|
The Dark One posted:I wonder when the American right will make the call to embrace queer folk in the name of killing more brown people. That's literally been going on for like 15 years and more, same thing with pretending to care about feminism so long as they can use it to attack those drat Muslims/Mexicans/whatever. You will see signs at right wing protests against Islam that have the signholder crying some crocodile tears about how the Muslims hate gays even though the next day the signholder would be going to an anti-gay-marriage rally and saying queers need Jesus to fix them. There's even been a bunch of times that some right wing loon goes to a pro-gay-rights march with a sign like "Arabs are the real enemy of LGBT".
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2017 05:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 15:34 |
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:It's always funny to read this, then wonder how exactly we have anyone left alive in the US at all, given that there are more privately owned guns than people floating around here. It's almost like that statistic is meaningless because assault is statistically speaking rare enough that the also rare incident of accident with a dangerous object has a similar prevalence! Uh, because less than 75 million Americans own any guns at all? The vast majority of the population does not own any guns, a small percentage of the small amount of people who own guns at all own large hoards of guns. Additionally many of those less than 75 million Americans who own guns, only own a typical shotgun or hunting rifle, rather than something like a handgun - which are much more difficult to use for suicide. The 5000th gun some crazy prepper out in Montana owns doesn't do anything to affect my or your behavior, which is why just listing how many guns are owned in this country is irrelevant.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 17:50
|
|
|
Schizotek posted:Nah. I know the whole "Clintons are Republicans" meme is swallowed hook line and sinker by most of the forum, but they're pretty much the only people outside of the supreme court who have every gotten anything done for the LGBT crowd. But then I can't pretend Hillary Clinton is an evil demon responsible for all the world's ills. 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2017 18:20
|
|
|
Thalantos posted:I'll point out like I have elsewhere that I can't afford a passport, sure in part to policies Clinton supported, so that's really irrelevant for me Hillary Clinton isn't responsible for your home in the Deep South being horrible.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 00:17
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:Do you think there has been a single President (or, for that matter non-hereditary head-of-state) who was not a font of ambition? Eh, Gerald Ford or James Buchanan, but both were pretty terrible presidents and one wasn't even elected.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 01:52
|
|
|
Prester Jane posted:Absolutely nothing. Ignoring the grass roots and progressive base What actually happened is that there was a ton of voter disenfranchisement aimed at minorities and other democratic voters in a lot of important states, which managed to edge them over to Trump.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 02:02
|
|
|
Prester Jane posted:I never said anything about voting, I specifically said that Hillary ignored the grassroots (rank and file Democratic voters) AND the progressive base (generally individuals like those who frequent this forum). Which she did. No. This didn't happen. Some of the stupider ones pretended she did, but that's a very different thing.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 02:12
|
|
|
Senju Kannon posted:so like did she actually encourage grassroots campaigning in states where she lost (states that routinely voted democrat due to union presence) or did she turn away people who wanted to campaign for her because "we aren't doing that"? because i very strongly remember reading news articles talking about how she did the later and not the former and i feel very weird about dismissing that as "didn't happen" Gonna need a pretty big [citation needed] for there being no "grassroots campaigning encouraged" in any state. Also people who want to campaign get turned away by all campaigns in all elections for a lot of reasons, that's normal.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 02:17
|
|
|
That says they did less then they should have in retrospect, which is an entirely different thing from the insane bernout assertion that they did nothing. You know who else would often ignore places and grassroots groups? Obama, both times. Senju Kannon posted:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/clinton-campaign-neglect_us_582cacb0e4b058ce7aa8b861 That doesn't say what you claimed though? Man maybe you people are just illiterate, perhaps that's your problem.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 02:27
|
|
|
Senju Kannon posted:also let's not ignore the decision to run while under fbi investigation. Uh, you realize this could disqualify literally any candidate, because frivolous investigations could be entered to at any time - just like the big investigation into Clinton proved unfounded?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 02:30
|
|
|
Prester Jane posted:
So you were entirely wrong. Got it! Citation: anyone who worked those campaigns, as I did. We turned away plenty of "grassroots" organizers and didn't decide to focus in a lot of areas. Others we welcomed in and focused in hard, just like the Clinton campaign. Also remember, you're not a "base" if you don't vote for a party in the first place. Try to get your brain around that fact. Senju Kannon posted:
You can literally only "credibly" tie Clinton to treason if you're in so deep with conservative media that you believe fox news is gospel. Do you even know what treason is? In America it's actually extremely difficult to commit treason, that's why less than 100 people in the history of this country have been convicted of it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 02:44
|
|
|
Prester Jane posted:Citing some personal anecdotes is in no way a citation in support of your statement that Obama frequently ignored the grass roots, nor does it support the implication you made that Obama ignored the grass roots to just as great if not greater an extent than Hillary did. Obama's campaign did ignore "the grassroots" all the time though? All sorts of grassroots organizations never get accepted by the national organizations that's just how elections work. Obama's campaign chose to work with the ones they thought would be most useful and to leave ones they didn't particularly care for alone, just like the Clinton campaign did. I feel like you overestimate how much grassroots organizations should be listened to because the Sanders campaign was often desperate to connect to them to try to shore up their failing campaign which refused to address all sorts of racial and general intersectional issues, a losing strategy in the Democratic party. Let's cut the crap,: when you complain that "the grassroots were ignored" you are saying "but she didn't do everything I wanted!".
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 02:51
|
|
|
Senju Kannon posted:i used scare quotes because while it's bullshit it still reads well among Americans because a lie gets halfway around the world in the time it takes the truth to get its pants on, and republicans have always been better at messaging than democrats And the conservative media sphere could whip up a big scandal about anyone. They literally just lie all the time. For instance one of their current big lies is that transgender people need to be kept out of the bathroom to protect Are Womens. If you're looking for a candidate that Fox News won't make up scandals and even drive politically-laden investigations about, you're looking for the Democrats to literally just endorse the Republican candidate and give up. Senju Kannon posted:the dnc asserted they were not making a choice of candidates while higherups mocked sanders in private, that's still bad How is that bad? Are you really dumb enough to think literal political operatives can't have political opinions? Literally the only reason they have the jobs they have is they have strong political opinions.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 03:03
|
|
|
Prester Jane posted:Politico: How Hillary Clinto lost Michigan - And blew the election. Hmm, once again, you continue to ignore that certain grassroots organizations not being let in is totally normal. I get that you're ignorant, but you don't have to reiterate it. It's uncouth. The articles you keep posting say "in retrospect we didn't do quite enough". You however keep trying to push a narrative that none or barely any outreach happened, which is false. Senju Kannon posted:well I'd like party officials to not mock a popular candidate during a tense primary and his supporters. i don't think that can be considered the same as "having opinions" even if you can guarantee that hillary never got preferential treatment as a result That is frankly stupid. They didn't mock Sanders or his dumbass supporters in public, they did it entirely in private and you literally only heard about it because someone hacked into the DNC and published the results, to try to upset gullible drones like you. Expecting people to never express their personal opinions in private is basically ludicrous. The thing you complained about, "ties to Treason" was literally republican propaganda. It's literally something they made up out of whole cloth. "Hillary rigged the election!!" is even more so propaganda.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 03:24
|
|
|
Prester Jane posted:Rerouting a bus full of campaign volounteers from a state you might win to one you know you are going to lose because you are trying to play some sort of psychout game with your opponent is quite different from not having a role for literally every grass roots organization that offers to help. Even the Obama campaign official called Hillary's ground game an "illusion". It's also completely immaterial to the entire campaign, all sorts of little missteps happen frequently. You keep trying to draw false connections for some reason here, hmm. Again, all sorts of state level organizations didn't get the time of day from Obama's campaign either. Being a state level organization is seriously nothing special, every state has thousands of them that are on some level of friendly to Democrat goals, and usually hundreds more that are at least friendly on some policy issues. Usually the Clinton campaign simply wanted to work with other organizations, just like we who worked on the Obama campaigns would pick some and ignore others. Of course people were talking about how they were ignored, people also talked about being ignored with Obama too. Some of them right into my ears when I took calls at local offices, christ they were whiny! You know we also got a lot of complaints from Clinton supporters and organizations that had supported Clinton that they felt slighted too. Well of course, why wouldn't we give a bit more favor and trust to the people who were already working with us? If you felt that strongly about getting a good working relationship with us maybe they shouldn't have picked Clinton at the start, just like organizations that had been vociferously for Sanders (and still couldn't help him win, lmao) maybe shouldn't have been shrieking about how Clinton was a shill before they came demanding access to her campaign? You're frankly pretty naive for how many words you've spat out about politics. Senju Kannon posted:i still voted for her so i don't know why you're calling me a gullible drone. Because you literally said she can be tied to treason and that it was bad that DNC staffers would dare to talk about what candidates they supported in private.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 03:46
|
|
|
Bethamphetamine posted:All the way back to the supreme court, but this time with Gorsuch. As a reminder, the gay marriage approval came with Scalia still alive
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2017 22:57
|
|
|
Well what was the peak anyway? The 70s or something?
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2017 16:21
|
|
|
The Shortest Path posted:It got deleted, what horrid nonsense did they do this time? Convened an emergency legislature session to pass an anti trans bathroom bill.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2017 05:23
|
|
|
In all seriousness I've seen plenty of dudes and ladies dressed up as cops (and other fetishized profession) outfits at various prides, and some of them looked just like a real uniform. It would seem like a real cop could get in in their uniform if they just tried to pretend it was only because they thought the uniform was hot and it wasn't really theirs.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2017 00:04
|
|
|
I could see it as making sense if someone was straight up carrying the actual Israel flag with no changes. But nobody seems to have done that.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2017 16:54
|
|
|
Barry Convex posted:The only photos I've seen of the actual flags in question (as opposed to stock photos from other Jewish LGBT events) clearly have a blue Star of David. Just a blue star of david on its own or on a flag isn't the flag of Israel. Just like having some stripes and some stars doesn't mean you got a flag of the US.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
Also the ruling is primarily about whether gay married couples should get benefits applied retroactively from before the Obergefell ruling, while not saying that they can't get them from whenever their gay marriage became legal in Texas. I'm not sure if there were ever similar applications of retroactive benefits for the last similar situation, when interracial marriage was legalized nationwide.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2017 03:08
|
|
|
AriadneThread posted:yeah, like, i think it reflects pretty badly on your organization to make a fellowship offer to a prominent political figure only to immediately reverse it when some bigwig objects and pretend like you didn't understand exactly what you were doing by offering it in the first place Exactly, if they didn't want such a thing they shouldn't have even made the offer. There was no point to that whole fellowship offer/fellowship retraction thing.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2017 22:54
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:Just so we're clear, I'm glad they're doing expirements with 3d printing tissues in such a way that it can help people transition, even if it's not the primary intended use, but I'm honestly surprised we're doing this poo poo so soon. Sure seems weird to assume some of the most complicated parts of the body would be where things would start.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2017 21:33
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 15:34 |
|
|
Australian citizenship did not exist until almost 1950 - everyone who would have had it instead possessed British citizenship. The constitution's terms declaring effectively that dual citizenship is not allowed in legislators (iirc it uses the term "allegiances") was written with the rest of the constitution well before that point. When Australian citizenship was introduced, no one lost their British citizenship unless they specifically renounced it. So, vast amounts of the equivalent to the American baby boomer generation and early gen x in Australia have British citizenship arranged for by British citizen parents, because being able to go live in the UK was useful, as well as Australian citizenship by right of birth. This also means that technically tons of past legislators were also in violation, but no one bothered to investigate then.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2017 07:04
|
|