RugbyRebels

Stom wrote:

cashead wrote:

jared_7 wrote:The c*nt

Using such a misogynistic term to describe a woman is probably not a good look, dude.

I don't want to derail this, but seriously? If the word c*nt, in it's modern usage, was used to describe a certain type of person, then Hillary Clinton falls perfectly within that type. The fact she's a woman has no bearing on it. She's a c*nt, Osbourne's a c*nt, John Key is a c*nt, etc.

cashead wrote:

jared_7 wrote:The c*nt

Using such a misogynistic term to describe a woman is probably not a good look, dude.

jared_7 wrote:

cashead wrote:

jared_7 wrote:The c*nt

Using such a misogynistic term to describe a woman is probably not a good look, dude.

She is a c*nt, just like Donald Trump is a c*nt. I'm sure the last thing Hillary Clinton wants, as a champion of women's rights, is for me to call her something different because she is a woman...

I can call her a d*ck head if you like, but would that be disrespectful to men?

cashead wrote:

jared_7 wrote:

cashead wrote: Using such a misogynistic term to describe a woman is probably not a good look, dude.

She is a c*nt, just like Donald Trump is a c*nt. I'm sure the last thing Hillary Clinton wants, as a champion of women's rights, is for me to call her something different because she is a woman...

I can call her a d*ck head if you like, but would that be disrespectful to men?

Would you like me to explain privilege to you?

Stom wrote:

cashead wrote:

jared_7 wrote:The c*nt

Using such a misogynistic term to describe a woman is probably not a good look, dude.

I don't want to derail this, but seriously? If the word c*nt, in it's modern usage, was used to describe a certain type of person, then Hillary Clinton falls perfectly within that type. The fact she's a woman has no bearing on it. She's a c*nt, Osbourne's a c*nt, John Key is a c*nt, etc.

Democratic hopeful Bernie Sanders won the Wyoming caucuses on Saturday, continuing a winning streak against front-runner Hillary Clinton as the two head for a key showdown next week in New York.

The senator from Vermont has now defeated Clinton in the past seven of eight states that have held nominating contests.

However, Sanders's margin of victory, which stood at 55.7 percent to 44.3 percent with all precincts reporting, provided no help in his larger quest to catch Clinton in the race for the nomination.

Only 14 delegates were at stake Saturday, and under the party's complicated caucus rules, Sanders was awarded seven delegates, and Clinton was awarded seven.

zer0 wrote:

Democratic hopeful Bernie Sanders won the Wyoming caucuses on Saturday, continuing a winning streak against front-runner Hillary Clinton as the two head for a key showdown next week in New York.

The senator from Vermont has now defeated Clinton in the past seven of eight states that have held nominating contests.

However, Sanders's margin of victory, which stood at 55.7 percent to 44.3 percent with all precincts reporting, provided no help in his larger quest to catch Clinton in the race for the nomination.

Only 14 delegates were at stake Saturday, and under the party's complicated caucus rules, Sanders was awarded seven delegates, and Clinton was awarded seven.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pos ... ?tid=a_inl

LOL wut?

Lizard wrote:There's a little part of me that wants Trump to win the whole thing, just to see how bad it gets (or if he somehow finds a way to be at least not truly incompetent). It could mean living in interesting times.

Zhivago wrote:

Lizard wrote:There's a little part of me that wants Trump to win the whole thing, just to see how bad it gets (or if he somehow finds a way to be at least not truly incompetent). It could mean living in interesting times.

Alright for you in NZ. Relatively out of the firing line.

Stom wrote:Could Sanders run as an independent? That may be the best shot...

Otherwise, I'm afraid I will be an honorary Trump supporter, as less bad than Hillary...which says something.

jared_7 wrote:

Stom wrote:Could Sanders run as an independent? That may be the best shot...

Otherwise, I'm afraid I will be an honorary Trump supporter, as less bad than Hillary...which says something.

He could do, but its never worked in the past because the senate is made up of Democrats and Republicans who obviously support their candidate.

Sanders will get support but people will know anything he says won't be able to get done. Its foreseeable he could start his Presidency how Obama has ended it, unable to get anything done except through executive orders in a narrow set of circumstance.

Lizard wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Lizard wrote:There's a little part of me that wants Trump to win the whole thing, just to see how bad it gets (or if he somehow finds a way to be at least not truly incompetent). It could mean living in interesting times.

Alright for you in NZ. Relatively out of the firing line.

Some truth in that. Mind you NZ is pretty much entirely dependent on overseas trade so if the freedom of the seas (currently basically guaranteed by USA) ends we are fucked, too.

To go back to your point about education: At one point you quote Arne Duncan, who was Obama’s secretary of education, saying that the only way to end poverty is through education. Why can’t that work?

The big overarching problem of our time is inequality. If you look at historical charts of productivity and wage growth, these two things went hand in hand for decades after World War II, which we think of as a prosperous, middle-class time when even people with a high school degree, blue-collar workers, could lead a middle class life. And then everything went wrong in the 1970s. Productivity continued to go up and wage growth stopped. Wage growth has basically been flat ever since then. But productivity goes up by leaps and bounds all the time. We have all of these wonderful technological advances. Workers are more productive than ever but they haven’t benefited from it. That’s the core problem of inequality.

Now, if the problem was that workers weren’t educated enough, weren’t smart enough, productivity would not be going up. But that productivity line is still going up. So we can see that education is not the issue.

It’s important that people get an education, of course. I spent 25 years of my life getting an education. It’s basic to me. It’s a fundamental human right that people should have the right to pursue whatever they want to the maximum extent of their individual potential. But the idea that this is what is holding them back is simply incorrect as a matter of fact. What’s holding them back is that they don’t have the power to demand higher wages.

If we talk about the problem as one of education rather than power, then the blame goes back to these workers. They just didn’t go out and work hard and do their homework and get a gold star from their teacher. If you take the education explanation for inequality, ultimately you’re blaming the victims themselves.

Unfortunately, that is the Democratic view. That’s why Democrats have essentially become the party of mass inequality. They don’t really have a problem with it.

So really, the solution would have to be solidarity and organized power.

That was an essential point that I try to make in Listen Liberal: that there is no solidarity in a meritocracy. A meritocracy really is every man for himself.

Don’t get me wrong. People at the top of the meritocracy, professionals, obviously have enormous respect for one another. That is the nature of professional meritocracy. They have enormous respect for the people at the top, but they feel very little solidarity for people beneath them who don’t rise in the meritocracy.

Look at the white-collar workplace. If some professional gets fired, the other professionals don’t rally around and go on strike or protest or something like that. They just don’t do that. They feel no solidarity because everything goes back to you and whether or not you’ve made the grade. If somebody gets fired, they must’ve deserved it somehow.

I have my own personal experience. Look at academia over the last 20 years. They’re cranking out these Ph.D.s in the humanities who can’t get jobs on tenure track and instead have to work as adjuncts for very low pay, no benefits. One of the fascinating parts about this is that, with a few exceptions, the people who do have tenure-track jobs and are at the top of their fields, do very little about what’s happened to their colleagues who work as adjuncts. Essentially this is the Uberizing of higher education. The professionals who are in a position of authority have done almost nothing about it. There are academics here and there who feel bad about what’s happened to adjuncts and do say things about it, but by and large, overall, there is no solidarity in that meritocracy. They just don’t care.

jared_7 wrote:Well Shillary is going to walk it now it seems.

WaspInWales wrote:Cruz punching his old lady was the most telling blow he made during the campaign.