P.S. Please stop it with voting for Trump. It was funny for a little while. But the guy is Hitler. And by that I mean that we are being Germany in the 30s. Do you think they saw the shit coming? Hitler was just some hilarious and refreshing dude with a weird comb over who would say anything at all.
And I’m not advocating for Hillary or Bernie. I like them both but frankly I wish the next president was a conservative only because we had Obama for eight years and we need balance. And not because I particularly enjoy the conservative agenda. I just think the government should reflect the people. And we are about 40 percent conservative and 40 percent liberal. When I was growing up and when I was a younger man, liberals and conservatives were friends with differences. They weren’t enemies. And it always made sense that everyone gets a president they like for a while and then hates the president for a while. But it only works if the conservatives put up a good candidate. A good smart conservative to face the liberal candidate so they can have a good argument and the country can decide which way to go this time.
Trump is not that. He’s an insane bigot. He is dangerous.
He already said he would expand libel laws to sue anyone who “writes a negative hit piece” about him. He says “I would open up the libel laws so we can sue them and win lots of money. Not like now. These guys are totally protected.” He said that. He has promised to decimate the first amendment. (If you think he’s going to keep the second amendment intact you’re delusional.) And he said that Paul Ryan, speaker of the house will “pay” for criticizing him. So I’m saying this now because if he gets in there we won’t be able to criticize him anymore. Please pick someone else. Like John Kasich. I mean that guy seems okay. I don’t like any of them myself but if you’re that kind of voter please go for a guy like that. It feels like between him and either democrat we’d have a decent choice. It feels like a healthier choice. We shouldn’t have to vote for someone because they’re not a shocking cunt billionaire liar.
We should choose based on what direction the country should go.
I get that all these people sound like bullshit soft criminal opportunists. The whole game feels rigged and it’s not going anywhere but down anymore. I feel that way sometimes.
I enjoy many of Louie's performances, but preferring a brand label conservative for balance reeks of white male "neutral" = no skin in the game (NOT a definition, just a category). Even walking is the practice of controlled imbalance.
That's a fairly obstructionist way of looking at it. Louie isn't arguing for a Kasich administration, he's arguing for a Kasich nomination. Putting anyone but Trump forth as the GOP nominee would deter the legitimacy that a Trump nomination offers to the racism that his campaign celebrates. The GOP line up right now is Hitler (Trump), Jefferson Davis (Cruz), William McKinley (Marco Rubio) (you might not know him but trust me he's a bad dude) and Ronald Reagan (Kasich). If you're voting in the Republican primary with that line up, how do you vote for anyone but Reagan?
How can you read "I wish the next president was a conservative only because we had Obama for eight years and we need balance" as not suggesting that a non-Trump GOP candidate should win the general?
I don't want to be the Lorax speaking for the trees, but I have some friends in bad situations who are feeling really frustrated with the Democrats for a lack of progress. Frustrated enough that they're willing to give up, especially with Clinton looking to lock up the nomination. I worry how many others feel the same way because if a bunch of people who should vote Dem just stay home feeling like it doesn't matter, that might let Trump win or let the GOP win important Senate races.
I don't want to be the Lorax speaking for the trees, but I have some friends in bad situations who are feeling really frustrated with the Democrats for a lack of progress. Frustrated enough that they're willing to give up, especially with Clinton looking to lock up the nomination. I worry how many others feel the same way because if a bunch of people who should vote Dem just stay home feeling like it doesn't matter, that might let Trump win or let the GOP win important Senate races.
Remind them that while they might feel disheartened, there's a lot of people around America for whom it's a fuck of a lot more important than their feeling a bit mopey because their guy didn't win. Yeah, it's gonna suck for white people if Trump or Cruz get in, but it's going to suck a whole lot worse for basically every minority across the board.
If they believe in what they say they believe in, as in why they support Bernie, then they must realize that the dems taking the general is more important than their (quite possibly grossly misinformed, if current trends are any indication) dislike for Hillary and having a fucking pout about it.
If they don't vote, they're basically making themselves complicit in whatever the republicans do if they win, Trump or Cruz.
I tend to agree, that holding up the "firewall" is all the more important as the GOP goes further off the deep end, but I understand their frustration as well.
I don't want to be the Lorax speaking for the trees, but I have some friends in bad situations who are feeling really frustrated with the Democrats for a lack of progress. Frustrated enough that they're willing to give up, especially with Clinton looking to lock up the nomination. I worry how many others feel the same way because if a bunch of people who should vote Dem just stay home feeling like it doesn't matter, that might let Trump win or let the GOP win important Senate races.
Deciding whether to go to the polls or not based on the Presidential candidates is stupid, especially in our home state Massachusetts. Alexander Hamilton decided our votes don't matter and in the last 250 years we haven't gotten around to fixing that. But there's more on the ballot than the President. MA has 22 questions on the ballot this year. It is essential to go to the polls to weigh in on these questions. They are the only direct influence citizens have over policy, and each individual vote has a huge effect on the outcome in comparison to just about everything else on the ballot. It is imperative to vote on these issues, so why not take the extra three seconds to check the Democrat in the Presidential race?
I tend to agree, that holding up the "firewall" is all the more important as the GOP goes further off the deep end, but I understand their frustration as well.
I certainly understand it, but I can't be too sympathetic - like I said, not fucking over everyone else is more important than their frustration at their candidate losing. Being upset that your candidate lost doesn't mean you have to take your hurt feelings out on everyone else.
Not to mention, like I said, most of the anger they have towards her is likely based on complete and utter nonsense, which just makes it worse, really. People chucking their toys out of the pram based on a complete and utter fiction.
Fun fact: Each time I vote, I have to show proof of citizenship. Not just a photo ID and voter registration. They don't ask that from a single white-passing person standing in line with me. You know, in liberal New England, not Arizona.
Fun fact: Each time I vote, I have to show proof of citizenship. Not just a photo ID and voter registration. They don't ask that from a single white-passing person standing in line with me. You know, in liberal New England, not Arizona.
I know white Australian people who have immigrated, still have strong accents, and I'll give you three guesses as to what they're not asked for when trying to vote. First two don't count.
A vote for Bernie is a vote, effectively, for the status quo (in the short/mid term). A vote for Hillary is a vote for essentially the same status quo, with possibly small progress.
A vote for any Republican is a vote for the status quo for middle class and up white men, and a vote for specific and immediate harm to women and minorities.
So how do we know what Louis CK is thinking? Based on the thread here, he is advocating that we have occasional progress, balanced out by occasional harm to women and minorities. Do we call it privilege with the assumption that he doesn't know he is directly advocating harm, because he is a famous person and you enjoy his comedy, and hope he would agree with you "if only he knew?" Or is he equivalent of a racist/MRA/etc.?
Here's the thing: What hurts the most is not voting in the mid-terms, especially in years that end in 0, since that's when congressional districts are redrawn. Peopole need to give a shit more often than every 4 years.
Here's the thing: What hurts the most is not voting in the mid-terms, especially in years that end in 0, since that's when congressional districts are redrawn. Peopole need to give a shit more often than every 4 years.
Bingo. Your vote for President usually doesn't matter. It's a minuscule portion of the voting body and its significance is further trampled on by the Electoral College. For those outside Ohio, Florida, etc. swing states, your Congressional vote will have a far greater impact on policy. I'd be all over my Congressional elections but we don't have a Senatorial race and my district's Representative is running unopposed.
Here's the thing: What hurts the most is not voting in the mid-terms, especially in years that end in 0, since that's when congressional districts are redrawn. Peopole need to give a shit more often than every 4 years.
If you view the government like a watch - assuming, like a watch, the government works most of the time - it's kind of like pulling out the drive gear, or the second drive gear. One is more important than the other, but breaking either of them still results in your watch being screwed.
I'm glad my "all politics start local" argument is starting to win the day. It was so horrific winning the 2008 election to get slaughtered in the 2009,2010 and 2011 elections to win in 2012 and get beat the crap out of in 2013, 2014 and 2015 (though PA did pretty good in 2015 the rest of the country didn't :-p)
So how do we know what Louis CK is thinking? Based on the thread here, he is advocating that we have occasional progress, balanced out by occasional harm to women and minorities. Do we call it privilege with the assumption that he doesn't know he is directly advocating harm, because he is a famous person and you enjoy his comedy, and hope he would agree with you "if only he knew?" Or is he equivalent of a racist/MRA/etc.?
Are those my only options?
(Emoticon broke the forum & lost part of post)
If the flood level rises, it probably won't touch him. He can think, feel, and act in ignorance of anyone who would be hurt. Or he can think of them abstractly, hypothetically, allowing him the luxury of ideology (the rhetorical virtue of balance) trumping people's experiences (pragmatic and observable suffering). I have no judgement on who he is as a person, but his statements reveal a level of insulation, aka privilege.
As an aside, racism, sexism, etc. are not categorical binaries, but rather ubiquitous elements of culture which we all absorb and emit, with varying levels of awareness and restraint. I mentioned enjoying some of his work as a shorthand for saying my disagreement wasn't personal.
Yea, people have been trying to read into this all day, but really seems like something she mixed up when she was trying to talk about nice things about Nancy Reagan cause you know they were both first ladies and such. People keep trying to say she did this purposely to change the history of Nancy Reagan but that is total nosense. What could she have to gain by pissing off one of her most supportive groups to give a compliment to the dead first lady who didn't deserve it. She also didn't repeat this on her other interviews.
That said it was a stupid comment and she apologized. But the Left likes to eat their own.
Comments
"Balance" between the modern American left and right is an inherently destructive aim.
Also, someone tell Rush his Waifu is not real.
If they believe in what they say they believe in, as in why they support Bernie, then they must realize that the dems taking the general is more important than their (quite possibly grossly misinformed, if current trends are any indication) dislike for Hillary and having a fucking pout about it.
If they don't vote, they're basically making themselves complicit in whatever the republicans do if they win, Trump or Cruz.
Not to mention, like I said, most of the anger they have towards her is likely based on complete and utter nonsense, which just makes it worse, really. People chucking their toys out of the pram based on a complete and utter fiction.
Fun fact: Each time I vote, I have to show proof of citizenship. Not just a photo ID and voter registration. They don't ask that from a single white-passing person standing in line with me. You know, in liberal New England, not Arizona.
A vote for Hillary is a vote for essentially the same status quo, with possibly small progress.
A vote for any Republican is a vote for the status quo for middle class and up white men, and a vote for specific and immediate harm to women and minorities.
(Emoticon broke the forum & lost part of post)
If the flood level rises, it probably won't touch him. He can think, feel, and act in ignorance of anyone who would be hurt. Or he can think of them abstractly, hypothetically, allowing him the luxury of ideology (the rhetorical virtue of balance) trumping people's experiences (pragmatic and observable suffering). I have no judgement on who he is as a person, but his statements reveal a level of insulation, aka privilege.
As an aside, racism, sexism, etc. are not categorical binaries, but rather ubiquitous elements of culture which we all absorb and emit, with varying levels of awareness and restraint. I mentioned enjoying some of his work as a shorthand for saying my disagreement wasn't personal.
That said it was a stupid comment and she apologized. But the Left likes to eat their own.