[SK in CV]

Ali was arguably the greatest heavyweight boxer ever. I say arguably, though I’m not really qualified to argue, I don’t know much about boxing or the history of boxing. But people who do, say he was the greatest ever. So maybe he was.

What he was, inarguably, was a radical with a platform. Much like Martin Luther King, he was, for a period, simultaneously, both the most hated and most loved man in the US. As the Viet Nam war became less popular, in both the early ’70’s and after the war was over, that shifted to mostly loved. He was an icon. He was one of the most important people in the US in the 2nd half of the last century. The attention is well deserved.

[SK in CV]

[quote=harvey][quote=SK in CV]I missed those words the first time around. The first two I don’t find racist, absent context. The first one is just presumptuous and wrong. The last one is racist by itself. I can’t imagine any context that would help.[/quote]

A perfect example of why Trump has so much support.

Many blacks do have a culture of insolence and confrontation. In fact insolence and confrontation are some of the defining characteristics of urban black culture.

Many on the left pretend this culture doesn’t exist. Most can conveniently ignore it, as they rarely encounter it. They have the luxury if sitting on their moral high-horses and being offended in the name of “people of color” when somebody observes the obvious.

Trump gets away with his ignorance and contradictions because in so many ways they are far less absurd than the positions of SJWs on the left.[/quote]

JFC. “Many blacks do have a culture of insolence and confrontation.”? It’s not culture. There’s more than 35 million people in the US with black skin. Many blacks are insolent and confrontational. Many whites are insolent and confrontational. Many urban punks who grow up on the street are insolent and confrontational. Many Hispanic kids in south central LA are insolent and confrontational. No, it’s not a race thing. There are not millions black parents across the country teaching their kids to be insolent and confrontational. It is not part of “their culture”.

And your use of the SJW is revealing. It’s most current origin is punk asshole anarcho-capitalists on reddit post gamergate. It’s worthless. It makes every word you utter on the subject worth dismissing.

[SK in CV]

[quote=FlyerInHi]

I love the Mexicans. They work hard. They have good spirit and family values.
I’d rather have the Mexicans working in my apartments. But when I have guests, I want classy, beautiful Eastern Europeans.[/quote]

Stop already. You’ve proved you’re racist.

[SK in CV]

[quote=FlyerInHi]Sk, If I remember, the context is someone said that Black culture was fucked up and that needs to be acknowledged without being PC. I think all cultures are fucked up to an extent.

Presumptious and contemptuous, not so humble, sure.

The larger context is the Trump vernacular, and the cultural argument that Christianity is superior that’s embraced by a large percent of the population You can’t ignore it and play nicy nice. Some people just deserve contempt.[/quote]

As I said, I can’t figure out a context where this:
“Yes, criminals and many blacks have a culture of insolence and confrontation. ”

isn’t racist. What blacks? The blacks in logan heights? The blacks from Somalia that live in south central Phoenix? Those from urban Detroit? Or Memphis? That you think there is such culture in the black community, that is significantly different than the thousands of white, brown, and Asian communities is mind-blowing. Have you ever spent any time in Philly? In South Boston?

[SK in CV]

[quote=PCinSD][quote=FlyerInHi]PCinSD, what is your point of quoting me out of context? Please link to the original threads so I can explain what I meant. I don’t have time to look it up.

If you’re trying to say I’m a hypocrite, please explain how. Maybe you’re saying I shouldn’t criticize Trump lest that makes me hypocrite. My comments are very mild compared to what Trump said.[/quote]

Sorry racist, do your own work. Please explain what context could make those statements no longer racist, on their face. Criticize Trump all you want.

If BG (or Trump) had just said that crap, SK would have immediately called her out as a racist.

If you don’t want your own words used against you, use different words.[/quote]

I missed those words the first time around. The first two I don’t find racist, absent context. The first one is just presumptuous and wrong. The last one is racist by itself. I can’t imagine any context that would help.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=SK in CV][quote=bearishgurl]
flu, by your recent posts on this thread and others, you seem to the reader to be developing a chip on your shoulder as it applies to the Trump candidacy where there shouldn’t be. That’s on you … NOT Trump. Maybe you, too, SK. [/quote]

I have absolutely no idea what you mean by this. Do I think Trump is a horrible candidate? Absolutely. Do I think every single person who supports him is a complete idiot? Absolutely. The worst candidate in my lifetime from either major party. Worse by an order of magnitude. For a dozen or more reasons. His lack of experience. His lack of the right temperament. His ignorance of the law. His lack of ideas. His lack of curiosity. His disdain for knowledge. His bullying tactics. His racism. His misogyny. His lack of respect for the office. His lack of respect for the press. There’s a dozen I typed without hesitation in a minute or so. But a chip on my shoulder? It’s hardly necessary for me to be critical of his candidacy.[/quote]

Your (bolded) statement is indicative of you “developing a chip on your shoulder,” imho. You could easily find yourself surrounded by “complete idiots” in the space of just a very few days to a few months. Methinks that’s a limiting posture to take and could severely limit your day to day activities and the people you associate with. But if that kind of life suits you, far be it from me to judge.[/quote]

I didn’t bold any words. You did. In my not the least bit humble opinion, the words mean exactly what they say. And your bolding them, and describing them as you have, are indicative, (again, in my not the least bit humble opinion) of you having no clue what “chip on your shoulder” means.

I think the likelihood of Trump winning is miniscule. But that said, I’ve survived just fine, being surrounded by 30% of the population that:

A: Think gay people choose to be gay
B: Think the bible is the literal word of god
C: Think evolution never happened
D: Think global warming isn’t happening or isn’t the result of human action
E: Can’t find the pacific ocean on a map
F: Think Fox News is actually news

Thanks for your concern.

BTW, exactly what policy of Trump’s that he’s actually presented for, is it that you like? Can you point me to the actual plan?

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]
flu, by your recent posts on this thread and others, you seem to the reader to be developing a chip on your shoulder as it applies to the Trump candidacy where there shouldn’t be. That’s on you … NOT Trump. Maybe you, too, SK. [/quote]

I have absolutely no idea what you mean by this. Do I think Trump is a horrible candidate? Absolutely. Do I think every single person who supports him is a complete idiot? Absolutely. The worst candidate in my lifetime from either major party. Worse by an order of magnitude. For a dozen or more reasons. His lack of experience. His lack of the right temperament. His ignorance of the law. His lack of ideas. His lack of curiosity. His disdain for knowledge. His bullying tactics. His racism. His misogyny. His lack of respect for the office. His lack of respect for the press. There’s a dozen I typed without hesitation in a minute or so. But a chip on my shoulder? It’s hardly necessary for me to be critical of his candidacy.

[SK in CV]

[quote=flu]
In the end, Trump won’t make a dent in my bottomline… Actually, like hillary, it would probably be good for my bottom line, since he seems like he’s warming up to Wall Street in as much as Hillary has been, lol.

[/quote]

You know what he won’t warm up to? Brown people. To Muslims. To African Americans. To women. To Asians. Before the election is over, Jews will get it too. Jewish reporters already are getting it. After 8 years with a black man in the white house, every racist asshole will be empowered if Trump is elected. Wall Street not being happy is least of the problems we could face.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]
If Trump wins, he may only be in office for 4 years. I fail to see how he can change the “political complexion” of the Court overnight or even at all … that is, unless as least two more justices drop dead in the next 3.5 years or so.[/quote]

Two. That’s all it takes. There will be 2 new justices within 1 year. John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito will overturn Roe v. Wade in a heartbeat. If Trump appoints two from his list, that’s 5-4. Roe v. Wade is history. But apparently, women’s rights aren’t a big thing for you. Or you could never vote for Trump. The two are entirely incompatible. Expect birth control to go the same way next.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]
I haven’t had TV since the 2nd week of Jan, SK. I cancelled my service because I had only been watching it myself ~2 hrs month for the past ~15 years and my last kid left home almost two years ago. It was a big waste of $$ for me.

What kind of “rule” are you referring to in your first paragraph? I can do some more research on this plus Trump’s supreme court picks later tonight. And, are you sure some of those “vile (Trump) votes” aren’t being cast by men?[/quote]

Scalia died in February. For the first time ever, the Republ….nevermind. I already typed it. For 111 days, Republicans, who control the US senate, have refused to have a hearing on an Obama SC nominee. The rule never existed before. They just made it up, because Obama is black. They make lots of other excuses, but that’s what it is. No white president has ever faced the disrespect that this president has faced.

Every vote for Trump is vile.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]If, as you say, Obama will replace Scalia (and possibly Ginsburg), what are you worried about, SK? If Ginsburg is worried about who will replace her, then why doesn’t she just retire now? (My understanding is that she was in remission from Stage 1 panc after undergoing the Whipple procedure over 6 years ago but I understand the odds). She is very, very lucky to have caught it when she did, having been diagnosed with colon cancer (stage 2) nearly ten years before that where she had part of her colon removed. So I agree that Justice Ginsburg may not last thru January 2021.

[/quote]

Jesus fucking Christ. Do you not pay attention to what’s going on in the world? The racist republicans in control of the US Senate, have decided on a new rule, that has never existed before, that black presidents in the final year of their terms, can’t get a hearing on a supreme court justice.

The only way that Obama will get an opportunity to get a vote on a SC nomination is if Democrats take back control of the Senate. New senators will take office before Obama leaves office. He’ll have about 3 weeks to confirm a justice. If Trump wins (highly unlikely, unless there are way too many women like you casting vile votes), AND dems take back the Senate, then RBG will retire immediately. If Clinton wins, she’ll wait until Clinton is inaugurated. If Trump wins and Dems don’t take back the senate, women are fucked. Not maybe. That’s an absolute.

You might remember there was a douchebag hypocrite SC justice by the name of Antonin Scalia. He suddenly died, at the age of 79. Both Breyer and Kennedy, though neither are burdened with the douchebag disease, could similarly die unexpectedly. The risk is just too great to take the chance and leave it to a disgusting man like Trump.

If you cared about women, you could never vote for Trump. End of story.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=SK in CV][quote=bearishgurl]
Roe v Wade has little chance of being overturned in my (or your) lifetime … or ever, imho. It doesn’t matter who is sitting on the Supreme Court. A viable case which has made it all the way to them has to actually be before them for them to opine on it. I just don’t see that happening, regardless if any of Trump’s current “picks” for Supreme Court justices end up actually being interested in the job (at the time the nomination is offered to them) and they survive the vetting process and actually take the job on his “watch.”

And I really haven’t studied Trump’s list to determine if any of his SC picks are actually “moderates.” (I consider Trump a moderate, NOT a conservative.)

I think it’s way too soon to worry about Roe v Wade being overturned. Trump will be 70 years old at the time he takes office if he is elected. He may or may not want or be able to run a second term and if he does, he may or may not be elected again. Theoretically, by January 2021 (4 years from the next presidential inauguration), zero, one or two of Trump’s choices for supreme court justices would actually accept the nomination and make it far enough in the vetting process to sit on the bench during his first term … IF he is actually elected POTUS.

We cannot presume the sitting supreme court justices are going to become terminally ill or die in the next four years (or die early enough for Trump to be able to successfully appoint his choice of nominee before the next election cycle ends) IF he is elected. Yes, even if 2-3 of them are currently octogenarians.[/quote]

Are you fucking nuts? Every single one of Trump’s list of SC justices is from a list acceptable to the anti-abortion right. Every one of them. Are you aware of the hundreds of laws that have been passed in the last 10 years, across the country, limiting women’s access to care? Louisiana just passed a law outlawing D&E as an abortion method. We just passed the 7th anniversary of the death of George Tiller, killed at the hands of pro-forced-birth radicals in Kansas. Do you know how many abortion providers there are in Kansas now? Zero. Not a single one.

It’s not wild speculation that Roe v. Wade will be overturned if Trump is elected. The next president will name at least 3, possibly more SC judges. Trump has said he will nominate anti-abortion judges. I guarantee you, if Trump is elected. Roe v. Wade will be overturned. It’s fortunate you live in CA, where Clinton will win. But your vote is a vote that represents the most vile hatred of women. Remember that, as you cast that hateful vote. And stop pretending you care about women.[/quote]It took three years (1970 – 1973) for Roe v. Wade to even get from a US District Court in TX to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals to finally come before the US Supreme Court for its decision:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

How long do you think that path will take today, SK? Be reasonable, now.

If Trump is elected POTUS, he will select nominee(s) to replace Justice Scalia. We don’t know if he’ll get any other chance to do so thru his term ending January 2021 (meaning, actually nominate a replacement up to 3 years from now.)

Do you know of any suits currently in the pipeline anywhere in the US which (directly or indirectly) challenge Roe v Wade?

Oh, and I already voted over a month ago. You don’t need to be calling people “vile” or “hateful” because they didn’t vote for the same candidate you did.[/quote]

Anthony Kennedy is a couple months shy of 80. Ruth Bader Ginsberg is 83 and has pancreatic cancer. Breyer is just a couple years shy of 80. That would be 4. Two are guaranteed for the next president unless the Dems retake the Senate, in which case Ginsberg will retire immediately if Trump wins, and Obama will get 2. And probably two during the next term.

The Louisiana law just signed is probably headed to the SCOTUS.

You’re not vile because you already voted, or because you want a candidate different than me. The vote is vile. You support a candidate that is vile and hateful. Particularly to women. Hope you feel good about that. Just stop pretending to care about women. You don’t.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]
Roe v Wade has little chance of being overturned in my (or your) lifetime … or ever, imho. It doesn’t matter who is sitting on the Supreme Court. A viable case which has made it all the way to them has to actually be before them for them to opine on it. I just don’t see that happening, regardless if any of Trump’s current “picks” for Supreme Court justices end up actually being interested in the job (at the time the nomination is offered to them) and they survive the vetting process and actually take the job on his “watch.”

And I really haven’t studied Trump’s list to determine if any of his SC picks are actually “moderates.” (I consider Trump a moderate, NOT a conservative.)

I think it’s way too soon to worry about Roe v Wade being overturned. Trump will be 70 years old at the time he takes office if he is elected. He may or may not want or be able to run a second term and if he does, he may or may not be elected again. Theoretically, by January 2021 (4 years from the next presidential inauguration), zero, one or two of Trump’s choices for supreme court justices would actually accept the nomination and make it far enough in the vetting process to sit on the bench during his first term … IF he is actually elected POTUS.

We cannot presume the sitting supreme court justices are going to become terminally ill or die in the next four years (or die early enough for Trump to be able to successfully appoint his choice of nominee before the next election cycle ends) IF he is elected. Yes, even if 2-3 of them are currently octogenarians.[/quote]

Are you fucking nuts? Every single one of Trump’s list of SC justices is from a list acceptable to the anti-abortion right. Every one of them. Are you aware of the hundreds of laws that have been passed in the last 10 years, across the country, limiting women’s access to care? Louisiana just passed a law outlawing D&E as an abortion method. We just passed the 7th anniversary of the death of George Tiller, killed at the hands of pro-forced-birth radicals in Kansas. Do you know how many abortion providers there are in Kansas now? Zero. Not a single one.

It’s not wild speculation that Roe v. Wade will be overturned if Trump is elected. The next president will name at least 3, possibly more SC judges. Trump has said he will nominate anti-abortion judges. I guarantee you, if Trump is elected. Roe v. Wade will be overturned. It’s fortunate you live in CA, where Clinton will win. But your vote is a vote that represents the most vile hatred of women. Remember that, as you cast that hateful vote. And stop pretending you care about women.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=SK in CV]It’s so easy to be judgmental from afar. To decide how others should live their lives, having no clue what actually goes on in those lives. They say you can’t judge a book by its cover. But you sure can judge them by how they judge others.[/quote]Totally agree with the italicized portion of your post. However, everyone has the right to vote (or not vote) for a candidate running for the highest public office in the land based on how they “feel” about them and how they “judge” their character. I posted earlier on this thread that if Hill and Bill were living in obscurity, no one would give a sh!t about their personal lives.

By campaigning hard for President of the United States on a platform of women and family issues and putting out a hodgepodge pieced together multi-million dollar national “attack ad” (which took her opponent’s statements in partiality and/or out of context) on Trump’s (supposed) distaste and/or disrespect for women, Hill is now experiencing the fallout of having her own personal life heavily scrutinized.

I’m sure you’re aware by now that all is fair and love and politics. The Clintons certainly are. And yes, political campaigns can get to rolling in the mud at the local level as well. I’ve seen it, heard and lived it … multiple times. We can’t change any of this so don’t shoot the messenger.

disclaimer: I’m currently not involved in any candidate’s campaign this election year.[/quote]

Wow. Seriously. Just wow. You defend Trump, and his outrageously disgusting comments against women, and criticize Clinton for her women and family policies. And you’re willing to vote for a man who has vowed to put judges on the supreme court that would take women back more than 40 years, and put thousands of women’s health and lives at risk. How can you hate women that badly? I can’t imagine how anyone who cares about women could ever vote for that man.

[SK in CV]

It’s so easy to be judgmental from afar. To decide how others should live their lives, having no clue what actually goes on in those lives. They say you can’t judge a book by its cover. But you sure can judge them by how they judge others.

[Author]

Posts