Very good point. Also they kept trying to do that to the Obama thing that I, looking on from Canada, thought was the ‘public option’ in Obamacare. And like the states that refuse to ask for the Medicare expansion. It’s a different environment. So how it would play out with these super hostile weirdos funded by assholes like the Kochs and Mercers it’s just so 🤷🏻♀️. In Canada there’s no political wing trying to get rid of our government health insurance. Instead the profiteering fuckheads try to do for profit ancillary stuff like diagnostic clinics outside of the government insurance.
It looks like your goal is to drive through every thread in here and make some kind of noise. Nevertheless, I'll explain.
If you say something negative about somebody without providing any real evidence, it's called a baseless accusation. If I call you a sexist without providing any supporting argument, it's baseless. This is true whether or not you are a sexist. The author of this article insinuated a negative accusation, that Cenk Uygur did X because of sexism. The author provided no evidence. What do you propose we call that?
I don't like Cenk Uygur or TYT. The thing is obnoxious, click-baity, and paranoid. Nevertheless I have seen enough of the show to know that Cenk calls center-line and establishment democrats corporate hacks irrespective of gender. If there is an actual reason to think he made this criticism of Pelosi because of her gender - not incidentally to it - then the author should provide that rationale. Then we could discuss the idea. As it is, it's a complete throwaway.
Cenk's language about Pelosi from the left is similar to the Right's language about McConnell. Is the Right misayndrist?
This is particularly obnoxious to me, because it isn't just this author or just this occasion. There's a constant low-hum of this crap on the left. Dismissing any criticism of female Democrats away as sexism has become an accepted standard. Even failing to prefer a female candidate can get you called a sexist by people these days. It's cheap garbage with diminishing returns, and outside of Democratic strongholds, people hate it. And within Democratic strongholds, it's divisive: during the 2016 primary season, it was heavily used by Clinton supporters to beat up on other Democrats. ("Bernie Bros"). It's not been as glaring this primary season, but I've rolled my eyes at enough "we can't have a male nominee" articles to be tired of it.
I prefer the other parts of the article. The parts where the author presents evidence and makes reasonable points. But even if Cenk Uygur kept a secret stalk-and-kill wishlist with 100 female names on it while rooming with Bill Cosby, that accusation would still be baseless.
Oh, 2018 told me we lost the Senate and the Supreme Court fight, in part because we put all of our eggs into the uncorroborated three decades old accusation basket when we had winning issues like healthcare. We lost everything in the 2016 race. But you're right: we swung the house in the midterm under one of the most consistently unpopular Republication presidencies in history. So, good for us, let's keep doing the same thing.
Please relay the supporting evidence in the article that Cenk said this about Pelosi because of her gender. Again, I thought the rest of the article was good.
Millions of people are dead in the Mid East. Not that I wanted McCain to win, because millionser more people would be dead.
Very good point. Also they kept trying to do that to the Obama thing that I, looking on from Canada, thought was the ‘public option’ in Obamacare. And like the states that refuse to ask for the Medicare expansion. It’s a different environment. So how it would play out with these super hostile weirdos funded by assholes like the Kochs and Mercers it’s just so 🤷🏻♀️. In Canada there’s no political wing trying to get rid of our government health insurance. Instead the profiteering fuckheads try to do for profit ancillary stuff like diagnostic clinics outside of the government insurance.
Nothing baseless about it.
It looks like your goal is to drive through every thread in here and make some kind of noise. Nevertheless, I'll explain.
If you say something negative about somebody without providing any real evidence, it's called a baseless accusation. If I call you a sexist without providing any supporting argument, it's baseless. This is true whether or not you are a sexist. The author of this article insinuated a negative accusation, that Cenk Uygur did X because of sexism. The author provided no evidence. What do you propose we call that?
I don't like Cenk Uygur or TYT. The thing is obnoxious, click-baity, and paranoid. Nevertheless I have seen enough of the show to know that Cenk calls center-line and establishment democrats corporate hacks irrespective of gender. If there is an actual reason to think he made this criticism of Pelosi because of her gender - not incidentally to it - then the author should provide that rationale. Then we could discuss the idea. As it is, it's a complete throwaway.
Cenk's language about Pelosi from the left is similar to the Right's language about McConnell. Is the Right misayndrist?
This is particularly obnoxious to me, because it isn't just this author or just this occasion. There's a constant low-hum of this crap on the left. Dismissing any criticism of female Democrats away as sexism has become an accepted standard. Even failing to prefer a female candidate can get you called a sexist by people these days. It's cheap garbage with diminishing returns, and outside of Democratic strongholds, people hate it. And within Democratic strongholds, it's divisive: during the 2016 primary season, it was heavily used by Clinton supporters to beat up on other Democrats. ("Bernie Bros"). It's not been as glaring this primary season, but I've rolled my eyes at enough "we can't have a male nominee" articles to be tired of it.
I prefer the other parts of the article. The parts where the author presents evidence and makes reasonable points. But even if Cenk Uygur kept a secret stalk-and-kill wishlist with 100 female names on it while rooming with Bill Cosby, that accusation would still be baseless.
TL; DR.
Here’s the thing, schmucko: I’m a beloved regular here. You’re not. Fuck off and go roll another sock puppet.
(By the way, I am a hardcore Biden supporter. So stick that in your pipe and smoke it.)
If people find you lovable here, that would explain why their preferred candidates keep losing elections.
As you said, you didn't read. Why should this surprise me?
2018 called.
It laughed when I mentioned your name.
Concern troll is concerned.
Because you posted an extremely long, inane, concern-trolling comment?
I know. There are like three paragraphs there. Who has that kinda time when you're busy dropping one-liners in every other thread?
Oh, 2018 told me we lost the Senate and the Supreme Court fight, in part because we put all of our eggs into the uncorroborated three decades old accusation basket when we had winning issues like healthcare. We lost everything in the 2016 race. But you're right: we swung the house in the midterm under one of the most consistently unpopular Republication presidencies in history. So, good for us, let's keep doing the same thing.
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
‘We.’ ‘Us.’
HA!
It’s Saturday morning. Do you really think you’re worth my time?
(Here’s a hint: you aren’t. Toodles, troll!)
Cenk is a sexist fuckwad.That you refuse to accept the evidence and, your own words, reasonable points, is your problem, not the article's.
Please relay the supporting evidence in the article that Cenk said this about Pelosi because of her gender. Again, I thought the rest of the article was good.