SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
President-elect Donald Trump realized early in his campaign that U.S. IT workers were angry over training foreign visa-holding replacements. He knew this anger was volcanic.
Trump is the first major U.S. presidential candidate in this race -- or any previous presidential race -- to focus on the use of the H-1B visa to displace IT workers. He asked former Disney IT employees, upset over having to train foreign replacements, to speak at his rallies.
"The fact is that Americans are losing their jobs to foreigners," said Dena Moore, a former Disney IT worker at a Trump rally in Alabama in February. "I believe Mr. Trump is for Americans first."
Yes, US nerds were angry about training H-1B replacements, but how much could they have helped put him over the top?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 10 2016, @09:57PM
Trump tapped into all types of anger. Front and center was these sanctimonious assholes dictating how racist and stupid nearly half of their countrymen are from their ivory towers.
Not really a fan of Trump, but my god seeing these immature wanks having a breakdown over what at worst will be 4 years of mediocrity, and at best a little concern for those left out at the fringes is just so over the top.
Not everyone agrees with your bullshit. You aren't as enlightened as you think you are. Get over yourselves.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 10 2016, @10:01PM
Front and center was these sanctimonious assholes dictating how racist and stupid nearly half of their countrymen are from their ivory towers.
It's not because you win that what you believe is right or made right. Half of the countrymen /are/ racist and stupid.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 10 2016, @10:09PM
Then quite honestly you haven't been around them. I have. I've lived most everywhere from Texas to California to Kentucky and most places in-between.
Most people are decent Most are exceedingly kind to a fault, and what minor prejudices they have are obliterated by their warmth of character. All they ask is to be treated fairly.
If you really see them as racist and stupid, well that speaks more to your bigotry than anything else, and justifies Trump's election at every turn.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 10 2016, @10:20PM
Yup, I'm a dirty coastal liberal and I agree that the vast majority of the US is made up of decent people. Even the blatant minor prejudices are usually a hold over, and the people themselves would swear they don't have such prejudices. I can work with a prejudiced person that swears they aren't, but one who has no shame about their bigotry is the one to watch out for.
I think the US has improved in a lot of ways to the point where a lot of people don't even know what real racism is all about. We just need to keep cruising along and the whole country will come up to speed with tolerance and acceptance. Trying to force it along is what helped give us Trump.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday November 10 2016, @10:25PM
Precisely. When you call someone a cocksucker, they're not going to be pleasantly disposed to your ideas going forward.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by mojo chan on Friday November 11 2016, @12:57PM
The problem is that people are too easily lead. Trump used the same tactic as the Nazis did - tell people they are being attacked, in this case by immigrants taking their jobs and raping/murdering them. And of course, only Trump can save them.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
(Score: 1) by oakgrove on Saturday November 12 2016, @12:13AM
Here's the thing, AmiMoJo, between the party promising to bring back "Muh jerbs" and the party asserting I'm a racist/bigot/homophobe/xenophobe for the mere fact of my existing on this earth as a "fucking white male", I think I'll vote for the jerbs. That's why Trump won. And if the left keeps up the rhetoric, in 2018, there'll be a super-majority of Republicans and in 2020 we'll be bathing in liberal tears all over again as Trump celebrates his second victory. Two can play the identity politics game.
(Score: 2) by mojo chan on Saturday November 12 2016, @10:49AM
Well, I'm a white male and not a racist or bigot, so your premise seems to be faulty.
Anyway, the push back is going to be even harder now. People won't give up their freedoms and rights easily. It's like Brexit, people won't just accept that bigots won, they will fight it.
By the way, not everyone who voted for Trump is a bigot, but all bigots voted for Trump. You lie with them, you accept the consequences.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
(Score: 1) by oakgrove on Tuesday November 15 2016, @08:52PM
Well, I'm a white male and not a racist or bigot
You're delusional.
all bigots voted for Trump
Yeah, I'm sure the BLM bigots that call for "killing all white people" voted for Trump.
It's like Brexit, people won't just accept that bigots won, they will fight it.
When did you quit beating your wife? Like most of the left, you argue with fallacies and ad hominems. The good guys finally won this time. Deal with it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @03:55PM
Most of the Germans and Japanese during WW2 considered themselves decent.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by julian on Thursday November 10 2016, @10:07PM
You aren't as enlightened as you think you are. Get over yourselves.
Great advice for women who may not be able to exercise their reproductive human-rights, or the same-sex couple that might have their right to equal treatment stolen from them. They should just suck it up, their degeneracy was hurting "real" Americans who matter more.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by nitehawk214 on Thursday November 10 2016, @10:11PM
Sure, but saying every cis white male is evil because certain right-wing assholes have enacted laws to limit freedom is not a great way to gain support.
Before you say "Not all...", stop and think.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 10 2016, @11:09PM
> Before you say "Not all...", stop and think.
I'm thinking and your point is not coming through.
Who says all cis white males are evil?
The only people I've heard say shit like that are either butthurt panty-waists like you or total radicals who don't even begin to represent democrats, liberals or even progressives.
But you probably blame all muslims when some asshole who claims to be muslim does something shitty too, right?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 11 2016, @12:07AM
When you allow radical douchebags to speak for you, don't be surprised when you get called a radical douchebag.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Informative) by ikanreed on Friday November 11 2016, @12:42AM
Oh, yes, please show us who we "allowed to speak for us". Because we can all see the giant shithead you chose to speak for you, without a hint of ambiguity.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 11 2016, @01:48AM
I didn't vote for him, sweety. I just despise you racist, sexist, elitist, entitled, regressive fucktards on the left
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Friday November 11 2016, @02:34AM
Do you think turning those terms around are going to have some kind of emotional effect? Because it seems like your only idea of the word "racist" is "mean thing people say", rather than a specific problem that can be addressed.
We aren't all broken like you. Some of us are actually willing to consider the possibility of being racist or sexist, and don't react like we just got tarred unfairly for no reason. So when you do do it for no reason, it's kinda just "meh, what a boring attempt to blame others for his own flaws".
It says about you a lot that you think I'm a woman, and that your complete misunderstanding of a simple fact completely changed the flavor of condescending bullshit you use. Sorry you can't imagine someone arbitrarily choosing sexism as a relevant point to rebuke your bullshit assertions without being female. It says a lot about the exact ways your brain is fucked up.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 11 2016, @03:44AM
Racism is not a specific problem that can be addressed. It is an attitude wherein you discriminate based on race. You have it. Those you accuse mostly do not. Live with that fact.
I didn't say you were a woman. I called you sweety. Like you would a child. Because you think like a child.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @06:32PM
Such excellent points /s
One of the grating hard to swallow aspects of this site is the complete freedom of speech it allows, so we are all bombarded with the ideas of others. However, I wouldn't trade it for the world. Its a good lesson in developing tolerance, and the silver lining is that we all get to find out where people stand instead of tip toeing around being PC or whatever.
TMB you are exactly like the SJWs you hate, you just represent the opposite end of the spectrum. You call people names, generalize people into giant categories, and you lash out when people call you names. Like a child. You try and hide behind the tough guy persona, but its really just a child's tantrum converted into a more adult format.
Personal growth is the hardest thing because we have to realize we're not perfect, that we may be operating under flawed assumptions, and that we must be mindful of everything if we wish to catch ourselves in the act. It takes time to notice your own behavior patterns, but discussions like these are good because our flaws will be laid out and attacked by all sorts. You should try learning from other perspectives instead of being defensive and attacking people just because you don't like what they say.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 11 2016, @09:13PM
Nah, I simply respond at the same level of asshole as they comment at. Give me a civil discussion and I'm quite capable of keeping it civil. Yes, it's juvenile but I'm old enough to not give a shit if I appear juvenile once in a while.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @07:10PM
"its overreach is precisely its value" [vox.com]. Unless you can show any evidence that your protested 'lets throw guilty until proven innocent outta window', you are only fooling yourself. Trump's presidency might not have proved if someone is racist or not, but it has proven that majority of people all over USA have wisen-up to the liberal 'do as i say not as i do' politics.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @05:07AM
I object to bring called cis. It is a weird fucking term. How about "normal". That's probably too honest for you, but it's correct. Look up the definition.
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Tuesday November 15 2016, @10:12PM
Yeah, I was using that term ironically. But I only find it annoying when someone uses it as an insult, yet is offended when someone uses gay as an insult.
But thank you for reiterating that right wing people are as easily triggered as the left.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 10 2016, @10:33PM
As if the totality of concerns for women and gays are their uteruses and some hypothetical about the state of marriage.
Could you make a bigger caricature of them? I mean, gasp, there were women and gays that voted for Trump.
(Score: 2, Informative) by julian on Thursday November 10 2016, @11:05PM
totality of concerns for women and gays
The only person making that claim is you, which makes your argument a strawman and invalid. Thanks for playing.
NEXT!
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 10 2016, @11:47PM
Uh, no dumbshit.
The fact that Trump did manage to win the vote of some women and gays means it really isn't as large of an issue as you make it out to be.
So when you lord yourself as being the spokesperson for ALL women and gays, you've just made the 2 dimensional, mere caricatures.
This is the equivalent of "the gubermint gonna take my guns" when Obama was elected, your head is just too far up your ass to see.
(Score: 2) by julian on Thursday November 10 2016, @11:59PM
So when you lord yourself as being the spokesperson for ALL
hahaha! Nowhere did I do this. Stop projecting.
This is how it works: if you're a human you ought to care about human rights. If you don't, you're a nihilist and I have no time for you--not that you'd care.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @12:03AM
So where was your concern about all the brown people Hilary wanted to bomb?
Yeah.
(Score: 2) by tisI on Friday November 11 2016, @05:47AM
Citation needed.
Or did you just make up that one too?
"Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself."
(Score: 1, Troll) by Hairyfeet on Friday November 11 2016, @12:55AM
And you are speaking for groups that you are not a member of [alcoff.com] and therefor don't know shit about which makes your entire argument invalid...NEXT!
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by dyingtolive on Thursday November 10 2016, @11:06PM
Indeed. A considerable amount of them when you look at the breakdown and then compare them to the male side of their corresponding races. It's almost like stuff Trump said and did 20 years ago didn't matter. Interestingly, and as I've pointed out elsewhere, he had about the same latino vote as Romney and an even better black vote.
It's almost like, you know, people voted how they wanted to and didn't really go along with how the media told them to. I still don't know how I feel about the overall outcome, but I'm more proud of people for not swallowing the shit they were shoveled and at least making their own decisions, however good or ill informed those decisions might be.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 10 2016, @11:12PM
> It's almost like stuff Trump said and did 20 years ago didn't matter.
It's like stuff he said and did on stage during the campaign didn't matter.
Or it did matter, but they just thought it wouldn't ever apply to them or their family, so no biggee.
First they came...
(Score: 4, Insightful) by edIII on Thursday November 10 2016, @11:19PM
I actually asked for it. I'd stated that it would be better for Trump to take us down in fire, than 4 more years of status quo politics from Hillary. I got excited because Progressive politics were getting a much more prominent mind share than ever before, but still worried and agitated about the spokesperson we elected for it.
Everyone vastly underestimated the hate for the elites and the desire to bring change to politics, even by fire. Had Bernie Sanders been allowed to run against Trump, he would've mopped the floor with him precisely because people would've had another option to disrupt the establishment.
WRT Hillary, there simply was not enough lipstick for that pig. The American people sent a message to the establishment this time. That message was that we want to burn in fire, and Trump will help us do exactly that.
I've always believed that true change quite possibly may only come through great struggle and fire, and we are all going to find out. The whole world is worried, and rightfully so.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Gaaark on Thursday November 10 2016, @11:41PM
Exactly!
When wasserman-schulz or whatever, f'd Bernie Sanders in favour of Hillary and got caught, the DNC SHOULD have given the leadership to HIM.
If Bernie had won the leadership, he would have won the Presidency. Instead,they f'd Bernie and kept the pig. And pigs can't run well.
They kept the person who corruptly stole money and resources from the guy who was beating her and her party immorally let her and looked the other way.
They lost.... wonder why? Because people are tired of that shit.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @02:04AM
And pigs can't run well.
You haven't been to state fairs with piglet races have you? Those cuties can run FAST!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @06:44PM
A ray of sunshine in a dark thread :D
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Joe Desertrat on Friday November 11 2016, @11:28AM
Everyone vastly underestimated the hate for the elites and the desire to bring change to politics, even by fire.
I might believe this if it were not for the fact that a Congress with historically low approval levels was returned largely intact. I think people just like having their buttons pushed, and Trump shamelessly pushed them. Judging by early looks at his transition team and the names being floated for cabinet heads, his administration will be as much or more "Washington insider" filled as anyone else's would have been.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Thursday November 10 2016, @10:36PM
women who may not be able to exercise their reproductive human-rights
Really?
Who is preventing that?
Do males have reproductive rights too?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 10 2016, @10:41PM
Do males have reproductive rights too?
Well of course silly. Men have the right to not have sex if they don't want to deal with pregnancy.
Of course suggesting women do the same is an OUTRAGE.
Hypocrisy? You're soaking in it
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 10 2016, @11:02PM
That's not an outrage. But women have the additional option of getting an abortion, seeing as how they carry the fetus in their body and all.
(Score: 1, Redundant) by bob_super on Thursday November 10 2016, @11:09PM
> deal with pregnancy
Funny how you forgot to put the accent on the right word, despite typing it.
Men and women don't exactly deal with pregnancies in equal ways...
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 10 2016, @10:41PM
Absolutely not, males do not have the right to reproduce, but males are encouraged to make gay porn for female entertainment.
(Score: 5, Informative) by ikanreed on Thursday November 10 2016, @10:58PM
Did you pay attention to a single goddamn element of the platform of the idiot you voted for?
He came out explicitly in favor of arresting women who get abortions. And yes, he said women, not men, not doctors, not anyone else. So take your supercilious "what about men" bullshit and cram it right back the MRA hole it came out of.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 10 2016, @11:07PM
Cite?
(Score: 5, Informative) by ikanreed on Thursday November 10 2016, @11:20PM
K.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-abortion-women-punishment_us_56fc2a99e4b083f5c606880d [huffingtonpost.com]
(I know, I know, I don't like huffpo either, but it was the first result for my search and I'm feeling lazy)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 10 2016, @11:25PM
Some type of punishment isn't exactly arresting, fuckwad.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by ikanreed on Thursday November 10 2016, @11:26PM
Please indicate the non-traffic crimes that any one person or person has ever received through the US judicial system without first having been arrested.
I'm aware of a few ways that's possible, but it doesn't happen often. Arresting is a precursor to "Some type of punishment" you pedantic child.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Marand on Friday November 11 2016, @12:22AM
There's currently a punishment for people without insurance in the form of a monetary fine that is handled as part of filing your tax returns. You don't get arrested, you just get less back or owe more money come April. So, yes, it's possible to have "some type of punishment" without arrest. Doesn't mean that's what Trump meant, but it's certainly possible. People need to jumping to conclusions about shit when there's so little to go on.
And no, I'm not a Trump supporter. I'm just tired of the bullshit from both sides. Like it or not, he won, so now he can be measured by what he does or does not do, rather than speculation about dumb shit said during this year's farce of an election.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ikanreed on Friday November 11 2016, @12:52AM
I know I solicited this response but, I'm sure he was talking about a tax modification, as a means of incentive alteration in a technocra-
-wait:
that's stupid as hell and if you're tired of "the bullshit from both sides" why are you seriously trying to pretend he didn't intend criminal prosecution because there's a trivial language difference from what I said.
I want to make the case that I said nothing hyperbolic at all.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Marand on Friday November 11 2016, @01:24AM
You asked about punishments given without requiring an arrest, so I supplied one. Like I said, that doesn't mean it's what Trump meant, but it could be. Or he could have just been talking out of his ass just like everything else said during his campaign. I don't think it really matters; I only replied because you asked for an example and that one came to mind.
Also, I wasn't accusing anybody of hyperbole. That bit about being sick of the bullshit got added in because of both you and the AC resorting to petty name-calling over an argument about what Trump may have meant about a statement that may or may not have been absolute pandering bullshit when he said it. After months of watching the pro-Clinton and pro-Trump camps nitpicking every damn thing the other side has said, I'm just tired of it. Is that what he meant? Was it bullshit? Why does it even matter now? Election's over, he won, now we can wait, see what he does, and criticise actions instead of arguing over speculation about campagn-trail hot air.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @08:39AM
Getting a free pass for "pandering" is bullshit.
If we don't hold candidates accountible for their words, then what the fuck else is there?
When Hitler was campaigning people literally said the same thing about him, oh he's just pandering to get the stupid vote. [vox.com]
No he fucking wasn't.
The problem with waiting for action is that by then its too damn late.
Maybe you get lucky and can undo it, but in the meantime lots of people suffer.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by tisI on Friday November 11 2016, @05:08AM
My friend, you're being bated by troll.
AC's will argue stupid shit incessantly. Ignore that cum swallower unless he wants to show his face.
Thank you for the link.
I had NO idea that worthless piece of shit freak show on wheels ever said such a retarded thing.
Nuke that fucker and anyone else that follows that type of neanderthal mentality. Rabid dogs must be put down.
Yep, these worthless cocksuckers are really going to divide the country now, worse than even CRAB and Fox News couldn't do with 8 years of manipulating the peasants.
We'll be so fucked up squabbling amongst ourselves finger pointing "who's to blame" with the Emperor baiting the whole clusterfuck along.
Next thing you know Mexico and Canada will invade and loot the smoldering wreckage.
"Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @11:26PM
" explicitly in favor of arresting women who get abortions"
Nope. He was pushed into saying there should be some kind of punishment for women, and walked it back the very next day. That was never his policy, nor clearly anything he had thought about.
Make no mistake, he will nominate anti-choice justices, and they will absolutely get on the supreme court. When the Democrats used the "nuclear option" to remove the filibuster a few years ago, the Republicans TOLD THEM that they would do the same for supreme court justices if they did it. Well, they did it. The Republicans have avoided actually BEING too anti-choice at the federal level, probably because they fear the blowback. Trump doesn't seem to have any such qualms, or ideological skin in the game, but he does have promises to keep. Plus, his distance from the party lets them blame him for it later.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by julian on Thursday November 10 2016, @10:59PM
Do males have reproductive rights too?
Not enough. For example, men need the right to a "financial abortion" where all parental rights can be waived in exchange for ALL financial liability for the child being removed.
Would you have expected a liberal to give that answer?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 10 2016, @11:14PM
Well that was my thought when I considered the question, and I consider myself a liberal. By the true definition of the word that is what I am, but by the weird distorted version that has come about I'm sure some rabid folks would tear me down for agreeing with you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @12:20AM
As long as there were some way to ensure that if the man ever makes contact with the kid at any time during his life then the full cost of upbringing becomes due.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday November 11 2016, @03:47PM
I'm sure that could never be abused at all...
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Friday November 11 2016, @07:19PM
You mean the current system of restraining order or not punishing mothers who disobey custody/visitation orders or move to different states etc... is just not enough.
You make it very clear that for you a kid is basically a bat to hit men.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @12:42AM
Well gee, did you support any candidate advocating for that? Have you ever?
HOW DARE YOU OPPOSE MEN'S REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS.
It's easy to say you support men's rights, quite another to put up or shut up.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by jmorris on Friday November 11 2016, @01:04AM
For example, men need the right to a "financial abortion" where all parental rights can be waived...
Reality check time. There is a reason for all of that traditional morality related to families. Bottom line, it ain't a decision for the male nor the female alone for a very basic reason, the reason humans pair bond long term. A single female can't successfully bear and raise a child. Period. Full stop. Spare me your anecdotal counter factuals, viewed from the civilizational level they are statistical noise. Modern society allows the illusion that it is possible and stupid people mistake it for the reality. So there is a third actor involved, The State. If the male is permitted to 'abort' his responsibility the Welfare State will be required to make up the difference. It isn't for the benefit of women or children that we have been on a jihad against "deadbeat dads" since the beginning of the easy divorce and hookup culture period, it is the budgetary impact on the government that drives it.
A single mother has three options,attempt to raise the kid alone as a welfare client or try to earn enough to replace a male income plus pay somebody else to raise her kid(s), something only possible for the couple of % of earners; or they can raise semi feral monsters. Or some combination of the options, all various flavors of bad when compared to a normal two parent household. Feminism insists this reality is just propaganda from "the patriarchy" but history and logic refutes them. Child rearing is simply a very labor intensive process and works best when the biological mother is the primary caregiver. This implies someone else is supplying the resources required to make this investment of labor possible. Fathers or Big Brother. Pick.
If you want to end poverty in America, every study has come to the same politically unacceptable conclusion. So of course the study is rubbished and a new one commissioned to find an acceptable policy recommendation. End single motherhood and you end poverty in a generation. Any remainder is a small enough problem the impact on government is a burden nobody will object to and could probably be discarded from the list of things government even needs to do, it returns to being a problem small enough that private charity can handle it.
Complete high school, get married, get a steady job and THEN have children and the odds of you or your children being in poverty are pretty much limited to tragic situations like sudden death or disability. The problem is that the previous sentence is a hatefact and it is a career ending offense for a government school to tell their students such a horrible thing.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @08:58AM
A single mother has three options,attempt to raise the kid alone as a welfare client or try to earn enough to replace a male income plus pay somebody else to raise her kid(s), something only possible for the couple of % of earners; or they can raise semi feral monsters.
You're missing an option: they can get help from the community. Most people I know with children have some sort of rotation plan with other parents of similarly aged children and they share the child rearing duties. It's a way to get child care without being prohibitively expensive. Due to my economic class, I only know a few single mothers, but the couples I know mostly have both parents working, so child care is still a problem.
Complete high school, get married, get a steady job and THEN have children and the odds of you or your children being in poverty are pretty much limited to tragic situations like sudden death or disability.
I worry that there's some correlation not meaning causation here, but ignoring that, the most effective fixes are (1) free effective birth control like Colorado [cnn.com] and (2) actually having a path to education and careers for women so they don't have to date men for economic support and get pressured into having children.
Given the wording you've used, I'm guessing that you think this is not the answer and some conservative policies would be more effective in reducing the prevalence of single mothers?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @12:33PM
Complete high school
Since high schools are about rote memorization and instilling obedience and almost nothing else, I fail to see the benefit here. I refused to complete high school out of principle, and refused to get a GED for the same reason. I'm revolted by our paper-worshiping society which values job training and rote memorization over intelligence and education. It's still possible to find a job without a high school diploma, especially if you own your own business like I do. In the 21st century, it's easily possible to take your education into your own hands and do a much better job than any high school could ever do.
If you had said "get an education" instead, I might have agreed.
get married
Marriage seems to cause magical thinking in people, but it's not the marriage that's important. What's important is that you have a good relationship, which can be done with or without marriage. But I'm not thinking like a puritan theist nutjob who selectively relies on nonsensical social science (i.e. not science) studies to 'prove' how beneficial marriage is.
If you had said "get into a stable, loving relationship" instead, that would have been more agreeable.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Friday November 11 2016, @03:45PM
Marriage adds a financial, legal disincentive to leave.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Saturday November 12 2016, @03:46AM
Unless you're a woman, then it can be quite profitable.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday November 14 2016, @02:53PM
Well, unless you're a woman with less money than your husband, yes. Sugar daddy woman marrying a financially lesser man would lose in a divorce as well, obviously.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @09:26PM
I agree with you about the magical thinking surrounding marriage. If one is not interested in child-rearing, shacking up is fine for couples, but marriage should be correctly understood as a contract between two persons for the benefit of children subsequently produced. The marriage contract implies a pooling of resources for the purpose of child-rearing. All the laws relating to inheritance also support this view: once one produces offspring, everything the parents have is dedicated to the benefit of the children.
(Score: 2) by julian on Friday November 11 2016, @09:50PM
Complete high school, get married, get a steady job and THEN have children
I'm very liberal, and I agree with this. It's sound advice, and not a "hatefact". It's true, and more people should be told it.
Where we probably part ways is how to bring it about. My preferred solution includes teaching sex-ed, providing free contraception to teenagers including BC pills to girls under 18 without parental notice or approval required, and--yes--safe and legal and free abortions if it comes to that. This should all be paid for by the state. Yes, I want tax payer funded abortions, as many as necessary.
As you said, it saves money overall because single-parent (usually mother) households are not ideal and the state ends up paying the difference.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @12:15AM
You mean, women _won't_ be able to abstain from sex? They _won't_ be able to choose to not get pregnant? Are there "rape squads" going around now? Or are you talking about forcing everyone's tax dollars be used to pay for your birth control? (Hell, where's the birth control for men? Do tax dollars pay for that, too?)
This whole, single-issue platform bugs the shit out of me. There's so much more to this country than what amounts to minority rights. Personally I abhor the felon and the blow-hard, but now we've got it, and people need to find something new to bitch about. With any luck we'll be able to reinstate some personal freedoms, stop outsourcing our entire economy to the point all we have are ideas for sale (and no one to sell them to), and I really, really hope Trump follows through with prosecuting the felon. That would really make things a bit better.
No, I didn't vote for the blow-hard, but compared to the felon, I'm.. I'm.. I just don't know. The single issue of bathroom rights just doesn't rank highly with me. Oh, it matters to you? Great, vote accordingly. I will do so according to what matters to _me_, so go ahead -- hate me for not doing what you demand. Trump's behind the _majority_ on that point, and the majority is fed up with this emotional drivel and people trying to legally force everyone to pay attention to it. Why did Trump get elected? Probably feminism.
(Score: 2, Troll) by Hairyfeet on Friday November 11 2016, @12:26AM
Aww isn't that cute, trying to throw down the bigotry card while ignoring that HRC called black teens super predators [somethingawful.com] and talked about how they had to be "brought to heel" like dogs.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday November 11 2016, @11:37AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @12:35PM
Strange, then, that Clinton later said she regretted her comment after being confronted by activists. If it was as innocuous as you say, then that's an odd move.
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Friday November 11 2016, @04:38PM
Sorry but not only is it accurate, she pushed with her husband to expand 3 strikes laws and increase prison sentences for drugs that were used exclusively by blacks, for example if you were caught with powder coke (used by whites) you got much less time than crack which is an "inner city" (translation black) drug. Wanna watch the video? [youtube.com]
So you can call me names, label me a troll for showing reality, but the fact that anybody DARES to try to use the bigotry card against Trump when defending a woman that has literally targeted black teens specifically and destroyed tens of thousands of black lives, many permanently thanks to 3 strikes? Is not only wrong its fucking disgusting and shameful.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @01:18AM
First of all Hilary Clinton is on record opposing gay marriage, and only changed her opinion when it was expedient to do so.
The landmark case against that essentially made gay marriage legal was argued by Theodore Olson, you know founding member of the Federalist Society, a man so conservative democrats refused him to succeed Alberto Gonzales.
And we can go further with how the Log Cabin Republicans forced the issue of gays serving in the military, which the Obama administration argued vigorously against, and in fact fucked over the gay community by repealing DADT so there was no legal precedent.
I know liberals love to pat themselves on the back at how progressive they are, and how you defend gay rights, but where the rubber meets the road, you haven't done shit.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 10 2016, @10:07PM
Your post can be characterized as follows:
first paragraph: Argumentum ad hominem
second paragraph: Argumentum ad hominem
third paragraph: Argumentum ad hominem
We deserve better here at SN.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 10 2016, @10:28PM
"We deserve better here at SN."
Deserve? Really? Where does it say any of us deserve anything? If you don't like it do something about it. But don't sit back and expect perfection to be given to you. And if you are lucky enough to have convinced someone to spoon feed you awesomeness while you sit back and enjoy it without working, get ready for a shock when the spoon feeding stops. Please don't act like a toddler at that stage and cry.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 10 2016, @10:44PM
I've paid tens of thousands of dollars in Fed. income taxes each and every year for the last 20 years, from my employment in the private sector (only - no government jobs).
Donald Trump is proud of having found a way of paying $0 in Fed. taxes, based on writing off money lost by other people. He bragged about it on national TV.
Who's being spoon fed?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday November 10 2016, @10:55PM
Nobody. Rest assured his accountants take a hefty chunk out of his ass for finding all those legal ways to avoid paying taxes.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 10 2016, @11:14PM
If HRC had done that, that's all that outfits like Fox News would talk about. They would metaphorically pick up each guest by the shoulders and say, "Are you saying that a person who did that should even be allowed to be President of the United States?"
(Score: 4, Funny) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday November 10 2016, @11:28PM
HRC could have set puppies on fire on national TV and the MSM would have had nothing to say about it but "Hillary makes world safe for cats!".
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @08:55AM
> HRC could have set puppies on fire on national TV and the MSM would have had nothing to say about it but "Hillary makes world safe for cats!".
The idea that the media was in cahoots with clinton is, and has always been, utter bullshit.
There was relentless hyperbolic coverage of every non-scandal.
Benghazi, benghazi, benghazi. Every damn night for months.
Emails, emails, emails every damn night for over a year.
And the Comey letter - holy shit headliner every night for week, until the 2nd Comey letter which got one day of coverage and done.
Speech transcripts, transcripts, transcripts, transcripts
Wikileaks this, wikileaks that
And that was nothing new, its been that way for nearly her entire life - whitewater, travelgate, etc --- they all had coverage coming out wazoo for months
And not only that, the coverage was hardly ever informative, the analysis was shallow - at best reporting bare facts without context or explanation, but frequently giving lots of airtime to random crazy ass shit republicans said under the false rubric of objectivity. Like Trump saying the Comey letter was bigger than watergate. WTF? And when she was exonerated, there would be one day's worth of coverage, at most. For example at the conclusion of the 9th benghazi investigation, the lead persecutor, Trey Gowdy who had been running his mouth off to the press for months refused to list one thing clinton had done wrong because there was nothing, That got about 15-seconds of coverage on CNN's rotation for less than a day.
No, its just utter fucking bullshit to think the press supported her. You have to be delusional to think the press was clinton's friend.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 11 2016, @10:47AM
What planet are you from? CNN cut off a fucking congressman's feed because he said the word "wikileaks". I knew about every last one of those and a whole lot more because I refuse to be shackled by their bullshit. If a Republican had had one tenth of the scandals HRC had they would have burned him in effigy and called it reporting.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Friday November 11 2016, @07:31PM
Oh the liberals are back to victim politics. I have been hearing about 'media is unbiased' from day one. There is only one proof needed to show MSM was in cahoots with Clinton. It kept on predicting Clinton's win, it kept on demonizing Trump, it kept on asking 'experts' about why Clinton should be president, and at the end of the day liberal voters didn't even know how Trump won.
Just accept it - you got duped.
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Thursday November 10 2016, @11:15PM
I think the first paragraph is pretty spot on. Greenwald and Johnson (I think it was Johnson. It was late last night I read it) both penned pieces saying similar things. If you don't like those, go look at the bile spewing forth from HuffPo or NYT. Pretty sure they're still doing it.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 11 2016, @12:55AM
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining:
Merely being insulting is not an ad hominem.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 10 2016, @10:09PM
Its almost like we're seeing the exact opposite of what happened with Obama.... all the immature wanks breaking down thinking that the gubmint was going to take their guns, put them under sharia law, and murder every 3rd fetus as it was being born.
Don't let the extremists shape your perceptions, that just plays into the us vs. them game which is actually what this has all been about. The only populist candidate was run out, and an ex-democrat who is all about the money was able to lock down the GOP. I honestly don't think the elites overly cared about who would win, both Trump and Hillary would have helped them out tremendously.
Keep the people divided thinking that the other half are a bunch of idiots or arrogant elitists, whatever works to keep the people from uniting.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by ikanreed on Thursday November 10 2016, @10:50PM
You are racist, though, if you're voting for this goddamn trash. Whether or not "half the country" believes they're not the policies you idiots voted for were undeniably destructive towards minorities and honestly, I view people like you with your half-assed ideological defense of "Don't call my racism what it is or I'll vote for Trump" as precisely the moral equivalent to Nazis in 1930s germany.
As in, with this election, you've crossed a line, where the world would almost certainly be better off from you dying. That's not a joke: it's not that I actively wish you harm or suffering, just that we'd all be better off without your thoughts and voice.
I'll enjoy my flamebait mods, but seriously, fuck your childish "I don't wanna stop being racist wah" arguments, and fuck your idiot party.
(Score: 4, Funny) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday November 10 2016, @10:58PM
And you are an entitled, elitist shit stain without a clue what the world outside their ivory tower is like. Shall we have a reasonable discussion now or would you like to keep dealing in ad-homs? I'll warn you though, I'm much better at ad-homs than you are.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by ikanreed on Thursday November 10 2016, @11:05PM
No, go fuck yourself. Cry fallacy when people point out that you have become an amoral psychopath, that's new alt-right way to address legitimate grievances.
There is a problem. And the problem is you and OP and how you voted. And the kind of people that indicates you are. Regardless of whatever other
I work a regular goddamn job. Deal with regular people. Engage in regular activities. Visit all kinds of places. Meet all kinds of people with all kinds of perspectives.
Why don't you come out of your goddamn ivory basement, where people babble back and forth on reddit or 4chan or stormfront or wherever the fuck you get your views, and meet some people who are going to be affected by your vote. (I can't wait to hear about your "black friend" excuse, because my black friends(and East Asian, and Muslim, and Hispanic) are all absolutely terrified of the world you've just created). Not everyone who disagrees with you is stuck in "Ivory Tower" and decrying intellectualism as an excuse for your rampant and hateful anti-intellectualism would be funny if it weren't leading down a disasterous path.
(Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday November 10 2016, @11:50PM
Ad-hom it is then. Have you finished admiring the smell of your own farts or would you like me to wait? Done? Okay.
You seem to think your cries of racism/sexism/*-phobe hurt people like me. They don't. It's like calling me gay after I just nutted on your mother's face. We know better.
You, though, are vulnerable to every sling and arrow that is traditionally thrown at the regressive left because you genuinely do think you know what is best for everyone and that they should have to think, speak, and act your way or be punished. You are an elitist not because you actually are elite but because you think you are intellectually and morally superior to most of the world. You're clearly neither but that only makes telling you the truth that much more enjoyable for those of us who aren't willfully blinding ourselves to it.
You think discriminating based on race can be excused as not racist in the name of righting past wrongs. Ditto gender based discrimination. You refuse to see that racism and sexism are essentially gone in the US today; all that's left is the mopping up. But that would take away your reason to harpy-screech that men and white people are assholes and we can't have that. No ma'am, can't be letting go of our own racism and sexism because they're the good kind.
Your ass, you really should have that head of yours removed from it before its swelling makes it impossible.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by ikanreed on Friday November 11 2016, @12:39AM
And this is all you assholes ever do
Deny reality. That's all you goddamn idiots ever do.
It doesn't matter if hard research shows that women are 1000% more likely to get a callback on a tech resume if the gender identifying information is anonymized [cnet.com], because goddamn morons like you can just pretend sexism doesn't exist anymore. And call your deluded reality "facts" and people who are right "emotional".
Does your little sexist brain understand what 1000% means? That means bafflingly high numbers of women aren't invited in for tech interviews because their name looks female on their resume. Sexism is over you say.
Do you know why you say that? Because you're a sexist fuckwit and we'd all be so much better off if you had taken five seconds to understand and interpret the world around you.
But no. You fucking goddamn sanctimonious morons get on your fucking high horse and whine like god has never seen about the tiny inconvenience of maybe considering you're wrong.
You're incapable of learning. You're a systemically broken person The Mighty Buzzard, and you can enjoy bieng upomodded "informative" for a full-of-shit denying-reality post. And that's fine, that's exactly what this election was, a bunch of blowhards jacking each other off about non-existant problems and delusional solutions to them.
You are a terrible person. Do you get that? No? You're in denial about that too?
I don't think white men are responsible for this, YOU ARE. Go. Fuck. Yourself.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @01:26AM
Ahem
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160426162606.htm [sciencedaily.com]
Bit more compelling.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Friday November 11 2016, @02:58AM
Not if you read the actual editorial letter submitted to the journal [sci-hub.cc] (Sorry for the piracy, please buy an overpriced subscription to Applied Economics Letters)
Their names for signaling "blackness" were Chloe and Ryan, which in the realm of stereotypes, are "white-sounding" as all hell. The article they're "responding to" here is titled "Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination." Which I'm going to say was better structured and got better data, and the reasons for the differences are pretty clear from a more in-depth reading of both studies. (This one is designed to draw out a mean, especially on African American names)
Now, as the authors note, they are indeed common names for actual, real-life African-Americans. And also note that they disguise their effect sizes(not purposefully, mind you, just by virtue of how they structured their experiment) by comparing a mean of a dataset that's primarily composed of minority applicants, with only a fractional cross-section being white and male. Which also explains why in their table 2, they have p>0.10 for most of their crosstabs. Also note, they don't offer any sort of white-male controls we don't even get an N for that. All their exposed data is the 4 experimental groups, kinda restating the earlier point, but kinda not, since they took the data but don't expose it. Odd that it's left out of their models.
It's... not useless to surmise anything from this study, but it doesn't say what you're thinking it says. I appreciate your stepping into the realm of data-driven analysis, but please understand what you're actually submitting as evidence rather than just citing the first headline that sounds like it agrees with you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @07:14AM
From the fucking article you didn't bother to read.
Researchers sent 9,000 fictitious resumes to employers, using last names that were likely to be interpreted as coming from black, Hispanic or white applicants. For African-American applicants the researchers used the surnames Washington and Jefferson. According to data from the U.S. Census, 90 and 75 percent of individuals with these surnames are African-American, respectively. Similarly, the researchers used the surnames Hernandez and Garcia, and Anderson and Thompson, for Hispanic and white applicants, respectively. These surnames also are strong indicators of race/ethnicity. The researchers used first names to convey gender in the study.
Not Chloe and Ryan.
Why misrepresent the study with something unrelated behind a paywall?
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday November 11 2016, @05:05PM
Washington and Jefferson seem like... extremely bad choices considering that we don't care about what the *actual* statistical reality of name distribution is, but what the *perceived* reality is in the minds of the HR department employees screening the resumes. Employees who as a rule probably aren't intentionally setting out to implement racist hiring policies.
And I would guess that most people seeing those names think "Early White Presidents", not "Black People".
(Score: 4, Touché) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 11 2016, @01:54AM
Yes, you're in no way emotional. Obviously. Follow ye ole AC's link and spout your regressive rag propaganda again, why don't you? Oh, I'm sorry, that hit you right in the narrative. That's got to hurt.
Here's a clue for you to take back to your friends: we don't hate blacks, hispanics, arabs, or women. We hate you. Far above and beyond anything else in the world, we hate you.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @07:06PM
Ah yes, the "well I'm not the one upset and getting all worked up here". Reminds me of the Big Lebowski when Walter gets worked up then drops it and says "calmer than you are" like that somehow makes him suddenly in the right.
YAY! I found the perfect example! TMB and other such douches on this site are just Walters! And not the crafty Breaking Bad Walters, the child-level emotions, gun-loving violent Walters who should probably be in weekly therapy at the least, and possibly a psych ward to make sure they don't have any nasty dreams about shooting people from a tower...
You conservative greedy fucktards (sorry I'm a bit upset by this stupid thread so a little ad hominem of my own) are on the way out, the world doesn't like your shit anymore and fighting the winds of change will only plunge us into the dark ages. Take your heads out of the sand and start looking for a therapist that can actually help you work through your emotional issues.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @07:47PM
Um, not to put too fine a point on it, but it is President Trump.
If there was ever a group with a shelf life, well, I've got some bad news.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 11 2016, @09:08PM
Interesting comment. I shall reply at the same level of discourse. I'm rubber, you're glue...
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @07:42PM
Yes and women are 200% more preferred in STEM and god knows how many times more preferred in non-STEM academia.
Guess what, you are not as good as you think and you are not entitled to freebies because you happen to associate yourself with some group identity.
Tell me, would you rather hire someone who spoke English or Martian?
Apparently businesses are not supposed to be run on profits they ought to run on some liberal-gifted metric that just happens to help people like you.
You know some thing? 99.9999% of all businesses which are run by men, end up providing for women who don't work.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday November 11 2016, @11:48AM
If only. They're just coming up with new -isms that they can use to justify pointing the finger at ordinary folk accusatorily and saying "-ist!!!".
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @07:09PM
Nah, I'd say it's mostly true that racism is on the way out but "mopping up" is too small of a phrase for how much we have left to do. It will be another 20-50 years for racial tensions to really calm down (napkin math!), but it looks like the elites are already trying to prep us for WW3 in the middle east. Gotta get that propaganda rolling so by the time war comes around everyone is already irrationally angry at eastern brown people.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 11 2016, @01:50AM
I work a regular goddamn job. Deal with regular people. Engage in regular activities. Visit all kinds of places. Meet all kinds of people with all kinds of perspectives.
And still clueless. Who knew that superficial life experience didn't prepare one for everything? Who knew?
Your "moral" concerns about Trump are way overblown. Comparisons between him or for that matter Clinton with Hitler have always been blatantly wrong. I think this comes from being completely ignorant of how Hitler operated such as the violence and lawlessness Hitler spurred from the very beginning of his political career, and the crippling weakness and corruption of the society he operated in.
And of course, who advocates widespread death because a candidate that they didn't like got elected? The Nazi, ikanreed. Stop being the problem you claim to care about.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @07:18PM
You're right and wrong. The concerns are overblown since Trump is a hot air blowhard, but if you take some of his comments seriously then the concerns are 100% on point. From everything I've seen you post you're intelligent but seriously lacking world experience, your worldview is myopic and your brain patterns old and inflexible. You have "the truth" according to khallow and other conservative circle-jerks on here, but for those of us lucky enough to have more liberal upbringings your truth and wisdom are like the RIAA. Trying to fight the better future because of fears with little to no basis. There are nuggets of truth in your worldview, but some serious flaws which you just take for granted. We can only point things out, its up to you to reflect and get more worldly knowledge so you can update your personal views to be more humane.
Right now you and your fellows are the dangerous reactionaries that would easily get us into WW3 because "fuck those ******** people trying to..."
1. take our jerbs
2. free people from archaic modes of thinking
3. save the environment
4. help the poor
5. generally make the world a better place
So I'll agree that some of the liberals on here are way too rabidly emotional about this election and spewing their own ignorance and hypocritical hatred, but that doesn't absolve you of the same. Or mean that the liberal viewpoint is somehow invalid. You need to open your mind to all paths, and use your brain to fit the pieces together as best you can.
Or just sit at home thumping the bible or Aayn Rand, or whatever gets you through the day...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday November 12 2016, @04:53AM
but if you take some of his comments seriously then the concerns are 100% on point
Nonsense. Your ignorance is not mine. I've already explained this. You will see that even after two years of Republican domination that your fears were overblown.
Right now you and your fellows are the dangerous reactionaries that would easily get us into WW3 because "fuck those ******** people trying to..."
1. take our jerbs
2. free people from archaic modes of thinking
3. save the environment
4. help the poor
5. generally make the world a better place
I'm not interested in "trying" here. Outcome matters not "trying".
Projection is not a good argument here. Please recall just who is whizzing their pants right now because Trump. It's not me. And the driving force behind a lot of the above thinking is zero sum thinking (a classic archaic mode of thinking) driven by social programs, class envy, and similar stuff. Not all of that comes from Trump supporters.
Or just sit at home thumping the bible or Aayn Rand
Only the ignorant would think that Ayn Rand or Objectivists have anything to do with the problems you claim to care about except possibly point 3 (they do have a notable lack of concern for people "trying" to save an environment, often by making the situation worse).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 10 2016, @11:01PM
Not really a fan of Trump
I see your user name is more suggestive than a statement of fact.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Mykl on Thursday November 10 2016, @11:10PM
It's important to note that Trump (and the GOP) have multiple policies, on a range of issues. Saying that you must be racist because you voted for him is extremely narrow-sighted.
Hell, this very article which you're commenting on discussed precisely this point! If you were a Disney IT worker who lost their job to an H-1B, I think you'd be tempted to vote for the one candidate that promised to fight that instead of the other candidate that didn't, regardless of their other policies.
So, in voting for Hillary, are you automatically pro-war? Support big banks? Want to kill Edward Snowden?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by ikanreed on Thursday November 10 2016, @11:22PM
No, I'd argue it's not.
If you were friends with someone who says they're going to kill their wife, but hey, he also makes okay ice cream I guess, so why not be pals, I'd probably condemn your tacit endorsement of his murdering.
That might all be different if the wife-killer had changed his mind, repented, or been punished for it in some way, because hey, understanding that people are flawed is okay. But that's not the case in this analogy, the immoral, outright evil component of Trump was front and center and unapologetic. Anyone tacitly accepting that with a vote, is also tacitly endorsing the bigotry in a non-trivial way. These voters are actually bad people.
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Friday November 11 2016, @01:21AM
Unfortunately though, this election was a choice between a shit sandwich and a glass of vomit (your choice who was who). You could equally argue that voting for Hillary was tacit endorsement of her support for the big end of town at the expense of the little end. I'm still feeling the Bern.
I agree that Trump's election will be bad for minorities. But I disagree that it was the intent of all Trump voters (maybe some, but not all) to explicitly disadvantage minorities. His angle was about protecting American jobs. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that, if there were a crisis in the US flat-pack furniture industry, he'd try to send all of the Swedish home too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @07:21PM
This! Stop the division, even with Sanders on the ballot I would understand that some people would be too afraid of the scurrry "socialism" and vote Trump out of that fear. I wouldn't like it, I would think those people need to expand their own mind, but just voting for Trump wouldn't mean by default that they are racist / bigoted / idiots. Just differing opinions about what they think would make the US a better place.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Gaaark on Friday November 11 2016, @01:34AM
WHOA, whoa, whoa!
Hillary was fine with corruptly stealing the leadership of the Dems from Bernie. She had no problem staying with and supporting a man who cheated on her, while also attacking those women and trying to find info on them in order to attack them further and denigrate them.
She also deleted emails under subpoena not to.
She is a liar, a corrupt person who sanctimoniously attacked Trump for doing something she supported Bill for doing.
DO NOT Throw stones in her glass house... it all might come shattering down around you!
Bernie should have been the Dems leader and HE would have won GUARANTEED!
Instead, a pig of a person ran and lost, so stop crying about who won: Bernie and America lost. Hillary was just the punchline.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by t-3 on Friday November 11 2016, @03:48AM
So basically you're saying that all Hillary voters are bad people. After all, she has repeatedly advocated for war, and unrepetently supports campaigns that include bombing innocent civilians and putting weapons in the hands of murderous terrorists and religious fundamentalists.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @10:27AM
I could argue such things about every candidate ever. We're always given a choice of two evils from the major parties, and most voters foolishly vote for what they believe is the lesser evil. Now, since most candidates have supported mass surveillance and/or other unconstitutional policies (which are every bit as horrendous if not more so than racism), does that mean everyone who voted for those candidates supported those policies? Do you have to agree with a candidate 100% to vote for them? You might argue that voting for evil is foolish--and I would agree--but I think someone's actual intentions matter, regardless.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 10 2016, @11:15PM
Immature wank.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @10:23AM
You are racist, though, if you're voting for this goddamn trash.
So you're calling everyone who voted for Trump a racist? Can you actually prove that?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 10 2016, @11:14PM
> Trump tapped into all types of anger.
He certainly encouraged the worst of it. That's why the neo-nazis and jihadis are celebrating their asses off. They understand his election represents the potential breakdown of all moral authority of the US. Exactly what they've been saying all along.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by dyingtolive on Thursday November 10 2016, @11:25PM
The odd thing about that is that for all the anger that the right seems to have, if I google "violence against clinton supporters", all I get is articles and comments about the violence against Trump supporters.
For being the angry side celebrated by the "neo-nazi's and jihadis", I'm having a hard time finding them committing actual acts of violence. Google bias maybe? Do you get links for something else when you go searching for it? I'm logged in still, so my google results might be tainted somehow by the fact that I've been watching right wing fringe news because I've read literally every news article I've been able to get my hands on for the last year.
If you have something different, I'm genuinely curious.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 10 2016, @11:35PM
Don't forget the assassination attempts on Trump.
I mean look at all the peaceful disagreement with just in this thread, it's so hard to imagine.
And the Grand Dragon for the KKK endorsed Clinton.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-03-14/ku-klux-klan-grand-dragon-will-quigg-endorses-hillary-clinton-for-president [usnews.com]
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @12:02AM
> And the Grand Dragon for the KKK endorsed Clinton.
Some poser endorsing clinton for lulz isn't even in the same league as the outright celebrations of Trump's win.
http://www.snopes.com/kkk-endorses-hillary-clinton/ [snopes.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @12:13AM
As opposed to the protests going on now.
Oh and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L65RBwrtOeQ [youtube.com]
Maybe you should do as Snopes asks and perform your own research.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @12:25AM
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L65RBwrtOeQ [youtube.com]
Funny how that video has exactly one jump-cut and it is practically mid-sentence in that guy's 'endorsement' of clinton.
I wonder why? Oh I know, it was just an artistic decision by the video editor, right?
> Maybe you should do as Snopes asks and perform your own research.
You mean like this interview with the so-called "grand dragon" where he wiggled out from anything verifiable?
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/30/is-this-hillary-clinton-kkk-supporter-just-an-elaborate-troll.html [thedailybeast.com]
You trumpkins are so guillible.
Meanwhile the KKK is actually marching in celebration of Trump's win.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/ku-klux-klan-parade-north-carolina-donald-trump-celebration-president-elect-white-supremacists-alt-a7410671.html [independent.co.uk]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 10 2016, @11:55PM
For being the angry side celebrated by the "neo-nazi's and jihadis", I'm having a hard time finding them committing actual acts of violence.
Are you seriously trying to argue that neo-nazis and jihadis are not violent?
Really?
Are you even buying your own bullshit?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 10 2016, @11:59PM
Are you trying to argue the Project Veritas didn't happen?
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @12:10AM
> Are you trying to argue the Project Veritas didn't happen?
You mean the video of a guy saying it was easy to make Trump supporters pop-off by simply wearing a t-shirt?
You think that proves clinton supporters are violent? As in they plan to go around hitting Trump's people's fists with their faces?
Yeah, what a bunch of hypocritcal fascists they are, amirite?!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @12:28AM
No, I mean this
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3924052/Twitter-erupts-calls-Donald-Trump-assassinated-elected-president-United-States.html [dailymail.co.uk]
and this
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/21/why-isnt-the-assassination-attempt-on-donald-trump-bigger-news/ [washingtonpost.com]
and this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjalRqifvf0 [youtube.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @12:40AM
None of your links are about project veritas.
So why did you bring up project veritas?
If you think a gish gallop makes you right, well it does more than that, it makes you alt-right!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @12:49AM
Operative who was dismissed makes mention the DNC incites people to violence, and you don't suppose that creates an air of violence that other people react to?
And thus far the only examples of violence are towards Trump supporters, with even an assassination attempt and further threats of assassination.
Yes those Hilary people are just so damn peaceful.
You can't be that dumb.
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Friday November 11 2016, @05:18AM
I am not trying to argue that. Sigh. To better clarify, I am arguing that, within the scope of this election and events directly relevant to it (rallies/protests), I can find plenty of politically motivated violence against people brandishing Trump paraphernalia. I'm struggling to find any sort of violence against people brandishing Clinton paraphernalia. I'm saying that if one group is the "violent" group out of the two, why is there not more obvious cases of Trump supporters attacking Clinton supporters?
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @09:03AM
So, to put it succinctly you are deflecting from the original point by bringing up something else that you feel you scan score points with.
There is absolutely no disputing the fact that neo-nazis and jihadis are ecstatic about a Trump presidency.
The fact that a handful of clinton supporters got out of hand is irrelevant. She never once encouraged violence, Trump's got a long record of doing exactly that from the stage. Even offering to pay the legal bills of people who beat up protestors. And if you are unaware of that, then you have done an absolutely piss-poor job of reading about Trump.
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Friday November 11 2016, @03:42PM
Well, technically, SHE didn't. The whole Project Veritas reveal as referenced by another poster earlier showed that Scott Foval and Robert Creamer actually supported inciting violence and voter fraud. Behold, from the alt-right tabloid known as WaPo:
"The result of all that was that the “Rigging the Election” videos got a skeptical reception — at first. But the video of Foval, a Wisconsin-based politico with a long résumé, had him bragging about a litany of political dirty tricks. In the first video, he boasts of “conflict engagement in the lines of Trump rallies,” takes credit for the violence that canceled a Trump rally at the University of Illinois at Chicago, admits he has paid “mentally ill” people to start trouble and says there's a “Pony Express” that keeps Democratic operatives in touch, regardless of whether they work for super PACs or the campaigns not permitted to coordinate with super PACs.
In the second video, Foval spends five minutes discussing how voters might be brought from outside Wisconsin to commit voter fraud, buying cars with Wisconsin plates to avoid looking suspicious. “We've been busing people in to deal with you f---ing a--holes for 50 years, and we're not going to stop now,” he says."
link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/10/19/two-democratic-operatives-lose-jobs-after-james-okeefe-sting/ [washingtonpost.com]
Trump did do what you say he did. I'm not denying that. I'm just saying that there's far more blood on the hands of the left this election, and even people who were part of the institution supported it. Ultimately though, NO ONE is innocent here.
Except me, because I'm a smug Stein voter. :D
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @12:03AM
It's actually very easy to find examples. Here are two from a quick search:
Three charged in Kansas plot to bomb homes, worship center for Somalis [kansascity.com]
Muslim Taxi Driver Shot In Pittsburgh On Thanksgiving Day [post-gazette.com] by a rider who had talked about ISIS
(Score: 3, Interesting) by dyingtolive on Friday November 11 2016, @05:27AM
I think you misunderstood me. I'm not sure if it was willful or otherwise, but I think I gave a shit explanation of what I was talking about, so it was probably an honest misunderstanding. To repeat my clarification from another post:
I am arguing that, within the scope of this election and events directly relevant to it (rallies/protests), I can find plenty of politically motivated violence against people brandishing Trump paraphernalia. I'm struggling to find any sort of violence against people brandishing Clinton paraphernalia. I'm saying that if one group is the "violent" group out of the two, why is there not more obvious cases of Trump supporters attacking Clinton supporters?
You could argue that those people were politically motivated, and you might have a reasonable argument for it, but no one declared their political beliefs so it's not a certainty. The people who specifically attacked people at what I'm describing were specifically one set of people consistently attacking another BECAUSE they were wearing a shirt or hat or holding a sign.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @09:09AM
> I'm saying that if one group is the "violent" group out of the two, why is there not more obvious cases of Trump supporters attacking Clinton supporters?
Did you miss the people getting beat up at Trump rallies while Trump cheered it on?
And you have the gall to accuse him of willfully misunderstanding you?
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Friday November 11 2016, @03:50PM
There was the one time when Trump offered to pay for the bills of protesters who got in fights. There was a conflict between two people there. I think there was another time I read about that was two people getting into a fight.
Now look at the giant list of stuff that comes up in here [google.com]. You simply CAN'T claim that one side is the "violent" side here. On top of that, I contend that the vast majority of it was actually coming from the left.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @04:08PM
so cite a link to it already. that's what he's asking for
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @07:30PM
I'm of the opinion that this whole mess was actually a beautifully choreographed media show that's been in the making for a long time. Trump is now gonna say some loud opinions after some bad thing happens and rally a large minority to accomplish some goal. Everyone will think that the strong man is making us safe and showing the world how the US "does things", and they will eat it up because that's what all these sycophants secretly want for themselves (tell the boss to fuck off, kill the people that make them angry and take their hard earned cash as taxes, etc). We will slide further into a dystopian police state with people cheering it on because they think its part of making America Great Again.
My only hope is that enough of the Trump supporters were really choosing the lesser of two evils and so he won't get enough support to push through full-blown fascism. Right now we still carry on with the illusion that we live in a free country, once they don't feel the need to keep up the show then shit will get MUCH worse.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @12:34AM
ISIS loved him when he won the primary: http://www.ibtimes.com/isis-wants-trump-president-islamic-state-twitter-users-say-republican-will-help-2408204 [ibtimes.com]
And now jihadists cheer Trump victory: https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/blogs/567492-jihadists-cheer-trump-victory [mmedia.me]
He is literally their candidate. His win is a validation of everything they claim about western society being at war with islam.
He's really energized them. He's made them "high energy."
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Friday November 11 2016, @05:48AM
So we should instead vote for people based upon what our enemies say?
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @09:07AM
We should vote for people based on how well they reflect our values.
Trump and ISIS think exactly the same. They both believe there is no place for muslims in the west.
That makes him an enemy to american values just as much as ISIS is the enemy.
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Friday November 11 2016, @03:59PM
Far as a single-issue vote works, sure, that's a pretty easy value judgement to make.
And I mean, I don't completely disagree with you. It was just an impossible situation, at least for me. I would have voted Democrat if it was ANYONE but Clinton. I would have voted Republican if it was ANYONE but Trump.
And, you know, I defend Trump because while I don't like him, I realize that trying to get people to calm the fuck down a little at this point and save it for when he actually DOES something is going to be the only way to keep things sane for the next four years. I still say, "Give him a chance. Let him try hanging himself in action before you blow up. Otherwise it will lessen the impact later." He can't dissolve rule of law. If he tries pulling anything overbearing, there WILL be plenty of time to react. The alternative is civil war. I don't like wars, which is one of the main reasons I didn't vote for either of the two of them to begin with.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 2) by naubol on Friday November 11 2016, @04:16AM
I have skin in this game.
This election has a very real chance of stripping my federal marriage rights. It will not be 4 years of mediocrity for me.