Neither do they want bigots and assholes hanging around...but look who's still here.

I have no interest in defending Trump.

...Yeah, you smell it coming. BUT:

Budgetary concerns for telling trans people "thanks but no thanks" regarding desire to serve in the military might possibly be defensible and comparable to other conditions / states / whatever.

Manning was in jail (whether you think that deserved or not) and got ACLU assistance to be provided with hormone therapy and eventually gender reassignment surgery, because it was deemed psychologically damaging to withhold them. That's some pretty expensive treatment. Paid with tax dollars.

Perform a thought experiment and replace barring trans people from military service with some other group that would similarly require expensive medical maintenance. There's a pretty good example available: Type 1 Diabetes, requiring insulin. And guess what -- diabetics are barred from military service. If you develop diabetes while in the military it isn't grounds for discharge, but if you have it beforehand and want to join up you're SOL.

Back to trans. Do I personally think that they should be barred from service? No, not based purely on that. But if somebody feels that they need hormone replacement and/or gender reassignment surgery, I think they should be paying for that themselves, not on government / military dime.

I'll admit that I see those things not as necessary, but elective. Maybe that's unfair, but at what point does it become ridiculous? Can bald soldiers get hair transplants? Botox? Breast implants?

Trans people want to serve and either A) don't need hormone replacement / gender reassignment or B) are willing to pay out of pocket for them? Sign 'em up. Otherwise, it becomes murky. If that seems insensitive / bigoted, sorry. But plenty of things beyond your control can make you ineligible for military service.


**edit:
Oh, forgot to mention. Do I think Trump really had that sort of argument in mind when he made this decision? HELL NO. He's a spiteful prick. He probably did it for a combination of trying to curry favor with prick GOP congressclowns and just to prod.

For me the interesting bit is in how they were mostly desparate to not be controversial and just finish the movie, but keep the issues that mattered to them and the humour intact.

They gradually came to the conclusion that Jesus and his teachings are not actually that funny by themselves, that christianity, unless interpreted by idiots, is not a wothy subject to being mocked. Which I can identify with and most christians could, if they saw the movie without prejudice.

Of course bigots will project all kinds of personal complexes and hysterical interpretations.

St. George of Harrison FTW.

The term "political correctness" originally came about as a disparaging way for assholes to describe not being an asshole.

“Political correctness is what right-wing bigots call what everybody else calls being polite”
-Iain M. Banks

Basically, while there are undoubtedly some idiots who take it too far, in general, I'm ok with it no longer being socially acceptable to call people niggers, queers and bitches.

The whole intellectually/vertically/gravitationally/whateverly challenged nonsense was invented as a parody of political correctness and in general, no-one actually uses those terms to describe anyone.

The problem is that people see the worst excesses of political correctness and assume that that's the whole point. It's like seeing one police shooting and deciding that law enforcement itself is a bad idea.

Honestly, I don't think I've ever met anyone who genuinely used the phrase "that's not politically correct" when talking to another human.

Oh, and even "politeness" isn't immune to politicisation. When I was younger, it was drilled into me that it was polite for a man to hold a door for a woman, or to pay for dinner on a date. It was considered polite for children to be seen and not heard. Good luck having an "apolitical" discussion about those topics.

when radical right wingers,who lean towards an authoritarian,dogmatic way of approaching certain subjects,yet will attempt to disguise their bigotry,prejudice or hatred under the banner of "free speech",or nationalistic pride" and even sometimes "common sense" (because in THEIR world view,thats what it is to them:common sense).

they receive pushback,and rightly so,because you have to allow them to express their ideas in a public forum for the diseased and twisted philosophy to be exposed for the shit ideas they were in the first place.

but if you disagree with their philosophical viewpoint,and deal with that disagreement by shouting them down,calling them horrendous names,disrupt their chance to express those ideas you disagree with,and in some cases..engage in violence..you lose the moral high ground,and whatever solid argument you had to either destroy,or at least reveal their position for the shit idea you think it may be.will be automatically dismissed by those looking from the outside in.

because you have engaged in tactics that lessen what could have been an extremely important point by becoming the very thing you state you oppose.

you do not fight authoritarian fascism.....with authoritarian,and sometimes violent...fascism.it does not work,in fact the only thing it does it weaken your position and make you look like the very thing you are opposing.

in the free market of ideas,philosophies,ideas,viewpoints,political positions all need to be openly aired in this market to be either accepted as 'good' and "worthwhile" or "of substantial consideration",or be rejected for the shit ideas they are,but they need to be openly spoken and/or written in order for people to even consider those ideas.

when you shut down any and all opportunities for a person to even SPEAK about these ideas,and using tactics that can only be considered "bullying' and "shaming".you shut own any and all conversation without the idea itself being challenged,and BOTH sides go to their respective corners still convinced of their own "righteousness",and nothing was actually addressed.

both the ultra left and the ultra right are guilty of this tactic,and in the end we all lose,but especially those players in their particular realm of ideologies.

because now they can sit happily and contentedly in their own little,tiny echo chamber bubble with their other,like-minded people,and congratulate themselves on their own righteousness.even though they were the ones who shut down all challenge,all criticism and all scrutiny.

if your ideas,and/or philosophies cannot withstand a modicum of scrutiny or criticism,then maybe those ideas were shit to begin with.

so shouting someone down,and being so disruptive as to make it impossible for that person to even begin to articulate their position,is not a "win".you did not strike a blow for equality or justice,because you pulled a fire alarm,or violently attacked a person you disagreed with.

you lost your moral high ground,and anybody who may have been on the fence,or was simply curious and wanted to hear a differing opinion.saw how you behaved when your ideas were challenged,and they outright dismissed you and your cause.

the only people you have left in your circle are the very same people who agree with you already.so enjoy the circle jerk of the self-righteous,but do not delude yourself for one second that you are "right",or have struck a blow for "justice" and "fairness".

i have been accused of being "anti-sjw", a 'closet bigot" and (this is my favorite) 'a cis-gender white privileged oppressor".

as if the goals i seek are not dissimilar as everybody elses:equality,fairness and justice.

but when i point out the wrong headed tactics of attacking innocent people just trying to listen to a persons opinions,which may possibly be:racist,bigoted and antithetical to a fair and just society.that is when i am attacked,and it is done so with the most arrogant of presumptions,with little or no evidence to back up their personal attacks upon me.

because i had the audacity to question the tactics of the protesters,and defended that speakers right to free speech.

you are free to express whatever little thought pops into your pretty little head,and i have the right ridicule you relentlessly.you are free to espouse your opinions and philisophical ideologies,but you are NOT free from offense.

because,ultimately,in the free market of ideas,if your ideas are shit.someone WILL call you out on them,and if you think the tactic of shouting people down,disrupting their lecture and/or attacking the attendees somehow makes you "right" or your cause "morally justified".it does not.it just makes you look exactly like the people you are disagreeing with,and not for nothing..it kinda make you look fucking stupid.

so let those people talk.
let them make their ill-thought arguments.
allow them to spew rhetoric and propaganda,and do what should be done in a free market of ideas.

destroy their argument,with logic,reason and a sense of fairness and justice that appeals to the majority of us.

and i mean,come on,let's be honest.there are certain portions of the population that are true believers.you are not going to change their minds but for those who are NOT fundamentalist,dogmatic thinkers,use your brains,talk to them,destroy those who propose ill-thought and bullshit arguments to reveal them for the sychophants they are.

don't be attacking them.
do not engage in violence,or disruptive behavior.
because then you lose any credibility before you have even begun.

that's my .02 anyways,take it for what it is worth.

It's sad, but I remember my friends in high school making fun of any young woman who got pregnant early in life. Yeah, I found new friends.

Some men want to make this video seem like it's an attack on all men and that this is sexism directed at them. If you think that... well, you may be right, but not about it being an attack on all men -- it's an attack on bigots.

Dude, there are a lot of ways I could explain it. I don't know which to choose because I'm worried the answer might fall on deaf ears.
I mean, what kind of a person asks someone questions they LITERALLY CANNOT ANSWER? An ass! Asses are generally bigots who do bigot things like travel to another country and expect people to understand their english eeessspeeeciaallllyyy if theeeyyyy sspeeeaaaak reeeaaallllyyyy sssslllooowwwllllyyyyyy.
It kills me when I see people exercise literal zero empathy.
This is funny though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBlwchTCHV0

Man, fuck Maher after that. Calling trans women using the bathroom "weirdos peeing", backing Milo's attack and misgendering of that trans student, and Maher lavishing in the praise of his hatred of Islam from a white nationalist troll.

Maher just planted a massive flag in the "smarmy bigot of the left"ground.

Wilmore was great, at least.

Perhaps emboldened is the wrong word. Excited is closer to correct, imo.
You don't need to be emboldened to be a bigot at the poll, but you have to be at the poll, and Trump made them excited enough that he might represent them that they went in larger than normal numbers.

I know many unapologetic bigots (some family) that clearly stated to me that Trump was the first candidate to get them excited to go vote.

I think it's clearly a combination of bigots being excited to vote and centrists having zero enthusiasm for Clinton....it was close enough for either to swing the electoral vote, but we had both, and Trump still lost the popular vote by millions. It would have taken FAR fewer than 100000 votes (as I understand the results) in the right places for it to have been a landslide for Clinton, but she ignored too many places smugly assuming she had them locked, and she didn't.

It's disgusting that the recounts were denied, based on Trump's administration's claims under oath that there wasn't fraud....a claim he's publicly reversed, now claiming there were 5000000 fraudulent votes. Many states were so close that a recount should have been required without request. We'll never know what the vote may have really been now, once again a Republican doesn't want the results verified. It's as if they want to be seen as illegitimate by 1/2 the country....but really more like they fear they may actually BE illegitimate and don't want to find out the truth.

That's the funny thing about an anonymous vote, you don't need to be emboldened to be a bigot at the poll...

You need to be emboldened to come out on the street and wave awful signs around, but not to vote.

And bigots are the most motivated (along with authoritarian control types, many of which sit to the left of center). They are more likely to vote at every election even when the candidates don't necessarily fulfill their beliefs.

All things being equal, I'd hypothesize that Trump won because the centrists and disaffected Sanders voters ditched Hillary rather than embracing Trump. She didn't make mistakes, she wholesale spat in the face of many groups she just didn't give a fuck about, and it came back to bite her in the ass.

Why does it have to be one or the other? It's pretty clear a huge group of racist/misogynistic people rallied around Trump for saying the things that they thought but couldn't say out loud in public. Him saying those things and not getting absolutely destroyed for it (thanks to mass media which just ate it up as fuel for ratings) brought them out of the woodwork, if not the woods exactly.

On the other hand, Hillary herself failed time and again to capitalize on his gaffs. Clearly her strategy of just letting him implode without actually trying to push him off a cliff herself backfired. Burr is right that the advice she got not to sink to his level, not to outright challenge the outrageous stuff he was saying (and now doing) was wrong. She picked the wrong team of people to advise her. She didn't campaign in key swing states. She (and to honest most Americans) vastly underestimated the desperation of the poorest blue collar workers around the U.S. She never had a clear campaign platform other than to show up, look smug, and essentially say "Hey, at least I'm not THAT guy!" There were people who took that to mean she represented the status quo. They might have hated what Trump was saying but they hated the status quo even more and voted accordingly.

So, in my mind, it's both things. She absolutely made mistakes AND a shitload of emboldened bigots came out to vote. It was the combination of these things that caused her downfall.

@enoch
I admit I totally dont get the performance itself and dont understand the context, but then freedom of speech and whatever makes anyone happy and so on. The thought that this might be some sort of stand up humor did enter my mind, but I was not sure when to laugh.

What I find entertaining is the juxtaposition of right wing agenda and a guy dressed up and acting like that.

I totally dont know what the recipe is for dealing with muslim bigots who feel the need to be insulted every time someone criticises or makes fun of them. They have a weird way of having their misplaced pride cloud their reasoning. Religion.

Ban Arab Muslims, except from places that have attacked us, and tell all other Muslim countries that more is coming, they may be next.
Terror linked is a different category from terrorist sponsoring, and those nations are not banned. That's absolutely retarded.

I guess he's ignorant of the fact that the right was frothing at the mouth because Obama refused to just arm anyone fighting against Assad and insisted on VETTING them before he armed them. Had Trump and the Republicans been in control, Daesh may have been given battlefield nukes.

The "exemption" to the un-American refugee ban doesn't start for 120 days, and is then ONLY if Trump's people think it's in the national interest to let them in on a case by case basis (based on what, determined by whom?)....which is not likely for those worth less than $5000000. I guess he didn't read the text before calling others delusional or he would have read that.

Oops, the 2014 attack was also preformed by an American, as others have been....I guess we have to ban Americans too.

Yes, because America VETTS those we invite in...contrary to what most right wing idiots believe. They use Europe as an example of what will happen if we don't stop the scary Muslims, conveniently ignoring the vetting process that's completely non existent in Europe.

He's saying that people treated as the enemy often become the enemy, you feculent douche. Learn to read...and think.

Trump is just the bigot. Period. It's absolutely correct that if Muslims were as dangerous as portrayed and treated by Trump and the right, he would have been assassinated. That's a good indicator that Trump is wrong, not that all Muslims are easily radicalized or a call for assassination like the right spent 8 years doing directly and personally towards Obama.

Not a single Syrian that supports Daesh has made it through the vetting process to America.

They don't ban Israelis because of religion, they are banned because they are all in the military and that military is an expansionist fascist oppressor of and provocateur to Palestinians and most other Arab nations. I'm fairly certain Jews from America can go there.

What a fucking brain dead, dishonest idiot.
Mostly good tags though, this is certainly chock full of fail and lies, fearmongering, and has mostly been debunked....but it's absolutely not news in any way. I'll let someone else fix that though.

One of the more sensible things Trump has talked about doing is to repair and expand infrastructure. The wall could fall under that heading, and potentially even be a semi-positive thing (at least sections of it).

Big public works and infrastructure projects helped bring the US out of the Great Depression. Big public works and infrastructure projects helped prevent an economic crash after WW2 finished and soldiers returned home.

The wall is somewhat racist/bigoted in motivation, but illegal immigration is a real issue with real, tangible, negative effects. Building or attempting to build the wall would/will create jobs. Manning, maintaining, and watching the wall would/will create more jobs. And while the wall couldn't ever prevent all or even most illegal immigration, it could make it harder or less convenient enough to encourage going through the correct channels and procedures to come in legally instead. Which would be a good thing. Overall, I think a project like the wall could have much greater long-term value than something like the TSA, which is a colossal waste of money that produces ZERO real benefits.


However, realistically I doubt that much will actually happen with the wall. Not very much will actually get built, and any that does will probably NOT be maintained by whoever the next president is. So, long-term benefits are likely nil. Obviously, I'd prefer that Trump spend more money on building/repairing infrastructure that actually will have long-term benefits -- the interstate system, dams and flood prevention systems, etc. But there is some potential for construction on the wall to actually be a good thing, even if it is never completed and/or maintained.