bigotry


28512617446_76ed4c32c3_h
Only four posts in and I’ve already touched a nerve. @janersm which literally most people do on a regular basis. And the fact you’re writing a 2500 essay on the wrongs of trump is biast — StopRaven (@stop_raven) July 26, 2016 It’s “biast” for me to express my own opinion. Oh my goodness. How dare someone have an actual opinion! So, if you didn’t read my first, second, or third set of 21 reasons to oppose Trump, consider reading those before you read the next 21 reasons. After today’s post, there will be 95 more posts. If they were bottles of beer, this could be a song. 64. Donald Trump lied about witnessing Muslims celebrating 9/11 on a rooftop in Jersey City, New Jersey. I’ve mentioned Trump’s mocking of Serge Kovaleski, but not how he earned the ire of Trump. Kovaleski had covered a story in 2001 that suggested that there were people in Jersey City partying on rooftops. Donald claimed to see thousands of Muslims in New Jersey celebrating on rooftops after the World Trade Centers collapsed. He claimed there was video of it on television all the time. When he was asked about it by George Stephanopolous, Trump said: “It was well covered at the time, George. Now, I know they don’t like to talk about it, but it was well covered at the time. There were people over in New Jersey that were watching it, a heavy Arab population, that were cheering as the buildings came down. Not good.” Except it wasn’t, because it didn’t happen. The story was never about thousands of Muslims. There was no video. It’s all in Trump’s head. 65. Trump insulted Seventh-Day Adventists. While speaking to supporters at a campaign rally in Jacksonville, Florida in October 2015, Trump, after talking about how he’s a Presbyterian, said, “Boy, that’s down the middle of the road folks, in all fairness. I mean, Seventh-day Adventist, I don’t know about. I just don’t know about.” While Trump’s dig may not sound that vicious, it was meant to be very vicious. You seem, some Christians don’t believe that Seventh-day Adventists are even Christian. This is a group that also refuses to vote for non-Christians. This was a time when Trump was behind Ben Carson by 9 percentage points; Carson is a Seventh-day Adventist. It was personal. 66. Trump hired Manafort. When Donald Trump dumped Corey Lewandowski and replaced him with Paul Manafort, very few people in America knew of the background of Manafort. Most stories touted him as having ties to the Republican Party. A few brought up some recent jobs of of his. Manafort has ties to Viktor Yanukovych, who was the the prime minister of the Ukraine at the time, as well as an ally of Vladimir Putin. In 2010, Yanukovych became the president of Ukraine, but had to flee to Russia during the 2014 revolution. Manafort was also a consultant of Yanukovych, helping Yanukovych’s first run for the Ukrainian presidency in 2004. When Yanukovych hired him after the first results were invalidated, Manafort was meant to improve his images. He was unable to in the time given, but Manafort continued to work within Yanukovych’s Party of Regions. Manafort was still working with the administration when Yanukovych fled and continued working within Ukrainian politics after he’d fled, including his reported involvement in the 2015 election campaign of Vitali Klitschko, who ran for mayor in Kiev. Now, Manafort is working with Donald Trump and was even used on July 27th on CBS This Morning to argue that Donald Trump had no ties to Vladimir Putin’s regime, which may have ties to the hacking of the DNC by Russians and subsequent Wikileaks email release. 67. Trump called Hillary Clinton “shrill” at a rally. A lot of people don’t like Hillary Clinton, but most don’t call her “shrill” at campaign events. Actually, he didn’t just say it once, he said it twice–over-pronouncing it the second time. I guess he wanted to make sure that everyone at his half-empty rally heard him correctly. He tried to suggest he calls men shrill, but if he has, it hasn’t been on Twitter. And he should know that the term “shrill” is meant to shut women up. My guess is: that’s why he said it. Luckily, it didn’t work. 68. Trump mocked Fiorina’s physical appearance. No, really. He did and managed to do it while being interviewed by Rolling Stone. When the anchor throws to Carly Fiorina for her reaction to Trump’s momentum, Trump’s expression sours in schoolboy disgust as the camera bores in on Fiorina. “Look at that face!” he cries. “Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?!” The laughter grows halting and faint behind him. “I mean, she’s a woman, and I’m not s’posedta say bad things, but really, folks, come on. Are we serious?” When asked on Fox News if he really said something like that, he confirmed, saying, “Probably I did say something like that about Carly.” But he tried to walk it back with, “I’m talking about persona. I’m not talking about look.” Donald always has an excuse. 69. Donald Trump believes that John McCain shouldn’t be considered a war hero. While speaking at the Family Leadership Summit in Ames, Iowa, Trump said of McCain, “He’s not a war hero. He was a war hero because he was captured.” 70. Donald Trump also stated that he doesn’t believe that people who are captured are war heroes. In his words, “I like people who weren’t captured.” He’s walked those comments back, because they didn’t go over very well, but they were still said. And his reframing of his comments (“If somebody’s a prisoner, I consider them a war hero.” and “If a person is captured, they’re a hero as far as I’m concerned. … But you have to do other things also.”) didn’t really explain the difference between McCain’s capture and the POWs who he actually sees as a war hero. 71. Trump comes up with childish and […]

2016 Reasons to Oppose Trump: Reasons #64-84


img_7233
Tolerance is something we should all support. It promotes the idea that we are all equal. It helps establish that the rights that exist for the majority also apply to minorities. It is something that must exist because we can no longer have a world where oppression is acceptable. Tolerance is a good thing.  But some people don’t like the idea of ending hatred. They want a world where they’re allowed to attack or degrade someone based on their race, religion, disability, sex, etc. They feel empowered by that hatred, by the oppression that results from it.  But some take their hate to the next level. They try to ruin the meaning of tolerance by appropriating the word itself. They like to make the “tolerance goes both way” statement. In my experience, it’s only the bigots that say it.  They’ll claim, “I don’t like gay people getting married, so I’ll keep it from happening by not letting them get a marriage license. You say you believe in tolerance. You have to tolerate me. You have to accept me.”  They’ll say, “Liberals like to call me a bigot because I believe in white genocide. They’re not very tolerant of opinions they don’t like.” But that’s utter bullshit. No one has to accept this kind of behavior. Ever.  What they’re wanting is for people who are facing actual intolerance to be complacent about that intolerance. They don’t understand how disgusting their desire is. But if they expect a marginalized group to smile and take it when they’re being intolerant, then they’re sick fucks.  Photo credit: tedeytan via Visual hunt / CC BY-SA

That’s Not How Tolerance Works



dailydebate
Whether or not we openly acknowledge it, voter suppression still goes on in the United States. Nine states passed or introduced legislation that could have infringed upon the rights of citizens in 2013; six did so in 2014. Voter suppression is commonly associated with racism, especially against black people, but it also impacts the elderly, American Indians, students, and people with disabilities. Over thirty states have considered laws that would require voters to present government-issued photo ID to vote and around 11% of Americans do not have that ID, which would place an undue burden on them or would strip them completely of the ability to vote. Other attempts to limit voting include cutting back on early voting and making it harder for people who’ve gone to the wrong precinct to vote.1 Voter suppression is unconstitutional, but some people support it out of fear of voter fraud; it also can gain support because it bills fighting voter fraud can actually sound benign in nature. What do you think can be done to limit or combat voter suppression? Has your state passed any laws that you think might count as voter suppression? Have you personally experienced voter suppression? Do strict voter ID laws need to exist to protect against voter fraud? Or is voter fraud not a significant enough problem to warrant the laws? ACLU: 1, 2, 3 ↩

Daily Debate: Oct. 6, 2015