Would you Vote for Trump?

[Revoltingest]

It should be quite a drama.

Speaking of drama, the anti-Trump crowd is becoming increasingly violent.....
http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2016...ers-injured-during-clash-outside-trump-rally/
"According to the criminal complaint, several officers were working a “skirmish line” between Trump
supporters and “anarchist members in masks” and protesters. At one point, the anarchists/protesters
began using pepper spray on the officers while trying to get to the Trump supporters."

 

[First Baseman]

Speaking of drama, the anti-Trump crowd is becoming increasingly violent.....
http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2016...ers-injured-during-clash-outside-trump-rally/
"According to the criminal complaint, several officers were working a “skirmish line” between Trump
supporters and “anarchist members in masks” and protesters. At one point, the anarchists/protesters
began using pepper spray on the officers while trying to get to the Trump supporters."

Well, they are very like their hero. Unfortunately.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, they are very like their hero. Unfortunately.

I don't know if they even have a hero.
I get the strong impression that they're anti-Trump, but not really for-anyone.

 

[Underhill]

I don't know if they even have a hero.
I get the strong impression that they're anti-Trump, but not really for-anyone.

Well, they can't be very bright. What does this accomplish... for anyone?

 

[First Baseman]

Americans are... shall we say... complicated.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, they can't be very bright. What does this accomplish... for anyone?

Violent protesters don't serve any useful purpose.
They just throw tantrums.

 

[Underhill]

Violent protesters don't serve any useful purpose.
They just throw tantrums.

Exactly.

We've got to stop agreeing with each other. People will talk...

 

[Revoltingest]

Exactly.
We've got to stop agreeing with each other. People will talk...

According to staff, we're an item.
As long as Mrs Revolt doesn't know, I don't mind wagging tongues.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

When there are 2 possible explanations for something, one should have reasons for picking one over the other.
To call it a "false dichotomy" doesn't address my question at all.

Actually it does. I am not picking one over the other.

The examples I already gave....
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/06/politics/gloria-steinem-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-boys/

http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/06/m...-for-them-if-they-dont-support-hillary-video/

Thanks. Sexist? Maybe. Listening to Trump, who wants to actually murder women and their children who may be relatives of suspected terrorists, could have had a desensitizing effect on me which makes it harder to become offended when a Clinton supporter goes all girl-power on Bill Maher's show.

It's quite ironic that Clinton gave a speech to Salvadoran women who were victimized by the same mass murder / targeting of civilians, which disproportionately harms women, that Trump advocates, and somehow you've contorted that into voting for Trump because Clinton is sexist (even if it's only one small reason - you said it).

You make the accusation because it "can be" sexist?
This isn't a very strong criticism of him.

No it's definitely sexist. You made the argument it's boorish, I'm saying it can be that too.

Sexism appears to be endemic in the Democratic Party.
We have Hillary's misandry, & according to the Wa Po, we have Bernie's misogyny.....
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...much-sexism-hillary-clinton-faces-on-twitter/
But it could also be that the Wa Po is simply smearing Bernie in order to boost Hillary's victim cred.

You didn't read the article did you?

 

[tytlyf]

I won't vote for Trump because I'm in the middle class and he's a republican. The only people who benefit voting for republicans are the top 1%. Everyone else not in that category was intentionally disinformed into supporting that party.

 

[Revoltingest]

Actually it does.

Nuh uh!

I am not picking one over the other.

It sure looked like you did.
You claimed sexism instead of the alternative (not sexism).

Sexist? Maybe.

Only "maybe"?

Listening to Trump, who wants to actually murder women and their children who may be relatives of suspected terrorists......

Such a claim deserves elaboration
I haven't heard that Trump is big on murdering people.
And why only women & children....no men?

It's quite ironic that Clinton gave a speech to Salvadoran women who were victimized by the same mass murder / targeting of civilians, which disproportionately harms women, that Trump advocates, and somehow you've contorted that into voting for Trump because Clinton is sexist (even if it's only one small reason - you said it).

Does this mean that you agree with her that when husbands, fathers & sons die in combat, the women in their lives suffer the most?

No it's definitely sexist. You made the argument it's boorish, I'm saying it can be that too.

This seems a stretch.
It reminds me of the leftish media campaign to characterize criticism of Hillary as all sexist, just as it was racist to criticize Obama.
It's all without justification, rendering it meritless.

You didn't read the article did you?

Are you presuming this with an element of doubt or asking?
It would be faster if you had a point & just made it.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Nuh uh!

It sure looked like you did.
You claimed sexism instead of the alternative (not sexism).

The alternative we were discussing was not "not sexism" it was, in your words, "propensity to verbally assault people".

Only "maybe"?

Correct. On a scale of 0 to 10, I think it's a 0.5 based on glancing at the articles you provided but I think my uncertainty is +/- 4.0.

Such a claim deserves elaboration
I haven't heard that Trump is big on murdering people.
And why only women & children....no men?

Then you must not have heard this:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...auls-right-geneva-conventions-bar-donald-tru/
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/trump-kill-isil-families-216343

Also, I didn't say no men. Grandpa would be included in the murder but obviously if you "take out the families" of terrorists / ISIS that is predominantly their wives and children. There are many things wrong with this mentality, starting with it violates the Geneva Conventions and the human rights of both men and women. In addition, in my view it is also sexist. Slaughtering non-combatants is one of many ways in which men have oppressed women since the Bronze Age. It is an act that fundamentally arises from not recognizing women (and others) as independent human beings with rights, but treats them more like the property of their husbands, and therefore just as much a fair target in war as the enemy's other assets (e.g. cattle, infrastructure, equipment).

Does this mean that you agree with her that when husbands, fathers & sons die in combat, the women in their lives suffer the most?

I would not agree with that, but that's not what she said. She didn't say women suffer the most she said they are the primary victims. It's worth considering whether there is any difference between war casualties and victims, or between the injury or death of combatants and non-combatants. Again Clinton was speaking to Salvadoran women who probably don't think it's fair to lump the government and guerilla soldiers who killed each other into the same category as the unarmed civilians the soldiers killed.

This seems a stretch.
It reminds me of the leftish media campaign to characterize criticism of Hillary as all sexist, just as it was racist to criticize Obama.
It's all without justification, rendering it meritless.

I'm surprised you don't already know the justification for why it was sexist, but since you apparently don't, I'll explain it to you. Defending the size of your male you-know-what during a Presidential debate carries an undertone, in a very juvenile way reminiscent of perhaps a grade school boys' locker room, that this measure indicates a candidate's adequacy to be President. For men to debate in any professional setting the size of their genitals is inappropriate for a number of reasons. One of the reasons is because it implies those without male genitals are the least adequate of all; or at least, it marginalizes them / excludes them from participating in the discussion. It therefore reinforces gender stereotypes which put women at an unfair disadvantage, namely that male genitalia are related to other metrics of leadership / intellectual adequacy and that such conversations are the realm of chest-thumping men. That is sexist.

Are you presuming this with an element of doubt or asking?

Both. Did you read the second paragraph of that article? It contradicts how you described it.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Trump would be worse than Shrub. Way worse. His only appeal to voters is FUDDD and he plays that fiddle to distraction. More bigots support Trump than any candidate since George Wallace. Those who support Trump and claim to not be bigoted are in complete denial about what the man stands for. He is nothing but a hatriot conman: couching his hate as some sort of patriotism. When he doesn't get the Republican nomination he will be a sore, sore loser.

 

[Revoltingest]

The alternative we were discussing was not "not sexism" it was, in your words, "propensity to verbally assault people".

I don't think we're seeing eye to eye on this.

Correct. On a scale of 0 to 10, I think it's a 0.5 based on glancing at the articles you provided but I think my uncertainty is +/- 4.0.

Quantified uncertainty, eh.....that's a low blow!

Then you must not have heard this:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...auls-right-geneva-conventions-bar-donald-tru/
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/trump-kill-isil-families-216343

I strongly disagree with him on this.
Looking into it further though, it appears that "murder" is a misquote of what he was talking about, ie, "killing" family when used as human shields by terrorists.

Also, I didn't say no men.

True.
But to not mention them suggests you don't care about my kind.
We male geezer family members matter, & don't want to be killed too!

Grandpa would be included in the murder but obviously if you "take out the families" of terrorists / ISIS that is predominantly their wives and children. There are many things wrong with this mentality, starting with it violates the Geneva Conventions and the human rights of both men and women. In addition, in my view it is also sexist. Slaughtering non-combatants is one of many ways in which men have oppressed women since the Bronze Age. It is an act that fundamentally arises from not recognizing women (and others) as independent human beings with rights, but treats them more like the property of their husbands, and therefore just as much a fair target in war as the enemy's other assets (e.g. cattle, infrastructure, equipment).

Even more important than the Geneva convention is the backlash we suffer from killing non-combatants.
This is a reason I'd prefer Bernie to both Hillary & Donald.

I would not agree with that, but that's not what she said.

My question is a paraphrasing, & was to understand your view on the subject.
But the quote I attribute to her is exactly what she said.

She didn't say women suffer the most she said they are the primary victims. It's worth considering whether there is any difference between war casualties and victims, or between the injury or death of combatants and non-combatants. Again Clinton was speaking to Salvadoran women who probably don't think it's fair to lump the government and guerilla soldiers who killed each other into the same category as the unarmed civilians the soldiers killed.

This doesn't excuse the blatant misandry of her statement.

I'm surprised you don't already know the justification for why it was sexist, but since you apparently don't, I'll explain it to you. Defending the size of your male you-know-what during a Presidential debate carries an undertone, in a very juvenile way reminiscent of perhaps a grade school boys' locker room, that this measure indicates a candidate's adequacy to be President. For men to debate in any professional setting the size of their genitals is inappropriate for a number of reasons. One of the reasons is because it implies those without male genitals are the least adequate of all; or at least, it marginalizes them / excludes them from participating in the discussion. It therefore reinforces gender stereotypes which put women at an unfair disadvantage, namely that male genitalia are related to other metrics of leadership / intellectual adequacy and that such conversations are the realm of chest-thumping men. That is sexist.

This seems a strained attempt to make something boorishly macho into something sexist.
This is particularly striking when in light of your excusing Hillary's far more blatant sexism.

Both. Did you read the second paragraph of that article? It contradicts how you described it.

I did read it, btw.
I wasn't clear about my take on it.
I thought it funny that Wa Po would address unnamed commentators accusing Bernie's campaign of sexism.
If this is really happening, who is making the charges?
It wouldn't be Pubs.....it would likely be Hillary supporters.
If it's not really happening, then this is a straw man to provide an opportunity to make Hillary look the victim.
Which would it be?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

This seems a strained attempt to make something boorishly macho into something sexist.
This is particularly striking when in light of your excusing Hillary's far more blatant sexism.

You seem to be the master of the false dichotomy. When the boorishly macho enters into what ought to be a professional setting and marginalizes qualified female candidates from the discussion, that IS a form of sexism. Open your dictionary, Websters provides one definition of sexism as "behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex" which is clearly what such talk in a Presidential debate does.

How you can call Hillary's statement misandrous compared to Trump's statements is still baffling. Is it misandrous to define victims of war as the non-combatants who are harmed?

I did read it, btw.
I wasn't clear about my take on it.
I thought it funny that Wa Po would address unnamed commentators accusing Bernie's campaign of sexism.
If this is really happening, who is making the charges?
It wouldn't be Pubs.....it would likely be Hillary supporters.
If it's not really happening, then this is a straw man to provide an opportunity to make Hillary look the victim.
Which would it be?

The WaPo article is a response to journalist Joan Walsh among others, as stated in the article with links to her article and Glenn Greendwald's which likely contain additional information on who-said-what, if that matters. Below is the conclusion - not sure how you got from there to any of the possibilities you listed, from sexism being "endemic in the Democratic Party", "Bernie's mysogeny", or "the WaPo simply smearing Bernie" since none of those things are supported by the article, not sure why we can't just let the article speak for itself rather than extrapolating wildly:

"But based on systematic analysis of recent Twitter data, we find that little of the attacks directed at Clinton can be attributed to the left in general or Sanders supporters in particular. And a remarkably small number of tweets mentioning Clinton contain the most egregious and overt forms of sexism: gendered slurs."

 

[Revoltingest]

You seem to be the master of the false dichotomy.

I'm master of nothing......at best a dilettante.
But anyway, I think you're missing what is a real disagreement over interpreting
what we see, & trying to turn it into some fancy logical fallacy on my part.
That won't work.
I could turn it around, & accuse you of the same thing, but this wouldn't sway you either, would it?

How you can call Hillary's statement misandrous compared to Trump's statements is still baffling. Is it misandrous to define victims of war as the non-combatants who are harmed?

I say tis misandry to claim as Hillary did, ie, that women are the "primary victims" because the males in their lives do the dying in combat.
Dying strikes me as typically a worse form of victimhood than surviving.
We seem pretty far apart on these issues, & we're just covering the same ground again.
Let's agree to disagree.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

We seem pretty far apart on these issues, & we're just covering the same ground again.
Let's agree to disagree.

Agreed but I'd still be curious to understand if you have any objection to defining war victims (i.e. non-combatants) as distinct from war casualties since you still haven't answered that question - independent of whatever we think of Hillay's statement.

In other words is that definition something that would cause you to pound the table in protest for whatever reason, or is it kind of, okay sure, that's one way you could define that concept / word.

 

[Revoltingest]

Agreed but I'd still be curious to understand if you have any objection to defining war victims (i.e. non-combatants) as distinct from war casualties since you still haven't answered that question - independent of whatever we think of Hillay's statement.

In other words is that definition something that would cause you to pound the table in protest for whatever reason, or is it kind of, okay sure, that's one way you could define that concept / word.

A casualty is a victim, especially the dead ones.
I don't care for unconventional tortured definitions of words to explain away such claims.
And this is particularly so in the context of gender politics, where to even advise women
on how to avoid becoming victims is decried as misogyny, When every word can be twisted
to wrest some accusation of sexism by men, tis ironic that Hillary's words should be spun
to sanitize her apparent meaning.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I couldn't bring myself to vote for him, ever. Too much hatred, too much xenophobia, and way too much ego. And what's worse is that the Republicans are choosing between him and Cruz.

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

This thread has really evolved and it's great to see some in depth discussion.

I'm a little dismayed however, by the way some of you have brushed away the anti-Trump protests. These protesters are not getting violent for no reason, they have a very strong reason to do so. In some cases, Trump security have purposefully pushed them around, physically and verbally assaulted them and incitedt he violence. In other cases, Trumps harsh words and bigoted vies have sparked an angry response, again, rightfully so. There's only so much people from ethnic or religious minorities can take before it boils over. Even then. the violence is from a tiny proportion and I'm surprised some of these people have showed so much patience.

There is something else I have noticed, Trump the buffoon, who was once being taken seriously is now becoming more and more of a clown. His dreams of presidency are fading in front of his own eyes. I feel kinda bad for him...actually, no I don't.