A big problem I have is that people continuously try to garner support for Clinton by claiming Trump is worse, but like every time I see "Trump did x" all I can think about is "Didn't the Democrats also do that?" I don't really like either of them, but I really do hate when people say "Trump lies all the time! Support Hillary!" when it's like "Uh, has Hillary ever said something that WASN'T a lie?"
If a persons Mexican heritage can play a role in what a Mexican thinks of Trump, then it cant be racist for Trump to bring up the judges heritage when discussing his partiality, in light of perceived unfavorable rulings and Trumps comments on Mexican immigration.
This is a true statement. He is not talking about all Mexicans, he is talking about the judge. You people think he is saying all Mexicans are biased for no reason other than they are Mexican, and he has not said that.
Are you saying that Trump's line of thought goes:
1. The judge disagrees with me.
2. It must be because the judge has Mexican heritage.
Rather than:
1. The judge has Mexican heritage
2. The judge is therefore biased
And that therefore it's not racist, because
- he wouldn't blame the judge's Mexican heritage if the judge found in his favour
- he's not saying all people of Mexican descent are biased because they don't happen to be judging him right now?
By Ljoss's function virtually no one who is not a white natural born American could possibly be neutral due to how many people have pretense to be biased against Trump.
What makes you think the white natural born Americans are neutral?
Trump's a Republican presidential nominee. Couldn't the Democrats be biased?
Trump's affluent. Wouldn't anyone not as affluent as he is be biased?
Trump's from New York. Wouldn't anyone who doesn't like New York be biased?
Who, by Ljoss' standards, actually qualifies as a neutral party?
Women favour Clinton over Trump by a large margin. Presumably women, too, would also be biased and therefore unable to judge the case.
Do you think Trump himself might qualify as unbiased?
The level of mental gymnastics being performed in this thread is astounding. I'm really curious if there's some sort of upper limit to how much people are willing to dance around to try to make Trump's racist statements seem not racist.
Oh, come on. Some of them, I assume, are good people.
Everyone with an IQ above that of a pebble knows that most high level polticians get filthy rich stealing from we the people. Pretending otherwise is goofy.
People here should spend less time condescendingly attacking me and Trump and those with different perspectives, and MORE time sharing possible solutions.
Those posts were mere minutes apart. That's a pretty staggering lack of self-awareness.
I have shared dozens of interesting and insightful links in recent weeks, and yet the vast majority of responses here are inciteful and/or unhelpful. Sad panda.
No, you've shared dozens of links. To articles from people like Scott Adams and Milo Yiannopoulos; I can't speak for others here, obviously, but these are people for whose opinions I have negative levels of respect, and regard as far from interesting and insightful.
Trump was the first remaining presidential candidate to speak about the massacre, tweeting Sunday morning about the “really bad shooting in Orlando.”
“Police investigating possible terrorism. Many people dead and wounded,” he wrote.
After the death toll had risen from an estimated to 20 to a confirmed 50 with dozens more injured, Trump tweeted again, offering his condolences and urging the U.S. to “get tough.”
“Horrific incident in FL. Praying for all the victims & their families,” he said. “When will this stop? When will we get tough, smart & vigilant?”
In the first few hours after the attack, he also tweeted
Appreciate the congrats for being right on radical Islamic terrorism
After reading more of his words on the subject, he sounds like an agnostic atheist to me (unless I have the terminology wrong - not believing in a God, but believing we can't know for certain?). His objection to the label atheist in particular seems to correspond to what we'd call, I think, anti-theists. Atheists on a crusade against theists, which is something he wasn't keen on.
I think you're taking him rejecting the existence of a personal God as him rejecting the existence of God. From what I'm getting, he was open to the idea of God and also to the concept of pantheism.
His objection to the label atheist in particular seems to correspond to what we'd call, I think, anti-theists. Atheists on a crusade against theists, which is something he wasn't keen on.
I think his objection to the label of atheist was because he wasn't an atheist.
I mean, the man outright said he was not an atheist. I don't know how that could be more clear.
Einstein said in correspondence, "[T]he fanatical atheists...are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against the traditional 'opium of the people'—cannot hear the music of the spheres." Although he did not believe in a personal God, he indicated that he would never seek to combat such belief because "such a belief seems to me preferable to the lack of any transcendental outlook."
I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal god is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.
I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves.
Reading some of the quotes attributed to him, he doesn't believe in a sentient God, but says we can't prove that God's non-existence. Is that not the stance of agnostic atheism? (Also, it's because of the quote above that it seemed to me that he considered atheists to be a group that were vehemently anti-theist, in which he did not include himself.) I thought that the two axes were 'Can we know?' (Gnostic/Agnostic) and 'Do I believe?' (Theist/Atheist), so that if Einstein thought we couldn't know, and he didn't believe, that he would be an agnostic atheist.
Pantheism is something I had not previously encountered, so thanks for pointing that out; it seems to be the idea that everything-is-God, which is apparently divisible into philosophical and religious stances, with the latter being more focused on the idea of God, and the former on nature. I guess that would place Einstein as an agnostic pantheist.
While he viewed himself as agnostic, one could see why phrases like the above could be interpreted as atheist, for some definitions of the word.
Except those interpretations would be erroneous. Einstein specifically said he wasn't an atheist.
After reading more of his words on the subject, he sounds like an agnostic atheist to me (unless I have the terminology wrong - not believing in a God, but believing we can't know for certain?). His objection to the label atheist in particular seems to correspond to what we'd call, I think, anti-theists. Atheists on a crusade against theists, which is something he wasn't keen on.
One of the greatest physicists, who was an atheist.
Einstein wasn't an atheist.
He self-identified as an agnostic, and said (bolding mine)
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
While he viewed himself as agnostic, one could see why phrases like the above could be interpreted as atheist, for some definitions of the word.
It is fascinating to learn about the Trump U case while also seeking details about the ongoing FBI investigation of HRC's disregard for secure email.
One is a small abrasion, while the other is a decapitation. I wonder which wound will do more damage. World is cray cray, so the irrational may win out.
45 minute vid
short
succinctly
Ahaha.
I still have no idea why Hillary Clinton used a private email server, nor what she had to gain by doing so. But I've seen pages from the Trump University playbooks, and that looks like a dodgy scam if ever there was one. Trump fleecing the very 'average Americans' he claims to be representing should indeed be a (metaphorical, I am in no way inciting violence) decapitation.
I'm aghast at (in no particular order order):
- The actions of the Bernie Sanders supporters threatening Amy Chozick
- The misinterpretation of the article by Infowars (I'm not sure I agree with the article, but I'm pretty sure the Infowars take on it is uncharitable at best)
- The fact that you linked to Infowars rather than the article itself
- The fact that the Infowars article, I assume deliberately, spells the author's name Bern rather than Benn, as you did.
- The neo-nazis in the comments on the Infowars article
I went to school with someone who pretended to be gay just to be unique and stand out. There is nothing wrong with that, but when you are making policy decision that can dramatically alter social norms, that can invoke some serious responses, responses a kid should not have to make in junior high school.
What responses are these? Is this not the best time for children to learn about transgendered people, before they cement discriminatory opinions?
It's a bombshell for a number of reasons, most of them actually not related to transgender rights in of itself imo.
But, as far as the transgender rights is concerned- it's a bombshell for precisely the reason you wrote- People are now making this into a serious policy issue and Obama basically forced everyone's hands by making a big announcement from the very top.
S.C.'s law was a big deal, but it ultimately remained on the state level and isolated to S.C. Obama just forced every state and its political heads to deal with this. It's a big deal.
I think you nailed it.
As many people are aware, in politics one of the first rules it to label or define your opponent. Obama, purposely or not, is forcing the members of congress to takes sides. Once they pick, the labels are going to start flying. I believe this action polarizes and expands this issue needlessly. I've yet to see ANY empirical evidence that indicate transgender folks are having considerable problems using the bathroom with any degree of frequency.
Have you LOOKED for evidence? How many transgendered people have you asked? Even if you only Googled, you'd find an article linking to this study on the first page. And this article discussing the survey, in which some transgendered people describe their experiences using bathrooms.
Even if you just considered the facts that transgendered people experience discrimination, for which there is also empirical evidence, that and there is no reason to think there would be _less_ discrimination in a gender-segregated bathroom than elsewhere (and given the emphasis on gender in that situation, every reason to suspect more), that might lead you to thinking it could be an issue.
Funny, you don't mention my objection to the protection of women who do not feel comfortable going to bathroom with transsexuals, because the objection is the same, for the same reason, yet you only focus on one aspect of my objection and seem to not want to really go into the identity politics being played by both sides on this issue. It may be a straw man, but you are trying to pigeon hold my argument into a singular issue, when in reality it's multifaceted. Yeah, I really really want to talk about that ONE aspect.
I did ask whether it was transgendered people the women objected to, and if they'd feel just as uncomfortable in an all-gender bathroom that men and women both used.
Are you drawing an equivalence between a transgendered person's well-justified fear of abuse and/or harassment in a bathroom, and a woman's discomfort at sharing a bathroom with transgendered people because she thinks they're squicky?
Trump has over 70% Mostly False, False, or Pants on Fire.
Clinton has less than 30% Mostly False, False, or Pants on Fire.
It's true that both sides lie, but one side does it a lot more.
1. The judge disagrees with me.
2. It must be because the judge has Mexican heritage.
Rather than:
1. The judge has Mexican heritage
2. The judge is therefore biased
And that therefore it's not racist, because
- he wouldn't blame the judge's Mexican heritage if the judge found in his favour
- he's not saying all people of Mexican descent are biased because they don't happen to be judging him right now?
Do you think Trump himself might qualify as unbiased?
Oh, come on. Some of them, I assume, are good people.
Pantheism is something I had not previously encountered, so thanks for pointing that out; it seems to be the idea that everything-is-God, which is apparently divisible into philosophical and religious stances, with the latter being more focused on the idea of God, and the former on nature. I guess that would place Einstein as an agnostic pantheist.
Ahaha.
I still have no idea why Hillary Clinton used a private email server, nor what she had to gain by doing so. But I've seen pages from the Trump University playbooks, and that looks like a dodgy scam if ever there was one. Trump fleecing the very 'average Americans' he claims to be representing should indeed be a (metaphorical, I am in no way inciting violence) decapitation.
- The actions of the Bernie Sanders supporters threatening Amy Chozick
- The misinterpretation of the article by Infowars (I'm not sure I agree with the article, but I'm pretty sure the Infowars take on it is uncharitable at best)
- The fact that you linked to Infowars rather than the article itself
- The fact that the Infowars article, I assume deliberately, spells the author's name Bern rather than Benn, as you did.
- The neo-nazis in the comments on the Infowars article
Clinton: "You literally said all those things, Donald J. Trump."
I wonder if Trump believes that flat-out denying he said those things, when they're a matter of public record, will actually work.
Even if you just considered the facts that transgendered people experience discrimination, for which there is also empirical evidence, that and there is no reason to think there would be _less_ discrimination in a gender-segregated bathroom than elsewhere (and given the emphasis on gender in that situation, every reason to suspect more), that might lead you to thinking it could be an issue.
Are you drawing an equivalence between a transgendered person's well-justified fear of abuse and/or harassment in a bathroom, and a woman's discomfort at sharing a bathroom with transgendered people because she thinks they're squicky?