The Knights Who Say Cuck rally around Trump in wake of KKK controversy

Well, that didn’t take long.

I almost didn’t post that last comment, but I honestly thought this forum would be different. Funny thing is, in more right-leaning circles, I’m attacked as a left-wing socialist/feminist when I say the exact same things. Blind bias exists everywhere, including within myself (I can admit it), so it’s not really a surprise.

Nothing to lose sleep over, though, right?

I am, in fact, highly biased towards marginalized people in your country not being shit on any more than they already are.

@JK

Actually, for those people who are actually directly impacted by whichever ‘surface platform’ happens to be in office, it really is something to lose sleep over. The fact you just gloss over it when people offer you concrete examples of that is very telling.

I don’t think blaming Nader for Gore’s shitty campaign and Bush’s friends in the Supreme Court helping him steal the election is a very viable explanation.

FFS Gore couldn’t even win his home state!

There are significant differences between the two ruling parties and among the various candidates. I would have preferred Gore over Bush, or Kerry over Bush. That these two elections were close enough to steal is an indictment of the American electorate.

Certainly the many roadblocks to keep people from voting never helps. I can’t understand why the problems identified with the election system have remain unaddressed to this day.

http://blackboxvoting.org/

@Joe

Ok, now you’re just trolling. Kindly fuck off.

To the left, to the left…

The guy who sees no difference between the party trying to remove my bodily atonomy and the one defending it thinks we’re as mean as terrorists who send death threats as a way to completely silence feminists.

At least he is consistent.

The Clinton emails:

Now, I’m not saying she should have used her personal email servers. But, as someone who has been a .gov.uk email user during that period of time, I can not only understand the temptation, I can admit to doing government business over personal email – because it was FASTER, EASIER and JUST AS SECURE as using my .gov.uk email. BTW, I didn’t share anyone’s personal information – it was just to arrange meetings, get stuff done, etc when I wasn’t in the office. Using gov equipment would sometimes take a half hour or more just to get to my email – if I even could get to my email. Sometimes it wasn’t possible. It’s not like it is today when (some) people can simply access their gov email from a mobile device. Not that long ago, it just wasn’t that easy and for some people on ancient gov kit, it’s still not that easy. Yes, I was in no way in as sensitive a position as Sec of State Clinton was. And yes, what I did and what she did is JUST as FOIable (except I wasn’t at an FOIable body, but never mind that, we assumed that if anyone asked we’d just hand over the data).

The eeeevil nature of politicians:

I’ve never worked directly with US politicians on any extensive basis, so it might be different. However, I have worked with British politicians at local and national level and had exposure to current and worked with former ministers. Some of them – a few of them – are vile individuals and this has relatively little to do with their espoused policies and whether I agreed with them or not. But most of them are actually really hard-working, pragmatic and often very nice individuals who just happen to like attention and institutional power more than most people. Yes, sometimes they end up saying and doing things that they’d rather not, but everyone – everyone gets captured by the grind of government. Some of them, as I said are nasty, nasty people. But most of them aren’t. And believe it or not, most of them really do want to make things better. I just might not agree with what they think is better or if I do, how to get there.

However, stated platforms and policies DO matter. I don’t chose who I work with on projects based solely on that, but I certainly choose who to vote for and support based on that.

And the context matters, too. I don’t have the vote in the UK and I when I do I would definitely struggle to vote for someone who wasn’t strongly pro-choice and I would never vote for someone who is anti-choice . However, choice isn’t endangered in law or practice here in the UK in the same way that it currently is in the US. So I always, always vote solely on that criteria in the US. And that is why the Democratic party is always preferable to the Republican party to me and why they can never be ‘the same’ in my mind. Without the liberty to terminate an unwanted (or ill-fated) pregnancy – pretty much all other women’s rights for fertile women of child-bearing (or pre-child-bearing) age don’t mean much.

Lea, Luzbelitx, Patricia Kayden, rugbyyogi: you are inspiring people. Thank you for existing.

Somewhat O/T but to all Mamotheers of the Valleys, Happy St David’s Day!!!!!

http://www.visitwales.com/~/media/f581f7addeb2481c9e60c486c853387b.ashx?as=0&h=350&w=1024

Curse you WordPress, you win again!

Ah well, you can never have enough daffodils.

Everyone has their particular favourite flavours of political ice cream. Some like vanilla fiscal policy with little mint foreign policy chunks; others like butterscotch social welfare swirl. Our priorities are informed by our place in life, and that’s fine – expected and required, actually.

The whole point of social justice is recognizing that the butterscotch swirl is out, and there are a lot of people who really really want a new bucket opened, and asking the nice people behind the counter to do it, even if I myself don’t like it.

It’s the ability to recognize issues that are not your own that is so difficult, and so important. That’s the issue, Joe. There are a huge amount of people who are desperate for their butterscotch swirl, and you’re suggesting that we might as well all leave cause the vanilla mint is out. I think, anyways?

The main point is that I miss ice cream :c

You might be referring to the corrupting influence of money in politics. This is certainly an issue, and it worms into *everything*! It basically lets wealthy people buy politicians wholesale, which ripples out to impact everything else that government touches, because it prevents politicians from voting according to their constituents or platforms. They have to vote according to their donors if they want to get re-elected.

Hillary’s got issues, and the email thing looks like an enormous problem – it’s not at all like the Benghazi nonsense, which the republicans have pretty much openly admitted was manufactured to cause her issues. No, the email thing is being researched by the FBI, and every movement of sensitive information to her private email server is apparently a felony, not to mention the fact that the FBI has very strong suspicions that it was hacked by foreign governments. If Hillary gets the nomination and the FBI decides to press something (and they have pretty strong republican ties too…), she’s unelectable, and it’ll be Trump, Rubio or Cruz, all of which are terrifying.

I think Hillary would be a status-quo president like Obama, who will follow the lead of the american people without making waves – not terrible, but not great. Bernie would be much more progressive, but would face obstruction – but he’s already shown a willingness to fight the Republicans that Obama lacks. Tricky, but I’d vote Bernie.

And that’s my two cents! Sorry for the long post – I am stuck in a coffee shop waiting for a dumb skype meeting that was moved to skype *after* I drove into the city. Nice.

@WWTH So you’d argue that, say, an Iraqi who says that he doesn’t see much of a difference between Bush and Obama is privileged? How exactly does privilege explain the fact that voter participation correlates with socio-conomic status as well as race?

Although I do see some differences between democrats and republicans on some issues, on issues like foreign policy, they’re fundamentally in agreement (although they may disagree on tactics, they pretty much in agreement on goals), they both adhere to neoliberal economic policy. Both parties poo-poo the notion of single-payer healthcare. The ACA is best understood as a stalling measure to placate the public while hoping that it’ll be content with that. In that respect, republican politicians are more honest than democrat politicians about their intentions. Your defense of democrats on homosexuality completely erases Clinton’s legacy, for instance, the introduction of “don’t ask, don’t tell” or Hilary’s own views towards gay marriage. While democrats aren’t openly hostile to reproductive rights, their erosion has largely occurred during democrat administrations.

While democrats aren’t openly hostile to reproductive rights, their erosion has largely occurred during democrat administrations.

… But authored and pushed through entirely by Republican politicians aiming to obstruct Obama, make him look shitty and/or ineffectual, punish the electorate for voting “Wrongly” and produce memes like this. It’s not like they’re shy about admitting this; they “Warned” us about these “Consequences” before the damn elections. (Which is the dictionary definition of terrorism, by the way.)

Also: “Democrat politicians,” “Democrat administrations”? Really, you’re going with that?