Upload
Login or register

idkwhatthatmeans

Last status update:
-
Gender: male
Age: 21
Date Signed Up:6/24/2013
Last Login:11/30/2016
Location:Corona CA
Stats
Comment Ranking:#14363
Highest Content Rank:#384
Highest Comment Rank:#1312
Content Thumbs: 6154 total,  6560 ,  406
Comment Thumbs: 2172 total,  2459 ,  287
Content Level Progress: 55% (55/100)
Level 161 Content: Soldier Of Funnyjunk → Level 162 Content: Soldier Of Funnyjunk
Comment Level Progress: 45% (45/100)
Level 220 Comments: Mind Blower → Level 221 Comments: Mind Blower
Subscribers:2
Content Views:258750
Times Content Favorited:532 times
Total Comments Made:381
FJ Points:2699
Favorite Tags: game (4) | the (3) | are (2) | what (2)
yolo420swagswagobeydiamondlifesnapbacks

  • Views: 67225
    Thumbs Up 2088 Thumbs Down 64 Total: +2024
    Comments: 94
    Favorites: 123
    Uploaded: 07/05/13
    Ultimate Photobomb Ultimate Photobomb
  • Views: 60701
    Thumbs Up 1941 Thumbs Down 65 Total: +1876
    Comments: 266
    Favorites: 155
    Uploaded: 07/14/13
    Asians Asians
  • Views: 46704
    Thumbs Up 1323 Thumbs Down 112 Total: +1211
    Comments: 67
    Favorites: 150
    Uploaded: 08/23/13
    Cody the Dog Cody the Dog
  • Views: 17877
    Thumbs Up 382 Thumbs Down 40 Total: +342
    Comments: 14
    Favorites: 40
    Uploaded: 06/26/13
    Difference between Boys and Girls Difference between Boys and Girls
  • Views: 11197
    Thumbs Up 213 Thumbs Down 23 Total: +190
    Comments: 3
    Favorites: 5
    Uploaded: 06/25/13
    Pedobear Pedobear
  • Views: 14735
    Thumbs Up 207 Thumbs Down 24 Total: +183
    Comments: 15
    Favorites: 11
    Uploaded: 07/30/13
    It's All Coming Together... It's All Coming Together...
First2[ 12 ]

latest user's comments

#43 - saying every team in the MLB has an equal chance of winning th…  [+] (1 reply) 11/04/2016 on Timelord confirmed +3
User avatar
#44 - Customer Services (11/04/2016) [-]
Do you think i'm gonna analyse every single game of baseball ever made just to bring up some totally accurate statistics on ? Because thinking i would take all that time for that is actually fucking retarded.
#99 - There's a difference between trump leading in primaries polls …  [+] (1 reply) 10/13/2016 on I'd believe it... +1
#173 - poopinajar (10/13/2016) [-]
So scared of liberals they won't even admit their Trump preference in a private phone call. No wonder you guys want a blustering 'tough guy'. Shame he seems to be just as afraid of everything as his supporters.
#62 - Trumps never been leading in polls. Most trump supporters hav…  [+] (12 replies) 10/12/2016 on I'd believe it... +2
#170 - anon (10/13/2016) [-]
May I remind you where you can stick your MSM polls?

<- THIS is now even more true than during the primaries.

The Hilldebeast can BARELY fill a High School Gymnasium, even when the kids can show up for free.
#188 - ohnotheyfoundme (10/18/2016) [-]
Oh god this argument. "He attracts bigger rallies, therefore he's winning", the king of 'I have no idea how statistics work' arguments that I hear Trump supporters touting so often... You realize that the vote of an unenthused voter and a raving fan have the exact same weight when it comes to the actual election, right?

Yes, Trump's base is more fanatical and devoted, and will show up to his rallies and cheer like madmen. That doesn't change the fact that he has fewer supporters than Clinton. Most of Clinton's supporters aren't crazy enthusiastic about her (I myself am a unenthusiastic Clinton supporter), but they hate Trump. They won't show up to her rallies because they don't care that much, but they'll still vote for her.

This is why the polls matter, because most voters don't show up to rallies, most of them don't care enough. But they still vote. And this is why Trump is losing. He's attracted a rabid, devoted fanbase, at the cost of alienating 60% of America. And he can't win with just that base, he needs to win over undecided voters and independents. So yeah, he's kind of screwed at this point.
#174 - poopinajar (10/13/2016) [-]
I don't usually respond to anons, but I think this meme needs to be addressed

Trump was all cock of the walk when his numbers were on the up in what you'd call MSM polls. To accept them then and not now is hypocrisy.

As for the stadiums Trump is filling. There was also another person who was filling stadiums with enthusiastic voters. Perhaps you've heard of Bernie Sanders? Mayhaps you are also aware he was beat by Clinton? The ability to get the base out to rallies doesn't necessarily correlate to general election success especially when the unfavourables of the candidates are so high.
User avatar
#133 - onceuponagary (10/13/2016) [-]
Polls will always show an unrealistic picture since a major part of the voters dont vote on them. Trump fans seems more active on the internet which could count for them beeing close. Bernie was also close to Hillary because of the same thing. Hillary has alot of voters that dont care about the online polls.
#69 - poopinajar (10/12/2016) [-]
Funny how Trump's fans distrust in polls directly negatively correlated with his success in polls. Look how much of Trump's argument in the primaries was 'well look at the polls'. Also, if are Trump fanboys really that worried about skewed polls? They seemed to buy into the online polls after the first debate.

As for the 50% remark, yes that was hyperbole, but so is your my never having met a sane woman remark.
User avatar
#163 - larrisawsome (10/13/2016) [-]
to be honest though, considering that women make up more than half the population, 50% might not be too far off.
User avatar
#117 - cockassunited (10/13/2016) [-]
Republican primaries didn't oversample democrats by double digits. The methodology in these polls is incredibly fraudulent.
#172 - poopinajar (10/13/2016) [-]
Even if the oversampling is true, it wouldn't account for his bleeding. Unless you think democrats were voting for him in the polls until this last set. If the numbers have stayed proportionally the same it means Trump has lost votes after the tape came out.
User avatar
#177 - cockassunited (10/13/2016) [-]
Mate go look at the poll methodology, and more important the methodology over time, every time he dips more dems are sampled by massive numbers, and every time he rises the number gets smaller.

The LA times poll, which is the ONLY poll that has used consistent methodology this election puts them at a tie at the moment, which is 14 points off NBC polls and the like.
#187 - poopinajar (10/15/2016) [-]
You got a citation for that? I did some googling and all that came up was Reuters changing their methodology once and their justification for doing it seemed reasonable but I'm willing to accept it not being. Especially if it is part of a greater pattern.
User avatar
#99 - idkwhatthatmeans (10/13/2016) [-]
There's a difference between trump leading in primaries polls and general election polls. Violent liberals aren't part of republican primaries. There's is a genuine and real fear for most trump supporters in democratic areas of being lambasted or even physically assaulted for their support, hence why they are unlikely to reveal their allegiance in a survey.
#173 - poopinajar (10/13/2016) [-]
So scared of liberals they won't even admit their Trump preference in a private phone call. No wonder you guys want a blustering 'tough guy'. Shame he seems to be just as afraid of everything as his supporters.
#109 - Because in the context of that quote she is referring to the s…  [+] (1 reply) 10/10/2016 on "WE SHOULD WANT NUCLEAR WAR" -1
User avatar
#111 - vinskinator (10/10/2016) [-]
"You’ve seen the reports. Russia’s hacked into a lot of things, China’s hacked into a lot of things. Russia even hacked into the Democratic National Committee. Maybe even some state election systems? So we gotta step up our game. Make sure we are well defended and make sure we are able to take the fight to those who go after us. As president I will make it clear that the United States will treat cyber attacks just like any other attack. We will be ready with serious political, economic and military responses."

No... the context of the quote is cyber security in general and how to respond moving forward. she mentions recent attacks, but that is not what she proposes to do about them but future attacks.
#92 - Why would he try to spend an excessive amount of time on that …  [+] (7 replies) 10/10/2016 on CNN shilling way to hard 0
#131 - drunkjesus (10/11/2016) [-]
And yet focusing on Clinton's emails despite her being acquitted of wrongdoing isn't wasting time that could be used on bigger issues? It's funny that people explain away Trump's scandals once he's apologised as though it's not big deal, but even though Hillary apologised she's still attack by the same people. I'm not saying Clinton shouldn't be attacked for that reason; in fact I believe she should be, but if she is being hated and criticised for those reasons, Trump deserves the same treatment.

Look, people always think that their candidate won the debate because they already agree with that candidate, hence why they talked to undecided voters. I'm not saying that Clinton won the debate, I didn't bother watching it. But debates for the most part are completely useless for decided voters. It's the undecided voters who'll actually be swayed, and witty one liners, despite being funny, don't translate well to the people who are trying to pick a serious presidential candidate.

What people should really look at is the methodology of the study; for instance, if the poll was conducted by CNN viewers through a website or something, it's only representative of CNN viewers rather than the population of the US. I don't totally agree with the whole 'the media is out to get Trump' narrative, but I do agree that media in the US is biased in terms of Fox being right wing and CNN left wing. But the reality is that Fox is the biggest and most popular network so I don't buy into the rigged media.
User avatar
#134 - videogamehippey (10/11/2016) [-]
The difference between the locker room banter and the email scandals, is the locker room banter was what it was, banter, all men I know, and have ever known talk like that in private. While not everyone wipes evidence after a Congressional Subpoena.
#137 - drunkjesus (10/11/2016) [-]
I don't agree that it's locker room talk if meant seriously. I do agree that it could be meant in a comedic way, but the issue that a lot of people have with that is that he's not running to be a comedian, he's running to be president. Secondly, like it or not it's childish to be joking around like that, it's lowbrow humour. A quality that is certainly not a desirable quality in a president is childish. Beyond that he has been disrespectful to multiple women on multiple occasions going so far as to imply that a specific woman's actions at a certain time may be because she's bleeding our her vagina. The issue of 'locker room talk' has also been deemed deplorable by many professional athletes who've been playing sports their entire lives and spent more time in locker rooms than probably you and myself combined.

Sure, I would agree that if this was an isolated incident, or even the second or third one, it wouldn't be on the same level as the Clinton emails. But the fact is he has a well documented pattern of being very disrespectful and suggestive towards women. Consequently, many people believe that he's a sexist. Similarly people believe the same about his racial hiccups and people believe that he's a racist.

So the issue isn't that Trump said this once, the issue is that he's said stuff like this often and is that someone you want as your president? A sexist? A racist? I'm not outright calling him that but that's why it's not a small issue at all. Clinton's emails are a huge issue and she deserves to be roasted on them, but to claim the locker room talk isn't a big issue is either lying to yourself, or a failure to understand the whole scandal.
User avatar
#143 - aleypal (10/11/2016) [-]
you seem to forget that trump was a TV personality turned political. as such his life kind of revolved around the sort of lifestyle that prompts these mannerisms and the type of talk he's been recorded as saying. the video of trump saying those things isn't just of him, it's of the tv host too. after watching it it seems to me that even throughout the banter trump held back from going as far as he could have. i saw restraint and annoyance in trump as the walked down the hall with the girl as the other guy wouldn't stop pushing the envelope.

The real problem is that liberals either can't take a joke, or can't recognize one, or just want an angle to bash him on. as someone who's told far worse jokes or talked crap about others just for approval, i see trump as a well reserved guy. i'm not sexist or racist, and i don't see a hint of it in trump either. like Pence said, he's not polished as a politician and hasn't got the full politician mindset. he'll say things and 'stumble' because of that. it's not hints that he's racist or sexist, it's the result of him previously being a famous TV billionare. as such, i don't think it really deserves much mention other than an apology.
#150 - drunkjesus (10/11/2016) [-]
Okay, so first, I don't know if you meant to do it, but your first paragraph there is essentially making the argument that his verbiage is justified because he used to be a TV personality. That doesn't justify shit. Again, not sure if that's what you're trying to get at but it's what comes across. The second part of that paragraph doesn't justify his comments either, it's you saying he could've gone further, which I agree he could've. But the issue isn't so much that it's a joke, like I said, it's that it fits in with his repeated disrespect and belittling of women. Again, if he's a comedian that's fine, no worries or concerns from me. But the guy is running to be president and it's clear that through his speeches that he clearly has some issue when it comes to respecting women even to this day. People don't want someone who is going to disrespect and belittle half of the American population, which is why it's an issue. Even if he's not a sexist (which frankly I think he is, but that's not the crux of my argument here), he is a role model, not to mention he has to deal with women when it comes to international relations.

Secondly, it's not only Liberals who find this offensive. Many republicans have denounced him for saying that, some pulling their endorsements of him on account of the statement. Mike Pence himself (though you're right in saying Pence said he's not a polished politician) denounced him. His wife, though supporting him, denounced the statement. So sure, maybe he's a good guy but clearly he has some issues when it comes to women. Even if it is a joke, and I do think it was one, context is important. And yes, at the time he was a TV personality, but how many TV personalities have you heard say that? I'll give you a couple for sure, he's not the only one. But how many of them should run for president and how many of them would you want as your president? For me I wouldn't want any of them and none should run.

I'm not calling Trump supporters sexist or racist either, but it's very easy to see how a strong case can be made for Trump to be a sexist or racist. He used to put a (C) for coloured beside his tenants who were black on documents. There's no need for that at all. With all his comments about women it's easy to make that argument too.

Also, racism and sexism aren't always outright and plain to see. You can be a sexist and a racist without really being aware of it. Think of segregation, a lot of people didn't think it was racist, it was just splitting up the groups, but it is definitely racist. It can sometimes be because what was once acceptable has changed and either the person hasn't caught up or they don't understand what's wrong. I think Trump at the very least is unaware that what he is saying is sexist and consequently it makes him one (I'm not just talking about the video which I believe was a joke).
User avatar
#152 - aleypal (10/11/2016) [-]
see your whole viewpoint stems from what you determine to be sexist and racist. i believe racism and sexism comes from intent, there is no accidental racism or sexism. you cannot be ignorant of your own racism or sexism. there's no hidden racism or sexism. it comes from intent. racism doesn't exist (at least in america) on a cultural level, it exists on a personal level. you're wrong to say people didn't think it was racist, they knew it was. when i look at the segregation and slavery of the past i can hardly believe that the white people then didn't know that what they were doing was wrong. they justified it with the bible sure, they persisted and fought and wanted it, but they knew on some level of their consciousness that it was wrong. it comes from intent, and they intended it.

The first part of what i said leads up to meant throughout, what he's said in the past doesn't really doesn't necessitate the attention people are giving it. the attention given to the issue by trump and his campaign is sufficient and was necessary, for me at least. Do you truly believe trump intended to grab chicks by the pussy? do you really think he would act or intend to do things like that? do you really think trump means any harm by marking who among his tenants are colored? unnecessary? yes. but there's a number of reasons why he might do that. there's no racism because he didn't intend any racism.

This will come down to opinion if we keep going, in my opinion, i see no evidence or intended and willful racism or sexism by trump. the guy said some things and he apologized for it, now we can move on to the important things instead of dragging crap through the mud. if we move on we can talk about real issues in the country.
#155 - drunkjesus (10/11/2016) [-]
If you think everyone was intending to be racist or sexist then you really should do some historical research, people justified it for many reasons, but many of them didn't think there was anything wrong with it at all. Some instances would be segregation for one, people just thought it was the way things should be for a variety of reasons. For sexism you could research a case in Canada where the predecessor to the Supreme Court was discussing pregnancy laws and their legitimacy and determined that certain laws applying only to pregnant women were not sexist because it applied only to pregnant 'people'.

And I don't understand how you think that a discussion about whether a candidate is sexist/racist or not doesn't deserve a lot of airtime and discussion. I do not think Trump was being literal at all. I specifically said that multiple times. But I do think it's worth discussing at length whether he is a sexist or not based one the NUMEROUS comments he has made disrespecting women. When you take the statement out of context it's not a big deal, just a joke. But when it is in the context of what he has said in the past and the position he is running for, it is a very important subject. Furthermore, when you take it out of context you're not better than the people on the other side of the spectrum who claimed he meant 'grab them by the pussy' literally.

As for the racist side of things and labelling people coloured why else would you do that other than racist motivations. Sure he could be collecting demographics on his tenants and that would be a reasonable explanation. So if that's the case, release the record of the study he did, or provide some evidence that doesn't leave us speculating. It's the same logic behind why so many people disliked Clinton for not releasing her health records 'If she's healthy just release your health records' same exact logic. I would remind you, and everyone who may read this, that lack of evidence is not evidence; thus, I treat Trump the same as I did Clinton: I don't thin he's a racist, but it leads to speculation that he may be, which is certainly important when you consider that most people in the US view racism to be a horrible thing and thus do not want a racist president.

You're right it will come down to opinion, you could accept all of my arguments except that it warrants a long discussion and that'd be that. But the thing I'm trying to get across to you, and anyone else reading this, is that the majority of the US does not feel that way. Many people, even prominent Republicans such as Paul Ryan have denounced him. Paul Ryan refuses to go campaigning with him for the last month of the campaign. People on both sides are genuinely concerned that's why it is a story, people are concerned he's a racist or sexist, just like people are concerned that Hillary is a liar and conniver. I'm not really trying to argue he's a sexist or racist, I'm arguing the more pragmatic point that the discussion on the topic is warranted and beyond that, people want to hear what he has to say to prove he is not a sexist/racist.
#85 - Because trump destroyed that debate. He hit Hillary in every …  [+] (13 replies) 10/10/2016 on CNN shilling way to hard -1
#129 - anon (10/11/2016) [-]
You know, the thing about political debates is that everyone thinks their candidate did better than the other candidate. From my perspective whenever Trump tried to answer a question he would just start rambling on in that disconnected speech pattern of his about ISIS, emails, and Sydney Blumenthal. When Clinton tried answer a question she mentioned something that kind of, but not really, related to the question and did not solve the person's concern.

While I expected this to be focused more on common people's question in the audience, they both turned it into a shit flinging contest which I thought town halls weren't supposed to do. I thought they were going to talk about specific policies but all I saw was either Donald chiming in every 2 seconds while Hillary was talking and the female moderator chiming in on Donald every 2 seconds. I think they both did badly for a town hall but the moderators and Trump turned what should've been a discussion into varying series of "gotcha!" zingers.
User avatar
#91 - xirbitzy (10/10/2016) [-]
He also poorly tried to spingboard away from the question about the tapes, saying a short apology and then going on a rant about ISIS. Like, that wasn't in any sense part of the question.

Hillary did it too but to a much less degree than trump
#135 - tethesis (10/11/2016) [-]
They both defiantly deflected questions... but my problem was that the moderators(just like the first debate with the Birther question, go re-watch it to see) refused to let trump just deflect the questions... they would interrupt over and over demanding he answered. While this isnt a bad thing.. it is when you are only doing it one way. And ONCE AGAIN, retarded questions were held for the debate... questions that they KNEW only cause hostility are are for the most part IRREVERENT. Like trumps tweets and a tape from 11 years ago... people wanted REAL issues again and they just jerked us off for more than half the debate AGAIN.
User avatar
#156 - defiantly (10/21/2016) [-]
You probably meant to use "definitely."
#157 - tethesis (10/21/2016) [-]
I "definitely" did!
User avatar
#92 - idkwhatthatmeans (10/10/2016) [-]
Why would he try to spend an excessive amount of time on that topic? And his Isis rant was semi related because his point was that there are more pressing issues to deal with(Isis) than a shitty banter video in private from 11 years ago.
He handled it exactly as he should have.
#131 - drunkjesus (10/11/2016) [-]
And yet focusing on Clinton's emails despite her being acquitted of wrongdoing isn't wasting time that could be used on bigger issues? It's funny that people explain away Trump's scandals once he's apologised as though it's not big deal, but even though Hillary apologised she's still attack by the same people. I'm not saying Clinton shouldn't be attacked for that reason; in fact I believe she should be, but if she is being hated and criticised for those reasons, Trump deserves the same treatment.

Look, people always think that their candidate won the debate because they already agree with that candidate, hence why they talked to undecided voters. I'm not saying that Clinton won the debate, I didn't bother watching it. But debates for the most part are completely useless for decided voters. It's the undecided voters who'll actually be swayed, and witty one liners, despite being funny, don't translate well to the people who are trying to pick a serious presidential candidate.

What people should really look at is the methodology of the study; for instance, if the poll was conducted by CNN viewers through a website or something, it's only representative of CNN viewers rather than the population of the US. I don't totally agree with the whole 'the media is out to get Trump' narrative, but I do agree that media in the US is biased in terms of Fox being right wing and CNN left wing. But the reality is that Fox is the biggest and most popular network so I don't buy into the rigged media.
User avatar
#134 - videogamehippey (10/11/2016) [-]
The difference between the locker room banter and the email scandals, is the locker room banter was what it was, banter, all men I know, and have ever known talk like that in private. While not everyone wipes evidence after a Congressional Subpoena.
#137 - drunkjesus (10/11/2016) [-]
I don't agree that it's locker room talk if meant seriously. I do agree that it could be meant in a comedic way, but the issue that a lot of people have with that is that he's not running to be a comedian, he's running to be president. Secondly, like it or not it's childish to be joking around like that, it's lowbrow humour. A quality that is certainly not a desirable quality in a president is childish. Beyond that he has been disrespectful to multiple women on multiple occasions going so far as to imply that a specific woman's actions at a certain time may be because she's bleeding our her vagina. The issue of 'locker room talk' has also been deemed deplorable by many professional athletes who've been playing sports their entire lives and spent more time in locker rooms than probably you and myself combined.

Sure, I would agree that if this was an isolated incident, or even the second or third one, it wouldn't be on the same level as the Clinton emails. But the fact is he has a well documented pattern of being very disrespectful and suggestive towards women. Consequently, many people believe that he's a sexist. Similarly people believe the same about his racial hiccups and people believe that he's a racist.

So the issue isn't that Trump said this once, the issue is that he's said stuff like this often and is that someone you want as your president? A sexist? A racist? I'm not outright calling him that but that's why it's not a small issue at all. Clinton's emails are a huge issue and she deserves to be roasted on them, but to claim the locker room talk isn't a big issue is either lying to yourself, or a failure to understand the whole scandal.
User avatar
#143 - aleypal (10/11/2016) [-]
you seem to forget that trump was a TV personality turned political. as such his life kind of revolved around the sort of lifestyle that prompts these mannerisms and the type of talk he's been recorded as saying. the video of trump saying those things isn't just of him, it's of the tv host too. after watching it it seems to me that even throughout the banter trump held back from going as far as he could have. i saw restraint and annoyance in trump as the walked down the hall with the girl as the other guy wouldn't stop pushing the envelope.

The real problem is that liberals either can't take a joke, or can't recognize one, or just want an angle to bash him on. as someone who's told far worse jokes or talked crap about others just for approval, i see trump as a well reserved guy. i'm not sexist or racist, and i don't see a hint of it in trump either. like Pence said, he's not polished as a politician and hasn't got the full politician mindset. he'll say things and 'stumble' because of that. it's not hints that he's racist or sexist, it's the result of him previously being a famous TV billionare. as such, i don't think it really deserves much mention other than an apology.
#150 - drunkjesus (10/11/2016) [-]
Okay, so first, I don't know if you meant to do it, but your first paragraph there is essentially making the argument that his verbiage is justified because he used to be a TV personality. That doesn't justify shit. Again, not sure if that's what you're trying to get at but it's what comes across. The second part of that paragraph doesn't justify his comments either, it's you saying he could've gone further, which I agree he could've. But the issue isn't so much that it's a joke, like I said, it's that it fits in with his repeated disrespect and belittling of women. Again, if he's a comedian that's fine, no worries or concerns from me. But the guy is running to be president and it's clear that through his speeches that he clearly has some issue when it comes to respecting women even to this day. People don't want someone who is going to disrespect and belittle half of the American population, which is why it's an issue. Even if he's not a sexist (which frankly I think he is, but that's not the crux of my argument here), he is a role model, not to mention he has to deal with women when it comes to international relations.

Secondly, it's not only Liberals who find this offensive. Many republicans have denounced him for saying that, some pulling their endorsements of him on account of the statement. Mike Pence himself (though you're right in saying Pence said he's not a polished politician) denounced him. His wife, though supporting him, denounced the statement. So sure, maybe he's a good guy but clearly he has some issues when it comes to women. Even if it is a joke, and I do think it was one, context is important. And yes, at the time he was a TV personality, but how many TV personalities have you heard say that? I'll give you a couple for sure, he's not the only one. But how many of them should run for president and how many of them would you want as your president? For me I wouldn't want any of them and none should run.

I'm not calling Trump supporters sexist or racist either, but it's very easy to see how a strong case can be made for Trump to be a sexist or racist. He used to put a (C) for coloured beside his tenants who were black on documents. There's no need for that at all. With all his comments about women it's easy to make that argument too.

Also, racism and sexism aren't always outright and plain to see. You can be a sexist and a racist without really being aware of it. Think of segregation, a lot of people didn't think it was racist, it was just splitting up the groups, but it is definitely racist. It can sometimes be because what was once acceptable has changed and either the person hasn't caught up or they don't understand what's wrong. I think Trump at the very least is unaware that what he is saying is sexist and consequently it makes him one (I'm not just talking about the video which I believe was a joke).
User avatar
#152 - aleypal (10/11/2016) [-]
see your whole viewpoint stems from what you determine to be sexist and racist. i believe racism and sexism comes from intent, there is no accidental racism or sexism. you cannot be ignorant of your own racism or sexism. there's no hidden racism or sexism. it comes from intent. racism doesn't exist (at least in america) on a cultural level, it exists on a personal level. you're wrong to say people didn't think it was racist, they knew it was. when i look at the segregation and slavery of the past i can hardly believe that the white people then didn't know that what they were doing was wrong. they justified it with the bible sure, they persisted and fought and wanted it, but they knew on some level of their consciousness that it was wrong. it comes from intent, and they intended it.

The first part of what i said leads up to meant throughout, what he's said in the past doesn't really doesn't necessitate the attention people are giving it. the attention given to the issue by trump and his campaign is sufficient and was necessary, for me at least. Do you truly believe trump intended to grab chicks by the pussy? do you really think he would act or intend to do things like that? do you really think trump means any harm by marking who among his tenants are colored? unnecessary? yes. but there's a number of reasons why he might do that. there's no racism because he didn't intend any racism.

This will come down to opinion if we keep going, in my opinion, i see no evidence or intended and willful racism or sexism by trump. the guy said some things and he apologized for it, now we can move on to the important things instead of dragging crap through the mud. if we move on we can talk about real issues in the country.
#155 - drunkjesus (10/11/2016) [-]
If you think everyone was intending to be racist or sexist then you really should do some historical research, people justified it for many reasons, but many of them didn't think there was anything wrong with it at all. Some instances would be segregation for one, people just thought it was the way things should be for a variety of reasons. For sexism you could research a case in Canada where the predecessor to the Supreme Court was discussing pregnancy laws and their legitimacy and determined that certain laws applying only to pregnant women were not sexist because it applied only to pregnant 'people'.

And I don't understand how you think that a discussion about whether a candidate is sexist/racist or not doesn't deserve a lot of airtime and discussion. I do not think Trump was being literal at all. I specifically said that multiple times. But I do think it's worth discussing at length whether he is a sexist or not based one the NUMEROUS comments he has made disrespecting women. When you take the statement out of context it's not a big deal, just a joke. But when it is in the context of what he has said in the past and the position he is running for, it is a very important subject. Furthermore, when you take it out of context you're not better than the people on the other side of the spectrum who claimed he meant 'grab them by the pussy' literally.

As for the racist side of things and labelling people coloured why else would you do that other than racist motivations. Sure he could be collecting demographics on his tenants and that would be a reasonable explanation. So if that's the case, release the record of the study he did, or provide some evidence that doesn't leave us speculating. It's the same logic behind why so many people disliked Clinton for not releasing her health records 'If she's healthy just release your health records' same exact logic. I would remind you, and everyone who may read this, that lack of evidence is not evidence; thus, I treat Trump the same as I did Clinton: I don't thin he's a racist, but it leads to speculation that he may be, which is certainly important when you consider that most people in the US view racism to be a horrible thing and thus do not want a racist president.

You're right it will come down to opinion, you could accept all of my arguments except that it warrants a long discussion and that'd be that. But the thing I'm trying to get across to you, and anyone else reading this, is that the majority of the US does not feel that way. Many people, even prominent Republicans such as Paul Ryan have denounced him. Paul Ryan refuses to go campaigning with him for the last month of the campaign. People on both sides are genuinely concerned that's why it is a story, people are concerned he's a racist or sexist, just like people are concerned that Hillary is a liar and conniver. I'm not really trying to argue he's a sexist or racist, I'm arguing the more pragmatic point that the discussion on the topic is warranted and beyond that, people want to hear what he has to say to prove he is not a sexist/racist.
#86 - Picture  [+] (3 replies) 10/10/2016 on "WE SHOULD WANT NUCLEAR WAR" -4
User avatar
#97 - vinskinator (10/10/2016) [-]
"As president I will make it clear that the United States will treat cyber attacks just like any other attack. We will be ready with serious political, economic and military responses"

that's not a threat to attack for what they already did, but discussing what is on the table for future responses to cyber attacks...

Trump has said Nukes were on the table for use in Europe, how is her saying potential military action for cyber attacks even as bad?
User avatar
#109 - idkwhatthatmeans (10/10/2016) [-]
Because in the context of that quote she is referring to the supposed hacking of the DNC by Russia. These "cyber attacks" are already made in her mind and she's willing to use "military force" in response to this. This is also known as trying to start a war.
User avatar
#111 - vinskinator (10/10/2016) [-]
"You’ve seen the reports. Russia’s hacked into a lot of things, China’s hacked into a lot of things. Russia even hacked into the Democratic National Committee. Maybe even some state election systems? So we gotta step up our game. Make sure we are well defended and make sure we are able to take the fight to those who go after us. As president I will make it clear that the United States will treat cyber attacks just like any other attack. We will be ready with serious political, economic and military responses."

No... the context of the quote is cyber security in general and how to respond moving forward. she mentions recent attacks, but that is not what she proposes to do about them but future attacks.
#91 - I mean technically it is original, its not like its the same e…  [+] (1 reply) 10/04/2016 on Trump's Taxes +2
User avatar
#109 - skeletorexplains (10/04/2016) [-]
The OC isn't the problem..its the fact Redpanels uses the same jokes...A LOT....He wastes what talent he has.

Like we get it, hes a Trump supporter...but none of his jokes are original..They're the same, just slightly rewarded and drawn to make it seem "Funny" When its just another picture of the two guys with their heads up their ass going "Haha, RIGHT?"

Here's literally every single one of redpanels "jokes"

SJW's are dumb
Hillary is a liar
Hillary supporters are idiots
Trump supporters exaggerated
Over the top trump supporters
the "Differences" between right & left

and so on...He doesn't have an original idea in his cold dead hand. We get it, he supports trump but jesus...What happened to this site and the funnies? Why does EVERY OTHER country need to get this shit shoveled down their throats because "its popular for thumbs :^)" or his case, "views"..America is picking between a Douche & a terd sandwhich. Congrats. Ya'll have fucked yourselves, make a comic about that.

Minor off topic rant
"Anti Establishment" my ass...Fucker is a real estate Tycoon who made millions buying cheap land in Vegas...hes AS establishment as you can get ffs...wake up..