U.S. Politics: The Biggest Trade in WNBA History

[EnglishALT]

The problem with this election is that those same media sites gave Trumps literally hundreds of millions of dollars of free ad time with their constant coverage of him. Combine that with what Fox News was saying and the demographic-targeted fake news and troll attacks prevalent across all social media and it became a recipe for an upset, especially with Clinton not being the most popular and having problems herself. The DNC shot itself in the foot, and some Americans are racist, uninformed, don't know any better, fell whim to the words of a demagogue, and it explains why what happened the way that it did.

Not saying Trump didn't get those millions of votes (though he did lose the popular vote quite decisively), but there were major factors as to how someone like him could prevail in today's times. Heck, there's an ongoing criminal investigation regarding it.

Are you saying it is unusual for media sites to give a Presidential candidate constant coverage? I believe Hillary Clinton was also covered and unlike Trump she received a far greater deal of positive coverage. Furthermore you have networks spending tens of millions of dollars each week on television shows like Commander and Chief, Madam Secretary, and one off episodes like the one in Supergirl which featured a female President that the main character gushed over, and you basically have free advertisement that far dwarfs anything Fox News did.

Unfortunately, Republicans are actively trying to legislate my rights as a transgender woman away, so I'm not a fan of trying to find common ground with the monsters who would rather see me cast out of society or tortured until I hated the very thought of being myself. It's not fun to think of your team as the monsters, but they really are.

You are defining an entire party based on your sexual identity though, do you honestly believe there are not some Republicans who feel like you do about trans gender rights? Or that there are some Republicans who they themselves are trans gender? You may even find yourself agreeing with Republican beliefs about social, economic, or worldly issues, but you write them off as monsters. Is that not just bigotry though? Calling an entire party/team of people monsters/murderers because you dislike their views on a issue, seems no different than calling an entire race, religion, or sex of people the same because you do not like them. Which in the end is bigotry.

 

[Skiks]

Let me know when republicans have a solid plan on fixing anything. They promised to fix everything if they had control. I'm still waiting.

 

[bobjr]

You are defining an entire party based on your sexual identity though, do you honestly believe there are not some Republicans who feel like you do about trans gender rights? Or that there are some Republicans who they themselves are trans gender? You may even find yourself agreeing with Republican beliefs about social, economic, or worldly issues, but you write them off as monsters. Is that not just bigotry though? Calling an entire party/team of people monsters/murderers because you dislike their views on a issue, seems no different than calling an entire race, religion, or sex of people the same because you do not like them. Which in the end is bigotry.

Holy **** is your ignorance truly shining with this. I'm not going to claim anything like how it is to be trans, but that's a party where if you're trans you're a scapegoat at best. Like a party that truly wants you gone because of a core part of your identity shouldn't exist like that. Like you're literally calling someone a bigot because they want to be how they are and they can't accept people who want them gone. You are literally the problem here, because you don't care about trans people are all if this is your true opinion. You care about some made up bullshit where horrible views are okay as long as they're nice and civil about them, even if they're doing their best to get rid of those rights.

 

[EnglishALT]

Holy **** is your ignorance truly shining with this. I'm not going to claim anything like how it is to be trans, but that's a party where if you're trans you're a scapegoat at best. Like a party that truly wants you gone because of a core part of your identity shouldn't exist like that. Like you're literally calling someone a bigot because they want to be how they are and they can't accept people who want them gone. You are literally the problem here, because you don't care about trans people are all if this is your true opinion. You care about some made up bullshit where horrible views are okay as long as they're nice and civil about them, even if they're doing their best to get rid of those rights.

I thought I had made my views quite clear, if someone is an adult they can change their gender, age, race, or in the case of that one tiger person even their species. They are adults, it is their body, they can do with it as they wish.

However I am willing to accept that some people have different ideas than me with those issues. I do not believe they are ignorant or evil or bigots for having those views. I would hope to have a reasonable discussion or debate with them and hope to change their mind. Lobbing insults at a person because they believe differently makes me the weaker person in the first place no matter if I believe I am morally right. It also does nothing to change another person’s mind and does not help my cause.

 

[Zora]

I can't speak to other people's experiences; I'm not trans so can't possibly imagine what BS chess-z needs to put up with. But I can speak to my own, and here's the thing:

As a disabled man, which party do I need to worry about gutting the ADA? Hint, they're pushing HR 620. If my autism prevented me from working, which party do I need to worry about revoking disability social security and Medicaid via work requirement?

As a gay man, which party is going to push a 'right to homophobia' law? Which party is allowing (certain government) employers to fire people because of the way I swing? Which party is installing judges likely to uphold the laws I just mentioned, but if another SCOTUS justice retires may even overturn Obergefell and/or Windsor that granted my right to marry?

And, lastly, if you know exactly which party that is then you're already in agreement that that party is not only anti-minority but you are just being willfully ignorant by refusing to acknowledge it. Why don't you acknowledge it? Or if you acknowledge it, why don't you act on it? Your actions communicate you simply do not care.

One more thing, demanding respect is rich coming from you. You've already made it clear you don't respect who I am through your actions; you're in no position to demand it. If you want respect, fracking earn it--and not playing apologist for a party that's gone off the deep end might be a place to start.

 

[Navin]

Are you saying it is unusual for media sites to give a Presidential candidate constant coverage? I believe Hillary Clinton was also covered and unlike Trump she received a far greater deal of positive coverage. Furthermore you have networks spending tens of millions of dollars each week on television shows like Commander and Chief, Madam Secretary, and one off episodes like the one in Supergirl which featured a female President that the main character gushed over, and you basically have free advertisement that far dwarfs anything Fox News did.

Trump received disproportionate amount of screentime compared to any other candidate. Jeb Bush started off as the GOP frontrunner, but from the moment Trump announced he was entering the race, all the cameras were on him; he never had to spend much on ads because all the news were basically free advertising for the stuff he was saying. The media went for the cashgrab option (that completely instead of giving each candidate appropriate airtime for viewers to be familiar with what each was saying. Eh, Hillary got coverage, but a lot of it was bogged down by her problems with the emails and Benghazi (which were obvious witch-hunts by the GOP but a lot of people were too stupid to realize it). Fox News is the most-watched cable news channel, it's everywhere; and it didn't help when the Orange Clown starts calling all other media "fake news" and Fox News, with its lack of journalistic integrity, basically condones that behavior so more people who don't know any better listen to only Fox's biased messages. Also, see that recent YT video about how all those different local Fox channels basically had the same script?

 

[Trainer Yusuf]

Most people are probably focused on Syria right now, but I guess I need to post my periodical about Turkish politics, with the recent declaration of early elections.

Much like UK's early election, the opposition has no power or influence enough to set up a viable opposition, and most popular(for the West, anways) candidate Meral Akşener, a strong Turkish ethnonationalist with past connections to JITEM, and Turkish mafia, has a good chance of not running altogether due to legal issues presented by Erdoğan's party. Unlike UK, the opposition parties are neither popular, nor do they have the resources Erdoğan has(Despite being the first political party of the republic, CHP has been closed by the deep state it invented so it never managed to accumulate as much as power as Erdoğan did). Not to mention, the electoral goes for Ramadan month and summer season, so most of the secular economic elite won't even be voting.

The new elections will solidify the constitutional changes, which basically gives Erdoğan the powers of Assad alongside abolishing the parliamentary system and ministry system of the government(which is not the case in Syria, as Syria is "officially" semi-presidency) as well as increasing the overall number of parliamentarians to avoid an opposition majority, which means that even if the Kemalists were to win, they would be incapable of changing the constitution back outside of dissolving the parliament(which is actually one of the powers granted by the referendum).

Erdoğan needs another referendum to declare presidency for life(current constition gives presidency four turns, ie. 20 years, though Erdoğan can get another five by dissolving the parliament in 2028), but since he already has a successor in the form of his son-in-law, Berat Albayrak, it is not too necessary. Nonetheless, Erdoğan will likely have another referendum in the next decade to expand his and his party's rule in Turkey.

Update(22.04.2018): Kemalists decided to put Akşener as the candidate, effectively forming an oppositional alliance. While they obviously won't win, and Kemalists won't exist as a political ideology very soon, it is probably the best shot they had. Better to go out blazing than dying in shame, I suppose.

 

[Swordsman4]

Howdy, my name is Jim Conservative, and I have no clue what global warming is.

Hi, I’m Chess-Z the blithering idiot who continues to prop up lies even though my lies have been exposed.

I also think warming makes things colder!

 

[chess-z]

You are defining an entire party based on your sexual identity though, do you honestly believe there are not some Republicans who feel like you do about trans gender rights? Or that there are some Republicans who they themselves are trans gender? You may even find yourself agreeing with Republican beliefs about social, economic, or worldly issues, but you write them off as monsters. Is that not just bigotry though? Calling an entire party/team of people monsters/murderers because you dislike their views on a issue, seems no different than calling an entire race, religion, or sex of people the same because you do not like them. Which in the end is bigotry.

Being complacent with bigotry enables bigotry. Republicans are a package deal; you might vote them in for their "economic" policies, but that vote is implicitly a vote for bigotry. I'm sorry to say that your team is definitively more monstrous than you'd like to admit.

Side note: I'm not defining the entire party based on my sexual identity at all; gender not only isn't sex, but sexual identity refers to who you are sexually attracted to. I know this is pedantic, but it really shows you have no idea what you're talking about.

However I am willing to accept that some people have different ideas than me with those issues. I do not believe they are ignorant or evil or bigots for having those views. I would hope to have a reasonable discussion or debate with them and hope to change their mind. Lobbing insults at a person because they believe differently makes me the weaker person in the first place no matter if I believe I am morally right. It also does nothing to change another person’s mind and does not help my cause.

Evil isn't a state of being, it's an action. And they definitively are ignorant, because the body of science proves them to be wrong. Everything you just said is wrong.

Hi, I’m Chess-Z the blithering idiot who continues to prop up lies even though my lies have been exposed.

I also think warming makes things colder!

People like this aren't going to be convinced by all of the evidence in the world, so I treat them as such.

 

[EnglishALT]

One more thing, demanding respect is rich coming from you. You've already made it clear you don't respect who I am through your actions; you're in no position to demand it. If you want respect, fracking earn it--and not playing apologist for a party that's gone off the deep end might be a place to start.

Lets see in the past few posts from you alone I have been called: willfully ignorant, living in a fantasy world, without empathy, and apathetic.

I have not replied to any of those taunts or insults because I do not wish to lower myself down to that level. If you do not want to have any respect for my views that is fine, I would ask for simple human decency to engage in a conversation about policy with out insults. If you want to just hurl insults back and forth, then I am sorry I am going to keep scrolling.

Trump received disproportionate amount of screentime compared to any other candidate. Jeb Bush started off as the GOP frontrunner, but from the moment Trump announced he was entering the race, all the cameras were on him; he never had to spend much on ads because all the news were basically free advertising for the stuff he was saying. The media went for the cashgrab option (that completely instead of giving each candidate appropriate airtime for viewers to be familiar with what each was saying. Eh, Hillary got coverage, but a lot of it was bogged down by her problems with the emails and Benghazi (which were obvious witch-hunts by the GOP but a lot of people were too stupid to realize it). Fox News is the most-watched cable news channel, it's everywhere; and it didn't help when the Orange Clown starts calling all other media "fake news" and Fox News, with its lack of journalistic integrity, basically condones that behavior so more people who don't know any better listen to only Fox's biased messages. Also, see that recent YT video about how all those different local Fox channels basically had the same script?

In the primary you are absolutely correct he received a disproportionate amount of screen time, however I would counter that, much of that screen time was in hopes of getting him the nomination because he would be the easiest Republican for Hillary to beat. Once he wrapped up the nomination his coverage quickly turned negative as opposed to Hillary's as shown in the link from July to October. Also while Fox News is the most watched cable channel I do not believe their numbers beat the combined numbers of MSNBC and CNN together, and I know for sure they do not even come close to the numbers the network news achieves.

Edit: Also I did just remember that Trump did also provide more openness to the press despite their negative coverage of him, on the other hand Hillary did practically take all of August off, and after her health scare on 9/11 pretty much shut down for the rest of the campaign when it came to the press. So that may be why you saw Trump getting more coverage.

Finally it was Sinclair Broadcast Group, not Fox that put out that script, I also do not see the problem with what they read.

Being complacent with bigotry enables bigotry. Republicans are a package deal; you might vote them in for their "economic" policies, but that vote is implicitly a vote for bigotry. I'm sorry to say that your team is definitively more monstrous than you'd like to admit.

If there were more than two parties you might have a point, however in a two party system people have to weigh everything each party offers instead of one or two positions and decide which is the "lesser evil". You want to call the Republican party monstrous, but I am sure there are many who would say the Democratic party is monstrous for their view on abortion, or fascist for their support of these anti free speech groups.

Side note: I'm not defining the entire party based on my sexual identity at all; gender not only isn't sex, but sexual identity refers to who you are sexually attracted to. I know this is pedantic, but it really shows you have no idea what you're talking about.

I apologize I meant gender identity, I was typing quickly through lunch and misspoke, please accept my apology on that.

Evil isn't a state of being, it's an action. And they definitively are ignorant, because the body of science proves them to be wrong. Everything you just said is wrong.

You have no idea how people came to such views, what their past is, and how said past could affect their views, but you wish to automatically dismiss them as ignorant or evil. I am curious, you seem to call Republicans: Monstrous, ignorant, and evil.

Do you feel the same way about Christians, Jews, and Muslims? All three faiths preach against homosexuality and Transgenderism either in their texts or interpretations currently. Are all Christians evil? Are all Muslims monstrous?

People like this aren't going to be convinced by all of the evidence in the world, so I treat them as such.

Thing is you had a chance to rebut his point, point out possibly warming trends elsewhere, or note that global warming is more than one season, or one year. However instead, you went for the easy insult that prompted his insult in return. That achieves nothing in the end.

 

[chess-z]

LMAO, I've known Swordsman4 for about a year now, and I can confirm that he has no interest in being refuted. I've argued with him about Global Warming, racism, sexism, and a whole host of other things; he has not and cannot provide evidence for his beliefs, or even come up with an argument besides "u wrong idiot, science says so" without saying which science. It's frankly not worth my time.

However, you expect me to engage him in good faith? What has he done to earn that? And by the same token, what have you done? You're honestly concern trolling about tone now, so I don't know how to talk to you besides saying, republicans are monstrous.

and aren't you the one stereotyping all abrahamic faiths now? not all christians, muslims, and jews preach against homosexuality, but you really seem to think they do

 

[EnglishALT]

LMAO, I've known Swordsman4 for about a year now, and I can confirm that he has no interest in being refuted. I've argued with him about Global Warming, racism, sexism, and a whole host of other things; he has not and cannot provide evidence for his beliefs, or even come up with an argument besides "u wrong idiot, science says so" without saying which science. It's frankly not worth my time.

However, you expect me to engage him in good faith? What has he done to earn that? And by the same token, what have you done? You're honestly concern trolling about tone now, so I don't know how to talk to you besides saying, republicans are monstrous.

and aren't you the one stereotyping all abrahamic faiths now? not all christians, muslims, and jews preach against homosexuality, but you really seem to think they do

Fair enough I do not know him or have experience with him, however if you think he is wasting your time I do not see why you want to insult him instead instead of just ignore him, but that is neither here nor there.

As for the abahamic faith question, I am merely applying your parameters to it, if Republicans are monstrous or atleast the Republican party is monstrous because of its views on transgenders, do you believe the same to those who practice a faith that believe the same thing? You stereotype Republicans for one political view, will you stereotype religious individuals for holding the same view? Yes or no?

 

[chess-z]

No, because Abrahamic faiths are literally billions of people strong; where as the leadership of the Republican party is a few hundred people and a couple of mega-wealthy donors at best. But you are trying to show that I'm being hypocritical, so, tu quoque?

 

[EnglishALT]

No, because Abrahamic faiths are literally billions of people strong; where as the leadership of the Republican party is a few hundred people and a couple of mega-wealthy donors at best. But you are trying to show that I'm being hypocritical, so, tu quoque?

The Republican party by that logic is atleast a 100 million people strong ( you expand that to right wing ideology as a whole around the world and you have a number in the billions ), all of whom you have said are "monstrous" in your previous post, to quote your own words "Being complacent with bigotry enables bigotry" if the members of the Abrahamic faiths do not want to "vote for bigotry" then they should renounce their faith. That is if we are to apply your views of the Republican party toward faiths that hold the same views.

 

[bobjr]

Swordsman4 just comes around to complain he can't say mean things about gay people.

But to "game theory" people here since no one ever learns, once one side learns they can get away with things in bad faith without compromise they will usually go all in, and that's what the GOP has done. They have lied, used racism and bigotry, and did nothing but refuse to do their jobs, and it got them the 2016 election. It looks like they'll take a big hit in the 2018 elections, but it's all on the GOP to make the move here, as they have total control and they only reason they refuse to go even further is they don't like people protesting them.

To put it into perspective, if you're someone who can go "Just talk with these people and you'll understand them", you're someone who's well off enough in some way where they aren't actively trying to ruin your life, and you care more about a calm discourse than the lives of those being affected.

 

[chess-z]

I should note: I live in Utah, a deeply conservative state, I talk with Republicans all of the time about their policy and beliefs. I'm even on friendly terms with some of them, but I still consider their beliefs evil. This isn't something that I could just talk them out of, and goddess above knows I've tried. I've been around the polite conversation block before, but eventually you learn that you can't logic someone out of a belief they didn't logic themselves into. All of the dangerous, myopic, shortsighted, bigoted opinions that my Republican peers hold aren't based in anything rational, so I can't engage with it calmly and politely. It's admirable that you want us to believe that everyone is a rational actor, although naive, and it speaks to an incredible privilege.

 

[Eternalserenity]

The most powerful members of the Republican party are going out of their way to specifically target transpeople from as many attack angles as they can get away with, so it's extremely personal and not at all irrational for a transperson to fear and hate them just because of their identity. Being constantly afraid that the next day you wake up; everything's going to come crashing down because some bigots in power decided you don't have a right to exist like everyone else. It's a living nightmare.

 

[Baba Yaga]

you can't logic someone out of a belief they didn't logic themselves into.

Nine times out of ten, this is true. In all my conversations with people that have had socially conservative views opposed to my identity, their opinions never softened with facts but only after getting to know me personally. It's all about finding which psychological button to push to activate their humanity.

 

[Zora]

I used to try engage such people rationally (I study science, so logical arguments are very much my thing); I've learned such conversations are usually a waste of everyone's time. There isn't a rational way to convince people to care about other people; and a handful of ideologies (e.g. meritocratic myth) help insulate some people it's okay not to care.

Put another way, do you really think climate scientists sitting down with our new NASA director with all the known data will convince said director of climate change? But those scientists will put forward a rational argument, why doesn't reason and logic work? Are scientists just too salty to give a calm and rational argument? If no, then there's something much deeper holding up the GOP worldview that mere logic, reason, and respect won't fix.

 

[Baba Yaga]

When it comes to climate change in particular, usually I find that the bulk of the denial comes from the fact that climate change is man-made. Usually, you can get someone who denies climate change to accept its occurring as long as you don't implicate human responsibility.

On some level, I think this indicates that most people that deny climate change know better, they simply think it's out of anyone's hands and want the enjoy the party while it lasts. The attitude isn't so much "I don't believe, convince me" it's "**** it"