Actually, the Nazis weren't around when the "stab-in-the-back" stories started circulating
They weren't, but their predecessors, like the NSDAP were. Hitler's election as party chairman came in 1921, less than three years after the end of the war, and his automobile campaign drew heavily upon that and other anti-Jewish rhetoric.
There is still a problem with gay marriage. Gays don't exist as a class of people. Gays are just normal people like everyone else, but who prefer the have sexual intercourse with people of the same gender.
This is a bad definition. Being gay has never been just "sometimes likes sex with people of the same gender." It's about how you love, how you form relationships, who you want to take as a partner for the rest of your life. It's about sexuality, but isn't limited to that, just like how heterosexual relationships usually involve more than just "sometimes I like to bang women." Being gay has NEVER been "oh, I experimented a bit as a teenager but got over that."
Starting from the 60's, the media started to put people in classes. Someone who had gay sex was now a gay. Young people were afraid to be put into a class. Young people no longer experimented with each other out of fear, expect those who preferred gay sex. This was the start of a division.
The division ALWAYS existed. The difference is as a people we have slowly decided against systematically marginalizing a small segment of the population. It's always been built into major Western religions, so gay folks in those societies have always had to be underground. When your sexuality means you get fined, jailed, tortured, killed, or any combination of those, then yes, you're not going to see those divisions as easily. It doesn't mean they don't exist. Gay/Lesbian/Bi/whatever didn't just suddenly spring up out of relaxed standards in the 1960s, it meant that those people felt they could be a little more open about who they were without worrying about whether they'd be pelted in the head with a rock because of it. Despite what Mahmoud Ahmadinejad once claimed, there are plenty of truly gay people in Iran. Of course, if they reveal themselves, they meet a bad end.
It's easy to give the illusion of a peaceful society when anything that threatens to buck the norm is quietly and violently suppressed. Many Americans yearn for the TV-Land depiction of the 1950s, but again, the 50s were only great if you were a straight, white anglo-saxon protestant. And you were male or a woman who was happen to "accept her place." One of the great moral beacons that the United States has repeatedly championed in the last 50 years has been the notion of "protection of the rights of the minority against the tyranny of the majority." That a majority cannot simply vote away the rights of a minority because they out-number them. Yes, I'm aware that plenty on the left go way overboard with their criticisms and their complaints, but that's no excuse for throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
He's been accused of a lot more things, including child rape.
Please. Come on, that's desperation-level bullshit. Even Tricky Dick didn't stoop to that level. If you are going to make an allegation like that, you need a lot more than a Jane Doe who has repeatedly retracted then refiled a charge.
Probably because he promised to select Supreme Court judges who would overturn Roe v. Wade. It's pretty weak, but its more than what they were getting from Hillary. I suspect he also might have cut a few checks to church leaders, but I don't have any evidence for it.
It's pretty weak, and he also is on record of saying that, well, the Supreme Court already weighed in on gay marriage, it's settled law, why challenge it? I might agree, but Roe v. Wade is even MORE settled law of the land (older decisions get the precedent of time, and thus stronger absent other differences), and has survived multiple SC challenges. It's a little strange that both gay marriage and abortion could face the same challenges, but he's willing to strike down one but not the other.
Trump does have a record of being far more gay friendly than any other major Republican presidential candidate. That used to be a flat-out disqualifier.
he should have asked her if her husband Bill was fit to be President
But Bill wasn't running. You don't vote for the spouse. Bill went through his trial, and the backlash led to GWB's presidency.
For a man that "acts on a whim" or that "has no moral compass" this sure seems like an odd to tweet. Or maybe you could be wrong and the medias portrayal of the Fifth Reich rising were grossly overstated and hyperbolic?
I forget, was that a day after he tweeted the exact opposite sentiments? Oh, right, it was.
Fuck, there wasn't a more ideal year for the ascension of a third-party candidate. Unfortunately both Gary Johnson and Jill Stein were entirely incompetent.
Bannon's not an anti-semite. And what's on the rise is leftist rioters beating people and setting fires in the street
Hint: the rioters don't give a shit about whether Hillary lost either. They're professional anarchists who are attracted to large crowds and use cover of the crowds to enable their violence. They're the same folks who broke things in the G8 and Seattle WTO summits. The police and the protest organizers report that outsides come in armed with weapons and covered head to toe, but there's not a lot that can be done about them when there are so many people about.
Still butthurt you little bitch? Pick a better candidate next time.
Pot, meet Kette..
Leans into mike... Wrong
We all lost. Let's not pretend that we had a good candidate and a bad candidate to choose from in the last election. We had the TWO WORST candidates for President in my lifetime. What are the chances of that actually happening? If either one of them had been halfway passable, they should have been able to beat the pants (or pants-suit) off of the other, since each was so bad. What a fucking disaster of an election, but I made my peace with this horrible outcome six months ago. There was no winning here.
This is exactly why the electors should overturn the vote and pick Clinton.
Because they're working in the system we have, not one based on the vote of the people. It's their job not to allow the ignorant electorate to cast our country off a cliff.
This was one of the major points of the electoral college -- to be the check on a particular stupid move of the people. Since it was originally put into place, the expectations changed, that an electoral voter must always vote along the lines that the people he was voting for voted. Eventually the derogatory "faithless voter" label was added to the electoral voters that didn't follow constituent voting, but the electoral college doesn't make a lot of sense if that can't happen.
Because everyone knows that the citizens of some states are more important than others.
And it's not the "small states" that win out either in the electoral college, like its advocates tell us. Alaska didn't have much vote. Wyoming and Montana and Hawaii weren't the states that mattered. It's the "battleground" states that are the deciders in the electoral college system. Pennsylvania. Florida. Ohio. Trump focused every ounce of attention in four key states that barely swung his way on election day.
I just think it would be a bit more democratic, and politicians would have to listen to a wider spectrum of voters, if it was just as important to campaign in California and Texas as it was in Ohio, Iowa, and Florida.
Or reporting that Trump was racist to Mexicans when he said that illegal immigrant gangs were raping women.
There's probably some of that happening. But there's a big difference between that and Trump's public assertion that most Mexican illegal immigrants were rapists and murderers.
Or reporting that there was nothing at all to Benghazi and no reason to investigate. Or reporting that Muslims were mad about a movie about Mohammed and not celebrating the anniversary of 9/11 by showing their strength and attacking US embassies around the world.
Most of the protests, including the one at Benghazi, were a direct result of the Innocence of Muslims video which had just been released. This isn't even questioned by authorities of either political persuasion, what was controversial was whether the administration said that the attacks came because of the protest or because of al-Quaeda terrorism. The truth was that the protests over the video were real, and terrorists used to protests as cover to sneak up to the embassy undetected.
Or reporting that Huma Abedin had been vetted and there was nothing to suggest she had a connection to the Muslim Brotherhood when every member of her family was MB and their journal was funded by one of the first financiers of al-Qaeda.
Not that I trust your "vetting" of her family but this sounds like guilt by association. Not even association, but guilt by family member's association. And it was always bullshit. That was a fake story without merit, and even Michelle Bachmann's campaign manager thought she should apologize for making it up. John McCain also came out against it, saying that the letter offered no prove, and there not a single report to indicate that she was promoting anti-American activities in the government.
Or reporting that Hillary Clinton's email scandal was only about the use of a private server and not about putting classified SCIF and GAMMA data on unsecured systems, destruction of evidence, and lying to federal investigators
The private server was a wildly overblown issue, but just like Nixon, it wasn't the crime that got Hillary into trouble, but the coverup.
Or reporting that Gamergate was a harassment campaign
I guess you weren't paying attention, but both sides looked pretty shitty, and no one won in that conflict. We all lost.
Or reporting that the 2nd Amendment gives the National Guard the right to bear arms.
This is an absolutely bizarre thing to bring up. Why wouldn't the National Guard be able to bear arms? An individual right does not invalidate a group right.
Or reporting that transgender rights are being violated by making them use the correct bathrooms or referring to them by their real names or with the correct pronouns.
Times change, buddy. Used to be that gay folks couldn't get married either, or that women were sold off by their family for marriage with a dowry, and that they didn't any say in the matter. Over time, we get better, and there is NO benefit to the automatic assumption that people in the past had things figured out morally.
Perhaps one can argue that they are "over-guessing" which makes their poll bad, but that's not the same as introducing intentional bias. It could be being a cheap-skate rather than propagandist. I don't know enough about their data to say for sure.
It's an over-sampling because the pollsters don't have much option. All the younger voters have cell phones that they're not legally allowed to call, and businesses (who they also can't call) and grandma are the only ones with land-lines. I heard a discussion show involving the heads of most of the heads of major polling organizations, and polling has gotten much, much more difficult in the last 30 years, and having too small of a sample size is a real problem and leads to volatile polling numbers.
The media's job is not to coronate. Its job is to report the news. The way the main stream news went so disgustingly overboard in the election cycle to coronate Hillary Clinton is unforgivable.
They didn't "coronate," but they LOVE to predict. Every media outlet wants to be the one to say "you know what, we got it right, and we've been saying it for months." They all want to be the most trusted, accurate name. 18 months ago, who could have challenged the Clinton juggernaut? It seemed unstoppable because her horrible mistakes hadn't come out yet.
Well, Hitler won some elections. He was elected NSDAP party chairman in 1921 after a rousing tour via car giving anti-treaty and anti-jew polemic speeches. He was the most popular face of the NSDAP party, so he demanded an election and won it. And then he got sent to jail. He was appointed chancellor because he got the second-place vote and Hindenburg didn't get enough votes to have a majority. Joining with Hitler was his attempt at a majority coalition.
It was the armistice agreement at the end of WW1 that triggered WW2.
It was, no surprise, fake right-wing news that led to the rise of the Nazi Party. A meme that Germany was about to win World War I until they were "stabbed in the back" by the Jews agreeing to Germany's surrender right when it was about to win. The Nazis painted the men who signed the 1918 armistice as the "November criminals," criminals who governed as the Weimer Republic of the 1920s, using that stab in the back as a way to seize power and lead the nation astray.
Just so you know, buddy, most hispanics actually are ethnically "white." I know you might want to believe that only northern Europeans are white folks, but there's more to it than that.
You're right, it's a public university, in which case they can block ALL uses of the systems that don't have a particular academic necessity. In other words, it's not your private connection, so it is not for personal use in a way that impacts other students' ability to use the network. Those are the rules that my US-public university operated under, and they didn't get into any trouble with that.
It technically belongs to all of the citizens of Canada,
I don't know if it's the same in Canada, but this is a pretty common misconception for public universities, in that it's a "public university" so all resources are owned by the people and people can do whatever they want because, uhh.. somehow it's "theirs." It's like when I worked at the University computer cap and someone got huffy when you told them they couldn't print out their thousand pages of personal stuff on the high-quality-paper color printer and they say their taxes pay for this and so they can do whatever, blahblah. They get shown the door quickly, and their account gets yanked if they're a repeat offender. It works the same for public and private universities.
The blame for that lies squarely with the hardcore left - as we see regularly on/. itself, the hardcore left prefers to use shaming language in lieu of arguments. Stop using shaming language and perhaps people will listen to you. Keep calling Trump misogynist because women let him grope them, see how that turns out for you.
What? Is this a variant on the old "she was just asking for it" defense? Did you speak with them? Unless you have information that goes against their statements that these were uninvited and unwanted advances, I'll go with their public statements.
Yes, those were the public numbers that the Russian Occupation released. No observers were allowed to be present to monitor. The website of the President of Russia’s Council on Civil Society and Human Rights accidentally released, then took down an analysis that contradicted the official Kremlin report. You are doubly a fool if you think that a hostile armed invading force leads to a fair election where voters feel they can turn out and vote as they feel. It does feed into the Kremlin rewriting of history that Crimeans were Russians who wanted to break off and join Russia again.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, the Nazis weren't around when the "stab-in-the-back" stories started circulating
They weren't, but their predecessors, like the NSDAP were. Hitler's election as party chairman came in 1921, less than three years after the end of the war, and his automobile campaign drew heavily upon that and other anti-Jewish rhetoric.
Battle ground states change over time.
But the problem remains the same -- you get to focus your attention on a small section of the country and ignore the rest.
There is still a problem with gay marriage. Gays don't exist as a class of people. Gays are just normal people like everyone else, but who prefer the have sexual intercourse with people of the same gender.
This is a bad definition. Being gay has never been just "sometimes likes sex with people of the same gender." It's about how you love, how you form relationships, who you want to take as a partner for the rest of your life. It's about sexuality, but isn't limited to that, just like how heterosexual relationships usually involve more than just "sometimes I like to bang women." Being gay has NEVER been "oh, I experimented a bit as a teenager but got over that."
Starting from the 60's, the media started to put people in classes. Someone who had gay sex was now a gay. Young people were afraid to be put into a class. Young people no longer experimented with each other out of fear, expect those who preferred gay sex. This was the start of a division.
The division ALWAYS existed. The difference is as a people we have slowly decided against systematically marginalizing a small segment of the population. It's always been built into major Western religions, so gay folks in those societies have always had to be underground. When your sexuality means you get fined, jailed, tortured, killed, or any combination of those, then yes, you're not going to see those divisions as easily. It doesn't mean they don't exist. Gay/Lesbian/Bi/whatever didn't just suddenly spring up out of relaxed standards in the 1960s, it meant that those people felt they could be a little more open about who they were without worrying about whether they'd be pelted in the head with a rock because of it. Despite what Mahmoud Ahmadinejad once claimed, there are plenty of truly gay people in Iran. Of course, if they reveal themselves, they meet a bad end.
It's easy to give the illusion of a peaceful society when anything that threatens to buck the norm is quietly and violently suppressed. Many Americans yearn for the TV-Land depiction of the 1950s, but again, the 50s were only great if you were a straight, white anglo-saxon protestant. And you were male or a woman who was happen to "accept her place." One of the great moral beacons that the United States has repeatedly championed in the last 50 years has been the notion of "protection of the rights of the minority against the tyranny of the majority." That a majority cannot simply vote away the rights of a minority because they out-number them. Yes, I'm aware that plenty on the left go way overboard with their criticisms and their complaints, but that's no excuse for throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
He's been accused of a lot more things, including child rape.
Please. Come on, that's desperation-level bullshit. Even Tricky Dick didn't stoop to that level.
If you are going to make an allegation like that, you need a lot more than a Jane Doe who has repeatedly retracted then refiled a charge.
Probably because he promised to select Supreme Court judges who would overturn Roe v. Wade. It's pretty weak, but its more than what they were getting from Hillary. I suspect he also might have cut a few checks to church leaders, but I don't have any evidence for it.
It's pretty weak, and he also is on record of saying that, well, the Supreme Court already weighed in on gay marriage, it's settled law, why challenge it?
I might agree, but Roe v. Wade is even MORE settled law of the land (older decisions get the precedent of time, and thus stronger absent other differences), and has survived multiple SC challenges. It's a little strange that both gay marriage and abortion could face the same challenges, but he's willing to strike down one but not the other.
Trump does have a record of being far more gay friendly than any other major Republican presidential candidate. That used to be a flat-out disqualifier.
he should have asked her if her husband Bill was fit to be President
But Bill wasn't running. You don't vote for the spouse. Bill went through his trial, and the backlash led to GWB's presidency.
"Love the fact that small groups of protesters last night have passion for our great country. We will all come together and be proud!" - @realDonaldTrump
For a man that "acts on a whim" or that "has no moral compass" this sure seems like an odd to tweet. Or maybe you could be wrong and the medias portrayal of the Fifth Reich rising were grossly overstated and hyperbolic?
I forget, was that a day after he tweeted the exact opposite sentiments? Oh, right, it was.
"But ________ is worse!"
and
"Don't waste your vote"
Fuck, there wasn't a more ideal year for the ascension of a third-party candidate.
Unfortunately both Gary Johnson and Jill Stein were entirely incompetent.
I just chose a write-in candidate.
Yeah, I'm sure Donald is gonna promote antisemitism and encourage hatred against his own family.
Who knows. The man seems to act on a whim and he has no moral compass.
Bannon's not an anti-semite. And what's on the rise is leftist rioters beating people and setting fires in the street
Hint: the rioters don't give a shit about whether Hillary lost either. They're professional anarchists who are attracted to large crowds and use cover of the crowds to enable their violence. They're the same folks who broke things in the G8 and Seattle WTO summits. The police and the protest organizers report that outsides come in armed with weapons and covered head to toe, but there's not a lot that can be done about them when there are so many people about.
Private college students
Seems to me that it's usually the public college students that protest, and most public college students live a fairly meager existence.
Still butthurt you little bitch? Pick a better candidate next time.
Pot, meet Kette..
Leans into mike...
Wrong
We all lost. Let's not pretend that we had a good candidate and a bad candidate to choose from in the last election. We had the TWO WORST candidates for President in my lifetime. What are the chances of that actually happening? If either one of them had been halfway passable, they should have been able to beat the pants (or pants-suit) off of the other, since each was so bad. What a fucking disaster of an election, but I made my peace with this horrible outcome six months ago. There was no winning here.
This is exactly why the electors should overturn the vote and pick Clinton.
Because they're working in the system we have, not one based on the vote of the people. It's their job not to allow the ignorant electorate to cast our country off a cliff.
This was one of the major points of the electoral college -- to be the check on a particular stupid move of the people. Since it was originally put into place, the expectations changed, that an electoral voter must always vote along the lines that the people he was voting for voted. Eventually the derogatory "faithless voter" label was added to the electoral voters that didn't follow constituent voting, but the electoral college doesn't make a lot of sense if that can't happen.
Because everyone knows that the citizens of some states are more important than others.
And it's not the "small states" that win out either in the electoral college, like its advocates tell us.
Alaska didn't have much vote. Wyoming and Montana and Hawaii weren't the states that mattered.
It's the "battleground" states that are the deciders in the electoral college system. Pennsylvania. Florida. Ohio. Trump focused every ounce of attention in four key states that barely swung his way on election day.
I just think it would be a bit more democratic, and politicians would have to listen to a wider spectrum of voters, if it was just as important to campaign in California and Texas as it was in Ohio, Iowa, and Florida.
Just because she got 2.5million more votes than Trump in California is not enough to use the popular vote as some sort of vindication.
Yeah, who cares if more people voted for her? That's not how Democracy is supposed to work!
Funny how folks don't mind if a system is "rigged" if the rigging is done so that their sides wins.
Or reporting that Trump was racist to Mexicans when he said that illegal immigrant gangs were raping women.
There's probably some of that happening. But there's a big difference between that and Trump's public assertion that most Mexican illegal immigrants were rapists and murderers.
Or reporting that there was nothing at all to Benghazi and no reason to investigate. Or reporting that Muslims were mad about a movie about Mohammed and not celebrating the anniversary of 9/11 by showing their strength and attacking US embassies around the world.
Most of the protests, including the one at Benghazi, were a direct result of the Innocence of Muslims video which had just been released. This isn't even questioned by authorities of either political persuasion, what was controversial was whether the administration said that the attacks came because of the protest or because of al-Quaeda terrorism. The truth was that the protests over the video were real, and terrorists used to protests as cover to sneak up to the embassy undetected.
Or reporting that Huma Abedin had been vetted and there was nothing to suggest she had a connection to the Muslim Brotherhood when every member of her family was MB and their journal was funded by one of the first financiers of al-Qaeda.
Not that I trust your "vetting" of her family but this sounds like guilt by association. Not even association, but guilt by family member's association. And it was always bullshit. That was a fake story without merit, and even Michelle Bachmann's campaign manager thought she should apologize for making it up. John McCain also came out against it, saying that the letter offered no prove, and there not a single report to indicate that she was promoting anti-American activities in the government.
Or reporting that Hillary Clinton's email scandal was only about the use of a private server and not about putting classified SCIF and GAMMA data on unsecured systems, destruction of evidence, and lying to federal investigators
The private server was a wildly overblown issue, but just like Nixon, it wasn't the crime that got Hillary into trouble, but the coverup.
Or reporting that Gamergate was a harassment campaign
I guess you weren't paying attention, but both sides looked pretty shitty, and no one won in that conflict. We all lost.
Or reporting that the 2nd Amendment gives the National Guard the right to bear arms.
This is an absolutely bizarre thing to bring up. Why wouldn't the National Guard be able to bear arms? An individual right does not invalidate a group right.
Or reporting that transgender rights are being violated by making them use the correct bathrooms or referring to them by their real names or with the correct pronouns.
Times change, buddy. Used to be that gay folks couldn't get married either, or that women were sold off by their family for marriage with a dowry, and that they didn't any say in the matter. Over time, we get better, and there is NO benefit to the automatic assumption that people in the past had things figured out morally.
Perhaps one can argue that they are "over-guessing" which makes their poll bad, but that's not the same as introducing intentional bias. It could be being a cheap-skate rather than propagandist. I don't know enough about their data to say for sure.
It's an over-sampling because the pollsters don't have much option. All the younger voters have cell phones that they're not legally allowed to call, and businesses (who they also can't call) and grandma are the only ones with land-lines. I heard a discussion show involving the heads of most of the heads of major polling organizations, and polling has gotten much, much more difficult in the last 30 years, and having too small of a sample size is a real problem and leads to volatile polling numbers.
The media's job is not to coronate. Its job is to report the news. The way the main stream news went so disgustingly overboard in the election cycle to coronate Hillary Clinton is unforgivable.
They didn't "coronate," but they LOVE to predict. Every media outlet wants to be the one to say "you know what, we got it right, and we've been saying it for months." They all want to be the most trusted, accurate name. 18 months ago, who could have challenged the Clinton juggernaut? It seemed unstoppable because her horrible mistakes hadn't come out yet.
Well, Hitler won some elections. He was elected NSDAP party chairman in 1921 after a rousing tour via car giving anti-treaty and anti-jew polemic speeches. He was the most popular face of the NSDAP party, so he demanded an election and won it.
And then he got sent to jail.
He was appointed chancellor because he got the second-place vote and Hindenburg didn't get enough votes to have a majority. Joining with Hitler was his attempt at a majority coalition.
It was the armistice agreement at the end of WW1 that triggered WW2.
It was, no surprise, fake right-wing news that led to the rise of the Nazi Party. A meme that Germany was about to win World War I until they were "stabbed in the back" by the Jews agreeing to Germany's surrender right when it was about to win. The Nazis painted the men who signed the 1918 armistice as the "November criminals," criminals who governed as the Weimer Republic of the 1920s, using that stab in the back as a way to seize power and lead the nation astray.
Just so you know, buddy, most hispanics actually are ethnically "white." I know you might want to believe that only northern Europeans are white folks, but there's more to it than that.
Well, it is shit like the GP posted that is why Clinton lost.
Fear of minorities is why Trump was elected. Period.
As long as that is your rhetoric, you will continue to lose.
Because you continue to blame strawmen instead of learning from your mistakes.
Except in this case, it's a public university
You're right, it's a public university, in which case they can block ALL uses of the systems that don't have a particular academic necessity.
In other words, it's not your private connection, so it is not for personal use in a way that impacts other students' ability to use the network. Those are the rules that my US-public university operated under, and they didn't get into any trouble with that.
It technically belongs to all of the citizens of Canada,
I don't know if it's the same in Canada, but this is a pretty common misconception for public universities, in that it's a "public university" so all resources are owned by the people and people can do whatever they want because, uhh.. somehow it's "theirs." It's like when I worked at the University computer cap and someone got huffy when you told them they couldn't print out their thousand pages of personal stuff on the high-quality-paper color printer and they say their taxes pay for this and so they can do whatever, blahblah. They get shown the door quickly, and their account gets yanked if they're a repeat offender. It works the same for public and private universities.
The blame for that lies squarely with the hardcore left - as we see regularly on /. itself, the hardcore left prefers to use shaming language in lieu of arguments. Stop using shaming language and perhaps people will listen to you. Keep calling Trump misogynist because women let him grope them, see how that turns out for you.
What? Is this a variant on the old "she was just asking for it" defense?
Did you speak with them? Unless you have information that goes against their statements that these were uninvited and unwanted advances, I'll go with their public statements.
In the Crimean election there was a 30% turnout, and of that, the choice to annex was 50/50.
Total hogwash. The turnout was 81% and the vote was over 96% in favor.
Yes, those were the public numbers that the Russian Occupation released. No observers were allowed to be present to monitor.
The website of the President of Russia’s Council on Civil Society and Human Rights accidentally released, then took down an analysis that contradicted the official Kremlin report.
You are doubly a fool if you think that a hostile armed invading force leads to a fair election where voters feel they can turn out and vote as they feel. It does feed into the Kremlin rewriting of history that Crimeans were Russians who wanted to break off and join Russia again.
You are correct, it's giving people what they want, not what they need.