Let's walk through this. F@ggot for example, is a slur. A derogatory word for gay men. There's nothing wrong with gay people. It's simply a characteristic. Bitch is another derogatory word. It's both used to insult women and as a sexist way to insult men. But there's nothing wrong with being a woman.
There are slurs for Jews, black people, Latin people, people with various disabilities and so many other neutral characteristics.
That's true of most every slur or bit of name-calling. An ugly word in place of an accurate word to attack someone for having a neutral characteristic or being a member of a non threatening and peaceful group of society.
But bigot? Nope.
Being called a bitch, f@ggot, N-word is worse than actually being female, gay, or black.
However being a bigot is worse than being called one.
It's an accurate and commonly understood word for someone with a huge antisocial character flaw. Being a bigot is objectively bad. Racism, sexism, homophobia, and the like contribute nothing useful or positive to our culture or society. In fact, quite the opposite.
To say bigot is a slur is to pretend bigotry has anything valuable to contribute and is being unfairly maligned based on myth and ignorance.
Nope. Bigotry is toxic, on its own merits, taken as it is presented. No need for myth or legend, the truth is objectionable all on it's own.
I think individuals who are more likely to claim "bigot" as a slur do so out of being defensive. They attempt to justify or legitimize their own use of actual slurs by drawing this false equivalence. It's a way to manipulate the situation and make it look like they are somehow the victim being derided when they are just being called out for unacceptable language/behavior.
1. Her flirtation with pseudoscience. I expect better of someone claiming to be an MD. Yes, she's clarified she's not anti-vax, but she seems to have no problem being vague enough about it to get their votes. Her suggestion that WiFi might be harmful is laughably silly. WiFi signals are so weak they can't even break chemical bonds, for goodness sakes.
2. She has no experience. POTUS is not an entry level position. Before I'd be willing to "try" a 3rd Party candidate I'd appreciate if they ran a successful high profile Non-profit, been mayor of a decent sized city, governor, state rep, congressional rep BEFORE they throw their hat in the ring. The job is too important to hand over to a novice.
3. She has no record. This dovetails with her lack of experience. We haven't seen Jill Stein get anything done. Most of her campaigns have failed. We haven't seen her even attempt to make good on a promise, or see how she handles a difficult decision. It's all hypothetical with her.
4. She hasn't been vetted by the media. We have no clue what else she's been arrested for besides some protesting shenanigans. We have no clue about her lies or scandals because the media has mostly ignored her. No one is trying to dig up dirt on her or expose any potentially damning "sins". Don't forget that even muckraking is a test of how a candidate handles that sort of media issue. And the thing is, she could have zero skeletons in her closet, but for me I'd like to have confirmation of that. All we have is Jill Stein's version of Jill Stein. That's like buying a house based solely on what the seller tells you over the phone.
Consider all that when you consider how appealing Stein is to you. Of course she seems that way, she's a political virgin. But that doesn't mean she's necessarily the superior candidate, it just means she's an unknown unknown. For me, I'm unwilling to gamble on someone I know so little about.
We don't mean any fool can walk in the door and be successful at it. That the job is that simple, that easy, that clear cut. It's a complex and dynamic job, and it's probably the hardest job in the country.
I won't bore you with the math argument that I'm sure you're sick of hearing. Instead, I'm going to point out an election rule you may not be familiar with.
Each state handles write in votes differently.
- There are 9 states that do not allow Write-Ins period.
- There are 34 states that allow Write-In Candidates, BUT the candidate MUST register with the state XYZ number of days/weeks before the election.
- There are 8 states that allow write-ins without any special stipulation.
- Considering that Bernie has thrown his support to Clinton, it's unlikely that he bothered to register the paperwork for the 34 states that require it.
Which means, the odds are, if you write-in Bernie Sanders, your vote will not be counted, nor will it be reported. It will be as if you didn't cast a vote at all for President. Post election, the data on write-ins will ONLY show those that met the legal requirements for that state.
It goes without saying that you can do whatever you wish, but you should at least know what will be the outcome.
(yes, the state totals add up to 51, remember that Washington D.C. is not a state, but residents still get to vote, so they are included.)
This is worth a read. But if you don't feel like it:
"Perjury", in other words, lying, requires that you knowingly give false information. Not forgetting. Not mistaken. Proving it requires to show that you said ABC while KNOWING it was false. Being wrong or mistaken is not perjury.
Inconsistencies between two people's testimonies is not proof of lying or perjury. Nor is deciding someone meant XYZ and thus lied, you have to actually prove it based on what was actually said, not what someone else might decide that means.
Talking about a person's positive character traits does not come easily to me but I have been forced into this position by the stakes of the election and by my own disgust at the current state of popular opinion in some circles.
So here are some patterns you probably have missed:
1) She responds personally.
She responds to letters personally. She sends letters to strangers she is impressed by. I can't tell you how many letters and messages to strangers from Hillary Clinton I have seen over the last year. It's almost as if the woman doesn't know what a form letter is. The subject of this Wonkette blog links to a few such message. And these messages are not formal, aloof or short. When Hillary Clinton writes you a letter it is impressive. You can tell, this is a woman of letters. She writes. She reads. She connects with you in the art of the letter - all while running for POTUS.
2) She intercedes personally.
I've read about several people (and even met one person) who have stories of Hillary Clinton making calls and putting pressure on institutions on their behalf. None of the people she's helping are known to her. None of them are connected to her in any way. But from making calls for individual 9/11 first responders and for veterans trying to get care from the VA, to changing State Department policy on acceptable IDs when she became aware that trans State Dept. employees were running into difficulties - she gets involved. She does good works for no external reward.
3) She keeps promises.
She makes a point of following through, of staying loyal, of keeping her word to anyone to whom she gives it. It doesn't matter if you're a poor girl from the Bronx if she's promised to attend your High School graduation - she'll be there. Just about everyone who's ever worked with her has said as much. Some of her most viscous enemies have come away after working with her in person and said, on the record, she works hard and she keeps her word.
However, THESE are not stereotypical masculine character traits. THESE are stereotypical feminine character traits. And so you either never hear about them or you dismiss them or you discount them. They are not podium pounding. They are not angry. They don't fit the image in your mind of what a famous person does - how a famous person treats strangers. They conflict with your expectations of a politician.
But they are real and they are powerful and they are, as far as I can tell, the pattern of her life.
And so it's left to me - a bumbling goof who doesn't express himself very well to speak up, to say "Hey, um, don't believe those really nasty lies about this good woman."
Inexperienced and unprepared are not good things.
I have a less common take on social networking. I'm not interested in becoming famous for my Google+ posts, nor do I care to spread my "influence" far and wide.
Reasons I won't be circling you back:
-You're using an obviously fictitious name. While Google+ no longer requires real names, I prefer them. I find there's less trolling and drama when people don't get to hide behind a fake name.
-You're posting NSFW content publicly. I am often in places where others can see my screen, including work, and I don't want to have explain genitals to coworkers, bosses, or angry parents. Part of my job involves social media.
-You have no posts visible to me or no posts and no pictures. How am I to get a sense of who you are and what you're about if you don't have any posts?
-You've got hundreds or thousands of people circled. I value quality over quantity. I sincerely doubt you have the time to keep up with posts from hundreds/thousands of people, which means it's also unlikely that you will have the time to get to know me in any significant way. There's nothing wrong with circling hundreds of people, that's just not how I network.
-You haven't posted anything I can see in several weeks/months.