Henroid
-
Content count
2215 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Henroid
-
-
So what you're saying is that Jewish people -- many of whom are white -- do, in fact, know what it's like to live in a ghetto? In direct contradiction to Sanders's statement that "when you're white, you don't know what it's like to live in the ghetto?"
My Jewish roomie says "fuck off" and I'm inclined to agree with her. You're being disingenuous and ew.
This is some anti-Semitic shit starting up here. I'm out. Peace Idle Thumbs forum.
-
"Ghetto" is literally a part of Jewish history since the 1500s. Black people can be bothered by it and be mistaken about the implication of the statement. And it's not like that history of Jews and ghettos went out of style historically speaking. There was kind of an infamous period of time in the 1930s/1940s that kept that bullshit going.
-
lol LITERALLY the first result on google search result for bernie sanders ghetto
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/bernie-sanders-ghetto-gaffe-highlights-campaigns-struggle-race
there i did the hard work for you
People being ignorant of the word "ghetto" and what it means to Jewish people is not a fault of Sanders'. This is an illustration of American media at large being wrong for browbeating a person on something it doesn't understand. "Ghetto? YOU MEAN BLACK PEOPLE." Or y'know. The ghettos Jews were placed into multiple times in their history.
This is shameful, Twig.
Edit - By the way, 'white people' - the name we give to predominantly white Christians / atheists - don't know what it is like to live in a ghetto. Any other ethnic or religious minority can make the claim they have experienced ghettos directly or some variation of them. Sanders is right, and people just blowing by that point over semantics is gross.
-
There's a lot at stake in this election, beyond typical "this team vs that team" stuff. The reason why Sanders' campaign is referred to as a "revolution" is because of the lack of corporate interest on his part. It's atypical for a politician to not be sponsored in the way Nascar drivers are sponsored. I have very, very strong views and feelings about wealthy controlling the meager (the latter of which I have been my whole life). It isn't about pitch forks and torches, but at the very least, stop controlling us and keeping us down to the extent that they do. I view human history as the poor rising up against the wealthy's latest scheme to control, over and over and over again. It gets more sophisticated each round but eventually the poor wise up and take effective action.
I see this as a chance to start that process again. Clinton is far from the one-and-only politician I despise for being manipulated by money, but she has particular relevance because she is the first stage of opposition for a guy who can and does fight against that. If Sanders wins the nomination for the Democrats, I will be able to shut up about Clinton, and move on to whoever ends up getting the Republican nomination (or whatever other third party interests suddenly spring up if they have that kind of momentum).
I'm not going to promise to stop aggressively pushing against Clinton because I will slip up. I will continue to point out faults and how they show against what Sanders does or will do by comparison. I'm not gonna run around going nuts name calling people here. But asking me to not focus on her is absurd. Why wouldn't I? Like I said, she's more relevant than anything right now. Hell, her running worries me about Sanders' chances more than Sanders being pitted against any of the GOP's current runners.
Edit - By the way I want to see this supposed apology over a supposed ghetto statement.
-
...what?
I thought it was pretty clear what I'm saying.
Clinton claims to support black people and has a history of being really bad to them. Sanders has a history of helping them since before he took any office. (to further illustrate, Sanders let BLM protesters speak when getting on stage unplanned; Clinton kicks out a woman demanding answers on the "brought to heel" crap while saying she'd be happy to answer that concern, then didn't answer)
Clinton says $12 is "good enough" or "realistic." Sanders says $15 is where it's at.
Just a couple examples.
-
Something pretty damning just came across the social media desk to me. A Nixon policy advisor was quoted in 1994, previously without attention, as having admitted to the War on Drugs being invented to keep anti-war leftists and black people down in the country. The quote has resurfaced by the efforts of a writer on the net.
http://jezebel.com/nixons-policy-advisor-admits-he-invented-war-on-drugs-t-1766359595
At the time, I was writing a book about the politics of drug prohibition. I started to ask Ehrlichman a series of earnest, wonky questions that he impatiently waved away. “You want to know what this was really all about?” he asked with the bluntness of a man who, after public disgrace and a stretch in federal prison, had little left to protect. “The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”
I must have looked shocked. Ehrlichman just shrugged. Then he looked at his watch, handed me a signed copy of his steamy spy novel, The Company, and led me to the door.
The War on Drugs being a complete load isn't new to me, but I didn't know one of the people behind it was so frank about it.
-
I think it's fine to feel that way but it's kinda coming off like you're haranguing others for feeling differently?
I would rather people support Sanders because you get the few positives of Clinton without the baggage, and more positives on top of that. Yes.
-
I focus on the Clinton / Sanders side of the election process, for now, because they're the most relevant to me. Either way, they are who I'd prefer over any of the people running for the GOP ticket. But between the two, I have a preference, and it is a strong preference. This isn't like 2000 or 2004 when any Democrat would do for me.
-
Does that make what she's doing okay?
-
One of my roomies (Jewish, very actively practicing her faith) is now personally offended by Hillary Clinton. The reason? Clinton used the story of Purim and twisted it beyond belief. Incidentally my roomie had just told me the story of Purim a couple days ago (as Purim was this past week or so) so my awareness of the story is way higher than it ever has been (which is to say, I didn't know the story existed and it's fresh in my mind). Clinton decided to try and make the story about feminism and also use it to justify military action / war in the middle east, which is far from what the story is about in either situation. If anything, the story doesn't think much of women.
So now we're in the same boat of Clinton trying to appease demographics we belong to. She has the lame pandering to Jewish people without understanding their texts at all, and I've got "I'm like you're Mexican grandmother!" which she in no way is.
I will again point out that Sanders doesn't engage in lame ass pandering. Hillary is trying to be everything to everyone and would honestly get more respect if she didn't feel she had to speak on everything ever.
-
Fairly often, actually.
Citation needed. Examples please. Every time I see the guy speak or that he did speak, it isn't in response like some sort of damage control.
-
Bill Clinton decided to make a massive error during a speech for his wife's candidacy, saying, "Hillary can put the awful legacy of the last eight years behind us." Now, she's running for president, so it's safe to assume he was talking about Obama right?
In all fairness his aides have clarified that he was talking about the Republicans' obstructionism, but I mean... that's kind of a long walk from the words he actually said. It's also kind of hilarious when you try to think about him not being in the right period of time, thinking it is 2008, or 2000, or 1992, etc.
Edit - And then Sanders seized an opportunity. Absolutely fairly, I'd say. The Clintons aren't clean fighters in politics so let's not get upset at Sanders. I also want to take this moment to add, how many times are the Clintons going to apologize for shit they say throughout this election? And how often, by comparison, has Sanders had to make apologies, let alone been demanded to make apologies?
-
Nevermind I just realized they have a counter next to the percentages. What the -fuck-. They only have 75 statements to rate Sanders compared to 174 statements for Clinton. Not aiming for an equal sample size really screws all this up, and now begs the question, what statements for Sanders are not being included.
-
How many statements are being rated per candidate?
-
But what I'm saying is, if I call someone a poopie head thief, that has no bearing on that person's honesty.
-
I have a problem here. The source that compiled the data isn't rating just the candidates in question. It rates viral images or other people who speak of the candidate in question. What the fuck does that have to do with the candidate's personal honesty? O.o
-
Sanders won the "global primary" (Americans living abroad) by a colossal margin. He had 69% of the vote. Unfortunately thanks to the "Super delegate" shit the Democrats have, they're siding with Clinton because hooray for hijacking democracy.
In Donald Trump news, last night John Oliver tackled the wall idea as a legit issue to help demonstrate how absurd it is even when taken seriously.
-
For instance, I'm a huge detractor of ACA. I think it's locked the nation into skyrocketing healthcare costs, has forced people into the arms of private insurers who want to increase their profit margins more than they want to help people, and has soothed the left into not acting on a better solution.
The result of compromising by the way. So the method you prefer has lead to the outcome you don't like.
-
Compromising by dehumanizing people is bullshit. There's no excuse. Either you stand up for what's right or you cave in.
-
I'm pretty over being told that I have to hate Hillary because I'm gay.
Let me try to explain the point of view.
Fact: Hillary Clinton backed her husband's efforts with Don't Ask Don't Tell and The Defense of Marriage Act, both of which were hostile toward homosexuals in the country.
Also Fact: Hillary Clinton being vocal about rights for the LGBT community starting around 2008, but only officially making a statement in 2013 or so about being pro-gay-marriage.
Another Fact: Many politicians engage in appeasement without action often. (I won't declare it a fact that Clinton does this, I can only declare my opinion that she does)
Not fact but my opinion: Clinton's timing on coming around on gay marriage is after the population by majority wanted it. That's suspicious to me.
She has a traceable, fact-checkable history of being a champion and antagonist of gay people.
So. Now it's a coin flip - is she trustworthy on the issue, or no? I'm fine if people decide she is. All I ask is
- that the arguments I make are declared valid (because they aren't lies, she did those things)
- that I not get demonized for being anti-Clinton
I'm not here to berate people into changing their mind. I just want to know if people are aware of her mixed history on something that actually affects them directly. It's up to you to decide if it's worth the risk (or see it as a risk, I guess).
My personal opinion on this is to hold Clinton in suspicion given her past and timing. If she manages to use her office to positive effect for gay people, then hey, I eat my words and will do so in relief. At most though I expect indifference from her if she takes the seat of the presidency. And at worse, she will actually act to regress rights gained by gay people (or introduce new means to make them second-class citizens). I'm not willing to take the chance and neither are plenty of gay (and straight or bi!) people I know. This isn't to say you or anyone else is the odd one out here. I can only say a danger foreseen is half-avoided. Junior Mints has mentioned a few times on Twitter that she's a Clinton supporter and I just hope and hope and hope that Clinton doesn't let her, you, or anyone else down on that issue. We live in a world where the balance for gay people is finally starting to tip, but it's a fight far from won. I urge caution and being on guard.
-
Oh crud. That thing I mentioned about using the hoe to dig up the ground for a ton of stuff? It only works in winter apparently. Spring time I'm only getting an abundance of clay.
On another note the Skeleton Cavern is a motherfucker. Not enjoying that place at all and have narrowly escaped death each time I go in. I did pull off the quest to go to the 25th floor (I actually dropped past it to the 27th, it still counted), but jeeze. There has to be a better way to get iridium.
-
In other presidential election stuff (actual news), Ron Paul is weighing in on the GOP's latest bet to beat Trump - a Contested Convention.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/18/politics/ron-paul-donald-trump-rule-40-republican-convention/
I had no idea this happened to him in 2012, but the GOP wrote a new rule to keep Paul out of the running at Convention time. That is some damn dirty stuff (and I still suspect the Democrats are attempting to do the same to Sanders; an Independent that is popular among the party's base, must keep him out for some reason) (we can talk about that if people are interested). Essentially the rule they wrote is now endangering the GOP to not be able to block Trump, because Cruz and Kasich won't meet the rule's requirement to win majority vote in x amount of states.
I was never a Ron Paul supporter but, like I said, that's some dirty shameful shit to do to keep a non-party-member off your ticket. I find myself getting more turned on to the idea of abolishing the Two Party System we operate with.
-
She misspoke, and then admitted she made a mistake while recognizing the historic efforts of LGBT people in the fight against HIV/AIDS and putting forth a concrete plan for future improvements.
There's also this little foundation with her name on it that works on this kind of thing. https://www.clintonfoundation.org/our-work/clinton-health-access-initiative/programs/hivaids
Misspeaking is if she said George HW Bush instead of Ronald Reagan. What she did was give a long diatribe.
As for the foundation, it has her last name on it... but only Bill and Chelsea actually manage it. Hillary doesn't run the foundation at all. Giving her credit is a little silly.
Also 60% of the Clinton Foundation's money goes toward a building of theirs in New York. That's some distribution of funds for a charity organization.
Also it focuses on foreign healthcare vs domestic. Which isn't wrong, that is helpful. Just not at home so it can't be declared as such.
-
Waiting for this effort she's somehow shown to be better.
The Next President
in Idle Banter
Posted
"Ghetto" is alive and current for Jewish people across the globe so holy shit. Fuck off.