Quantcast
Official 2020 US Election: Democratic Party Discussion

Forums - Politics Discussion - Official 2020 US Election: Democratic Party Discussion

Jaicee said:
tsogud said:


Ehhh I have a bit of a problem with a person's gender identity being seen as "specialized vocabulary"

As a trans rights activist I've definitely had to use the word cis to draw distinctions when explaining to people about the trans experience. It's part of the job to explain and raise awareness.

I'm really just stating that it's ridiculous to say someone is a sjw just because they happen to use a word that's really not even connected to sjws.

Anyways I've taken what you've said and agree with most of it.

To intervene here if I can, I would point out that "cisgender" is not a term that non-trans people have either invented or broadly chosen to embrace ourselves, it's just an arbitrary term that the transgender community has simply imposed on the rest of the population and which most of the time is used in a derisive context. It's not a big deal, but I'm just saying.

Also, the two 'hypothetical' conversations I offered up in that other post were loosely based on somewhat longer real ones that I've either had before or observed unfold. I feel like when one isn't willing to even try and explain what they mean when questioned on the meaning of terms not in common usage among the general population, that has a condescending feeling to it.

@bolded yeah, I do agree. If someone doesn't explain something if asked that is condescending and rude but that's with any conversation not specific to the subject of this convo.

With the first paragraph, it is a big deal and here is where I really have a problem with your stance because before on numerous occasions you've been trans-exclusionary with your language and some of your feminist ideas. We won't go into that now as it's not the time nor place. But saying a minority group is "imposing" something "on the rest of us" is an old right wing tactic of being discriminatory; casting those minority groups as "the other" who's trying to take the agency away from "the rest of us" Just know that language walks a dangerous line.

I'm not going to get into the history of the prefixes "cis-" and "trans-" but they've been around a long time. "cisgender" was a term coined since before I was born in academic journals (less than 20 years after "transgender") by cis scholars, who needed a word to describe someone as not trans. It is a legitimate gender identity.

Last edited by tsogud - on 30 November 2019

 

Around the Network

Joe Malarkey gearing up for Iowa.  



uran10 said:

Whether you believe it or not, the DNC has put the thumbs on the scales before, they're doing it now and a part of that is the debate criteria and how which polls count and others don't. You're looking at it as tho "oh this poll is not qualifying for everyone, so how is it targeting tulsi" and not at the why is this poll not qualifying considering all of the facts of this poll? On top of that why are they so hush hush about it?

But that's not the same thing as saying the DNC is out to get Gabbard which is the narrative that's been pushed by her campaign and many supporters for months now. 

Is it odd they don't count that as a qualifying poll?  Sure.  Did they intentionally leave out that poll for the purpose of harming Gabbard's election?  No.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

Trump's black support rises to 34% Democrats are in big trouble.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtz_opotbP0



Snoopy said:
Trump's black support rises to 34% Democrats are in big trouble.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtz_opotbP0

Ah. I see you get your facts at the same place Uran does.



Around the Network
Snoopy said:
Trump's black support rises to 34% Democrats are in big trouble.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtz_opotbP0

It's BS. Rasmussen has always overinflated Trump support from black voters.

"One week before the 2018 elections, Rasmussen had President Trump's support among black Americans at 40 percent. According to exit polls, only 8 percent of black voters nationwide voted for Republican candidates."

"Gallup averages show Trump with a 10% approval rating among blacks in 2017, 11% in 2018 and 10% so far in 2019."

Another poll in October showed him with just 7% support.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

SpokenTruth said:
Snoopy said:
Trump's black support rises to 34% Democrats are in big trouble.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtz_opotbP0

It's BS. Rasmussen has always overinflated Trump support from black voters.

"One week before the 2018 elections, Rasmussen had President Trump's support among black Americans at 40 percent. According to exit polls, only 8 percent of black voters nationwide voted for Republican candidates."

"Gallup averages show Trump with a 10% approval rating among blacks in 2017, 11% in 2018 and 10% so far in 2019."

Another poll in October showed him with just 7% support.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/democrats-dread-goes-real-polls-show-black-support-for-trump-rising

The Emerson Poll, released November 21, indeed showed Trump with 34.5% of black registered voter approval. RedState noted, “Thirty four percent approval for President Donald Trump. And that’s not an outlier with other Rasmussen tallies, the average has actually gone up since last year when it was in the 20s.



Guys, don't respond to Snoopy, he only ever comes here to derail the thread with Trump stuff, like he's doing now.



HylianSwordsman said:
Guys, don't respond to Snoopy, he only ever comes here to derail the thread with Trump stuff, like he's doing now.

I'm discussing the Democratic party and how they are losing voters.



SpokenTruth said:
uran10 said:

Whether you believe it or not, the DNC has put the thumbs on the scales before, they're doing it now and a part of that is the debate criteria and how which polls count and others don't. You're looking at it as tho "oh this poll is not qualifying for everyone, so how is it targeting tulsi" and not at the why is this poll not qualifying considering all of the facts of this poll? On top of that why are they so hush hush about it?

But that's not the same thing as saying the DNC is out to get Gabbard which is the narrative that's been pushed by her campaign and many supporters for months now. 

Is it odd they don't count that as a qualifying poll?  Sure.  Did they intentionally leave out that poll for the purpose of harming Gabbard's election?  No.

I mean.. I'm not so sure about that 2nd one. I'm not sure if its to harm Tulsi or protect others from her as its been legitimately stated by Kamala's campaign that it was Tulsi exposing her record that has put her in that position. But yea, Tulsi recently appeared on the Joe Rogan Podcast, where she discussed 2016 and her endorsement of Bernie and what the other people in the party told her once she did that. It was essentially a "you just killed your political career" kinda thing. I'm much more cynical than you in this regard, and I've followed numerous things including the DNC lawsuit where the DNC legit argued that they don't have to nominate they're candidate democratically. They can go in a backroom and say "this is our nominee" if they want to. (Its out there, look it up). I'm not sure which part of the podcast it is, it was over 2 hours long but yea.



Follow my Gaming and Graphics Business on facebook and on Twitter:

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=101878997952596&ref=br_rs

https://twitter.com/KellyGGWD