Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smjjames]

Is the second debate coming within 24 hours?

9pm EST. So, about 6 1/2 hours or so.

[mainiac]

3. What? Ok there's something substantive there. No one shouted down Palin due to her gender. They shouted her down because she was a fucking moron, and she proved it by her commitment to stay in politics instead of go to Fox and get fat and rich.

Democrats did something for good reasons so why can't Republicans do it for morally bankrupt reasons?  Double standard!

[alway]

More cynically, it's been increasingly clear even to the Republican party since at least the first presidential debate that Trump has precisely zero chance of winning the race, and if that's not gonna happen then why would they ever hang around the toxic landfill fire that is Don's campaign?

Honor? After all, they made him swear he would support whoever won the nomination; it would be pretty hypocritical of them to not support him after he won.

Modern GOP has zero honor. Absolutely zero. No party that manipulates voting results via "gerrymandering", promotes laws which are clearly intended to reduce voting influence of minority groups, endorses people that promote grand conspiracy theories like "birtherism", engages in hyperpartisan anti-American bullshit that was "Nobama" strategy, and holding the world's economy hostage just to push their own agenda, can claim to be honorable.

Whereas Democrats are basically a political system unto themselves that make working together like herding cats, modern Republicans value falling in line and accepting party doctrine. Their motto is win at all costs, and regardless of him being a racist and serial sexual assaulter, among other things, he is still their candidate, and that's enough for them. They wouldn't support Hitler, but they would support Hitler(R).

[Folly]

I'm sitting here thinking "Could there have been a "better" match for an election featuring the first woman president ever than Trump?"

I honestly find it extremely disappointing. I've been looking forward to our first female president for decades, and now that it's finally happening, it's tainted by the knowledge that history will show that she only won because her opponent was one of the most disreputable nominees ever.

I've heard a lot of women talking about how having a female president will be good for women everywhere, but I fear that Hilary may in fact have the opposite effect.

[mainiac]

Oh hey it's the impossible female standard.  I'm surprised we haven't seen much of it lately.

[WealthyRadish]

Usually there is a bit more back and forth as each party tries to do their thing, but there was a motivated strategy specifically to capitalize on the census year+upcoming elections and pushing to get in place people who could get all the necessary changes enacted to wind up with the current situation where democrats got more votes overall but didn't manage to gain control because the areas they got those votes in were all finagled into being a much smaller number of seats than, well, any non-tortured districting scheme would have resulted in.

Worth noting that in the 2010 congressional elections, Democrat candidates didn't get more votes than Republicans. Nationally it was 51.4% republican, 44.8% democrat, and 3.84% Vermin Supreme. However, Republicans did get 55.6% of the seats, or about 18 more than they deserved (if we had a perfectly proportional system).

Which is quite a lot (maybe unprecedented, and there are knock-on effects that tank voter turnout and drive down confidence in the system), but democrats still would've deserved to lose.

[mainiac]

The 2010 elections weren't the problem.  Democrats lost that election and as a result lost control of congress.  The system works.  The problem was after 2010 when the gerrymandering started and we might as well have not bothered holding elections for the house.

[Max™]

Usually there is a bit more back and forth as each party tries to do their thing, but there was a motivated strategy specifically to capitalize on the census year+upcoming elections and pushing to get in place people who could get all the necessary changes enacted to wind up with the current situation where democrats got more votes overall but didn't manage to gain control because the areas they got those votes in were all finagled into being a much smaller number of seats than, well, any non-tortured districting scheme would have resulted in.

Worth noting that in the 2010 congressional elections, Democrat candidates didn't get more votes than Republicans. Nationally it was 51.4% republican, 44.8% democrat, and 3.84% Vermin Supreme. However, Republicans did get 55.6% of the seats, or about 18 more than they deserved (if we had a perfectly proportional system).

Which is quite a lot (maybe unprecedented, and there are knock-on effects that tank voter turnout and drive down confidence in the system), but democrats still would've deserved to lose.

That wasn't after the gerrymandering I was talking about went into effect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_elections,_2012#Congressional_elections

This was the first congressional election using the congressional districts that were apportioned based on the 2010 Census. Elections were held for all 435 seats in the United States House of Representatives. Elections were also held for the delegates from the District of Columbia and five major U.S. territories. Although House Democrats won a plurality of the popular vote (48.8% vs 47.6%), House Republicans were still able to retain a 234 to 201 seat majority.

Oh hey it's the impossible female standard.  I'm surprised we haven't seen much of it lately.

That would make a great comic book.

"Look out you filthy liberals, there'll be no progress on defeating gender inequality on this day, not as long as THE IMPOSSIBLE FEMALE STANDARD is here to stop you!"

[Descan]

On the other hand, someone gently touching a woman's shoulder could easily turn into a successful conviction of sexual assault if the woman gets a good lawyer and turns up the waterworks in court.

Wait, you actually believe that myth?

wewlad

[mainiac]

Oh hey it's the impossible female standard.  I'm surprised we haven't seen much of it lately.

That would make a great comic book.

"Look out you filthy liberals, there'll be no progress on defeating gender inequality on this day, not as long as THE IMPOSSIBLE FEMALE STANDARD is here to stop you!"

Who does IFS fight?

On the other hand, someone gently touching a woman's shoulder could easily turn into a successful conviction of sexual assault if the woman gets a good lawyer and turns up the waterworks in court.

Wait, you actually believe that myth?

wewlad

It's about time someone stood up for straight white males and made sure their voices were heard.

[WealthyRadish]

That wasn't after the gerrymandering I was talking about went into effect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_elections,_2012#Congressional_elections

My mistake, I thought 2010 was the first election affected by the census.

[misko27]

Guys, guys, guys.

The debate is approaching.

I genuinely don't know what's going to happen next. Like, no clue. What will Trump do? What will Clinton do? What will the audience do?

[smirk]

Oh hey it's the impossible female standard.  I'm surprised we haven't seen much of it lately.

That would make a great comic book.

"Look out you filthy liberals, there'll be no progress on defeating gender inequality on this day, not as long as THE IMPOSSIBLE FEMALE STANDARD is here to stop you!"

Who does IFS fight?

Michelle Obama.

[Sergarr]

Here's a compiled together proof of Trump's massive financial and business ties to Russia. Quite cool, isn't it? That GOP, the self-proclaimed staunch defender against everything un-American just a few years ago, a party that elected John McCain in 2008 as a candidate, would give such a man their nomination?

Fucking Republicans, man. And to think that almost half of Americans treat them seriously. Thankfully, it's less than half, or else the America would be already on its way to becoming a petty tyranny, but that is certainly a very fucking close call.

[Cheeetar]

On the other hand, someone gently touching a woman's shoulder could easily turn into a successful conviction of sexual assault if the woman gets a good lawyer and turns up the waterworks in court.

Manipulating someone else for the sole purpose of sexual gratification is never ok.

I would argue that there is nothing implicitly wrong with pursuit of sexual gratification; it's a completely natural impulse, and when done safely, is mechanically harmless.
[...]
As for manipulation, that is an extremely broad term. Almost everything we do is a manipulation to some degree. Saying that manipulation is wrong is like saying that living in modern society is wrong.

Donald Trump talking about making aggressive advances on females is not particularly unusual among virile males, and as long as it was just talk then there is nothing particularly insidious about it.

My god. You're going Full Red Pill.

I'm going to disagree with your assertions about what 'healthy male sexuality' is- proposing or wanting to walk up to somebody I don't know and grab them by the pussy is far from acceptable or normal.