#futility | #WhatTheyVotedFor Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Click for something else. And once again we come back to the topic post, and the fundamental question Appeasers are either afraid to answer or simply not smart enough to comprehend: Your problem is always some general thing, like a "lack of focus on bigger problems", without any real attention to what is going on. When Republicans want people's focus and action elsewhere, why should Democrats let the GOP have and do whatever it wants? When Republicans want to stratify society and forestall justice, how do you expect Democrats to raise economic justice by ignoring what disrupts and prevents it? How do you expect to achieve Liberty and Justice for All by running scared from every right-wing challenge to equality? When misogynists harass women in restrooms, why are you upset at liberals for opposing sexism and sexual harassment? When white supremacists demand government endorsement of white supremacism, why are you upset at liberals for opposing racism and white supremacism? When laborers throw down on the picket line, or mothers rally against street violence, or communities rally against disproportionate police killing of people of color, or millions turn out across the nation to affirm and acknowledge human rights, why would you dismiss that as "random protests"↗? When your tactical plan is to concede the narrative at the outset, what strategic goals remain in the realm of possibility? Why would the people you don't listen to take your advice about what they should do? What about the history of Democratic Party compromising with detractors of human rights suggests such pathways are useful? If liberals fail to refuse the stratification of justice, then we forestall justice itself. If liberals aid and abet the stratification and thereby preclusion and prevention of justice, then, well, even worse. Conservative priorities are as conservative priorities will.
You mean the specific problem of economic stagnation of the middle class, regressive taxation and the damage caused by decades of trickle down economics. Specific problems that I have repeatedly for pages now pointed out the solutions for, that we need to keep point at these solutions loudly and proudly: increase taxes on the rich, tax high frequency trading, implement universal healthcare, reduce the cost of education. That if we focus on economic justice, we can get enough votes back to win back the senate and maybe the house, certainly the presidency if we don't run a corporatist candidate that no one believes will do any of that. And what am I advocating we let the GOP do? Economic injustice is what disrupts and prevents economic justice... not some bronze statues! And what am I advocating we run scared from? I'm upset at liberals for not having THAT tenacity and energy for taxing the rich, I'm upset at your ilk for your complete lack of how this looks, that most of the public does not give a fuck about trans in restrooms and are not encourage to join the left when they see the liberals spending so much energy on that issue. We now have a president who openly admitted to garbing women by the pussy (without consent), it is time for you to realizing whining about misogyny is not an effective tactic! Seriously how the fuck are you opposing sexism and sexual harassment by whining about it on the internet, on social media, in vox articles? I'm not, just do it peacefully and respectfully, go high, not low. Last time the left went low the right used it as an excuse to go authoritarian to uphold civil order, so please for the love of god could you regressives actually think tactically and not start a Reichstag fire? Seriously we have pig boar president that will openly support the alt-right, open violence against these self proclaimed white nationalist could result in hundreds being mowed down by them as they declare race war and the federal government may just let it be! What narrative? The strategic goal is to win back the government. What people do you think I'm talking to? What do protest actually DO? There is not much worse then total republican domination with a pig boar as president. Our present reality makes everything you said false. We followed your un-stratified justice, "I'm with her" candidate and it has got us only defeat. And you want to double down and resist violently? That, then well, even worse. Violence from the left is exactly what the alt-right want. Lets go over my stratagy again: 1. Focus on economic justice to win back the presidency, senate and even house. 2. Implement solution to ALL liberal problems: for example tax the rich to pay for programs to end street violence like getting thugs educations and jobs, legalizing weed, financing investigations into police departments. Has it ever occurred to you that minorities are disproportionally poor (well not Asians and not Jews) and that economic justice would disproportionally help them? Your strategy 1. Double down. 2. Bitch and whine about some tiny demographic's issues with say restrooms endlessly, because virtue signaling.
It's not the "liberals" spending that time. It's the rightwing media operations. They always pick some issue like that, and try to get everyone focused on it instead of what they are up to. Why do you let them play you so easily? That's what got the Dems beaten by Reagan, when this stuff got rolling. It involves raising taxes - and affirmative action programs, etc, of course. That's why the Republican core voter has been voting against it for decades, and likely will continue to do so.
#makebelieve | #WhatTheyVotedFor Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Click for incongruous distraction because, I don't know, have I used this picture before? A perfect example: You refuse to acknowledge the actual counterpoint to your argument. This is why you have nothing to say. You have no idea what you're addrssing; you have no idea what you're talking about. When Republicans want to have a fight over who gets to use the bathroom, or who gets to force sexually abused minors to bear a rapist's child, why should anyone take a pass. You complain of a "lack of focus on bigger problems", but, as your "specific problem" paragraph reminds, refuse to countenance the reality of these other issues. If meeting conservatives on their struggle for supremacism is, as with the "identity politics" of human rights, a "lack of focus on bigger problems", then you need to acknowledge where those distractions come from and what happens if they are left unattended. To wit: Not only do you fail to consider the economic and general injustice of a government so oriented against a segment of its population, on the basis of skin color, as to spend public money insulting and intimidating them by celebrating enemies of the society because, hey, at least these enemies were admirable, or some such, you once again run scared from the facts of what is going on; to wit, yeah, you know, conservatives turn out with a torchlit mob to celebrate Nazis and the KKK, demanding government hostility toward dark skin, and the best you're able to come up with↑ is blithering and bawling: "Well we are getting confederate statues removed, what a victory, that will totally put money in the pockets of debt riddle poor, working several jobs just toe make ends meets families of America." So, hey: Conservatives want a fight, conservatives get a fight, conservatives lose a fight. What the hell is your goddamn problem with that? No, really— —why are you so godforsaken terrified of acknowledging that conservatives pick the fights you want Democrats to avoid? Is it, you know, maybe because in acknowledging that fact you basically give away your stupid game? Uh-huh. Ask Walter Mondale. Study the history of voters and taxation over the last, oh, nine presidential cycles worth of elections, including midterm and state-local off-year. King County, Washington, 1997: Voters got so caught up in a tax rebellion as to cancel funding for Emergency Medical Services; after blithering and bawling for days that they only voted to reject a funding increase—an untenable excuse, given the ballot question and measure language—King County voters begged, and received a new election in order to restore funding. And, oh, hey, voters in Washington state recently rejected a state income tax, which really is incredible, all things considered. You see, the Evergreen State cobbled together its revenues through old and regressive tax schemes; we rely largely on sales taxes, right now, because voters won't approve an income tax, and canceled the state's primary funding mechanism. We never did get the thirty dollar car tabs, but we did kill the MVET and some massive transportation packages, and then voters spent the next decades still complaining about the woeful condition of the roads. At any rate, we proposed a sales tax on income over a quarter million dollars, and voters still said no because they might earn a quarter million dollars someday, and wanted to not pay state income taxes when they did. How about Kansas? Voters elected a governor who deliberately wrecked the state's finances; then they voted to re-elect him. Republicans bucking the trend in order to save Kansas are risking their careers. You know that bit where you want Democrats to be extra-careful to not piss off misogynists and white supremacists? Yeah, you see, they're busy bargaining the economy, geopolitics, and crime and justice policies in order to keep their hand in. It's always a difficult read, even coming off a year like we just saw with the Sanders movement, and with support gathering 'round the Medicare for All idea, we might soon start getting some signs from the broader electorate. In any case, it would be easier to take you seriously if you showed any substantial awareness of history. Which brings us right back 'round. The action driving the issue in the discourse comes from conservatives. Whether or not "most of the public" does or not "give a fuck" about transgender in a restroom, the issue still presents itself. But why? Why does the issue present itself? Because conservatives insist. And here we see the scandal of your bullshit: Liberals are spending so much energy, what? Answering the fights conservatives pick. Are you capable of recognizing the difference between tactic and duty, or is this a bit of ignorance that, when considered in context, might help explain why you would pretend human rights are at all negotiable. What, you want every person who disagrees with supremacism to do so in your Appeasing manner? I would much appreciate it if leftists would skip out on the vandalism and bullshit, but people are human, and part of the problem with the easy exploitation you fear is people like yourself who are just itching to be exploited. How about this: Let us know when you have a clue what you're on about. Seriously, you don't get to just stop making sense every time you're afraid to answer. When you let the supremacists tell us what the problem is? When you can only describe circumstances according to conservative myth? What narrative? And, you know, consider women, for instance. For once. Why would women take your advice when you won't listen to what they're telling you? And you can't even explain to them why they should harm themselves in no small part because you don't respect them enough to bother trying. How are you so unfamiliar with basic liberal narrative? Your vocabulary and narrative form strongly suggest your perceptions of Democrats and liberalism are defined by the right wing: Seriously—#startmakingsense. You should try showing such tenacity and energy for something other than make believe.
I would acknowledge it if you present it, please what is the counterpoint to my argument again? Your the one that has present no strategy, no plan, other then a vague "fighting" against harassment, misogyny and such. How am I requesting we "take a pass" on such things? Bitching while letting the republicans control everything because you can't sell liberal values sounds like "take a pass" to me, everything you don't want they are doing and everything you say to do to stop them has failed and only granted them more power. I advocate we sell ourselves better, win back the government and then with full government powers we can implement what ever laws you want. Those distractions, you mean racism? That comes from people being in strife, in this cause 2 decades of economic stagnation for the middle and lower classes, humans are fundamentally tribal in nature and under stress they will tribalize and kill each other. How do you plan to attended to the problem of racism? With what force? What means? Just petition to have the statues removed, as they were already being slated for, do not, DO NOT, tear the statues down in a raging mob, holing like apes, that makes the left look like a threat to law and order, and the alt-right wants that. Again what do you propose be done about it? With what means? I have yet to hear you present any solution. Are you insane? Who has more guns, us or them? Who has a pig boar president that appeals to them? Who controls all branches of the federal government? People are going to die, lots of people, and you don't think that is a goddamn problem? Violent protest by the left is precisely what the alt-right want to justify cracking down. You mean like taxing the rich? That is a fight we democrats have been avoiding for some time. No how about now, not 50 years ago? Things change get with the times. Awareness of history you say, lets see who was our presidential candidate a year ago, and is that candidate now president? No, ok who did she lose to? aaah so that facts of NOW are that your wrong. You had your misogyny first "I'm with her" candidate and it failed against a pussy grabbing pig boar. Polling of the aftermath showed we lost the blue wall because people want REAL ECONOMIC CHANGE and as long as we don't run candidates that demand radical economic changes, we will keep losing. Really so I can't find any left wing media talking about it? If left wing media was primary talking about healthcare, the homeless, minimum wage increases, I would not be here complaining. Hey I have an idea lets start talking about economic issues the conservatives don't want us talking about? What use is duty if your dead? If you don't want to negotiate human rights then first we need goverment power to dictate human rights. Are women a hive mind to you? How man women do you think are more concerned about getting healthcare then about getting cat called? I listen to PEOPLE and the general concerns of PEOPLE, and as long as people like you disregard those concerns to say that they need to talk about their privilege and help some minority first because they are the oppressor... well that is how we got to where we are now with total republican domination.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/29/donald-trump-not-a-populist-215552 The current and fashionable critique about Democrats and “cultural elitism” posits a false choice for the party. It cannot and should not downplay the cause of social justice—the fights for compassionate immigration reform, choice, women’s and LGBTQ rights, voting rights and criminal justice reform. They are all part of a seamless commitment to both social and economic justice that is the ground of the Democratic Party’s being. So the imperative now is not to pose each against the other, but to shape and communicate a message that convincingly responds to the needs and hopes of so many pressured and anxious Americans in the heartland who also must be at the heart of our concerns. Never again should Democrats make the mistake of 2016, when, according to Lynn Vavreck at UCLA, only 9 percent of Clinton’s campaign ads focused on jobs, and often in the context of renewable energy. No wonder Clinton lost the decisive Michigan swing area of Macomb County, a bellwether for the country. Democrats have to get places like Macomb back, and they can—Trump offers voters there nothing other than resentment. Democrats, if they are true to their defining values, are the real populists; the challenge is to tell the voters. You can keep your social justice Tiassa, but without economic justice we will not win back the goverment and not be able to implement any justice. If we win back on economic justice do you honestly think we would then roll back social justice causes, let alone not implement social justice solutions?
you know maybe your childish ranting would go over better if you know didn't essentially call black people and hispanics thugs. and before you complain just don't your not stupid and know its a freaking dog whistle.
I called blacks and hispanics thugs? Or did I just call people that cause street violence thugs? Jesus do you get triggered easily.
The Republican voters - the 63 million people who voted for Trump last November - have been voting against economic justice for decades, because it disproportionately benefits black, brown, and red people. Especially women. That's largely why they voted against Clinton. Why do you think that would change now? And why do you think a small fraction of a minority faction of such incompetent and morally debased citizens is more worth pursuing than a larger fraction of the larger numbers of blocked voters, rigged count voters, and non-voters, etc.
Because both cannot be addressed? Do you understand that it is misogyny that affects access to healthcare for women? That it is not just about throwing money at the problem or people for that matter. To wit, access to healthcare for women will not improve if they have more money. Why? Because misogynistic politicians and people who shut down clinics are the ones who are denying those women access to healthcare. The concern about healthcare is based solely on the misogyny of others because it is the misogyny of others that is actually affecting access to healthcare and "getting healthcare". Do you understand that this is the basis of the problem? Yes? No? Or are you one of those who just thinks throwing money at it will somehow fix it? You cannot fix the economy or access to healthcare when said economy and access to healthcare is being denied to women regardless of how much money they have or where they sit on the economic ladder, and is instead denied because of actual misogyny. Misogyny is not just about catcalling and you reducing it to that is an attempt to lessen the actual problem. It is misogyny that is driving the economic issues facing women, just as it is bigotry that is affecting the issues facing minorities and LGBT communities. Until you deal with those issues, you will never ever fix the economy. Except that you are not listening to women. At all. These issues have been flagged for decades and you stupidly believe that just giving them more money will fix it? Perhaps if you started to consider that women were "PEOPLE", you might actually understand what the problem is. Instead of kowtowing to the right because god forbid you offend their delicate sensibilities and instead of appeasing the right and repeating their misogynistic and bigoted talking points and inanely believing that you are offering a solution by focusing on what you think is the economy which is nothing more than giving people money, while ignoring the GIANT ACTUAL FUCKING ISSUE, you might actually get somewhere and be taken seriously.
Oh both can be address, but it is a matter of how much we should address both. Hang nails and cancer can both be address simultaneously, but one is more important, one needs to be address more forcefully then the other. cat calls are not going to end our civilization in a revolutionary war as millions of poor people finally revolt and install a horrific authoritarian goverment, the pillaging of the middle and lower classes by the rich will. So what is affecting millions of men from access to healthcare? Which gets more funding, prostate cancer or breast cancer, fuck who goes to doctors more, men or women? Abortion is not all of healthcare you know that right? You do know there are millions of Americans that have no healthcare what so ever right? Worse your argument basically amounts to "fuck the men, we come first". Well ok how do you think that works when it comes time the vote? Do men vote? Look at the last election, fuck even white women voted more for trump simply because of the "fuck whites, minorities come first" talk of the left, because a majority of white women would rather have a pussy grabbing pig boar as president so long as he makes good on his claims of actually getting them jobs and money to feed their families with and not more of the same lies they are so use to from politician like Clinton. I'm not saying we should just throw money at the problem, I'm saying we need the money first! then we can talk about how to distribute it properly. Do you understand that healthcare is being denied to men, millions of men, that what is being provided for men is overpriced, do you understand this? As long as you deny half of the population have problems they will vote against us. And your not listening to men, at all. Again who is president right now? Do you understand what happens yet when you can't priorities problems? Problem number 1: WE DO NOT CONTROL THE GOVERNMENT! Everything else is secondary right now, because we lack the ability to do anything, other then bitch and whine. Now imagine we had Bernie Sanders, tell me does Bernie not listen to women, is he a misogynist? Are women not people to him? and yet he would have got enough votes because at least he listens to EVERYONE. The millions of poor white male, heck even poor white females are not dissuaded from the left because of their "delicate sensibilities" they are dissuaded because they prioritize their lack of jobs, their student loans, their lack of homes, their lack of healthcare, their lack of a future over microaggressions, transgender bathrooms and sexist office temperatures. They do this because they are sane humans, which your either not or your so privileged in your life that you actually put such problems as worse then bills, food, home, etc. Once again who is president right now? Ok so everything you said is wrong.
I have to ask, why do you keep focusing on catcalls as being the main thing for misogyny? Why? Is it because that is what right wing dumbasses focus on, so you thought you'd throw down along with them? Do you understand that it is misogyny that results in women being denied access to healthcare? Do you understand that the inability to access reproductive healthcare, for example, stems directly from misogyny and the desire to control women's bodies? And you think it's all about the catcalls? You think "fixing the economy" and somehow or other giving women more money is going to fix the problem? You are either naive, stupid or evil if you think that is going to work. Misogyny is the 'cancer'. Throwing money at women with a flippant 'well now you are more economically mobile, all those problems go away', does not actually make the problem go away. Understand now? Money is not going to allow a woman to access reproductive healthcare when misogynists have closed all the clinics down and made the clinics illegal. Understand now? Do you want to know how misogyny will end civilisation or cause it to fail? When women are unable to access reproductive health care and their lives are at risk. Do you want to know how misogynists affect women's lives? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2636458/ https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ortion-mercy-health-partners?CMP=share_btn_tw https://www.vox.com/2016/2/19/11055310/catholic-hospitals-pregnant-women-miscarriage This is the sort of crap the right wishes to establish as normal healthcare for women. And you think making women more financially secure will somehow prevent this from happening? Seriously? You stupidly believe that misogyny is really just about the catcalls? You think 'fixing the economy' is going to somehow make the right's push to make rape a "pre-existing condition" when it comes to rape victims accessing healthcare in the US, all better for those women? This is what misogyny looks like for women: However, the amendment may be particularly devastating to women as it defines sexual assault, postpartum depression, cesarean sections, and domestic abuse as pre-existing conditions that insurance providers can use to deny coverage. The amendment also enables states to strip away preventative health services like mammograms and gynecological screenings. The amendment stands to make survivors of domestic abuse or sexual assault particularly vulnerable to health care discrimination as reporting and seeking treatment for their physical or psychological injuries could result in their insurance being denied or raised. And you think fixing the economy and ignoring that because in your opinion, that's all on par with a "hang nail", is going to make things better for women? Oh I'm sorry, are you whining that men are unable to access reproductive care, miscarriage care, pregnancy care, abortions, contraception? Tell me, EF, how many clinics that test for and scan for prostate cancer have closed in the US in the last 10 years? Do you want to compare that with clinics that scan for breast cancer, uterine and ovarian and cervical cancers? Oh this nugget.. Which has the higher survival rate or longer survival term of the two? Prostate cancer receives less because it tends to affect older men, and does not kill as fast as breast cancers, which can start to kill women in their 20's. Survival rates for prostate cancer: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/prostate-cancer/detection-diagnosis-staging/survival-rates.html Survival rates for breast cancer: http://www.cancer.net/cancer-types/breast-cancer/statistics That is why breast cancer receives more funding.
Who is talking just about abortion? You do understand that reproductive healthcare covers a broad range of subjects, yes? AS for access.. You mean stuff like this, yes? Women with myocardial infarction receive less guideline-based diagnosis and less-invasive treatment than men [3]. Women with heart failure receive fewer guideline-based diagnostic procedures and treatments, and fewer implantations and heart transplantations. Nevertheless women have a better outcome than men [54]. Women with atrial fibrillation receive less anticoagulation treatment with warfarin. Even so, they have a greater risk for stroke than men [51]. Women obtain dialysis later than men, and undergo fewer kidney transplants, both from living and deceased donors [52,53]. There is a significant delay in referral of female patients with rheumatoid arthritis to an early arthritis clinic in comparison with male patients [15]. Osteoporosis and depression are considered female diseases. Both might be under-diagnosed in men [16]. And throwing money at people will do diddly squat when they cannot actually access the healthcare because all the damn clinics are closed. Do you understand this now? At all? Really? So, my telling you that misogyny is at the crux of lack of access to healthcare for women and you come back with a whine that amounts to 'what about the men'? Really? I see that you still fail to recognise that women are human beings... You mean people like you, right? I mean, you are the classic Trump voter. You kowtow to the right and keep repeating their talking points, no matter how wrong they are. You cannot even see women or minorities as human beings. Your failure to even recognise what the problems are.. Instead preferring to focus on the plight of right wing white voters is telling. This is why no one believes you are a Democrat. Because you are more focused on appeasing and pleasing the right wing nutbag white voters above all else, to the point where you are incapable of recognising the fundamental human rights of people who are not 'white and male'. My god, my 12 year old has a better grasp of this than you do. No, really. Money is not going to solve the issue. As I said, tell me how many clinics that scan for prostate cancer or erectile dysfunction have closed in the US and compare that to clinics that provide reproductive healthcare, breast, uterine, cervical and ovarian cancer screenings and then get back to me with that pathetic whine. Tell me how many men are forced to drive for 90 miles with a miscarried foetus sticking out of their vagina's because the local hospital refuses to treat them because the 14 week old foetus still has a heartbeat and the next closest hospital is 90 miles away, and then get back to me on that one, EF. Or tell me how many men are forced by their local hospital to become septic in the course of a miscarriage because they refuse to treat him due to the foetus still having a heartbeat, and then get back to me. I could go on, but your argument and your whining is really pathetic and deserves to be soundly mocked. You are literally advocating for not recognising half of the population as being human beings, because it does not fit into your right wing talking points. Oh but we are. You see, we have no choice. When women's healthcare is stripped from them, it's because the men are talking. Get it now? Men like you. The guy you voted for and who has similar arguments to you? Well of course. Because recognising women and minorities as being human beings should not be the priority to you, eh EF? You don't control the Government because too many people believe just as you do. Frankly, as a woman, I would simply not vote if people such as yourself started spouting the utter rubbish you spout to get the 'left' elected. Your ideology is just as bad as 'that guy in the White House'. You simply cannot recognise that women, for example, are human beings worthy of equal rights. You think just giving them money will fix things and shut them up, while ignoring the actual problem. If Bernie Sanders had run against Trump, it would have been a massacre and Trump would have come out on top even more. Sanders had a major women's problem throughout his campaign, not to mention an issue drawing in minorities to vote for him. He failed to address his "Bernie Bros" fast enough, turned a blind eye at his supporters and sometimes his campaigns misogyny towards Clinton. You want to know why Sanders had a major issue? https://medium.com/@sashastone/bern...trolling-has-fueled-his-movement-1ae35b5b5627 Read it. Or if you want to know about Sanders and women, you can read his essay that he wrote in the 70's about women... I dare you. I guess that's why you found him to be such a good candidate.. Again, if you cannot see that women, minorities and LGBT are human beings worthy of equal rights, you frankly do not deserve to win. But keep kowtowing to the right. And you will never win. The reason he was elected is because people like you preferred to not vote for Clinton and stayed home. He is President because of people such as yourself, who could not imagine that you'd have a President who would actually push an agenda that would recognise women, minorities and LGBT as human beings with rights equal to your own. Instead, you and others like you, preferred to not vote, and then make bigoted whines. You have been doing this since the election. In short, we've seen it all before from you and those like you.
There was no such talk "of the left". All that supposed talk was ascribed to "the left" by the media wing of the "Unnamed" Right, backing the Republican candidate. Why do you keep posting the lies and slanders of Republican propagandists on this forum? Meanwhile:
#harm | #WhatTheyVotedFor Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Click, or not, or, you know, whatever, since none of it actually matters to the right wing. Oh, you're doing this joke again? A'ight, since it's just one more 'round the circle: See #200↑ above. Meanwhile, your uneducated, blithering excuses— —wallowing in fallacy aren't exactly a subtle stink. It's rather quite disingenuous to demand the counterpoint be presented when, in fact, you change the subject whenever it is. An interesting question does arise: Do you understand the relationship between what you say and what else you say? Or, perhaps, do you understand that there is a relationship between what you say and what else you say? That is to say, yeah, we know that economic distress drives other divisions; this fact predates humanity itself, and exists and operates independently of our species. Where you are incapable of closing your own circle without devouring your own posterior shows when your static observations of glaringly obvious history utterly fail under living, dynamic application; for instance, we have another example of your inability to acknowledge where the problems come from: The part of the narrative you're leaving out is the part with a torchlit mob demonstrating for squeaky-wheel purposes in hopes of intimidating local authorities with Nazi chants. Other people turned out to answer. Now then, should those others have answered at all? Because what you can't acknowledge is who brought the problem. Or, like I said: You complain of a "lack of focus on bigger problems", but, as your "specific problem" paragraph reminds, refuse to countenance the reality of these other issues. If meeting conservatives on their struggle for supremacism is, as with the "identity politics" of human rights, a "lack of focus on bigger problems", then you need to acknowledge where those distractions come from and what happens if they are left unattended. You don't like that Democrats and liberals give any attention to these issues? Very well, but why should they in the first place? What's that? The issue is happening regardless, and people's rights, livelihoods, and even lives are on the line? You're complaining↑— Well we are getting confederate statues removed, what a victory, that will totally put money in the pockets of debt riddle poor, working several jobs just toe make ends meets families of America. Look at the spiting, joyest hate as they spit on a lump of copper as if they have accomplished something righteous. It was not even a statue to some slave owner rich prick, but rather a statue to acknowledged the poor southern whites who owned no slaves and were constipated to fight and die in a war for rich man's rights. Oh well symbolic victories is what the regressives are all about. —because, yeah, canceling some more publicly financed tributes to enemies of the Unite States is one thing that happened as a result of people answering the right wing call for government-sponsored white supremacy and anti-Semitism. And yet you're complaining. And you're precisely unable to explain why except to bawl like a right-winger. Oh, God help you if liberals are so "regressive" as to answer Nazi challenges. So, explain, please: When Nazis and other supremacists demand supremacism, why is it "regressive" to refuse? For as much as you complain of problematic facets of the discourse, you refuse to acknowledge where they come from, and are utterly unable to prescribe any useful solution. Changing the subject, for instance, doesn't help, nor does being completely unable to properly acknowledge others. It's quite clear where your sympathies are invested.
Again with your strawman about throwing money at people, my argument is about winning back the goverment: you can do ANYTHING without controlling the goverment, do you understand this now? At all? If we do not prioritize raising the minimum wage, universal healthcare, debt relief, then the republicans will continue to win elections and we won't be able to do anything, once we win then yes of course we can implement programs specific to women as well in the universal healthcare package, do you understand this now, at all? My argument is not "We win and do nothing for women" my arguement is that if you say "fuck you men and fuck you whites", "I'm with her", then we lose EVERYTHING, that we must properly sell our goals to EVERY demographic, do you understand this now, At all? Yes, what about the men? They vote, do you understand this? At all? Pathetic ad homium. Tell me when your out trying to promote the democratic party is that your counter argument, do you say to a potential voters "Well clearly you don't recognize women are human beings" I would put good bets that not only cost us that persons vote but everyone vote within ear shot. Yes yes, universal healthcare, higher wages, free education, basic income garentee, pollution control, CO2 tax, renewable energy initiative, legalize drugs, reduce police powers, pro-abortion, gay marriage... yes that is right wing talking points. What you are doing now is attack me, the messenger, you not attack my argument that we LOSE with your strategy of telling males and whites and straights and cis to check their privilege, you can't attack my argument because reality proves my argument is correct. So I could be a demon from hell for it is matters, go one, call me a nazi next, does not change the fact I'm right and you are what has destroyed the left and given us a pig boar for president. First of all not every single white person is right wing, do you know that right, there are a percentage of them we can get votes from, you do know this right? and more with these ad homiums, I don't care you don't think I'm a democrat, does not change the fact I'm right and your are what help elect trump. Tell me how much money goes to protest cancer verse breast cancer, go on, tell me. Are their any clinics reproductive healthcare clinics that even test for prostate and testicular cancer? When talking about clinics for reproductive healthcare, might as well be talking about women's health clinics, are there any men's health clinics? Ok and what do you want to do about it? bitch and whine? Or win back the goverment do something about it? no, bitch and whine, I got it, I understand. I would get aback the goverment on an economic justice platform and then implement pro-choice laws that would provide women those rights, you on the other hand would rather tell every man they hate women, run un-electable LOSER candidates, and then sit their and bitch and whine about problems you help cause by helping to elect the other-side, so then at least you can virtue signal. This is beyond ad homium, this is slander Tell me: what choices do men have?
I voted for him now? You going to deny I voted for Hillary Clinton now? Your saying I have similar arguments to him, name those arguments could you, be specific... the level of slander coming from you is unseemly, pathetic. Oh I don't control the goverment, but I thought you believe I voted for trump and that I spout right wing talking points, so then would I not control the goverment? So basically your like those Bernie voters that did not suck it up and vote Hillary? Slander, devoid of counter argument to me. Bullshit, Bernie is the most like American politician alive now, he was polling over 10% points above trump much of the time in hypothetical match ups, Hillary could not even mange above 4%. None the less we will never know, what we do know with 100% certainty is that Hillary lost to he pig boar. So if we could repeate history you would rather go with the candidate that we know would lose rather then the one you in your hatefill spite claim would lose? Oh I was there, hit piece blogs like that was the best that could be produced against Bernie. Yeah and Hillary let off a pedophile as a lawyer http://www.activistpost.com/2016/01...s-about-getting-a-pedophile-off-the-hook.html Are their women that have rape fantasies? do you deny such women exist? Are women human beings with varying opinions and varying interested and varying fetish, or are women a hive mind of which they all think like you? Denying basic reality is another reason we got here with president trump. Everyone knows the man is a pig, but we spent too much time attacking him as a pig and not enough time pointing out we had better economic policies then his "Wall" and "I'll make us win again!" You are a prefect example, you attack me as a person you make up horrible slander, but you present no counter argument, none, for how to win back the goverment, you merely want to use the same strategy of slander devoid of policy, despite how epically it has failed. This is an ad hominium you have construct, it is a complete lie and is total slander. I might as well say you hate jews and want to murder jews, that would be the same level of disgusting claim. You have yet to present a argument for how I am "Kowtowing to the right". No, I voted for Clinton, while there were some bernie voters that did sit out, there were millions of former Obama voters that switch to Trump. Particularity in what was once the "blue wall" of what were once white industrial workers, white uneducated lower class, who people like you give zero fucks, thus giving Trump more votes then Mite Romney, enough electoral votes to win. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article147475484.html Those Obama-Trump voters, in fact, effectively accounted for more than two-thirds of the reason Clinton lost, according to Matt Canter, a senior vice president of the Democratic political firm Global Strategy Group. In his group’s analysis, about 70 percent of Clinton’s failure to reach Obama’s vote total in 2012 was because she lost these voters. Honestly I laughed at this comment from you. Why do you hate jews so much Bells? Look at your self just shivering with rage screaming "why are you not in a gas chamber!?!?"
That entire statistical analysis is invalid - it rests on known falsehoods and biases, and does not correct for them. And you have already been informed of that fact. Furthermore, Clinton's vote total did not fall much below Obama's - http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-election-final-20161209-story.html No, there almost certainly were not . There were some, but few. In addition, the appeasement conclusions you try to draw from such a reality, had it existed, would not follow. You keep posting wingnut propaganda, for one thing. Like this: (Is there a single item of wingnut bs you have not suckered for? ) And you recommend following their lead and imitating their approach to government, because you think that will appease their voter base and induce them to switch Parties. Why do you think that?
(#hint) | #WhatTheyVotedFor Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Click because monotony is a better 'menomenon. Who here is treating Jews the way you're selling out the human rights of women?
Once again.. You will never win back government with your talking points. On the one hand, your talking points are simply stupid and dumb. But the main issue is that it is downright dumb and idiotic. Do you want to know why? Because your talking points appease the right and in doing so, you are literally arguing that women, minorities and LGBT are less deserving of human rights. Why? Because you are so focused on obtaining the white male vote. That is your sole purpose. You don't care about anyone else. Instead, you claim that if your side wins, then you can just throw money at women, minorities and LGBT and all will be right in the world, while diminishing and demeaning their existence and what the bigotry they experience on a daily basis. *Snore* Once again.. You will never win if you completely ignore more than half of the voter base and declare that what matters to them is not as important as "economy", while inanely and stupidly ignoring that what affects their economic prospects in the first place stems from bigotry. Do you understand this part yet? Or are you going to rifle through the rest of your right wing talking points and claiming to be a democrat? And it is telling that you view recognising that women, minorities and LGBT are equal is somehow saying "fuck you men and fuck you whites". That is why no one takes you and your whining seriously. What about them? You do realise that viewing women as being equal that it does not detract the rights of males, yes? Because you seem to believe that if women's fundamental human rights are recognised, that it somehow or other detracts rights from men. Which kind of goes to the very heart of the argument of the right and their misogyny. Why do you keep repeating it? I argue that women are equal human beings and your response is tantamount to 'but what about the men'.. When you are selling out women, minorities and LGBT, and their fundamental human rights, do you think you are going to win? If you look at the voter breakdown, educated women, be they white or minority, voted overwhelmingly for Clinton. Uneducated white women voted overwhelmingly for Trump. Why do you think that is? You think it's about the economy? No, it isn't. It is actually about maintaining the status quo. Because those white women want to ensure a system that even though they are poor, only they will have a better chance at climbing the economic ladder. They voted for economic policies that would benefit them above minorities. And that is what you also do not understand. Do you honestly think that the uneducated white voters would support a politician that recognised minorities as being equal to them? They preferred to vote against their best interest in regards to healthcare and access to welfare, because they viewed Trump's policies as protecting white interests. And you think your spiel of 'universal healthcare' is going to win them over? You won't. On the contrary, they will vote against you because you are applying it 'to all'. So you abasing yourself to win them over will see you lose educated women, minorities and LGBT voters, not to mention lose the uneducated white voters who will always vote to ensure the status quo. And you think poor white people will vote for this? Heh! They were literally being offered this in the last election in many ways and they chose to vote against it. Do you want to know why? It is because minorities and LGBT and women would also have equal access to it. Something something about "tribalism" goes here. And you think catering to just those voters will win you the next election? It won't, because you will have isolated everyone else. And the more people like you keep spouting the same BS, the more you will lose your actual base voters, because you seem to be more interested in the white male vote and you are willing to sell the fundamental human rights of everyone else up the creek to get that white male vote. Well first of all, I am an Australian. Second of all, you have presented every right wing talking points and arguments and tried to claim you were a 'left' Democrat. You have even attempted to push false stories and misrepresentations that were common on right wing pundit shows in US media and their websites. And again, you completely ignore the fact that you failed to gain those votes in the last election where their economic prospects would have improved. What you completely fail to understand is the reasoning behind it. To wit, if you keep ignoring those reasons, you will never get anywhere. In fact, if you keep ignoring those reasons and dismissing them, you will lose even more voters. You didn't click on any of the links provided, did you? And I explained why breast cancer gets more funding over prostate cancer. Prostate cancer tends to affect older men and their survival rates is much higher than breast cancer, which can and does affect very young women and is more often deadly, along with a higher recurrence rate than that for prostate cancer. Secondly, Planned Parenthood and clinics like it offer women, be they poor or rich, easier access to cancer screenings. Prostate cancer requires bending over and coughing and/or a blood test. Breast cancer requires a mammogram and often an ultrasound, the same applies to other types of cancers that affect women. Which is why they have to go to particular types of clinics. Understand now? When those clinics are closed, women, regardless of their economic prospects, lose access to these types of cancer screenings. And those clinics are closing. Unless of course in your zeal to deny women their fundamental human rights and even recognise them as human beings, you want to close even more clinics because hey, giving them more access to equal wage will make everything better for them?
