Why is Fox News so anti-Trump?

[bladefd]

Conservative friend of mine used to hate Trump 2 years ago and now he is all gung-ho Trump. When I ask him what happened between that time, he deflects that question by bashing liberals and accuses me of being a liberal.

He used to talk about how fair Fox News was and how they looked at both sides of issues. He changes topic now everytime I mention Fox News. I chuckle for some reason. It's not just him but others I have seen on these boards as well.

Can a conservative or Fox News watcher explain what happened between 2014 and 2016?

[FillJackson]

Can a conservative or Fox News watcher explain what happened between 2014 and 2016?Fox News is the most important power broker for the Republican party. No one in the party even comes close.

The head of Fox News knows that Trump is going to be a disaster for the party so for this reason, they want to stop.

Trump knows this as well so he took them on directly.

It turns out he understood their audience probably better than they did.

[9erempiree]

Fox News is yuuge. There are more watchers of Fox than any other cable news station and it doesn't help that they are very pro-establishment.

Fox hates Trump because he's anti-establishment and they hate him because he called them out.

It's the most watched news station so your friend was probably one of the many.

While Trump supporters are independent of any news station. I don't even watch Fox News and I have probably watched more this month than I ever did in my lifetime because of Trump.

[9erempiree]

Fox News is the most important power broker for the Republican party. No one in the party even comes close.

The head of Fox News knows that Trump is going to be a disaster for the party so for this reason, they want to stop.

Trump knows this as well so he took them on directly.

It turns out he understood their audience probably better than they did.

Also, Fox is very very bias.

Knowing that...most Republicans will kiss their ass to get good publicity and it's very brave of Trump to take them on.

Trump is very consistent with his views. No lobbyists and no Fox News.

If Liberals would just wake up and see the bigger picture....we need a powerful leader to stand-up for us.

[Patrick Chewing]

Contrary to what my Republican buddies who I love very much will say on here, Trump is no Conservative. He's a blowhard. He's an elitist. Fox News is in the bag for Marco Rubio because he's another establishment guy. He's the younger, Cuban version of Obama.


Ted Cruz is the solid answer. If Americans want the Constitution of the United States protected, then there is only one man who keeps on saying he will protect it. That man is Ted Cruz.

[Bandito]

Conservative friend of mine used to hate Trump 2 years ago and now he is all gung-ho Trump. When I ask him what happened between that time, he deflects that question by bashing liberals and accuses me of being a liberal.

He used to talk about how fair Fox News was and how they looked at both sides of issues. He changes topic now everytime I mention Fox News. I chuckle for some reason. It's not just him but others I have seen on these boards as well.

Can a conservative or Fox News watcher explain what happened between 2014 and 2016?
Is your friend 9er?:biggums:

[ThePhantomCreep]

He's unelectable, and Fox knows it.

As far as Trump being anti-establishment... :lol

Trumpettes want that Muslim ban and Mexican wall so bad, they've convinced themselves that this 80s yuppie Manhattanite is the second coming of John Wayne and Audie Murphy.

Trump IS the establishment.

[9erempiree]

He's unelectable, and Fox knows it.

As far as Trump being anti-establishment... :lol

Trumpettes want that Muslim ban and Mexican wall so bad, they've convinced themselves that this 80s yuppie Manhattanite is the second coming of John Wayne and Audie Murphy.

Trump IS the establishment.

I don't care that you watch Fox News. I just don't watch it unless Trump is on.

How is he the establishment when he openly bashes the very same network that pushes the party?

Again, I don't like Fox News but I don't have a problem with people watching it.

[Nick Young]

Contrary to what my Republican buddies who I love very much will say on here, Trump is no Conservative. He's a blowhard. He's an elitist. Fox News is in the bag for Marco Rubio because he's another establishment guy. He's the younger, Cuban version of Obama.


Ted Cruz is the solid answer. If Americans want the Constitution of the United States protected, then there is only one man who keeps on saying he will protect it. That man is Ted Cruz.
He's definitely more of a populist.

Marco Rubio is a robotic Robin-like idiot who can't even handle pressure in a debate.

Ted Cruz is the craziest one of them all and a fat effeminate dumbass. I'd be ashamed if that nutcase ever became president of my country.


Trump isn't the establishment.


Hillary Clinton the lobbyist puppet is the establishment.

[Cactus-Sack]

Because News Corp are Clinton supporters

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/29/fox-is-one-of-the-biggest-donors-to-the-clintons/

"B-buh-but FOX NEWS are ebil right wingers"

[Godzuki]

because Trump has a moderate political history. he was very anti Bush, pro Clinton...he even had a open mind to Obama very early in his candidacy.

the GOP establishment is masterminded from their elites and will pick a candidate they want to propaganda to be elected. Trump is too much of a wild card for them and he doesnt fit all of their agendas.

they underestimated Trump winning over people being politically incorrect in a very brainwashed PC sheep society where theyre led to believe its rich peoples fault theyre poor, guns fault people kill each other, and everyone in the world just wants peace :facepalm

[Godzuki]

He's unelectable, and Fox knows it.

As far as Trump being anti-establishment... :lol

Trumpettes want that Muslim ban and Mexican wall so bad, they've convinced themselves that this 80s yuppie Manhattanite is the second coming of John Wayne and Audie Murphy.

Trump IS the establishment.


u far left liberals are always wrong here to the point i really have to wonder how many times do u have to be wrong before u realize ure always wrong :biggums:

[oh the horror]

If Liberals would just wake up and see the bigger picture....we need a powerful leader to stand-up for us.

Against who exactly? You realize he's perceived as an absolute embarrassment internationally right?

[Cactus-Sack]

Against who exactly? You realize he's perceived as an absolute embarrassment internationally right?
No he isn't

[oh the horror]

No he isn't



Sure bud. Keep thinking that. The information is out there. He makes us all look like dumb f*cks. And these idiots are cheering him on.


Look I don't like any of these candidates but to believe this guy, who's BEEN a running punchline for 20 years now is going to bring some newfound respect to our country leaves me absolutely baffled.


Maybe Americans are as dumb as people say.

[Godzuki]

Sure bud. Keep thinking that. The information is out there. He makes us all look like dumb f*cks. And these idiots are cheering him on.


Look I don't like any of these candidates but to believe this guy, who's BEEN a running punchline for 20 years now is going to bring some newfound respect to our country leaves me absolutely baffled.


Maybe Americans are as dumb as people say.


still dumb and very much the mainstream brainwashed sheep as usual :applause:

mexicans are scared of him because hes serious about border control.

other countries are afraid of him because they will have to give more for our protection instead of us being the do gooders liberals naively see the world as.

they know he doesnt bullshit and isnt weak as fukk like Obama.

dont confuse embarrassment with fear sheep :sleeping

[9erempiree]

Against who exactly? You realize he's perceived as an absolute embarrassment internationally right?

Who taught you to say this?

[Cactus-Sack]

Sure bud. Keep thinking that. The information is out there. He makes us all look like dumb f*cks. And these idiots are cheering him on.


Look I don't like any of these candidates but to believe this guy, who's BEEN a running punchline for 20 years now is going to bring some newfound respect to our country leaves me absolutely baffled.


Maybe Americans are as dumb as people say.
Okay, I a non-merican will take your American word for it dum-dum

[Dresta]

Against who exactly? You realize he's perceived as an absolute embarrassment internationally right?
That would hold more weight if the international community wasn't such an embarrassment. The EU utopian project, the single currency, David Cameron, Tony Blair (one of the biggest political shams of all time), Merkel, Hollande, Jeremy Corbyn, Hermione Granger as "special ambassador" to the UN or something, and endless other idiocies; they are all a part of the same lack of good, sensible and prudent leadership throughout the western world.

The same people who now mock Trump abroad, are the same who thought Obama was the second coming of the Messiah, and so gave him a Nobel Peace Prize for not doing anything. They tend to know nothing about American politics, so they like Hilary Clinton, and think she's a good person.

Europeans are generally bigoted against Americans ("Americans so stupid, haw-haw", says the Uni students who spend their free periods in Starbucks), laughing at them and Trump, while their own political systems crumble before their eyes. There is a massive political realignment going on right now, and most people aren't even aware of it, and are just hoping for a return of "centrism" (whatever that means). It is getting to the point, in most places, where any alternative is preferred to what is offered by the main political parties (more or less identical things, hidden under different rhetoric, and different stances on complete non-issues). Real change is actually on the cards (unlike the phoney "change" of Obama, and Cameron--who actually robbed what was an already inane catchphrase); let's just hope the political elites don't try to start a huge war so it doesn't happen; the only way they seem to stay in power nowadays is by fear-mongering about the opposition (how Cameron won a majority the last election, when everyone hates him).

[oh the horror]

Okay, I a non-merican will take your American word for it dum-dum



Shut it down ladies and gentlemen this ONE foreigner speaks for everyone on the entire planet outside of the United States. Go to sleep idiot.

[9erempiree]

That would hold more weight if the international community wasn't such an embarrassment. The EU utopian project, the single currency, David Cameron, Tony Blair (one of the biggest political shams of all time), Merkel, Hollande, Jeremy Corbyn, Hermione Granger as "special ambassador" to the UN or something, and endless other idiocies; they are all a part of the same lack of good, sensible and prudent leadership throughout the western world.

The same people who now mock Trump abroad, are the same who thought Obama was the second coming of the Messiah, and so gave him a Nobel Peace Prize for not doing anything. They tend to know nothing about American politics, so they like Hilary Clinton, and think she's a good person.

Europeans are generally bigoted against Americans ("Americans so stupid, haw-haw", says the Uni students who spend their free periods in Starbucks), laughing at them and Trump, while their own political systems crumble before their eyes. There is a massive political realignment going on right now, and most people aren't even aware of it, and are just hoping for a return of "centrism" (whatever that means). It is getting to the point, in most places, where any alternative is preferred to what is offered by the main political parties (more or less identical things, hidden under different rhetoric, and different stances on complete non-issues). Real change is actually on the cards (unlike the phoney "change" of Obama, and Cameron--who actually robbed what was an already inane catchphrase); let's just hope the political elites don't try to start a huge war so it doesn't happen; the only way they seem to stay in power nowadays is by fear-mongering about the opposition (how Cameron won a majority the last election, when everyone hates him).

Very well explained and lets hope Europe will follow suit.

Whether people like Trump or not isn't the main issue. The main issue is his revolutionary attacks and criticism of the established parties.

People are sick and tired of the entire political landscape all over the world and his success is showing through this primary.

People can be dumb, smart, poor or rich but there is a common ground with these people and they are all pretty sick of today's political process and climate.

[ThePhantomCreep]

because Trump has a moderate political history. he was very anti Bush, pro Clinton...he even had a open mind to Obama very early in his candidacy.

the GOP establishment is masterminded from their elites and will pick a candidate they want to propaganda to be elected. Trump is too much of a wild card for them and he doesnt fit all of their agendas.

they underestimated Trump winning over people being politically incorrect in a very brainwashed PC sheep society where theyre led to believe its rich peoples fault theyre poor, guns fault people kill each other, and everyone in the world just wants peace :facepalm

Meh. Thanks to some stellar flip-flopping, Trump sounds like your typical GOP politician these days.

-Used to be "very pro-choice", now he's pro-life.
-Used to be for SSM, now he wants to appoint judges to overturn last year's ruling.
-Used to be in favor of an assault weapons ban, now he's against it.
-Used to be for higher taxes on the wealthy, now he's against them.
-Never claimed to be religious, now he touts himself as a good Christian.

Where are his anti-establishment credentials? I'm not seeing them. Yes, he bashes the Iraq War (mainly to troll Jeb), but he's hardly a peacenik--He also advocates murdering the family members of ISIS, and using torture methods worse than waterboarding.

Poor Trumpettes. They're so desperate for the Muslim ban and Mexican wall, they'd believe Trump if he pissed on their heads and told them it was rain. :lol

[9erempiree]

Meh. Thanks to some stellar flip-flopping, Trump sounds like your typical GOP politician these days.

-Used to be "very pro-choice", now he's pro-life.
-Used to be for SSM, now he wants to appoint judges to overturn last year's ruling.
-Used to be in favor of an assault weapons ban, now he's against it.
-Used to be for higher taxes on the wealthy, now he's against them.
-Never claimed to be religious, now he touts himself as a good Christian.

Where are his anti-establishment credentials? I'm not seeing them. Yes, he bashes the Iraq War (mainly to troll Jeb), but he's hardly a peacenik--He also advocates murdering the family members of ISIS, and using torture methods worse than waterboarding.

Poor Trumpettes. They're so desperate for the Muslim ban and Mexican wall, they'd believe Trump if he pissed on their heads and told them it was rain. :lol

:facepalm

Why do your kind like to project?

[NumberSix]

Fox News isn't biased against Donald Trump. The people that work at Fox are people, and like all people they each individually have their favorite candidates and some they don't like. Plenty of people on Fox News are blatantly pro-Trump, and some don't like Trump. It's no different than any other candidate. The only difference is that Trump takes it personally if a host doesn't like him or his policies, whereas other candidates just roll with it.

For example, you don't see Ted Cruz bitching about O'Reilly. He just doesn't do O'Reilly's show, but he is on Megyn Kelly or Sean Hannity every other day. Trump goes on O'Reilly and Hannity all the time, but doesn't do Megyn's show.

Fox News doesn't treat Trump any different (other than the obvious front runner treatment) than any other candidate. Trump just makes a big deal out of everything.

[Dresta]

Fox News isn't biased against Donald Trump. The people that work at Fox are people, and like all people they each individually have their favorite candidates and some they don't like. Plenty of people on Fox News are blatantly pro-Trump, and some don't like Trump. It's no different than any other candidate. The only difference is that Trump takes it personally if a host doesn't like him or his policies, whereas other candidates just roll with it.

For example, you don't see Ted Cruz bitching about O'Reilly. He just doesn't do O'Reilly's show, but he is on Megyn Kelly or Sean Hannity every other day. Trump goes on O'Reilly and Hannity all the time, but doesn't do Megyn's show.

Fox News doesn't treat Trump any different (other than the obvious front runner treatment) than any other candidate. Trump just makes a big deal out of everything.
National Review did though, after having no problem endorsing Romney or McCain--Trump's response to this was pretty golden tbh.

[Dresta]

Meh. Thanks to some stellar flip-flopping, Trump sounds like your typical GOP politician these days.

-Used to be "very pro-choice", now he's pro-life.
-Used to be for SSM, now he wants to appoint judges to overturn last year's ruling.
-Used to be in favor of an assault weapons ban, now he's against it.
-Used to be for higher taxes on the wealthy, now he's against them.
-Never claimed to be religious, now he touts himself as a good Christian.

Where are his anti-establishment credentials? I'm not seeing them. Yes, he bashes the Iraq War (mainly to troll Jeb), but he's hardly a peacenik--He also advocates murdering the family members of ISIS, and using torture methods worse than waterboarding.

Poor Trumpettes. They're so desperate for the Muslim ban and Mexican wall, they'd believe Trump if he pissed on their heads and told them it was rain. :lol
Why can't imbeciles like yourself recognise that you can personally believe in same-sex marriage, while also believing it should be up to the people how they want to define marriage, and not 9 geriatrics in long black robes (or more accurately: one of the nine).

A single person deciding how everyone in the country ought to live and conduct their lives: "democracy, democracy, democracy everybody!!!"


:facepalm

[ThePhantomCreep]

Why can't imbeciles like yourself recognise that you can personally believe in same-sex marriage, while also believing it should be up to the people how they want to define marriage, and not 9 geriatrics in long black robes (or more accurately: one of the nine).

A single person deciding how everyone in the country ought to live and conduct their lives: "democracy, democracy, democracy everybody!!!"


:facepalm

Sorry dickhead, we don't govern by tyranny of the majority. Marriage is an institution made permissible by law. It is sanctioned by law, and it can only be terminated by a legal decree. As such, it is a right that is granted to our citizens by the government, through the rights available under the Constitution. The fact that religious nutjobs like that asshole Ted Cruz think it should be subject to an opinion poll is ridiculous. What a Constitutionalist!

Come to think of it, interracial marriage might still be banned if not for government intervention. Good thing the government stepped in years ago--Steph Curry might not exist.

The larger point is that Trump obvious changing his tune on this issue to appear more conservative to voters. He has done this on several issues--reshaping them as he goes along. As such, his positions these days strong mirror those of "establishment" candidates.

[Nick Young]

Why are people so obsessed with gay marriage? It is a surfacey BS issue that affects NOTHING. Before gay marriage was legal, civil unions WERE EXACTLY THE SAME. Now that gay marriage is legal-people are still bitching about it like it's not a right.


STOP WHINING ABOUT GAY MARRIAGE, DUMBASS LIBS. It's already legal.

[ThePhantomCreep]

Why are people so obsessed with gay marriage? It is a surfacey BS issue that affects NOTHING. Before gay marriage was legal, civil unions WERE EXACTLY THE SAME. Now that gay marriage is legal-people are still bitching about it like it's not a right.


STOP WHINING ABOUT GAY MARRIAGE, DUMBASS LIBS. It's already legal.

I'm amazed that you think liberals are the ones whining on this issue. You're either a super troll, or not very bright:
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2016/01/27/3743336/cruz-gay-marriage-iowa/

http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2016/02/donald-trump-says-hell-overturn-same-sex-marriage-decision-if-elected/

Back to the main point: Trump's political positions are not that far off from mainstream GOP politicians. Tax cuts for the wealthy, a strong military, etc. You could argue massive tax hikes on companies (like his :lol ) that outsource is populist anti-GOP positions, but his call for a measly 15% corporate tax rate is as pro-GOP as it gets. The only areas where Trump comes off as radical is with his Muslim ban and Mexican wall: Both positions are extremely right-wing, even by conservative standards.

[NumberSix]

Come to think of it, interracial marriage might still be banned if not for government intervention. Good thing the government stepped in years ago--Steph Curry might not exist.
Do you think before you type? Who the hell do you think banned interracial marriage? Random civilians?

The ban on interracial marriage WAS GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION.

[ThePhantomCreep]

Do you think before you type? Who the hell do you think banned interracial marriage? Random civilians?

The ban on interracial marriage WAS GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION.

That's not what I meant at all, dummy. 16 states had anti-miscegenation laws prior to Loving v Virginia. Had the citizens in those 16 states been allowed to vote on whether or not to retain them, they would have voted "RETAIN" overwhelmingly:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/163697/approve-marriage-blacks-whites.aspx

4% approved interracial marriage in 1958.

Thankfully, we don't govern by majority rule when it violates the Constitution, so spare me this "9 judges overruled the will of the people" bullshit.

[Dresta]

:roll:

What on earth does gay marriage have to do with the Constitution? It takes quite remarkable sophistry to read a mandate for the Federal Government to force gay marriage down everyone's throats anywhere in that quite simple and straightforward document.

Funnily enough, the Federal Constitution as it was created and ratified (and barely ratified at that) placed zero restrictions on how the States govern other than denying them the right to create a monarchy. Stop pretending to care about the Rule of Law already; there is no Rule of Law when you make the Constitution infinitely malleable--that is simply the rule of men, just men based in Washington.

[ThePhantomCreep]

:roll:

What on earth does gay marriage have to do with the Constitution? It takes quite remarkable sophistry to read a mandate for the Federal Government to force gay marriage down everyone's throats anywhere in that quite simple and straightforward document.

Funnily enough, the Federal Constitution as it was created and ratified (and barely ratified at that) placed zero restrictions on how the States govern other than denying them the right to create a monarchy. Stop pretending to care about the Rule of Law already; there is no Rule of Law when you make the Constitution infinitely malleable--that is simply the rule of men, just men based in Washington.

No, it doesn't, alll it take is a little bit of reading comprehension:


No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Denying a minority group within the US "equal dignity in the eyes of the law", for whatever reasons, is a painfully obvious Constitutional violation, and Supreme Court justices who voted against are full of shit. Otherwise, they'd have to argue that the rulings in Brown v Board of Education and Loving v. Virginia were incorrect, as racial segregation and interracial marriage are never explicitly addressed in the original document either. That's a notion even Antonin Scalia would have scoffed at.

[Dresta]

Strange, i didn't see anything about the definition of marriage in there--where did you see it?

It's really quite remarkable that you can't recognise that intra-sexual marriage is not the same as inter-sexual marriage, and that this consequently has nothing to do with equality or 'equal dignity in the eyes of the law'--such an attestation is pure sophistry, plain as day. Things that are fundamentally different cannot be equal, or does 2=3 these days? I suppose the notion that 2=2 might just be some barbarous relic of the past, presided over by evil conservatives trying to control everyone's lives or something.

Honestly, the argument is so silly, that i can't believe any grown adult seriously believes it. Either they don't care about the honesty of their arguments, or they're too scared to voice simple logic lest they be called homophobes and what not.

[NumberSix]

No, it doesn't, alll it take is a little bit of reading comprehension:



Denying a minority group within the US "equal dignity in the eyes of the law", for whatever reasons, is a painfully obvious Constitutional violation, and Supreme Court justices who voted against are full of shit. Otherwise, they'd have to argue that the rulings in Brown v Board of Education and Loving v. Virginia were incorrect, as racial segregation and interracial marriage are never explicitly addressed in the original document either. That's a notion even Antonin Scalia would have scoffed at.
Should the United States government recognize sharia "marriages"?

[ThePhantomCreep]

Strange, i didn't see anything about the definition of marriage in there--where did you see it?

It's really quite remarkable that you can't recognise that intra-sexual marriage is not the same as inter-sexual marriage, and that this consequently has nothing to do with equality or 'equal dignity in the eyes of the law'--such an attestation is pure sophistry, plain as day. Things that are fundamentally different cannot be equal, or does 2=3 these days? I suppose the notion that 2=2 might just be some barbarous relic of the past, presided over by evil conservatives trying to control everyone's lives or something.

Honestly, the argument is so silly, that i can't believe any grown adult seriously believes it. Either they don't care about the honesty of their arguments, or they're too scared to voice simple logic lest they be called homophobes and what not.

Meh, I see no real difference. The ability to generate human life is not a prerequisite for marriage, if that's what you're getting at.

[NumberSix]

Meh, I see no real difference. The ability to generate human life is not a prerequisite for marriage, if that's what you're getting at.
So men and women aren't actually different? They're just imaginary things?

[ThePhantomCreep]

So men and women aren't actually different? They're just imaginary things?

Next time, respond to what I actually wrote instead of spinning off into an inane argument. You're boring me.

The ability to generate life is not a prerequisite for marriage.

[bladefd]

So men and women aren't actually different? They're just imaginary things?

We are different biologically but not when it comes to social construct. Who cares who people marry? It is their lives. Law should let people marry whomever they want.

Don't listen to bible-thumping idiots like Ted Cruz. The bible was written 2,000 years ago and has been rewritten and edited so many times in between that we have no idea what the original text was or if there ever was any original text. If god has a problem, he/she will fly down here and tell us to our face. God is all powerful, invincible, mighty, and infinite. If god exists, let god handle his/her own issues.

[Dresta]

So men and women aren't actually different? They're just imaginary things?
That seems to be the idea: everyone as identical atoms, completely 'equal' and indistinguishable from one another: the abnegation of all individuality and difference has always been the endgame of the equalising spirit. And funnily enough, this same mentality is a product of Christian universalism.

These people can't even understand their own impulses, and yet they're still busy trying to save the world and give everyone 'rights.' Tis hilarious.

[greymatter]

Meh, I see no real difference. The ability to generate human life is not a prerequisite for marriage, if that's what you're getting at.

No, that's not what he gets at. But while it's not a prerequisite, he opines that any other purpose (for marriage) other than to generate human life is "frivolous".

Real charmer there. Can only hope that any women unlucky enough to get involved with him can discover that they're little more than potential broodmares to him before they allow themselves to get suckered in.

[Godzuki]

Meh. Thanks to some stellar flip-flopping, Trump sounds like your typical GOP politician these days.

-Used to be "very pro-choice", now he's pro-life.
-Used to be for SSM, now he wants to appoint judges to overturn last year's ruling.
-Used to be in favor of an assault weapons ban, now he's against it.
-Used to be for higher taxes on the wealthy, now he's against them.
-Never claimed to be religious, now he touts himself as a good Christian.

Where are his anti-establishment credentials? I'm not seeing them. Yes, he bashes the Iraq War (mainly to troll Jeb), but he's hardly a peacenik--He also advocates murdering the family members of ISIS, and using torture methods worse than waterboarding.

Poor Trumpettes. They're so desperate for the Muslim ban and Mexican wall, they'd believe Trump if he pissed on their heads and told them it was rain. :lol

lmao 'flip flopper' is one of those catch phrases politicians use to brainwash the simple minded. in reality flip flopper is a practical person who is intelligent and humble enough to change his mind.

only a dumbass mf'er wants some asshole who will be stubborn as fukk and never admit his initial opinion was wrong :facepalm

lmao 'flip flopper', if anything someone who weighs circumstances from different periods in time and make different judgements should be applauded since its obviously not all about their own ego :coleman:

[Nick Young]

So men and women aren't actually different? They're just imaginary things?
Men and women are exactly the same. Gender is a social construct. In matriarchal societies like Meghalaya not yet corrupted by bourgeois and bigoted western gender values, the men birth the children while the women hunt tigers and run society and they are the best society in the world in terms of the most important statistic of all-gender equality.

[Derka]

Because as crazy as they are, even they're not Trump crazy.

[Nick Young]

We are different biologically but not when it comes to social construct. Who cares who people marry? It is their lives. Law should let people marry whomever they want.

Don't listen to bible-thumping idiots like Ted Cruz. The bible was written 2,000 years ago and has been rewritten and edited so many times in between that we have no idea what the original text was or if there ever was any original text. If god has a problem, he/she will fly down here and tell us to our face. God is all powerful, invincible, mighty, and infinite. If god exists, let god handle his/her own issues.
Yes we are. How are men and women "the same when it comes to social construct?"

[Dresta]

Men and women are exactly the same. Gender is a social construct. In matriarchal societies like Meghalaya not yet corrupted by bourgeois and bigoted western gender values, the men birth the children while the women hunt tigers and run society and they are the best society in the world in terms of the most important statistic of all-gender equality.
:lol

Seriously doe: Spartan women were more manly than ~95% of western men (at least). And yet even those ferocious beasts understood the need to keep house, and raise children. Modern feminism has sold women a delusion that they need to work (in an office) to be fulfilled, which is why they make such good buddies with the large corporations that also like to push this narrative. For some reason, those who do want to work, and have a 'career,' can't take pride in being the exception, so they instead make war on the rule. Must have something to do with that old definition of a misogynist as someone who hates women as much as they hate each other.

Reminds me of that decadent western feminist (from VICE) going off to Ukraine to find those tough-ass women, and then getting all upset because they wanted to get married and raise a family.

"Oh noez, they're not enlightened like me--they must've been brainwashed by the mighty patriarchy."

:hammerhead:


Yes we are. How are men and women "the same when it comes to social construct?"Yes, he should explain this, because i don't get how we can be "biologically different" but also the "the same when it comes to social construct." Different biology, different everything.

[Nick Young]

:lol

Seriously doe: Spartan women were more manly than ~95% of western men (at least). And yet even those ferocious beasts understood the need to keep house, and raise children. Modern feminism has sold women a delusion that they need to work (in an office) to be fulfilled, which is why they make such good buddies with the large corporations that also like to push this narrative. For some reason, those who do want to work, and have a 'career,' can't take pride in being the exception, so they instead make war on the rule. Must have something to do with that old definition of a misogynist as someone who hates women as much as they hate each other.


:hammerhead:
And coincidentally since the rise of feminism, more women are on anti-depressants than ever before.


Reminds me of that decadent western feminist (from VICE) going off to Ukraine to find those tough-ass women, and then getting all upset because they wanted to get married and raise a family.

"Oh noez, they're not enlightened like me--they must've been brainwashed by the mighty patriarchy."


I remember that bullshit video. That stupid gender studies major got all upset at the end. "Even though I came to find warriors, all I found was more backwards women who hated themselves, subliminally controlled by the patriarchy. Us western feminists must continue to do all we can to force our values on these backwards Easterners"


Gender Studies majors are the worst at life.

[9erempiree]

And coincidentally since the rise of feminism, more women are on anti-depressants than ever before.



I remember that bullshit video. That stupid gender studies major got all upset at the end. "Even though I came to find warriors, all I found was more backwards women who hated themselves, subliminally controlled by the patriarchy. Us western feminists must continue to do all we can to force our values on these backwards Easterners"


Gender Studies majors are the worst at life.

Would have liked to take a class with you. We would be all up on these SJWs.

http://nerdcityonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/TMPT.jpg

[Nick Young]

Would have liked to take a class with you. We would be all up on these SJWs.

http://nerdcityonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/TMPT.jpg
Take it from me, it is not a battle worth fighting. I spent much of the year calling out bullshit in my mandatory feminist SJW bullshit class in uni. By the end of it I sucked it up, sacrificed my values and wrote a BS pro-feminist essay in order to get an A in the class. I realized it isn't a battle worth fighting. The teacher even called me up at the end of the last class and told me how proud she was of me that I'd seen the light. Ugg.

But the alternatives were to fight a long bureaucratic battle with the complaints procedure, or continue to write anti-PC essays and get a bad grade. I decided this was not going to be my hill to die on.

The best thing to do is play along with the SJW bullshit in public and with work colleagues. You have to pick your battles and right now there's no way to go against PC bullshit land.


Unless you have financial security like Donald Trump, then you are free to speak your mind.

Social justice zealots in academia and HR departments in the work place will do whatever they can to sabotage you if they sense that you are even remotely un-PC.

It sounds paranoid but it's the truth.

[bladefd]

Yes we are. How are men and women "the same when it comes to social construct?"

Social aspect usually refers to the behavior of our species in group setting -- humans tend to stay within some sort of group (unless if you are a hermit). In such settings, we don't believe men are greater than women or vice versa.

Socially, men and women are equals. No sex is superior or inferior to the other. That is what I was trying to convey. You could hold the belief that one sex is overall superior to another but it would be fairly ignorant sexist belief to hold. There is no biological sex study that proves one sex is superior to another so for social purposes, we are equals.

[Nick Young]

So you believe that men and women behave exactly the same as each other and there is no biological different mentally in terms of how men and women think and process things?

[NumberSix]

Social aspect usually refers to the behavior of our species in group setting -- humans tend to stay within some sort of group (unless if you are a hermit). In such settings, we don't believe men are greater than women or vice versa.

Socially, men and women are equals. No sex is superior or inferior to the other. That is what I was trying to convey. You could hold the belief that one sex is overall superior to another but it would be fairly ignorant sexist belief to hold. There is no biological sex study that proves one sex is superior to another so for social purposes, we are equals.
Of course one sex is superior to the other.

Let's say both sexes are equal mentally. That's a tie. Physically though men are blatantly superior. 2 categories. One is a tie, the other is a landslide.

[Dresta]

Social aspect usually refers to the behavior of our species in group setting -- humans tend to stay within some sort of group (unless if you are a hermit). In such settings, we don't believe men are greater than women or vice versa.

Socially, men and women are equals. No sex is superior or inferior to the other. That is what I was trying to convey. You could hold the belief that one sex is overall superior to another but it would be fairly ignorant sexist belief to hold. There is no biological sex study that proves one sex is superior to another so for social purposes, we are equals.
So you acknowledge the distinction then? As soon as you acknowledge that there is a distinction between the sexes, then the question is no longer about equality, but about how something is defined and commonly understood. The people of some states just take marriage more seriously, and understand it differently, than the people in other states; only a bigot would deny them the right to keep understanding it in the manner prescribed by their religion and tradition.

A person who supports gay marriage on the grounds of "equality" and who doesn't think that men and women ought to share bathrooms and changing rooms, is being rather inconsistent. Support it if you want, but don't pretend it's about equality, and compare it to the civil rights of the 50s and 60s (laughable and insulting to those people who suffered real and serious persecution tbh): that is simply disingenuous. I swear, some people just have the need to feel that they're in some great struggle for justice and liberty, like these crusades validate their own lives. These people don't even realise how intolerant they are, as they attack and smear gays who actually oppose gay marriage, accusing them of suffering from "Stockholm Syndrome" and the like. Phrases like "homophobia apologists" are applied, as if no opinion other than the one held by them deserves to be heard or even considered.

This is fantastically intolerant, and yet it is intolerance hidden under the aegis "freedom and equality," and it is driven primarily by political agitators and fanatics.

[bladefd]

Of course one sex is superior to the other.

Let's say both sexes are equal mentally. That's a tie. Physically though men are blatantly superior. 2 categories. One is a tie, the other is a landslide.

You are welcome to do a study on that. Good luck with the ethics portion of that study. You would have to study many other aspects within biology to do such a study. Physical attributes, IQ, life expectancy, bone density, mental fortitude, analysis of mental prowess, mental illnesses probability between the sexes, diseases susceptibility, etc before you can make the judgment that one sex is superior to another.

There is a reason why eugenics research is deemed illegal because of what social hierarchy the results would lead to if a few races are shown to be superior or inferior. Such study between the sexes could possibly lead to something similar depending on the results. Without results, all we can do is speculate. Speculation is hardly logical or scientific way of thinking of something. Until we have results, speculation doesn’t hold any water. Without a thorough study, there can be no results. There can be no study without people willing to participate. People would not participate in unethical studies like these. Therefore, the only viable option is to consider men and women equals in the eyes of social construction.

End of story.

[Dresta]

^^^^

Your argument amounts to "i want to deny reality because reality is unethical"--pretty much the definition of an uncompromising dogmatism.

[bladefd]

^^^^

Your argument amounts to "i want to deny reality because reality is unethical"--pretty much the definition of an uncompromising dogmatism.

Reality stems from practicality and practicality stems from what you are willing to study/analyze/prove. If you were at all pragmatic, you would understand why ethics matters in science.

What view do you hold? Do you think one sex is superior to another? If so then I would accuse you of subscribing to the idea of dogmatism. If you claim such a notion as sex superiority then I expect evidence.

Do you have evidence that shows sex superiority? AFAIK, you have absolutely no argument due to the simple fact that no such thorough study has ever been done.