|
The only correct answer to the New National Anthem question is This Land is Your Land, because it is physically impossible to not feel more patriotic and united singing that with a large group of people.
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 05:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 02:38 |
|
|
Yoshifan823 posted:The only correct answer to the New National Anthem question is This Land is Your Land, because it is physically impossible to not feel more patriotic and united singing that with a large group of people. Unless you are a Native American anyway...
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 05:36
|
|
|
my lands my land, not yours i mean i dont own any land but if i did, it'd be mine
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 05:39
|
|
|
I don't think saying someone has an annoying voice is sexually charged, though obviously some adjectives are (Example: shrill). Are any of you going to tell me that the way Cruz, Trump, Jindall, Kucinich, or Gore give a speech isn't obnoxious? Are any of you telling me you can stand listening to Sean Hannity talk for one full minute uninterrupted? Can we just have Barack read every candidate's prepared speeches until he dies?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 05:39
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:However I cannot think of a single Republican policy, one which is not bipartisan in some way, that would help society. Shoving old racists into the grave as quickly as possible?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 05:39
|
|
|
DACK FAYDEN posted:Not that they do much about it, but they're pro-nuclear power. That's the one I always fall back on. I worry that it's also literally the only one I know about. Unfortunately, being pro nuclear power is just a small blip on their otherwise horrible energy policy, what with their ties to coal and oil.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 05:40
|
|
|
Man I just remembered this, but Sports Illustrated did an issue called "Overratted / Underrated" in like 1999 or 2000. One of the "overrated" things was The Star Spangled Banner and they had a writeup on why it sucks and should be replaced with America the Beautiful. I might try to dig that up tomorrow when I'm at a computer.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 05:42
|
|
|
Star Spangled Banner owns because it's a test of the singer's ability to hit high notes you know they're chumps if they do a lower note or their voice cracks
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 05:43
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:It's not crazy or sexist to say Clinton just doesn't have the chops for saying inspiring speeches, because she just doesn't making inspiring speeches is deeply overrated, especially for the president. Clinton is good at getting poo poo done. She's good at coalition-building. It's worth noting that people are ragging on Clinton for not being good at skills that are traditionally masculine like making big speeches, and turning her biggest strengths into liabilities (namely, the fact that she had the nomination virtually locked up before the primary started was taken as evidence of corruption rather than credit to her relationship building within the party).
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 05:43
|
|
|
If we're doing anthem chat my wife is Korean and says tSSB is the best anthem despite not really liking America much at all.remusclaw posted:Unfortunately, being pro nuclear power is just a small blip on their otherwise horrible energy policy, what with their ties to coal and oil. Big deal, though. Imagine how much better off we'd be if Nuclear had been fully embraced in the States as early as it was feasible. The globe would likely be a years behind where we are right now on climate change. Broken clock.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 05:44
|
|
|
Grapplejack posted:Star Spangled Banner owns because it's a test of the singer's ability to hit high notes Watching people get booed for being bad at it is one of the best parts of sporting events
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 05:52
|
|
|
Eifert Posting posted:
Possible. But also possible that even without the disasters that soured Americans on Nuclear, the Republicans would have still chained themselves to the dying coal lobby and the lucrative oil one in the same manner they have. They also have the problematic position of being being pro nuclear while also being anti regulation, a sure fire combination to ensure that such disasters and the resulting backlash would be inevitable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 05:52
|
|
|
GalacticAcid posted:Man I just remembered this, but Sports Illustrated did an issue called "Overratted / Underrated" in like 1999 or 2000. One of the "overrated" things was The Star Spangled Banner and they had a writeup on why it sucks and should be replaced with America the Beautiful. Lol I found it. It was published 8/27/2001 so if this guy hated maudlin and sappy patriotism...he sure was in for a treat in a couple weeks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 05:55
|
|
|
remusclaw posted:Possible. But also possible that even without the disasters that soured Americans on Nuclear, the Republicans would have still chained themselves to the dying coal lobby and the lucrative oil one in the same manner they have. They also have the problematic position of being being pro nuclear while also being anti regulation, a sure fire combination to ensure that such disasters and the resulting backlash would be inevitable. I agree, for sure. Nuclear is the great misstep of environmentalism, not the crown jewel of Red America. You just have to dig to say nice things about Republican policy. What else could there be? I suppose if you only consider local results tax incentives to encourage outside businesses to move in would be good if reasonable and not tied to deregulation. Then again Kentucky is one of the biggest enthusiasts of that maneuver and that hasn't stopped them from being Kentucky. Eifert Posting fucked around with this message at 06:14 on Aug 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 06:03
|
|
|
remusclaw posted:Unfortunately, being pro nuclear power is just a small blip on their otherwise horrible energy policy, what with their ties to coal and oil. Here's a list of Republican enabled nuke plants, since the Republicans are so nuclear friendly
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 06:14
|
|
|
Spatula City posted:making inspiring speeches is deeply overrated, especially for the president. Clinton is good at getting poo poo done. She's good at coalition-building. It's worth noting that people are ragging on Clinton for not being good at skills that are traditionally masculine like making big speeches,
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 06:15
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:*ignores a shitload of present-day tribal matriarchal societies* *Ignores the consensus of modern-day anthropology* From wikipedia: quote:Most anthropologists hold that there are no known societies that are unambiguously matriarchal.[53][54][55] According to J. M. Adovasio, Olga Soffer, and Jake Page, no true matriarchy is known actually to have existed.[50] Anthropologist Joan Bamberger argued that the historical record contains no primary sources on any society in which women dominated.[56] Anthropologist Donald Brown's list of human cultural universals (viz., features shared by nearly all current human societies) includes men being the "dominant element" in public political affairs,[57] which he asserts is the contemporary opinion of mainstream anthropology.[citation needed] There are some disagreements and possible exceptions. A belief that women's rule preceded men's rule was, according to Haviland, "held by many nineteenth-century intellectuals".[3] The hypothesis survived into the 20th century and was notably advanced in the context of feminism and especially second-wave feminism, but the hypothesis is mostly discredited today, most experts saying that it was never true.[58]
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 06:26
|
|
|
If men aren't being influenced by latent sexism in their attitude toward Clinton, why is there such a large gender split between her approval ratings among Whites? The approval/disapproval for white females is 36/34 (+2) versus 25/49 (-24) for white males. Maybe it's not male sexism at all, it's female sexism towards a female candidate, but there's definitely something going on here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 06:33
|
|
|
Has this been posted?quote:Much has been made of Donald Trump’s problems with a few voting groups — female voters, blacks and Hispanics, and young voters, in particular. And, to be sure, they are all problems. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/28/donald-trump-has-a-massive-catholic-problem/ This is a pretty BFD isn't it? Catholics are not only a huge portion the general population, but also a huge portion of the Republican population. A 20+ point shift surely makes it seem like it would be possible to take back the House, right? And that same article has a chart showing Hillary is doing better than Obama in every single demographic. I never thought I'd witness such a thing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 06:40
|
|
|
AMorePerfctGoonion posted:If men aren't being influenced by latent sexism in their attitude toward Clinton, why is there such a large gender split between her approval ratings among Whites? The approval/disapproval for white females is 36/34 (+2) versus 25/49 (-24) for white males. Maybe it's not male sexism at all, it's female sexism towards a female candidate, but there's definitely something going on here. A lot of it is sexism. You could probably argue that sexism affects Clinton's candidacy twice. You have the everyday impression of her, but also decades-old internalized attacks against her that originated from sexism but now are just a nebulous and vague character assassination. Men also trend right regardless of candidate, so that doesn't help those numbers. This is true as long as you don't bring up sex. vvvv Eifert Posting fucked around with this message at 06:47 on Aug 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 06:44
|
|
|
Catholics, in the way of major religions, are actually pretty progressive - something I chalk up to a general focus on education.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 06:46
|
|
|
It's also that American Catholics have gotten a lot less white.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 06:48
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Shoving old racists into the grave as quickly as possible? Hasn't happened in my lifetime. Also cross-posting thecluckmeme posted:*redneck nazgul appears before boosted*
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 06:50
|
|
|
fap fap SPLOOGE posted:So by the same token you would say that liberals see Palin as a dumb "ditzy broad" for the same reason conservatives see Clinton as a bossy overbearing "bulldike"? Sure. Trump has displayed a stunning lack of knowledge and basic intellectual curiosity but there hasn't been an equivalent criticism of his obvious mental deficits. The fact that the stereotype of ditzy broad exists at all with no male equivalent (dumb Himbo e.g. Zoolander is the closest I can think of) says something about the construction of gender by society. quote:The sense I get is the sexist impulses really come into play when men - especially conservatives - don't like a woman's beliefs. When she's on their team they don't seem threatened. I have a hard time reconciling conservatives' affinity with the likes of Palin with the idea that their vitriol toward Hillary, Michelle Obama or Sandra Fluke reflects their being uncomfortable with women having power in general.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 06:53
|
|
|
AMorePerfctGoonion posted:*Ignores the consensus of modern-day anthropology* Please don't.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 06:57
|
|
|
Catholics, like Mormons and Jews, have a long cultural memory of what it's like to be a minority on the receiving end of a hateful populist demagogue. People forget that the 2nd incarnation of the Ku Klux Klan was strongly anti-Catholic as well as anti-Semitic and of course anti-black. Irish Catholics have been one of the most hated immigrant groups in America's history.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 06:58
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:That has nothing to do with the poisonous policies of the GOP. People are tribal everywhere but somehow other countries can run reasonable social and or infrastructure programs without throwing kinipshits.  Did... did you mean conniptions? You are completely right though, and that's a point that needs to be repeated more often.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 06:58
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:Please don't. When someone makes a statement that goes completely against the accepted academic consensus, the best you can do is point them at Wikipedia and move on. Arguing with them is like arguing with climate change deniers - a waste of time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 07:01
|
|
|
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/08/trump-will-wing-debates-while-clinton-does-her-homework.htmlquote:Clinton is reportedly devouring policy and opposition research, and rehearsing like crazy to get ready. Her debate team is being led by Georgetown professor Ronald Klain — who actually teaches a class about presidential debates — as well as D.C. lawyer Karen Dunn, plus a collection of veteran Clinton advisors. (They still won’t say who will play Trump in the campaign’s mock debates, but indicate the role might be divided up among multiple people.) Overall, the Clinton team says that Hillary is approaching the debates like a series of job interviews with the American electorate in which she aims to come across as the sober and serious alternative to Trump. She is hyper-preparing, accordingly. I can't loving wait 
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 07:04
|
|
|
AMorePerfctGoonion posted:Sure. Trump has displayed a stunning lack of knowledge and basic intellectual curiosity but there hasn't been an equivalent criticism of his obvious mental deficits. The fact that the stereotype of ditzy broad exists at all with no male equivalent (dumb Himbo e.g. Zoolander is the closest I can think of) says something about the construction of gender by society. Being dumb can be cute if the dumb person isn't running poo poo. The dumb blond stereotype is not normally tied to people who have power over life and death. When the stakes are higher the humor to be found in the situation is a bit darker. Bumblers and buffoons in power are more often described as ignorant and close minded. remusclaw fucked around with this message at 07:07 on Aug 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 07:04
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Palin was a VP pick, she wasn't actually going to have any power unless McCain died. Have you SEEN John McCain? Like, "Sarah Palin gaining power if the President died" was exactly the point.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 07:10
|
|
|
Boon posted:Catholics, in the way of major religions, are actually pretty progressive - something I chalk up to a general focus on education. A Catholic friend also pointed out to me that the American nationalist movement has an anti-Catholic history (the KKK, anyone?) and that anti-Catholic bigotry was still a big deal in the 1960 election. So there will be especially older Catholics who will hear the dogwhistles* whenever Trump speaks. In the 1800s and early 1900s the Catholic menace was the Irish, now it's the Mexicans (even though more appropriate would be "Central Americans" at this point since Mexican net immigration is negative). * In retrospect that metaphor went off the rails. Sulphagnist fucked around with this message at 07:16 on Aug 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 07:11
|
|
|
VirtualStranger posted:http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/08/trump-will-wing-debates-while-clinton-does-her-homework.html 
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 07:13
|
|
|
VirtualStranger posted:http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/08/trump-will-wing-debates-while-clinton-does-her-homework.html Trump watched Drunken Master, and decided one cannot defend against an opponent whose movements are so jerky and random.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 07:16
|
|
|
Eifert Posting posted:I don't think saying someone has an annoying voice is sexually charged, though obviously some adjectives are (Example: shrill). Are any of you going to tell me that the way Cruz, Trump, Jindall, Kucinich, or Gore give a speech isn't obnoxious? Are any of you telling me you can stand listening to Sean Hannity talk for one full minute uninterrupted? Can we just have Barack read every candidate's prepared speeches until he dies? The sex in sexually charged refers to intercourse, not gender. You don't think saying a woman has an annoying voice is sexist because you don't realize/are ignoring that, in general, men don't like listen to a women speak and they justify that feeling by finding flaws in how women speak. Look into the incredible pile of bullshit that is uptalk and vocal fry. Look up that This American Life special on all the hatemail their female announcers get for how they talk, while the men get little to none. There is an incredible amount of cultural bias against women just talking, which makes comparing Hillary to men like Cruz or Hannity a false equivalence.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 07:20
|
|
|
VirtualStranger posted:http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/08/trump-will-wing-debates-while-clinton-does-her-homework.html I'm not even going to be able to watch the debates (assuming they happen) out of sheer empathetic shame. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 07:27
|
|
|
Instant Sunrise posted:Trump is apparently bankrupting the RNC This is glorious, and a point towards Trump secretly being a democrat mole all along. Thanks to everyone who pointed out to me what Clinton's said about working against poverty and such.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 07:27
|
|
|
Ciaphas posted:I'm not even going to be able to watch the debates (assuming they happen) out of sheer empathetic shame. I am very sensitive to feelings of Fremdschämen but never with Trump. I have loads of empathy but zero for Trump. I've even felt bad for Jeb!.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 07:40
|
|
|
Bad Moon posted:Trump watched Drunken Master, and decided one cannot defend against an opponent whose movements are so jerky and random. but you are aware that students of drunken style actually train for it its not actually as random and jerky as it is the fact that jackie chan pretends that liquor actually helps him goes to show what an amazing physical comedy actor he is if you try it drunk, you will just most likely injure yourself which is what trump will exactly do 
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 07:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 02:38 |
|
|
i mean, you seriously cannot be this loving ignorant that anyone would perform such arduous tasks actually loving drunk 
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 07:47
|
|