Jump to content

mnino

Elitists
  • Posts

    2,930
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by mnino

  1. 5 minutes ago, KalamazooJay said:

    I really, truly, appreciate your posts. They're thought provoking, intelligent, and funny at times.Ā 

    BUT.

    I don't agree with that whatsoever.Ā 

    I don't think he 'saw' a thing. I don' t think he had his pulse on America in any way, shape, or form. He has been behaving like this his entire life and has been a part of American pop culture for over a quarter of a century. People call him the anti-Obama, but what he really is, is the anti-Reagan. I say this because, like Trump, Reagan had already created a public opinion of himself to American's by being an actor in Hollywood. He was beloved before he even became a politician and there wasn't much career politicians could say or do to persuade his 'fan base' that he was anything else than what they had already made up in their own mind.Ā 

    Now, enter Trump. This guy's been calling women pigs and dogs for decades. He's been insulting anyone and everyone who's ever crossed his path. He's been screaming his toxic bullshit in living rooms for years. AND A LOT OF PEOPLE LIKE IT! And this is what I believe Trump knew. He knew, as he said, that he could go into 5th Ave and shoot someone and his 'fans' wouldn't care.Ā It's the same thing with Kanye, Kimmy K, and even our own beloved Madonna. The core fanbases of these individuals will NEVER abandon them regardless of WHAT they do.Ā 

    So, Trump thought he'd take our democracy on a wild ride, have some fun, then take his story on television for some kind of shitty reality series on how he ran for president and give Hillary hell the same way he did Obama. I STILL just don't believe he wanted to win this thing in it's entirety. I just don't. And quite honestly, I believe he might just be as scared as the rest of us.Ā 

    I have the same opinion. At some point after his first disastrous debate with Hillary he must have realized that he could actually win this because even after completely bombing that night he wasĀ still doing well on the polls!

  2. 6 hours ago, billiejean said:

    I liked your post.


    After a few of us declared ourselves neutral, and after I mentioned Caitlyn going to the inauguration according to the Daily Mail, Kim said he's watching "The insidious right wing element of this place trying to pass themselves off an "neutral" while quoting from faux news and The Daily Fail and only ever having anything to say about anything remotely liberal and progressive..." so I used his word, all be it in a ridiculous context, but hey, I am not a right winger nor do I quote the Daily Mail as a source of legitimacy hence the phrase according to being used by me! I find most mainstream media abhorrent.

    I don't think anyone here is being insidious, that's quite a harsh word, but really, why would there be a need to be sneaky anyway? It's a Madonna forum, it's not a job. If I came out and said I was right winger who voted Trump and jumped on my neighbours daisies what will be done to me? Right now as I've not posted a photograph, I'm simply a font on a screen! I can be and say what I want without a consequence really. Why would I hide it? Posing as neutral while anonymous is pretty pathetic.
    From what I've read on here, I think people in this thread and around the board generally are upfront. We talk bluntly with each other (sometimes it hurts :imsad: lol) There are the silent voters sure, but, FROM WHAT I'VE READ I don't feel anyone here is hiding a red hat under their cone bra, those who did go red do seem to be OK with letting people know.

    tumblr_ltg9ttXDkK1qb7bm6.gif

    Oh, I see.Ā 

  3. 17 hours ago, MeakMaker said:

    Thank you mnino And I agree with you I shouldn't go on and on on tangent about Trump. My opinion won't change anything after all. Ā And it's true we all should be more positive and think for the better.Ā Have a really good year.Ā :brenspin:

    MM,Ā 

    I apologize for singling you out somewhat. At one point in my life I was as passionate as you about political things. I was in college and on everybody's face about W'sĀ Iraq war snafu. Ultimately, most people didn't listen to me because I was talking at them and not listening to them. I guess your rhetoric reminded me of myself and I maybe unconsciously wanted to help you. Who knows? What I know is that your opinion CANĀ change people's point of you if they are willing to listen. You just needĀ time to figure out what works best for you.

    I have to admit that I have become somewhat of aĀ Cynic in that I put a lot of value in self-control and independence. But I would loathe living in a world full of people like me. So, please stay passionate and fight for what you believe. Just don't let your valid points be overshadowedĀ by yourĀ desire to be emphatic.Ā 

    Positivity won't hurt either.

    I hope you have a really good year too. You're are much more in charge of your year than Trump so don't let him ruin it.

    Cheers.

    Ā 

  4. 53 minutes ago, promise to try said:

    this is a question for the people from the USA.When obama was elected people treated him in here (spain) nearly as a leader given to us by god.He was very good, very nice, inteligent, handsome...but I have seen that in the US he has been, and his politics have not been very well received by a lot of americans...he seems to be a very polarizing person in the USA.Do you think TrumpĀ“s winning is also a result of Obama being 8 years as a president and being too much for a lot of people? do you think that if instead of obama, the president would have been the typical white middle of the road democrat politician, people would have voted so much for trump?

    The right hated him from the beginning and hated him even more after he used executive orders to bypass an obstructionist congress and house. The progressive wing of the democrats becameĀ disenchanted with his less than stellar performance championing their agenda. Regardless, his approval is extremely high after 8 years in power. I personally think he was miles and miles better than W. Politics here are hyper-polarized so anyone in power is going to be hated.Ā 

    I continue to think that Hillary lost because of Hillary. Obama would have easily won a third term against any of the 16(?)Ā Republican hopefuls. Trump could only have won against Hillary in my opinion. If the Democrats had not felt like they owed her the nomination, Bernie Sanders would have been inaugurated next week IMO.

  5. 46 minutes ago, MeakMaker said:

    No real injustice happened yet? Go tell that to the tax man. Trump must have scammed the system by the millions for him to completely admit he's got no intention to reveal his tax return. He knows he would be in deep shit.Ā 

    See, I work with taxes and EVERYONE that CANĀ use the tax system to their advantage does it. It includes all politicians, celebrities or anyone that can afford a tax planner. He probably saved millions in taxes because the tax code favors his type of people. If I were to protest, I would protest against the legislators that created such a monstrosity of a tax code that allows people like him to get away with it.Ā 

    I don't like to bark up the wrong tree.Ā 

  6. 1 hour ago, MeakMaker said:

    You're not neutral though. Why you keep saying you are? What are you afraid of? The reason why I think you're not is because allĀ you have been doing is mocking of underminingĀ my views so how can you be entirely neutral when you certainly don't agree with a certain point of view?Ā Ā And I'm not barking at anyone let alone a tree.Ā 

    You areĀ correct inĀ that I partially don't agree with your point of view. But I'm not sure you understand what I don't agree. I will try to clarifyĀ it.

    I completely understand and respect your disdain for the Trumpster, he is vile. What's to disagree there? Is he going to "save" America and "make it great" again? I wouldn't bet on it. So we do have something in common.

    However, I am not going to inundate my Facebook, Twitter, Madonnation, whatever, with over theĀ top anti-Trump rhetoric because I believe it's counterproductive in our current environment. He was elected even though I did not vote for him. What else can be done? Impeach him? Well, it will probably happen. What can I do as a citizen at this time? I could protest. But protest against what? His election? He won it. What else to protest? Should I protest because he is not morally admirable? Yes, but everyone already knows that. What would that accomplish?

    I will be the first one to voice disagreement with any of his policies that I believe are not for the benefit of the nation. So far all I can do is dislike some ofĀ his picks for his cabinet. Mr. Exxon and Mr. Sessions leave A LOT to be desired and I hope that the vetting continues. Am I convinced that it will work? I'm not sure. Then what? What can I do? Whine? What I can do is have level headed conversations with people surrounding me about how I believe this corporate approach to diplomacy may not be a great approach. And if someone disagrees with me, I will not suddenly label them Trump admirers.Ā 

    Ultimately what can really be accomplished if no one consciously attempts to stay neutral amidst this political polarizing ofĀ America? Labeling people that consider themselves neutral as Trump supporters is just going to alienate them in my opinion.Ā And I firmly believe that the democrats are doing themselves no favor by labeling every Trump voter as a supporter of bigotry, homophobia, etc.Ā 

    So, I disagree with you regarding the absence of neutrality when it comes to Mr. Trump. My disagreement with your opinions have more to do with style than substance. I think I didĀ undermineĀ your view that the US will become another Russia and that Trump will set us back 20 years becauseĀ I seriously disagree with both stances. And I really fail to see how that makes me suddenly a Trump supporter.Ā 

    Most of my discussions on this forum were regarding how he won the election by winning the blue collar vote inĀ the Rust Belt, how our media created him and ironically lost its credibility with the masses because of it and how scaryĀ it is to have journalists that are so clearly biased on both sides of the spectrum.Ā 

    I am not afraid of voicing my opinion when I think it can make a difference. I don't see the need to keep repeating how awful the guy is because everybody knows it. You may continue to label me whatever you want though. Just be careful of who you label your enemy because you may find yourself surrounded by people that won't challenge you.Ā 

    Relax. Better days will come.Ā 

  7. 44 minutes ago, Kim said:

    The insidious right wing element of this place trying to pass themselves off an "neutral" while quoting from faux news and The Daily Fail and only ever having anything to say about anything remotely liberal and progressive...

    tenor.gif

    Quoting Fox News to counter a liberal argument is not a subtle way of concealing a right wing agenda.Ā :lmao:

    There's neutral and then there's Fox News quoters.Ā 

  8. 6 hours ago, MeakMaker said:

    Yes let's attack the media for reporting exactly what a legit spy investigation came up with. Just because Trump said it didn't happen that doesn't make that story fake.Ā 

    I'm sure if all the media was owned by Fox News then no one would say a word because it defends the Trump regime. I'm appalled by your logic. And people here say they aren't biased?!? It's so transparent who side you guys are on. At least admit it.. instead of insulting our intelligence.

    Trump is a liar. The media is giving him a hard time. He comes within the territory.Ā Deal with it. Stop crying at the media for havingĀ a go at Trump. This is not Russia. TheĀ media can say what they want. Trump needs to grow a pair and act like an adult instead of crying at the mean media.Ā 

    There are people and press organisations who stand by Trump and his regime and there are people and press organisations who don't and mistrust him. It happens with every president. What makes Trump so different? And his supporters crying at the "unfair" media are a joke. I d say Fox News is unfair as well but I'm not there crying or discriminating against it because I don't like what they say. You guys are slowly losing the plot themselves...Ā must be the Trump influence....

    Still barking up the wrong tree, I see.

    110314-Barking2-Full.jpg

    So, claiming that our media is biased (either way) is now a sign of being a Trump supporter?

    dont-gif.gif

  9. 7 hours ago, Nightshade said:

    I am not sure I ever understand when people say the Republicans and Democrats are two arms of the same corrupt body. In that, I am not absolving Democrats from corruption, but when the Democratic Party controlled Congress AND the Presidency, they passed a law which subsidize health insurance for a great number of people, removed limitations on pre-existing conditions, and lifted the ban on gay people serving openlyĀ in the military. They did these things with little or no Republican support. Are these not good things in and of themselves? What is the first thing a Republican Congress tried to do? Gut an ethics committee providing oversight. In my opinion, the contrast has never been greater, and for all of Hillary's faults, I don't think she was an idiotic loose cannon who resorted to petty tweets or picking fights with Rosie O'Donnell in a Presidential debate.

    On foreign policy, I think there is more room for debate and I feel like the situations are more complex. Does the U.S. stay out of foreign affairs and allow other far more nefariousĀ players to dominate? If we have the ability to help people in Aleppo and we do not, is that a moral and just decision? If we get involved and ruin a country because of our involvement, does the end justify the means? I am not arguing I have the answer. But it's certainly not an easy decision to make for any party.

    I'm guessing that what @XXLĀ was trying to say is that either party will protect the interest of the rich elites and corporate interestsĀ that have banked their campaigns. In the end, the ringleaders will still call the shots regardless of who's "in power."

  10. 11 hours ago, Sloane said:

    No one thinks this is an episode of The Apprentice.

    Look, and this a general statement to everyone, Trump supporters are not blinded to this man. No one is gonna hold his feet to the fire more... not all, like the smug right who will never admit they're wrong... thanĀ a significant portion of his voters, esp as weĀ start getting deep into his presidency (year 2, year 3...). Right now the mainstream press is getting spanked. They deserve it for the bullshit they've been peddling long before Trump came on the scene. This ain't even about him. It's about flushing out the cockroaches. If he doesn't deliver he'll be quickly marked with them. He is NOT going to be a dictator. Fascism is not on the rise. Chill. Relax. Stop with all the sky is falling and give him a minute.

    Besides even if he does eff up, still better than Hillary. Cockroaches not only would've not be exposed if she got in, they'd be more emboldened than ever.

    This.Ā 

    giphy.gif

    The ones that panic in an emergency situation are usually the ones that perish...

  11. 42 minutes ago, Nessie said:

    Ā 

    The mainstream media has assaultedĀ Trump with so much highly questionable "facts"Ā or slanted "news" that people are beginning to assume that anything even remotelyĀ negative about Trump is completely false.Ā This is very dangerous.Ā At some point they might get something right and nobody will believe them...

    Bingo!

    the-boy-who-cried-wolf.jpg

    Ā 

    BuzzFeed's decision to publish unverified memos alleging that Russian operatives have compromising personal and financial information about President-elect Donald Trump has set off a fierce debate about the ethics of the decision and the responsibilities of journalists.

    On Tuesday night, BuzzFeed published a 35 page document compiled by a former British intelligence operative. That publication came shortly afterĀ CNN revealedĀ that a two-page synopsis of the document's contents had been included as an annex in the classified materials presented last week to Trump and to President Obama. Among other things, the document -- which is a compilation of memos prepared by the former operative -- describes Russians who allegedly gave information about Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin to the former operative.

    Ā 

    But while CNN and other outlets did not publish specific details from the memos because they could not be independently verified, BuzzFeed published the memos in full. (After BuzzFeed's publication of the memos, The New York Times added some of the allegations contained in them to its article on the subject.)

    "The dossier, which is a collection of memos written over a period of months, includes specific, unverified, and potentially unverifiable allegations of contact between Trump aides and Russian operatives, and graphic claims of sexual acts documented by the Russians," the BuzzFeed article accompanying the document states.

    "BuzzFeed News is publishing the full document so that Americans can make up their own minds about allegations about the president-elect that have circulated at the highest levels of the US government," it continues.

    The publication of the memos was immediately criticized by other journalists, including some who were concerned that BuzzFeed's decision to run the unverified documents would give Trump an opening to dismiss all questions about this information entirely.

    "Don't know about ethics, but now Trump has easy out,"Ā tweetedĀ Mark Horowitz, a veteran journalist who has worked at The New York Times. "Respond fiercely to sketchy BuzzFeed leak, not serious CNN story."

    "On Twitter, unverified info in a memo is crowding out this quite solid reporting by CNN," New York magazine's Jonathan ChaitĀ observed.

    "This seems preposterous, appalling, opportunistic, and lacking in basic ethics at every level," media columnist Michael WolffĀ wrote. "Ethics are simple: you shouldn't publish what you don't know to be true."

    In a memo to his staff, BuzzFeed editor-in-chief Ben Smith explained that he decided to publish the memos because BuzzFeed's "presumption is to be transparent in our journalism and to share what we have with our readers."

    Indeed, minutes later Trump sent out the following tweet: "FAKE NEWS - A TOTAL POLITICAL WITCH HUNT!" Later, heĀ tweeted outĀ an article from the sympathetic conservative website Lifezette about the publication, adding part of the headline, "'BuzzFeed Runs Unverifiable Trump-Russia Claims' #FakeNews"

    WikiLeaks, which recently has been in lockstep with the president-elect in criticizing American media, also dismissed the memos: "35 page PDF published by Buzzfeed on Trump is not an intelligence report," the organizationĀ tweeted. "Style, facts & dates show no credibility."

    Michael Cohen, a lawyer for Trump, also dismissed a portion of the memos alleging that he had secretly met with Kremlin officials in Prague in August 2016.

    "I have never been to Prague in my life," Cohen tweeted.

    In a phone call with CNNMoney, Cohen said he had never been to Prague, and said that during the month of August he was in New York and Los Angeles.

    When asked if he intended to take any action against BuzzFeed over their report, he said, "I'll take it under advisement."

    In an interview, Smith told CNNMoney that BuzzFeed had a reporter in Prague and did try to independently confirm Cohen had been there. However, Smith declined to respond to Cohen's claim that he had never visited the city.

    Regardless of the veracity of the memos, within minutes of BuzzFeed's publication of it, some of the more colorful details were already trending on Twitter.

    Ā 

    Both sides have used fake news. But ultimately what is destroying the credibility of journalism are these faux news outlets (on both sides of the political spectrum) and the so-called "serious" media that gives them airtime.

  12. All of this hoopla ultimately will only undermine the already frail credibility of the American media. It is alarming. The timing is once again suspect. I don't know if it is real or fake at this point to be honest. And I at least try to be well informed, the masses will just pick a side. The loser is the press. Why can't we have a single news outlet in America that doesn't reek of bias from either side of the political spectrum??Ā 

    The US media created him and now it can't control IT.Ā 

    Ā 

  13. 55 minutes ago, drunkbysix said:

    1) Racism = privilege + power

    In order to be racist, you need to possess two traits. The first is privilege: A structural, institutional, and social advantage. White people occupy positions of racial privilege, even when they are disadvantaged in other ways. White women, for example,Ā consistently make morethan black women, because they benefit from racial attitudes. Furthermore, you also have to have power: the ability, backed up by society, to be a strong social influencer, with greater leeway when it comes to what you do, where, and how.Ā 

    For instance, white people benefit from privilege and power when they arenā€™t arrested for drug crimes at disproportionate rates, while black people experience racism when theyā€™re arrested, and sentenced, for the same crimes. This reflects a racialized power imbalance in the justice system. Itā€™s about the privilege and power of white offenders (less likely to be racially profiled, more likely to have strong legal representation, more likely to be able to talk police officers out of an arrest) and the lack of social status for black offenders.Ā 

    People of color talking about white people donā€™t occupy positions of privilege or power. Therefore, they cannot be racist.Ā RacismĀ is structural, not personal.Ā 

    2) Anger is a legitimate response to oppression.

    When ā€œreverse racismā€ is flung around, itā€™s often in response to angry language, to protests, to fights for equality. People of color have been pushing back on privilege and power for a long time. Many of them are understandably pretty tired of it. Unsurprisingly, some arenā€™t interested in moderating their tone for a white audience. That means that sometimes they use strong language, out of frustration, rage, or to make a heavy impact on observers. Still not reverse racism.Ā 

    More importantly, insisting that people of color need to be nice about the way they talk about racism is, in fact, racist: It suggests that, for example, ā€œangry black womenā€ donā€™t merit social attention, because theyā€™re being unreasonable.Ā 

    3) Attempts to rectify systemic injustices are not examples of reverse racism.

    One of theĀ most common pieces of evidenceĀ used as ā€œproofā€ of reverse racism is that ofĀ affirmative actionĀ and minority admissions at colleges, universities, and some companies. The argument goes that people of color are stealing positions and jobs away from better or equally qualified white people.Ā 

    This isĀ not the case. The problem is that generations of injustice have resulted in underrepresentation of people of color in these settings, and the goal of affirmative action and related initiatives is to ensure that they arenā€™t harmed by racial bias in admissions and hiring decisions. People of color arenā€™t admitted or hired ā€œover white people.ā€ Theyā€™re considered equally, with an eye to the fact that subconscious bias may be influencing decisions made by people in power, who are, you guessed it, often white.Ā 

    ā€œWhite folks will tell me time and time again that Affirmative Action is ā€˜unfair,ā€™ā€ writesĀ Jamie Utt, aĀ diversity and inclusion consultant and sexual violence prevention educator,Ā ā€œbecause it discriminates against White people. What the term ā€˜fairā€™ assumes here, though, is that we live in a society where thereā€™s an equal playing field for all students, regardless of race or wealth.ā€ Addressing these injustices is intended to give people of color more opportunities, and to ensure that future generations wonā€™t face the same imbalances current generations do.

    4) Having spaces set aside for people of color is not racist.

    Whites are often resentful of clubs, organizations, and groupsĀ focused on people of a specific race, with membership closed to people who are not members of that racial community. The claim goes that such groups segregate and discriminate; after all, if members of those minorities cared so much aboutĀ racism, theyā€™d open their membership to all, right?

    Josh OdamĀ writesĀ in the Daily Collegian,Ā ā€œOne of my favorite examples of such a mentality is this: Itā€™s unfair that black students have a Black Student Union when white students do not. To put it simply, the University of Massachusetts is a White Student Union.ā€

    But itā€™s about more than that. Itā€™s not just that every public space is open to white people, but that white people have an expectation that every private space should beĀ open to them, too.Ā Some conversations and community events need to take place behind closed doors. People of color may need to have sensitive conversations about discrimination, racism, and their lived experiences that are difficult to have when they are surrounded by white observers or people who talk over them. Such spaces provide a medium for doing so, just as members of the LGBTQ community use retreat spaces, and women join women-only organizations and groups for mutual support.Ā 

    5) White people are not oppressed.

    The history of the oppression of people of color by the West, and, by extension, white people, spans centuries. Africans were enslaved and brought to the New World, where European colonialists stole land from Indigenous people. Colonies across the Global South brought untold wealth into the coffers of Europe, with the low, low cost of suffering for native populations.Ā 

    Today, weā€™re still living with the legacies of colonialism: In the United States, the black community is dealing with the aftermath of slavery and the poverty and systemic prejudice it left behind. In many African nations, the collapse of former colonies left governments in shambles and unable to support themselves. In Australia, indigenous people struggle with a high poverty rate and low access to health care.

    White people, in contrast with people of color, do not experience systemic discrimination that makes it difficult to find and hold jobs, access housing, get health care, receive a fair treatment in the justice system, and more. When it comes to social disparities, theyā€™re the ones consuming and receiving the bulk of the resources; in just one example, black women in the U.S. areĀ more likely to dieĀ from breast cancer due to delayed diagnosis. Thatā€™s the result of racism within theĀ medical system.Ā 

    Despite the belief stated by some white people that they areĀ more oppressedĀ than people of color, their claims donā€™t bear out when looking at social metrics like statisticalĀ representation in the justice system,Ā poverty,Ā educational achievement, andĀ unemployment rates.Ā 

    6) Prejudice and racism are not the same thing.

    Some people of color may view whitesĀ prejudicially; no wonder, given the interactions of racism in society. Anyone can believe inĀ stereotypesĀ or hold ideas about members of other groups that are not entirely accurate.Ā 

    However, being, and behaving, prejudicially isnā€™t the same thing as racism, especially when such prejudiceĀ punches up, not down. As Justin Simien ofĀ Dear White PeopleĀ puts it, ā€œPrejudice and racism are different. A joke about white people dancing has no impact on the lives of average white people, whereas jokes about black people and reinforcing stereotypes about black people do have an impact on the lives of everyday black people.ā€

    7) Hard truths arenā€™t racistā€”theyā€™re just hard to hear.

    Making a racist statement is a manifestation of racist culture; being ā€œmeanā€ isnā€™t. For whites, it can be difficult to be confronted with the reality of racism, and with comments from people of color about how privilege and power operate. Itā€™s tempting to take such comments personally and to insist that people of color are being ā€œmean,ā€ which is often a hop, skip, and a jump away from an accusation of reverse racism.Ā 

    In this case, the goal is often to invalidate the points made. If someone is being racist, surely her comments can be dismissed instead of taken seriously. Thus, a white person uncomfortable with a racialized conversation may claim that itā€™s reverse racist in order to escape the conversation, or escape her own role in racist power dynamics.

    On theĀ Internet, where such conversations fly by at lightning speed and often get heated, accusations of reverse racism often come in hot and heavy. Itā€™s worth taking a moment to back up and hit thoseĀ commentersĀ with a healthy dose of truth serum.

    Who is the AUTHORITY that concocted this?

  14. 1 hour ago, drunkbysix said:

    So defining racism as a tool of systematic oppression is ignorant?

    Ā 

    and if that's simply racism, why do we have words such as prejudice and discrimination which basically is the same thing?Ā 

    Systematic racism is not the same as racialĀ bigotry. Lumping both under the same moniker creates confusion.

  15. 3 hours ago, billiejean said:

    I don't get the but in your last sentence.

    Truth is? No that is not the truth. I did condemn the crime. I didn't post the video, I joined the conversation.
    And if you're trying to say I have a fuck the minorities mentality then you are wrong. I just can't stand the hypocrisy of this type of stuff, it drives me mad that some people think they're so morally superior yet when something like this happens where the side we don't like is the victim, suddenly it's a muffled 'oh well you know it's because...' reaction, it's cowardice and in a way if you wanna go deeper it could even be seen as subliminally prejudice as different reactions to the same crimes promote the notion there are different moral standards for different ethnicities, and like I said before I believe people should be treated equally. We don't need to justify these things from any side, we should be outraged by all forms of prejudice and hate, we don't need to try and soften the blows, we should see things for what they are as people are conscious individual beings who should be held accountable for their actions, white or black, or Muslim or Christian.


    Me questioning the lack of outrage is what it is, calling out the hypocrisy, it's not no G-O-P tactic, I have no desire to be a GOP tactician in any part of my life let alone on a Madonna forum, lol.

    Who said about comparing an entire history to individual acts? Individual hate crimes are what I was talking about. If 3 white people beat up a black person because they're black it's a hate crime and if it's the other way around it's a hate crime just the same. That's what I was talking about.

    Because people are individuals and I don't like to presume things in terms of voting for either or. I actually like to hear peoples reasons before I condemn them simply for their vote, sorry if that makes me a horrific person.

    Like for instance, I found out a few months ago about Cubans 4 Trump, they voted for Donald and supported him vigorously. I can't look at them and scream that they are xenophobic misogynist bigots. People are individuals and there's more than just the mainstream narrative to look at in situations like this (a divisive election). There was a black vote and even a Latino vote for Trump that was bigger than expected, wasn't there? To dust them off as ignorant or Uncle Toms is just prejudice and dismissive. It annoyed me when people decided to label Kanye such things because of his so called outburst.
    It's good to hear from these people before we totally just shout them down, even with the white american voters, to simply shun them all and label them as racist before acknowledging the individual reasoning means we don't get the full picture other than what were imposing on them. At a time like this communication is key, and going to the people who are on the other side of your thinking and listening to their view is probably a good thing to do, if even it turns out they've proven you right, atleast you can say you bothered. *shrug*

    I like your brain.

  16. On 12/20/2016 at 6:10 PM, MeakMaker said:

    In my mind - and I know this will probably be a very unpopular and criticised opinion -Ā these terrorist attacks in Europe don't necessarily mean they've been all carried out by ISIS or anti westĀ Islamists. Maybe members of the far right parties have a hand in them. I know it's all conspiracy theories and I'd like people here to take them as such but history has taught us how the truth could be very well different from what we are supposed toĀ think. The biggest examples are the fireĀ of the parliament building in Berlin in 1933 andĀ the burning of Rome in 64 AD.Ā The Nazi party blamed the communists & socialistsĀ and Nero blamed the Christians. In truth they were both innocent and they only got blamed to raiseĀ hate and suspicion against them. It's very telling how all the leaders of far right parties always use these events to fit their agenda and call for more authority under their names. JustĀ saying...

    So... could the Russian hacking of the DNC server have been an inside job then?Ā 

    Helena-Bonham-Carter-Gif-Eating-Wonderin

    Ā 

  17. 10 minutes ago, ULIZOS said:

    Some of you have warped ideas of what matters to people around the world. I doubt gay marriage or all those politically correct things that REALLY matter in the U.S. right now areĀ anywhere on Spazz's list of things that truly matter to him.Ā 

    What does matter to him, I'm going to assume,Ā are the price of skyrocketing imports in his country, his country's economy, the fear that Wahhabi funded terrorists (the U.S.'s friend) bomb the Christian church his family goes to, that a Syria controlled byĀ "peaceful sunni rebels" further destabilizes the region and puts him and his ChristianĀ family into further danger,Ā that the U.S. decides to meddle in his country's elections, again (the same thing everyone in the U.S. is up in arms about right now) and helps put someone awful into power (again).Ā 

    You guys have no idea how grateful you are to be able to even demand gay rights and gay marriage and gay adoption or transgender bathrooms when people all over the world are just trying to, you know, not get killed or just have enough food.Ā 

    Spazz says some things about U.S. politics that make me roll my eyes, but it's so arrogant of you guys to do the same exact thingĀ to him when without knowing anything about his culture and country and region of the world tell him that he has no idea what he's talking about. Meaker or whatever his name is SWEARS he's an expert on the subject "because he met a family." That's like talking to 1 American family and basing everything you know about America on that 1 family.

    Truth

    P.S.: Is Hey You really your favorite song??Ā 

  18. 16 hours ago, Kurt420 said:

    Hey doll you people were the ones screaming everything was rigged pre-election and now there's just not a chance anything about the election could be corrupted?

    what happened to everything being rigged?? You, just like your dictator are a puppet for him in the way he's Putins puppetĀ 

    tumblr_n146jiIIl51qg5o2oo4_250.gif

    16 hours ago, Raider of the lost Ark said:

    You know they say people voted for Trump because of the economy and many people felt left behind. If those are the same people who are now big fans of Putin just shows their huge ignorance. Do you have any idea how the economy in Russia is? It's not doing well. And please spare me this shit about fake statistics provided by the Russian government. Big part of the reason why Putin is getting involved internationally and trying to bring Russia back to the power of the former Soviet Union and ideally even to its former size is that he has nothing to offer internally to his people. He is only getting away with it because he is restricting all kinds of civil rights in Russia. Freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of press ... basically none of it is exists. When you think about it, Russia is still very much the Soviet Union. Except that now all is owned by oligarchs thanks to their good relationship to the Kremlin. But the normal people? Are still living in dire conditions. I personally find it highly disturbing that some people here think Putin and Russia are the beacon of democracy and represent all the good in the world. And even worse, to see people like Spazz being so misguided and quite frankly I have difficulties to follow his mindset recently. Claiming Egypt is a "gay heaven" if you don't live openly. Thinking that Putin is "the greatest president on the planet" although Putin restricts the civil rights of its own people and have everyone who is in opposition with him thrown into prison. The very same president that supports laws that threaten the existence of every gay person in Russia for the mere fact of openly living the way they are. And branding any news report that is not in favor of Putin as "zionist media" when just a few days ago his very own church in Cairo has been attacked. One would think someone being attacked because your religion should be a little bit more careful making claims or comments that are based on religious hate. I don't understand it.

    I think Spazz is the only Putin fan here. I've never met any American that is a a fan of Putin but I don't know all Americans, of course.

    Either way, Trump's Secretary of State pick is very concerning IMO. In reality, world geo-politics for the last century haveĀ been centered aroundĀ the control and management of oil resources. O-LoĀ®Ā - the Orange Lord -Ā is clearly treating politics as business. HisĀ pick is a totally cynical manipulation of the political system. He IS draining the political swamp and filling theĀ corporate swamp. This guy surely knows about oil but will he have the best interest of America or the world on his mind? Or will he try to to benefit his CEO peers? Selfless CEO is almost an oxymoron so... we'll see what happens. We're definitely not in Kansas anymore.Ā 

×
×
  • Create New...