There, I liked your post. Does that make it valid?
And I know you have trouble absorbing information, but I’m obviously not a doc. Duh.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
CycleTrack and SDN are teaming up to make medical school admissions more transparent and accessible! Read the announcement to learn how we’re supporting the future of CycleTrack’s free application-tracking tools .
Will Trump win again???
Started by Planktonmd
Get help with your application
Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.
- Status
There, I liked your post. Does that make it valid?
And I know you have trouble absorbing information, but I’m obviously not a doc. Duh.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ahh, things are much clearer now....
Wait, are judging someone by their group again and not on individual merit?
Yeah, sounds about right.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
To your point, do you have something of merit to submit, as nothing has presented itself to this point....
Wow us with your fears of scholarship, conquering of academia and your personal favorite, a titan of industry and capitalism...can’t wait to read this illustrious CV.
Huh?
I said I’m starting to like you, but my small little effete, non-MD mind has trouble understanding what you’re even saying sometimes.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited:
D
deleted171991
I am sorry, but Buttigieg would be considered nice even if he were a woman. And I couldn't stand Harris even as a man.
I personally do not like EITHER alpha males or females. That's usually the definition of an arse. I am an old-fashioned guy who likes a woman who envelops me in her estrogen, not her testosterone (which brings out my own testosterone and viciousness, basic instinct). One can be a strong leader even as a woman, without imitating men, like Pelosi.
Last edited by a moderator:
Pew:
Fox News:
Gallup:
The Gallup 55% of independents supporting impeachment and removal is an interesting number. Would not have thought it was that high.
For some context, the highest number Nixon reached for impeachment before he resigned was 58%
Fox News:
Gallup:
The Gallup 55% of independents supporting impeachment and removal is an interesting number. Would not have thought it was that high.
For some context, the highest number Nixon reached for impeachment before he resigned was 58%
That’s great that you feel that way. I appreciate that you don’t have sexist thoughts or behaviors.
My comments weren’t directly to you, hence why I said "in general."
If you can’t recognize that sexism exists against women and how they behave vs how men to behave, I recommend that you read up about it. Just like if Obama were to say he likes to grab women by the p*ssy everyone would be outraged and he never would’ve been elected, the same is true if a woman politician said she liked to grab men by the d*ck. That was the point of my comment since you brought up niceness.
People in this thread have said they don’t care that trump isn’t nice, in general women don’t get that same courtesy. They must be nice first and then their actual leadership or job skills will be evaluated.
Just like with the racism discussion I’m not accusing every white man as being horrible. I was just bringing up an important topic and one I’ve experienced first hand.
Polls mean nothing just a tool used in politics to help sway public opinion.
Lamb to the slaughter
D
deleted50478
There are 2 sides to the issue as I see it.
A: There are women in leadership roles that are thought to be overly rude because they are women and the same behavior in men would go over better without push-back.
B: There are also women in leadership roles who are just b——es but tell themselves everyone hates them because they are strong women when actually they would also hate a man who acts the same way.
The problem is they almost all think they’re in group A while plenty are actually in group B.
Good lord, hopefully I can clear this up for the last time in this thread.
Please look at the following:
It's important to realize that presidential polls of likely voters are a surrogate for the final popular vote tally, not for the electoral college result. Do not be fooled by the fact that the popular vote tally and electoral college tally 'usually' correlate. National polls of likely voters are not designed to predict EC statistical anomalies like Trump winning by 77,000 votes combined in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan.
The range of polling in the week before the election was Trump +3 to Clinton +6. The final polling average was Clinton +3.2 and the actual popular vote was Clinton +2.1. It's not like there was some magnificent error in the polls that justifies all the people who like to shout that "the polls were wrong! I don't trust the polls! blah blah" In actuality, there was a magnificent error in peoples' perception of how strongly the polls signaled a Clinton EC win.
Please look at the following:
It's important to realize that presidential polls of likely voters are a surrogate for the final popular vote tally, not for the electoral college result. Do not be fooled by the fact that the popular vote tally and electoral college tally 'usually' correlate. National polls of likely voters are not designed to predict EC statistical anomalies like Trump winning by 77,000 votes combined in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan.
The range of polling in the week before the election was Trump +3 to Clinton +6. The final polling average was Clinton +3.2 and the actual popular vote was Clinton +2.1. It's not like there was some magnificent error in the polls that justifies all the people who like to shout that "the polls were wrong! I don't trust the polls! blah blah" In actuality, there was a magnificent error in peoples' perception of how strongly the polls signaled a Clinton EC win.
Ok. I never said that every single woman is a perfect leader and shouldn’t be criticized. I said there is plenty of research on sexism and the behavior of women in the workplace and leadership positions is judged differently and more harshly than men. I specifically brought it up since someone said that Buttigieg is nicer than Harris, while plenty of people have also said that trump not being nice doesn’t matter.
There of plenty of men AND women that are sh*tty but women in general don’t get the same courtesy of ignoring behaviors that men do. There is plenty of research on sexism.
I disagree and almost certainly think the problem favors A, but even if I didn't- how fair an assessment do you think the problem actually gets in America when all the fortune 500 companies only have 24 women CEOs among them, and the entirety of Congress is made up of less than 1/4 women.
Get over it!
nymag.com
Trump Believes He Has a Mandate for Tyranny
Given the vast powers Trump thinks voters gave him in 2016, what will he be like if he wins reelection? The mind reels.
nymag.com
Get over it!
Trump Believes He Has a Mandate for Tyranny
Given the vast powers Trump thinks voters gave him in 2016, what will he be like if he wins reelection? The mind reels.
The coward Mulvaney tries to walk back the comments from his disastrous "let's admit to high crimes" tirade a few hours later, however the Trump store is still selling $30 Get Over It tshirts
Donald J. Trump - Make America Great Again
shop.donaldjtrump.com
The deplorables don't care if the traitor in chief commits treason, makes Russia great again or releases ISIS prisoners from the middle East.The coward Mulvaney tries to walk back the comments from his disastrous "let's admit to high crimes" tirade a few hours later, however the Trump store is still selling $30 Get Over It tshirts
View attachment 283887
Donald J. Trump - Make America Great Again
He could shoot someone on 5th Ave and still get their vote
D
deleted171991
That's what he keeps saying.
On Day 1,001, Trump Made It Clear: Being ‘Presidential’ Is Boring
If he acted “presidential,” Mr. Trump said Thursday night in Dallas, “everybody would be out of here so fast.”
President Trump walking onto the stage at a rally Thursday in Dallas. Anna Moneymaker/The New York Times
By Peter Baker
Oct. 18, 2019
DALLAS — At one point during one of his most unpresidential of days, President Trump insisted that he knew how to be presidential.
“It’s much easier being presidential, it’s easy,” he told a stadium full of more than 20,000 boisterous supporters in MAGA hats and T-shirts cheering his every word on Thursday night. “All you have to do is act like a stiff.”
He buttoned his suit coat, pursed his lips, squared his shoulders and dropped his arms rigidly at his sides. “Ladies and gentlemen of Texas,” he then droned in a sleep-inducing staccato monotone the way he imagined most of the other 44 presidents had done. “It is a great honor to be with you this evening.”
The crowd loved it, roaring with laughter. Transforming back into the unpresidential president America has come to know, Mr. Trump added, “And everybody would be out of here so fast! You wouldn’t come in in the first place!” Being presidential, he was saying, is so boring. Who wants that?
After 1,000 days in office, Mr. Trump has redefined what it means to be presidential. On the 1,001st day of his tenure, which was Thursday, all pretense of normalcy went out the window. It was a day when he boasted of saving “millions of lives” by temporarily stopping a Middle East war that he effectively allowed to start in the first place, then compared the combatants to children who had to be allowed to slug each other to get it out of their system.
It was a day when he announced without any evident embarrassment that officials of the federal government that answers to him had scoured the country for a site for next year’s Group of 7 summit meeting and determined that the perfect location, the very best site in all the United States, just happened to be a property he owned in Florida.
Supporters of Mr. Trump at the rally.CreditAnna Moneymaker/The New York Times
It was a day when he sent out his top aide, an adviser who has served as “acting” White House chief of staff for nearly 10 months without ever being granted the respect of earning the title outright, to try to quell the whole impeachment furor, only to have him essentially admit the quid pro quo that the president had so adamantly denied.
It was a day that ended with a rally where one of the warm-up acts, the Texas lieutenant governor, declared that liberals “are not our opponents, they are our enemy,” and the president called the speaker of the House “crazy,” a rival candidate “very dumb,” a House committee chairman a “fraud” and the governor of another state a “crackpot.”
After 1,000 days of the Trump Show, the capacity for surprise has long since diminished and comments or actions that would have set off days of front-page coverage and howls from Capitol Hill now barely register. The shocker that consumed Twitter three hours ago is so quickly overwhelmed by the next one that it seems impossible to digest any single moment to assess its meaning or consequences.
“Unconventional” was the word the president himself used repeatedly on Thursday.
He used it specifically to describe his let-them-go-to-war policy with respect to two American allies, Turkey and the Kurds, followed by a cease-fire days later. All part of the plan, he assured Americans. Just a little “tough love” to get the two sides to resolve their differences.
Never mind that their differences are nowhere near solved, even as bodies are strewn in northern Syria, Kurds are forced out of their homes and Russia, Iran, Bashar al-Assad and even the Islamic State are celebrating.
“We were a little bit unconventional,” Mr. Trump explained, offering his foreign policy doctrine in a setting that was itself a little bit unconventional, a Louis Vuitton workshop near Keene, Texas, where they make Parisian bags while cattle graze outside. The president had stopped by in between a Fort Worth fund-raiser and his Dallas rally to cut the ribbon on the new factory as a favor to Bernard Arnault, the luxury industry giant, bringing French sensibility to the Lone Star State.
“Louis Vuitton — a name I know very well,” Mr. Trump said to laughter, even as he mispronounced the name he knows well. “It cost me a lot of money over the years.”
Fortunately for him, his Trump National Doral near Miami will soon have plenty of new business as the leaders of not just France but also Germany, Britain, Canada, Italy and Japan — and maybe Russia — will descend on the club next spring along with thousands of officials, diplomats, journalists and others who attend each year’s G7 summit meeting.
Mr. Trump touring the Louis Vuitton workshop.CreditAnna Moneymaker/The New York Times
Mr. Trump left it to his staff to announce the selection, as if it were somehow an independent decision, and they insisted that he actually would not make money because he would provide the property “at cost.” The notion that it might make the United States look like all those countries it used to lecture about self-dealing was of no concern. The president knew it would be controversial, his top aide said, and boldly went ahead anyway regardless of the anticipated blowback, as if it were an act of political courage.
By now, the notions of what is presidential and what is unconventional have taken on new meaning, long since divorced from anything that came before. On the 1,001st day of the Trump presidency, he charged forward, writing new rules for himself and the country.
If to the outside world it looked like his presidency was unraveling and the president himself melting down, as Speaker Nancy Pelosi said this week, to Mr. Trump, it was just another day in the never-ending battle with convention.
The chief narrator of the battle, of course, remains its chief protagonist. At the American Airlines Center on Thursday night, Mr. Trump once again relived election night 2016, probably the high point of his political life, casting it as a moment of miracles for himself and the nation, before the scandals and the special prosecutor and the impeachment inquiry.
He replayed the primary fight with Senator Ted Cruz, who was standing off to the side of the stadium, recalling their debates for the Republican nomination. “You can’t beat Ted Cruz if you don’t interrupt him,” Mr. Trump offered by way of a political lesson.
He replayed the general election fight with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, still one of his favorite punching bags. “Remember the emails?” he called out to the crowd. Yes, they remembered.
And then, as he often does, he recreated election night itself as it played out on television nearly three years ago. “Donald Trump has won the state of Utah,” Donald Trump boomed in his best news anchor voice. Then he went on in his own voice: “And we won Florida! And we won South Carolina! And we won Georgia! And we won North Carolina! And we won Pennsylvania!”
For an hour and 27 minutes, he went on with all the winning — winning against Ted Cruz and Hillary Clinton and China and the “fake news” and the “radical left,” offering his greatest hits spliced with enough untrue whoppers to keep fact checkers busy for days. He soaked in the applause, in no hurry to head back to Washington where investigators and enemies awaited.
He has been doing this now for 1,001 days. Whether it will last another thousand days or nearly another thousand beyond that remains unclear. But his presidency, so unpresidential and unconventional, is definitively his. “I’ve been a politician for three years,” he exclaimed. “I can’t believe that.”
On that, at least, he was not alone.
Peter Baker is the chief White House correspondent and has covered the last four presidents for The Times and The Washington Post. He also is the author of five books, most recently “Impeachment: An American History.” @peterbakernyt • Facebook
If he acted “presidential,” Mr. Trump said Thursday night in Dallas, “everybody would be out of here so fast.”
President Trump walking onto the stage at a rally Thursday in Dallas. Anna Moneymaker/The New York Times
By Peter Baker
Oct. 18, 2019
DALLAS — At one point during one of his most unpresidential of days, President Trump insisted that he knew how to be presidential.
“It’s much easier being presidential, it’s easy,” he told a stadium full of more than 20,000 boisterous supporters in MAGA hats and T-shirts cheering his every word on Thursday night. “All you have to do is act like a stiff.”
He buttoned his suit coat, pursed his lips, squared his shoulders and dropped his arms rigidly at his sides. “Ladies and gentlemen of Texas,” he then droned in a sleep-inducing staccato monotone the way he imagined most of the other 44 presidents had done. “It is a great honor to be with you this evening.”
The crowd loved it, roaring with laughter. Transforming back into the unpresidential president America has come to know, Mr. Trump added, “And everybody would be out of here so fast! You wouldn’t come in in the first place!” Being presidential, he was saying, is so boring. Who wants that?
After 1,000 days in office, Mr. Trump has redefined what it means to be presidential. On the 1,001st day of his tenure, which was Thursday, all pretense of normalcy went out the window. It was a day when he boasted of saving “millions of lives” by temporarily stopping a Middle East war that he effectively allowed to start in the first place, then compared the combatants to children who had to be allowed to slug each other to get it out of their system.
It was a day when he announced without any evident embarrassment that officials of the federal government that answers to him had scoured the country for a site for next year’s Group of 7 summit meeting and determined that the perfect location, the very best site in all the United States, just happened to be a property he owned in Florida.
Supporters of Mr. Trump at the rally.CreditAnna Moneymaker/The New York Times
It was a day when he sent out his top aide, an adviser who has served as “acting” White House chief of staff for nearly 10 months without ever being granted the respect of earning the title outright, to try to quell the whole impeachment furor, only to have him essentially admit the quid pro quo that the president had so adamantly denied.
It was a day that ended with a rally where one of the warm-up acts, the Texas lieutenant governor, declared that liberals “are not our opponents, they are our enemy,” and the president called the speaker of the House “crazy,” a rival candidate “very dumb,” a House committee chairman a “fraud” and the governor of another state a “crackpot.”
After 1,000 days of the Trump Show, the capacity for surprise has long since diminished and comments or actions that would have set off days of front-page coverage and howls from Capitol Hill now barely register. The shocker that consumed Twitter three hours ago is so quickly overwhelmed by the next one that it seems impossible to digest any single moment to assess its meaning or consequences.
“Unconventional” was the word the president himself used repeatedly on Thursday.
He used it specifically to describe his let-them-go-to-war policy with respect to two American allies, Turkey and the Kurds, followed by a cease-fire days later. All part of the plan, he assured Americans. Just a little “tough love” to get the two sides to resolve their differences.
Never mind that their differences are nowhere near solved, even as bodies are strewn in northern Syria, Kurds are forced out of their homes and Russia, Iran, Bashar al-Assad and even the Islamic State are celebrating.
“We were a little bit unconventional,” Mr. Trump explained, offering his foreign policy doctrine in a setting that was itself a little bit unconventional, a Louis Vuitton workshop near Keene, Texas, where they make Parisian bags while cattle graze outside. The president had stopped by in between a Fort Worth fund-raiser and his Dallas rally to cut the ribbon on the new factory as a favor to Bernard Arnault, the luxury industry giant, bringing French sensibility to the Lone Star State.
“Louis Vuitton — a name I know very well,” Mr. Trump said to laughter, even as he mispronounced the name he knows well. “It cost me a lot of money over the years.”
Fortunately for him, his Trump National Doral near Miami will soon have plenty of new business as the leaders of not just France but also Germany, Britain, Canada, Italy and Japan — and maybe Russia — will descend on the club next spring along with thousands of officials, diplomats, journalists and others who attend each year’s G7 summit meeting.
Mr. Trump touring the Louis Vuitton workshop.CreditAnna Moneymaker/The New York Times
Mr. Trump left it to his staff to announce the selection, as if it were somehow an independent decision, and they insisted that he actually would not make money because he would provide the property “at cost.” The notion that it might make the United States look like all those countries it used to lecture about self-dealing was of no concern. The president knew it would be controversial, his top aide said, and boldly went ahead anyway regardless of the anticipated blowback, as if it were an act of political courage.
By now, the notions of what is presidential and what is unconventional have taken on new meaning, long since divorced from anything that came before. On the 1,001st day of the Trump presidency, he charged forward, writing new rules for himself and the country.
If to the outside world it looked like his presidency was unraveling and the president himself melting down, as Speaker Nancy Pelosi said this week, to Mr. Trump, it was just another day in the never-ending battle with convention.
The chief narrator of the battle, of course, remains its chief protagonist. At the American Airlines Center on Thursday night, Mr. Trump once again relived election night 2016, probably the high point of his political life, casting it as a moment of miracles for himself and the nation, before the scandals and the special prosecutor and the impeachment inquiry.
He replayed the primary fight with Senator Ted Cruz, who was standing off to the side of the stadium, recalling their debates for the Republican nomination. “You can’t beat Ted Cruz if you don’t interrupt him,” Mr. Trump offered by way of a political lesson.
He replayed the general election fight with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, still one of his favorite punching bags. “Remember the emails?” he called out to the crowd. Yes, they remembered.
And then, as he often does, he recreated election night itself as it played out on television nearly three years ago. “Donald Trump has won the state of Utah,” Donald Trump boomed in his best news anchor voice. Then he went on in his own voice: “And we won Florida! And we won South Carolina! And we won Georgia! And we won North Carolina! And we won Pennsylvania!”
For an hour and 27 minutes, he went on with all the winning — winning against Ted Cruz and Hillary Clinton and China and the “fake news” and the “radical left,” offering his greatest hits spliced with enough untrue whoppers to keep fact checkers busy for days. He soaked in the applause, in no hurry to head back to Washington where investigators and enemies awaited.
He has been doing this now for 1,001 days. Whether it will last another thousand days or nearly another thousand beyond that remains unclear. But his presidency, so unpresidential and unconventional, is definitively his. “I’ve been a politician for three years,” he exclaimed. “I can’t believe that.”
On that, at least, he was not alone.
Peter Baker is the chief White House correspondent and has covered the last four presidents for The Times and The Washington Post. He also is the author of five books, most recently “Impeachment: An American History.” @peterbakernyt • Facebook
@Matty44
You had asked about voter ID laws and how they are problematic and can be racist. Here’s another example with more details in the article posted below that I recommend you read.
Several years ago Texas passed more restrictive legislation so that undocumented parents are unable or having a very difficult time getting a birth certificate for their US citizen children. Without a birth certificate they will obviously have a very difficult time getting a drivers license or other ID, thus making it difficult to register to vote if it requires an ID. They are rightful US citizens. So it’s legislation like that that puts unnecessary barriers and burdens on a specific marginalized population. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that this legislation is in Texas in which the vast majority of undocumented immigrants are people of color.
You had asked about voter ID laws and how they are problematic and can be racist. Here’s another example with more details in the article posted below that I recommend you read.
Several years ago Texas passed more restrictive legislation so that undocumented parents are unable or having a very difficult time getting a birth certificate for their US citizen children. Without a birth certificate they will obviously have a very difficult time getting a drivers license or other ID, thus making it difficult to register to vote if it requires an ID. They are rightful US citizens. So it’s legislation like that that puts unnecessary barriers and burdens on a specific marginalized population. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that this legislation is in Texas in which the vast majority of undocumented immigrants are people of color.
You're not going to get much traction with Matty using that article because my guess is he doesn't believe in birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants born in the US. Many conservatives are strong Constitutional textualists except when one of the amendments gets in the way of their racism.
Last edited:
Ya know, every time you sling false, nasty, extreme accusations, you further cement the opinions of everyone on the right that think you have no good arguments and you just fall back on attacking the person your talking to. And you also contribute to devaluing the word racist. You guys (and the media) cry wolf so much that the word has lost all meaning and falls on deaf ears. And most of all, you limit the ability to have productive conversations, cause no one wants to have a real talk with someone who just called them a racist.
Keep up the strong work uniting the country[emoji106]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited:
D
deleted50478
Birthright citizenship was to protect freed slaves not to reward criminal immigrants.
Freed slaves and most legal immigrants currently are people “of color”.
D
deleted941485
So Bernie is doing the comeback tour now? Heard he’s in queens.
If someone is purple, is it wrong to call them purple-just curious?
Good lord, hopefully I can clear this up for the last time in this thread.
Please look at the following:
It's important to realize that presidential polls of likely voters are a surrogate for the final popular vote tally, not for the electoral college result. Do not be fooled by the fact that the popular vote tally and electoral college tally 'usually' correlate. National polls of likely voters are not designed to predict EC statistical anomalies like Trump winning by 77,000 votes combined in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan.
The range of polling in the week before the election was Trump +3 to Clinton +6. The final polling average was Clinton +3.2 and the actual popular vote was Clinton +2.1. It's not like there was some magnificent error in the polls that justifies all the people who like to shout that "the polls were wrong! I don't trust the polls! blah blah" In actuality, there was a magnificent error in peoples' perception of how strongly the polls signaled a Clinton EC win.
I am not sure what point your trying to make. Not a single media publication in print or on TV that I read or watched heading into the 2016 election spun the polls and described them like you did above. All they where used for was to attempt to suppress the voters for Trump and bolster the support for Clinton.
D
deleted941485
But I mean you think this will be the case the second time around? Polls just totally off for a second time?
I got called a racist twice already and I'm still here! Shrug.
I think I've posted relevant and well researched positions and articles. Gives pat on back.
I posted the article since you had asked for examples. I'm reading a book on reproductive justice and it talks a lot about racist policies.
I've been called the N word, sexually assaulted, etc...I think it's true that women, especially black women, but up with a lot of **** that might break some other groups of people. It all goes back to empathy which a lot of people seem to be lacking in this thread, unfortunately.
I have no idea. But more importantly why do you personally care what a poll tells you? Will it sway your opinion one way or another? Will it make you feel better about your position or argument? My point is why are individuals
posting polls to support their arguments?
So, tell me your stance on birthright citizenship. Let me see if I'm surprised by the answer.
Also bud, you've received post after post of cogent, polite arguments showing that the issues with trump are substantive and not the superficial kind worthy of the head-in-sand, handwaving disingenuousness you've employed so far. Again, you're still not fooling anyone with your bullsht about asking questions and wanting to learn about the other side, especially after your recent posts showing the divisiveness and vindictive glee of which you're hoping for another 4 more years of trump.
Last edited:
And the second amendment prefaces that people have the right to bear arms because a well-regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state.
What militia do you think most gun owners on SDN (including myself) belong to?
Here is the text of section one of the 14th amendment. Please tell me where it says that it only applies to the children of freed slaves
"
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
"
Read my post again, I made exactly the point you're making. Voters and the media made the mistake of thinking Clinton +3 somehow meant guaranteed EC victory. Again, the polls themselves denoted Clinton +3 and the final popular result was Clinton +2.something. It's simply not accurate to keep shouting "the polls were wrong!"
Let's let Nate Silver explain it
"
With the 2018 midterm elections approaching, we’ve updated FiveThirtyEight’s pollster ratings for the first time since the 2016 presidential primaries. Based on how the media portrayed the polls after President Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton later that year, you might expect pollsters to get a pretty disastrous report card.
But here’s a stubborn and surprising fact — and one to keep in mind as midterm polls really start rolling in: Over the past two years — meaning in the 2016 general election and then in the various gubernatorial elections and special elections that have taken place in 2017 and 2018 — the accuracy of polls has been pretty much average by historical standards
The Polls Are All Right
With the 2018 midterm elections approaching, we’ve updated FiveThirtyEight’s pollster ratings for the first time since the 2016 presidential primaries. Based on…
"
Last edited:
D
deleted941485
Yeah they do influence my predictions. And sometimes polls are off. Yes they use them to support their arguments because more people obviously validates your point lol
I’ve learned all I needed to know about your side a long time ago. I came on here for some interesting discussion and was met with being called a racist, told to stop using other people’s words cause I was white, called a sexist, and basically told to shut up cause I’m a white male in a white bubble and couldn’t possibly understand anything. So yeah, no schtick here. Just a guy trying to point out the hypocrisy of some smug snowflakes.
And as far as birthright citizenship, I don’t much care honestly. If I had a kid on vacation in another country there’s a good chance they’d be afforded citizenship there. But that’s a bit different than a pregnant women crossing the border illegally to try and sneak a kid in for free citizenship. And even if you have a kid over here and call the kid a legal citizen, it doesn’t change the parents status, and that parent should still be returned to their country and told to apply for citizenship the right way. I’m not gonna call the kid a criminal or anything, they’re parents are the ones who broke the law.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This is the part that makes me so mad and sad and just ugh...
This is real people's lives and it goes back to privilege to be able to ignore ALLLL that is going on.
Sure you can say I want to have a few thousand extra in my pocket by voting for trump, but what about the lives that are literally lost due to certain policies? Of course no politician is perfect and policies aren't going to fix everything, but it's pretty clear based on policy which politicians at least try to give a crap about ALL people. Sorry if we're being a little "hysteric" (as stated before) about people's lives over here. Like I said before we're not still owned by white people and get raped by our masters, but there are still horrific things going on in this "first-world" country that need to be 1) recognized and 2) addressed.
(I know I'm preach to the choir with you 🙂 )
Who called you sexist?
What was it in reference to?
I was called a racist. I don't really care.
Your selective interpretation of how you think the last 20 pages went down vis a vis you getting persecuted is hilariously wrong. About as wrong as the market predictions you made a couple years ago. I'm glad this thread has been memorialized for anyone who wants to read how the arguments really went down.
If you "don't much care about birthright citizenship, honestly" then let's just go ahead and follow the 14th amendment how it's written, thanks.
So I wasn’t called a racist? I wasn’t told my opinion isn’t valid in certain issues cause I’m male and white? I wasn’t repeatedly told I said stuff I didn’t?
And why do you care so much about where I thought the stock market might go a few years ago? You seem so giddy to bring that up to prove...what exactly?
And I don’t think I recall saying anything about birth right citizenship until you smugly tried to claim you already knew my position on a topic I hadn’t said anything about. So why are you acting like i just need to be quiet and follow the 14th amendment like you just laid the smack down or something. Weird.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited:
Just as I said when you first started posting, we’re not gonna be changing each others’ minds, and myself and others have pretty much laid out our arguments and refutations of your arguments in regard to overt and institutional racism, affirmative action, white privilege, Trump’s racist and misogynist history, socialism/capitalism, the Dem 2020 candidates etc. And also as I said before, I’m more interested in whether the lurkers have seen both sides, and they have. What I’m not interested in is rehashing everything again word for word so you can indulge your persecution delusion. If you have something new to add, great- if not, I’ll conclude my portion of the discussion.
P.S. Try to have a shred of self-awareness for one second going forward and realize that it is within the realm of cosmic possibility that you (and me, and everyone else) may, indeed, approach issues from some degree of privilege, hold some regressive or bigoted policy positions, and/or support politicians who are regressive and bigoted.
You’re correct, real peoples lives ARE affected by politics. This thread is about Trump being re-elected. I (and many others) feel that Trump being in charge of the country is better than the alternative. Yeah, even with the mean tweets and crass things he’s said.
To move the country in the way loonies like Bernie or Warren would take us is to move America to a place of less freedom, bigger government, tolerance that really isn’t, and pushing people further and further onto the government teat.
Liberal policies have ruined many lives in this country and I think that’s sad. I think it ruins lives to push people towards government dependence rather than toward self sufficiency. I think the left’s devaluing of the nuclear family has ruined many lives and had ripples of countless negative repercussions through out society. I think pushing people towards group think and tribalism and identity politics as opposed to valuing ideas based on their merit, regardless of what gender or skin color the person is, is bad for the country. I think all the nonsense with climate change is stressing out a generation of young folks needlessly, even to the point of it getting its own diagnosis of “eco-anxiety,” is bad for the country. I think promoting abortion and the lack of personal responsibility in the name of “women’s health” is hurtful and not helpful. Shall I go on?
That’s why I’m gleeful at the prospect of avoiding a progressive president for at least for more years. I couldn’t give two ****$ about my personal tax implications of a Trump presidency. And hey, there’s another thing thrown at me that I haven’t ever said anything about. But I digress.
You have values and ideas of what is helpful to people. I have different principles than you as I laid out above. It has nothing to do with ignoring problems due to my “privilege” and everything to do with addressing problems with what I feel are better solutions than yours. So get off your sanctimonious high horse for one second and realize that you aren’t the only compassionate person in this forum.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited:
Denying birthright citizenship is not an effective deterrent. These people are coming here regardless because of the lack of relative violence/gangs and because the economic conditions are so much better.
But if you want to change the 14th amendment, there certainly is a mechanism to do so. What you can’t do is illegal bs like Texas tried where you just make it really difficult for children born in the US to get legal documentation.
To go back a moment to when some of you all were crying about the qualified white men getting discriminated against for judicial nominations
"
Senate Advances Another Trump Court Pick Rated ‘Not Qualified’ To Serve
Justin Walker lacks the experience to be a lifetime federal judge, the American Bar Association says. But Republicans are ready to confirm him anyway.
By Jennifer Bendery
10/17/2019 02:45 pm ET
WASHINGTON ― Senate Republicans voted Thursday to advance another of President Donald Trump’s judicial nominees, Justin Walker, who earned a rare and embarrassing “not qualified” rating from the American Bar Association.
Every Republican on the Judiciary Committee voted to advance Walker, the president’s pick for a lifetime seat on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, to the Senate floor for a confirmation vote. Every Democrat voted no.
Walker, 37, “does not presently have the requisite trial or litigation experience” to be a federal judge, the ABA’s Standing Committee concluded in a July review.
The nonpartisan ABA, which thoroughly reviews each of a president’s judicial nominees, typically requires that someone chosen for a lifetime court seat have at least 12 years of experience practicing law. It’s not an automatic disqualifier, though, if a nominee has other substantial trial or courtroom experience. Walker falls short on both counts.
“Mr. Walker’s experience to date has a very substantial gap, namely the absence of any significant trial experience,” the ABA concluded. “Mr. Walker has never tried a case as lead or co-counsel, whether civil or criminal. ... In addition, based on review of his biographical information and conversations with Mr. Walker, it was challenging to determine how much of his ten years since graduation from law school has been spent in the practice of law.”
Ahead of the committee vote, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) chided Republicans for voting to advance Walker despite his obvious lack of qualifications ― something they’ve done with other Trump court picks, too.
“Some of the people who have come before us have literally never, ever entered a courtroom in their lives,” Durbin said. “They may not have ever seen a “Perry Mason” show and certainly didn’t stick around for the second half of any “Law and Order” episode. Now they want to be trial judges for the rest of their natural lives.”
“Come on,” he added. “There have got to be more qualified Republican attorneys in America than the ones we’re seeing before this committee.”
To date, since Trump became president, Senate Republicans have confirmed at least four lifetime federal judges who earned “not qualified” ratings from the ABA.
They include U.S. Circuit Judge Leonard Steven Grasz, who the ABA concluded was “unable to separate his role as an advocate from that of a judge” given his strong anti-LGBTQ and anti-abortion views; U.S. District Judge Charles Goodwin, who the ABA said lacked the ability to fulfill the demands of a federal judge given his frequent absence from the courthouse in his former role as a magistrate judge; and U.S. Circuit Court Judge Jonathan Kobes, who the ABA found “was unable to provide sufficient writing samples of the caliber required” of a circuit judge.
For context, in his entire eight years in the White House, President Barack Obama didn’t nominate anyone to be a lifetime federal judge who earned a “not qualified” ABA rating.
Walker, a University of Louisville law professor who previously clerked for then-D.C. Circuit Court Judge Brett Kavanaugh, may be a weak candidate for a federal judgeship, but he has a strong ally in the Senate: Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who recommended him to the White House.
“This is unquestionably the most outstanding nomination that I’ve ever recommended to Presidents to serve on the bench in Kentucky,” McConnell tweeted in July, just a day after the ABA issued its awful rating of Walker’s qualifications.
When Kavanaugh was nominated to the Supreme Court in 2018, Walker went out of his way to defend his former boss against credible allegations by Christine Blasey Ford that he sexually assaulted her when they were high school students. Walker participated in more than 70 media interviews challenging Ford.
“She may believe that assailant was Brett Kavanaugh,” Walker claimed in a Fox News interview in September 2018. “I believe she’s mistaken.”
Walker’s nomination now heads to the full Senate for a confirmation vote.
www.huffpost.com
"
"
Senate Advances Another Trump Court Pick Rated ‘Not Qualified’ To Serve
Justin Walker lacks the experience to be a lifetime federal judge, the American Bar Association says. But Republicans are ready to confirm him anyway.
By Jennifer Bendery
10/17/2019 02:45 pm ET
WASHINGTON ― Senate Republicans voted Thursday to advance another of President Donald Trump’s judicial nominees, Justin Walker, who earned a rare and embarrassing “not qualified” rating from the American Bar Association.
Every Republican on the Judiciary Committee voted to advance Walker, the president’s pick for a lifetime seat on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, to the Senate floor for a confirmation vote. Every Democrat voted no.
Walker, 37, “does not presently have the requisite trial or litigation experience” to be a federal judge, the ABA’s Standing Committee concluded in a July review.
The nonpartisan ABA, which thoroughly reviews each of a president’s judicial nominees, typically requires that someone chosen for a lifetime court seat have at least 12 years of experience practicing law. It’s not an automatic disqualifier, though, if a nominee has other substantial trial or courtroom experience. Walker falls short on both counts.
“Mr. Walker’s experience to date has a very substantial gap, namely the absence of any significant trial experience,” the ABA concluded. “Mr. Walker has never tried a case as lead or co-counsel, whether civil or criminal. ... In addition, based on review of his biographical information and conversations with Mr. Walker, it was challenging to determine how much of his ten years since graduation from law school has been spent in the practice of law.”
Ahead of the committee vote, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) chided Republicans for voting to advance Walker despite his obvious lack of qualifications ― something they’ve done with other Trump court picks, too.
“Some of the people who have come before us have literally never, ever entered a courtroom in their lives,” Durbin said. “They may not have ever seen a “Perry Mason” show and certainly didn’t stick around for the second half of any “Law and Order” episode. Now they want to be trial judges for the rest of their natural lives.”
“Come on,” he added. “There have got to be more qualified Republican attorneys in America than the ones we’re seeing before this committee.”
To date, since Trump became president, Senate Republicans have confirmed at least four lifetime federal judges who earned “not qualified” ratings from the ABA.
They include U.S. Circuit Judge Leonard Steven Grasz, who the ABA concluded was “unable to separate his role as an advocate from that of a judge” given his strong anti-LGBTQ and anti-abortion views; U.S. District Judge Charles Goodwin, who the ABA said lacked the ability to fulfill the demands of a federal judge given his frequent absence from the courthouse in his former role as a magistrate judge; and U.S. Circuit Court Judge Jonathan Kobes, who the ABA found “was unable to provide sufficient writing samples of the caliber required” of a circuit judge.
For context, in his entire eight years in the White House, President Barack Obama didn’t nominate anyone to be a lifetime federal judge who earned a “not qualified” ABA rating.
Walker, a University of Louisville law professor who previously clerked for then-D.C. Circuit Court Judge Brett Kavanaugh, may be a weak candidate for a federal judgeship, but he has a strong ally in the Senate: Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who recommended him to the White House.
“This is unquestionably the most outstanding nomination that I’ve ever recommended to Presidents to serve on the bench in Kentucky,” McConnell tweeted in July, just a day after the ABA issued its awful rating of Walker’s qualifications.
When Kavanaugh was nominated to the Supreme Court in 2018, Walker went out of his way to defend his former boss against credible allegations by Christine Blasey Ford that he sexually assaulted her when they were high school students. Walker participated in more than 70 media interviews challenging Ford.
“She may believe that assailant was Brett Kavanaugh,” Walker claimed in a Fox News interview in September 2018. “I believe she’s mistaken.”
Walker’s nomination now heads to the full Senate for a confirmation vote.
Senate Advances Another Trump Court Pick Rated 'Not Qualified' To Serve
Justin Walker lacks the experience to be a lifetime federal judge, the American Bar Association says. But Republicans are ready to confirm him anyway.
To go back a moment to when some of you all were crying about the qualified white men getting discriminated against for judicial nominations
"Senate Advances Another Trump Court Pick Rated 'Not Qualified' To Serve
Justin Walker lacks the experience to be a lifetime federal judge, the American Bar Association says. But Republicans are ready to confirm him anyway.
Its like you guys either KNOW you constantly twist what people say to try to attack them, or you are just two oblivious to know that you are doing it.
No one ever ripped on you for bashing the qualifications of trumps nominees. We all said it was racist and sexist to say his nominees were “ugh” simply cause they were white males, as opposed to Obama’s white and Latino woman nominees.
So for you to sit here and try and imply that we were crying cause you said Trumps previous nominees were disqualified is wrong. I just can’t decide if it’s you being disingenuous or just ignorant.
Either way....
The article you posted actually had real critiques about that Walker guy, no comments about race or gender. Good job. I know nothing about him, nor do I care much about the western Kentucky supreme ct or whatever it was, but he does sound under qualified. The article seemed pretty factual and unbiased too, until it got to the part about ripping Walker cause he defended Kavanaugh against “credible allegations” from Blasey Ford [emoji23][emoji2957][emoji23][emoji2957]
It was at a that point that I had to check to make sure it wasn’t an onion article you linked.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Good god, you really have problems arguing in the context of a wider discussion and understanding broader rhetorical points vs trying to pedantically nail down which verbatim phrase was said by which specific poster. I guess I literally have to spell it out for you, that in the context of previous affirmative action discussion, the fear from you and others was that similarly qualified white men get discriminated against in favor of under qualified minorities and POC when it comes to school and employment etc. Poster AMEhigh was the one who stated ugh or whatever about the high percentage of white male nominees, presumably because she thinks the court should be more diverse and representative of all the people who come before the courts.
I know you’re fan of complaining over and over that words are being put in your mouth, but it’s not a big godd@mn leap for me to presume that your position would involve stating that it’s unfair that qualified white male judges should be rejected in favor of minorities just because they’re white. And yes, before you pedantically challenge again, I am aware that you did not literally cry out “wahhhh, qualified white male judges are being discriminated against in the nominating process.” Ultimately, it’d be nice if your side would acknowledge that fears about reverse discrimination are overblown cause we live in a country where unqualified white men are still getting confirmed.
The second point is, I use the sources to support my own claims, not necessarily exhaustively make all my claims for me. The article doesn’t mention anything about him being a white male- I am mentioning it. I also would use the source to show that there are three other ABA not qualified judges who were confirmed. Guess their sex and race.
Lastly, I know you have your blinders on and are on attack mode 24/7 so you don’t get the Kavanaugh part of the article, but they mentioned it not to hurt your feelings, but because a reasonable reader might wonder why on earth that guy would get the nomination from very stable genius Trump in the first place, and the Kav part explains that by showing that Walker has loyalties toward Trump and the party that run deep.
Last edited:
2A also applied to muskets, not semiautomatic rifles with bump stocks and extended round mags...
D
deleted50478
Yep
Words are important. And a lot of times one word can change the meaning of a statement. When you added “qualified” in front of “white judges” and then linked an article that bashed the qualifications of a white judge, it’s a pretty logical assumption that you’re trying to pretend that the original attacks had something to do with the qualifications of the white judges, and not just their race and sex. And you should know that my exact response to that original “ugh” (and sorry for not digging back 10 pages to see it wasn’t you) was that they should be judged on qualifications, not identity. So at the very best, your word choice unintentionally changed the tone and meaning of the original discussion. At worst, you’re trying to obfuscate the original discussion.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It’s not a logical assumption. You can’t in one sentence state that you forget who made the “original attacks” and that you won’t scroll up to go look at it (she very specifically was talking solely about demographics of judges), and in another sentence claim that someone is being disingenuous when they weren’t even the original poster you had in mind.
Regardless, the point I made about your previously expressed fears of qualified white men in general being discriminated against is definitely overblown when you have 4 expressly not-qualified white male circuit judges who were just confirmed. [And let’s not forget the demographics of the executive and legislative leadership, Fortune 500 ceos, law school faculty, medical school faculty, etc etc)
Furthermore, you talk endlessly about the importance of meritocracy and this and that. Other than the aforementioned judges, how do feel about the absolute barrage of unqualified people who have come and gone through the current administration. Why are there so many people in “acting” positions? There’s no chance, say, that maybe Trump and his lackeys have filled the government with a bunch of unqualified swamp creatures who are unable to do the job?
Recently, I was very sad to see Rick Perry was leaving, but it’s also tough to follow in the footsteps of two nuclear physicists when 1. You’re embroiled in scandal. 2. You got a D in a class called Meats.
Last edited:
- Status
