Total posts: 4,222
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Interesting. I had a working theory that Americans voted for Biden because they hated one man more than they loved their country, but I have been proven wrong time and again.The simple fact is most people that voted Biden in really had no clue. The corporate oligarchy media censorship is real.
no, most people voted for biden because he was the lessor of 2 evils. Biden promised to do a little bit of good, but mostly to keep the status quo. Trump was kind of all over the place, but mostly he just followed standard, highly destructive republican policies but with the added benefit of being a complete asshole and the constant threat of him triggering a war because someone was mean to him on twitter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Do you think its good to teach children about gay sex?
I don't think it's appropriate to teach children of that age about sex at all. It is absolutely a good idea for them to know that it is ok for a classmate to have 2 daddies or mommies. Some of these children are gay. Some of them have family members who are gay. Trying to prevent teachers from being able to talk about this topic that is likely critically important to many of their lives is doing them a serious disservice. And there is no reason why teachers shouldn't be able to talk about it, other than that bigot parents would rather hide this information from their children so they can better indoctrinate their children with their bigotry.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
That is comically wrong.Insulting someone is always opinion and never a claim of fact that can be defamation. Also when someone is accusing you of rape you can't really deny it without implying they're a dirty liar.
That depends on the insult. If you say "he's a jerk" then you are correct. That cannot be defamation. It is an opinion. But if you say they did something specific which they did not, then it is defamation. for example "He is a murder", or "he is lying about a specific event". Those are not opinions, they are statements about what someone has done. They can therefore be defamatory.
In this case, trump said she was lying about a specific incident. If she is not lying, then that can be defamation. Whether she can prove that is a whole different question.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
But if he didn't do it, wouldn't that make her a dirty liaar
presumably. She will have the burden of proof in this case to prove that this is defamation. Given that the incident happened a long time ago, I assume it will be difficult.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
If a 6 year old asks where babies come from or what it means to be gay, parents can be assured the school won't allow the teacher to hand out penthouse magazines, and instead say "ask your parents" because it is now illegal discuss sex with prepubescent children.
Who is using straw man arguments now? I gave examples of how this will harm children and teachers. Instead of replying to the examples I gave, you chose to use a ridiculous example that probably has never and will never happen. But that is the point of this whole thing. To pretend like it is stopping something (that is already against the rules) when what it is actually doing is further victimizing and already victimized group.
Do you really think this law was needed to stop teachers from handing out penthouse magazines to children? What this bill actually does is criminalize teachers saying anything a parent doesn't like. And MANY parents are stupid and/or bigots. So what they don't like could be almost anything. But that is the point. The bill is intended to allow individual parents to harass teachers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
That surely didn't stop people from defining it and spending millions of dollars to spread the strawman.
you haven't told me what straw man you are talking about. I keep telling you how this stops teachers from being able to talk to their students. I have given examples of how this can harm teachers and students. You don't reply to any of that and just keep saying it's a strawman, but don't explain why that is.
Hate to break the news to you, but this has always been the case in every State. Not just Fla. Public Teachers have not had the luxury of free speech ever since the many Scotus rulings banning it in the 80-90's especially regarding the separation of church and state along with other various ideologies.
these restrictions are to protect the rights of the children. The don't say gay bill isn't protecting students' rights. It is attacking their rights. Their right learn about themselves, their classmates, their family or friends. this bill doesn't help anyone but bigots.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
So her defamation case will be a failure. Case closed.
no idea. It certainly will be a tough case to prove. We'll see how it goes. along with the 5 other criminal investigations he is under and 5 other lawsuits he is facing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Or it just might be the media is being paid by corporate interests to convince you to defend a strawman. An obvious strawman in this case.
what strawman are you talking about? The republicans wrote a law that made it illegal to talk to children about anything that isn't "age appropriate". But makes no attempt to define what that means. It also left it up to individual parents to sue teachers who do anything they deem "not age appropriate". So every teacher is now under threat of breaking this law if any single parent objects to anything they say. And the right is making a huge witch hunt about people talking to children about gay people existing, or trans people existing etc. Any mention of it being ok to have gay parents would be grounds for a lawsuit under this law.
Bottom line, this law is designed to make it so teachers can be targeted by parents with the support of the state if they say things they don't like.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
He doesnt need to prove that he didnt do it.She needs to prove that he did.
in her defamation case, yeah pretty much. She needs to prove that trump defamed her when he said she was a liar. For him to sue her, he would need to prove she is a liar when she says he raped her. So he would need to prove he didn't do it if he wanted to sue her.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
I believe Trump should sue her for defamation now.
I mean, if he is able to prove he didn't do it, sure. But I don't know how he would do that. And he has enough legal battles already. here is a list of indictments and lawsuits trump currently has ongoing. His lawyers are very busy.
The Manhattan DA's indictment over the hush-money settlement to Stormy Daniels
The Trump Organization Payroll Case
The Fulton County election interference probe
The Justice Department's investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 election
The Justice Department's investigation into the handling of classified documents
lawsuits against trump
The NY AG's civil filing against the Trump family and Trump Organization
Lawsuits alleging 'incitement' on January 6
E. Jean Carroll's rape and defamation case against Trump
The 'multi-level marketing' pyramid scheme case
Michael Cohen's 'imprisonment' case
The Electric Avenue copyright case
lawsuits brought by trump
Donald Trump v. Mary Trump
Donald Trump v. Hillary Clinton
Created:
-->
@badger
Little bit absurd. Pretty damn fair to call someone a liar where you're accused of rape.
Yeah, it would be better if he was charged with the rape. Sadly the statue of limitations had run out on the rape charge by the time she came forward. So she had to go with the defamation case of him calling her a liar about the rape.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Well, that clears it up.So a woman can call a man a rapist, and that is not defamation? But calling her a dirty liar is?Nice.
I mean, I personally have heard him say that as a wealthy man he can sexually assault women. So I don't see any reason to doubt that he has done the thing he said he has done.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
My point was Republicans are deplorable, not that the cases are similar. And I will be reminding Republicans about the FOX lawsuit for years and I’ll laugh and laugh.
ahh i see. Yeah i was REALLY hoping it would go to trial. I wanted to see Tucker have to admit on the stand that he thinks trump is, and I quote, "demonic".
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
So if he says that he didnt rape her, he is sued for defamation?
saying "i didn't do it" isn't defamation. saying "she is a dirty liar" is defamation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
So Klobuchar is just a jerk? Or a bitch, to be more accurate?
I don't know much about her so I can't say with any degree of certainty. But if she was equally demeaning to men and women, then she's just a jerk. If she was only mean to men, or just meaner to men than to women, then she would be a sexist jerk.
*Edit*. It would also depend on the nature of what she was doing. If she made it about their sex while being demeaning, she could be a sexist jerk to everyone. IE calling female staff and male staff by different sexually based discriminatory names, then it could be both.
Do you think it’s possible for a woman to be sexist?
Yes.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
He’s being sued for defamation, just like FOX News was and settled for 787 million dollars after discovery went very badly for FOX.
1st off, I believe he did it. I believe he lied about it. But let's not pretend the circumstances are the same.
Fox repeatedly said disparaging things about dominion. These things were provably false. Both dominion and fox themselves had evidence the things they were saying were false. And fox had many emails and texts they sent back and forth which proved not only that these were lies, but that they knew they were lies both before, while and after they said it.
They are very different situations. Fox was absolutely screwed. Dominion had them nailed to the wall. By the time Fox settled the only questions were how much Fox was going to pay and how long it would take.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Doesnt change the fact that you havent refuted it. If you cant refute it, you might as well admit its true so we move on.
America has done shitty things. I do not, and have never denied that. And it has absolutely nothing to do with Russia's attempted genocide on Ukraine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Now what about women who yell at their co-workers? Is that sexist too?
yelling, on it's own, isn't inherently sexist. It is super unprofessional, but not necessarily sexist. When added into the decades long string of sexist shit he has done, it's a pretty good bet it's sexist though.
Senator Amy Klobuchar famously has a reputation for yelling at her staff and reporters, both male and female.
Yep, it's possible to just be a jerk. but he didn't text threatening remarks to male colleagues. He doesn't constantly cut off and act dismissively to male colleagues. These events added to the sexist comments he makes (past their prime, mommy brain, etc) shows a clear pattern.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Is it your contention that sexual orientation can only mean "gay?"Because if it doesn't then the bill is a "don't say sexual orientation bill"
the title of "don't say gay" is just because it is catchier. But DeSantis wants to discriminate against alot more people than just gay people.
Is it also your contention that gay teachers cannot sexually groom children?
literally anyone could groom children. That is why targeting gay people is so ridiculous. It has nothing to do with grooming. You may as well pick native americans as the target of your lynch mob. It would make the same amount of sense.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
You seem to be on about some nonsense about relations and how we should talk about things that you like.Still, nothing you said refuted my arguments or was relevant to them, so I will consider them unchallenged for now.
let me see if I have this right. I was talking about current events, IE the russian invasion of Ukraine. You brought up an unrelated topic. I declined to change topics to something completely unrelated. You are now going on about how I haven't refuted your unrelated topic.
Is that about it? Because if so, your topic is still unrelated and has no impact on what we were talking about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Nice ideology. Except when someone is born homosexual, we try to cure it and surpress it.
ok, so you are definitely a monster. Thanks for the heads up. That's like saying you are trying to "cure" people of being black. People were supposed to stop believing that kind of stuff in the 1800's.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Nice job destroying the boneheaded substitute teacher! I would throw in a few “ dummies” for emphasis though
I try to hard to keep insults out of my arguments. I don't always succeed, but I try. It's never constructive. But I am aware that there are some people who post here that there is no talking to. I've haven't posted here in awhile so i don't remember which ones exactly. I feel like a guy named sadolite or something was one of them.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
No. I believe my argument doesnt say anywhere "US bad, so it okay".My argument supports our logical inconsistency: where when NATO does bad = it okay, but when Russia bad = we mad.I am not really sure how could you miss my argument, when I pointed it out clearly.
I missed it because it wasn't really related. I was discussing one topic and you felt the need to talk about something completely different. For example if we were talking about mass murder done by Khmer Rouge and someone goes "Well why aren't you talking about the holocaust!!!!".
In my example, both things are bad. But you can have a conversation about the Khmer Rouge without talking about the Holocaust, and vice versa. Similarly, we can have a conversation about Russia doing bad things without having to talk about the US doing bad things. So bringing it up out of the blue just seems like you are trying to distract from the conversation I was having about current events.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Yeah, screaming is wrong. But its not like you can talk to a woman without screaming at her. Being nice to women is a path to failure.
I can't really tell if you are joking. This comment is obviously insane, but your other comments aren't really that different. So i'm just going to hope you're a troll and not the monster your comments describe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Ok I read your description. And none of that has anything to do with talking about gay people. The behaviors you describe is not really addressed by the bill.
And to clarify for you why this is the "don't say gay bill" here is a quote from the bill.
"Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through Grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards."
The language is vague. And who decides what is "age appropriate"? since parents are allowed to sue over any perceived breaches, any kind of mention of being gay, telling children any information about gay people could be seen as a breach and get them sued. What happens if little johnny has 2 dads and someone mentions it in class? Or someone is teasing him for it. Can the teacher say that having 2 dads is ok? Under this law, he can't without risking being sued. Any parent could decide anything they say isn't "age appropriate" and start a lawsuit. So teachers can't say anything at all without running the risk of their life being ruined.
And with so many screeching lunatics out there screaming about "grooming", basically any mention of gay or trans people would be grounds for a lawsuit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Grooming is the latest version of fear mongering by bigoted conservatives. Remember they used to say gay people were all pedophiles?Now they are using the same attack on trans people.
yeah i know. That's why I wanted him to define it so that I can be sure he has no actual point. And no, he had no actual point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
You are trying to talk sense into a gay. Its not possible.
lol I'm not gay. I'm just not a bigot.
How can a gay understand that it is unappropriate to indoctrinate children into "gay is okay" ideology?
wow. This is like saying "being black is okay" or "being a woman is okay". Implying that it is not ok to be the person you were born is an ridiculous level of bigotry.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
An anti-Russian, anti war stance would be that it is not in the USA's interest to finance Ukraine's conquest of the Donbas region as a result of their 2014 Civil war.
That would be the russian position. So what about that is anti-russian?
Is it your contention that the Donbas is definitively Ukrainian territory?
that is obviously the case. The Russians paid off some Ukrainians to fight against their own government, then used those people the Russians paid as an excuse to invade.
What facts do you have to support this claim knowing that the vast majority of the civilians in the Donbas today are not only Russian speakers and ethnically Russian, but also Russian nationals as well?
this took like 5 seconds to find. So your statement that Russians make up the majority is false. They did not. That is, they did not until the Russians paid off Ukrainians to fight against their own government. At that point, ethnic Ukrainians started moving out of the conflict zone.
"According to the 2001 census, ethnic Ukrainians form 58% of the population of Luhansk Oblast and 56.9% of Donetsk Oblast. Ethnic Russians form the largest minority, accounting for 39% and 38.2% of the two oblasts respectively."
And even if you somehow were in support of the 2014 ethnic cleansing of the Donbas
the what? that is not a thing that happened.
What do you think would be the ethical thing to do with those people as they are being forcefully displaced?
if they think they are russians, they should presumably move to russia. If they want to be Ukrainian, they are certainly welcome to do that too. Although after murdering their countrymen for the last 8 years, they may not be as welcome any more.
Does it even matter if they are ethnically Russian to you,
who are? 40%ish of the people of Donbass? Why would it matter? They were welcome to stay in Ukraine and be Ukrainian citizens. They were welcome to move to Russia and be Russian citizens. They were even allowed to have dual citizenship. What they weren't allowed to do was start murdering people and giving Russia an excuse to invade.
or does your hatred for Putin extend to all ethnic Russians no matter where they may live so that extermination would be a viable ethical option?
no one is talking about exterminating russians. Where did that even come from?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
so your argument is what exactly? That you recognize that Russia is doing something horrible, but since the US did bad things we should just let Ukraine be conquered?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Is it possible to be anti war and anti-Russian at the same time?
of course it is. But in this context, how? Russia is the aggressor. They have invaded a neighbor and have made it clear their goal is to annex huge swathes of Ukrainian land. I am guessing "anti-war" to you means trying to get some sort of negotiated peace now. If I am wrong in that assessment, please correct me. That position is inherently pro-Russian because Russia is still in control of large swathes of Ukrainian territory and Russia has made it clear a peace deal would include them stealing land. So you can't be both pro-negotiated settlement (right now) and anti-Russian. The only way to be anti-Russian and anti-war, is to support giving Ukraine all the support required to retake their land. That way russia doesn't get to profit off the war (by stealing ukrainian land) and the war ends as fast as possible.
It seems to me that the military industrial complex has a financial interest to convince you that this statement can only be false in every case.
Please explain what an anti-war, anti-russian stance is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You didn't answer my questions. what is "grooming" to you? And what does this bill do to prevent "grooming"?
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
I doubt Tucker is directly paid by russians. He repeats their talking points because it benefits him to be "anti-war", even if his message is just pro-russian imperialism. And if he did get directly paid for it, then he wouldn't be any good at it any more because he would then be obviously just russian propaganda.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
And since grooming is a very real issue, there really is only one sensible policy to have if schools want to maintain an environment of safety.
When you say "grooming", what does that mean to you? In my experience when right wing people use that word it is like when they say "woke" in that it means whatever they want it to mean in that moment.
And could you explain how this bill helps to prevent "grooming"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
My defense? Of Don Lemon? For his comment to SE Cupp? I don’t know if she were pregnant or just has small children or what but Lemon’s comment is pretty mild but I’m not surprised some women would take offense.Yes, it’s not that unusual to think a pregnant woman is off her top game and people will attribute their condition to all kinds of things - Being emotional, being hot, I even heard some pregnant women have cravings for pickles and ice cream.
Everyone loses their chain of thought sometime. Accusing it of being because you are a mother is dismissive and rude. As a one time comment, it would be a bad thing to do. But as I keep repeating, none of these events are one time things. He keeps doing this over and over.
I looked it up a week ago. There was the Haley comment. The S E Cupp comment. A couple others. But he’s no Donald Trump and that buffoon was elected President. So that’s how smart this country is.
I mean, he screams at female co-workers to the point he needs to be sent home for the day. He calls female colleagues from a burner phone to send them threatening texts when they get the job he wants. And these are just the ones that get reported publicly. This isn't some poor guy who has said one or two stupid things. This guy has a long history of being a sexist jerk.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
But is Haley making a serious point, a serious proposal or is it just red meat to bash Biden? How would this be implemented? Does the politician get to pick the doctor? Remember Trump’s doctor certified that he was the “healthiest President in history”.
Maybe it was just red mead to bash Biden, maybe it was a real point. I couldn't really say. But it's not like she said all old people should be killed. Her point does have at least some merit. It's not just a ridiculous fantasy. There is a high ranking politician right this very minute who doesn't remember colleagues she has worked with for decades. And she won't retire. People have known about this for years and continued to defend her. It is a very real issue.
And even if it was just red meat to bash biden, that doesn't excuse using a sexist trope to go after her. If her idea is stupid, say why her is stupid. Don't say she has no merit because she can't have children. I have no issue with going after Nikki Haley, but if you have to sink to sexist attacks to do it, then you're a douche.
It was a sexist argument but it wasn’t his opinion that women over 40 are past their prime, he was saying it is society that says women over 40 are past their prime. He was stating a perception, a common opinion that does exist in society, at least American society.
I don't think anyone looks at a politician and thinks "wow, 45? they are past their prime". Only a sexist asshole would think that. And bringing it up as if it is a valid point is stupid. It has nothing to do with what nikki haley was saying and it just makes you look like a dick. But since he does this sort of stuff all the time, it's not that he looks like a dick. It's that he is one.
I remember when Katy Turr was working while late in her pregnancy. She was having trouble getting the words out of her mouth. She laughed and said she had “baby brain”. So people will say such things in response to not finding the words but women are more likely to get offended if it comes from a man.
lol, so a pregnant woman made a joke about herself? that's your defense. That's like me saying "Well I heard him say he was overweight, so I called him a fat fuck, what's wrong with that?". And again, as a one off event it wouldn't have been super important. It was rude and disrepectful, but could be swept under the rug as a one off event. He wasn't punished for doing that. But it is one more in a long chain of sexist bullshit he has pulled.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
No I get it. But Lemon’s point was that society thinks women are past their prime very early in life. He said he didn’t agree with that thought but still the fact remains. And that physical appearance decline that society has put on woman effects their ability to get jobs and be successful, not just in public office either.He may have been trying to tell Haley does she want to be throwing these stones at old people knowing how similar stones are thrown at women for their decline in looks as they age.It was a awkward argument to say the least, to compare ageism to sexist ageism, but he did say he didn’t agree with it and he was trying to defend old people from attack, especially Biden.
Ok, but her point has at least a little bit of merit. I gave the example of Dianne Feinstein above. There are real world examples were people in their late 70's and early 80's begin to decline cognitively, even to the point of not knowing who they are talking to (something Feinstein started doing years ago). Should we test old politicians? I don't know, maybe. But the US president literally has the power to end the human race. If any job on the planet needs a competent person doing it, it is that one.
So it's not like she was making a completely ridiculous point. So to try and dismiss it as "well society thinks women over 30 are bad, so saying politicians over 75 should be tested is bad" is just stupid. It is an attempt to dismiss her point without actually talking about her point.
And, to be clear, he was using a sexist argument here. You don't get a pass because you say "i don't agree with this horrible thing I'm saying, but I'm going to say it anyway". Even more so when this isn't a one off event. He regularly says and does sexist bullshit (I listed some of it above). This is just the one that caught the most headlines.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
A big problem for CNN with Don Lemon is he acts independently. Corporate media doesn't look kindly at journalists they cannot control.I can't easily find the clip I wanted to show you, but recently, Don was doing an interview and he said on air "stop talking in my ear because I need to say this"
That's the interview with Vivek Ramaswamy I was referring to. It's not that he "acts independently" so much as he acts stupidly. He got into a ridiculous argument with the guest. He kept cutting him off and badgering him. He wouldn't let his co-host speak. They were clearly trying to get him back on topic but he wanted to argue like a child. Reportedly, that interview was the last nail in the coffin for him.
you know it's bad when your pissed off co-host is texting during an interview.
**edit** I found a link to the interviewhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-JzgD1V0-4&ab_channel=VivekRamaswamy
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
Lemon's point is that a women is "past her prime" either when she is no longer able to have children, or is no longer physically desirable.Said no married man ever, scares me just reading it.
Lol, well Don Lemon is gay. So i guess he has nothing to fear on the home front. Just has to fear for his career.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
I understand the context. Do you believe the context makes things any better? Nikki haley said that politicians older than 75 should have their mental fatalities checked. Which might be a touch insensitive, but is at least in the realm of reasonable. For example, Dianne Feinstein was in her early to mid 80's when her mind started to go. She is now completely incapable of doing her job, and refuses to resign.
Lemon's point is that a women is "past her prime" either when she is no longer able to have children, or is no longer physically desirable. So he was trying to dismiss her kind of valid point based on the fact that she can't have children. I'm no fan of Nikki Haley, but don lemon's point was sexist and stupid. If it had been a one off event it would just be a weird statement. But this is part of a trend of behavior with him. He is consistently sexist, among other character flaws.
Created:
Posted in:
Even a gay flag in the classroom is inherently just the teacher advertising they either take it in the ass or give it in the ass.
lol no. It is advertising they support gay people having rights.
If a kid asks a teacher "what is gay" the teacher is just instructed to do what all ethical people should do when asked that by a 9 year old. Tell them to ask their parents about it.
Why? Schools are there to educate children. the only reason anyone would think this is because they want to discriminate against gay people and they don't want children to know they are, you know, human.
Why are so many people protesting the fact kids can't be groomed? It sounds like a bunch of pedophiles with ulterior motives
the bill does nothing about "grooming" which is already a crime. All it does is ban teaching children about a fairly large minority group. A group that many of those same children belong to.
They just can't give an unauthorized lecture promoting homosexuality or acceptance of it, something they should have enough common sense not to do anyway.
so... they can't do their job? They can't teach a child about a fairly large minority group. A group that many of their students belong to and will have to get information on it from the internet instead.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
probably, but he is an egotistical douche who has gotten away with this behavior for decades. I mean he was texting threats to a co-worker from a burner phone and that didn't make CNN fire him. And he is much more famous now. So i'm sure he was shocked that there was consequences for his actions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
No one was talking to children about gay sex. The bill is designed to make it illegal to say anything about gay people at all. So children can't be told gay people exist, much less anything about them. And since there are estimated to be over 100,000 gay children in florida schools, they can't ask questions about their own identity. Or at least, if the teacher answers, they will be arrested.
This might be be semi-popular in Florida, but in the rest of the country this is wildly unpopular. And it doesn't look good on him being consistently out smarted by Disney either.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Tucker found out he was being fired 10 minutes before the public statement was made. He got fired with almost 0 warning. So no, him buying property weeks earlier is not related to his firing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
Seems like they overreacted, maybe there is more to the story.
Don Lemon has been piling up stuff for a long time. In 2008, when he got passed over for a job he wanted, he reportedly got a burner phone and started anonymously texting threatening messages, such as “you’ve crossed the line, and you’re going to pay for it”, to the woman who got the job.
He got demoted last year from having his own show, to being a co-host (1 of 3) on a morning show. This was a month or two after a controversy where he accused a female political commentator of having "mommy brain" when she lost her train of thought.
His morning show has been a disaster. reportedly, his co-hosts hate him because he is an egocentric, sexist, douche (that's my take on it). On the morning show some of his highlight shittiness was saying women's athletes get paid less because they are less interesting. He said this wasn't sexist because he "grew up in a house with women." Sources claim there were at least three incidents where there were serious fights with his co-hosts. In one he screamed at kaitlan collins before a producer had to step in and tell him to take a day to cool off. He said that women past their 30's, maybe 40's were past their prime (his co-host Poppy Harlow is 40). Apparently the irony of a 57 year old man telling women when they are past their prime was lost on him.
Apparently the final nail in the coffin was an interview he and his co-host recently did with Vivek Ramaswamy. He got into a really weird argument with him that took up the whole interview, basically not letting his co-host speak, and refusing what seemed like instructions to shut up from producers in his ear piece. At one point his co-host pulls out her phone and seems to be texting while Don is arguing.
CNN reportedly recently had reports his popularity on the morning show was sliding. Some guests had refused to appear on the show after being told he would be interviewing them. Combined with how unpopular he was with his colleagues, it's amazing they kept him this long.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Can nobody evaluate any of the arguments in the links and give a reasoned rebuttal? The authors do not need credibility, they are not asking you to believe in God. Is what they say reasonable and rational? If not, why?
If I link to a list of nonsensical articles from a ridiculous source, will you feel the necessity of trying to disprove all of them? I seriously doubt you would waste your time doing that. His source is basically a white supremacist website. I have much better things to do with my time than try to explain to a blatant racist why his racism is wrong. He will never see what he is doing as racist. Probably because he doesn't see racism as a problem.
Created:
-->
@Mesmer
This has already been tried and it leads to poor Whites and Hispanics getting crapped on, whilst poor Blacks get the goodies because they overwhelmingly vote Democrat, and so the Democrat power (when it power) gives them the goodies.
So, I said the words "help poor people" and you chose to read that as "help black people". Do your honestly not see how racist you are coming off?
You're just another shitlib who does little more than larping around with nonsense terms like "racist".
Lol, I said it wasn't about race, it's about economics. You then said i'm somehow a racist. Since you also link to read and use blatantly racist website as sources, I'm guessing you honestly can't see what a racist you are. And you therefore you just assume there must be wrong with other people who point this out to you.
Created:
-->
@Mesmer
All of this is Ad Hominem is thus should be be ignored due to its logically fallacious nature.
you linked to a website that regularly advocates for the superiority of white people or the inferiority of other people. Therefore saying you are linking to a white supremacism website is neither Ad Hominem not Logically fallacious. It is a statement of fact. And that is exactly why it isn't even worth responding to any of these articles. If you choose to think that these have merit, there isn't really any point going down this racist rabbit hole.
Created:
you can link to alot of articles off a white supremicist website. good for you.
Created:
-->
@thett3
I actually DONT see considerable decreases in racial disparities closing in recent decades.
I think is more about economics than race per se. Due to lots of policies that were blatantly racist in the past, black people are disproportionately poor compared to white people. America's system punishes people for being poor. So the best way to help close racial disparities is to redesign the system to better help poor people.
Created:
This kind of sounds like you are describing a parliamentary democracy. It sounds pretty similar to Canada's election system.
Created: