The US electorate has about 14% Latinos, 10% African-American and 7% Asian - and Trump is losing all those groups by around 9:1.
That means Clinton already has 27-28% of the popular vote in the bag - so Trump has to win an overwhelming majority of white voters to even come close. Oh, and that might be a little tough since he is losing women by 64:36.
There is a good news for Donald though, he is ahead by 2:1 among poor uneducated white voters - I think that tells you everything you need to know.
Trump is effectively a right wing version of Corbyn who has led an insurgent movement to take over an established party but whose appeal is far too narrow to play on the national stage.
Very good insight, but it's important to remember that because of the electoral college, these statistics don't matter as much as they would in a popular election. For example, Mississippi has a pretty high African American population compared to the rest of the nation (37% vs. ~12% nationally), but because of the other ~60% in the state, it will continue to be a Republican state until demographics shift drastically (side note, this is happening in some southern states, like North Carolina and Georgia).
Because of the electoral college, you get large chunks of people's votes essentially not mattering because they live in a state that will always vote one way. I'm much the same, every presidential election I've lived in or been registered to vote in California, and thus my vote for president (when I've not abstained) has never matter given the overwhelming majority with which California goes Democrat.
All of that said, the nationwide polls, and polls in swing states, which are NOT the most reliable this far out, haven't really moved in a while. I don't think that Trump is going to get more popular as time goes on. During the primaries, a lot of analysts said "he has a ceiling" and he kept breaking through that ceiling, but his numbers on approval/disapproval have been stagnant for a while now.
The Republican's big hope would have been if Hilary was indicted over the emails thing, which was never likely, and given she told the truth to the FBI, not the American Public, there isn't really anything to indict her for. That being said, had she been indicted, Sanders would presumably have gotten the nomination and he beats Trump in every national poll.
Hilary Clinton will be our next president. I'm not overly fond of that. It's obviously better than the alternative, but in the last couple years of the Obama administration, where we've had a president genuinely concerned with equal rights in America (and not so much abroad), Hilary will feel like quite a bit of a let down. She's to the right of Obama on social issues, and with him on things like Healthcare, where he remains unpopular. If I were someone like Elizabeth Warren, I'd be considering running in 2020 against a sitting president.
SD, you answer with insight to a great variety of topics on this site, albeit from an extreme left point-of-view, but ignore a poster who states that Yanks are morons, I don't get it. As I've said on here before, my son is American, my partner is an African American woman, my sister and her kids and their kids are all Americans, as I've been in The States for a good while most of my friends are Americans. NONE OF THEM ARE MORONS. So SD, why am I the only one on this site who takes offense at this kind of ignorance?
SD, you answer with insight to a great variety of topics on this site, albeit from an extreme left point-of-view, but ignore a poster who states that Yanks are morons, I don't get it. As I've said on here before, my son is American, my partner is an African American woman, my sister and her kids and their kids are all Americans, as I've been in The States for a good while most of my friends are Americans. NONE OF THEM ARE MORONS. So SD, why am I the only one on this site who takes offense at this kind of ignorance?
Honestly? Completely read past it, didn't even notice it.
I've met plenty of moronic Americans. Met plenty of moronic Britons, etc. I don't think most of us are morons. I think the people who are elected in a corrupt system to "represent" us portray some of the worst America has to offer, and I think we're going through a stretch where those who scream loudest get heard the most. I don't necessarily think either of those are unique to America.
I'm not particularly offended by it. I disagree with it, I think @mascot88 is being hyperbolic, but it wouldn't surprise me if they admit to that. I understand how, from the outside looking in at our election cycle, gun violence, and foreign policy, the things that make the international news the most, that we seem like a baffling, backward country. For all of the coverage that HB 2 in North Carolina gets, the last five years have seen remarkable progress in equal rights for marginalized people.
I've lived in the south, I'm of midwestern stock, and I've lived all through California and now Oregon. I find so many bright, articulate, well-rounded human beings in this country who live all over the place. There were so many comments in another thread about someone planning to travel through DC and the south where people who had travelled in America had nothing but wonderful things to say about the locals. I put more weight in something like that than I do in a one-off comment (which I missed the first time).
Not all Americans are morons. Only the ones who would vote Trump. And not (only) because of his policies, but because as an administrator and a businessman he's failed as many times or more as he ever succeeded, he's got no real political experience and his election campaign has been full of controversial and frequently just plain objectively wrong statements.
The man is either a complete imbecile or doing an excellent performance of one.
Trump has fantastic PR, he has people convinced he is a highly successful business man, mostly through licensing his name so it appears in lots of places. He inherited a fortune, if he'd invested that all in the FTSE he'd have done better than he done under his own steam.
He's also managed to convince an unfeasibly large number of poor white voters that a billionaire, born into wealth, understands their problems and is on their side. It's quite an achievement really.
SD, you answer with insight to a great variety of topics on this site, albeit from an extreme left point-of-view, but ignore a poster who states that Yanks are morons, I don't get it. As I've said on here before, my son is American, my partner is an African American woman, my sister and her kids and their kids are all Americans, as I've been in The States for a good while most of my friends are Americans. NONE OF THEM ARE MORONS. So SD, why am I the only one on this site who takes offense at this kind of ignorance?
It's okay on CL to generalise when talking about Trump, UKIP, leave voters.
But my god, please, whatever you do please do not put Islam and terrorism and black and gun crime in the same sentence. Only certain generalisations are accepted.
I think that a lot of people on both sides will be holding their noses when they vote. If the Democrats had a less controversial candidate it would be "no contest". If the Republicans had a less controversial candidate it would be "no contest".
SD, you answer with insight to a great variety of topics on this site, albeit from an extreme left point-of-view, but ignore a poster who states that Yanks are morons, I don't get it. As I've said on here before, my son is American, my partner is an African American woman, my sister and her kids and their kids are all Americans, as I've been in The States for a good while most of my friends are Americans. NONE OF THEM ARE MORONS. So SD, why am I the only one on this site who takes offense at this kind of ignorance?
It's okay on CL to generalise when talking about Trump, UKIP, leave voters.
But my god, please, whatever you do please do not put Islam and terrorism and black and gun crime in the same sentence. Only certain generalisations are accepted.
Trump has fantastic PR, he has people convinced he is a highly successful business man, mostly through licensing his name so it appears in lots of places. He inherited a fortune, if he'd invested that all in the FTSE he'd have done better than he done under his own steam.
He's also managed to convince an unfeasibly large number of poor white voters that a billionaire, born into wealth, understands their problems and is on their side. It's quite an achievement really.
Not at all, this is actually one of the oldest tropes in American politics, and really American culture. It's all the Horatio Alger rags-to-riches ideal. The American dream. It's about selling a twofold notion--one that the amount of wealth you have dictates how good/hard working/valuable a person you are. Secondly, it's about convincing people that "when you're rich like me, you won't want XYZ taking ABC from you," e.g. the Government taking your tax dollars, poor people taking benefits, etc.
Not all Americans are morons. Only the ones who would vote Trump. And not (only) because of his policies, but because as an administrator and a businessman he's failed as many times or more as he ever succeeded, he's got no real political experience and his election campaign has been full of controversial and frequently just plain objectively wrong statements.
The man is either a complete imbecile or doing an excellent performance of one.
Neither, I think he knows exactly what he's doing, and he is the summation of 10+ years of a growing toxic rhetoric in American politics. He has basically doubled down on a lot of the things Tea Party Republicans have been saying for the last five years or so, and taken certain insinuations about minorities and just blatantly said was was previously implied. He is not the beginning of a movement, but I do think (and admittedly hope) he is the last throes of one.
Also, this is fantastic PR for his business, and when you look at the amount of money his campaign has paid his businesses for a litany or services, he has done very well for himself.
SD, you answer with insight to a great variety of topics on this site, albeit from an extreme left point-of-view, but ignore a poster who states that Yanks are morons, I don't get it. As I've said on here before, my son is American, my partner is an African American woman, my sister and her kids and their kids are all Americans, as I've been in The States for a good while most of my friends are Americans. NONE OF THEM ARE MORONS. So SD, why am I the only one on this site who takes offense at this kind of ignorance?
It's okay on CL to generalise when talking about Trump, UKIP, leave voters.
But my god, please, whatever you do please do not put Islam and terrorism and black and gun crime in the same sentence. Only certain generalisations are accepted.
That's not what we were talking about...
"SD, you answer with insight to a great variety of topics on this site, albeit from an extreme left point-of-view, but ignore a poster who states that Yanks are morons, I don't get it."
SD, you answer with insight to a great variety of topics on this site, albeit from an extreme left point-of-view, but ignore a poster who states that Yanks are morons, I don't get it. As I've said on here before, my son is American, my partner is an African American woman, my sister and her kids and their kids are all Americans, as I've been in The States for a good while most of my friends are Americans. NONE OF THEM ARE MORONS. So SD, why am I the only one on this site who takes offense at this kind of ignorance?
It's okay on CL to generalise when talking about Trump, UKIP, leave voters.
But my god, please, whatever you do please do not put Islam and terrorism and black and gun crime in the same sentence. Only certain generalisations are accepted.
That's not what we were talking about...
"SD, you answer with insight to a great variety of topics on this site, albeit from an extreme left point-of-view, but ignore a poster who states that Yanks are morons, I don't get it."
So every time someone makes a blanket statement you're going to bring up the blanket statements you agree with? This is an internet message board, you'll never leave the house at this rate.
If you want to talk about black-on-black crime, that's fine, post your thoughts, ideally with references, or start a thread about it. It's a very worthy subject, but in order to discuss it we will also need to discuss the pre-requisites: Slavery Restoration Jim Crow Share cropping Segregation Voting restrictions The war on drugs White Flight, biased lending by banks, and the decline of working class neighborhoods into ghettos Crack cocaine The new Jim Crow and the disproportionate number of black prinsoners
SD, you answer with insight to a great variety of topics on this site, albeit from an extreme left point-of-view, but ignore a poster who states that Yanks are morons, I don't get it. As I've said on here before, my son is American, my partner is an African American woman, my sister and her kids and their kids are all Americans, as I've been in The States for a good while most of my friends are Americans. NONE OF THEM ARE MORONS. So SD, why am I the only one on this site who takes offense at this kind of ignorance?
It's okay on CL to generalise when talking about Trump, UKIP, leave voters.
But my god, please, whatever you do please do not put Islam and terrorism and black and gun crime in the same sentence. Only certain generalisations are accepted.
That's not what we were talking about...
"SD, you answer with insight to a great variety of topics on this site, albeit from an extreme left point-of-view, but ignore a poster who states that Yanks are morons, I don't get it."
So every time someone makes a blanket statement you're going to bring up the blanket statements you agree with? This is an internet message board, you'll never leave the house at this rate.
If you want to talk about black-on-black crime, that's fine, post your thoughts, ideally with references, or start a thread about it. It's a very worthy subject, but in order to discuss it we will also need to discuss the pre-requisites: Slavery Restoration Jim Crow Share cropping Segregation Voting restrictions The war on drugs White Flight, biased lending by banks, and the decline of working class neighborhoods into ghettos Crack cocaine The new Jim Crow and the disproportionate number of black prinsoners
No I'm fine with the way I post for now thanks, I thought it was very relevant seen as I've noticed the pattern I mentioned for a long time now, and if it gets a SJW's back up its an added bonus.
SD, you answer with insight to a great variety of topics on this site, albeit from an extreme left point-of-view, but ignore a poster who states that Yanks are morons, I don't get it. As I've said on here before, my son is American, my partner is an African American woman, my sister and her kids and their kids are all Americans, as I've been in The States for a good while most of my friends are Americans. NONE OF THEM ARE MORONS. So SD, why am I the only one on this site who takes offense at this kind of ignorance?
It's okay on CL to generalise when talking about Trump, UKIP, leave voters.
But my god, please, whatever you do please do not put Islam and terrorism and black and gun crime in the same sentence. Only certain generalisations are accepted.
That's not what we were talking about...
"SD, you answer with insight to a great variety of topics on this site, albeit from an extreme left point-of-view, but ignore a poster who states that Yanks are morons, I don't get it."
So every time someone makes a blanket statement you're going to bring up the blanket statements you agree with? This is an internet message board, you'll never leave the house at this rate.
If you want to talk about black-on-black crime, that's fine, post your thoughts, ideally with references, or start a thread about it. It's a very worthy subject, but in order to discuss it we will also need to discuss the pre-requisites: Slavery Restoration Jim Crow Share cropping Segregation Voting restrictions The war on drugs White Flight, biased lending by banks, and the decline of working class neighborhoods into ghettos Crack cocaine The new Jim Crow and the disproportionate number of black prinsoners
No I'm fine with the way I post for now thanks, I thought it was very relevant seen as I've noticed the pattern I mentioned for a long time now, and if it gets a SJW's back up its an added bonus.
SD, you answer with insight to a great variety of topics on this site, albeit from an extreme left point-of-view, but ignore a poster who states that Yanks are morons, I don't get it. As I've said on here before, my son is American, my partner is an African American woman, my sister and her kids and their kids are all Americans, as I've been in The States for a good while most of my friends are Americans. NONE OF THEM ARE MORONS. So SD, why am I the only one on this site who takes offense at this kind of ignorance?
It's okay on CL to generalise when talking about Trump, UKIP, leave voters.
But my god, please, whatever you do please do not put Islam and terrorism and black and gun crime in the same sentence. Only certain generalisations are accepted.
That's not what we were talking about...
"SD, you answer with insight to a great variety of topics on this site, albeit from an extreme left point-of-view, but ignore a poster who states that Yanks are morons, I don't get it."
So every time someone makes a blanket statement you're going to bring up the blanket statements you agree with? This is an internet message board, you'll never leave the house at this rate.
If you want to talk about black-on-black crime, that's fine, post your thoughts, ideally with references, or start a thread about it. It's a very worthy subject, but in order to discuss it we will also need to discuss the pre-requisites: Slavery Restoration Jim Crow Share cropping Segregation Voting restrictions The war on drugs White Flight, biased lending by banks, and the decline of working class neighborhoods into ghettos Crack cocaine The new Jim Crow and the disproportionate number of black prinsoners
No I'm fine with the way I post for now thanks, I thought it was very relevant seen as I've noticed the pattern I mentioned for a long time now, and if it gets a SJW's back up its an added bonus.
What is SJW?
To reiterate my response to said blanket statement:
Honestly? Completely read past it, didn't even notice it.
I've met plenty of moronic Americans. Met plenty of moronic Britons, etc. I don't think most of us are morons. I think the people who are elected in a corrupt system to "represent" us portray some of the worst America has to offer, and I think we're going through a stretch where those who scream loudest get heard the most. I don't necessarily think either of those are unique to America.
I'm not particularly offended by it. I disagree with it, I think @mascot88 is being hyperbolic, but it wouldn't surprise me if they admit to that. I understand how, from the outside looking in at our election cycle, gun violence, and foreign policy, the things that make the international news the most, that we seem like a baffling, backward country. For all of the coverage that HB 2 in North Carolina gets, the last five years have seen remarkable progress in equal rights for marginalized people.
I've lived in the south, I'm of midwestern stock, and I've lived all through California and now Oregon. I find so many bright, articulate, well-rounded human beings in this country who live all over the place. There were so many comments in another thread about someone planning to travel through DC and the south where people who had travelled in America had nothing but wonderful things to say about the locals. I put more weight in something like that than I do in a one-off comment (which I missed the first time)
SJW = Social Justice Warrior, its a fairly recent term and usually when you see it on a forum it's the end of any sensible debate. Rather than answer the points raised, someone is just labelled and then ignored, or denigrated based on the label rather than the strength of their argument. Doesn't matter what the label is, whether it be SJW, PC, leftie, fascist, racist, bigot, or whatever, once labels start getting thrown about instead of counter arguments then the thread is on it's death bed as far as anything sensible or possibly enlightening goes.
SJW = Social Justice Warrior, its a fairly recent term and usually when you see it on a forum it's the end of any sensible debate. Rather than answer the points raised, someone is just labelled and then ignored, or denigrated based on the label rather than the strength of their argument. Doesn't matter what the label is, whether it be SJW, PC, leftie, fascist, racist, bigot, or whatever, once labels start getting thrown about instead of counter arguments then the thread is on it's death bed as far as anything sensible or possibly enlightening goes.
Ah, thanks for the explanation.
So a term insinuating someone fighting for social justice is an underhanded slur? What a strange world we live in.
I'll add that yes, I agree, resulting to blanket statements and name calling is silly and not particularly helpful.
Well those who self identify as SJWs don't do themselves any favours, they appear as a caricature of the whiny, self-entitled, millenial. Of course that is a broad generalisation, thus making me a hypocrite, but it does cover a large swath. The word Warrior in there should raise alarm bells I would have thought.
Well those who self identify as SJWs don't do themselves any favours, they appear as a caricature of the whiny, self-entitled, millenial. Of course that is a broad generalisation, thus making me a hypocrite, but it does cover a large swath. The word Warrior in there should raise alarm bells I would have thought.
Thank you, that makes it a lot clearer. The article mentions how that term used to have a positive connotation, and that's what I associated it with.
This makes total sense, and I absolutely understand the type of person this term (at least originally) is used to describe:
"The accusation of being an SJW carries implications of pursuing personal validation rather than any deep-seated conviction,[4] and being engaged in disingenuous social justice arguments or activism to raise personal reputation."
Well those who self identify as SJWs don't do themselves any favours, they appear as a caricature of the whiny, self-entitled, millenial. Of course that is a broad generalisation, thus making me a hypocrite, but it does cover a large swath. The word Warrior in there should raise alarm bells I would have thought.
Thank you, that makes it a lot clearer. The article mentions how that term used to have a positive connotation, and that's what I associated it with.
This makes total sense, and I absolutely understand the type of person this term (at least originally) is used to describe:
"The accusation of being an SJW carries implications of pursuing personal validation rather than any deep-seated conviction,[4] and being engaged in disingenuous social justice arguments or activism to raise personal reputation."
Reading the definitions I would say a SJW does not engage in any activism. That is the pejorative part of it. They get worked up and inflamed about a particular issue on social media and on forums but never actually do anything about the the issue.
Well those who self identify as SJWs don't do themselves any favours, they appear as a caricature of the whiny, self-entitled, millenial. Of course that is a broad generalisation, thus making me a hypocrite, but it does cover a large swath. The word Warrior in there should raise alarm bells I would have thought.
Thank you, that makes it a lot clearer. The article mentions how that term used to have a positive connotation, and that's what I associated it with.
This makes total sense, and I absolutely understand the type of person this term (at least originally) is used to describe:
"The accusation of being an SJW carries implications of pursuing personal validation rather than any deep-seated conviction,[4] and being engaged in disingenuous social justice arguments or activism to raise personal reputation."
Reading the definitions I would say a SJW does not engage in any activism. That is the pejorative part of it. They get worked up and inflamed about a particular issue on social media and on forums but never actually do anything about the the issue.
Yeah, the warrior part is very much like the same word in "keyboard warrior"
How the hell did Clinton get voted in for the democrats?
Surely anyone else would have been better, then the states would be in a nice democratic safe pair of hands.
It's forced normal people to actually seriously consider voting for trump.
If you read any respectable independent assessment of her career in public service and civil rights involvement I find it very easy to see why she has been selected by the Democrats. And when you take into account the sustained right wing efforts over the last 25 years to try and bury her with fake scandal after fake scandal it is even easier to see why she has been selected.
Watching Clinton in an interview with Charlie Rose at the moment. The contrast between listening to her discuss complex issues and policies and the childish ignorant nonsense that comes out of Trump's mouth is staggering.
Watching Clinton in an interview with Charlie Rose at the moment. The contrast between listening to her discuss complex issues and policies and the childish ignorant nonsense that comes out of Trump's mouth is staggering.
Watching Clinton in an interview with Charlie Rose at the moment. The contrast between listening to her discuss complex issues and policies and the childish ignorant nonsense that comes out of Trump's mouth is staggering.
Watching Clinton in an interview with Charlie Rose at the moment. The contrast between listening to her discuss complex issues and policies and the childish ignorant nonsense that comes out of Trump's mouth is staggering.
Watching Clinton in an interview with Charlie Rose at the moment. The contrast between listening to her discuss complex issues and policies and the childish ignorant nonsense that comes out of Trump's mouth is staggering.
She is still a crook
Which makes her a candidate for president*: Obama: Drug use Bush: Drug Use Clinton 1.0: FFS I don't have the rest of the night George HW Bush: Iran hostage negotiations, conspiracy in the assassination of a sitting US president, ditto Cuban leader
Not saying any of this is right, but simply that there's a trend
I'm stopping before I get to Nixon, but will say that I can't think of any crimes Jimmy Carter committed. He wasn't a great president, but to his credit since he left office all he's done is go and build houses for people in need and help eradicate a type of worm that gets into the foot in Africa. I mean he helped to literally eradicate it.
Comments
For more on Mississippi:
http://thegrio.com/2011/08/25/why-is-mississippi-so-red-when-its-so-black/
Because of the electoral college, you get large chunks of people's votes essentially not mattering because they live in a state that will always vote one way. I'm much the same, every presidential election I've lived in or been registered to vote in California, and thus my vote for president (when I've not abstained) has never matter given the overwhelming majority with which California goes Democrat.
All of that said, the nationwide polls, and polls in swing states, which are NOT the most reliable this far out, haven't really moved in a while. I don't think that Trump is going to get more popular as time goes on. During the primaries, a lot of analysts said "he has a ceiling" and he kept breaking through that ceiling, but his numbers on approval/disapproval have been stagnant for a while now.
The Republican's big hope would have been if Hilary was indicted over the emails thing, which was never likely, and given she told the truth to the FBI, not the American Public, there isn't really anything to indict her for. That being said, had she been indicted, Sanders would presumably have gotten the nomination and he beats Trump in every national poll.
Hilary Clinton will be our next president. I'm not overly fond of that. It's obviously better than the alternative, but in the last couple years of the Obama administration, where we've had a president genuinely concerned with equal rights in America (and not so much abroad), Hilary will feel like quite a bit of a let down. She's to the right of Obama on social issues, and with him on things like Healthcare, where he remains unpopular. If I were someone like Elizabeth Warren, I'd be considering running in 2020 against a sitting president.
As I've said on here before, my son is American, my partner is an African American woman, my sister and her kids and their kids are all Americans, as I've been in The States for a good while most of my friends are Americans. NONE OF THEM ARE MORONS. So SD, why am I the only one on this site who takes offense at this kind of ignorance?
I've met plenty of moronic Americans. Met plenty of moronic Britons, etc. I don't think most of us are morons. I think the people who are elected in a corrupt system to "represent" us portray some of the worst America has to offer, and I think we're going through a stretch where those who scream loudest get heard the most. I don't necessarily think either of those are unique to America.
I'm not particularly offended by it. I disagree with it, I think @mascot88 is being hyperbolic, but it wouldn't surprise me if they admit to that. I understand how, from the outside looking in at our election cycle, gun violence, and foreign policy, the things that make the international news the most, that we seem like a baffling, backward country. For all of the coverage that HB 2 in North Carolina gets, the last five years have seen remarkable progress in equal rights for marginalized people.
I've lived in the south, I'm of midwestern stock, and I've lived all through California and now Oregon. I find so many bright, articulate, well-rounded human beings in this country who live all over the place. There were so many comments in another thread about someone planning to travel through DC and the south where people who had travelled in America had nothing but wonderful things to say about the locals. I put more weight in something like that than I do in a one-off comment (which I missed the first time).
The man is either a complete imbecile or doing an excellent performance of one.
He's also managed to convince an unfeasibly large number of poor white voters that a billionaire, born into wealth, understands their problems and is on their side. It's quite an achievement really.
But my god, please, whatever you do please do not put Islam and terrorism and black and gun crime in the same sentence. Only certain generalisations are accepted.
Also, this is fantastic PR for his business, and when you look at the amount of money his campaign has paid his businesses for a litany or services, he has done very well for himself.
If you want to talk about black-on-black crime, that's fine, post your thoughts, ideally with references, or start a thread about it. It's a very worthy subject, but in order to discuss it we will also need to discuss the pre-requisites:
Slavery
Restoration
Jim Crow
Share cropping
Segregation
Voting restrictions
The war on drugs
White Flight, biased lending by banks, and the decline of working class neighborhoods into ghettos
Crack cocaine
The new Jim Crow and the disproportionate number of black prinsoners
To reiterate my response to said blanket statement:
Honestly? Completely read past it, didn't even notice it.
I've met plenty of moronic Americans. Met plenty of moronic Britons, etc. I don't think most of us are morons. I think the people who are elected in a corrupt system to "represent" us portray some of the worst America has to offer, and I think we're going through a stretch where those who scream loudest get heard the most. I don't necessarily think either of those are unique to America.
I'm not particularly offended by it. I disagree with it, I think @mascot88 is being hyperbolic, but it wouldn't surprise me if they admit to that. I understand how, from the outside looking in at our election cycle, gun violence, and foreign policy, the things that make the international news the most, that we seem like a baffling, backward country. For all of the coverage that HB 2 in North Carolina gets, the last five years have seen remarkable progress in equal rights for marginalized people.
I've lived in the south, I'm of midwestern stock, and I've lived all through California and now Oregon. I find so many bright, articulate, well-rounded human beings in this country who live all over the place. There were so many comments in another thread about someone planning to travel through DC and the south where people who had travelled in America had nothing but wonderful things to say about the locals. I put more weight in something like that than I do in a one-off comment (which I missed the first time)
So a term insinuating someone fighting for social justice is an underhanded slur? What a strange world we live in.
I'll add that yes, I agree, resulting to blanket statements and name calling is silly and not particularly helpful.
This link explains it far better, and why being labelled an SJW is not exactly a compliment!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice_warrior
This makes total sense, and I absolutely understand the type of person this term (at least originally) is used to describe:
"The accusation of being an SJW carries implications of pursuing personal validation rather than any deep-seated conviction,[4] and being engaged in disingenuous social justice arguments or activism to raise personal reputation."
Surely anyone else would have been better, then the states would be in a nice democratic safe pair of hands.
It's forced normal people to actually seriously consider voting for trump.
Obama: Drug use
Bush: Drug Use
Clinton 1.0: FFS I don't have the rest of the night
George HW Bush: Iran hostage negotiations, conspiracy in the assassination of a sitting US president, ditto Cuban leader
Not saying any of this is right, but simply that there's a trend
I'm stopping before I get to Nixon, but will say that I can't think of any crimes Jimmy Carter committed. He wasn't a great president, but to his credit since he left office all he's done is go and build houses for people in need and help eradicate a type of worm that gets into the foot in Africa. I mean he helped to literally eradicate it.
https://www.cartercenter.org/health/guinea_worm/
*Crimes as of date of running for office, and not including any conducted while in office.