not see that as being out of context with what he said? Here's the tweet: re: abortion TRUMP: The answer is there has to be some form of punishment. CHRIS MATTHEWS: For the woman? TRUMP: Yes All it indicates is that Trump favors punishments for women who get abortions. There's absolutely nothing in there about an illegal vigilante-like roundup of women. He's a presidential candidate who is giving his opinions on how he wants the law to work. Imagine the town hall conversation was this: Matthews: "If Congress passed a repeal bill for Obamacare, would you sign it?" Trump: "Yes, I want to end Obamacare." Tapper tweets: "Trump says he wants to end Obamacare" Would that be out of context? Is Donald Trump SO INSANE that Tapper really needs to specify that Trump's position on ending Obamacare is related to the actual legal process of repealing a law and not, say, Trump wanting to become a dictator who disbands Congress and repeals Obamacare by personal fiat? Is he SO INSANE that anyone sincerely saw Tapper's abortion tweet and thought Trump was advocating that women be rounded up and thrown in jail under non-existent laws? (And by who, anyway? secret police?)

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Mar 30, 2016 -> 09:55 PM) He may, but not based on the quote/answer he was giving at that particular time, which is lazy journalism. I'm pro-life. I think women who get abortions (by choice) beyond the first 6-8 weeks are awful people. I too would like to see them jailed if it were outlawed. But because abortions up to 22-23 weeks are allowed, i'm not advocating we jail people for it (up to that point, anyway). Do we know for a fact Trump doesn't have the same position? If so, those tweets are out of context. He explicitly said "you have to ban it." That after previously having expressed his opposition to Roe vs Wade and saying he only wants exceptions made for rape/incest/medical reasons. The "position" you outlined is just silly. You don't want women jailed under non-existent laws? Uh, no kidding. All you're saying is that you support the rule of law. The important thing is *what you want the law to be* regarding abortion. And both you and Trump want it to include women being punished for having abortions. And most people (including a lot in the pro-life community) think that's awful. Hence the backlash.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Mar 30, 2016 -> 09:19 PM) You just provided the context the tweet didn't provide, ha. When you declare a statement to be "out of context", you're indicating that the statement is misleading, because it's meaning would change if readers were given more information. That's not the case here.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Mar 30, 2016 -> 09:17 PM) Here's another one, btw: The headline is also bad ("Trump: Women who have abortions should be punished"). It's not until the end of the first paragraph that you read "if it's outlawed." ...which is the position he advocates. HEY YOU PUT MY OPINION IN THE CONTEXT OF MY OPINIONS - WAY OUT OF LINE