2016 Elections, Part One

[skylarjones]

Brollary. That's me.

 

[Drew J]

papadage[/url]":g2fmnka5]Much like many uses of SJW, many of the complaints of the usage of mansplain are done by people trying to play the anti-PC card.

Searching Drew's FB feed for its usage, the only place I see it is when he used it himself, and that was in 2014.

My friends, male and female, actually have brains and don't have to hide behind such bullshit. When it's been leveled at me have been the few times I've commented on friends-of-friends' public facebook profiles with a reasoned and reasonable "I disagree, and this is why." Then immediately I would get dogpiled by a bunch of women accusing me of all manner of things, principle among them "mansplaining." And literally any defense or explanation I gave was only further proof to them that I was a mansplainer. It's a catch-22.

 

[StarSeeker]

Kestrel[/url]":3bngybkv]

StarSeeker[/url]":3bngybkv]

There's an apt parallel in business. When working as a group to come up with a solution, there's a point at which everything is on the table, ideas are needed, everyone's opinion should be heard, and the pros and cons are weighed and debated. However, once the decision has been made, everyone is expected to get behind the decision, even if they personally favored a different solution. Continuing to snipe about the decision after everything has already been said and done, is backstabby, counter-productive nonsense.

People aren't bound to vote for their party, and honestly the people who just go into the voting both and mark everything with a "D" or "R" by it scare me. As a Democrat the winner of our primary isn't owed my vote. I almost always end up choosing to vote for them, but the General Election is an entirely new decision.

You're correct about my (unstated) assumption that "Sanders supporters" are also Democrats. If that's not a valid assumption, then I stand corrected and it would only apply to those that are.

On the point I quoted above, I understand you have that right, I just literally don't understand using it that way. That way lies the perfect-as-enemy-of-the-good, "burn it all down" ethos espoused by some here. Sheer madness, IMO, given the stakes.

I have never used that right at a Presidential Election level, and certainly can't imagine what type of candidates would ever make me... but at the local level I've crossed over and voted for a few people from the R camp. Of course when I did that the "D" candidate was so bad that there was just no way I could support them, and I kid you not on this example, but the D candidate for state senate was a former member of a militant off shoot of the KKK. Another case was the D was literally a member of the "God hates Fags" church.

 

[Faramir]

papadage[/url]":305qcmu6]Much like many uses of SJW, many of the complaints of the usage of mansplain are done by people trying to play the anti-PC card.

What does "trying to play the anti-PC card" even mean? It superficially matches "playing the race card" but you actually think about it the substitution makes no sense.

 

[FunkTron]

Exordium01[/url]":2w446evr]
#3 nails it. Sanders supporters tend to evangelize and dismiss anybody who doesn't support him as someone either who doesn't think he could win or doesn't understand the issues. Clinton supporters are more likely to leave people alone on their primary decisions and hope that they still show up to vote for the candidate that best represents their views in the general.

Hogwash - you can't possibly support these kinds of simple stereotypes applied to two groups of millions of people.

There may be subsets of each candidate's supporters who act the way you describe above - but to suggest that a supporter of Sanders "tends to evangelize and dismiss anybody" is beyond spurious. You're just throwing that out there because you think it seems that way, not because there's any real hard data that props it up.

It's worth talking about, obviously, that people are talking about ruffians among Bernie's supporters and how that affects voters, as clearly people out there do believe that because these people exist, that's another reason not to vote for Bernie - as piss-poor as that logic is, it's opinions and people are free to em.

But just because it's a buzz doesn't mean it's time to start spreading it around liberally, even with weak qualifiers like "tend to" and "are more likely to".

 

[papadage]

Drew J[/url]":15x9qds3]

papadage[/url]":15x9qds3]Much like many uses of SJW, many of the complaints of the usage of mansplain are done by people trying to play the anti-PC card.

Searching Drew's FB feed for its usage, the only place I see it is when he used it himself, and that was in 2014.

My friends, male and female, actually have brains and don't have to hide behind such bullshit. When it's been leveled at me have been the few times I've commented on friends-of-friends' public facebook profiles with a reasoned and reasonable "I disagree, and this is why." Then immediately I would get dogpiled by a bunch of women accusing me of all manner of things, principle among them "mansplaining." And literally any defense or explanation I gave was only further proof to them that I was a mansplainer. It's a catch-22.

Those are just assholes. That's what you get for wading into 3rd party conversations. I try to reply to direct friends only. It reduces the chances of walking into the stupid.

 

[StarSeeker]

I would say that considering Sander's supporters tend to be younger, you'll find more of them on the Internet, which means you'll find more jerks from their side numerically even if proportionally things are even.

 

[Alamout]

papadage[/url]":25a1zex2]Those are just assholes. That's what you get for wading into 3rd party conversations. I try to reply to direct friends only. It reduces the chances of walking into the stupid.

If his posts in those conversations start out anything like this then I wouldn't assume the other people are the assholes.

 

[Wesly]

Drew J[/url]":ks3yi6f7]

papadage[/url]":ks3yi6f7]Much like many uses of SJW, many of the complaints of the usage of mansplain are done by people trying to play the anti-PC card.

Searching Drew's FB feed for its usage, the only place I see it is when he used it himself, and that was in 2014.

My friends, male and female, actually have brains and don't have to hide behind such bullshit. When it's been leveled at me have been the few times I've commented on friends-of-friends' public facebook profiles with a reasoned and reasonable "I disagree, and this is why." Then immediately I would get dogpiled by a bunch of women accusing me of all manner of things, principle among them "mansplaining." And literally any defense or explanation I gave was only further proof to them that I was a mansplainer. It's a catch-22.

See, this is an example of the term being used incorrectly on their part.

EVERYONE is entitled to explain why THEY disagree - no one is entitled to explain why OTHERS disagree.

 

[tjones2]

Wesly[/url]":1oz2om6p]

Drew J[/url]":1oz2om6p]

papadage[/url]":1oz2om6p]Much like many uses of SJW, many of the complaints of the usage of mansplain are done by people trying to play the anti-PC card.

Searching Drew's FB feed for its usage, the only place I see it is when he used it himself, and that was in 2014.

My friends, male and female, actually have brains and don't have to hide behind such bullshit. When it's been leveled at me have been the few times I've commented on friends-of-friends' public facebook profiles with a reasoned and reasonable "I disagree, and this is why." Then immediately I would get dogpiled by a bunch of women accusing me of all manner of things, principle among them "mansplaining." And literally any defense or explanation I gave was only further proof to them that I was a mansplainer. It's a catch-22.

See, this is an example of the term being used incorrectly on their part.

EVERYONE is entitled to explain why THEY disagree - no one is entitled to explain why OTHERS disagree.

$splain is a term that is pretty magnetic to improper uses, just by its nature. Regardless of if there is a "proper" definition, that's not how people always use it.

 

[Exordium01]

FunkTron[/url]":11c6wvdg]

Exordium01[/url]":11c6wvdg]
#3 nails it. Sanders supporters tend to evangelize and dismiss anybody who doesn't support him as someone either who doesn't think he could win or doesn't understand the issues. Clinton supporters are more likely to leave people alone on their primary decisions and hope that they still show up to vote for the candidate that best represents their views in the general.

Hogwash - you can't possibly support these kinds of simple stereotypes applied to two groups of millions of people.

There may be subsets of each candidate's supporters who act the way you describe above - but to suggest that a supporter of Sanders "tends to evangelize and dismiss anybody" is beyond spurious. You're just throwing that out there because you think it seems that way, not because there's any real hard data that props it up.

It's worth talking about, obviously, that people are talking about ruffians among Bernie's supporters and how that affects voters, as clearly people out there do believe that because these people exist, that's another reason not to vote for Bernie - as piss-poor as that logic is, it's opinions and people are free to em.

But just because it's a buzz doesn't mean it's time to start spreading it around liberally, even with weak qualifiers like "tend to" and "are more likely to".

You cut out the context of the discussion. This came up over the discussion of the poll stating 33% of Sanders supporters won't support Clinton in the general, and I am talking about the difference between being critical of someone not supporting Sanders in the primary vs refusing to vote for Clinton in the general. The whole *splaining discussion came up because of the large number of Sanders supporters who feel the need to tell everybody else about how they are wrong.

 

[StarSeeker]

EVERYONE is entitled to explain why THEY disagree - no one is entitled to explain why OTHERS disagree.

We do that all the time though. A bunch of this thread is nothing more than people explaining why people they don't agree with support candidates that they have no clue why anybody would agree with them.

Changed some of the wording from figuring out to explaining.

 

[Alamout]

See, this is an example of the term being used incorrectly on their part.

EVERYONE is entitled to explain why THEY disagree - no one is entitled to explain why OTHERS disagree.

I don't know why you think that's the definition (not that there is one...it's relatively new slang and usage is in flux).

To the extent it had an original meaning, "mansplain" just meant "a man explaining something to a woman that she already knows/knows better than he does". It wasn't really about dis/agreement at all.

 

[papadage]

Exordium01,

No, it was just a side complaint by a Sanders supporter that really had nothing to do with the topic.

 

[Nekojin]

/// OFFICIAL MODERATION NOTICE ///

---

The discussion of mansplaining had a tenuous relationship to this thread to begin with, and has mostly gone far away from any connection. It's time to let it go, or take it to its own private sauna thread.

 

[spoof]

spoof[/url]":2y6bd6ql]That's it, I'm going to become a Hillarybro.

Hillarybros before Hillaryhoes?

Absolutely, rude male humans before soil tilling implements, as it should be.

 

[Andara]

LTParis[/url]":rajnn0dl]It's a bit deeper than that. It's one thing to evolve, take ownership and claim that. But Hillary seems to exclusively say "I have always been pro-gay marriage", "i have always been pro BLM issues", etc. which is demonstratively false.

I know this was pages back, but this is outright false.

For one example, just last month she attended a town hall where she started a reply on a question about this issue with, "You know, I, like many Americans, have evolved. And I’m glad I have."

I'd find a quote for your other example, but I really have no idea what, exactly "pro BLM issues" specifically references.

LTParis[/url]":rajnn0dl]There is that, but also let's boil it down some more. They know the Clinton name, many consider Bill the first "black" president. They are not as familiar with Bernie even though Bernie has far more cred in this area.

Does he really, though? They've both been heavily invested in equality issues for pretty much their entire careers. I mean, race equality is the issue that forced her to examine and then leave the Republican Party.

StarSeeker[/url]":rajnn0dl]Those I's are only voting for D's because they like Sanders. They may have very little reason to support Clinton.

If that's the case, there's a good chance they don't have a lot of reason to vote for Sanders, either, beyond the whole personality-cult/familiarity-breeds-contempt weirdness we've got going on this cycle.

 

[Technarch]

Finally getting some polls in after Michigan. Sanders is still in for a rough March, though he did close the gap big time in Missouri. He's toast in Florida, which has a closed primary, and where he lags by 35 points in the polls.

 

[tjones2]

Andara[/url]":iunw3xnq]
If that's the case, there's a good chance they don't have a lot of reason to vote for Sanders, either, beyond the whole personality-cult/familiarity-breeds-contempt weirdness we've got going on this cycle.

I've noticed this too. People voting Sanders who have almost no reason ideological or self-interested to do so. I know a person who 1)thinks Atlas Shrugged is a good tale of individualism over collectivism, 2) posts odes to right wing books like The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels and Cuckservatives: How RINOs Betrayed America on Facebook, 3) Hates "SJWs", 4) is very well off financially, 5) has various other right-wing economic views, and 6) ......

.... is feeling the Bern.

And I know left-wingers who are all about Trump.

 

[papadage]

I see people that are progressive now that have internalized a lot of right wing crankiness over time despite themselves. I have a an old friend that is becoming a truther over time, with all the attendant baggage, including a need to say how dumb the masses are. And some people are just rigid, and only want their way, even if an alternative will be progress on issues they want.

 

[XxOmegaxX]

tjones2[/url]":1lz8jogy]

Andara[/url]":1lz8jogy]
If that's the case, there's a good chance they don't have a lot of reason to vote for Sanders, either, beyond the whole personality-cult/familiarity-breeds-contempt weirdness we've got going on this cycle.

I've noticed this too. People voting Sanders who have almost no reason ideological or self-interested to do so. I know a person who 1)thinks Atlas Shrugged is a good tale of individualism over collectivism, 2) posts odes to right wing books like The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels and Cuckservatives: How RINOs Betrayed America on Facebook, 3) Hates "SJWs", 4) is very well off financially, 5) has various other right-wing economic views, and 6) ......

.... is feeling the Bern.

And I know left-wingers who are all about Trump.

I don't think there is anything mutually exclusive between people who see some excesses in the Political Correctness movement, derisively termed SJWs, or those financially well off, and those who support Senator Sanders.

Frankly, I find that implication to be offensive that one who is well off financially clearly can not care about the betterment of his fellow man, even at the cost of some self sacrifice.

As far as 2 and 5, this election cycle has made strange bedfellows. To respond to your anecdote, I'll offer one of my own, in that I know a number of self described republicans, so turned off by the RNC's denials of science and focus on personal social issues (e.g. Marriage equality, marijuana legalization, abortion rights) that they've moved to the Sanders camp.

I said this before in this thread, its important to recognize what issues drive people, I'm not a single issue voter, are you? Why do you reduce your this person to such?

Finally, as to point 1, it's not a good book, I've got little else to say.

 

[wco81]

Bill Simmons has on a guest on his podcast telling a story about Cruz at college.

They were playing poker in the dorms and Cruz got down $2000 which he couldn't pay.

So he went and narc'd on the guys for illegally betting in the dorms.

 

[Papageno]

wco81[/url]":hcj22dty]Bill Simmons has on a guest on his podcast telling a story about Cruz at college.

They were playing poker in the dorms and Cruz got down $2000 which he couldn't pay.

So he went and narc'd on the guys for illegally betting in the dorms.

What a weasel. No wonder not even his fellow Republicans in the Senate can stand the guy.

 

[Solidstate89]

However, 19-year-old Rusty Shackleford of Lombard, in line to attend the Trump rally, said he was there to "support the man who wants to make America great again."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/trump ... y-security

Is Rusty Shackleford actually a real name for real people? Because all I'm thinking of is that the person just gave them the fake name that Dale used from King of the Hill.

 

[spoof]

However, 19-year-old Rusty Shackleford of Lombard, in line to attend the Drumpf rally, said he was there to "support the man who wants to make America great again."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/trump ... y-security

Is Rusty Shackleford actually a real name for real people? Because all I'm thinking of is that the person just gave them the fake name that Dale used from King of the Hill.

Yeah, but the main thing is, the Trump rally in Chicago was shut down for "security reasons" that is, they couldn't contain that many protesters:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/tru ... 5c9182176f

Like all the real estate developers and sales agents say, "location, location, location."

 

[Belisarius]

PapagenoF[/url]":37f4scl3]

wco81[/url]":37f4scl3]Bill Simmons has on a guest on his podcast telling a story about Cruz at college.

They were playing poker in the dorms and Cruz got down $2000 which he couldn't pay.

So he went and narc'd on the guys for illegally betting in the dorms.

What a weasel. No wonder not even his fellow Republicans in the Senate can stand the guy.

Actually, I think it was less about being able to pay as it was about not wanting to pay, which makes it worse, to me. The guest was Jon Favreau, former speechwriter for President Obama. Worth a listen.

 

[spoof]

PapagenoF[/url]":3k0gv7es]

wco81[/url]":3k0gv7es]Bill Simmons has on a guest on his podcast telling a story about Cruz at college.

They were playing poker in the dorms and Cruz got down $2000 which he couldn't pay.

So he went and narc'd on the guys for illegally betting in the dorms.

What a weasel. No wonder not even his fellow Republicans in the Senate can stand the guy.

Actually, I think it was less about being able to pay as it was about not wanting to pay, which makes it worse, to me. The guest was Jon Favreau, former speechwriter for President Obama. Worth a listen.

Yeah but, Trump is entirely too offensive and boorish, and besides, he's too much like Hitler. And Hillary? We just can't trust her no matter what.

So, let's hope this guy gets the GOP nomination. And then gets his head bit off by a T-rex in the restroom between then and the second Tuesday in November. Maybe Ralph Nader will be available by then.

 

[Belisarius]

spoof[/url]":njbw7wr2]

PapagenoF[/url]":njbw7wr2]

wco81[/url]":njbw7wr2]Bill Simmons has on a guest on his podcast telling a story about Cruz at college.

They were playing poker in the dorms and Cruz got down $2000 which he couldn't pay.

So he went and narc'd on the guys for illegally betting in the dorms.

What a weasel. No wonder not even his fellow Republicans in the Senate can stand the guy.

Actually, I think it was less about being able to pay as it was about not wanting to pay, which makes it worse, to me. The guest was Jon Favreau, former speechwriter for President Obama. Worth a listen.

Yeah but, Trump is entirely too offensive and boorish, and besides, he's too much like Hitler. And Hillary? We just can't trust her no matter what.

So, let's hope this guy gets the GOP nomination. And then gets his head bit off by a T-rex in the restroom between then and the second Tuesday in November. Maybe Ralph Nader will be available by then.

Could we maybe, just for a minute, be sane and just elect Hillary or something? I know this is the year for insanity and all, but maybe just a little moment of sanity? Please?

 

[XaiaX]

I made a noise graph out of the Michigan exit polling data. (Pulled the "other" from here since it would complicate the chart)

Spoiler

In it, you can really see the difference in the Black vote for Clinton, and how it's basically offset by the white dude vote for Sanders, thus their extremely close showing.

 

[Nekojin]

Solidstate89[/url]":3v4moqd5]

However, 19-year-old Rusty Shackleford of Lombard, in line to attend the Drumpf rally, said he was there to "support the man who wants to make America great again."

/// OFFICIAL MODERATION NOTICE ///

---

While we don't really care if you use the Drumpfinator extension, please remember to FIX it when you quote it. Using the add-on to get past the rule against cutesy nick-names isn't going to fly.

 

[elpolloloco51]

I have to say in regards to Donald Trump postponing his rally today. I think if protesters want to protest and make a huge difference, they should do it outside the event, but not in middle and during it. Although it is an absolute right for anyone to protest against anything they wish. To go into a public event with the sole intention to cause a major disruption, is not a right at all.

 

[CPX]

elpolloloco51[/url]":3eod5f0d]I have to say in regards to Donald Trump postponing his rally today. I think if protesters want to protest and make a huge difference, they should do it outside the event, but not in middle and during it. Although it is an absolute right for anyone to protest against anything they wish. To go into a public event with the sole intention to cause a major disruption, is not a right at all.

By that logic, the Black Lives Matter protesters should've waited outside as well.

 

[tjones2]

CPX[/url]":164w1l1k]

elpolloloco51[/url]":164w1l1k]I have to say in regards to Donald Trump postponing his rally today. I think if protesters want to protest and make a huge difference, they should do it outside the event, but not in middle and during it. Although it is an absolute right for anyone to protest against anything they wish. To go into a public event with the sole intention to cause a major disruption, is not a right at all.

By that logic, the Black Lives Matter protesters should've waited outside as well.

Yes. I've never liked their "disruption" style.

 

[XxOmegaxX]

Does the right to peaceably assemble and petition the government cover disruption?

Furthermore, if it's private security from the event venue, do the protesters even enjoy those protections?

I'm sure there's case law on this... Is Faramir around?

 

[Faramir]

XxOmegaxX[/url]":1y8o36w2]Does the right to peaceably assemble and petition the government cover disruption?

Furthermore, if it's private security from the event venue, do the protesters even enjoy those protections?

I'm sure there's case law on this... Is Faramir around?

If the rally, speech or whatever is in a private place the first amendment has nothing to say about it. The protesters are trespassers. That doesn't mean they can be punched in the face of course, but private security can use reasonable force to remove them and they are subject to (minor) civil and criminal penalties.

It's more complicated if it is a public place like a city park or something.

 

[XxOmegaxX]

Thank you, sir!

Do you have a bot running that searches for posts with your name, or was that just lucky coincidence?

 

[spoof]

Does the right to peaceably assemble and petition the government cover disruption?

Furthermore, if it's private security from the event venue, do the protesters even enjoy those protections?

I'm sure there's case law on this... Is Faramir around?

It's the right to petition the government for redress of grievances, that's why there's always some kind of protesters at the White House fence.

There is no right to petition a loudmouthed businessman in a convention center or stadium he rented for a rally. He ain't the government.

Yet.

 

[CPX]

XxOmegaxX[/url]":18alckd8]Thank you, sir!

Do you have a bot running that searches for posts with your name, or was that just lucky coincidence?

I think he's got a superpower or something. I'm pretty sure he only started back up here after someone mentioned his name.

 

[GohanIYIan]

skylarjones[/url]":37m5n1fo]

Also if you look at it, Obama has killed way fewer people in the name of "War on Terror" than Bush did.

They both have killed a lot of people including innocents. The difference, IMO, is that Bush did it with reckless abandon against a target that wasn't even trying to kill us at the time. Obama's killing's has been targeted and has taken innocent lives, but with the understanding that the people he... we killed needed to be killed for us Americans to be safe.

What, exactly, is the basis for this statement? We killed a bunch of people in Somalia last Monday who were in Al Shabaab who have a) never expressed any intent attack US territory and b) didn't exist circa 9/11/2001. Why was it necessary to kill them to make Americans safer? If it's necessary to protect American troops stationed in Somalia... why exactly are American troops stationed in Somalia?

So far as I can tell, literally the only evidence that various attacks in various countries have anything to do with domestic safety is "the president said so". Is anyone seriously comfortable with that rationale should "President Obama" become "President Trump" or "President Cruz"?

 

[Deleted member 14629]

Faramir[/url]":k2j84clz]

XxOmegaxX[/url]":k2j84clz]Does the right to peaceably assemble and petition the government cover disruption?

Furthermore, if it's private security from the event venue, do the protesters even enjoy those protections?

I'm sure there's case law on this... Is Faramir around?

If the rally, speech or whatever is in a private place the first amendment has nothing to say about it. The protesters are trespassers. That doesn't mean they can be punched in the face of course, but private security can use reasonable force to remove them and they are subject to (minor) civil and criminal penalties.

It's more complicated if it is a public place like a city park or something.

I could have sworn there was some kind of carve-out for political rallies as not truly being private, because of their goal of becoming government.