Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Repel the 19th amendment hashtag

Page 4 of 4 [ 55 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

Previous topic | Next topic

YippySkippy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2011
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,986

14 Oct 2016, 6:02 pm

I find parts of that chart confusing and inaccurate. For example, I don't think there's anything racist about being a grammar Nazi. Grammar is grammar, regardless of skin color. If anything, the chart itself seems racist in implying that minorities are less capable of using correct grammar.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 70
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

14 Oct 2016, 6:23 pm

Alliekit wrote:
TheSpectrum wrote:
FYI - this was created by a fake trump supporter account, backed up by a 2nd person and then Democrats made it trend with 3k tweets over 1 hour vs. the podesta emails which had 20k in 30 minutes. You could argue liberals got punk'd or it was yet another attempt to hit Trump on his home ground when it comes to social media.

At the moment twitter is censoring and pushing tags down the trend ladder and creating a lot of new ones to put in their place.

No candidate would want to deprive anyone of their vote because it's one less voting demographic for them.
You'd have to be nuts to think this was a legit tag.


Its probably from some random Trump supporters (not from his campain itself) making a dig. If women were not allowed to vote then they wouldnt be allowed to run for office, and therefore a particular woman wouldnt be able to run. wink wink.

I never said that trump said this just mentioned it cause it was trending and no I don't think it will actually happen (besides it wouldn't affect me anyway).

I thought it was based of the stats that if only men voted trump would win in a landslide


It prolly did not come from the Trump Campaign itsself.

It probably does come from some Trump supporter. And its to make a dig. If women couldnt vote then they couldnt run for office. So then one particular woman wouldnt be able to vote. Wink.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 70
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

14 Oct 2016, 6:41 pm

Alliekit wrote:
TheSpectrum wrote:

No candidate would want to deprive anyone of their vote because it's one less voting demographic for them.



Utter nonsense.

That "no candidate would want to deprive anyone of their vote" is utter nonsense.

And that added differing "demographics" to the voting rolls is the reason that no candidate would want to suppress votes is the exact opposite of the truth.

Differing demographics is the reason we have laws against gerrymandering and against voter surpression.

Every candidate is aware that differing groups in society tend to vote different ways. And every pol knows certain demographics are likely vote for, or against the pol. So every pol prays that certain demographics will stay home from the pols on election day (even if every pol doesnt stoop to actually engaging in nefarious voter suppression).

More "demographics" voting doesnt not necessarily equal 'more votes for me the pol'.



jrjones9933
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,144
Location: The end of the northwest passage

14 Oct 2016, 7:04 pm

YippySkippy wrote:
I find parts of that chart confusing and inaccurate. For example, I don't think there's anything racist about being a grammar Nazi. Grammar is grammar, regardless of skin color. If anything, the chart itself seems racist in implying that minorities are less capable of using correct grammar.

I see no such implication. However, I reject linguistic prescriptivism. There is a correct grammar for any and every dialect. No dialect is Platonically Ideal, and it's good to know several.


_________________
"I find that the best way [to increase self-confidence] is to lie to yourself about who you are, what you've done, and where you're going." - Richard Ayoade


TheSpectrum
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Jun 2014
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,121
Location: Hampshire

14 Oct 2016, 7:07 pm

Alliekit wrote:
TheSpectrum wrote:
FYI - this was created by a fake trump supporter account, backed up by a 2nd person and then Democrats made it trend with 3k tweets over 1 hour vs. the podesta emails which had 20k in 30 minutes. You could argue liberals got punk'd or it was yet another attempt to hit Trump on his home ground when it comes to social media.

At the moment twitter is censoring and pushing tags down the trend ladder and creating a lot of new ones to put in their place.

No candidate would want to deprive anyone of their vote because it's one less voting demographic for them.
You'd have to be nuts to think this was a legit tag.


I never said that trump said this just mentioned it cause it was trending and no I don't think it will actually happen (besides it wouldn't affect me anyway).

I thought it was based of the stats that if only men voted trump would win in a landslide

I wasn't questioning your judgement, just sharing some information in the thread before it was too far gone to salvage.
Though, the male voting stat was very interesting. It completely negates the (paid off) media polls that say Hillary is winning the male vote.


_________________
Yours sincerely, some dude.


jrjones9933
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,144
Location: The end of the northwest passage

14 Oct 2016, 7:15 pm

Too far gone to Factopia?


_________________
"I find that the best way [to increase self-confidence] is to lie to yourself about who you are, what you've done, and where you're going." - Richard Ayoade


Alliekit
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Mar 2016
Age: 30
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,182
Location: England

15 Oct 2016, 10:40 am

TheSpectrum wrote:
Alliekit wrote:
TheSpectrum wrote:
FYI - this was created by a fake trump supporter account, backed up by a 2nd person and then Democrats made it trend with 3k tweets over 1 hour vs. the podesta emails which had 20k in 30 minutes. You could argue liberals got punk'd or it was yet another attempt to hit Trump on his home ground when it comes to social media.

At the moment twitter is censoring and pushing tags down the trend ladder and creating a lot of new ones to put in their place.

No candidate would want to deprive anyone of their vote because it's one less voting demographic for them.
You'd have to be nuts to think this was a legit tag.


I never said that trump said this just mentioned it cause it was trending and no I don't think it will actually happen (besides it wouldn't affect me anyway).

I thought it was based of the stats that if only men voted trump would win in a landslide

I wasn't questioning your judgement, just sharing some information in the thread before it was too far gone to salvage.
Though, the male voting stat was very interesting. It completely negates the (paid off) media polls that say Hillary is winning the male vote.


Fair enough :) I was just intrigued about people opinions on the subject as a kind of what if scenario and as an outsider it was interesting. I saw that some who shared it were also people that cried foul when their right to carry arms law was threatened. I think a few supporters on both sides genuinely believed that a hashtag would make a difference :lol:

To be honest if I was American I would have no clue who to vote for because both cadidates seem to have overwhelming negatives