Hahaha. No i think you're in denial. I've worked with / been friends with / dated a ton of women over the years and it's not a huge deal for most. They've been dealing with it since they were children for the love of god.
When on earth did i ever say she should be protected? You're making up fantasy.
I was purely pointing out the clear sexism in what Trump was saying. At no point did I say he should be silenced or that the reporter couldnt handle it.
No, that's not how "real" people talk. The reporter in question was a national grade reporter. To suggest she couldn't handle basic female issues she's dealt with since she was a child while interviewing some one is the very definition of sexism.
Believe it or not, women arent just masses or hormones, They actually have brains on their own.
Immediate question that comes to mind: Do you also reject the redefining of: socialism, feminism and liberal?
I ask because some how Bernie managed to be controversial for calling himself a socialist which in literally any other country wouldn't have mattered. Likewise, for some reason women who want to be strong role models (especially on the Right) feel they need to say that they aren't feminist when that is an obviously absurd statement.
If it's absurd levels of PC standards that denounces Trump for implying that a female news reporter, a significant one from a major news outlet, was only questioning him because she was on her period then I don't know what sexism is. To imply that a female professional at the top of her game couldn't aggressively question him because she was some how out of her wits because of a natural bodily function she's been dealing with since she was 13 is absolutely sexist.
A clearly not sexist approach he could have taken: actually address what she is saying.
And that's just the easiest one to illustrate off the top of my head.
Sure, that's why I go to the polls too. The presidential election is a huge draw for a lot of people though, as demonstrated by the dramatically lower voter turnout during non presidential election years. Then you consider the fact that swing states during presidential elections have significantly higher voter turnout on avergae then non and it all seems to strongly suggest that a lot of people in non swing states don't vote because of their lack of relevancy in choosing the president.
I'm just going to finish this off with my War on Christmas analogy (which I don't remember if I used in this thread or not) because some of your comments are incomprehensible to me (discounting a women's opinion because of her perfectly natural body functions isn't sexist? What on earth is then?). Much like Fox news wants there to be a war on Christmas to drive viewership and viewers want one so they can put themselves up on a cross, there has never been one. Only the actions of a small minority of Americans which 20 years on has not managed to make any real dent in Christmas despite an increasing number of non Christians in this country. Don't get me wrong, some of what Fox broadcasted was probably 100% factual. It's just that these truly dumb actions performed by idiots never added up to some sort of grand conspiracy.
Likewise with this. Sure, if you fish around long enough you can find all sorts of stuff to to be offended by. Celebrity gossip is the best for this because it's pure drama (and who the hell is "mohawk guy"?) but you can also apparently find it in insignificant actions done in a tiny country or in something that happened to a lone NASA rep a number of years ago. The only thing truly threatening men's top dog status in our country though, is our current shit-hole high school and college graduation rates. Maybe focus on something important like that rather than dramatizing minor events. I feel like if the alt-right spent half as much time advocating for educational reform to address this actual real life, statistically provable problem, as they do being offended by pop nonsense the country might find itself improved by their movement.
I'm being obtuse? You're claiming that small states are empowered under the electoral system and I've pointed out that most small states are marginalized. You're not quitting the conversation because I'm being obtuse, you're quitting because you don't have a leg to stand on.
Oh look, half of the top ten are swing states which makes up most of the swing states.
You stated in your parent post that the electoral system kept small states from being marginalized. I feel I've done a pretty good job showing that it's the exact opposite.
A) I certainly never advocated for some sort of retroactive victory for Clinton due to a change in the constitution. That's so far beyond any sort of possibility and/or level of reasonableness I don't even understand how you misinterpreted what I've said for that.
B) And my point is that Clinton didn't campaign in California either because of the current rules. Sure I suppose Trump had a chance at picking up more votes if he campaigned in California but since Clinton would also be campaigning in one of America's great liberal bastions, thus energizing the vote, I find it more likely Hillary would benefit more as there are just more liberals to get to the poles.
Wait a damn minute. You didnt say "marginalise voters" exactly but you certainly did use marginalise in the context of states with the clear implication that it was the voters being marginalised.
"This is what the electoral college was designed specifically for, to preserve the power of the smaller states so that they don't become marginalized."
At least I assume you're talkong about the state's voters as I'm pretty sure you werent refering to literal geography.
Wisconsin was never considered a settled state in this election. Yes most people thought it would go Clinton but it was light blue (as opposed to dark blue) on every political map I remember seeing
It levels nothing though. Plenty of small states have zero impact on the election, meanwhile a large state like Florida matters more than any other state in the union. Level is not 10 or so states of various sizes deciding who becomes president while everyone else watches.
I also fail to see how the electoral system curbs federal power.
No you didnt specifcally say the word "marginalize". The rest of your post is discussing completely different things then your priors and I'm not interested in running off on tangents.
If you're a Republican in California or a Democrat in Mississippi why should you even bother voting for the president? Those state's votes are practically decided before any campaigning takes place. Now repeat that for at least 40 of our 50 states. THAT my friend, is "utter bullshit". No one in any modern presidential election should ever be surprised how 80 percent of the electoral vote goes because it doesn't even matter what candidate is running in those states.
Please explain to me how a state almost always voting for one party or the other in a presidential election doesn't marginalize voters. Explain to me how a Democrat's vote in Mississippi matters. Explain to me how a Republican's in California matter. You've literally already pointed out the problem in California ("California is so overwhelmingly liberal that I don't think Trump even bothered with it knowing that it was hopeless."), you just refuse to accept it for the rest of the country.
Candidates not campaigning in states considered locked down is not unique to Trump, or Clinton, or Democrats, or Republicans. You're not being insightful here, Clinton didn't campaign in California either.
Furthermore, the only thing the Electoral College accomplishes is that only 7 or 8 states elect the president. Voters in Louisianian and Connecticut, Mississippi and Delaware, Kansas and Oregon, etc; they don't matter in a presidential election. All of these are smaller states and all of these are clearly marginalized. The Bible Belt, New England, the Deep South, all of the small states in these regions are 100% marginalized under the current system. Switch to popular vote, all of a sudden all of the smaller states in these regions matter in a presidential election.
I'm sorry to be rude but I feel your comment suggest a willful ignorance on how the modern presidential election works.
So only Republicans are disenfranchised by the electoral system? That's preposterous. Roughly half the population of the country lives in Red states and Democrats are just as disenfranchised in them. Furthermore, disenfranchisement doesnt not happen just because your state is guaranteed to go the way you want. Plenty of democrats in California and New York don't feel their presidential vote has value given the guaranteed result. As a Californian that generally votes left I can tell you that if the only thing on the ballet was the presidential election it's good odds I wouldnt have bothered voting and for most people that's the only part of the ballot that brings them to the polls.
Also, Trump didn't spend a nickle in California? How profound. Neither did Hillary.
It's sad and beautiful to watch to people who couldnt even be bothered to fully read the article summary in action.
As stated ITFS the researchers dont even think this will change the election results. Meanwhile, those unhappy with Russian hacking attempts and the vulnerabilities that electronic voting machines introduce into our electoral system should be quite happy to see proper review done to ensure the reliability of the system and incourage faith in it.
I'm sure you felt great brainlessly bashing those with contrary political views then yours though.
Slashdot Mirror
Hahaha. No i think you're in denial. I've worked with / been friends with / dated a ton of women over the years and it's not a huge deal for most. They've been dealing with it since they were children for the love of god.
When on earth did i ever say she should be protected? You're making up fantasy.
I was purely pointing out the clear sexism in what Trump was saying. At no point did I say he should be silenced or that the reporter couldnt handle it.
Good for them?
alright, good for them
No, that's not how "real" people talk. The reporter in question was a national grade reporter. To suggest she couldn't handle basic female issues she's dealt with since she was a child while interviewing some one is the very definition of sexism.
Believe it or not, women arent just masses or hormones, They actually have brains on their own.
Immediate question that comes to mind: Do you also reject the redefining of: socialism, feminism and liberal?
I ask because some how Bernie managed to be controversial for calling himself a socialist which in literally any other country wouldn't have mattered. Likewise, for some reason women who want to be strong role models (especially on the Right) feel they need to say that they aren't feminist when that is an obviously absurd statement.
If it's absurd levels of PC standards that denounces Trump for implying that a female news reporter, a significant one from a major news outlet, was only questioning him because she was on her period then I don't know what sexism is. To imply that a female professional at the top of her game couldn't aggressively question him because she was some how out of her wits because of a natural bodily function she's been dealing with since she was 13 is absolutely sexist.
A clearly not sexist approach he could have taken: actually address what she is saying.
And that's just the easiest one to illustrate off the top of my head.
"1 retailers have the right to refuse service for any reason (and even lie about what the reason is)"
Please see: Civil Rights Act of 1964
We can agree on that.
Any format restricted to a character count as low as 140 characters is not at all meant for meaningful discourse.
Did you reply to the wrong post? I ask because what you're saying has nothing to do with my post.
Sure, that's why I go to the polls too. The presidential election is a huge draw for a lot of people though, as demonstrated by the dramatically lower voter turnout during non presidential election years. Then you consider the fact that swing states during presidential elections have significantly higher voter turnout on avergae then non and it all seems to strongly suggest that a lot of people in non swing states don't vote because of their lack of relevancy in choosing the president.
Woosh, whole post right over your head.
I'm just going to finish this off with my War on Christmas analogy (which I don't remember if I used in this thread or not) because some of your comments are incomprehensible to me (discounting a women's opinion because of her perfectly natural body functions isn't sexist? What on earth is then?). Much like Fox news wants there to be a war on Christmas to drive viewership and viewers want one so they can put themselves up on a cross, there has never been one. Only the actions of a small minority of Americans which 20 years on has not managed to make any real dent in Christmas despite an increasing number of non Christians in this country. Don't get me wrong, some of what Fox broadcasted was probably 100% factual. It's just that these truly dumb actions performed by idiots never added up to some sort of grand conspiracy.
Likewise with this. Sure, if you fish around long enough you can find all sorts of stuff to to be offended by. Celebrity gossip is the best for this because it's pure drama (and who the hell is "mohawk guy"?) but you can also apparently find it in insignificant actions done in a tiny country or in something that happened to a lone NASA rep a number of years ago. The only thing truly threatening men's top dog status in our country though, is our current shit-hole high school and college graduation rates. Maybe focus on something important like that rather than dramatizing minor events. I feel like if the alt-right spent half as much time advocating for educational reform to address this actual real life, statistically provable problem, as they do being offended by pop nonsense the country might find itself improved by their movement.
ROTFLOL!!!!!!!
I'm being obtuse? You're claiming that small states are empowered under the electoral system and I've pointed out that most small states are marginalized. You're not quitting the conversation because I'm being obtuse, you're quitting because you don't have a leg to stand on.
Here's a list of states by population
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Oh look, half of the top ten are swing states which makes up most of the swing states.
You stated in your parent post that the electoral system kept small states from being marginalized. I feel I've done a pretty good job showing that it's the exact opposite.
A) I certainly never advocated for some sort of retroactive victory for Clinton due to a change in the constitution. That's so far beyond any sort of possibility and/or level of reasonableness I don't even understand how you misinterpreted what I've said for that.
B) And my point is that Clinton didn't campaign in California either because of the current rules. Sure I suppose Trump had a chance at picking up more votes if he campaigned in California but since Clinton would also be campaigning in one of America's great liberal bastions, thus energizing the vote, I find it more likely Hillary would benefit more as there are just more liberals to get to the poles.
Wait a damn minute. You didnt say "marginalise voters" exactly but you certainly did use marginalise in the context of states with the clear implication that it was the voters being marginalised.
"This is what the electoral college was designed specifically for, to preserve the power of the smaller states so that they don't become marginalized."
At least I assume you're talkong about the state's voters as I'm pretty sure you werent refering to literal geography.
Wisconsin was never considered a settled state in this election. Yes most people thought it would go Clinton but it was light blue (as opposed to dark blue) on every political map I remember seeing
It levels nothing though. Plenty of small states have zero impact on the election, meanwhile a large state like Florida matters more than any other state in the union. Level is not 10 or so states of various sizes deciding who becomes president while everyone else watches.
I also fail to see how the electoral system curbs federal power.
No you didnt specifcally say the word "marginalize". The rest of your post is discussing completely different things then your priors and I'm not interested in running off on tangents.
If you're a Republican in California or a Democrat in Mississippi why should you even bother voting for the president? Those state's votes are practically decided before any campaigning takes place. Now repeat that for at least 40 of our 50 states. THAT my friend, is "utter bullshit". No one in any modern presidential election should ever be surprised how 80 percent of the electoral vote goes because it doesn't even matter what candidate is running in those states.
Please explain to me how a state almost always voting for one party or the other in a presidential election doesn't marginalize voters. Explain to me how a Democrat's vote in Mississippi matters. Explain to me how a Republican's in California matter. You've literally already pointed out the problem in California ("California is so overwhelmingly liberal that I don't think Trump even bothered with it knowing that it was hopeless."), you just refuse to accept it for the rest of the country.
Candidates not campaigning in states considered locked down is not unique to Trump, or Clinton, or Democrats, or Republicans. You're not being insightful here, Clinton didn't campaign in California either.
Furthermore, the only thing the Electoral College accomplishes is that only 7 or 8 states elect the president. Voters in Louisianian and Connecticut, Mississippi and Delaware, Kansas and Oregon, etc; they don't matter in a presidential election. All of these are smaller states and all of these are clearly marginalized. The Bible Belt, New England, the Deep South, all of the small states in these regions are 100% marginalized under the current system. Switch to popular vote, all of a sudden all of the smaller states in these regions matter in a presidential election.
I'm sorry to be rude but I feel your comment suggest a willful ignorance on how the modern presidential election works.
So only Republicans are disenfranchised by the electoral system? That's preposterous. Roughly half the population of the country lives in Red states and Democrats are just as disenfranchised in them. Furthermore, disenfranchisement doesnt not happen just because your state is guaranteed to go the way you want. Plenty of democrats in California and New York don't feel their presidential vote has value given the guaranteed result. As a Californian that generally votes left I can tell you that if the only thing on the ballet was the presidential election it's good odds I wouldnt have bothered voting and for most people that's the only part of the ballot that brings them to the polls.
Also, Trump didn't spend a nickle in California? How profound. Neither did Hillary.
When on earth did I say uncovering fraud wouldnt be huge? Of course it would.
Please go back and read both posts, you're missing what is going on in the conversation.
It's sad and beautiful to watch to people who couldnt even be bothered to fully read the article summary in action.
As stated ITFS the researchers dont even think this will change the election results. Meanwhile, those unhappy with Russian hacking attempts and the vulnerabilities that electronic voting machines introduce into our electoral system should be quite happy to see proper review done to ensure the reliability of the system and incourage faith in it.
I'm sure you felt great brainlessly bashing those with contrary political views then yours though.