Hack bbb is upset that people are treated differently in society, so he's complaining about people complaining that trans people are on average treated significantly worse.
I think.
This is the second time I'm posting this.
This is an example of SJW rhetoric. I'm not upset, nor am I complaining. I'm simply asking you to provide relevant data to support the contention that it occurs a significant amount of time.
There is a talk radio host who is uncomfortable with using the bathroom with trans folks. She has just as much right to be comfortable in a bathroom as a trans person. The problem with accommodating her with regulation is, is the extent to which she is faced with being uncomfortable. I would venture to guess that she rarely, if ever has to use the bathroom with a trans-gendered person. I would need to be shown that her bathroom activities are impacted a significant amount of time before I would consider protecting her use of the bathroom.
I have often used bathrooms that are for all genders - a room with a series of stalls, and a shared space for washing one's hands afterwards. Would your talk radio host be uncomfortable using these bathrooms as well? It's not clear to me whether her discomfort is due to having men or transgendered women in the bathroom with her.
Quote from bravesbaseball »
I see. Well played. You conflated 70% of trans being the victim of some sort of bigotry as a high frequency, yet that number does not show the frequency to which those 70% have been the victim of bathroom bigotry. And you say I'm the one ignoring evidence? You are not even comprehending my argument or the data. Do you understand that figure you cited has no indication of frequency?
What frequency of discrimination against transgender people would you consider unacceptable. and requiring of action?
Well that is one crisis averted. Now we just have to keep Trump out of the white house and we can have another four mediocre years instead of four awful years.
See, that's the problem, though. We have to also find someone who can be a mediocre president. I don't believe Hillary would achieve mediocrity at all.
Really hoping for someone good to run as a third party. Hell, now's the time for it, you have two incredibly unpopular people running.
Are there particular policies of Clinton's that you dislike? The only comparison between her and the Republican candidates I've seen is on tax policy, where she plans to tax the very rich slightly more, compared to the Republican plan of taxing the very rich substantially less.
I'd be interested to see a general election with a viable third party - I've only been paying attention to your general elections since Obama-McCain, and there hasn't been a third party with a reasonable shot in that period.
An interview with Kasich, in which he says some sensible things, and also feels that the media isn't paying much attention to his victories, and that Trump can say anything he wants, but the media picks on what he (Kasich) says.
I have gotten the impression that the media aren't exactly shy about coming down on things Trump says.
[quote from="Grant »" url="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/community-forums/debate/624050-donald-trumps-presidency?comment=3233"]Perhaps you could have some kind of literacy test, to make sure people are qualified to vote. I wonder if that's been tried before, and if so, what the true aim, and effect, of those tests were.
Yes, there were literacy tests as part of the Jim Crow laws. Plus grandfather clauses for the illiterate whites.
Irony was my intention, yes. Given that Voter ID laws appear to have a similar purpose to the literacy tests - disenfranchise minorities - having someone suggest, as a result of the voter ID discussion, that some people just aren't qualified to vote seemed a bit on the nose.
Tyranny by minority is a classic weapon. People that cannot figure out and/or be bothered to get a basic ID are very, very unlikely to spend 100s of hours studying the complex issues of this modern era. Why should I care about the voting "rights" of someone that ONLY pulls the lever, with Cheetos on their fingertips and Kim Kardashian on the brain, for politicians that promise "free" goodies cradle to grave?
Where did the 'tyranny by minority' comment come from? Minorities getting the vote they are entitled to is not tyranny.
Perhaps you could have some kind of literacy test, to make sure people are qualified to vote. I wonder if that's been tried before, and if so, what the true aim, and effect, of those tests were.
Just like voter ID laws are only there to prevent voting fraud and have absolutely nothing to do with preventing poor people from voting, right?
WOW... WOW... WOW...
Really?
I guess we are preventing the poor in buying a GUN, ALCOHOL, CIGARETTES, GETTING A JOB, BUYING A CAR, CASHING A CHECK, MEDICAL AID, ETC ETC ETC... BECAUSE THEY ALL REQUIRE BY F'N LAW... ID'S...
This argument never makes any sense...
This study is quite recent, and their numbers indicate that among the effects of voter ID laws are to skew voting in favour of white and right-aligned voters, because the laws have a greater impact on the voting of some minority groups (although I did wince at their use of the phrase 'almost significant'). Oddly, it's Republican legislators with substantial proportions of black people in their electorates that are most supportive of voter ID laws. Maybe it's just a coincidence that they seem to care the most about 'voter fraud'.
Trump cares about American citizens hella more than any of the other candidates. HRC is adored by the filthy rich.
And yet it's Trump's tax plan that dishes out massive amounts to the wealthy, while Clinton's actually has them pay a little more.
Clinton has allegedly raised about 223 million dollars already. And it aint from the folks.
Trump has allegedly raised about 37 millions dollars. Cruz about 120 million. Sanders about 140 million. Poor folks sure have lots o' cash for the Dems.
I'm not sure that this addresses my point that for someone who 'cares about American citizens', when it comes to hard numbers, his care is focused on the extremely rich, at the cost of a substantial addition to the deficit.
Why Democrats Are Becoming the Party of the 1 Percent
April 20, 2016 10:30 am
In a world of Trumpism and Clintonism, there’s only one place for globalist-minded elites to go.
Once again, I'm not sure that this addresses my point that for someone who 'cares about American citizens', when it comes to hard numbers, his care is focused on the extremely rich, at the cost of a substantial addition to the deficit.
If Trump insists on allocating this amount of money to reducing taxes, he could easily reduce taxes across the board, rather than concentrate the effect on the wealthy. And he could do this while still cracking down on illegal labour and reducing military presence overseas (which the article observes as his policies that are distasteful to the elite). The two aren't mutually exclusive.
3). Trump does care about (rich) American citizens
Fixed that for you.
Trump cares about American citizens hella more than any of the other candidates. HRC is adored by the filthy rich.
And yet it's Trump's tax plan that dishes out massive amounts to the wealthy, while Clinton's actually has them pay a little more.
Clinton has allegedly raised about 223 million dollars already. And it aint from the folks.
Trump has allegedly raised about 37 millions dollars. Cruz about 120 million. Sanders about 140 million. Poor folks sure have lots o' cash for the Dems.
I'm not sure that this addresses my point that for someone who 'cares about American citizens', when it comes to hard numbers, his care is focused on the extremely rich, at the cost of a substantial addition to the deficit.
I the sense of the media... the information that's spin is trusted by those reporting the news. Fact checking the source allows us to judge the information ourselves.
But how do you know the sources you Google are trustworthy? For example, there are people who "educate" (I really don't have enough air quotes for that) about vaccination online come out with some bizarre notions firmly entrenched in their heads. You're always going to have to apply some level of discernment.
Teens are already having sex in bathrooms and sex leads to pregnancy. Teens=A, Sex=B, Pregnancy=C. A->B->C. Ergo A->C, Teens having sex leads to teen pregnancy.
By enabling man junk and women junk to be bare in an unsupervised area it is that much more easier to have sex. More chance of teen sex, means more chance of teen pregnancy.
I'm not sure how you don't get this yet, Dox. Maybe if you were a parent you would understand.
Do you think that there would actually be more sex if bathrooms were gender-neutral? To put it another way, assume gender-neutral bathrooms were in place, and teenagers were having sex in them, and then bathrooms became segregated. Do you think that the teenagers would have less sex overall? Or do you think they would have sex in the next most convenient place? Because I would have thought the latter to be the case, and that the total amount of sex would remain approximately constant.
That's not actually an attack, let alone a lethal attack. Why did you even use the word lethal?
Because his camp might lose.
That's all this really is. Does anyone actually believe that if the Trump camp had clinched the win already that they'd be complaining about the brokenness of the system? Of course not, because they'd be winning. It's only when they might not win that they start complaining that the rules are unfair.
I wonder how many 100s of thousands of citizens in CO disagree with you.
American citizens are used to voting for a nominee AND voting in the general. The aristocracy is MOST unhappy that 10s of millions refuse to be spoonfed.
BTW, Highroller, it is better to fight and lose than live in abject fear of saying or doing anything not allowed by this increasingly groupthink culture.
Isn't this the system that has been used every other time? Is the system this year different somehow?
I think the level of groupthink in the culture hasn't changed overly much - either you feel it's increasing because a) it's more evident because of the internet, or (and I think more likely) b) it's started to disagree with you.
Perchance enough blue collar folks will wake up to the reality that MuriKa is under attack.
In other countries, the candidates for Prime Minister or President are selected by the parties. The voters vote for Members of Parliament, and the leader of the party with the majority of Members of Parliament (or the leader of a coalition that forms a majority) becomes the Prime Minister/President. That's not actually an attack, let alone a lethal attack. Why did you even use the word lethal? Actually, why do you even use the word MuriKa? I assume it's some bastardisation of America, but why not just say America?
“We will disclose the hotels and the room numbers of those delegates who are directly involved in the steal,” Stone said Monday, on Freedomain Radio. “If you’re from Pennsylvania, we’ll tell you who the culprits are. We urge you to visit their hotel and find them. You have a right to discuss this, if you voted in the Pennsylvania primary, for example, and your votes are being disallowed,” Stone said.
Now that the bumbler in chief is flat out stealing his policy ideas from Donald Trump
You don't get points for originality. It's not like any ideas of politicians, really, were first thought of by them.
And this sort of policy is not at all surprising considering Obama's history of support for actively fighting socioeconomic inequality. He's living up to his ideals here, it's not like he's just going off the polls.
Not to mention that both Clinton and Sanders have also come down against inversions. Maybe Obama is 'stealing' his ideas from them.
Although the idea that someone should refuse to support an idea just because it came from someone they don't like might explain Congress.
What frequency of discrimination against transgender people would you consider unacceptable. and requiring of action?
I'd be interested to see a general election with a viable third party - I've only been paying attention to your general elections since Obama-McCain, and there hasn't been a third party with a reasonable shot in that period.
I have gotten the impression that the media aren't exactly shy about coming down on things Trump says.
Perhaps you could have some kind of literacy test, to make sure people are qualified to vote. I wonder if that's been tried before, and if so, what the true aim, and effect, of those tests were.
If Trump insists on allocating this amount of money to reducing taxes, he could easily reduce taxes across the board, rather than concentrate the effect on the wealthy. And he could do this while still cracking down on illegal labour and reducing military presence overseas (which the article observes as his policies that are distasteful to the elite). The two aren't mutually exclusive.
I think the level of groupthink in the culture hasn't changed overly much - either you feel it's increasing because a) it's more evident because of the internet, or (and I think more likely) b) it's started to disagree with you.
Although the idea that someone should refuse to support an idea just because it came from someone they don't like might explain Congress.
On what metric?