It's not a rant, and it's not my ruling. It's the way government does and should operate. And, for all we know it could be in danger now that republicans are about to win control of the court again.
Eh, I find it unlikely that marriage equality will get overturned. Scalia was against it, so a Scalia replacement who's against it doesn't change anything.
Eh, I find it unlikely that marriage equality will get overturned. Scalia was against it, so a Scalia replacement who's against it doesn't change anything.
Ginsburg is 83 and Kennedy is 80. It's not unthinkable that Trump will appoint two or more justices. I doubt they'd overturn such a fresh case, but we shouldn't base our estimations of what the Supreme court might do on only the specter of a Scalia replacement.
David Duke carried 3% of the vote in the Senate race in Louisiana. That's impressive in the sense that there were several candidates running but at the end of the day, it's just 3%. That's about 3% too much, but it gives you a good sense of how many of these people there really are. And within that 3%, many have no interest in taking action. The point is, dismissing 59,000,000+ votes as if they're all endorsing racism is ridiculous. The Democrats tried to do that and now they're paying for it.
David Duke got 3% of the vote in one of the least white states in America (only Hawaii, Mississippi, Maryland and Georgia are less white than Louisiana) - presumably his support is almost exclusively from the white portion of the voters, of which he won perhaps 5%. He did so without any significant funding. He did so as an actual former KKK grand wizard. He received over 50,000 votes, and even made it to the debate stage (perhaps a lesson in what happens when you lower that bar too much).
But you're right, there aren't 59,000,000 David Dukes out there. If we extrapolate his 58,581 votes in Louisiana to the US population, there are perhaps about 4,000,000 David Duke voters out there (Louisiana is perhaps more racist than the average, but also has far fewer white voters than the average). You then have many millions more who are perhaps unwilling to outright vote for a KKK grand wizard, but are still pretty racist. Beyond that you have those are probably not terribly racist, but are basically unbothered by racism. The type of people who look back at the 1950s and think that was when America was "great".
The most recent demographic info that I could find about Louisiana shows that it was about 65 percent white as of 2005. It has a large black population but a rather small hispanic population. Also we're talking about whites in Louisiana, not, say New Jersey.
Violent racism (e.g. Dylan Roof) is a problem. Non-violent racism (e.g. discrimination in housing) is a problem. Casual racism (e.g. being less friendly to a customer of color in retail) is a problem. They are not all the same problem. They fall under the same enormous umbrella, but they are not all the same in magnitude, nor of import.
The thing is, if someone wants to assign the "racist" characteristic to all whites as a means to disregard their interests and therefore their votes, then those people are just as bad as those that they criticize.
Quote from Blinking Spirit »
They didn't do it this time. This may come as a shock to you, but Hillary Clinton is white.
The electorate disagrees with you. Hillary didn't spend enough time speaking to issues that concerned whites.
Dr. Ben Carson is black and a prominent Trump supporter. Does that prove that Trump isn't racist towards black people? I don't think so.
Despite Trump being elected I still have a glimmer of hope. Young people overwhelming vote democrat. Eventually these young people will grow up and be the old people that always vote. Then, finally then, we can actually make some progress in this country. Until then, women, gays, minorities, pretty much anyone who isn't a white male, just try to hang in there. It's only going to get a lot worse before it gets better.
Despite Trump being elected I still have a glimmer of hope. Young people overwhelming vote democrat. Eventually these young people will grow up and be the old people that always vote. Then, finally then, we can actually make some progress in this country. Until then, women, gays, minorities, pretty much anyone who isn't a white male, just try to hang in there. It's only going to get a lot worse before it gets better.
What do you plan to do with all the white males once you take control?
We're already seeing the high school walkouts and the reports of white supremacist morons intimidating people. The media is going to live off this for months if not longer. What the media will not show is the violent protests or things like this or this. This will continue to be the narrative, the same one they have pushed all throughout election season. The one they dragged out every musician or actor or actress they could find to push. The one they pushed with their crappy polling data.
But you see, they don't have the power anymore. They're scared. Oh they're sooo scared because now they have to listen to the 'deplorables,' the ones that 'cling to guns and religion.' They told those people that this wasn't their country anymore, that their voices, thoughts, opinions and feelings didn't matter. They expected those people to just roll over and die before the great god of the demographic shifts. Now they're mad because those people actually bothered to fight back. They were playing the game just as much as Trump did, but they don't want to admit it. They cloak their hate in projection. This is why they don't talk about all the times Trump was threatened and chased from major U.S. cities in what was supposed to be a free, Democratic election. They cloak their hate in sanctimonious condemnation of obscure concepts they've invented like 'the patriarchy' and 'privilege.' They exclude, deny and belittle just as much as their opponents do - but they post "LOVE TRUMPS HATE" signs next to their burning Donald Trump effigies, so it's OK. Now they have to listen to the people they hate so much: the hicks, the hillbillies, the ones that go to brunch after church, the ones that can't take their dog for a walk at night because of the latin street gangs, etc. Now they have to sit down and listen. Now the media has to listen. Now the political establishment - including the Republicans - has to listen.
There are indeed aspects of this election that are incredibly disturbing. Those aren't among them.
I saw an article about Trump wanting to throw out the ACA, or at least give it a major overhaul. What's the worst that could happen? There's a lot of gloom and doom about people being "left to die," (mostly I'm seeing it on a bunch of Twitters from some of my favorite SFF authors) but it sounds like post-election shock.
This election was between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Either way, a human being who has no business whatsoever being president is going to be president. Of course people are going to be frustrated with Trump winning, just as people would have been frustrated if Clinton won. I feel like everyone who is putting Mr. Trump on blast should probably direct their frustration towards the Democratic party for nominating her (and the same for the republican party if Clinton had won). Had the democratic party not cheated Bernie Sanders out of the primary, perhaps we're having a different discussion today.
This was a lose/lose scenario folks. Based on how our political system works, we were given 2 choices (2 choices that actually had a chance to win). Trump won and theres nothing we can do about it.
The most recent demographic info that I could find about Louisiana shows that it was about 65 percent white as of 2005. It has a large black population but a rather small hispanic population. Also we're talking about whites in Louisiana, not, say New Jersey.
Exactly, presumably Duke got essentially no support from non-whites, so his share of white voters is higher (by a factor of 1/.65, or about 150%, which puts him at about 5% of whites in Louisiana). Now, that's certainly a better place to be in than the 11.5% he pulled in the same race back in '96, but it's still a lot of people. Maybe people in New Jersey are less racist, but racism isn't confined to the deep south.
Violent racism (e.g. Dylan Roof) is a problem. Non-violent racism (e.g. discrimination in housing) is a problem. Casual racism (e.g. being less friendly to a customer of color in retail) is a problem. They are not all the same problem. They fall under the same enormous umbrella, but they are not all the same in magnitude, nor of import.
I'm not sure anyone's saying shooting up churches is the same as being rude to customers. But they're all real problems, and Duke's vote total shows that there are at least tens of thousands of people in Louisiana who are in favor of the latter two categories, and likely millions more across the country.
The thing is, if someone wants to assign the "racist" characteristic to all whites as a means to disregard their interests and therefore their votes, then those people are just as bad as those that they criticize.
I don't think anyone outside of radical spheres (maybe Jill Stein's VP?) wants to assign "racist" to all whites. But when white men pine for the job market of the 50s, they have to realize that that job market was built on racial exploitation. If you didn't add a single job to the economy, but you shuffled positions so that white men had the best ones, things would be a lot like they were back then. That doesn't mean that all those people actually want to unroll civil rights and return to Jim Crow, but it does suggest their view of history is basically restricted to how things were for white people.
Despite Trump being elected I still have a glimmer of hope. Young people overwhelming vote democrat. Eventually these young people will grow up and be the old people that always vote. Then, finally then, we can actually make some progress in this country. Until then, women, gays, minorities, pretty much anyone who isn't a white male, just try to hang in there. It's only going to get a lot worse before it gets better.
Jesus man, have a sense of perspective. It's just Trump, not David Bahati.
Furthermore, why is it that left == progress == good?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We have laboured long to build a heaven, only to find it populated with horrors.
This is a great day for America and all of America's minorities.
Bill Clinton says that Obama should have been serving him coffee. Hillary Clinton was a Goldwater Girl and said Black youths are super-predators to be brought to heel. I was genuinely afraid of what would happen to Blacks if she were to win the presidency. That's woman who took great pride in putting as many Blacks into prison as possible and she also promised to expand the unnecessary war on drugs even though everyone knows that minorities are disproportionally targeted by the law. And she got millions of dollars from the prison industrial complex lobbyists. Wiki leaks documents suggests she was planning on doubling the number of Blacks in prison in order to ensure that those prisons remained at capacity.
I'm proud of America for rejecting the Clintons: the most racist and aloof people to have ever occupied the White House in a generation. And Hillary showed all the class I've come to expect from her ilk: refusing to even give a proper concession speech on the night she got trounced.
Now that an honest person who's full of integrity is going to occupy the White House, we can expect great things for this country at last.
The electorate disagrees with you. Hillary didn't spend enough time speaking to issues that concerned whites.
You're moving your goalposts. It's a long way from "Clinton lost the white vote" to "Democrats treat whites as the enemy." You complain about people spinning the facts to match narratives, but have you taken a second look at your narrative? That the liberal elite are cynically demonizing "white people" as a group for some reason despite still being mostly white themselves? Could it possibly be that what was actually happening was very different, and you just can't see it because you're too wrapped up in your projected hate for and sanctimonious condemnation of them?
Let's look at just one example. You like so many others have fixated on the "deplorables" comment, but for all your fixation you missed what Clinton actually said in it. She was quite specific. And not in an obfuscatory after-the-fact "clarification" a la Trump, but right in the speech itself:
"You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic -- you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that."
Not mentioned? White people. Neither explicitly nor in implication. And now I would like you to stop railing at your imaginary liberals and engage with these actual words spoken by the actual Democratic presidential candidate -- words cherry-picked not by me, but by her opponents seeking to condemn her. Tell me, ljossberer, as a libertarian, if there is a single word (aside from the infamous "half") with which you disagree.
Are racists deplorable? Yes or no?
Are sexists deplorable? Yes or no?
Are homophobes deplorable? Yes or no?
Are xenophobes deplorable? Yes or no?
Are Islamophobes deplorable? Yes or no?
Are there people like that? Yes or no?
But wait, there's more! She goes right on to say:
""But the other basket... 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... Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well."
So on the one hand we've got a woman saying that bigotry is deplorable and that we need to listen to people who feel like they're not being listened to. This woman, in your narrative, is treating white people as the enemy. And on the other hand we've got a group of people who are now proudly styling themselves "deplorables", avowing either that they really are bigots or that they're just ignorant of the context of the word. These people, in your narrative, are the blameless victims of liberal abuse.
Can you see the disconnect yet?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
People can talk about the racism angle all they want. Racist are not what won the election for D. Trump. Rationalization did. Most people who voted for Trump did so despite his rhetoric. Some people would argue that if you support a racist, you are just as guilty as the racist. That maybe true, but if you voted for Clinton, I do not think you really have a credible moral argument against Trump voters, with out sounding like a hypocrite. I mean, if you are allowed to vote for a morally reprehensible candidate, shouldn't the other people have the same opportunity? Clinton is a manipulative liar, and you'd be responsible for voting for a manipulative liar.
Clinton can't be justifiably accused of being all that manipulative or deceitful. Most of the accusations against her are either false or unsubstantiated.
Yes, Clinton has issues and she's not a really a good candidate. But Trump is a whole different level of problematic. They aren't equivalent.
I think the most interesting thing that I've learned in my voting results poll is the "did not vote" option is taking second, which also goes to show the real cause of Clinton's loss extends even to this forum: voter turnout was significantly down for Democrats while relatively steady for Republicans.
Donald Trump did not win this election by a surprise surge in white voters in the Rust Belt. He got about as many votes that Republicans got with Mitt Romney and John McCain. What happened is Democrats on the whole lost votes that just did not show up to the polls. Democrats lost five million votes from 2008 to 2012, and it looks like the final numbers show that Democrats lost an additional five million votes from 2012 to 2016. In fact, Hillary Clinton is currently* winning the popular vote with fewer total votes than the total votes that John McCain earned in 2008. Whether it's apathy or the voter disenfranchisement movement going on with Republicans working, the Democrats real problem is far from being determined.
*That may change with the final vote, but not by much.**
You will hear a lot of talk about how Trump attracted supposed new voters. He didn't, not in relevant numbers. He didn't "expand the map" like his surrogates say. He received less votes than both McCain and Romney. What happened is the opposite: it's the democrats that shrinked. They lost 5 million votes. While still winning the popular vote.
So to sum up:
* Romney and McCain had more votes than Trump;
The republicans continued with their trend of the last 10 years or so: slow decline of their ageing electorate.
This was actually updated this morning. Donald Trump has surpassed John McCain and is now on track to surpass Mitt Romney. It's honestly not that big of a deal since as it doesn't challenge the overall point and as far as I can tell he's still not on track to beat Hillary Clinton in the popular vote, but I just wanted to throw that out there. We probably won't have a finalized tally until next week.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
You will hear a lot of talk about how Trump attracted supposed new voters. He didn't, not in relevant numbers. He didn't "expand the map" like his surrogates say. He received less votes than both McCain and Romney. What happened is the opposite: it's the democrats that shrinked. They lost 5 million votes. While still winning the popular vote.
So to sum up:
* Romney and McCain had more votes than Trump;
The republicans continued with their trend of the last 10 years or so: slow decline of their ageing electorate.
This was actually updated this morning. Donald Trump has surpassed John McCain and is now on track to surpass Mitt Romney. It's honestly not that big of a deal since as it doesn't challenge the overall point and as far as I can tell he's still not on track to beat Hillary Clinton in the popular vote, but I just wanted to throw that out there. We probably won't have a finalized tally until next week.
In addition to that, what I found interesting was that even though Republicans lost fewer voters from 2012 than the Democrats, Trump's votes in raw numbers was actually below Romney's from 2012, a candidate that many people say lost because he did not excite his own party.
Not Hillary Clinton specifically. That wasn't typed. A vote for that party is a vote for at least 4 if not 8 years of this current status quo regarding faith and society.
Which is what exactly? I'm sorry, if Hillary didn't represent that I'm at a loss for what you're complaining about government wise. Because there's been no assault on faith. If you feel like I'm jumping to conclusions maybe it's all this vague hand waving you're doing that I'm misinterpreting.
You got your ruling. Its not in danger of being undone. Further rants not needed.
It's not a rant, and it's not my ruling. It's the way government does and should operate. And, for all we know it could be in danger now that republicans are about to win control of the court again.
What do you not understand about that? Stop fixating on Hillary Clinton. Shes part of the current progression path. A vote for her, is voting for that progression path. In the last 10 years, it has been very evident that that progression path is working against the faith - not working with it. This isn't limited to one topic regarding gay marriage. And what I'm trying to tell you, is given that 70% of Americans ARE Christian or Catholic, working against them rather than with them will only push them farther right politically to protect themselves. I'm trying to tell you, that you will catch more bees with honey than vinegar, and more bees means more people supporting your progression plan, and in the end more chances of getting your candidate ELECTED to spearhead that progression plan. I am telling you, that this is is the very reason the POTUS's make efforts to visit the Pope - because they are smart enough to know who influences the bees. But the effort is not theirs alone. One person running for president is not enough to influence the bees. Since it has been nothing but vinegar in the current progression plan, the bees are moving to the right, because the right has always protected them. Do a quick study on how bees voted. If only you had more bees...
I used the removal of the tree, though one limited example, because that one strikes at the heart of everyone around it, and sends a message about our future in this progression plan. Winning such a victory - only in the name of separation of church and state - does not help them in the long run. It hurts them. Badly.
Now if you reply that bees can't vote... man I don't even know.
What would a progression path in favour of the faith look like?
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?
I literally have no idea what you're talking about. Can you drop the analogies and cite some specifics about how the "progressive strategy" is working against "the faith"?
You need specific examples how the current liberal agenda doesn't suit the church?
Or how the church's white conservative male leader, views and teachings doesn't suit the current liberal agenda?
These are obvious well known things.
Maybe you don't see how a vote for Hillary is a vote for that current agenda.
You will hear a lot of talk about how Trump attracted supposed new voters. He didn't, not in relevant numbers. He didn't "expand the map" like his surrogates say. He received less votes than both McCain and Romney. What happened is the opposite: it's the democrats that shrinked. They lost 5 million votes. While still winning the popular vote.
So to sum up:
* Romney and McCain had more votes than Trump;
The republicans continued with their trend of the last 10 years or so: slow decline of their ageing electorate.
This was actually updated this morning. Donald Trump has surpassed John McCain and is now on track to surpass Mitt Romney. It's honestly not that big of a deal since as it doesn't challenge the overall point and as far as I can tell he's still not on track to beat Hillary Clinton in the popular vote, but I just wanted to throw that out there. We probably won't have a finalized tally until next week.
In addition to that, what I found interesting was that even though Republicans lost fewer voters from 2012 than the Democrats, Trump's votes in raw numbers was actually below Romney's from 2012, a candidate that many people say lost because he did not excite his own party.
and yet, he won. I predicted Trump would win three months ago and the reason was that he was running against Hillary Clinton. That is why he won. President Obama's record, Obama care, the demonization of Russia attempted by the Clinton campaign, etc would all have been able to be overcome by any other Democratic candidate I can think of, but Hillary is despised by too many people in way too many demographic acrossed this country. All Trump had to do was to keep focused, keep point out he was running against Hillary and not arouse the left to get upset enough at him to shake off their complacency and go vote against him. So many thought there was no way he could win that they decided that they would not soil themselves by voting for Hillary. I work in the unemployment system here in Michigan and speak with as many as 200 people a day, people from all races, income groups, and backgrounds. It was not just the rightwingers and hardcore Republicans who despised Hillary Clinton, it was not just white men over 40 years old who despised her. She and her husband were the reason many, many women, black, Hispanic, asian and self identified Demoncrats I spoke to over the course of this election cycle gave me as why they did not vote. Many, many people who said they were Democrats told me they would not vote or they would vote for Dr. Jill Stein. Almost all said they wished Bernie Sanders was their candidate.
W – 33, L – 19, Broke Games - 9
Calvin & Hobbs Mafia, Mafia MVP
X-Men Mafia Town MVP
Simpson's Mafia - best use of character
Mtgnews Mafia Mafia - Town Madman
Mythos Mafia: the Dunwich Massacre Town MVP
English Literature Mafia Town MVP
Best Role-Playing Sin City Mafia
Werewolf Mafia - Mafia MVP
Doctor Mafia - Mafia MVP
Mafia: Escape from the Cylons - Town MVP
Lost Mafia - Co SK Winner with Kops
Random Mafia 3 - Town MVP
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
EDIT: Or respect for the constitution.
Art is life itself.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Ginsburg is 83 and Kennedy is 80. It's not unthinkable that Trump will appoint two or more justices. I doubt they'd overturn such a fresh case, but we shouldn't base our estimations of what the Supreme court might do on only the specter of a Scalia replacement.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Art is life itself.
The most recent demographic info that I could find about Louisiana shows that it was about 65 percent white as of 2005. It has a large black population but a rather small hispanic population. Also we're talking about whites in Louisiana, not, say New Jersey.
Violent racism (e.g. Dylan Roof) is a problem. Non-violent racism (e.g. discrimination in housing) is a problem. Casual racism (e.g. being less friendly to a customer of color in retail) is a problem. They are not all the same problem. They fall under the same enormous umbrella, but they are not all the same in magnitude, nor of import.
The thing is, if someone wants to assign the "racist" characteristic to all whites as a means to disregard their interests and therefore their votes, then those people are just as bad as those that they criticize.
The electorate disagrees with you. Hillary didn't spend enough time speaking to issues that concerned whites.
Dr. Ben Carson is black and a prominent Trump supporter. Does that prove that Trump isn't racist towards black people? I don't think so.
What do you plan to do with all the white males once you take control?
Hillary`s friend and mentor was Robert Byrd.
Most of her supporters are racists.
But you see, they don't have the power anymore. They're scared. Oh they're sooo scared because now they have to listen to the 'deplorables,' the ones that 'cling to guns and religion.' They told those people that this wasn't their country anymore, that their voices, thoughts, opinions and feelings didn't matter. They expected those people to just roll over and die before the great god of the demographic shifts. Now they're mad because those people actually bothered to fight back. They were playing the game just as much as Trump did, but they don't want to admit it. They cloak their hate in projection. This is why they don't talk about all the times Trump was threatened and chased from major U.S. cities in what was supposed to be a free, Democratic election. They cloak their hate in sanctimonious condemnation of obscure concepts they've invented like 'the patriarchy' and 'privilege.' They exclude, deny and belittle just as much as their opponents do - but they post "LOVE TRUMPS HATE" signs next to their burning Donald Trump effigies, so it's OK. Now they have to listen to the people they hate so much: the hicks, the hillbillies, the ones that go to brunch after church, the ones that can't take their dog for a walk at night because of the latin street gangs, etc. Now they have to sit down and listen. Now the media has to listen. Now the political establishment - including the Republicans - has to listen.
There are indeed aspects of this election that are incredibly disturbing. Those aren't among them.
This was a lose/lose scenario folks. Based on how our political system works, we were given 2 choices (2 choices that actually had a chance to win). Trump won and theres nothing we can do about it.
Exactly, presumably Duke got essentially no support from non-whites, so his share of white voters is higher (by a factor of 1/.65, or about 150%, which puts him at about 5% of whites in Louisiana). Now, that's certainly a better place to be in than the 11.5% he pulled in the same race back in '96, but it's still a lot of people. Maybe people in New Jersey are less racist, but racism isn't confined to the deep south.
I'm not sure anyone's saying shooting up churches is the same as being rude to customers. But they're all real problems, and Duke's vote total shows that there are at least tens of thousands of people in Louisiana who are in favor of the latter two categories, and likely millions more across the country.
I don't think anyone outside of radical spheres (maybe Jill Stein's VP?) wants to assign "racist" to all whites. But when white men pine for the job market of the 50s, they have to realize that that job market was built on racial exploitation. If you didn't add a single job to the economy, but you shuffled positions so that white men had the best ones, things would be a lot like they were back then. That doesn't mean that all those people actually want to unroll civil rights and return to Jim Crow, but it does suggest their view of history is basically restricted to how things were for white people.
Jesus man, have a sense of perspective. It's just Trump, not David Bahati.
Furthermore, why is it that left == progress == good?
Bill Clinton says that Obama should have been serving him coffee. Hillary Clinton was a Goldwater Girl and said Black youths are super-predators to be brought to heel. I was genuinely afraid of what would happen to Blacks if she were to win the presidency. That's woman who took great pride in putting as many Blacks into prison as possible and she also promised to expand the unnecessary war on drugs even though everyone knows that minorities are disproportionally targeted by the law. And she got millions of dollars from the prison industrial complex lobbyists. Wiki leaks documents suggests she was planning on doubling the number of Blacks in prison in order to ensure that those prisons remained at capacity.
I'm proud of America for rejecting the Clintons: the most racist and aloof people to have ever occupied the White House in a generation. And Hillary showed all the class I've come to expect from her ilk: refusing to even give a proper concession speech on the night she got trounced.
Now that an honest person who's full of integrity is going to occupy the White House, we can expect great things for this country at last.
What was wrong with her concession speech?
Let's look at just one example. You like so many others have fixated on the "deplorables" comment, but for all your fixation you missed what Clinton actually said in it. She was quite specific. And not in an obfuscatory after-the-fact "clarification" a la Trump, but right in the speech itself:
"You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic -- you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that."
Not mentioned? White people. Neither explicitly nor in implication. And now I would like you to stop railing at your imaginary liberals and engage with these actual words spoken by the actual Democratic presidential candidate -- words cherry-picked not by me, but by her opponents seeking to condemn her. Tell me, ljossberer, as a libertarian, if there is a single word (aside from the infamous "half") with which you disagree.
Are racists deplorable? Yes or no?
Are sexists deplorable? Yes or no?
Are homophobes deplorable? Yes or no?
Are xenophobes deplorable? Yes or no?
Are Islamophobes deplorable? Yes or no?
Are there people like that? Yes or no?
But wait, there's more! She goes right on to say:
""But the other basket... 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... Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well."
So on the one hand we've got a woman saying that bigotry is deplorable and that we need to listen to people who feel like they're not being listened to. This woman, in your narrative, is treating white people as the enemy. And on the other hand we've got a group of people who are now proudly styling themselves "deplorables", avowing either that they really are bigots or that they're just ignorant of the context of the word. These people, in your narrative, are the blameless victims of liberal abuse.
Can you see the disconnect yet?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Clinton can't be justifiably accused of being all that manipulative or deceitful. Most of the accusations against her are either false or unsubstantiated.
Yes, Clinton has issues and she's not a really a good candidate. But Trump is a whole different level of problematic. They aren't equivalent.
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
Donald Trump did not win this election by a surprise surge in white voters in the Rust Belt. He got about as many votes that Republicans got with Mitt Romney and John McCain. What happened is Democrats on the whole lost votes that just did not show up to the polls. Democrats lost five million votes from 2008 to 2012, and it looks like the final numbers show that Democrats lost an additional five million votes from 2012 to 2016.
In fact, Hillary Clinton is currently* winning the popular vote with fewer total votes than the total votes that John McCain earned in 2008.Whether it's apathy or the voter disenfranchisement movement going on with Republicans working, the Democrats real problem is far from being determined.*That may change with the final vote, but not by much.****As soon as I posted this, it changed.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
This was actually updated this morning. Donald Trump has surpassed John McCain and is now on track to surpass Mitt Romney. It's honestly not that big of a deal since as it doesn't challenge the overall point and as far as I can tell he's still not on track to beat Hillary Clinton in the popular vote, but I just wanted to throw that out there. We probably won't have a finalized tally until next week.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
In addition to that, what I found interesting was that even though Republicans lost fewer voters from 2012 than the Democrats, Trump's votes in raw numbers was actually below Romney's from 2012, a candidate that many people say lost because he did not excite his own party.
The GJ way path to no lynching:
You need specific examples how the current liberal agenda doesn't suit the church?
Or how the church's white conservative male leader, views and teachings doesn't suit the current liberal agenda?
These are obvious well known things.
Maybe you don't see how a vote for Hillary is a vote for that current agenda.
Maybe you're just baiting me.
My Buying Thread
Calvin & Hobbs Mafia, Mafia MVP
X-Men Mafia Town MVP
Simpson's Mafia - best use of character
Mtgnews Mafia Mafia - Town Madman
Mythos Mafia: the Dunwich Massacre Town MVP
English Literature Mafia Town MVP
Best Role-Playing Sin City Mafia
Werewolf Mafia - Mafia MVP
Doctor Mafia - Mafia MVP
Mafia: Escape from the Cylons - Town MVP
Lost Mafia - Co SK Winner with Kops
Random Mafia 3 - Town MVP