US Politics: Now with Alt Facts

[Swordfish]

4 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 On Twitter feeds and the like, I suppose, but not in the MSM. At least not that I have seen. Same goes for the "Playboy Centerfold" First Lady stuff. Seems to me that's more the material of Late Night Talk Shows and stand-up comedians and such. Not that it justifies this, but it's to be expected methinks.

What difference does it make?

Does misogynistic criticism only matter if it's in the MSM?

I doubt that explanation would fly if these were criticisms of Hilary.

[Week]

Just now, sToNED_CAT said:

Wow, really? That's such a massive overdramatization on your part.There were tens of thousands deaths during Trail of Tears for example. I highly doubt there would be any during mass deportation.

Approximately 2,000-6,000 of the 16,543 relocated Cherokee perished along the way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears

Scale up to 11 million. The actual 'march' could not possibly be comparable, but there certainly will be bloodshed by officers engaging in deportation efforts.

[Kalbear]

Just now, sToNED_CAT said:

Except the issue was not only prioritization. The problem was he gave them fucking work permits, completely overturning the purpose of immigration laws, that punish people for employing illegals! Yeah, that's how you reduce illegal immigration - by giving them hope to come, live heree and work without any kind of threat from DHS officials!

You ignored the question entirely.

You cannot deport all undocumented immigrants at once without massive resources. What do you do? And a followup question that you will also ignore: what do you do with all the others that are here and you can't deport right away?

For Obama, it was to prioritize going after the criminals. It was also to make it easier for those who are living in the US peacefully, successfully and openly to continue to do so without having to operate in the dark, so they would in turn cooperate with officials and move on. This in turn also helped find the criminals, as they were willing to self-report. 

What do you do?

[Theda Baratheon]

3 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

But she represents an obvious misogynist who has already signed orders that are restrictive towards women. Sorry, she's fair game as the agenda she's helping to push is clearly anti-feminist. The dog comment isn't cool. Kind of akin to the whole "punching Nazis is okay" meme that the left has seemed to jump on since the Spencer incident occurred. 

Punching Nazis *is* okay though Imao 

I ain't shedding a tear for them

[Castel]

2 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

What difference does it make?

Does misogynistic criticism only matter if it's in the MSM?

I doubt that explanation would fly if these were criticisms of Hilary.

It does matter in the way that a random person saying something(e.g. "Obama is not an American") is different from a Congressman saying it. I mean, that's not a complex position. 

 

[Swordfish]

1 minute ago, Castel said:

It does matter in the way that a random person saying something is different from a Congressman saying it. I mean, that's not a complex position. 

 

Who said they were the same?  Not me.

 

I'm not even sure where this 'well, they aren't congressmen and they aren't members of the MSM' angle came from.  It's a complete sidebar.

 

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Castel said:

It does matter in the way that a random person saying something is different from a Congressman saying it. I mean, that's not a complex position. 

 

Also, it's not misogynistic criticism. As far as I can tell Ivanka Trump and Kellyanne Conway aren't being criticized because they're women (and in fact, Ivanka wasn't being talked about at all). 

[Samantha Stark]

Are we back on the whole every one I don't like is a fascist Nazi and literally Hitler train? Just checking 

[Kalbear]

Just now, Samantha Stark said:

Are we back on the whole every one I don't like is a fascist Nazi and literally Hitler train? Just checking 

Nope, you're still here

[Swordfish]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Also, it's not misogynistic criticism. As far as I can tell Ivanka Trump and Kellyanne Conway aren't being criticized because they're women (and in fact, Ivanka wasn't being talked about at all). 

I'm not sure where you are getting your news, but take my word for it, Ivanka has been discussed quite a lot, both in the MSM, and by private individuals.

try google, maybe?

 

 

 

 

[Castel]

Just now, Swordfish said:

Who said they were the same?  Not me.

 

Then what's your point? 

You're the one who took offense at someone distinguishing between the MSM and something like Twitter. I don't see how making that distinction clear is some sort of issue. It does make a difference.

1 minute ago, Swordfish said:

I'm not sure where you are getting your news, but take my word for it, Ivanka has been discussed quite a lot, both in the MSM, and by private individuals.

try google, maybe?

 

Why?

[Tempra]

16 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Yes, and I never claimed otherwise. It is, however, a major problem, and it was one of the major things that was leveled against Clinton - that she was using a non-government email system to do government business. Which was ALSO not illegal, just against policy. 

It is also illegal, thanks to FOIA, for POTUS to not retain any communication done by official channels, and twitter has already been considered one and has been since Obama. 

It is also against policy for him to use any unsecured communication devices whatsoever. Again, not likely a law being broken (though if something occurred to embarrass the country or worse it would be an impeachable offense) but it is a bad practice.

I don't have any. I'm stating the fact. If they do it, great. If they don't, they're in violation.

 They are required to submit them within 20 days. And they have to do so regardless of whether or not it's government work they're doing; others examine and decide if that's the case, and retain as needed. Deleting them - regardless of the data involved - is expressly forbidden. This was, for example, why 20 million emails by Bush et al got deleted and then had to be restored and saved - because they might have had government business.

Wow, so, Trump's people could potentially be in violation of federal law if they fail to preserve government emails.  That's new and exciting...I guess.

Get back to me when they destroy government work emails and/or have classified emails on their private servers.

[butterbumps!]

13 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

What difference does it make?

Does misogynistic criticism only matter if it's in the MSM?

I doubt that explanation would fly if these were criticisms of Hilary.

Just so we're on the same page, what criticisms of Kelly Anne have you found problematic?    I've seen criticism, but nothing that steered into misogynistic territory, though I haven't gone looking, admittedly.  

ETA:  I've seen Melania slut shaming, and feminist backlash against the Melania slut-shaming.  My experience has been that the left/ feminist critique renounced that.

[Swordfish]

Just now, Castel said:

Then what's your point? 

You're the one who took offense at someone distinguishing between the MSM and something like Twitter.

Why?

I don't know what makes you think I took offense.  i am not offended, even mildly.

 

Quote

I don't see how making that distinction clear is some sort of issue. It does make a difference.

What difference, in the contest of this discussion?

[sToNED_CAT]

10 minutes ago, Week said:

Scale up to 11 million. The actual 'march' could not possibly be comparable, but there certainly will be bloodshed by officers engaging in deportation efforts.

Great, let everyone stay! There might be bloodshed. Also let's stop enforcing all criminal laws. That might lead to bloodshed too!

[Swordfish]

Just now, butterbumps! said:

Just so we're on the same page, what criticisms of Kelly Anne have you found problematic?    I've seen criticism, but nothing that steered into misogynistic territory, though I haven't gone looking, admittedly.  

You can probably start with the criticisms of her outfit/appearance on inauguration day.

I don't pay too much attention to Kelly Anne to be honest.  I was speaking more about criticisms of Ivanka.

[Kalbear]

Just now, Tempra said:

Wow, so, Trump's people could potentially be in violation of federal law if they fail to preserve government emails.  That's new and exciting...I guess.

Get back to me they destroy work emails and/or have classified emails on their private servers.

You have no problem with Trump using an insecure email to conduct social media? Really? That's surprising.

Also, Spicer is walking back the 20% tariff idea, saying it's an example of the kind of thing that they could do. One reason that the press is so eager to jump on anything is because there have been no actual ideas on what is going on, so anything could be true.

 

[Castel]

4 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

I don't know what makes you think I took offense.  i am not offended, even mildly.

"Take offense" is a turn of phrase. You're the one who raised objections to the post. Could you just not get hung up on it?

Quote

What difference, in the contest of this discussion?

It's a discussion about Trump-aligned women facing sexism. It seems relevant to me why Ivanka was  being covered or discussed.

It would seem to be relevant wouldn't it? I mean, in the narrow sense you're right and she was talked about but the "why" seems incredibly important for the rest of this discussion.

So: why was Ivanka being covered or talked about, when she was? 

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, sToNED_CAT said:

Great, let everyone stay! There might be bloodshed. Also let's stop enforcing all criminal laws. That might lead to bloodshed too!

Or...we could recognize that half of the undocumented immigrants have been here for over 10 years, are part of their communities and that removing them is a net negative and work towards reform so that they can be legal while ALSO pursuing catching the criminals in the country and prosecuting heavily.

The notion that you either have to deport everyone or no one is such an obvious stupidity that even Trump disagrees.

[butterbumps!]

Just now, Swordfish said:

You can probably start with the criticisms of her outfit/appearance on inauguration day.

I don't pay too much attention to Kelly Anne to be honest.  I was speaking more about criticisms of Ivanka.

Is it wrong to critique someone's outfit, or was there something specifically gendered that you saw?

Ivanka or Melania?   I edited the last post to remark on Melania: I've seen Melania slut shaming, largely in celebrity-type rags, as well as feminist backlash against the Melania slut-shaming.  My experience has been that the left/ feminist writers vociferously renounced that.   I can't think of any writers of note who's thought the slut shaming was cool.

There's a ton of critique of Ivanka too, but I confess I haven't come across anything I found problematic or unfair.   She's been an enabler and surrogate for Trump, which is problematic for someone purporting to be an advocate for women, and so that deserves criticism.