Trump

[KrisLetang]

It's not as if they're a majority though. They'd have been loath to vote for Obama too, but he still got elected twice.



Were you only talking about religious Jews then (rather than cultural Jews)? You've still not actually answered the question as to why you think a Jew could never be US president.

I would suggest that it's probably your own reluctance to answer questions posed to you that makes it difficult for you to have adult conversations (http://foot.ie/threads/223094-Saudi-Arabia-not-observing-the-silence?p=1935990&viewfull=1#post1935990) with those with whom you disagree. ;)

I think there is antisemitism from certain voting blocks on the Dems side that would make it tough. I think that's why Bloomberg never ran. He really looked into it, and he surely has the money. I think a Jewish republican could get elected. Eric Cantor was the first Jewish Maj Whip I believe for example. Yes, I know he lost eventually. Bloomy changed to independent at some point.

Another foaming at the mouth Trump critic, noted New York Times scribe Glenn Thrush suspended over sexual harassment claims from many women......They wont have any males left at that paper soon.

[KrisLetang]

Also if it would be so easy why don't you guys think Chuck Schumer runs for president? He is the most power hungry and camera hungry person in the Senate IMO. He has a famous cousin who could help with the campaign. Dem's love Hollywood stars. He checks all the boxes, good fundraiser, anti Gun, pro immigration. Pro Abortion. Long time stable marriage. What could be keeping him from running?

[DannyInvincible]

No-one said it would be easy; I don't doubt anti-Semitism is still quite prevalent in many areas of the US. People have just been suggesting that it wouldn't be as impossible for a Jew to become US president as you appear to think it would be.

I'm not familiar with Chuck Schumer, but you imply that he hasn't put himself forward because he assumes or "knows" he wouldn't stand a chance on account of his presumably Jewish background, but if it is such an obvious "truth" that a Jew would have no chance of success, why did Sanders waste his time campaigning at all? He's evidently not a stupid man.

And it's pro-choice; not "pro-abortion". The latter term is a totally disingenuous term used to misrepresent or smear those who advocate choice. I don't know anyone who advocates abortion. The idea is that women ought to be trusted to make decisions regarding their own bodies and reproduction. Anti-natalism (the umbrella under which a pro-abortion position would fall) is very much a fringe philosophy.

[KrisLetang]

What about this writer?
https://www.salon.com/2015/04/24/i_am_pro_abortion_not_just_pro_choice_10_reasons_w hy_we_must_support_the_procedure_and_the_choice/

[DannyInvincible]

What about her? She seems content to "reappropriate" the term, which is fine, but she still makes an explicit distinction between being pro-choice and being pro-abortion, in accordance with her interpretation of what those terms mean.

I also sense that her usage of the term "pro-abortion" happens to mean something slightly different from the intended import when it is used by someone who is hostile to choice in order to smear those who are pro-choice, as the latter example of the term's usage is almost invariably a wholly disingenuous attempt to frame or mischaracterise those who are simply pro-choice as being "evil/immoral" advocates for "murdering babies".

I've come across Tarico before and her writings in advocacy of choice and on the hypocrisies of the anti-choice movement (https://valerietarico.com/2015/09/11/if-the-anti-abortion-frenzy-were-actually-about-abortion-what-a-serious-anti-abortion-movement-would-actually-look-like/) are very compelling and welcome, but it still doesn't change the fact that an anti-natalist position that advocates or encourages abortions (as opposed to a position that advocates a woman's choice to have an abortion if she wishes to undergo the procedure or to not have an abortion if she doesn't wish to have one) isn't a mainstream one.

To clarify, I don't personally know anyone who espouses such a pro-abortion stance.

[KrisLetang]

Allright, I just showed 6 Jewish people this thread. 3 males, 3 females. 2 said yes, one said yes with caveats too numerous to mention, 2 said no and one said maybe and added that you "mansplain things something awful". Which I agree with.

[Charlie Darwin]

Classic foot.ie.

[bennocelt]

And it's pro-choice; not "pro-abortion". The latter term is a totally disingenuous term used to misrepresent or smear those who advocate choice. I don't know anyone who advocates abortion. The idea is that women ought to be trusted to make decisions regarding their own bodies and reproduction. Anti-natalism (the umbrella under which a pro-abortion position would fall) is very much a fringe philosophy.

Ah now Danny, have you not seen Ruth Coppinger foaming at the mouth when the subject comes up.

[KrisLetang]

Interesting note on fundraising:

The DNC had it's worse fundraising month since 2003.
RNC cash on hand as of 10/31: $42.5 Million.
DNC cash on hand as of 10/31: $5 Million but with $3.2 million in debt. (from Julie Bykowicz twitter feed.)

Dave Levinthal: "A noteable driver: When Trump fundraises--and he does so frequently--It's often for the RNC or a joint Trump/RNC political committee."

I'm surprised by all this. Are Dems keeping their wallets shut BC they don't see anyone in charge of the party anymore? You would really think they would be able to capitalize on some of DT's stupid tweeting, etc...

[DannyInvincible]

Allright, I just showed 6 Jewish people this thread. 3 males, 3 females. 2 said yes, one said yes with caveats too numerous to mention,

Said "yes" to what question exactly? Any chance you could briefly elaborate on or summarise what they said?


2 said no and one said maybe and added that you "mansplain things something awful". Which I agree with.

Were they referring to me? Based on what exactly? One or two of my posts? Heh, OK... And their relationship or connection to you mightn't have coloured their opinion of someone having an argument with you in any way? :rolleyes:

Are you even a woman? :confused: I'm pretty certain you're not, but, even if you are, I wasn't aware, so I could hardly be guilty of mansplaining. Isn't mansplaining when a man knowingly talks down to a woman because he condescendingly presumes a lack of knowledge or insight on her part on account of her womanhood? He has to think he's talking to a woman for it to be mansplaining surely.

It's a bit condescending and dismissive to belittle my thoughts like that, purely on the basis that I'm a man explaining his point of view, no? Seeing as you say you agree with the accusation, which things specifically have I supposedly been "mansplaining something awful"? The "pro-choice"/"pro-abortion" thing? It's certainly odd and somewhat jarring to be accused of mansplaining on that matter when I'm the one asserting a woman's right to bodily and reproductive autonomy against an apparent ignorant misrepresentation/attack (which is what your distortion boils down to) from a man. You are a man, aren't you? And it's a particularly rich accusation in this instance coming from someone who previously accused me of being incapable of adult conversation, which is a pretty condescending thing to say in itself.

Mansplaining is clearly not what I have done here, where I have inferred a lack of knowledge or insight on your part on account of a lazy and erroneous accusation you made in respect of those who are pro-choice and so I am correcting you on that display of what was either ignorance or disingenuousness. I would remind you of the words of Ralph Waldo Emerson, who once advised, "Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted." ;)

In this instance, the accusation of mansplaining just seems like a convenient ad hominem attack to try and undermine what I'm saying. It's an accusation that is difficult to successfully refute because it's purely based on someone's subjective perception and I am a man, after all, who was clarifying an evident misunderstanding/misrepresentation. In what manner could I have clarified the distinction between "pro-choice" and the more malicious term "pro-abortion" (which I could only assume you did not understand, seeing as you misused the term "pro-abortion" when "pro-choice" would have been the appropriate term, unless you were being wilfully disingenuous, of course, which would be bad faith on your part and not mine, if so), without being accused of mansplaining?


Ah now Danny, have you not seen Ruth Coppinger foaming at the mouth when the subject comes up.

I'm pretty sure Coppinger is simply pro-choice, in line with the position of her party/alliance. Where has she suggested she's pro-abortion or anti-natalist in the sense I've outlined in post #555 (http://foot.ie/threads/219506-Trump?p=1945076&viewfull=1#post1945076)?

[Real ale Madrid]

Site admins just PM'ed to say one of my posts was PROBABLY going to be named POTY but I would have to agree to an interview and a major photo shoot. I said probably is no good and took a pass. Thanks anyway!

I would have been a cert only I probably steal other people's jokes too much.

[dahamsta]

I hereby declare RaM Foot.ie's Trump Superfan Of The Year. All hail the Cheeto God!

[tricky_colour]

Sanders is the first to win a presidential primary ever. Goldwater was a Methodist or something. I don't think Sanders is religious at all. But again, he would not have won the Presidency.


He polled significantly better v Trump, I think he would have won, he was quite popular with Republicans and Democrats, many democrats
really dislike Hillary too.


I think he would have won easily.


http://cdn.thefiscaltimes.com/cdn/farfuture/Anr-EqR19zimwVh1neuq5TOHPA8YEQVeK_7XWv2J-IA/mtime:1462903844/sites/default/files/media/05102016_Polls.jpg

13 point lead, 8 better than Hillary he would have got a landslide, the Democrats were nuts not to back him and they got what they deserved.

[KrisLetang]

You're not taking into account the things that would have come out if he had won the nomination tricky. Those polls are meaningless. It would be like saying the polls prior to Comey reopening the investigation into Hillary are the ones to go by! Why cant you guys understand that? They had lots of stuff to throw at Sanders. His wife bankrupting that college is just the tip of the iceberg. A guy that age being a senator that long? VERY possible he could have had one or two women coming out with accusations as well. Also he bought that third property, a vacation mansion. Wouldn't have played well with his base. ETC ETC ETC. A poll form May 10th 2016 is meaningless. They had a binder on Sanders they never used. Do you know any of the things in the binder for Corey Booker right now? Of course not. IF he gets the nomination next time around it will change things.

[Real ale Madrid]

I hereby declare RaM Foot.ie's Trump Superfan Of The Year. All hail the Cheeto God!

https://media.giphy.com/media/xTiTnHXbRoaZ1B1Mo8/giphy.gif

[KrisLetang]

CNN skipping the WH Christmas party. Aww. That one "reporter" is never going to get her Pecan Pie now.


He polled significantly better v Trump, I think he would have won, he was quite popular with Republicans and Democrats

No, BC of stuff like this today as he came down the stretch if he would have been the nom.

https://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2017/11/29/you-blithering-idiot-bernie-sanders-gets-schooled-after-most-ridiculous-tax-take-ever/

[tricky_colour]

You're not taking into account the things that would have come out if he had won the nomination tricky. Those polls are meaningless. It would be like saying the polls prior to Comey reopening the investigation into Hillary are the ones to go by! Why cant you guys understand that? They had lots of stuff to throw at Sanders. His wife bankrupting that college is just the tip of the iceberg. A guy that age being a senator that long? VERY possible he could have had one or two women coming out with accusations as well. Also he bought that third property, a vacation mansion. Wouldn't have played well with his base. ETC ETC ETC. A poll form May 10th 2016 is meaningless. They had a binder on Sanders they never used. Do you know any of the things in the binder for Corey Booker right now? Of course not. IF he gets the nomination next time around it will change things.

Such as? That he has a load of murdered children buried under his patio?
There is nothing that could have came out that would have made
a significant difference, I mean even if he was the devil incarnate he would have got as
many votes as Hillary (who is the devil incarnate btw!!).


https://libyanfreepress.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/hillary-clinton_vampir.jpg

He would have easily won he was quite likeable as a person, ie has some resemblance to a normal
human being!

[tricky_colour]

No, BC of stuff like this today as he came down the stretch if he would have been the nom.

https://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2017/11/29/you-blithering-idiot-bernie-sanders-gets-schooled-after-most-ridiculous-tax-take-ever/


I do not understand that, can you explain in your own words what the problem is?

[tricky_colour]

You're not taking into account the things that would have come out if he had won the nomination tricky. Those polls are meaningless. It would be like saying the polls prior to Comey reopening the investigation into Hillary are the ones to go by! Why cant you guys understand that? They had lots of stuff to throw at Sanders. His wife bankrupting that college is just the tip of the iceberg. A guy that age being a senator that long? VERY possible he could have had one or two women coming out with accusations as well. Also he bought that third property, a vacation mansion. Wouldn't have played well with his base. ETC ETC ETC. A poll form May 10th 2016 is meaningless. They had a binder on Sanders they never used. Do you know any of the things in the binder for Corey Booker right now? Of course not. IF he gets the nomination next time around it will change things.

But is nothing compare to Trump and Hillary Hillary with her secret foundation laundering money for criminal and God knows what,
he was a saint in comparison.

He would have won easilly and the democrat party conspired against him plus all the stuff mention was widely known at the time of the poll.

[DannyInvincible]

A guy that age being a senator that long?

What's the issue with that?


VERY possible he could have had one or two women coming out with accusations as well.

What is such speculation based on?

[KrisLetang]

What is such speculation based on?

I would start here:
https://www.snopes.com/bernie-sanders-essay/

[Real ale Madrid]

I would start here:
https://www.snopes.com/bernie-sanders-essay/

In other words - nothing.

Sanders has a lifelong reputation built on supporting and sponsoring Women's rights and the fight against sexual assault. Yet you seem happy to speculate about the possibility that "one or two" women may have made allegations against him based on a dumb essay he wrote 45 years ago.

[DannyInvincible]

I would start here:
https://www.snopes.com/bernie-sanders-essay/

Wasn't he attacking 1970s gender stereotypes by satirising how patriarchal society framed and portrayed women's sexuality? He wasn't personally advocating violence against women or saying that women secretly wanted to be raped. He was attacking men's attraction to narratives or notions - such as "she must have wanted it" - that downplayed or "justified" abuse.

In Sanders' own words (https://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/05/29/bernie-sanders-disowns-1972-article-on-womens-fantasies-of-rape/):


"It was a poorly written article dealing with gender stereotypes of the period, in the sense that a lot of men have the feel to be all powerful and controlling. Women have the feeling they have to be dependent. It was very poorly written in a way I certainly would not write it now. But if you read it, what you find is that is a bad situation for both people: women shouldn’t be dependent. Men should not be oppressors. We want a society where people are equal. That was about it was about."

I think you've read the "offending paragraph" as a literal rendering of Sanders' personal views - which it isn't - so the actual point of the essay obviously went right over your head. That this essay was disingenuously framed by those hostile to Sanders as a blemish on his character is pure bogus perception management and you appear to have fallen for it, hook, line and sinker.

Even if that paragraph was Sanders' personal thinking at the time, it's hardly justification for your borderline-defamatory conjecture that it's "VERY possible" he might have sexually abused multiple women, is it?

What else is there to add weight to your silly comment, seeing as you said that essay is merely where you "would start"?

[KrisLetang]

Actually MSNBC's (far left) Joy Reid brought that up today in a give and take with Jane Sanders on Twitter.

[DannyInvincible]

Ha, MSNBC is not "far-left".

Anyway, I've no idea what Reid said, so what's your point? It's still baloney.

[KrisLetang]

The farthest left. Rachel Maddow, etc......https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSNBC_controversies

Well that it is a prominent black female democrat who thinks Sanders is "dismissive of women around him, including his wife." I think other females might feel the same.

[Real ale Madrid]

The farthest left. Rachel Maddow, etc......https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSNBC_controversies

Well that it is a prominent black female democrat who thinks Sanders is "dismissive of women around him, including his wife." I think other females might feel the same.

Dismissive ? That all you got? Anything else? Let's be clear: you are insinuating that Sanders probably would have had 2 or 3 women come out with "accusations" based on a 45 year old essay and "dismissive"

[DannyInvincible]

The farthest left. Rachel Maddow, etc......https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSNBC_controversies

I'm not even sure it's left on the political spectrum. Maybe less right or more centrist than other mainstream media in the US would be a better way of putting it. Maddow might be socially liberal, but she's a hawkish fiscal conservative.

The notion of a genuine left-right spectrum within mainstream US politics is a pretence, as Chomsky explains in this video:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogPCxycgE80


Well that it is a prominent black female democrat who thinks Sanders is "dismissive of women around him, including his wife." I think other females might feel the same.

Other females like who? Like Sanders' wife? She strongly rubbished Reid's contention (https://twitter.com/janeosanders/status/936000317191311360) and she's got first-hand experience of the man in question.

Anyway, even if he has been "dismissive" of women - I don't know enough about his personal life to know, so feel free to elaborate with evidence - it's still no justification for your ludicrous abuse insinuation.

And what exactly is meant by "dismissive" here anyway? What's it in reference to?

[dahamsta]

One of the trolls from this thread actually thought it would be funny to try to troll me personally, so they've been banned. Since only they and one other person cared about this thread, and then only for trolling and/or feeding their idiocy, this thread is going the same way. All future discussion of the Idiocracy will be fact-based.