The Democratic Presidential Debates

ecdanc

Halifax2TheMax said:

ecdanc said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

ecdanc said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

ecdanc said:

Lerxst1992 said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

So pointing out that some union members have health coverage, for which they have fought as an benefit of their employment, is now offensive to those union members who don't have health coverage? Particularly as Buttigieg himself pointed out that they "fought hard", and yet she argue against this by saying that they "had to fight like hell". 

I fail to see how that makes sense. Perhaps some context is lost in the snippet of the tweet that you've posted. 

You might want to put a little more emphasis on her last sentence. 

Where is the evidence that Buttigieg has caused an injury with his tweet?

You're asking the communist that?

It would be better for Nelson to answer that, but sure, do your anarchic best.

You can find her on Twitter.

For me, the answer is simple: the very existence of (any) healthcare for profit is an injury to many. 

Pete is offering choice. If you WANT medicare (but not afford it) you get to have it.

If you want to keep your current plan you can choose that as well.

Maybe Sara has theories that this could collapse the health insurance companies but that sounds too much like the GOP fearmongering about ACA ten years ago. Even if it does, it can be fixed.

Or perhaps Sara has some other theory. But to call Pete's policy dangerous without substantiation is histrionic. 

People here going all-in on the sexist dog-whistling today. 

I would have used “hysteria” if it was a tweet from Jimmy Hoffa. Like disagreeing that queersagainstpete is a political movement, I disagree that Sara’s interpretation of Pete’s words are offensive and dangerous. Hysteria.

Ummm, sure. What communist twitter did that come from?

It's like he's talking to you!!

It’d be helpful to know who the “who” is? Boris? Vlad? You talkin to me?

You want to share identifying information for yourself?

Halifax2TheMax

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

So pointing out that some union members have health coverage, for which they have fought as an benefit of their employment, is now offensive to those union members who don't have health coverage? Particularly as Buttigieg himself pointed out that they "fought hard", and yet she argue against this by saying that they "had to fight like hell". 

I fail to see how that makes sense. Perhaps some context is lost in the snippet of the tweet that you've posted. 

You might want to put a little more emphasis on her last sentence. 

Where is the evidence that Buttigieg has caused an injury with his tweet?

You're asking the communist that?

It would be better for Nelson to answer that, but sure, do your anarchic best.

You can find her on Twitter.

For me, the answer is simple: the very existence of (any) healthcare for profit is an injury to many. 

1) I’m not on twitter

2) Sure, but tangential to what he said in the tweet. 

1) Well, I'm not going to speak for her, so......

2) You have a weird definition of "tangent." 

Nelson herself isn't objecting to for profit health care, she (appears to be) objecting to the fact that not all union members have it, and claiming that Buttigieg said they did, which he did not. 

You asked me a question; I responded. You then accused my answer of being tangential to Buttigieg's tweet. So, this entire post is a complete non sequitur. 

I guess that's the sort of answer we get from an anarchist

Or someone who can read. 

I thought you SJW didn’t look down your noses at the rest of us?

ecdanc

Halifax2TheMax said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

So pointing out that some union members have health coverage, for which they have fought as an benefit of their employment, is now offensive to those union members who don't have health coverage? Particularly as Buttigieg himself pointed out that they "fought hard", and yet she argue against this by saying that they "had to fight like hell". 

I fail to see how that makes sense. Perhaps some context is lost in the snippet of the tweet that you've posted. 

You might want to put a little more emphasis on her last sentence. 

Where is the evidence that Buttigieg has caused an injury with his tweet?

You're asking the communist that?

It would be better for Nelson to answer that, but sure, do your anarchic best.

You can find her on Twitter.

For me, the answer is simple: the very existence of (any) healthcare for profit is an injury to many. 

1) I’m not on twitter

2) Sure, but tangential to what he said in the tweet. 

1) Well, I'm not going to speak for her, so......

2) You have a weird definition of "tangent." 

Nelson herself isn't objecting to for profit health care, she (appears to be) objecting to the fact that not all union members have it, and claiming that Buttigieg said they did, which he did not. 

You asked me a question; I responded. You then accused my answer of being tangential to Buttigieg's tweet. So, this entire post is a complete non sequitur. 

I guess that's the sort of answer we get from an anarchist

Or someone who can read. 

I thought you SJW didn’t look down your noses at the rest of us?

I'm beginning to think the penultimate line of your signature isn't accurate. 

Halifax2TheMax

ecdanc said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

So pointing out that some union members have health coverage, for which they have fought as an benefit of their employment, is now offensive to those union members who don't have health coverage? Particularly as Buttigieg himself pointed out that they "fought hard", and yet she argue against this by saying that they "had to fight like hell". 

I fail to see how that makes sense. Perhaps some context is lost in the snippet of the tweet that you've posted. 

You might want to put a little more emphasis on her last sentence. 

Where is the evidence that Buttigieg has caused an injury with his tweet?

You're asking the communist that?

It would be better for Nelson to answer that, but sure, do your anarchic best.

You can find her on Twitter.

For me, the answer is simple: the very existence of (any) healthcare for profit is an injury to many. 

1) I’m not on twitter

2) Sure, but tangential to what he said in the tweet. 

1) Well, I'm not going to speak for her, so......

2) You have a weird definition of "tangent." 

Nelson herself isn't objecting to for profit health care, she (appears to be) objecting to the fact that not all union members have it, and claiming that Buttigieg said they did, which he did not. 

You asked me a question; I responded. You then accused my answer of being tangential to Buttigieg's tweet. So, this entire post is a complete non sequitur. 

I guess that's the sort of answer we get from an anarchist

Or someone who can read. 

I thought you SJW didn’t look down your noses at the rest of us?

I'm beginning to think the penultimate line of your signature isn't accurate. 

Yet another deflection. Congratulations 

ecdanc

Halifax2TheMax said:

ecdanc said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

So pointing out that some union members have health coverage, for which they have fought as an benefit of their employment, is now offensive to those union members who don't have health coverage? Particularly as Buttigieg himself pointed out that they "fought hard", and yet she argue against this by saying that they "had to fight like hell". 

I fail to see how that makes sense. Perhaps some context is lost in the snippet of the tweet that you've posted. 

You might want to put a little more emphasis on her last sentence. 

Where is the evidence that Buttigieg has caused an injury with his tweet?

You're asking the communist that?

It would be better for Nelson to answer that, but sure, do your anarchic best.

You can find her on Twitter.

For me, the answer is simple: the very existence of (any) healthcare for profit is an injury to many. 

1) I’m not on twitter

2) Sure, but tangential to what he said in the tweet. 

1) Well, I'm not going to speak for her, so......

2) You have a weird definition of "tangent." 

Nelson herself isn't objecting to for profit health care, she (appears to be) objecting to the fact that not all union members have it, and claiming that Buttigieg said they did, which he did not. 

You asked me a question; I responded. You then accused my answer of being tangential to Buttigieg's tweet. So, this entire post is a complete non sequitur. 

I guess that's the sort of answer we get from an anarchist

Or someone who can read. 

I thought you SJW didn’t look down your noses at the rest of us?

I'm beginning to think the penultimate line of your signature isn't accurate. 

Yet another deflection. Congratulations 

How am I supposed to respond to your name-calling?

Halifax2TheMax

ecdanc said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

ecdanc said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

So pointing out that some union members have health coverage, for which they have fought as an benefit of their employment, is now offensive to those union members who don't have health coverage? Particularly as Buttigieg himself pointed out that they "fought hard", and yet she argue against this by saying that they "had to fight like hell". 

I fail to see how that makes sense. Perhaps some context is lost in the snippet of the tweet that you've posted. 

You might want to put a little more emphasis on her last sentence. 

Where is the evidence that Buttigieg has caused an injury with his tweet?

You're asking the communist that?

It would be better for Nelson to answer that, but sure, do your anarchic best.

You can find her on Twitter.

For me, the answer is simple: the very existence of (any) healthcare for profit is an injury to many. 

1) I’m not on twitter

2) Sure, but tangential to what he said in the tweet. 

1) Well, I'm not going to speak for her, so......

2) You have a weird definition of "tangent." 

Nelson herself isn't objecting to for profit health care, she (appears to be) objecting to the fact that not all union members have it, and claiming that Buttigieg said they did, which he did not. 

You asked me a question; I responded. You then accused my answer of being tangential to Buttigieg's tweet. So, this entire post is a complete non sequitur. 

I guess that's the sort of answer we get from an anarchist

Or someone who can read. 

I thought you SJW didn’t look down your noses at the rest of us?

I'm beginning to think the penultimate line of your signature isn't accurate. 

Yet another deflection. Congratulations 

How am I supposed to respond to your name-calling?

It was you who accused some of us of not being able to read and what name did I call you?

Halifax2TheMax

ecdanc said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

ecdanc said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

ecdanc said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

ecdanc said:

Lerxst1992 said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

So pointing out that some union members have health coverage, for which they have fought as an benefit of their employment, is now offensive to those union members who don't have health coverage? Particularly as Buttigieg himself pointed out that they "fought hard", and yet she argue against this by saying that they "had to fight like hell". 

I fail to see how that makes sense. Perhaps some context is lost in the snippet of the tweet that you've posted. 

You might want to put a little more emphasis on her last sentence. 

Where is the evidence that Buttigieg has caused an injury with his tweet?

You're asking the communist that?

It would be better for Nelson to answer that, but sure, do your anarchic best.

You can find her on Twitter.

For me, the answer is simple: the very existence of (any) healthcare for profit is an injury to many. 

Pete is offering choice. If you WANT medicare (but not afford it) you get to have it.

If you want to keep your current plan you can choose that as well.

Maybe Sara has theories that this could collapse the health insurance companies but that sounds too much like the GOP fearmongering about ACA ten years ago. Even if it does, it can be fixed.

Or perhaps Sara has some other theory. But to call Pete's policy dangerous without substantiation is histrionic. 

People here going all-in on the sexist dog-whistling today. 

I would have used “hysteria” if it was a tweet from Jimmy Hoffa. Like disagreeing that queersagainstpete is a political movement, I disagree that Sara’s interpretation of Pete’s words are offensive and dangerous. Hysteria.

Ummm, sure. What communist twitter did that come from?

It's like he's talking to you!!

It’d be helpful to know who the “who” is? Boris? Vlad? You talkin to me?

You want to share identifying information for yourself?

I’m having trouble reading but you could just state that it’s your tweet, if indeed it is. Or not. “For myself?” What do you mean?

ecdanc

Halifax2TheMax said:

ecdanc said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

ecdanc said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

So pointing out that some union members have health coverage, for which they have fought as an benefit of their employment, is now offensive to those union members who don't have health coverage? Particularly as Buttigieg himself pointed out that they "fought hard", and yet she argue against this by saying that they "had to fight like hell". 

I fail to see how that makes sense. Perhaps some context is lost in the snippet of the tweet that you've posted. 

You might want to put a little more emphasis on her last sentence. 

Where is the evidence that Buttigieg has caused an injury with his tweet?

You're asking the communist that?

It would be better for Nelson to answer that, but sure, do your anarchic best.

You can find her on Twitter.

For me, the answer is simple: the very existence of (any) healthcare for profit is an injury to many. 

1) I’m not on twitter

2) Sure, but tangential to what he said in the tweet. 

1) Well, I'm not going to speak for her, so......

2) You have a weird definition of "tangent." 

Nelson herself isn't objecting to for profit health care, she (appears to be) objecting to the fact that not all union members have it, and claiming that Buttigieg said they did, which he did not. 

You asked me a question; I responded. You then accused my answer of being tangential to Buttigieg's tweet. So, this entire post is a complete non sequitur. 

I guess that's the sort of answer we get from an anarchist

Or someone who can read. 

I thought you SJW didn’t look down your noses at the rest of us?

I'm beginning to think the penultimate line of your signature isn't accurate. 

Yet another deflection. Congratulations 

How am I supposed to respond to your name-calling?

It was you who accused some of us of not being able to read and what name did I call you?

You called me an SJW--that's a pejorative term. 

ecdanc

Halifax2TheMax said:

ecdanc said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

ecdanc said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

ecdanc said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

ecdanc said:

Lerxst1992 said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

So pointing out that some union members have health coverage, for which they have fought as an benefit of their employment, is now offensive to those union members who don't have health coverage? Particularly as Buttigieg himself pointed out that they "fought hard", and yet she argue against this by saying that they "had to fight like hell". 

I fail to see how that makes sense. Perhaps some context is lost in the snippet of the tweet that you've posted. 

You might want to put a little more emphasis on her last sentence. 

Where is the evidence that Buttigieg has caused an injury with his tweet?

You're asking the communist that?

It would be better for Nelson to answer that, but sure, do your anarchic best.

You can find her on Twitter.

For me, the answer is simple: the very existence of (any) healthcare for profit is an injury to many. 

Pete is offering choice. If you WANT medicare (but not afford it) you get to have it.

If you want to keep your current plan you can choose that as well.

Maybe Sara has theories that this could collapse the health insurance companies but that sounds too much like the GOP fearmongering about ACA ten years ago. Even if it does, it can be fixed.

Or perhaps Sara has some other theory. But to call Pete's policy dangerous without substantiation is histrionic. 

People here going all-in on the sexist dog-whistling today. 

I would have used “hysteria” if it was a tweet from Jimmy Hoffa. Like disagreeing that queersagainstpete is a political movement, I disagree that Sara’s interpretation of Pete’s words are offensive and dangerous. Hysteria.

Ummm, sure. What communist twitter did that come from?

It's like he's talking to you!!

It’d be helpful to know who the “who” is? Boris? Vlad? You talkin to me?

You want to share identifying information for yourself?

I’m having trouble reading but you could just state that it’s your tweet, if indeed it is. Or not. “For myself?” What do you mean?

I went to graduate school with him. 

ecdanc

Here We Go Again: Buttigieg Getting Dragged for Saying Constitution Signers Didn't Know Slavery Was Bad

https://www.theroot.com/here-we-go-again-buttigieg-getting-dragged-for-saying-1840747921

Halifax2TheMax

ecdanc said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

ecdanc said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

ecdanc said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

So pointing out that some union members have health coverage, for which they have fought as an benefit of their employment, is now offensive to those union members who don't have health coverage? Particularly as Buttigieg himself pointed out that they "fought hard", and yet she argue against this by saying that they "had to fight like hell". 

I fail to see how that makes sense. Perhaps some context is lost in the snippet of the tweet that you've posted. 

You might want to put a little more emphasis on her last sentence. 

Where is the evidence that Buttigieg has caused an injury with his tweet?

You're asking the communist that?

It would be better for Nelson to answer that, but sure, do your anarchic best.

You can find her on Twitter.

For me, the answer is simple: the very existence of (any) healthcare for profit is an injury to many. 

1) I’m not on twitter

2) Sure, but tangential to what he said in the tweet. 

1) Well, I'm not going to speak for her, so......

2) You have a weird definition of "tangent." 

Nelson herself isn't objecting to for profit health care, she (appears to be) objecting to the fact that not all union members have it, and claiming that Buttigieg said they did, which he did not. 

You asked me a question; I responded. You then accused my answer of being tangential to Buttigieg's tweet. So, this entire post is a complete non sequitur. 

I guess that's the sort of answer we get from an anarchist

Or someone who can read. 

I thought you SJW didn’t look down your noses at the rest of us?

I'm beginning to think the penultimate line of your signature isn't accurate. 

Yet another deflection. Congratulations 

How am I supposed to respond to your name-calling?

It was you who accused some of us of not being able to read and what name did I call you?

You called me an SJW--that's a pejorative term. 

Well, from your posting of your graduate school friend’s twitter post, I believe you equated me to nazis and accused some of not being able to read. Guess we’re even?

dankind

Why is SJW pejorative?

Seems more like it should be an honorific to me. 

Seriously, what's wrong with fighting for social justice? If we think something is wrong with that, then why the fuck even bother with anything anymore?

cincybearcat

Why does it always come down to 1 person labeling others instead of the topic?

I'm very interested to see what happens in Nevada and SC.  Do the majority of Bernie, Warren, Biden, Pete, Amy and Steyer make it to super Tuesday?  I guess I would say Biden is at the most risk due to putting all his eggs in SC currently and the fact he isn't a big fundraiser.  And then along comes Bloomberg.....  Should be and eye opening 3 weeks ahead.  

ecdanc

dankind said:

Why is SJW pejorative?

Seems more like it should be an honorific to me. 

Seriously, what's wrong with fighting for social justice? If we think something is wrong with that, then why the fuck even bother with anything anymore?

Because it is...

Look the term’s history up. It’s meant to imply something other than being an actual supporter of social justice. 

mickeyrat

safe to say lots of words and terms have more than one meaning. I guess if one seems predisposed to being defensive.........

Ledbetterman10

dankind said:

Why is SJW pejorative?

Seems more like it should be an honorific to me. 

Seriously, what's wrong with fighting for social justice? If we think something is wrong with that, then why the fuck even bother with anything anymore?

I think "warrior" is supposed to be sarcastic in the term "Social Justice Warrior." "Social Justice Advocate" would be a more complimentary way of saying it.

mickeyrat

  SJW

SJW stands for "Social Justice Warrior", however its actual meaning has changed several times, and even now depends on context.

Originally the term was positive, with figures such as Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi being described as such when praised for their work in bringing justice and equality to oppressed groups. Examples of its use as a term of praise go back as far as 1824, and this continued to be the meaning of the term up until around 2011.

In 2011 several events, primarily Gamergate, led to the term becoming a pejorative. Many began to use the term to describe people who were overly sensitive and quick to insult anyone who said something they perceived as attacking or oppressing some group of people, even when it wasn't warranted. Basically, anyone who overreacted to a perceived slight against a person or group of people.

However, the term has continued to evolve. While the previous definition sometimes applies, it's now often used simply as an excuse to dismiss things other people say without having to think about them at all, regardless of whether or not they have a valid point. In other words, it's increasingly used as if it's a "get out of jail free" card for insulting entire groups of people. This watering down of the meaning is slowly turning the term into a meaningless insult.

Early: "The late Reverend King's work as a social justice warrior helped lead to the integration of all races in our schools today."

Mid: "All I said was that maybe she overreacted, and the SJW accused me of oppressing all women!"

Late: "She should get off YouTube and make me a sandwich. And before any of you SJWs complain, it's just a joke."

ecdanc

mickeyrat said:

safe to say lots of words and terms have more than one meaning. I guess if one seems predisposed to being defensive.........

Or to paying attention to context. 

dankind

ecdanc said:

dankind said:

Why is SJW pejorative?

Seems more like it should be an honorific to me. 

Seriously, what's wrong with fighting for social justice? If we think something is wrong with that, then why the fuck even bother with anything anymore?

Because it is...

Look the term’s history up. It’s meant to imply something other than being an actual supporter of social justice. 

Ledbetterman10 said:

dankind said:

Why is SJW pejorative?

Seems more like it should be an honorific to me. 

Seriously, what's wrong with fighting for social justice? If we think something is wrong with that, then why the fuck even bother with anything anymore?

I think "warrior" is supposed to be sarcastic in the term "Social Justice Warrior." "Social Justice Advocate" would be a more complimentary way of saying it.

So now we're allowing hate-filled white supremacist redneck fuckwads to be our lexicographers? Awesome.

ecdanc

dankind said:

ecdanc said:

dankind said:

Why is SJW pejorative?

Seems more like it should be an honorific to me. 

Seriously, what's wrong with fighting for social justice? If we think something is wrong with that, then why the fuck even bother with anything anymore?

Because it is...

Look the term’s history up. It’s meant to imply something other than being an actual supporter of social justice. 

Ledbetterman10 said:

dankind said:

Why is SJW pejorative?

Seems more like it should be an honorific to me. 

Seriously, what's wrong with fighting for social justice? If we think something is wrong with that, then why the fuck even bother with anything anymore?

I think "warrior" is supposed to be sarcastic in the term "Social Justice Warrior." "Social Justice Advocate" would be a more complimentary way of saying it.

So now we're allowing hate-filled white supremacist redneck fuckwads to be our lexicographers? Awesome.

What?