"Deplorables" is the word you are looking for. It's important, because only someone like Hillary Clinton would use that word. It conveys a strong sense of rich, out of touch elitist, describing... all other people. It just happens that this time she meant rural whites.
Also, "Despicables" brings to mind cute yellow mostly-featureless minion-types.
What makes you think the so called self appointed "elite" make better decisions for normal people or are better in any way as "rulers" (It is sickening and telling that you use that word instead of "leaders")?
For those who detest Trump's stated ideals and expect to suffer under his bad decisions, Trump is a ruler we have to put up with, not a leader we can admire.
If Trump tries to strip LGBT of equal protection under the law? (I don't know why we are even talking about that, he hasn't historically been negative about LGBT, but my liberal friends are saying he will be a disaster to LGBT.) Again, expect pushback.
Trump doesn't have a record of being a disaster to LGBT, but the people he has chosen so far to run his administration have. Ed Meese, Mike Pence, Jeff Sessions, Ken Klukowski.
The Congress will actually push back on Trump if he tries to aggregate more power to the Presidency
BS. "Their guy" is in the White House now, or purportedly their guy. Standards are different when a guy from your team is in charge, and Congress will roll over for Trump the same way they did for Bush when he had a Republican majority.
I honestly can't see how Trump is not ruling class. If that's really the reason people voted for him, my friend, you're all in the shitter.
A lot of right-wingers believe strongly that the "ruling class" is government that interferes with some companies or industries, aids others. IE, the businessmen, Wall Street tycoons, and their eil aren't "the elite," it's government bureaucrats.
if Hillary hadn't been such a weak candidate, and not had so many skeletons in her closet, and hadn't been involved with SO many shady things over her career, then none of her staff would have been talking about all this on those emails that were leaked, and there wouldn't have been so much dirt on her to be leaked.
I'd believe Hillary lost because of the Comey email investigation leak. But she also lost for a thousand other reasons...
It's like if your football team lost 70-68 because the field goal kicker missed a field goal, while ignoring the abhorrent 70 POINTS that the defense allowed. Sure, the kicker missed, but if the other team allows 68 points, you should have won by a wide margin and have no excuse for letting it get that close anyway.
not connecting with a large number of disgruntled underemployed workers being the primary reason. Saying this country is great, when no one feels it is a sure way to lose an election.
Is the country in "great shape?" No, but it's not nearly so bad as Trump's campaign made it out to be either.
Why would anyone put someone they believe to be a felon in a position as an advisor and administrator?
I'm not sure, but it would be consistent. There are a lot of weird questions you could ask about Trump's transition team and possible cabinet appointments.
Trump railed against the economic elites, so why would he appoint David Malpass as his lead for Economic Issues? He was Chief Economist at Bear Stearns in the six years leading to its collapse. One of the men guiding the financial system into the worst disaster since the 1930s.
Why appoint a climate change denier to the EPA? It makes as much sense as appointing felon hillary to, say, Attorney General.
If Trump doesn't like the lobbyist/Washington cycle, then why choose the chairman of a major Washington lobbying firm to head up the Labor team?
Why put Ken Klukowski, of all people, in charge of "protecting constitutional rights?" The virulently anti-gay religiously-conservative Breitbart columnist? Talk about the fox guarding the henhouse.
Mike Flynn, the man who fosters a religious war between Christianity and Islam, is the National Security Adviser. I'm sure that won't turn into a disaster.
Mike Pompeo, who says that Edward Snowden should be given the death sentence and publicly supported the US Government's illegal domestic spying programs and said they should have been much further in scope, will be CIA chief. We learned nothing.
Jeff Sessions says that Trump's "grabbing women by the pussy" is not sexual assault, just "very improper." Someone with that level of misunderstanding of assault laws is going to be Attorney General? Or who voted to allow "cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment" of individuals in custody by the US Government? The man who opposes "any reform" of civil forfeiture laws which allow the government to seize any property from someone whether or not they are guilty of a crime? The man who worked to remove Alabama university funding for gay-straight alliances because they promote "illegal, sexually deviate activities," which was struck down by the courts as an illegal infringement on free speech? People who don't like Big Government's meddling in a state's rights to control substances like cannabis will find an enemy in here! He also voted to deny President Obama's constitutional right to appoint any Supreme Court justice to replace Scalia. At this point I'm having a hard time thinking of someone more inappropriate to be Attorney General than Jeff Sessions is.
So sure, why not give Hillary a cabinet position? She can join the other disasters nominated.
As for #2, immigration, whether for work or not, has been the domain of the federal government since the 1700s. It is one of the very very few things that the federal government does that is actually under its purview.
This is cheesy and superficial, but his make-America-great slogan sounded a lot like an echo of LBJ's Great Society
He's been specific that removing regulations will help businesses which will Make America Great again somehow. He didn't specify how, but apparently it will be a beautiful thing. He hasn't addressed how wealth only trickles up, how Trickle-Down Theory was a scam, and how money flows into the stock market instead making new jobs, but I'm sure he'll have some magnificent plan for that too.
"..former friend who wrote he had once been "very liberal" and added, "he was left wing when I knew him in his & college, 3 years ago. So he may have changed, who knows."
His writings and public statements leading up to the shootings certainly don't indicate that, and neither did the testimony of other people who knew him at the time. Certainly, earlier he was left-wing, radically so by most accounts. But I feel that saying "Aurora shooter Jared Loughner was left wing, not right wing" is disingenuous, as it implies he was a leftist when he went on his murder spree, but the mountain of evidence otherwise, including Loughner's own statements, stands. Don't get me wrong, I'm not blaming far-right beliefs for any of this -- it's probably a mischaracterization to say he was actually a conservative either. He was a man who developed paranoid schizophrenia as he entered adulthood, and started pulling ideas in from the most lunatic fringes, especially the anti-authoritarian, anti-government conspiracy.
According to Harvard (in a letter helpfully posted below the first video) the first video was been purposely edited to make the speaker look bad, he was actually mocking his opponent's debate position (which had injected race into the debate) rather than making a serious argument.
Kids, don't believe everything you see on YouTube, especially when it's a short 1 or 2 minute edited clip from a much longer event.
But that takes TIME. Taking time is BORING. This is the age of Twitter, arguments have to be pared down to 140 characters.
That said -- you need to look at those who were arrested. I'm not going to go through them all but I'll point you to Jared Lee Loughner. He shot Gabby Giffords. He was flagged as being part of an anti-abortion group. He was painted as a right-wing nut or tea-party nut. Until it started to come out that he was a left wing nut.
Jared Lee Loughner was liberal in the same way that Ronald Reagan was liberal -- he was liberal when he was young, and grew conservative as he was older. In Reagan's case it happened organically, in Loughner's case, he went crazy, or at least developed extreme paranoia of the government. Those who knew him at the time remarked on a profound "personality shift" akin to a transformation. Before, when he was seemingly normal, his former classmate said he was quite left-wing, radically so, though in high school a former friend said he was neither left or right. He dropped out of high school and people noticed a behavior change. He started to purchase firearms and his writings gained an extreme anti-government bent. He was suspended from college after creating disruptions and bizarre behavior. He even wrote "All purchases for an educational course in The United States as of now are unconstitutional in the United States of America because of Section 10 in the United States of America's Constitution" and "In conclusion, reading the second United States constitution I can't trust the current government because of the ratifications: the government is implying mind control and brainwash on the people by controlling grammar. No! I won't pay debt with a currency that's not backed by gold and silver!" He also thought the government brainwashed people with their control over grammar. Grammar and illiteracy were... apparently extremely important to him.
He was extremely anti-government, whether it was George W. Bush or Barack Obama in the White House. He also thought that women should not be in positions of power, so he harbored deep resentment of Rep. Giffords, especially after she gave him a form letter in response to a grammar-related question.
Not traditionally conservative, but more paranoia to the right of the militia movements.
He wasn't from Berkeley either. He grew up in Oak Hills, Ca and San Diego, went to college at UC Riverside (south-central Ca), then moved to Colorado.
But anyone who complains, even as a kid, that "nail ghosts" hammer on his walls at night might bit a bit weird. Oh, and also: "In the fall of 2010, Holmes was employed at a pill- and capsule-coating factory in San Diego County. One of his coworkers said that Holmes was unsocial, and once acted strangely in a laboratory work station by staring at a wall and not verbally responding, only smirking when his coworker asked if he was okay." I think that's a big "Nooooope!"
Oh! Just church fires? Well, I'm glad that falls under the category of "who gives a shit."
I hope you know also that according to the police, the protesters and the rioters are separate groups of people. They have seen this sort of thing with the G8 and G20 summits, the WTO summit protests, and a few other mass-crowd protests. anarchists unaffiliated with the protesters come, covered to hide their identity, and there aren't enough police to actually catch them. They use the protesters as cover, like the terrorists in Benghazi did, and they violently attack protesters who try to interfere.
Why are highly partisan comments from an Icelandic SJW who lives entirely within the "progressive" echo chamber all sitting at +5? This reeks of sockpuppet upvoting.
Because people should moderate the content, not the person. The content was informative. The person, I don't give a shit whether he's an AC, SuperTroll, or InformativePosterOfTheYear (well I would care, but not for moderating purposes). Moderators, for instance, should never follow a person around and just downvote anything he does. Moderators should not have axes to grind against any person. They do, but they shouldn't.
The joke was not particularly well written but the punchline is that A-rod is so virile that he can make women pregnant just by attending the game - since the abstinence preacher surely wouldn't be having more pre-marital sex.
Well A-Rod is a centaur.. I've seen the photographic proof!
Besides, even if it were true, you expect the world to believe that suddenly you leftists have feelings for jews? Have you been on a college campus in the last two decades? Your side LOVES jew hating ass hats
Please. Don't be like those assholes at the Anti-Defamation League and pretend that dislike for the policies of the country of Israel is "jew hating." That's bullshit.
The idea that Clinton and Co. would use the agreed-upon process outlined in the Constitution to affect change is naive at best and laughable at worst.
Ah yes, ye olde "Clinton can magically override the Constitution" argument. I'm sure that the Republican Congress would be absolutely fine with that and not throw up every road block possible. Just like Obama was able to do SO MUCH once the Republican majority came into office. I remember hearing that Jade Helm 15 was a military operation to confiscate arms, this feels a bit on that level.
Unless the left is saying it about Trump or his supporters. Then, it is true.
Like the lefty liars making up stories about how they were attacked by white men post-election (and then fully retracting their stories once the police asked them about it).
Mostly by cutting voting locations and hours. Even with voter ID, the issue is not that it is impossible to get one, but that it is an obstacle, and why the fuck should anyone have jump through hoops? Why don't Republicans want as many eligible people as possible to vote?
Because eliminating barriers encourages the wrong people to vote!
Slashdot Mirror
"Deplorables" is the word you are looking for. It's important, because only someone like Hillary Clinton would use that word. It conveys a strong sense of rich, out of touch elitist, describing ... all other people. It just happens that this time she meant rural whites.
Also, "Despicables" brings to mind cute yellow mostly-featureless minion-types.
Corporations have new earning records all the time. Finance has outperformed and broken aths since 2009.
You are mistaking what's good for Wall Street with what is good for American workers.
What makes you think the so called self appointed "elite" make better decisions for normal people or are better in any way as "rulers" (It is sickening and telling that you use that word instead of "leaders")?
For those who detest Trump's stated ideals and expect to suffer under his bad decisions, Trump is a ruler we have to put up with, not a leader we can admire.
If Trump tries to strip LGBT of equal protection under the law? (I don't know why we are even talking about that, he hasn't historically been negative about LGBT, but my liberal friends are saying he will be a disaster to LGBT.) Again, expect pushback.
Trump doesn't have a record of being a disaster to LGBT, but the people he has chosen so far to run his administration have. Ed Meese, Mike Pence, Jeff Sessions, Ken Klukowski.
The Congress will actually push back on Trump if he tries to aggregate more power to the Presidency
BS. "Their guy" is in the White House now, or purportedly their guy. Standards are different when a guy from your team is in charge, and Congress will roll over for Trump the same way they did for Bush when he had a Republican majority.
I honestly can't see how Trump is not ruling class. If that's really the reason people voted for him, my friend, you're all in the shitter.
A lot of right-wingers believe strongly that the "ruling class" is government that interferes with some companies or industries, aids others. IE, the businessmen, Wall Street tycoons, and their eil aren't "the elite," it's government bureaucrats.
She lost because she got caught. Not because she did those things, that's just fine, but because she got caught.
No, she didn't get caught either. The announcement turned up nothing. It didn't turn up anything for the email probe.
if Hillary hadn't been such a weak candidate, and not had so many skeletons in her closet, and hadn't been involved with SO many shady things over her career, then none of her staff would have been talking about all this on those emails that were leaked, and there wouldn't have been so much dirt on her to be leaked.
I'd believe Hillary lost because of the Comey email investigation leak. But she also lost for a thousand other reasons...
It's like if your football team lost 70-68 because the field goal kicker missed a field goal, while ignoring the abhorrent 70 POINTS that the defense allowed. Sure, the kicker missed, but if the other team allows 68 points, you should have won by a wide margin and have no excuse for letting it get that close anyway.
not connecting with a large number of disgruntled underemployed workers being the primary reason. Saying this country is great, when no one feels it is a sure way to lose an election.
Is the country in "great shape?" No, but it's not nearly so bad as Trump's campaign made it out to be either.
Why would anyone put someone they believe to be a felon in a position as an advisor and administrator?
I'm not sure, but it would be consistent. There are a lot of weird questions you could ask about Trump's transition team and possible cabinet appointments.
Trump railed against the economic elites, so why would he appoint David Malpass as his lead for Economic Issues? He was Chief Economist at Bear Stearns in the six years leading to its collapse. One of the men guiding the financial system into the worst disaster since the 1930s.
Why appoint a climate change denier to the EPA? It makes as much sense as appointing felon hillary to, say, Attorney General.
If Trump doesn't like the lobbyist/Washington cycle, then why choose the chairman of a major Washington lobbying firm to head up the Labor team?
Why put Ken Klukowski, of all people, in charge of "protecting constitutional rights?" The virulently anti-gay religiously-conservative Breitbart columnist? Talk about the fox guarding the henhouse.
Mike Flynn, the man who fosters a religious war between Christianity and Islam, is the National Security Adviser. I'm sure that won't turn into a disaster.
Mike Pompeo, who says that Edward Snowden should be given the death sentence and publicly supported the US Government's illegal domestic spying programs and said they should have been much further in scope, will be CIA chief. We learned nothing.
Jeff Sessions says that Trump's "grabbing women by the pussy" is not sexual assault, just "very improper." Someone with that level of misunderstanding of assault laws is going to be Attorney General? Or who voted to allow "cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment" of individuals in custody by the US Government? The man who opposes "any reform" of civil forfeiture laws which allow the government to seize any property from someone whether or not they are guilty of a crime? The man who worked to remove Alabama university funding for gay-straight alliances because they promote "illegal, sexually deviate activities," which was struck down by the courts as an illegal infringement on free speech? People who don't like Big Government's meddling in a state's rights to control substances like cannabis will find an enemy in here! He also voted to deny President Obama's constitutional right to appoint any Supreme Court justice to replace Scalia. At this point I'm having a hard time thinking of someone more inappropriate to be Attorney General than Jeff Sessions is.
So sure, why not give Hillary a cabinet position? She can join the other disasters nominated.
As for #2, immigration, whether for work or not, has been the domain of the federal government since the 1700s. It is one of the very very few things that the federal government does that is actually under its purview.
This is cheesy and superficial, but his make-America-great slogan sounded a lot like an echo of LBJ's Great Society
He's been specific that removing regulations will help businesses which will Make America Great again somehow. He didn't specify how, but apparently it will be a beautiful thing. He hasn't addressed how wealth only trickles up, how Trickle-Down Theory was a scam, and how money flows into the stock market instead making new jobs, but I'm sure he'll have some magnificent plan for that too.
"..former friend who wrote he had once been "very liberal" and added, "he was left wing when I knew him in his & college, 3 years ago. So he may have changed, who knows."
His writings and public statements leading up to the shootings certainly don't indicate that, and neither did the testimony of other people who knew him at the time. Certainly, earlier he was left-wing, radically so by most accounts. But I feel that saying "Aurora shooter Jared Loughner was left wing, not right wing" is disingenuous, as it implies he was a leftist when he went on his murder spree, but the mountain of evidence otherwise, including Loughner's own statements, stands. Don't get me wrong, I'm not blaming far-right beliefs for any of this -- it's probably a mischaracterization to say he was actually a conservative either. He was a man who developed paranoid schizophrenia as he entered adulthood, and started pulling ideas in from the most lunatic fringes, especially the anti-authoritarian, anti-government conspiracy.
It's funny how (seemingly from a brief scan) most of the 'lefties' here are signed in, and the 'righties' are Anonymous Coward...
The righties don't trust your government surveillance system of "user accounts!"
According to Harvard (in a letter helpfully posted below the first video) the first video was been purposely edited to make the speaker look bad, he was actually mocking his opponent's debate position (which had injected race into the debate) rather than making a serious argument.
Kids, don't believe everything you see on YouTube, especially when it's a short 1 or 2 minute edited clip from a much longer event.
But that takes TIME. Taking time is BORING. This is the age of Twitter, arguments have to be pared down to 140 characters.
That said -- you need to look at those who were arrested. I'm not going to go through them all but I'll point you to Jared Lee Loughner. He shot Gabby Giffords. He was flagged as being part of an anti-abortion group. He was painted as a right-wing nut or tea-party nut. Until it started to come out that he was a left wing nut.
Jared Lee Loughner was liberal in the same way that Ronald Reagan was liberal -- he was liberal when he was young, and grew conservative as he was older. In Reagan's case it happened organically, in Loughner's case, he went crazy, or at least developed extreme paranoia of the government. Those who knew him at the time remarked on a profound "personality shift" akin to a transformation. Before, when he was seemingly normal, his former classmate said he was quite left-wing, radically so, though in high school a former friend said he was neither left or right. He dropped out of high school and people noticed a behavior change. He started to purchase firearms and his writings gained an extreme anti-government bent. He was suspended from college after creating disruptions and bizarre behavior. He even wrote "All purchases for an educational course in The United States as of now are unconstitutional in the United States of America because of Section 10 in the United States of America's Constitution" and "In conclusion, reading the second United States constitution I can't trust the current government because of the ratifications: the government is implying mind control and brainwash on the people by controlling grammar. No! I won't pay debt with a currency that's not backed by gold and silver!" He also thought the government brainwashed people with their control over grammar. Grammar and illiteracy were... apparently extremely important to him.
He was extremely anti-government, whether it was George W. Bush or Barack Obama in the White House. He also thought that women should not be in positions of power, so he harbored deep resentment of Rep. Giffords, especially after she gave him a form letter in response to a grammar-related question.
Not traditionally conservative, but more paranoia to the right of the militia movements.
He wasn't from Berkeley either. He grew up in Oak Hills, Ca and San Diego, went to college at UC Riverside (south-central Ca), then moved to Colorado.
But anyone who complains, even as a kid, that "nail ghosts" hammer on his walls at night might bit a bit weird. Oh, and also: "In the fall of 2010, Holmes was employed at a pill- and capsule-coating factory in San Diego County. One of his coworkers said that Holmes was unsocial, and once acted strangely in a laboratory work station by staring at a wall and not verbally responding, only smirking when his coworker asked if he was okay." I think that's a big "Nooooope!"
Oh! Just church fires? Well, I'm glad that falls under the category of "who gives a shit."
I hope you know also that according to the police, the protesters and the rioters are separate groups of people. They have seen this sort of thing with the G8 and G20 summits, the WTO summit protests, and a few other mass-crowd protests. anarchists unaffiliated with the protesters come, covered to hide their identity, and there aren't enough police to actually catch them. They use the protesters as cover, like the terrorists in Benghazi did, and they violently attack protesters who try to interfere.
Why are highly partisan comments from an Icelandic SJW who lives entirely within the "progressive" echo chamber all sitting at +5? This reeks of sockpuppet upvoting.
Because people should moderate the content, not the person. The content was informative. The person, I don't give a shit whether he's an AC, SuperTroll, or InformativePosterOfTheYear (well I would care, but not for moderating purposes).
Moderators, for instance, should never follow a person around and just downvote anything he does. Moderators should not have axes to grind against any person. They do, but they shouldn't.
Japanese curry is an import from the UK, not from India, which gives it its Western credentials.
I see a lot of "Vermont Curry." Until going through Japanese curry options, I had no idea that Vermont was such a curry hotspot and originator!
The joke was not particularly well written but the punchline is that A-rod is so virile that he can make women pregnant just by attending the game - since the abstinence preacher surely wouldn't be having more pre-marital sex.
Well A-Rod is a centaur.. I've seen the photographic proof!
It basically comes off like that old Steve Martin routine, "Well, excUUUUUUuuuUUuuuuse MEEEE".
Whenever I hear that, I always remember the Adventure of Link cartoon: Hey! Excuuuuuuuuuse me, princess!
Besides, even if it were true, you expect the world to believe that suddenly you leftists have feelings for jews? Have you been on a college campus in the last two decades? Your side LOVES jew hating ass hats
Please. Don't be like those assholes at the Anti-Defamation League and pretend that dislike for the policies of the country of Israel is "jew hating." That's bullshit.
Holy Smokes! Never thought I'd see a reference like that on Slashdot, though it should happen more often.
The idea that Clinton and Co. would use the agreed-upon process outlined in the Constitution to affect change is naive at best and laughable at worst.
Ah yes, ye olde "Clinton can magically override the Constitution" argument. I'm sure that the Republican Congress would be absolutely fine with that and not throw up every road block possible. Just like Obama was able to do SO MUCH once the Republican majority came into office. I remember hearing that Jade Helm 15 was a military operation to confiscate arms, this feels a bit on that level.
Unless the left is saying it about Trump or his supporters. Then, it is true.
Like the lefty liars making up stories about how they were attacked by white men post-election (and then fully retracting their stories once the police asked them about it).
There are cameras everywhere, you fools.
Well here are two documented cases with witnesses in the last week in one area:
Suspects target Latinos for hate in separate Bay Area attacks.
Mostly by cutting voting locations and hours. Even with voter ID, the issue is not that it is impossible to get one, but that it is an obstacle, and why the fuck should anyone have jump through hoops? Why don't Republicans want as many eligible people as possible to vote?
Because eliminating barriers encourages the wrong people to vote!