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: 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.