America....

[pial]

All I said was that in an ideal world if you wanted to create conditions for the least amount of bias from judges then would it be worth it to have judges hearing cases in which their identity isn't at stake: example being if there's a racism based case of a black claiming it against a white, could we not have judges who hear the case who are neither white nor black? I said at the time that this is just a thought experiment and that the actual implementation of this would be far worse than the original small chance of a judge being biased by their own identity.

[Ashlee]

You essentially painted a straw man of myself and my argument but I wouldn't expect anything less from a Jezebel reader.

I am always surprised by your reversal skills. Zarth actually gave you an entirely reasonable position, did so without invoking ad hominem, and you somehow turn that into him creating a straw man? Accusing a judge of being unable to be unbiased because he is of Mexican heritage is, by definition, racist. Likewise, when Zarth challenges you that the media next incited violence against Trump or his supporters, you deflect and present an entirely separate argument. That is the definition of a false equivalency. Now, I could be wrong because I have not read every piece written by liberal media, but I am unaware of a single reputable source that incited violence against Trump or his supporters. And I would happily change my position based upon you coming up with some. But I am aware of:

(1) him promising he would pay legal fees if his supporters attacked reporters: http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-d ... cker/?_r=0

(2) Insinuating that liberal judges would be attacked or killed by gun owners: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/10/us/po ... inton.html

(3) Trump threatens to hurt and kill protestor: http://www.nytimes.com/video/us/1000000 ... lence.html

And all of this from a quick Google search. Now, I acknowledge that these are from a "liberal" new outlet. But they are undeniable. Now I agree and accept that Clinton has her flaws, and I am happy to discuss why I think they are different than his. We can have an actual discourse on difference of opinion, on policy, on religion, on anything that floats your boat. However, when everyone agrees we are going to play poker, you can't show up with an Uno deck and expect to be taken seriously. Either you are refusing to acknowledge facts, or you have no interest in acknowledging facts and want to troll.

[pial]

Oh lord, I was saying he was doing a strawman in his summary of the damn argument. He was taking license with what I said for comedic effect. Not going to respond to any of your dung because you're not addressing anything I actually said ever. Do you know what the first damn rule of philosophy is when arguing with people? Being charitable, and you're arguing against me based off someone's comedic caricature.


To any other idiot who took what Zarth said at face value, I pointed out months ago that the media treating Trump like Hitler 2.0 was a gross exaggeration and could possibly lead someone to believe that assassinating him is the better option than allowing him to take power, which is a dangerous game that previously only Fox News played.

[Skittles]

With respect to Goodwin, there's a clear case for calling Trump Hitler. It's honestly difficult to talk about what Trump says without people assuming you're making allusions to Hitler.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/fe ... se-w443902

[pial]

The right sounded like this leading up to Obama winning and just after he won. They were wrong then, the left accusing Trump of being Hitler 2.0 is wrong now.

[Skittles]

You're right, Hitler respected women, didn't cheat on his, and was well-spoken.

[pial]

Bill Clinton only managed to speak well from your little list.

[Skittles]

Way to ignore the assumed assertion that Hitler and Trump consider minorities the same But also, Trump and Clinton aren't even in the same ballpark in regards to treatment of women. So Clinton is like Trump in that he cheats on his wife. Agreed.

[pial]

You're lucky that Trump isn't Hitler because then you'd need to worry about being exterminated due to being mentally handicapped

Comparing an orange troll dung talker to someone who exterminated over 12 million people is absurd.

[pial]

I'm done being antagonistic for now because I don't think it helps anything.

The DNC and democrats made a judgement call that fear mongering on Trump would make up for the lack of enthusiasm for their candidate. Their call was wrong as can be seen by voter turn out. The people who wanted Bernie to win, like myself, and wanted to see real progressive change rather than a ruthless pragmatist who will only do what is politically expedient weren't motivated enough to go out and vote. I voted, but many of the people who would have voted for a candidate who stood for what they were looking for didn't. You can blame them all you want, you can call them names and treat them as outcasts but it won't change the fact that the DNC lost the elections in 2010, 2014, and now in 2016 horribly.

Their strategies aren't working and doubling down on the same dung that lead to them losing is silly and I'm tired of seeing it and even more tired of seeing supposedly smart people defending what didn't work. The republicans just took control of all three branches of government and the left wants to pretend like they couldn't have played things better.