'Murica! (40 Viewers)

[donpiero]

CNN in a nutshell: Crucifying Trump on his locker room rant, and then outright denying that Hilary had a good laugh remembering how she managed to get a child rapist off the hook. (even if it takes to call the physical evidence in the form of an audio tape a lie)

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[ALC]

CNN in a nutshell: Crucifying Trump on his locker room rant, and then outright denying that Hilary had a good laugh remembering how she managed to get a child rapist off the hook. (even if it takes to call the physical evidence in the form of an audio tape a lie)

Oh god, this again

 

[GordoDeCentral]

like I said - they are having a ball ...

Being black in the US today presents an amazing and unfair advantage ... you and I should seriously consider getting us some "tan" ... surgical procedures and technologies can do wonders these days and you can always set a tanning bed on "max" too.

My bad i misunderstood your previous post

- - - Updated - - -

Yup, Blacks (and women) face a lot of "informal" discrimination. You can argue whether it's the right approach to try to correct these kind of disadvantages with legal "privileges" in the other direction, but it's flat out misleading to say that they enjoy more rights.

- - - Updated - - -

Of course in some areas men face informal discrimination as well (e.g. working in kindergardens, paternity leave), but I'd argue it's far less common than the other way around.

It's not misleading it's fact, they have rights that others don't ergo more right. And let's stop with this discrimination bs, we are all facing prejudice based on how we look and where we are and blacks and women don't face anymore than any other person out there.

- - - Updated - - -

Not really. There are physical requirements to be a navy seal that objectively make men better at the job.

No such thing for presidents.

Great, well in an effort to level the playground as you put it they tried to change the physical requirements to make it easier for women to get there, do you see how ridiculous this line of thinking is

 

[Ronn]

Love watching Trump surrogates with that dazed look, thinking "how do I deflect this?"

This might be the best one yet from the Conway moron.

- - - Updated - - -
@Ronn


Blake Fahrenthold. Only Texas could elect this guy to the house.

This guy is a certified moron. He was surprisingly elected to congress in 2010, and then they gerrymandered his district in 2011 to make sure he never leaves there.
https://www.texasobserver.org/nothing-congress-blake-farenthold-enjoying-view/

 

[Seven]

Great, well in an effort to level the playground as you put it they tried to change the physical requirements to make it easier for women to get there, do you see how ridiculous this line of thinking is

I completely disagree with that attitude (which I consider dangerously reckless in this case). But I don't see how it's relevant to the debate of a female president. I obviously don't think being a woman should be considered an advantage or something that automatically makes you more suited to become president. I do think it's very strange that half of the population has never had a president of their own.

- - - Updated - - -

It's not misleading it's fact, they have rights that others don't ergo more right. And let's stop with this discrimination bs, we are all facing prejudice based on how we look and where we are and blacks and women don't face anymore than any other person out there.

I think Ocelot is talking from a European perspective here. It's difficult to know all of the tiny details that make one able to make such an assumption without actually living in the States. In Europe, I think it's almost universal that everyone enjoys the same basic rights according to the law, but that it is much harder for certain minorities to enjoy these rights in reality.

 

[Dostoevsky]

I completely disagree with that attitude (which I consider dangerously reckless in this case). But I don't see how it's relevant to the debate of a female president. I obviously don't think being a woman should be considered an advantage or something that automatically makes you more suited to become president. I do think it's very strange that half of the population has never had a president of their own.

- - - Updated - - -



I think Ocelot is talking from a European perspective here. It's difficult to know all of the tiny details that make one able to make such an assumption without actually living in the States. In Europe, I think it's almost universal that everyone enjoys the same basic rights according to the law, but that it is much harder for certain minorities to enjoy these rights in reality.

Like that means much

 

[GordoDeCentral]

I completely disagree with that attitude (which I consider dangerously reckless in this case). But I don't see how it's relevant to the debate of a female president. I obviously don't think being a woman should be considered an advantage or something that automatically makes you more suited to become president. I do think it's very strange that half of the population has never had a president of their own.

- - - Updated - - -



I think Ocelot is talking from a European perspective here. It's difficult to know all of the tiny details that make one able to make such an assumption without actually living in the States. In Europe, I think it's almost universal that everyone enjoys the same basic rights according to the law, but that it is much harder for certain minorities to enjoy these rights in reality.

Good catch, context is the US

 

[Enron]

CNN in a nutshell: Crucifying Trump on his locker room rant, and then outright denying that Hilary had a good laugh remembering how she managed to get a child rapist off the hook. (even if it takes to call the physical evidence in the form of an audio tape a lie)

Why they call it a locker room rant? It wasn't in a locker room. Plus, I've been in a shit ton of locker rooms and I can't remember anyone ever talking about assaultin some bitches. Usually, it's talking about the girls you banged, the girls you wanna back, how nice your shit was that day, cologne, which coach might be gay, rap music, and cars.

Plus, we all know Trump has never been in a locker room in his life. So how would he know?

Just call it what it is. Dumb ass comments he shouldn't have made. Apologize and move on.

 

[Ocelot]

It's not misleading it's fact, they have rights that others don't ergo more right. And let's stop with this discrimination bs, we are all facing prejudice based on how we look and where we are and blacks and women don't face anymore than any other person out there.

Well, we simply disagree on this point then. Of course those are not the only characteristics that lead to discrimination, but they are hugely significant, at least in my opinion. Take for example these studies: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/04/upshot/the-measuring-sticks-of-racial-bias-.html

Again, you can argue that affirmative action is unfair too, and not the way to combat that discrimination, but I don't think that this is your point here.

I think Ocelot is talking from a European perspective here. It's difficult to know all of the tiny details that make one able to make such an assumption without actually living in the States. In Europe, I think it's almost universal that everyone enjoys the same basic rights according to the law, but that it is much harder for certain minorities to enjoy these rights in reality.

True.

But the thing is, from everything I've heard & read, from speaking with people, reading newspapers, following the news or also the kind of studies linked above I clearly get the picture that the US isn't all that different in that respect. Of course I've never lived in the US and you can certainly use that as an argument against my case - but you should be able to then back up your view with some concrete arguments too. Especially because it seems to me that a lot of US Americans have a viewpoint relatively similar to mine as well, and that counterargument obviously doesn't apply to them.

- - - Updated - - -

This guy is a certified moron. He was surprisingly elected to congress in 2010, and then they gerrymandered his district in 2011 to make sure he never leaves there.
https://www.texasobserver.org/nothing-congress-blake-farenthold-enjoying-view/

What I really don't get is why neither party seems particularly bothered about gerrymandering. It's so obviously a horrible idea, and I think that you could make a really popular case out of it as well if you'd invest some time & campaign power. Especially since I've only heard of Republicans gerrymandering (this is the part where I might be simply misinformed, but I haven't heard of any case of democrats using that method), it seems like a no-brainer for democrats to discuss the topic a lot more than it is right now.

- - - Updated - - -

Why they call it a locker room rant? It wasn't in a locker room. Plus, I've been in a shit ton of locker rooms and I can't remember anyone ever talking about assaultin some bitches. Usually, it's talking about the girls you banged, the girls you wanna back, how nice your shit was that day, cologne, which coach might be gay, rap music, and cars.

Plus, we all know Trump has never been in a locker room in his life. So how would he know?

Just call it what it is. Dumb ass comments he shouldn't have made. Apologize and move on.

Yeah, locker room talk is vulgar a lot of times, but the vulgarity isn't the problem with Trump's comment. Although I feel like his campaign is trying to make it seem as if the outrage is more about the language used than the actual content of the quote.

 

[Enron]

Yeah, locker room talk is vulgar a lot of times, but the vulgarity isn't the problem with Trump's comment. Although I feel like his campaign is trying to make it seem as if the outrage is more about the language used than the actual content of the quote.

It's great for them because now they don't have to talk about policy. But what they don't understand is that the more mud they sling the more they get on themselves. Trying to make this an election based on who is the nicest asshole is a dumb play, but probably the only one they have.

They can't be winning over too many independent voters.

 

[Post Ironic]

CNN in a nutshell: Crucifying Trump on his locker room rant, and then outright denying that Hilary had a good laugh remembering how she managed to get a child rapist off the hook. (even if it takes to call the physical evidence in the form of an audio tape a lie)

Are you stupid? This is a serious question. If the answer is no, then it is somewhat mind blowing that you cannot do enough simple research to realize how inane what you just wrote is.

But I will help you out. http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-laughed-about-it/

She did not get the man off... She did not laugh about getting the man off. The assertions claimed are mostly false.

She did not want the case and was appointed the public defender by the judge. Something you don't have much say about, and pro bono work for the poor is usually something we laud a lawyer for. She didn't make up the stuff about fantasies, that was a child psychology expert. She didn't get the man off, he pled guilty and it was the girl's mother that pushed for this hardest so it would not go to trial. And lastly she laughed about the eccentricities of the case, not about getting the rapist off. Stuff like that this man destroyed her faith in polygraphs.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

Well, we simply disagree on this point then. Of course those are not the only characteristics that lead to discrimination, but they are hugely significant, at least in my opinion. Take for example these studies: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/04/upshot/the-measuring-sticks-of-racial-bias-.html

Again, you can argue that affirmative action is unfair too, and not the way to combat that discrimination, but I don't think that this is your point here.






True.

But the thing is, from everything I've heard & read, from speaking with people, reading newspapers, following the news or also the kind of studies linked above I clearly get the picture that the US isn't all that different in that respect. Of course I've never lived in the US and you can certainly use that as an argument against my case - but you should be able to then back up your view with some concrete arguments too. Especially because it seems to me that a lot of US Americans have a viewpoint relatively similar to mine as well, and that counterargument obviously doesn't apply to them.

- - - Updated - - -



What I really don't get is why neither party seems particularly bothered about gerrymandering. It's so obviously a horrible idea, and I think that you could make a really popular case out of it as well if you'd invest some time & campaign power. Especially since I've only heard of Republicans gerrymandering (this is the part where I might be simply misinformed, but I haven't heard of any case of democrats using that method), it seems like a no-brainer for democrats to discuss the topic a lot more than it is right now.

- - - Updated - - -



Yeah, locker room talk is vulgar a lot of times, but the vulgarity isn't the problem with Trump's comment. Although I feel like his campaign is trying to make it seem as if the outrage is more about the language used than the actual content of the quote.

You do know that article you posted actually supports my point

 

[campionesidd]

still taking CNN and MSNBC seriously, ok

Go and take Breitbart and Alex Jones seriously. They are the only Pro Trump media outlets.

 

[Ocelot]

You do know that article you posted actually supports my point

I'm not sure I'm following

All it does is give evidence of situations where blacks are treated worse than whites - unless your point is that there's very little "open" discrimination left, but that's not what we're arguing about?

 

[Ronn]

What I really don't get is why neither party seems particularly bothered about gerrymandering. It's so obviously a horrible idea, and I think that you could make a really popular case out of it as well if you'd invest some time & campaign power. Especially since I've only heard of Republicans gerrymandering (this is the part where I might be simply misinformed, but I haven't heard of any case of democrats using that method), it seems like a no-brainer for democrats to discuss the topic a lot more than it is right now.

The wording of the constitution makes it kind of hard (Article I, section 4, clause 1: "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof"). a 2004 supreme court case punted the issue by saying that it cannot set a standard for political vs apolitical redistricting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vieth_v._Jubelirer
I think, similar to the issue of money in politics, both parties find it very hard to tackle, since passing a constitutional amendment is next to impossible. In the meantime, they know if they don't enjoy it the other party will sure do. So I think it will not have a political solution, but a legal solution through the Supreme Court.
Having said that, some progress has been made. After this court case from last year, it'll be legal to establish independent redistricting commissions through ballot initiatives.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizo..._Arizona_Independent_Redistricting_Commission

 

[Osman]

CNN in a nutshell: Crucifying Trump on his locker room rant, and then outright denying that Hilary had a good laugh remembering how she managed to get a child rapist off the hook. (even if it takes to call the physical evidence in the form of an audio tape a lie)

Haha, ok you are just clueless.

Skickat från min SM-G930F via Tapatalk

 

[Fr3sh]

Go and take Breitbart and Alex Jones seriously. They are the only Pro Trump media outlets.

He's a fun guy.

 

[Ronn]

still taking CNN and MSNBC seriously, ok

Are you saying that CNN put words in Conway's mouth to make her look like a moron? It's a fucking interview. You don't even trust her own words when it is coming through CNN?

 

[Enron]

Are you stupid? This is a serious question. If the answer is no, then it is somewhat mind blowing that you cannot do enough simple research to realize how inane what you just wrote is.

But I will help you out. http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-laughed-about-it/

She did not get the man off... She did not laugh about getting the man off. She did not make the assertions claimed.

She did not want the case and was appointed the public defender by the judge. Something you don't have much say about, and pro bono work for the poor is usually something we laud a lawyer for. She didn't make up the stuff about fantasies, that was a child psychology expert. She didn't get the man off, he pled guilty and it was the girl's mother that pushed for this hardest so it would not go to trial. And lastly she laughed about the eccentricities of the case, not about getting the rapist off. Stuff like that this man destroyed her faith in polygraphs.

I dont think it should be a big deal that she took on a child rapist as an attorney. In our nation everyone deserves to be defended in court, even sick fucks. If anything she should commended for that. Obviously she has done bad stuff in her past but this was not one of them.

John Adams defended the british soldiers responsible for the Boston Massacre. He was a horrible person.

 

[ZoSo]

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4624521/jill-stein-donald-trump-better-russia

but drumpf is dangerous!

if the greens candidate prefers the republican candidate over the democrat that should tell you something, but the experds here will tell you otherwise