Welcome to Thunderdome

I consider myself a moderate. And a former Libertarian. (Still big on the liberty side, less big on the 'I got mine, fuck all yall' side of Libertarianism)

I get most of my news from the WSJ, and our local paper (Raleigh News + Observer). For online news I usually go to ABCNews, Reddit News, and CNN. For viewpoints I don't agree with, I go to /r/The_Donald, Fox News, The Root, and a couple of others. I used to get some news from NPR, but I don't drive any more.

I went to The_Donald today, and someone was still posting about Scalia being murdered, and the Left being behind it. The post had 2,000 points (they don't show upvotes anymore), and the article was 99% up-voted. It's just insanity.

TheCatt wrote: I went to The_Donald today, and someone was still posting about Scalia being murdered, and the Left being behind it. The post had 2,000 points (they don't show upvotes anymore), and the article was 99% up-voted. It's just insanity.

I can't visit places like that or DailyKOS. They're way too far gone. Any voice of sanity, not necessarily dissenting, gets shouted down immediately. Those places make my brain hurt.

Leisher wrote:

TheCatt wrote: I went to The_Donald today, and someone was still posting about Scalia being murdered, and the Left being behind it. The post had 2,000 points (they don't show upvotes anymore), and the article was 99% up-voted. It's just insanity.

I can't visit places like that or DailyKOS. They're way too far gone. Any voice of sanity, not necessarily dissenting, gets shouted down immediately. Those places make my brain hurt.

I go to remind myself what the crazies think. Because every time I see an article about the crazies, I think "No way people believe this shit. *clicks crazy website* Oh wow, thousands of people do"

TheCatt wrote:I go to remind myself what the crazies think. Because every time I see an article about the crazies, I think "No way people believe this shit. *clicks crazy website* Oh wow, thousands of people do"

Yeah, I feel that way a lot looking at both sides, and I consider myself pretty far right with heavy libertarian leanings.

Republican candidate denies female reporter access to his campaign without a male present. The MSM is crucifying him for it.

Here's a guy simply trying to avoid being alone with a woman and he's still the villain.

Leisher wrote: Republican candidate denies female reporter access to his campaign without a male present. The MSM is crucifying him for it.

Here's a guy simply trying to avoid being alone with a woman and he's still the villain.

Good. Fuck him.

TheCatt wrote:

Leisher wrote: Republican candidate denies female reporter access to his campaign without a male present. The MSM is crucifying him for it.

Here's a guy simply trying to avoid being alone with a woman and he's still the villain.

Good. Fuck him.

I disagree with you strongly.

Why doesn't his opinion matter here? He simply doesn't want to be alone with this woman. How is that wrong? How is he the asshole?

Reverse the genders and she'd be called a hero.

Leisher wrote: Why doesn't his opinion matter here? He simply doesn't want to be alone with this woman. How is that wrong? How is he the asshole?

Because he is literally treating the person differently based only on the person's sex. The end.

TheCatt wrote:

Leisher wrote: Why doesn't his opinion matter here? He simply doesn't want to be alone with this woman. How is that wrong? How is he the asshole?

Because he is literally treating the person differently based only on the person's sex. The end.

Welcome to the world of #metoo.

Doctors call in a witness for certain procedures when dealing with someone of the opposite sex to prevent any misunderstandings, accusations of improper behavior, etc.

Cops have to call in same sex officers for pat downs.

I've heard of managers videoing meetings or calling in HR when meeting with opposite sex people for the same reasons.

But somehow this politician isn't allowed to do the same?

Listen, you're not wrong. However, I don't think it's fair to destroy him for being cautious or simply not wanting to be in a situation where he doesn't feel comfortable.

To be fair, we know nothing about this reporter. She might have a reputation as...friendly... (I worked in a newsroom. It's basically a big orgy.) She might be a far left personality known for attacking Rs, and in which case, why would he want her around?

Leisher wrote: To be fair, we know nothing about this reporter. She might have a reputation as...friendly... (I worked in a newsroom. It's basically a big orgy.) She might be a far left personality known for attacking Rs, and in which case, why would he want her around?

Dunno, his only apparent objection appeared to be sex.

Leisher wrote: Doctors call in a witness for certain procedures when dealing with someone of the opposite sex to prevent any misunderstandings, accusations of improper behavior, etc.

Cops have to call in same sex officers for pat downs.

Literally positions where the 1) doctor is touching a person's genitals and 2) the cop is touching a person.

If reporters do genital exams and full body touching, I am unaware of that.

TheCatt wrote:

Leisher wrote: To be fair, we know nothing about this reporter. She might have a reputation as...friendly... (I worked in a newsroom. It's basically a big orgy.) She might be a far left personality known for attacking Rs, and in which case, why would he want her around?

Dunno, his only apparent objection appeared to be sex.

True story: I had a pretty attractive female sales rep offer me a blow job in exchange for signing a contract. Thankfully, my cohort was in his office and could hear through the paper thin walls. I now make sure he's around whenever a new female sales rep shows up for something.

In our current society, all she'd have to do is claim I said/did something inappropriate and I'm fucked. Doesn't matter if she can prove it or not.

You know what tactic probably gets a lot more play than we hear about? "I can give you a blow job for signing this contract or I can just say you said it was a requirement for you to sign."

Point being, his behavior doesn't matter. That's where we are as a society. All she would have to do is say he acted inappropriately and it could damage his campaign.

He's wrong for making a decision based on her sex. He's not wrong for preventing himself from being put in a potentially bad situation.

TheCatt wrote: If reporters do genital exams and full body touching, I am unaware of that.

The ones I knew did.

TheCatt wrote: Because he is literally treating the person differently based only on the person's sex. The end.

Actually, I think it's more because she's in a profession that oft times is more activist than journalist. I suspect he has women that work for him that he trusts. He doesn't trust her and women have been using the shit out of unfounded accusations to destroy people politically for the last 2 years.

Vince wrote:

TheCatt wrote: Because he is literally treating the person differently based only on the person's sex. The end.

Actually, I think it's more because she's in a profession that oft times is more activist than journalist. I suspect he has women that work for him that he trusts. He doesn't trust her and women have been using the shit out of unfounded accusations to destroy people politically for the last 2 years.

He's repeatedly stated it's about his faith and the sex of the reporter. Which also means he would discriminate against hiring women as well, since he wouldnt want to be in a situation where he might be alone with one.

Just guessing John Edwards is contemplating the wisdom in that

Vince wrote: Just guessing John Edwards is contemplating the wisdom in that

Hah!

Fucking Edwards. Haven't heard much about him recently, but I guess after you cheat on your cancer suffering wife going MIA from the public eye is the best move.

This is the metoo era. Being cautious is the only way to not get.torpedoed, now..... And this situation illustrates that you still can't win.

GORDON wrote: This is the metoo era. Being cautious is the only way to not get.torpedoed, now..... And this situation illustrates that you still can't win.

I think you win by being a decent human being, but apparently that's too hard.

You're completely ignoring the chance of honest misunderstandings, not to mention unprovable, but damaging, false accusations.