It’s definitely inexplicable, since there were no Mexicans in Red Dawn.
Kelly attempted to conflate his remarks about one woman in the main (Rosie O’Donnell) and an off-color joke about another (Playboy Playmate Brandi Roderick) into blanket sexism and a “war against women”. If that isn’t political correctness in action I don’t know what is.
For the record, Trump makes unneeded, disparaging remarks about lots of men in order to belittle them too. It’s only when the targets are women that accusations of bigotry suddenly arise. Political correctness basically holds that women and minorities are untouchable…and unless they’re the planet’s only perfect people, there’s obviously a problem with that.
That is the kind of political correctness Trump is fighting against.
Mexicans, Cubans, what’s the diff? 
Let’s go to the quarry and throw stuff down there this whole post is hilarious! Also delusional, specious and notional, but above all hilarious!
Are you sure? I haven’t seen the movie in ages, but I distinctly remember them mentioning Mexico in the opening intro text.
ETA: According to IMDB, the dialogue is “That’s right. Infiltrators came up illegal from Mexico. Cubans mostly. They managed to infiltrate SAC bases in the Midwest, several down in Texas and wreaked a helluva lot of havoc, I’m here to tell you. They opened up the door down here, and the whole Cuban & Nicaraguan armies come walking right through, rolled right up here through the Great Plains.”
I stand corrected.
Well, then he retweeted something to call Megyn Kelly a bimbo. So, three women. Just those three, though, as far as I know, so we’re good.
(bolding mine)
Wow, you really don’t get it, do you? I mean, this post, and especially the part I bolded, shows that you just don’t understand some of the fundamentals of society, at least not as most people seem to understand them.
I’ll try and help you out, tho I don’t think it’ll actually do any good: in general, people are never bigots towards groups they themselves are members of. Do you understand that as a concept, or should I try and clarify further?
What’s delusional, specious and notional, but above all hilarious is the fact you still cling to that “take things to the quarry” gag, despite the fact that virtually everyone who’s seen it has told you it’s silly, cumbersome and doesn’t remotely work as a ‘thing’.
What you and the rest of the politically correct crowd don’t get is that Trump’s comments weren’t bigoted in the first place. They were aimed at individual women and were no more a slam against womanhood in general than his insults against individual males are a slam against manhood. It’s the politically correct crowd who decided that a slur against any woman is a slur against all and therefore sexist. Then they proceed from their self-proclaimed ‘fact’ as though it were incontrovertible and use it to lambaste anyone making a disparaging comment about any woman anywhere as a sexist pig. The fact that so many people buy into this crap is what I don’t understand.
Rubio is my prediction; I’m not going to vote for the GOP candidate, but he does strike me as someone who can garner popular support. His biggest weakness is his inexperience, but I don’t think that would be much of a problem in the general election, since he can deflect charges that he isn’t experienced enough by pointing out how little time in politics Obama had in 2008 (thereby accusing the Dems of hypocrisy). And, as we saw here, he will respond by arguing that he is the leader “for the future”, which might resonate.
[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
Kelly attempted to conflate his remarks about one woman in the main (Rosie O’Donnell) and an off-color joke about another (Playboy Playmate Brandi Roderick) into blanket sexism and a “war against women”. If that isn’t political correctness in action I don’t know what is.
[/QUOTE]
I disagree. What Kelly did was reference his remarks as a basis to ask if he had the right “temperament” to be President, which I interpreted as asking him if he would react to people who vigorously opposed him as President with dismissive insults. She also asked how he would respond to charges that those remarks represented misogyny, which I interpreted as asking him how he would fare against a female Democratic candidate who will try to use it against him. I don’t think that she was accusing him of sexism and waging a “war against women”.
In actuality, it was an easy pitch to let him respond with all of his credentials as a gender-blind businessman who puts women in positions of power. The fact that he doubled down on his insults (essentially threatening Kelly by suggesting that she was next on his shit list) shows that he wasn’t ready to actually answer the charges.
I was impressed that the Fox echo chamber was largely absent for this debate. Megyn Kelly has always been quick to tell her colleagues when they’re saying stupid things, but she and the others throwing hardballs at the leading Pub candidates was unexpected. I think Jeb, Trump and some others were not prepared for that, and it showed in their answers. Trump complained afterwards that he didn’t like the questions directed to him. Poor baby.
I watched with some curiosity to see how Fox’s preferences might manifest. Can’t really say that I could put my finger on it. Seems to me they assigned an intern to do Kasich’s makeup, looked like he was blending in with the crimson background behind him. But I wouldn’t necessarily think that meant they were biased against him, coulda just happened.
I’m amused by two things Starving Artist has said:
- Dissing the ‘modern cult of political correctness.’
Because it’s not like conservatives don’t have any PC stances of their own, from climate change to tax cuts to gun control to government regulation to immigration to Iran to poor Christian bakers and florists being victims of gay marriage.
- The notion that Trump brought the immigration issue to the fore.
In his second term, Bush tried to pass an immigration reform bill. The Dems were ready to negotiate; Bush’s fellow Republicans killed it. And after the 2012 election, the GOP leadership thought maybe they’d better start being less hostile to Hispanics, so they decided to try immigration reform again - you recall Rubio was the point man for this effort. But the base rose up and shouted it down. And the GOP candidates have all taken immigration positions to please their base. So this one’s been front-burner; it’s just that Trump’s been willing to say the impolitic things that a good chunk of the GOP base believes.
I liked Kasich’s closing statement about how “we’re stronger when we are united and we are weaker when we are divided.”
I find it very ironic based on his attempts to kill unions in Ohio.
So your defense that he’s not a sexist is that he’s an unprovoked jerk to a lot of people? I can understand that being entertaining, but it’s not what I want in a president, and it surprises me that other people would want it.
And maybe he’s not sexist, but if not, he’s clueless at best. Here’s a page with the context for the various insults that Kelly was referencing. It doesn’t make him sound much better.
I’m not at all a Megyn Kelly fan, but she shouldn’t be called a bimbo, and accusing a woman of being angry as a way of dismissing her is a common sexist attack.
This government was founded on Christianity! That’s why the Pilgrims came to Jamestown on the Santa Maria! To escape gay athiests!
Other than Paul, did any of them express an interest in not bombing Iran?
Never mind for a moment which candidates you like or hate. If any of them were a close friend of yours, and he/she asked, “Is it time for me to get out, or do I still have a chance” what would you tell them?
My answer: everyone in the first debate except Carly Fiorina should drop out immediately. Bye Rick Perry. So long Jim Gilmore. Hasta la vista, George Pataki. Sayonara, Bobby Jindal (don’t count on staying governor long, either). Sorry, Rick Santorum.
As for the Big Ten, Ben Carson proved conclusively that he doesn’t belong. He’s an intelligent, highly decent man, but he doesn’t belong on the big stage. Let him run for something smaller. Much smaller.
I’d tell Huckabee and Christie that it’s time to go home, too… but they may still think they have a shot (they don’t).
Everyone in the first debate should drop out with a possible exception for Fiorina for the VP slot, plus Ben Carson, Rand Paul, and Chris Christie. They aren’t going to win, they aren’t going to be chosen as VP, and they aren’t going to shift the debate.
Picking the winner of the first debate to me is like picking the best brand of cola. If I really try I can pick out some subtle difference that makes one stand out, but really they’re all pretty much the same. They were all saying the same things in the same way. After watching I went to look up who everyone thought the “winner” was, and my reaction was “sure, okay”.
What I didn’t really understand, though, was that in both debates, several candidates got question of the form, “Seeing as how you suck, why should you be president?”, with Jindal, it was “Everyone hates you in Louisiana”, with Cristy it was “New Jersey’s a hellhole”, with Trump it was “You’re misogynist asshat”, with Carson it was “You don’t know anything a president should know”, etc. So, then we have Fiorina, whose entire basis for her candidacy, seems to be that she ran Hewlett Packard for a few years. But she did a complete shit job at it, and no one called her on it. Not the moderators, not the other candidates.
In the second debate, Trump just kept being Trump. Going on about how stupid and terrible everyone else is, with out really giving any specifics on how he’d do better. It seems like that should be a negative, but it got him this far. The most “what the hell?” moments for me were Walker and Rubio actually coming out against abortion to save the mother’s life. Wow. Then they called that being pro-LIFE.
As far as who won, Kasich seemed to do the best. Maybe it was the home field advantage, but the crowd really liked him. Giving credit where it’s due, I have to say I was pleasantly surprised by their reaction to his comments about gays. That was one of the most enthusiastic applauses of the night. Remember a few years ago when they were booing a soldier for being gay?
Having watched both debates, I can say one thing for certain: none of those people should be president. Although, for all his faults, at least Paul is the only one who doesn’t want to start World War III as soon as he takes office. Have these clowns even been paying attention for the last decade and a half? Did they go into a coma some time around early 2003?