LogFAQs > #916766518

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, Database 5 ( 01.01.2019-12.31.2019 ), DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	How is Trump's Approval rating still at 45%?
darkknight109 02/01/19 5:43:09 PM #115:	Zeus posted... It's absolutely irrelevant given that the term is currently both less controversial and really known more to young people. If that's the case, why were you busy arguing with people that calling people animals was mad-racist? You seem to have done a complete 180 as soon as I pointed out that Trump used the exact same language you were criticizing others for and are now saying "Well, it's really not that racist, and young people are the only ones who care anyways". Zeus posted... And it baffles me that you think a society's leader should solely focus on studying lesser mores than actually governing. Contrary to your assertions, a decent leader does not need to spend time "studying" what language is and is not acceptable, because they simply don't use language that ever even borders on offensive. Again, I'm not familiar with any president of either party in the last ~40 years having an issue with this. Perhaps I have forgotten a faux pas somewhere, but it's definitely not a common event. Zeus posted... So you're basically pleading ignorance regarding the presidential primaries? Yes, actually. Not my country, so I didn't particularly care at that point. I kept abreast of the highlights, but did I actually pay any substantial attention to the primaries? No, and I never have. Zeus posted... That would explain a LOT, considering your apparent lack of political knowledge. You might also be surprised to learn that he insisted whites can't be poor. Fascinating, but I'm still not seeing a source (for your previous comment - I did find Bernie's comments on race you're referencing here, unrelated and irrelevant to the discussion though they may be). And no, "the primaries" are not a source. That's like me saying "Yes, I found this fact - it's in the Encyclopedia Britannica." Unless you can provide a specific clip or news article quoting him saying what you're attributing to him, I'm going to assume that you're either: a) Completely misconstruing something he actually said; b) Misremembering the quote or attributing it to someone who didn't actually say it; or c) Flat out making shit up You can change that assumption, but only if you actually provide a source. It's hilarious to me that you're accusing me of political ignorance, yet can't be bothered to back up your own statements with an actual source. Zeus posted... Except even 20 years ago that was nowhere near acceptable. So, funny thing about that - I didn't actually look up the full context when you originally referenced it and I just did. Turns out she never actually calls African Americans "superpredators" - she just says that juvenile gangs connected to drug cartels are "superpredators" that have no conscience or empathy, never suggesting that the gangs were composed of African Americans. Trump and Reince Priebus attempted to slag her with it in an attempt to reduce her standing with African American voters and, to be fair, Clinton did apologize when pressed by BLM reps (I suspect more out of a sense of political expediency than anything else), but her initial comments weren't nearly as controversial as you're suggesting. And you sound like you were pretty young in the 90s, if you were alive at all, so I'll go ahead and point out that nothing of what she said would have raised many eyebrows back then. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:916766518] in How is Tru... [t:77368084]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeus posted...</cite> <quote>It's absolutely irrelevant given that the term is currently both less controversial and really known more to young people.</quote> If that's the case, why were you busy arguing with people that calling people animals was mad-racist? You seem to have done a complete 180 as soon as I pointed out that Trump used the exact same language you were criticizing others for and are now saying "Well, it's really not that racist, and young people are the only ones who care anyways". <cite>Zeus posted...</cite> <quote>And it baffles me that you think a society's leader should solely focus on studying lesser mores than actually governing. </quote> Contrary to your assertions, a decent leader does not need to spend time "studying" what language is and is not acceptable, because they simply don't use language that ever even borders on offensive. Again, I'm not familiar with any president of either party in the last ~40 years having an issue with this. Perhaps I have forgotten a faux pas somewhere, but it's definitely not a common event. <cite>Zeus posted...</cite> <quote>So you're basically pleading ignorance regarding the presidential primaries? </quote> Yes, actually. Not my country, so I didn't particularly care at that point. I kept abreast of the highlights, but did I actually pay any substantial attention to the primaries? No, and I never have. <cite>Zeus posted...</cite> <quote>That would explain a LOT, considering your apparent lack of political knowledge. You might also be surprised to learn that he insisted whites can't be poor. </quote> Fascinating, but I'm still not seeing a source (for your previous comment - I did find Bernie's comments on race you're referencing here, unrelated and irrelevant to the discussion though they may be). And no, "the primaries" are not a source. That's like me saying "Yes, I found this fact - it's in the Encyclopedia Britannica." Unless you can provide a specific clip or news article quoting him saying what you're attributing to him, I'm going to assume that you're either: a) Completely misconstruing something he actually said; b) Misremembering the quote or attributing it to someone who didn't actually say it; or c) Flat out making shit up You can change that assumption, but only if you actually provide a source. It's hilarious to me that you're accusing me of political ignorance, yet can't be bothered to back up your own statements with an actual source. <cite>Zeus posted...</cite> <quote>Except even 20 years ago that was nowhere near acceptable. </quote> So, funny thing about that - I didn't actually look up the full context when you originally referenced it and I just did. Turns out she never actually calls African Americans "superpredators" - she just says that juvenile gangs connected to drug cartels are "superpredators" that have no conscience or empathy, never suggesting that the gangs were composed of African Americans. Trump and Reince Priebus attempted to slag her with it in an attempt to reduce her standing with African American voters and, to be fair, Clinton did apologize when pressed by BLM reps (I suspect more out of a sense of political expediency than anything else), but her initial comments weren't nearly as controversial as you're suggesting. And you sound like you were pretty young in the 90s, if you were alive at all, so I'll go ahead and point out that nothing of what she said would have raised many eyebrows back then. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1