Null



TitanTiger

ADMIN
  • Content Count

    46,715
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    42

Everything posted by TitanTiger

  1. I thought it was from "Clueless" with Alicia Silverstone but after Googling I can see it came from another film. I won't spoil it if others want to guess.
  2. I'm still hoping she can make another run before Super Tuesday.
  3. I've read that she can be rough on staffers. Then again, men are rough on staffers all the time too and no one says boo about it. Steve Jobs, as the article mentioned, was a tyrant who could cuss the wallpaper off the walls when he wasn't happy. But I'm not convinced she doesn't have a legitimate beef here.
  4. Then there's this take. I'd need to ask a few women if they felt the same way watching it.
  5. Well I don't disagree about her reaction. But again, I get her frustration if the CNN story is accurate. Because all the reasons you give for Reagan, Obama or Pete doing better - being a 'gifted politician' wouldn't be enough for a woman. And it sucks for someone who has built that resume and done the work. Yes, he's worked hard for a minute, but that's not the same thing.
  6. Well, I used the word "also" to indicate that being a white male was part of the reason (along with his "skills" you mentioned) - as opposed to basically any woman who'd never sniff the position he's in with the same resume.
  7. It doesn’t entitle anyone. But I imagine it’s frustrating to know that neither you nor anyone of your sex could get anywhere close to as high as he’s gotten with the resume he has. He’s been a mayor of a town of 100,000 people. He’s lost every statewide race he’s run in. Regardless of planning, even temperament or what have you, that has to feel pretty damn close to “waltzing in.” I imagine if you pressed Warren on it and she was honest she’d say about the same. She’s just a little less bothered because he’s useful: he’s diluting the moderate vote leaving the more leftward ground for her and Sanders and allowing her to be the woman in that lane exclusively.
  8. But he’s also doing well, despite his youth and lack of experience because he’s a white man. For a woman to have a chance she had to have enormous amounts of experience. No way a woman with his background waltzes in and is in the top two.
  9. I think she's got a point about his lack of experience, lack of winning anything beyond a local election, and yet him still being a top contender because he's a man, but she either needs to name this issue head on in the debates or she needs to drop it. Just looking irritated isn't going to help her.
  10. Bloomberg is bad on those things, but I hardly see how he's worse than Trump on them. Bloomberg is like what PJ O'Rourke's said about Hillary - "wrong within normal parameters." The comparison between Mike and Donald are more surface level than anything. Trump's belligerence, ego, incompetence, and cruelty put him in a class all his own. Bloomberg, bad as he is, appears to have something of a sense that people with money like himself should do more than just accumulate stuff. They have obligations to society to give back, be generous, etc. It's the same sort of thing you used to see from old money families like the Rockefellers. It's charity mixed with some privileged elitist snobbery for sure, but some good comes from it. Trump has no such sense. He's Biff Tannen from Back to the Future - a garden variety, meatheaded bully made powerful by coming from money. Take away the money, and he's getting laid about 98.7% less than he has, and spends his weekends watching WWE in a wifebeater still bragging about the kid he gave a swirly in 10th grade gym class.
  11. Frankly there are too many people in the moderate lane right now and I think she's pissed that a guy like Bloomberg can buy his way in, and that a relative novice like Buttigieg is giving her s*** at all. I'm not convinced she's wrong to feel that way.
  12. Bloomberg got pummeled. Sanders still looks and sounds like "Old Man Yells at Cloud." Buttigieg still puts a moderate face on far left social views. Biden seems desperate and a little addled. Warren is probably the smartest one of the bunch but should have stuck with her anti-corruption message rather than becoming the lite-socialist in the race. Klobuchar seems the most reasonable of the bunch but struggles to get airtime.
  13. I get that some people salve their consciences by relegating fellow human beings to something less than human. It changes nothing. A vasectomy involves one individual's body, as does a tubal ligation. An abortion involves two and it ends human life.
  14. I get what they think they are pointing out, but in purposely pretending only one human’s agency is in play here, it fails.
  15. Well here’s what may happen instead: the SCOTUS knocks down Roe. The US becomes a patchwork of states who ban abortion outright, restrict it severely, or offer it without restriction. Nothing is done to actually help women and babies and families. And we continue to bitch about it for decades. From a purely cynical political perspective, conservative states will end up with higher birth rates, liberal ones will have theirs plummet and it will change the political and economic dynamic for decades.
  16. I’m treating it like the unique situation that it is rather than making false comparisons and category errors.
  17. So long as you and the legislator wish to confuse scenarios that only involve the man or woman in question and scenarios which involve another human whose life is directly affected, the attempted analogy falls flat.
  18. lol You and the representative still fail at analogies.
  19. Not simple. Simplistic. And still a bad analogy. A forced tubal ligation or hysterectomy would be the closest equivalent to a forced vasectomy. And no one has proposed such a thing for women.
  20. You asked. I answered. Sorry it wasn't satisfactory.
  21. It doesn't really work even for that. No one is proposing to force women to get pregnant, or to get a tubal ligation or a hysterectomy. That's the lie that is told about abortion rights - that it's about "controlling women's bodies" If it was about control, you'd expect to see a whole lot more laws controlling a lot more other things. Where are the laws dictating to women when they can or can't get a facelift or Botox injections? Or breast augmentation or reduction? Or telling them they can't get a tubal ligation if they never want to have kids? The reason abortion is the only thing a woman wants to "do with her body" that gets that kind of attention is because there's another human being involved. It's not just her. A man getting or not getting a vasectomy isn't analogous.
  22. Slavery existed in this country for over 200 years. Africans weren't human persons, they were something less than human persons which gave the justification in the minds of white Americans to use them as property. I imagine as generation after generation just accepted that this is just "how it is" and accepted it as self-evident and all they'd ever known, it didn't seem it would ever change. And many probably thought it shouldn't. But they were wrong and eventually people realized that black folks were every bit as human, every bit a person as they were and it was wrong to own them and force them to be slaves. So yes, I care about it and will continue to care about it. One day I can only hope that humanity wakes up to realize their inhumanity toward the unborn and until then I'll do whatever I can to move us toward that day. Politics is the art of compromise. Everyone involved gets things they want and offers concessions on others. An example? Let's shoot for the moon. What if a Democrat who wants universal healthcare coverage put on the table for pro-life Republicans: Let's establish a public option that anyone can buy into and that anyone who makes under $X gets for free or a sliding scale of discounted cost. Private insurance can remain for those who prefer it but the end goal is that there will no longer be anyone in the US who lacks healthcare coverage they can easily afford and no one will be facing bankruptcy over medical bills. And all pre and post-natal care is part of this obviously. On top of that, at least three months of paid parental leave will be mandated through tax incentives and a small tax to help subsidize it. Furthermore, we will create tax credits and incentives for businesses and colleges to provide on-site daycare for working parents so that no one has to drop out of school because they had a child. Remove the notion that having a kid means all your plans to get an education and avoid a lifetime of poverty and struggle go out the window. In exchange for conservatives giving in on that, Democrats will agree to some serious concessions on abortion and related matters. Maybe we end abortions after 20-22 weeks (age of viability) unless the mother's life is in danger (but all effort will be made to save mother AND child). Or perhaps it's after the first trimester. Taxpayers are never to be on the hook to pay for abortions. No doctor, nurse, or pharmacist can be compelled to participate in facilitating or providing abortion services or abortifacient medications. And no religious organization can be compelled to provide contraceptive services that violate their beliefs and conscience. And for God's sake, stop trying to put a new marketing and PR face on abortion as if it's nothing more than removing a wart. Send dumb stuff like "#ShoutYourAbortion" to the dustbin of history under a heap of shame and disgust for ever thinking it up. Outlaw at the federal level being able provide an abortion to a minor child without parental consent. Expand tax credits and streamline processes to make adoption easier and more affordable for more families. That's a big picture example, but several of the components of it could be broken down into separate initiatives. We give this, you give that. Right now, we've got most Democrats pledging to repeal the Hyde Amendment and basically tripping all over each other to prove how in favor of expansion of abortion rights and access they are the same way Republicans fall all over themselves to prove how much of a Trump ass-kisser they'll be. Bernie Sanders all but told pro-life Democrats they aren't welcome in the party. It's sickening and counterproductive. That's just me spitballing in 15 minutes time so if you're into nitpicking the details, save your breath. This is a framework - an idea of the difference in disposition that is possible on the issue in my mind and what I'd like to see as the approach going forward.
  23. Really it's not as complicated as all that. It comes down to this: I don't want to support anyone who sees elective abortion as healthcare and wants to pass laws that expand its use or access to it. If your pitch includes that, I'm out. If your pitch is to work with pro-life people to find ways to reduce the number of abortions significantly, I'm all ears.
  24. I agree. I think the others have vulnerabilities that would make that win a lot harder once they are the focus of the Trump campaign's punches full time. Even if in the end I still voted third party (because let's be honest, Trump can't do anything to lose Alabama), Klobuchar is a Democrat I could live with winning. Plus, I think history has shown that our government does best when Congress (especially the Senate) and the Presidency are from opposite parties.