Forums / Discussion / General

235,461 total conversations in 7,818 threads

+ New Thread


Featured Featured
Politics General

Last posted Nov 19, 2024 at 08:09PM EST. Added Jan 01, 2017 at 06:26PM EST
18039 posts from 293 users

Chewybunny wrote:

so
ay hey
whatever happen to uh…
dem

【ｃｏｎｃｅｎｔｒａｔｉｏｎ　ｃａｍｐ】

that the US been running for those kids?

Suddenly all of it just dissipated off the radar

Hurricane Season, that's what happened.

But don't worry.
The Trump administration will try to do something to bring the focus right back to it.

Chewybunny wrote:

so
ay hey
whatever happen to uh…
dem

【ｃｏｎｃｅｎｔｒａｔｉｏｎ　ｃａｍｐ】

that the US been running for those kids?

Suddenly all of it just dissipated off the radar

Death tolls rise and it says a lot that one of the few people defending conditions in these camps was Steve "We wouldn't be here without rape" King, the one who even other Republicans think is a racist asshole.

Chewybunny wrote:

so
ay hey
whatever happen to uh…
dem

【ｃｏｎｃｅｎｔｒａｔｉｏｎ　ｃａｍｐ】

that the US been running for those kids?

Suddenly all of it just dissipated off the radar

>Suddenly all of it just dissipated off the radar

It hasn't though…

Kappapeachie wrote:

whelp since folks insisted, what is your thoughts on the lgbt community and the representation being done in the media?

Better than the 90's but much sloppier and stereotypical than the mid 00's imo

Kappapeachie wrote:

whelp since folks insisted, what is your thoughts on the lgbt community and the representation being done in the media?

I like and support the LGBT community. I feel the media is doing a poor job at advancing their causes. See, the media makes more money out of outrage clicks and angry comments then it does on positive messages about the LGBTQ. So often times their idea of representation is over-selling the Race, or Ethnicity, or Sexuality/Gender, of whatever they're talking about to an outrageous level, to the point where it's all the media cares about saying on the character. Then people get angry because usually the person the LGBTQI person is portraying is an established character of someone elses work, or feels overly aggressively in someones face, and so they lash out.

Of course the Media loves this because now they get to write multiple articles about the backlash, and how intolerant people are of the LGBTQIA Community, despite the Media being the reason for the fire in the first place. Really, I feel every time the media reports on an issue about diversity, it sets back all the hard work people do by years with how sloppy and overly-antagonistic they frame the issue.

Kappapeachie wrote:

whelp since folks insisted, what is your thoughts on the lgbt community and the representation being done in the media?

same thoughts as the straight community and representation; I don't care.

poochyena wrote:

>Suddenly all of it just dissipated off the radar

It hasn't though…

Except it literally has

The breakneck speed at which people get angry about a cause and then move on is, in my opinion, shows that it is less about the cause and more about the moment to moment outrage. It peaked off a month before there was even mention of hurricane season.

Chewybunny wrote:

Except it literally has

The breakneck speed at which people get angry about a cause and then move on is, in my opinion, shows that it is less about the cause and more about the moment to moment outrage. It peaked off a month before there was even mention of hurricane season.

the link literally shows it still being talked about. You feeling ok?
There is absolutely no shortage of recent articles about Trump's handling of immigration

It's shown that it is talked about as much as it was before the scandal. Effectively, the outrage is over. It's background noise.

I'm not talking about immigration. I am talking about kids in detention centers. The immigration topic is still front and center.

> I am talking about kids in detention centers. The immigration topic is still front and center.

They are the same thing. You can't have one topic without the other. Suggesting "Effectively, the outrage is over." just because its talked about less now is absolutely ridiculous. Outrage is measured by people's feelings on a topic, not how often someone googles a topic.

The migrant detention centers are part of the larger immigration debate. But, specifically the migrant detention centers, and the thousands of kids there are no longer as big of a topic as it was several months ago.

When people are outraged, they talk about the subject more, they want to know more information about the topic, they share the topic with others. Google trends is a great tool to measure the how often people look up these topics to discuss them, look them up, get more information on them etc. What google trends has shown in the link I provided is that the topic is no longer being discussed nearly as much as it was at it's peak several months ago. Like, at all. What that suggests to me is that people are no longer as interested in discussing the migrant detention centers, or those kids.

People are talking about immigration, no doubt, but the topic of kids in detention centers, is no longer as big of a topic as it was before.

>are no longer as big of a topic as it was several months ago.

It is, there just hasn't been as many new developments, so there have been less news stories.

>When people are outraged, they talk about the subject more, they want to know more information about the topic, they share the topic with others.

Which they did. And what happens when there is no new information? They stop talking about it as much. That doesn't mean that are ok with it now that there are less discussions. Literally every event in history has a peak in discussions that goes down over time.

Kappapeachie wrote:

I'm jsut paranoid as fuck as there's gonna be the inevitable asshole who complains abihr how I portray gay people in my stuff whether they're far right or far left.

you do you, don't listen to people who get whiny about the sexuality of characters

poochyena wrote:

you can't rig every poll to show you not even getting 2% support.

There are people scoring lass than her and they still keep her off the stage. Face it, Tulsi would tear Warren and Biden apart on stage.

>There are people scoring lass than her and they still keep her off the stage.

Nationally, yes, but not early states. Even nationally, she can't even get 2% of the vote. Again, not getting 2% in polls is her own fault, no one elses. If YANG can get on the stage, she can too if she tried.

>If you call getting beat that badly

You literally quoted the tweet that shows them not losing badly.

poochyena wrote:

>There are people scoring lass than her and they still keep her off the stage.

Nationally, yes, but not early states. Even nationally, she can't even get 2% of the vote. Again, not getting 2% in polls is her own fault, no one elses. If YANG can get on the stage, she can too if she tried.

>If you call getting beat that badly

You literally quoted the tweet that shows them not losing badly.

Poochy, you must be tired or something, that was YOUR tweet not mine. Go to bed and get some rest.

Team Arkos wrote:

Poochy, you must be tired or something, that was YOUR tweet not mine. Go to bed and get some rest.

yes, and you quoted it in your reply so I know you read it.

poochyena wrote:

yes, and you quoted it in your reply so I know you read it.

Nope, I didn't read it. Just like you never read anything I had ever put up. Nor do you ever watch the links I post as well. Styxhexen made the argument that just blew the doors off your comments about Tulsi, you would know that if you watched it.

Team Arkos wrote:

Nope, I didn't read it. Just like you never read anything I had ever put up. Nor do you ever watch the links I post as well. Styxhexen made the argument that just blew the doors off your comments about Tulsi, you would know that if you watched it.

You can look at the data yourself, its clear
Polls
538Tracker
From the 538 tracker, you can see she just simply didn't get above 2% in enough polls. There literally isn't anything more to it. You think after 2 debates at under 2%, she will magically shoot up after the 3rd debate?
Literally even Steyer has qualified for the october debate and he wasn't even in the first or second debate. No excuse.

If only StyxHexenhammer666 could do as much research into the DNC as he did into WWII, maybe he wouldn't say dumb shit like claiming Zyklon B is a harmless cleaning agent for lice, and that jewish people had pools, and that the "showers" were real showers. You know, instead of the gas chamber, which they were, and the use of Zyklon B as the Hydrogen Cyanide gas, in said gas chambers.

poochyena wrote:

You can look at the data yourself, its clear
Polls
538Tracker
From the 538 tracker, you can see she just simply didn't get above 2% in enough polls. There literally isn't anything more to it. You think after 2 debates at under 2%, she will magically shoot up after the 3rd debate?
Literally even Steyer has qualified for the october debate and he wasn't even in the first or second debate. No excuse.

Wow, you only cite the DNC "Approved" polls. The reality of it is saying other wise. Kinda reminds me back in 2016 the polls were showing that President Trump was "way behind" Hillary. Remember how that turned out? Look at the footage of her speaking rallies. She is pulling in more people than Biden and Warren are. If you can't pack the stands, you can't beat President Trump.

Have some polls that say other wise. You can look at the data yourself, it's clear.

Poll

Poll 2

Poll 3

Poll 4

Need I have to remind you that LAST TIME the DNC ran a primary, they rigged it. You seriously trust them not to rig it again?

Last edited Sep 11, 2019 at 02:05AM EDT

>Kinda reminds me back in 2016 the polls were showing that President Trump was "way behind" Hillary. Remember how that turned out?

Yes, it was accurate. Not Sure how that helps support your claim.
Again, the DNC isn't rigging polls, no national poll has her above 3%. Most show her at 2% or less.

poochyena wrote:

@Team Arkos
I find it strange you seem to be upset over DNC rigging, but not Russian rigging. Why is that?

Because the DNC rigging is real, the Russian rigging the national election isn't real. However seeing that there is so many open Socialist running in the Democrat party now, the Democrat party might as well be the openly accepting they are Russia's puppets. So why is it that you are a Russian agent Poochy?

Sup! You must login or signup first!