As long as we're cherry-picking ridiculous things might I point you to all of the Neo-Nazi elements within the Trump campaign such as: support from David Duke that they were unaware of, retweeting an image of Hillary with a Star of David on it (other than it not being a Star of David and Hillary not being Jewish, it was totally anti-semitic) or, say, Laura Ingraham's Heil Hitler salute for der Fuhrer Drumpf?
We both agree that Trump is a problem. Why not judge Crooked Hillary by the same standards, then?
You chose to put it in the list! No one forced you to write that. Me actually reading the items you chose is not "cherry-picking ridiculous things", it's YOU writing ridiculous things.
And rather than offer even a single word of defense of the truth of your assertion, you list off some completely irrelevant nonsense? Keep on Gish-galloping, I guess.
We both agree that Trump is a problem. Why not judge Crooked Hillary by the same standards, then?
We are. You are the one that isn't and is forced to dig very deep to find stuff that makes her look bad. And as Tiax said reduced to reprinting falsehoods in the hope we let them slip past.
The fact we are calling them out and perhaps making you look desperate and foolish is no ones fault but your own for including them.
And again as I said before pretty much every complaint that has been leveled against Hillary can be levelled against every other Secetary of State since the internet became as wide spread in the case of the server and every Secetary of State since the Second World War in the case of Benghazi. All of the rest got free passes on their infractions.
That she isn't just shows how desperate people are to make her look bad because they have damn all good to say about their chosen candidate.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
Trump is surely a threat to our way of life. But again, I feel the need to remind you that he is running against the 2nd most hated Presidential candidate in modern history. We all know what Trump has/continues to do. But Crooked Hillary is also an egomaniac, has endangered American security and refuses to apologize, has also made disturbing remarks about a large portion of the American population (blacks, jews, etc.), her high level staff has insulted Catholics and Evangelicals, she's got a key advisor with Muslim Brotherhood ties, she's put women in the spotlight because their sons tried to kill cops, others in the spotlight because they're undocumented... the list goes on and on. It's a pick your poison kind of thing at this point.
As long as we're throwing around straight-up conspiracy theories like the Huma Abedin Muslim Brotherhood lie, you might as well include that Hillary's a lizard person.
Or a demon. Surely you believe the trusted news source Infowars.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
Are you freaking kidding me? Pointing out something wrong on a list you made is not "cherrypicking ridiculous things," Ljoss, it's pointing out something wrong on a list you made. You made an error, acknowledge that you're wrong.
No, we don't. You might not like Trump for your own reasons, but you've outright stated that if you weren't going to vote Gary Johnson, you'd vote Trump just to stick it to all the SJWs, the "SJWs" in this situation being the people who have the gall to stand up for gay marriage, lack of racial and religious tolerance, and the idea that people should not be able to shoot black people and get away with it. Wow. Yeah, I can see why you think our nation's dialogue got hijacked. To be clear, I have no problem with going against extremists in that camp, and have, but there are undeniably problems going on in this country with regards to bias against race, religion, and gender, and to deny that is absurdity, and to say, "Well, yes, I presume there are," in the sort of abstract sense is absurdity, because they're all over the news.
This is really the phenomenon I'm talking about. For all of your discussion about how libertarian you are, you defend Trump even though Trump has outright proposed Constitutional violations. Clamping down on freedom of the press? The return of stop-and-frisk? And then there's the defense of bias against Islam, even when Gary Johnson himself doesn't agree with you.
Now, I don't want to turn this into a thread about Ljoss, but I'm bringing this up because it directly ties into my point. You have outright stated that you would vote Trump just to stick it to all the people who are bringing identity politics into the political dialogue, in a time when there are major issues facing minorities, including but not limited to, a president who is undeniably sexist, and while we can debate whether he's actually racist/bigoted or just pretending to be, proposing policies that undeniably are, AND which infringe on the Constitution. So why would you support that? This is where anyone who supports Trump should ask himself whether it's because of legitimate reasons, or if it's because maybe, just maybe, that Trump supporter might actually be biased in those very ways.
Why not judge Crooked Hillary by the same standards, then?
WE ARE. There are large swaths of people who are voting or planning on voting Clinton who would not otherwise because her opponent is worse. Maybe you haven't been paying attention, but this election has redefined battleground states. First of all, there are no "swing states," because Trump could win every battleground state and still lose the election. It's no longer a battleground for winning, it's a battleground for how bad the GOP will lose with Trump at its head. Case in point: ARIZONA is a battleground state right now.
In a perfect world, the blue dog democrats and fiscal conservatives all forge an alliance with the Libertarians and a reasonable party emerges that is socially liberal AND fiscally conservative...
...nah, just kidding, the Republican Party won't do any more than it did since 2008. The Reagan era alliance between social, cultural, and fiscal conservatives will continue to endure and just wring its hands as the Sunbelt voting block dwindles on the national stage. Oh well.
Oh well, they've always got the mid-terms to pick up seats and gerrymander their way into permanent majorities in Congress, so there's that!
Two women have come forward to say that Donald Trump touched them inappropriately several years ago, but that they were too scared to come forward before Trump spoke about his behavior in public.
One thing that's also should be mentioned is Trump has started lashing out at the Republican Party, specifically Paul Ryan. I know that's important because it's thrown their down ballot into chaos. The core GOP base is angry that the GOP is abandoning the ticket, so much so that Democrats have shifted resources new resources into down thought to be lost races.
What's most important is this is the 2012 election on steroids in terms of the demographic problem (and not much else). The GOP in 2012 settled on someone who could appease their primary base, but was lacking in general election appeal in terms of expanding that base. Then a video leaked that drove a spike through their chances (huh, guess there's that in terms of similarity as well) because conservative leaning independents were not drawn to come out for the Conservative candidate.
Also, the fact the GOP can't shake being the white male party, which crossed into overt racism and bigotry with Teump.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
This is tangentially related to the main topic, but it's relevant. Rush Limbaugh just got the entire writing staff of The Onion fired.
RUSH LIMBAUGH: You know what the magic word, the only thing that matters in American sexual mores today is? One thing. You can do anything, the left will promote and understand and tolerate anything, as long as there is one element. Do you know what it is? Consent. If there is consent on both or all three or all four, however many are involved in the sex act, it's perfectly fine. Whatever it is. But if the left ever senses and smells that there's no consent in part of the equation then here come the rape police. But consent is the magic key to the left.
So yeah. Rush Limbaugh is totally okay with rape, so long as it's between one cis-gender man and one cis-gender woman. Apparently. It's madness.
EDIT: Seriously tho, I think his intentions were plural: One was to get his supporters mad about the idea that "the gays" can have sex and not get lynched by The Left, because as far as Rush and his droogs are concerned, homosexuality is immoral because god or whatever.
Two was as an attempt to set up a defense for Trump, because obviously The Left are immoral hypocrites because they're okay with "the gays" but they go nuts about "top locker-room bants" or whatever.
Even I'm not entirely certain Limbaugh actually supports rape, the possibility just disturbs me.
This is tangentially related to the main topic, but it's relevant. Rush Limbaugh just got the entire writing staff of The Onion fired.
RUSH LIMBAUGH: You know what the magic word, the only thing that matters in American sexual mores today is? One thing. You can do anything, the left will promote and understand and tolerate anything, as long as there is one element. Do you know what it is? Consent. If there is consent on both or all three or all four, however many are involved in the sex act, it's perfectly fine. Whatever it is. But if the left ever senses and smells that there's no consent in part of the equation then here come the rape police. But consent is the magic key to the left.
So yeah. Rush Limbaugh is totally okay with rape, so long as it's between one cis-gender man and one cis-gender woman. Apparently. It's madness.
What the hell is going on right now?
And here I was thinking Clinton's failure to put together an attractive campaign might mean Trump would win this race, but this just seems like a complete meltdown for the republican party now.
Holy crap, that's real and is an actual quote. Damn. That's one of the most appallingly stupid things I've heard said this election. Which makes it one of the most appallingly stupid things I've heard said.
I just indirectly (via twitter) discovered the site FiveThirtyEight. Recently they posted a report on the gender split in the vote. [link]
Trump fans got so mad that #repealthe19th is currently trending on twitter. [link]
Seriously tho, the Trump camp's tendency to call for the disenfranchisement of people that do stuff they don't like is really worrying me.
Somewhat tangential, but fivethirtyeight is gas. They correctly called 49/50 states in 2008 and all 50 states in 2012. They run an amazing podcast as well (the 538 Elections Podcast) that updates about once a week.
I just indirectly (via twitter) discovered the site FiveThirtyEight. Recently they posted a report on the gender split in the vote. [link]
Trump fans got so mad that #repealthe19th is currently trending on twitter. [link]
Seriously tho, the Trump camp's tendency to call for the disenfranchisement of people that do stuff they don't like is really worrying me.
OH MY GOD.
Large amounts of people are seriously suggesting repealing women's right to vote?
This just adds to everything that just happened with the Access Hollywood video then. Please tell me Trump loses after this.
This is tangentially related to the main topic, but it's relevant. Rush Limbaugh just got the entire writing staff of The Onion fired.
RUSH LIMBAUGH: You know what the magic word, the only thing that matters in American sexual mores today is? One thing. You can do anything, the left will promote and understand and tolerate anything, as long as there is one element. Do you know what it is? Consent. If there is consent on both or all three or all four, however many are involved in the sex act, it's perfectly fine. Whatever it is. But if the left ever senses and smells that there's no consent in part of the equation then here come the rape police. But consent is the magic key to the left.
So yeah. Rush Limbaugh is totally okay with rape, so long as it's between one cis-gender man and one cis-gender woman. Apparently. It's madness.
EDIT: Seriously tho, I think his intentions were plural: One was to get his supporters mad about the idea that "the gays" can have sex and not get lynched by The Left, because as far as Rush and his droogs are concerned, homosexuality is immoral because god or whatever.
Two was as an attempt to set up a defense for Trump, because obviously The Left are immoral hypocrites because they're okay with "the gays" but they go nuts about "top locker-room bants" or whatever.
Even I'm not entirely certain Limbaugh actually supports rape, the possibility just disturbs me.
I assume Limbaugh's point is that focusing on consent is a bad thing, right? I certainly don't agree with that, but his quote actually seems like a pretty accurate description of how socially liberal people view the world. In other words, Limbaugh is absolutely right -- consent IS the critical element -- and the only thing you can quibble with is whether that's a good thing or not.
And, heck, I'd rather have both sides correctly understand each other in a political debate than be running around lying about each other, or threatening to put them in jail. A lot of abortion debates would be a lot smoother if people just understood at the outset that defining when a fetus is a "human being" is a thorny question about which people can disagree. Isn't it ... kinda good that Limbaugh correctly identifies the beef between social liberals and conservatives being the value of consent?
Somewhat tangential, but fivethirtyeight is gas. They correctly called 49/50 states in 2008 and all 50 states in 2012. They run an amazing podcast as well (the 538 Elections Podcast) that updates about once a week.
It's an amazing website run by supernerds who are really, honestly trying to give people accurate predictions about what will happen rather than spinning the data. And Nate Silver's book is really good, too. Really cuts to the heart of what uncertainty means and how prediction works; good read!
That said, the staff are not shy at all to explain how they feel about the candidates even as they strive for accuracy in their models, so I could see someone who had an axe to grind coming after them for bias. Nate and his crew often react with disgust or flabbergasted-ness(?) at the things Trump does, and Nate in particular has a very clear "What in the planet of Hell is going on here?" reaction to the state of the discourse of this election.
OH MY GOD.
Large amounts of people are seriously suggesting repealing women's right to vote?
This just adds to everything that just happened with the Access Hollywood video then. Please tell me Trump loses after this.
To play's Devil's advocate (again!), it's probably not so much that a bunch of people are being converted to the 1700s as much as there were always some crazy groups out there, and because the Republicans nominated a loony to be their nominee, they feel comfortable putting the crazy out there.
You know how people whine about political correctness all the time? I believe (someone who is a leftist scholar can correct me on this) that this kind of stuff was exactly the point of focusing on language in the first place. If you hear your PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE saying racist or sexist things, then it's more socially acceptable for you to say it, and words help move these ideas into the public sphere. If the nominees obey the rules of decorum, then the people who stick the crazy out there look like they're crazy.
Isn't it ... kinda good that Limbaugh correctly identifies the beef between social liberals and conservatives being the value of consent?
The problem with it is that the quote clearly frames obtaining consent as bad, or at least as a silly thing that we wouldn't have to do if it weren't for liberals. I think most people, liberals and conservatives alike, can agree that consent before sex is probably a good thing.
Sure, but it's nice that someone on the other side of the fence recognizes what the issue is. Regarding sexual contact, Cultural liberals say consent is necessary and largely sufficient for the act, and that substance of what the act may be is largely not important. Cultural conservatives say that being a traditionally accepted act is necessary and largely sufficient for the act, and the consent of all involved is less important ("not important" might be going a bit too far).
As a Jewish American, for the first time in my life, I've experienced anti-semitism directly tied to Trump supporters. I get tweets with Swastikas, images of cartoon Jews being shot, gassed, Holocaust deniers, threats, all from Alt Right Trump supporters. David Duke is a big supporter. He's endorsed by the American Nazi Party and the Daily Stormer enthusiastically. Trump is whipping up hate and terror at such enormous quantities that I am afraid for this country. I am physical ill.
If you're a Trump supporter and not actively a Neo Nazi, I'm delighted to hear it. But I say with no exaggeration that the two are deeply linked and for the first time in my life I am deeply fearful. Google if you doubt me.
This is tangentially related to the main topic, but it's relevant. Rush Limbaugh just got the entire writing staff of The Onion fired.
RUSH LIMBAUGH: You know what the magic word, the only thing that matters in American sexual mores today is? One thing. You can do anything, the left will promote and understand and tolerate anything, as long as there is one element. Do you know what it is? Consent. If there is consent on both or all three or all four, however many are involved in the sex act, it's perfectly fine. Whatever it is. But if the left ever senses and smells that there's no consent in part of the equation then here come the rape police. But consent is the magic key to the left.
So yeah. Rush Limbaugh is totally okay with rape, so long as it's between one cis-gender man and one cis-gender woman. Apparently. It's madness.
EDIT: Seriously tho, I think his intentions were plural: One was to get his supporters mad about the idea that "the gays" can have sex and not get lynched by The Left, because as far as Rush and his droogs are concerned, homosexuality is immoral because god or whatever.
Two was as an attempt to set up a defense for Trump, because obviously The Left are immoral hypocrites because they're okay with "the gays" but they go nuts about "top locker-room bants" or whatever.
Even I'm not entirely certain Limbaugh actually supports rape, the possibility just disturbs me.
I assume Limbaugh's point is that focusing on consent is a bad thing, right? I certainly don't agree with that, but his quote actually seems like a pretty accurate description of how socially liberal people view the world. In other words, Limbaugh is absolutely right -- consent IS the critical element -- and the only thing you can quibble with is whether that's a good thing or not.
But the problem it isn't just the way liberals view the world, it's the basis of the legal definitions of sexual assault and rape. You can't demean the importance of a concept which is absolutely fundamental to the very acts in question with this issue. It's like(edited) talking about assault/battery and murder and demeaning the importance of intention. It's not some liberal talking point, it's the accepted main point of question for the issue.
Yeah, well, this isn't the first time (nor the last time) that the correct -- socially accepted? -- definition of something is attacked for being "liberal."
In other words, Limbaugh is absolutely right -- consent IS the critical element -- and the only thing you can quibble with is whether that's a good thing or not.
Except this is so wrong it is frightening that anyone would think its right. The difference isn’t consent vs non-consent, that would essentially be one side is pro-rape and the other is pro-euthanasia. Neither side has these positions; at least we hope they don’t. The issue is never this simple and this is one of the worst possible ways of simplifying the issue. No one has ever said that anything is fine with consent, consent is assumed needed on both sides of the issue, each side simply has the view that certain actions are unacceptable even with consent. The scope of the actions they find fine with consent and unacceptable even with consent simply differ greatly.
Yeah, well, this isn't the first time (nor the last time) that the correct -- socially accepted? -- definition of something is attacked for being "liberal."
That doesn't make it okay. It's not a matter of 'quibbling'.
I assume Limbaugh's point is that focusing on consent is a bad thing, right? I certainly don't agree with that, but his quote actually seems like a pretty accurate description of how socially liberal people view the world.
Except it isn't. While I have no doubt there are liberals who indeed regard anything between consenting people as permissible, I do think that in no way do most people regard things like incest, marital infidelity, and cannibalism, to name a few, as being acceptable. For Limbaugh to say that is ridiculous.
It's a complete warping of the central issue, which is not whether or not anything with consent is acceptable, but the fact that nothing is acceptable without consent, because that's what rape is. Sex without consent? That is the definition of rape. Sexual actions without consent? Sexual assault. It's not that everything is permissible with consent so much as nothing is permissible without it. We're not splitting hairs over some technicality, that's one of the most important and fundamental factors in determining whether or not something is a rape or other type of sex crime.
So Limbaugh mocking people bringing "the rape police" when something without consent occurred, as though this were some overreaction as opposed to exactly what in the **** a proper reaction to someone raping another person to be, is horrifying. The answer is yes, you should be calling the cops when sex happens without someone willingly consenting to it. That's what the hell a rape is.
Now, we can go on to discuss what is acceptable when consent is involved, but that's a separate issue. Which is another problem with Limbaugh's argument. He's trying to argue that for liberals to object to sex acts when no consent is involved versus accepting just about any sex act when consent isn't involved is hypocrisy. But even in the case of someone who hypothetically were to actually believe this, how is that hypocrisy? It's only hypocrisy if you, as I believe Limbaugh does, believe that the Bible is the sole arbiter of what is or is not socially acceptable.
But even you believe that, why the hell is Limbaugh downplaying consent as being an important thing? Especially when scores of Republicans are leaving the party because of Trump's actions on that very grounds? Regardless of whether or not you believe consent or lack thereof should be the only determining factor in whether or not something is a sex crime, it's still a determining factor. So who's really the hypocrite here?
But even you believe that, why the hell is Limbaugh downplaying consent as being an important thing? Especially when scores of Republicans are leaving the party because of Trump's actions on that very grounds?
My guess is because he's trying (poorly) to convince those people to stay by attempting to spin Trump's video.
But even you believe that, why the hell is Limbaugh downplaying consent as being an important thing? Especially when scores of Republicans are leaving the party because of Trump's actions on that very grounds?
My guess is because he's trying (poorly) to convince those people to stay by attempting to spin Trump's video.
I agree. And he's making himself look really bad that this is how he does it. I mean, he almost has a point there about consent- some people do misuse it in the opposite direction to falsely accuse people of rape and/or sexual assault. But instead of questioning what consent actually is and whether people are misusing it to accuse Trump- which would at least be somewhat of a respectable attempt- he instead questions the importance of the concept in general.
Why he chooses this as a method is in fact what I find so deplorable about this comment, that just like Trump, he gives the palpable impression that doesn't really know or particularly care about the societal understanding of the issue. He's a political commentator. He should know what rape and sexual assault mean, he should know what he is saying is downplaying the severity of rape and sexual assault. But he really doesn't seem to, and that suggests he hasn't really tried to to me.
One of the ladies who accused Trump of sexual assault got doxxed. This kind of thing is probably why she didn't come forward earlier. [link]
EDIT: Statistically speaking, Trump's supporters are motivated by racism, not hopelessness and economic marginalization. They're actually financially better off than average. [link]
You chose to put it in the list! No one forced you to write that. Me actually reading the items you chose is not "cherry-picking ridiculous things", it's YOU writing ridiculous things.
And rather than offer even a single word of defense of the truth of your assertion, you list off some completely irrelevant nonsense? Keep on Gish-galloping, I guess.
We are. You are the one that isn't and is forced to dig very deep to find stuff that makes her look bad. And as Tiax said reduced to reprinting falsehoods in the hope we let them slip past.
The fact we are calling them out and perhaps making you look desperate and foolish is no ones fault but your own for including them.
And again as I said before pretty much every complaint that has been leveled against Hillary can be levelled against every other Secetary of State since the internet became as wide spread in the case of the server and every Secetary of State since the Second World War in the case of Benghazi. All of the rest got free passes on their infractions.
That she isn't just shows how desperate people are to make her look bad because they have damn all good to say about their chosen candidate.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
No, we don't. You might not like Trump for your own reasons, but you've outright stated that if you weren't going to vote Gary Johnson, you'd vote Trump just to stick it to all the SJWs, the "SJWs" in this situation being the people who have the gall to stand up for gay marriage, lack of racial and religious tolerance, and the idea that people should not be able to shoot black people and get away with it. Wow. Yeah, I can see why you think our nation's dialogue got hijacked. To be clear, I have no problem with going against extremists in that camp, and have, but there are undeniably problems going on in this country with regards to bias against race, religion, and gender, and to deny that is absurdity, and to say, "Well, yes, I presume there are," in the sort of abstract sense is absurdity, because they're all over the news.
This is really the phenomenon I'm talking about. For all of your discussion about how libertarian you are, you defend Trump even though Trump has outright proposed Constitutional violations. Clamping down on freedom of the press? The return of stop-and-frisk? And then there's the defense of bias against Islam, even when Gary Johnson himself doesn't agree with you.
Now, I don't want to turn this into a thread about Ljoss, but I'm bringing this up because it directly ties into my point. You have outright stated that you would vote Trump just to stick it to all the people who are bringing identity politics into the political dialogue, in a time when there are major issues facing minorities, including but not limited to, a president who is undeniably sexist, and while we can debate whether he's actually racist/bigoted or just pretending to be, proposing policies that undeniably are, AND which infringe on the Constitution. So why would you support that? This is where anyone who supports Trump should ask himself whether it's because of legitimate reasons, or if it's because maybe, just maybe, that Trump supporter might actually be biased in those very ways.
WE ARE. There are large swaths of people who are voting or planning on voting Clinton who would not otherwise because her opponent is worse. Maybe you haven't been paying attention, but this election has redefined battleground states. First of all, there are no "swing states," because Trump could win every battleground state and still lose the election. It's no longer a battleground for winning, it's a battleground for how bad the GOP will lose with Trump at its head. Case in point: ARIZONA is a battleground state right now.
EDIT: Donald Trump doesn't even know when the election is. For ****'s sake, how is ANYONE justifying voting for this guy?
...nah, just kidding, the Republican Party won't do any more than it did since 2008. The Reagan era alliance between social, cultural, and fiscal conservatives will continue to endure and just wring its hands as the Sunbelt voting block dwindles on the national stage. Oh well.
Oh well, they've always got the mid-terms to pick up seats and gerrymander their way into permanent majorities in Congress, so there's that!
[link]
Found another one.
[link]
Art is life itself.
What's most important is this is the 2012 election on steroids in terms of the demographic problem (and not much else). The GOP in 2012 settled on someone who could appease their primary base, but was lacking in general election appeal in terms of expanding that base. Then a video leaked that drove a spike through their chances (huh, guess there's that in terms of similarity as well) because conservative leaning independents were not drawn to come out for the Conservative candidate.
Also, the fact the GOP can't shake being the white male party, which crossed into overt racism and bigotry with Teump.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
So yeah. Rush Limbaugh is totally okay with rape, so long as it's between one cis-gender man and one cis-gender woman. Apparently.
It's madness.
EDIT: Seriously tho, I think his intentions were plural: One was to get his supporters mad about the idea that "the gays" can have sex and not get lynched by The Left, because as far as Rush and his droogs are concerned, homosexuality is immoral because god or whatever.
Two was as an attempt to set up a defense for Trump, because obviously The Left are immoral hypocrites because they're okay with "the gays" but they go nuts about "top locker-room bants" or whatever.
Even I'm not entirely certain Limbaugh actually supports rape, the possibility just disturbs me.
Art is life itself.
What the hell is going on right now?
And here I was thinking Clinton's failure to put together an attractive campaign might mean Trump would win this race, but this just seems like a complete meltdown for the republican party now.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Well, they did that in 2008 as well with Sarah Palin as the running mate to John McCain.
The real problem is it is the very base of the GOP that is bringing the party down.
Seriously tho, the Trump camp's tendency to call for the disenfranchisement of people that do stuff they don't like is really worrying me.
Art is life itself.
URW Control
WBG Abzan
GRW Burn
EDH
GR Rosheen Meanderer
OH MY GOD.
Large amounts of people are seriously suggesting repealing women's right to vote?
This just adds to everything that just happened with the Access Hollywood video then. Please tell me Trump loses after this.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
I assume Limbaugh's point is that focusing on consent is a bad thing, right? I certainly don't agree with that, but his quote actually seems like a pretty accurate description of how socially liberal people view the world. In other words, Limbaugh is absolutely right -- consent IS the critical element -- and the only thing you can quibble with is whether that's a good thing or not.
And, heck, I'd rather have both sides correctly understand each other in a political debate than be running around lying about each other, or threatening to put them in jail. A lot of abortion debates would be a lot smoother if people just understood at the outset that defining when a fetus is a "human being" is a thorny question about which people can disagree. Isn't it ... kinda good that Limbaugh correctly identifies the beef between social liberals and conservatives being the value of consent?
It's an amazing website run by supernerds who are really, honestly trying to give people accurate predictions about what will happen rather than spinning the data. And Nate Silver's book is really good, too. Really cuts to the heart of what uncertainty means and how prediction works; good read!
That said, the staff are not shy at all to explain how they feel about the candidates even as they strive for accuracy in their models, so I could see someone who had an axe to grind coming after them for bias. Nate and his crew often react with disgust or flabbergasted-ness(?) at the things Trump does, and Nate in particular has a very clear "What in the planet of Hell is going on here?" reaction to the state of the discourse of this election.
To play's Devil's advocate (again!), it's probably not so much that a bunch of people are being converted to the 1700s as much as there were always some crazy groups out there, and because the Republicans nominated a loony to be their nominee, they feel comfortable putting the crazy out there.
You know how people whine about political correctness all the time? I believe (someone who is a leftist scholar can correct me on this) that this kind of stuff was exactly the point of focusing on language in the first place. If you hear your PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE saying racist or sexist things, then it's more socially acceptable for you to say it, and words help move these ideas into the public sphere. If the nominees obey the rules of decorum, then the people who stick the crazy out there look like they're crazy.
On the lighter side
Clinton has a better chance of winning GEORGIA than Trump has of winning the election.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/georgia/#now
The problem with it is that the quote clearly frames obtaining consent as bad, or at least as a silly thing that we wouldn't have to do if it weren't for liberals. I think most people, liberals and conservatives alike, can agree that consent before sex is probably a good thing.
In other news, Chris Christie is receiving criminal summons for his role in Bridgegate.
URW Control
WBG Abzan
GRW Burn
EDH
GR Rosheen Meanderer
If you're a Trump supporter and not actively a Neo Nazi, I'm delighted to hear it. But I say with no exaggeration that the two are deeply linked and for the first time in my life I am deeply fearful. Google if you doubt me.
My God have mercy on our souls.
But the problem it isn't just the way liberals view the world, it's the basis of the legal definitions of sexual assault and rape. You can't demean the importance of a concept which is absolutely fundamental to the very acts in question with this issue. It's like(edited) talking about assault/battery and murder and demeaning the importance of intention. It's not some liberal talking point, it's the accepted main point of question for the issue.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Except this is so wrong it is frightening that anyone would think its right. The difference isn’t consent vs non-consent, that would essentially be one side is pro-rape and the other is pro-euthanasia. Neither side has these positions; at least we hope they don’t. The issue is never this simple and this is one of the worst possible ways of simplifying the issue. No one has ever said that anything is fine with consent, consent is assumed needed on both sides of the issue, each side simply has the view that certain actions are unacceptable even with consent. The scope of the actions they find fine with consent and unacceptable even with consent simply differ greatly.
That doesn't make it okay. It's not a matter of 'quibbling'.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
It's a complete warping of the central issue, which is not whether or not anything with consent is acceptable, but the fact that nothing is acceptable without consent, because that's what rape is. Sex without consent? That is the definition of rape. Sexual actions without consent? Sexual assault. It's not that everything is permissible with consent so much as nothing is permissible without it. We're not splitting hairs over some technicality, that's one of the most important and fundamental factors in determining whether or not something is a rape or other type of sex crime.
So Limbaugh mocking people bringing "the rape police" when something without consent occurred, as though this were some overreaction as opposed to exactly what in the **** a proper reaction to someone raping another person to be, is horrifying. The answer is yes, you should be calling the cops when sex happens without someone willingly consenting to it. That's what the hell a rape is.
Now, we can go on to discuss what is acceptable when consent is involved, but that's a separate issue. Which is another problem with Limbaugh's argument. He's trying to argue that for liberals to object to sex acts when no consent is involved versus accepting just about any sex act when consent isn't involved is hypocrisy. But even in the case of someone who hypothetically were to actually believe this, how is that hypocrisy? It's only hypocrisy if you, as I believe Limbaugh does, believe that the Bible is the sole arbiter of what is or is not socially acceptable.
But even you believe that, why the hell is Limbaugh downplaying consent as being an important thing? Especially when scores of Republicans are leaving the party because of Trump's actions on that very grounds? Regardless of whether or not you believe consent or lack thereof should be the only determining factor in whether or not something is a sex crime, it's still a determining factor. So who's really the hypocrite here?
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
I agree. And he's making himself look really bad that this is how he does it. I mean, he almost has a point there about consent- some people do misuse it in the opposite direction to falsely accuse people of rape and/or sexual assault. But instead of questioning what consent actually is and whether people are misusing it to accuse Trump- which would at least be somewhat of a respectable attempt- he instead questions the importance of the concept in general.
Why he chooses this as a method is in fact what I find so deplorable about this comment, that just like Trump, he gives the palpable impression that doesn't really know or particularly care about the societal understanding of the issue. He's a political commentator. He should know what rape and sexual assault mean, he should know what he is saying is downplaying the severity of rape and sexual assault. But he really doesn't seem to, and that suggests he hasn't really tried to to me.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
EDIT: Statistically speaking, Trump's supporters are motivated by racism, not hopelessness and economic marginalization. They're actually financially better off than average. [link]
Art is life itself.