All-purpose news and politics thread: Two Steps Beyond!

[Shawn Hopkins]

So if I said it about a man is it sexist? Or is it just because I levied the criticism on a women? Because it's a gender neutral criticism to make fun of a persons voice. Especially since my criticism is that it sounds like a man going through puberty...

It's not a gender neutral criticism to say that a woman should be quieter because her voice is shrill. You're reinforcing oppressive gender norms.

If you said it about a man it would be dickish, but not sexist.

[lancerman]

I do not believe that.

Well that's not surprising, because you have only looked at things in absolutes and have thrown borderline tantrums at people who didn't agree with the candidate you support. Maybe we shouldn't continue this because you have been unable to take a post at face value and feel a need to find some hidden agenda behind it.

I'm not voting for Trump, I'm not voting for Clinton. I could tell you what I really think about both of them, but I'd probably be banned. Needless to say neither of them deserve to be anywhere near the position they are in. I'm just glad Congress is fucked up enough that they will be facing a massive blockade to do anything too damaging.

[lancerman]

It's not a gender neutral criticism to say that a woman should be quieter because her voice is shrill. You're reinforcing oppressive gender norms.

If you said it about a man it would be dickish, but not sexist.

I didn't say she should be quieter. I said her voice in particular is unusually unbearable and sounds like a boy going through puberty that is cracking when she raises it, and that her not doing this made her speech more bearable to listen to. You are again inferring because it's an easy attack to make Hillary a cipher for all women and generalize the complaint. All because it got under your skin that I took a shot at the person you back. So you tried to counter that with "sexist".

[Shawn Hopkins]

Well that's not surprising, because you have only looked at things in absolutes and have thrown borderline tantrums at people who didn't agree with the candidate you support. Maybe we shouldn't continue this because you have been unable to take a post at face value and feel a need to find some hidden agenda behind it.

I'm not voting for Trump, I'm not voting for Clinton. I could tell you what I really think about both of them, but I'd probably be banned. Needless to say neither of them deserve to be anywhere near the position they are in. I'm just glad Congress is fucked up enough that they will be facing a massive blockade to do anything too damaging.

I don't get this criticism that I look at things in absolutes. I'm a Hillary Clinton supporter. The biggest problem people have with her is that there are no absolutes in her world, everything is nuanced almost to the point of causing fury. If I looked at in absolutes I'd be yelling about revolution or building a wall.

You can say what you want to about the candidates without getting banned, you just have to be careful how you say it.

[Shawn Hopkins]

I didn't say she should be quieter. I said her voice in particular is unusually unbearable and sounds like a boy going through puberty that is cracking when she raises it, and that her not doing this made her speech more bearable to listen to. You are again inferring because it's an easy attack to make Hillary a cipher for all women and generalize the complaint. All because it got under your skin that I took a shot at the person you back. So you tried to counter that with "sexist".

That's the gendered criticism, that a particular woman is more pleasant when she is quiet.

[lancerman]

I don't get this criticism that I look at things in absolutes. I'm a Hillary Clinton supporter. The biggest problem people have with her is that there are no absolutes in her world, everything is nuanced almost to the point of causing fury. If I looked at in absolutes I'd be yelling about revolution or building a wall.

You can say what you want to about the candidates without getting banned, you just have to be careful how you say it.

Well that's the problem. Even though you support Hillary, you are not an extension of her. My criticism of her is one of judgement at specific meaningful times and a legacy of poor policy decisions that went more with convenience of the popular sentiment at the time. That and she has too many skeletons to effectively debate Trump without having a counter punch thrown in her face. It's about strategy. Obama beat Hillary because he could criticize her and she didn't have a comeback to hit him back with. She lends herself to that, unfortunately. Which makes her harder to support and take her side. Because even though a detest Trump, it's too hard to look at her as an acceptable alternative.

My argument against your point is that my criticism of Hillary is somehow an endorsement of Trump. It's not. I'm not voting for either. I'm probably voting for Jill Stein, not because I think she'll win, but I can't live with myself for being even a minuscule contribution to either one of them winning the Presidency. And ultimately I think your line of "it's support one candidate or you are helping the other" is just hurting the country from progressing in the direction it needs to and creating real change.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Soon, the Bushes and Romney might be the sole dissidents in the GOP:



http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...s-donald-trump

Well now, I thought Eddie Munster would hold out longer than this, but, I'm not too terribly surprised. If Osama bin Laden were still alive and won the Republican nomination, Ryan and the rest would give him their unconditional support rather than let Hillary win, and at the end of the day, for the GOP, it's all about keeping her out of the White House, no matter how repulsive, repugnant or revolting their candidate happens to be, and Trump is all that, and more. Yep, let the circus really get started.

[lancerman]

Well now, I thought Eddie Munster would hold out longer than this, but, I'm not too terribly surprised. If Osama bin Laden were still alive and won the Republican nomination, Ryan and the rest would give him their unconditional support rather than let Hillary win, and at the end of the day, for the GOP, it's all about keeping her out of the White House, no matter how repulsive, repugnant or revolting their candidate happens to be, and Trump is all that, and more. Yep, let the circus really get started.

I said this before... They fall in line. It took two seconds for him to shore up that party. They are spineless.

[Dipper]

South Park should have an episode where they beg Giant Douche and Turd Sandwich to run because it's better than the alternative.

[Shawn Hopkins]

Well that's the problem. Even though you support Hillary, you are not an extension of her. My criticism of her is one of judgement at specific meaningful times and a legacy of poor policy decisions that went more with convenience of the popular sentiment at the time. That and she has too many skeletons to effectively debate Trump without having a counter punch thrown in her face. It's about strategy. Obama beat Hillary because he could criticize her and she didn't have a comeback to hit him back with. She lends herself to that, unfortunately. Which makes her harder to support and take her side. Because even though a detest Trump, it's too hard to look at her as an acceptable alternative.

My argument against your point is that my criticism of Hillary is somehow an endorsement of Trump. It's not. I'm not voting for either. I'm probably voting for Jill Stein, not because I think she'll win, but I can't live with myself for being even a minuscule contribution to either one of them winning the Presidency. And ultimately I think your line of "it's support one candidate or you are helping the other" is just hurting the country from progressing in the direction it needs to and creating real change.

Defending, not endorsing. You're not a newspaper.

[Shawn Hopkins]

South Park should have an episode where they beg Giant Douche and Turd Sandwhich to run because it's better than the alternative.

That's actually a really good idea.

[lancerman]

Defending, not endorsing. You're not a newspaper.

I didn't defend. I'm in attack mode.

[Dalak]

As a former choir kid, I think Hillary should rest her voice from the campaign trail for about a week as soon as she can and have lots of good hot soup and other throat-friendly foodstuffs. You can hear the strain in it when she projects so she should take some time to heal and I think that might be what's causing lancerman's problem. Mind you I didn't see anything sexist in what he said, but I am a fat white red-bearded nerd on a comic book forum so . . .

[JBatmanFan05]

Soon, the Bushes and Romney might be the sole dissidents in the GOP:



http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...s-donald-trump

Woohoo! Paul Ryan boards the Trump Train. Resistance is futile.

Not that I think Trump, running on the outsider antiestablishment angle, really needed his support perhaps.

[Tami]

As a former choir kid, I think Hillary should rest her voice from the campaign trail for about a week as soon as she can and have lots of good hot soup and other throat-friendly foodstuffs. You can hear the strain in it when she projects so she should take some time to heal and I think that might be what's causing lancerman's problem. Mind you I didn't see anything sexist in what he said, but I am a fat white red-bearded nerd on a comic book forum so . . .

Some people, like Trump, are naturally loud. Others have to work on it. But then, after the campaign is done and the dust settles, President Hillary can go back to Teddy Roosevelt's advice of Speak Softly but Carry a Big Stick.