No, Many people voted for Trump despite whatever controversies the media reported because.
1. They don't care 2. They don't care 3. They don't believe it 4. They think about how he will benefit them
Your average laymen on the street isn't obsessed with party politics (like us honestly) that they scrutinize and perform pseudo-pyscho-analysis every little thing he does.
Alot of them vote simply based on their peer group, or how they think this person will benefit them economically or socially.
How do i know this? absurdly simple.
Just. Listen. To. His. Voters.
Go watch any interview with the working class that voted for him, do they talk about voting for him because he is Strongman? Or because he likes Pussy? No.
In fact almost by uniform all the interviews of the working class say they vote for him because they hope and believe he will benefit them economically.
Honestly i think its concerning both that these election controversies keep getting regurgitated here with no real link to any recent development but to repeat yet another tiring attack on Trump (if you are truly concerned about his views on Women, You would probably want to read up on his promotion of women in the workplace through recent Executive Orders, His upbringing of Ivanka, His marriages. But that won't fit the narrative).
And that there is so much statements on 'What Trump supporters are like' which tend towards betraying them as monsters and making statements of fact of why they voted for him which is so clearly different from why they say they voted for him.
No, you use the tried and tested practice of empirical evidence.
Virtually every interview of the working-class say they voted for Trump because of their hope and belief in improvement in their economics (job, wages etc).
Could one of them lie? certainly, Could All of them lie now i think your stretching it.
Working-class democrats voted for Trump, this is even reported by the mainstream media. Now you certainly cannot argue that working-class democrats voted for Trump based on party loyalty.
You also will have a hard time arguing that working-class democrats voted for Trump because he is some stereotypical evil republican in some fashion (why would they even be democrats then if they preferred this in some fashion).
And while i am familiar with the perspective of 'Beliefs are arbitrary and people believe what they want hence all statements can't be trusted' this argument is often simply taken as an extreme to discount peoples statements.
Consider this, despite this perspective, Humans have been able to work together to create amazing things.
Evidently even if you subscribe to the notion that humans are irrational, we obviously have ways to communicate with each other and to assess reality effectively enough to actually go to the Moon.
I don't believe our race could achieve this if we were so arbitrary and random.
Can you state your intentions and arguments in the next post otherwise I'm afraid I'll be heading off to sleep and I probably won't be interested in picking this discussion up tomorrow since this style of 'rope-questioning' is slow and not interesting.
So all those people that thought that Trump would benefit them somehow who didn't care that he admitted that he was a pussy grabber and a racist and a sexist etc. Where are they now? As has been admitted they don't know what the issues are they only care can this jerk do something for me right? So if they were able to follow the issues, they would see him failing and flip flopping on virtually every major issue.
Stay out of foreign wars! ha. Bring back coal jobs! Well he's signed some stuff but coals dead. Muslim ban! Fail. Repeal and replace obama care on day 1! fail and his replacement was like Obamacare except 100 times worse. Mexico pay for the wall! No, you the voter will pay for the wall. China a currency manipulator! No he changed his mind. Nato's obsolete, now it's not. Replace Janet Yellen at the Federal Reserve, nah. etc etc
If you followed him it's clear he has some priorities. Poor voters are not one of them at all. He wants to let loose business so that they can extract every last dollar at the expense of safety and common sense. Mostly he wants to cut taxes on the rich, that is his biggest priority by far. He wants to sell your browser search data because he's a jerk and Comcast paid him and the Republican party to do it. How are his policies going to help his voters who don't care about anything? It won't, he will hurt them.
If they are the dairy farmers in Wisconsin, they are watching the President standing up for them against Canadian tariff.
That said, him saying the "100 day mark is ridiculous" is hypocritical, as he is the one that set the deadline in his contract to the American People.
He has tried on most of his promises, and he is finding it more difficult than he has anticipated, but him deflecting the blame to the media before the 100 days are even met is scapegoatism.
The contract itself has no teeth though. He could have broke every promise written in it and no one would have been able to do anything about it. He won't be held accountable for not meeting those promises because he doesn't have to be.
I think you've made it pretty clear that you don't take the testimonials of the women who have accused Trump of sexual assault at all seriously, and you make light of his "pussy" comment
Perhaps if the testimonials didn't lack in credibility then maybe we could take it a little more seriously? So far it is just evidence-lacking hearsay that no court will be bothered with.
rather than the fact that he was basically admitting
Sorry there is no such thing as "basically admitting".
Either you admit to guilt or you are innocent it is black and white. No amount of leftist interpretation of "maybe/probably/soso/could be" is ever going to count as admitting to guilt. Even if I pretend Trump is guilty the banter had no specifics Trump being a sex criminal is unfortunately unproven conspiracy at best.
Also, she's saying you might think differently if you were a woman.
OH... well in that case she is wrong. #femalesforTrump
So no @Nonnahswriter both my genitalia and the genitalia of any future leader is not a determining factor of who I personally vote for. Sorry Hillary but this means I don't care much for your imaginary glass ceiling
I think you've made it pretty clear that you don't take the testimonials of the women who have accused Trump of sexual assault at all seriously, and you make light of his "pussy" comment
Perhaps if the testimonials didn't lack in credibility then maybe we could take it a little more seriously? So far it is just evidence-lacking hearsay that no court will be bothered with.
rather than the fact that he was basically admitting
Sorry there is no such thing as "basically admitting".
Either you admit to guilt or you are innocent it is black and white. No amount of leftist interpretation of "maybe/probably/soso/could be" is ever going to count as admitting to guilt. Even if I pretend Trump is guilty the banter had no specifics Trump being a sex criminal is unfortunately unproven conspiracy at best.
Also, she's saying you might think differently if you were a woman.
OH... well in that case she is wrong. #femalesforTrump
So no @Nonnahswriter both my genitalia and the genitalia of any future leader is not a determining factor of who I personally vote for. Sorry Hillary but this means I don't care much for your imaginary glass ceiling
Why do they lack credibility?? You've shown nothing but a callous disregard for even the IDEA that these allegations from 12 different women (who have taken no money) might be true, nevermind the fact that assault victims often don't come forward because of fear and shame, especially when it involves a person with power. You seem to mock the very idea of sexual assault allegations at large in society as some sort of fake feminist construct and post memes mocking the weight and figure of female celebrities you find distasteful, saying Lena Dunham isn't an effective "spokesperson" for the left because she is obese, unattractive and annoying. It's right about now that I wish there was far more females posting in this thread.
We would like to draw everyone's attention to the fact that this site's rating is Teen. If you quote someone, you still have to apply the rules of the forum. So rather than posting a quote that would violate the rules, make some hints, or provide a link with a warning regarding the content in question, or just don't post it.
He Said Mean Things just isn't a valid political argument to me. For one it's not applied with even the pretense of equality, the left openly associates and gives speaking engagements to Palestinian terrorists who have murdered innocents and only slightly less odious figures like Linda Sarsour. Nobody disavowed the Democratic Party when Anthony Weiner was proven to be a pedophile. Nobody disavowed Huffington Post when it posts articles promoting denying the votes to whites. (there's actually a funny story to that last one)
So anytime i'm told this person or that person deserves censorship/is A Real Bad Guy/what have you I just can't take it seriously because it is so thoroughly hypocritical and one-sided.
He Said Mean Things just isn't a valid political argument to me. For one it's not applied with even the pretense of equality, the left openly associates and gives speaking engagements to Palestinian terrorists who have murdered innocents and only slightly less odious figures like Linda Sarsour. Nobody disavowed the Democratic Party when Anthony Weiner was proven to be a pedophile. Nobody disavowed Huffington Post when it posts articles promoting denying the votes to whites. (there's actually a funny story to that last one)
So anytime i'm told this person or that person deserves censorship/is A Real Bad Guy/what have you I just can't take it seriously because it is so thoroughly hypocritical and one-sided.
Anthony Weiner immediately resigned from Congress when the first whiff of his scandal surfaced, long before the later allegations. Meanwhile, a man who was engaging in serial pedophilia for decades was Speaker of the House for the ENTIRE first six years of the Bush Administration.
And honestly, as long as the Republican Party is going to continue to actively attempt to suppress minority votes across the country, I'd say having a discussion about engaging in the same tactics against white, rural voters is fair game. Not that that would ever have a chance in hell of taking place. There is ONE party who has put laws in place that restrict and make it harder for citizens to vote. Closing as many polling places as possible in majority African-American districts, draconian voter ID laws, the multi-state cross check system started by Chris Kobach.
See, there we disagree. I wouldn't celebrate taking the right to vote away from anyone just because it would spite the other side. This is our country, we should be building each other up, not finding ways to screw each other over for cheap political points. The partisan mindset can go too far at times, in my respectful yet honest opinion.
He wants to sell your browser search data because he's a jerk and Comcast paid him and the Republican party to do it.
To be fair, that blame is on Congress for passing it and Trump just going along with signing it.
I blame Trump for things Trump does (or says), and blame Congress for things Congress does. I blame Trump for appointing Gorsuch over Garland, but I blame Republican Congress for the motion to cloture so they can bypass dissent and vote him in on partisanship.
He wants to sell your browser search data because he's a jerk and Comcast paid him and the Republican party to do it.
To be fair, that blame is on Congress for passing it and Trump just going along with signing it.
I blame Trump for things Trump does (or says), and blame Congress for things Congress does. I blame Trump for appointing Gorsuch over Garland, but I blame Republican Congress for the motion to cloture so they can bypass dissent and vote him in on partisanship.
When the media reported on the internet privacy bill, it was wholly inaccurate. Most headlines said "the Senate" voted for this. That makes it seem like everyone was complicit, when in fact it was an absolute straight party-line vote. An accurate headline would have been "Republicans in Congress" voted to allow selling of browser search data. They are also the ones who want to do away with Net Neutrality. On this issue, there is no "both sides" If you care about these particular issues, Republicans juts voted against you 100% and Democrats voted to have your back 100%.
This is why I always scoff at the idea that there is no difference between the parties or that both of them are working to screw us. In regards to foreign policy, and often in regards to Wall Street regulation, this can frequently be the case. But on most domestic economic issues and nearly ALL social issues, the differences couldn't be more stark. There IS a definite difference between the parties. I once thought there wasn't either. It was in 2000 when I voted for Ralph Nader instead of Al Gore. It took me about 48 hours after election night to have that notion shattered. There ARE two distinct choices to make, whatever those choices may be.
Why do they lack credibility?? You've shown nothing but a callous disregard for even the IDEA that these allegations from 12 different women (who have taken no money) might be true, nevermind the fact that assault victims often don't come forward because of fear and shame, especially when it involves a person with power.
It lacks credibility because there is (currently) nothing substantial to any accusation that pins Trump beyond the realm of conspiracy or hearsay. Trump being powerful and/or the alleged victims being "fearful" is unfortunate sure... however it doesn't really account for anything to support the victim's claims.
There is quite a massive leap from Trump being a deplorable to Trump admitting to being a criminal.
You seem to mock the very idea of sexual assault allegations at large in society as some sort of fake feminist construct and post memes mocking the weight and figure of female celebrities you find distasteful, saying Lena Dunham isn't an effective "spokesperson" for the left because she is obese, unattractive and annoying. It's right about now that I wish there was far more females posting in this thread.
I mock the idea of allegations being used as valid criticism (especially the ones that I am skeptical of).
Lena Dunham is just one of the many examples I could give you of some insanely bad choices of personalities representing the left. I don't really blame liberals for this but rather I blame the mainstream (and alternative) media for freely promoting these insane charisma-lacking ideologues. However I will blame liberals for allowing the media to get away with it rather than outright rejecting these horrid spokespeople. You guys have almost all of hollywood on your side for heavens sake! The left clearly isn't short of talent, intellect, humor and good looks.
...So why do they seem content scraping the bottom of the barrel for personalities and/or representatives?
So no Nonnahswriter both my genitalia and the genitalia of any future leader is not a determining factor of who I personally vote for. Sorry Hillary but this means I don't care much for your imaginary glass ceiling
But it does.
It does because the way a man lives in this world is vastly different from the way a woman lives.
You have never had to worry about what you're wearing before you leave the house. Never had to worry about whether your shirt was cut too low, or your shorts are too high, or if your legs were too hairy and needed to be shaved, all to avoid someone cat-calling or harassing you.
You have never had your father pull you to the side and urge you to keep watch of your drink before you go to a party with friends, because he's afraid someone might slip something in while you're not looking.
You have never had to worry about walking alone at night, never had to listen for the faintest of footsteps behind you or count the number of houses and businesses in your immediate area and wonder how many might come to help if you screamed loud enough.
You haven't been threatened with rape and death by an anonymous player in an online game immediately after your real name is used--a very feminine name that gives away your gender.
OH... well in that case she is wrong. #femalesforTrump
I can't speak for the Trumpettes. I obviously don't agree with them and personally find their like of the man abhorrent. I can only tell you that nearly every woman in my life absolutely does not find his comments or behavior acceptable.
I will offer the same advice to you that I gave earlier in the thread: listen to us. You are but one person who has seen the world through one pair of eyes. You are not always right and you don't know it all. If someone from a different perspective tells you yes, this is a problem, wonder for a moment why they think that is.
Put yourself in their shoes. My shoes. The man who is representing the face of America, the man who will be interacting with dozens of different countries and cultures, had this to say about women:
When I first heard this transcript, I felt my insides curl. I wanted to shirk and hide under a pillow and hope no one noticed me. I wanted to throw up. How could anyone talk about someone like that? How could anyone think that was acceptable?
And mind, I'm not a survivor. I've never been sexually assaulted and I hope I never have to go through that. So, for a survivor to hear our country's representative talk like that, in private or not... Well. We can't know what might be going through her head, but we can guess that it was nothing good.
That is the difference between men and women. When men hear that kind of garbage, they can dismiss it. They don't have to care. They haven't had the dangers of assault dangled over them for their entire lives, so what does it matter what some old man in power has to say about it? It doesn't directly affect them one way or another.
But when a woman hears it, it's different. When a woman hears it--or at least, when I hear it, as someone who identifies as a woman--all I can think to myself is:
That could have been me.
That could have been my mother. Or my cousin. Or my aunt. Or my friend.
It's right about now that I wish there was far more females posting in this thread.
I think I know why. Again, I can only speak from my experience, but it is exhausting to be the only female representation in the discussion, especially when women's issues come up. There's an absurd amount of pressure for me to be more articulate, more intelligent, more open to reason than anyone else on any other issue in this thread, because being the only woman makes me the "face" so to speak of all womanhood. That weight is crushing, and frankly, I wouldn't blame anyone if they just shrugged their shoulders and decided to stay out.
It's especially unhelpful when you have certain members who just hand-wave any point you bring up by saying, "Well, I know X women and they don't think like you do." Of course some women think differently than me; we're not a freaking hive-mind. But pretending that gender and race and orientations and gods know what else don't play a major part in who we are and how we think is just ignorant.
Lena Dunham is just one of the many examples I could give you of some insanely bad choices of personalities representing the left. I don't really blame liberals for this but rather I blame the mainstream (and alternative) media for freely promoting these insane charisma-lacking ideologues. However I will blame liberals for allowing the media to get away with it rather than outright rejecting these horrid spokespeople.
You blame liberals for "allowing" Lena Dunham to represent us. Yet I've heard nothing but criticism of the woman coming from the left.
I barely knew who Lean Dunham was until I heard about the scandal involving her book, and all the liberals in the comment section in Buzzfeed where I first heard about it were castigating her. What exactly did I as a liberal do wrong?
As a liberal, what am I supposed to do?
I do not blame conservatives for "allowing" Ann Coulter to represent them. Should I?
I can't find the quote at the moment but Trump supposedly said something like he enthusiastically supported the bill to repeal privacy protections and let your ISP sell your browsing history.
The bill had like a 6% approval rate but the Republicans jammed it through anyway because they work for big business, not for you.
So no Nonnahswriter both my genitalia and the genitalia of any future leader is not a determining factor of who I personally vote for. Sorry Hillary but this means I don't care much for your imaginary glass ceiling
But it does.
It does because the way a man lives in this world is vastly different from the way a woman lives.
You have never had to worry about what you're wearing before you leave the house. Never had to worry about whether your shirt was cut too low, or your shorts are too high, or if your legs were too hairy and needed to be shaved, all to avoid someone cat-calling or harassing you.
You have never had your father pull you to the side and urge you to keep watch of your drink before you go to a party with friends, because he's afraid someone might slip something in while you're not looking.
You have never had to worry about walking alone at night, never had to listen for the faintest of footsteps behind you or count the number of houses and businesses in your immediate area and wonder how many might come to help if you screamed loud enough.
You haven't been threatened with rape and death by an anonymous player in an online game immediately after your real name is used--a very feminine name that gives away your gender.
OH... well in that case she is wrong. #femalesforTrump
I can't speak for the Trumpettes. I obviously don't agree with them and personally find their like of the man abhorrent. I can only tell you that nearly every woman in my life absolutely does not find his comments or behavior acceptable.
I will offer the same advice to you that I gave earlier in the thread: listen to us. You are but one person who has seen the world through one pair of eyes. You are not always right and you don't know it all. If someone from a different perspective tells you yes, this is a problem, wonder for a moment why they think that is.
Put yourself in their shoes. My shoes. The man who is representing the face of America, the man who will be interacting with dozens of different countries and cultures, had this to say about women:
When I first heard this transcript, I felt my insides curl. I wanted to shirk and hide under a pillow and hope no one noticed me. I wanted to throw up. How could anyone talk about someone like that? How could anyone think that was acceptable?
And mind, I'm not a survivor. I've never been sexually assaulted and I hope I never have to go through that. So, for a survivor to hear our country's representative talk like that, in private or not... Well. We can't know what might be going through her head, but we can guess that it was nothing good.
That is the difference between men and women. When men hear that kind of garbage, they can dismiss it. They don't have to care. They haven't had the dangers of assault dangled over them for their entire lives, so what does it matter what some old man in power has to say about it? It doesn't directly affect them one way or another.
But when a woman hears it, it's different. When a woman hears it--or at least, when I hear it, as someone who identifies as a woman--all I can think to myself is:
That could have been me.
That could have been my mother. Or my cousin. Or my aunt. Or my friend.
It's right about now that I wish there was far more females posting in this thread.
I think I know why. Again, I can only speak from my experience, but it is exhausting to be the only female representation in the discussion, especially when women's issues come up. There's an absurd amount of pressure for me to be more articulate, more intelligent, more open to reason than anyone else on any other issue in this thread, because being the only woman makes me the "face" so to speak of all womanhood. That weight is crushing, and frankly, I wouldn't blame anyone if they just shrugged their shoulders and decided to stay out.
It's especially unhelpful when you have certain members who just hand-wave any point you bring up by saying, "Well, I know X women and they don't think like you do." Of course some women think differently than me; we're not a freaking hive-mind. But pretending that gender and race and orientations and gods know what else don't play a major part in who we are and how we think is just ignorant.
I'd like to commend this entire post, and also make one other point. Without going into too much detail, I CAN confirm that people who have been sexually assaulted or raped and heard Trump's comments ARE affected by them. Very profoundly. This is why I hate and despise the terminology of the Anti-PC, Alt-Right movement, and especially the use of the word "triggered". It is DELIBERATELY meant to mock victims of sexual assault and downplay the very real issue, of, yes, being triggered back to their own assault when hearing someone like Trump describe engaging in that behavior, or anyone describing it.
Lena Dunham is just one of the many examples I could give you of some insanely bad choices of personalities representing the left. I don't really blame liberals for this but rather I blame the mainstream (and alternative) media for freely promoting these insane charisma-lacking ideologues. However I will blame liberals for allowing the media to get away with it rather than outright rejecting these horrid spokespeople.
You blame liberals for "allowing" Lena Dunham to represent us. Yet I've heard nothing but criticism of the woman coming from the left.
I barely knew who Lean Dunham was until I heard about the scandal involving her book, and all the liberals in the comment section in Buzzfeed where I first heard about it were castigating her. What exactly did I as a liberal do wrong?
As a liberal, what am I supposed to do?
I do not blame conservatives for "allowing" Ann Coulter to represent them. Should I?
What are conservatives supposed to do?
Well, SOMEONE has been buying Ann Coulter's books for 2 decades (though alot of those, like most right-wing books on the bestseller list, are actually purchased in bulk by think tanks to GET them on the bestseller list). On the other hand, Lena Dunham has a very moderately popular show on HBO that was barely able to get renewed. She has no profile at all outside of a premium cable channel. Ann Coulter is on the radio or basic cable nearly every day, and as I mentioned before, she has a syndicated column in newspapers across the country. By any standard, Ann Coulter gets FAR more media exposure and ability to spew her message than Lena Dunham does. Lena Dunham has become the Right's new Jane Fonda, except Jane Fonda was about 100x more famous. If you aren't actively plugged into modern pop culture beyond the surface level, you would have no idea who Lena Dunham actually is. Here appeal even among the most liberal enclaves of New York is niche at best.
Comments
1. They don't care
2. They don't care
3. They don't believe it
4. They think about how he will benefit them
Your average laymen on the street isn't obsessed with party politics (like us honestly) that they scrutinize and perform pseudo-pyscho-analysis every little thing he does.
Alot of them vote simply based on their peer group, or how they think this person will benefit them economically or socially.
How do i know this? absurdly simple.
Just.
Listen.
To.
His.
Voters.
Go watch any interview with the working class that voted for him, do they talk about voting for him because he is Strongman? Or because he likes Pussy? No.
In fact almost by uniform all the interviews of the working class say they vote for him because they hope and believe he will benefit them economically.
Honestly i think its concerning both that these election controversies keep getting regurgitated here with no real link to any recent development but to repeat yet another tiring attack on Trump (if you are truly concerned about his views on Women, You would probably want to read up on his promotion of women in the workplace through recent Executive Orders, His upbringing of Ivanka, His marriages. But that won't fit the narrative).
And that there is so much statements on 'What Trump supporters are like' which tend towards betraying them as monsters and making statements of fact of why they voted for him which is so clearly different from why they say they voted for him.
Virtually every interview of the working-class say they voted for Trump because of their hope and belief in improvement in their economics (job, wages etc).
Could one of them lie? certainly, Could All of them lie now i think your stretching it.
Working-class democrats voted for Trump, this is even reported by the mainstream media.
Now you certainly cannot argue that working-class democrats voted for Trump based on party loyalty.
You also will have a hard time arguing that working-class democrats voted for Trump because he is some stereotypical evil republican in some fashion (why would they even be democrats then if they preferred this in some fashion).
And while i am familiar with the perspective of 'Beliefs are arbitrary and people believe what they want hence all statements can't be trusted' this argument is often simply taken as an extreme to discount peoples statements.
Consider this, despite this perspective, Humans have been able to work together to create amazing things.
Evidently even if you subscribe to the notion that humans are irrational, we obviously have ways to communicate with each other and to assess reality effectively enough to actually go to the Moon.
I don't believe our race could achieve this if we were so arbitrary and random.
That seem's to be an assumption on your part.
Stay out of foreign wars! ha. Bring back coal jobs! Well he's signed some stuff but coals dead. Muslim ban! Fail. Repeal and replace obama care on day 1! fail and his replacement was like Obamacare except 100 times worse. Mexico pay for the wall! No, you the voter will pay for the wall. China a currency manipulator! No he changed his mind. Nato's obsolete, now it's not. Replace Janet Yellen at the Federal Reserve, nah. etc etc
If you followed him it's clear he has some priorities. Poor voters are not one of them at all. He wants to let loose business so that they can extract every last dollar at the expense of safety and common sense. Mostly he wants to cut taxes on the rich, that is his biggest priority by far. He wants to sell your browser search data because he's a jerk and Comcast paid him and the Republican party to do it. How are his policies going to help his voters who don't care about anything? It won't, he will hurt them.
If they are the dairy farmers in Wisconsin, they are watching the President standing up for them against Canadian tariff.
That said, him saying the "100 day mark is ridiculous" is hypocritical, as he is the one that set the deadline in his contract to the American People.
He has tried on most of his promises, and he is finding it more difficult than he has anticipated, but him deflecting the blame to the media before the 100 days are even met is scapegoatism.
The contract itself has no teeth though. He could have broke every promise written in it and no one would have been able to do anything about it. He won't be held accountable for not meeting those promises because he doesn't have to be.
Either you admit to guilt or you are innocent it is black and white. No amount of leftist interpretation of "maybe/probably/soso/could be" is ever going to count as admitting to guilt. Even if I pretend Trump is guilty the banter had no specifics Trump being a sex criminal is unfortunately unproven conspiracy at best. OH... well in that case she is wrong. #femalesforTrump
So no @Nonnahswriter both my genitalia and the genitalia of any future leader is not a determining factor of who I personally vote for. Sorry Hillary but this means I don't care much for your imaginary glass ceiling
So anytime i'm told this person or that person deserves censorship/is A Real Bad Guy/what have you I just can't take it seriously because it is so thoroughly hypocritical and one-sided.
And honestly, as long as the Republican Party is going to continue to actively attempt to suppress minority votes across the country, I'd say having a discussion about engaging in the same tactics against white, rural voters is fair game. Not that that would ever have a chance in hell of taking place. There is ONE party who has put laws in place that restrict and make it harder for citizens to vote. Closing as many polling places as possible in majority African-American districts, draconian voter ID laws, the multi-state cross check system started by Chris Kobach.
I blame Trump for things Trump does (or says), and blame Congress for things Congress does. I blame Trump for appointing Gorsuch over Garland, but I blame Republican Congress for the motion to cloture so they can bypass dissent and vote him in on partisanship.
This is why I always scoff at the idea that there is no difference between the parties or that both of them are working to screw us. In regards to foreign policy, and often in regards to Wall Street regulation, this can frequently be the case. But on most domestic economic issues and nearly ALL social issues, the differences couldn't be more stark. There IS a definite difference between the parties. I once thought there wasn't either. It was in 2000 when I voted for Ralph Nader instead of Al Gore. It took me about 48 hours after election night to have that notion shattered. There ARE two distinct choices to make, whatever those choices may be.
There is quite a massive leap from Trump being a deplorable to Trump admitting to being a criminal. I mock the idea of allegations being used as valid criticism (especially the ones that I am skeptical of).
Lena Dunham is just one of the many examples I could give you of some insanely bad choices of personalities representing the left. I don't really blame liberals for this but rather I blame the mainstream (and alternative) media for freely promoting these insane charisma-lacking ideologues. However I will blame liberals for allowing the media to get away with it rather than outright rejecting these horrid spokespeople. You guys have almost all of hollywood on your side for heavens sake! The left clearly isn't short of talent, intellect, humor and good looks.
...So why do they seem content scraping the bottom of the barrel for personalities and/or representatives?
It does because the way a man lives in this world is vastly different from the way a woman lives.
You have never had to worry about what you're wearing before you leave the house. Never had to worry about whether your shirt was cut too low, or your shorts are too high, or if your legs were too hairy and needed to be shaved, all to avoid someone cat-calling or harassing you.
You have never had your father pull you to the side and urge you to keep watch of your drink before you go to a party with friends, because he's afraid someone might slip something in while you're not looking.
You have never had to worry about walking alone at night, never had to listen for the faintest of footsteps behind you or count the number of houses and businesses in your immediate area and wonder how many might come to help if you screamed loud enough.
You haven't been threatened with rape and death by an anonymous player in an online game immediately after your real name is used--a very feminine name that gives away your gender.
You haven't been taught to be afraid.
I have. I can't speak for the Trumpettes. I obviously don't agree with them and personally find their like of the man abhorrent. I can only tell you that nearly every woman in my life absolutely does not find his comments or behavior acceptable.
I will offer the same advice to you that I gave earlier in the thread: listen to us. You are but one person who has seen the world through one pair of eyes. You are not always right and you don't know it all. If someone from a different perspective tells you yes, this is a problem, wonder for a moment why they think that is.
Put yourself in their shoes. My shoes. The man who is representing the face of America, the man who will be interacting with dozens of different countries and cultures, had this to say about women:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/us/donald-trump-tape-transcript.html?_r=0
When I first heard this transcript, I felt my insides curl. I wanted to shirk and hide under a pillow and hope no one noticed me. I wanted to throw up. How could anyone talk about someone like that? How could anyone think that was acceptable?
And mind, I'm not a survivor. I've never been sexually assaulted and I hope I never have to go through that. So, for a survivor to hear our country's representative talk like that, in private or not... Well. We can't know what might be going through her head, but we can guess that it was nothing good.
That is the difference between men and women. When men hear that kind of garbage, they can dismiss it. They don't have to care. They haven't had the dangers of assault dangled over them for their entire lives, so what does it matter what some old man in power has to say about it? It doesn't directly affect them one way or another.
But when a woman hears it, it's different. When a woman hears it--or at least, when I hear it, as someone who identifies as a woman--all I can think to myself is:
That could have been me.
That could have been my mother. Or my cousin. Or my aunt. Or my friend.
That could have been me. I think I know why. Again, I can only speak from my experience, but it is exhausting to be the only female representation in the discussion, especially when women's issues come up. There's an absurd amount of pressure for me to be more articulate, more intelligent, more open to reason than anyone else on any other issue in this thread, because being the only woman makes me the "face" so to speak of all womanhood. That weight is crushing, and frankly, I wouldn't blame anyone if they just shrugged their shoulders and decided to stay out.
It's especially unhelpful when you have certain members who just hand-wave any point you bring up by saying, "Well, I know X women and they don't think like you do." Of course some women think differently than me; we're not a freaking hive-mind. But pretending that gender and race and orientations and gods know what else don't play a major part in who we are and how we think is just ignorant.
I barely knew who Lean Dunham was until I heard about the scandal involving her book, and all the liberals in the comment section in Buzzfeed where I first heard about it were castigating her. What exactly did I as a liberal do wrong?
As a liberal, what am I supposed to do?
I do not blame conservatives for "allowing" Ann Coulter to represent them. Should I?
What are conservatives supposed to do?
The bill had like a 6% approval rate but the Republicans jammed it through anyway because they work for big business, not for you.