Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
As far as I'm concerned, anyone who did political work for that piece of shit gets what they deserve.
Typical reactionaries: they're only upset when they become the target of the hatered they were slinging.
It's not like it was a secret that Trump and team are a hugely vindictive bag of assholes.
This woman has done so much work for many people who worked on the campaign. She has spent her own resources to get the NDAs that her and others signed declared non binding, or whatever the legal term is.
I'm not a fan of Trump supporters, but telling them to pound sand because they supported him at some point but have seen the errors in their ways will do us no favors.
If you stop being a fascist, you get a "good job, now roll up your sleeves and help undo the damage."
She helped empower the people who are harassing her (and countless others); I'm glad that she's working to reverse that, but she doesn't get a cookie for her efforts- she (hopefully) gets to live in a society that doesn't put up with this shit.
She must atone before she is taken seriously.
When you work for Trump - you are expendable.
It's why we're seeing all of these former Trump colleagues going around like "Why, why did he do this to me?" "Why, I was special to him!!"
Trump only cares about Trump.
spoiler
asdfasfasfasfas
She was working to make sure that far worse harassment happened to much more vulnerable people.
I'm not going to cry when she gets some splash damage.
Back then, most people didn't understand the threat that was Trump. I sure didn't know all of the horrific things he did. This was pre Epstein. This was before Stormy.
I thought he was just a bombastic rich asshole with a shit political outlook.
Someone taking a job in that campaign had no reason to think it would be toxic. Most campaigns are not run by the candidate but by the party.
I mean, he began his political career by a racist attack on Obama.
He started his campaign by calling Mexican immigrants rapists and drug dealers.
He said a judge couldn't be fair to him because the guy had Mexican heritage.
He openly campaigned on a Muslim ban in the US and commiting war crimes by killing the families of terrorists.
There was a tape where he admitted to sexual assault.
Any ignorance to the fact that he was a vile, racist, bigoted rapist was intentional. Doubly so if she worked to get him elected.
Correct. Everyone full well knew what a sack of shit he was. 2016 at the absolute latest. Everyone in New York knew for decades. She knew.
You'd think someone politically connected enough to work for him would know.
There's a difference in victim blaming via " what was she wearing" and someone knowingly walking into a lions den while wearing a meat dress like Lady Gag.
It would be a little different if she didn't actively work to empower a person whose platform revolves around harassing and silencing women who have been sexually assaulted.
Being a bad person does not mean you give up any assumption of basic human dignity.
People who take people's dignity in an inhumane manor do not themselves deserve to be treated with basic dignity. That's just inviting a paradox of abuse.
Exactly.
There's a big difference between blaming the victim and reaping the whirlwind.
spoiler
asdfasfasfasfas
That's okay, people are allowed to have differing opinions. I was just curious about the extent of your world view. It seems to invite internal contradictions, or at least rely on a hefty amount of cognitive dissidence.
For example, if no one deserves that type of treatment, what does the person committing or enabling those acts deserve?
If they deserve a punishment, why not the one they laid upon others? Is it because of the nature of the treatment is somehow worse than other punishments? If it is worse for some reason, why do they deserve better treatment than what they serve to others?
Absolutely losing it over "cognitive dissidence". I know you meant "dissonance", but the way you spelled it is probably more accurate.
"Cognitive dissonance" is when a person's behaviors don't match their stated values or beliefs. It's basically a fancy word for hypocrisy as it relates to argumentation / debate. I'm not seeing it in @[email protected]'s argument here. They're basically just disagreeing with you about whether or not Conservatives deserve suffering. They've been perfectly consistent in their reasoning, and you haven't offered any actual justification for your position aside from a petty appeal to disgust.
"Cognitive dissidence" reads like "If you disagree with me you're wrong", which is exactly your attitude here.
Cognitive dissonance" is when a person's behaviors don't match their stated values or beliefs. It's basically a fancy word for hypocrisy as it relates to argumentation / debate.
I don't think thats the definition of cognitive dissonance. It's just holding two conflicting ideas at the same time, so your behaviour is by default not aligning with your ideas, because it's impossible.
I'm not seeing it in @[email protected]'s argument here.
I think the cognitive dissonance lies in the fact that they state no one should be subjected to that behavior, but they are arguing in favour of a person who is perpetuating the action upon others.
whether or not Conservatives deserve suffering
Right, but they were the only person who brought in the concept of "deserve", it's a strawman argument.
Deserve implies some sort of ethical construct to judge the justification of the action. When in reality we are not choosing wether or not this action is being done, just witnessing it.
Cognitive dissidence"
Yeah, for some reason my autocorrect really like dissidence over dissonance. But I'd say that's a fairly pedantic point to base your argument.
What!? The trump campaign harassing women?!
/s (because internet)
A federal magistrate judge has ordered the campaign to produce by May 31 a list of all discrimination and harassment complaints made during Trump’s 2016 and 2020 presidential runs
That is going to be a long list.
The last bullet point should be “undue stress and hardship having to enumerate all of this endless bullshit.”
Who are these harassed women going to vote for? Cause I have a feeling they didn't learn
The Serena Waterfords of the Republican Party are going to vote for Ronald McDonald. Or maybe some BS third party candidate, or do a ridiculous write-in protest vote like children.
But never for the Democratic Party, I mean, my stars! Can you imagine, voting for the Democratic Party?
I’m Nikki Haley and I approve this message… probably
I never thought leopards would eat my face...
-Average Leopards-Eating-Faces party voter-
I'm shocked that, SHOCKED I tellz ya, that MAGA shitheads would berate women for anything other than staying barefoot and preggers in the kitchen.
I feel like MAGA shit heads would also find a way to berate women for being barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.
Something about leopards and faces comes to mind.
No sympathy. Idiots.
Sympathy for Trump supporters who get their faces eaten by leopards might be difficult to muster, but it's probably an effective outreach strategy.