She will have the same restrictions as anyone running for POTUS (must be 35+). Like her energy though.
For those getting their panties twisted over the “gay” part, she’s using “gay” the old way, before it was perverted, as a tongue-in-cheek insult to lace-panty wearers running our governments nowadays.
We fully understand she is using that word as an insult. That’s the issue.
So she is telling people not to be weak and happy??
I work with a lot of Latino folks who use the word gay quite often as well as the Hispanic slur versions of the word. They are clearly never using it to mean happy and are always using it as an insult.
Words are a lot more powerful than bullets. Equating groups of people with traits we dislike is a dehumanizing tactic meant to divide. It is a tactic used by our political parties to divide the left from the right and it is used by our foreign adversaries to divide our country in all sorts of different directions to make sure we are too busy fighting each other to interfere with their agendas.
More importantly, once a group succeeds in dehumanizing another group the door is opened to the various atrocities and genocides we see in the past and present. I feel this country is in serious need of leaders who can unite us together to solve our problems. Instead we have a bunch of dividers shredding us apart for personal gain.
Case in point. I have several black friends who would find this word choice to be directly insulting to them. While I know that you are not making a racial statement here, others that don’t know you so well will likely jump to significantly different conclusions since there is a long history in this country of racists equating blacks to primates. That word choice will cause many people to tune out and ignore all the other incredibly useful information you have to share.
I dislike Harris as much as anyone. She has horrendous leadership skills, a very poor record on civil rights and is clearly part of the inept and self serving kleptocrat class that has been running our country into the ground for the past several decades. But calling her a baboon will instantly bring up past derogatory racial connotations in the minds of many. And quite frankly it is an insult to real baboons. Here incompetence has nothing to do with here racial background, as I am sure you would agree.
When talking with a broader audience it is wise to choose our words carefully if we seek to have any chance of sharing the importance of our point of view with them. Without the support and cooperative efforts of diverse groups of people on the left and the right the 2A and this country are toast. If we want to make positive change in the world we all need to choose our words more carefully.
You mean like BLM successfully labeling all white people as racist?
Or the LGBTQ community labeling all straights as oppressing their rights?
What about feminists and their successful emasculation of men everywhere?
Heaven forbid you be born a straight white man!!!
Sure.
I understand where you’re trying to go with that, and the last thing the world needs is more genocide. (Sure could use a solid plague or massive space rock about now though)
But I doubt she’s suggesting genocide agains gays by saying that!
Thank you
That wasn’t Shamrock’s claim. But Shamrock is absolutely correct, dehumanizing groups of people does absolutely open the door to atrocities and genocides. We ourselves point to disarmament of The People also contributing to opening that door as a reason to oppose gun control…and it is also a reason to oppose insulting entire groups of people based on things like race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc.
Just…let’s just stop insulting whole groups of people over these things. It only hurts, us and everybody else
I doubt she is as well. But that kind of us versus them language is what opens the door to the slippery slope that often leads to violence and sometimes genocide against specific groups. Most people have an aversion to harming other human beings without significant reason. So in order to gain power leaders need to convince their would be supporters that their “enemies” are less than human. Doesn’t matter whether it is Neo Nazis against Jews and blacks, straights against gays, gays against straights, or BLM members against whites. The goal is the same. Divide and conquer.
It is easy for a wanna be leader of some social group to put themselves up by putting others down. But eventually the others will get the opportunity to return the favor. In the end that us vs them just brings everyone down. It’s a lot harder to work together with others in order to find lasting solutions that can work reasonably well for everyone. Every once in a great while there is a great leader who can bring everyone together for the common good. Unfortunately that usually doesn’t last for long and we devolve back into tribalism, which is the easiest social structure for strong arming, self serving bullies to rise to power in by playing the us vs them game.
It is a cycle we seem doomed to repeat until we eventually evolve past our caveman instincts or make ourselves extinct
Gotta go to the orange man bad with everything don’t you. Are you going to flag me again for calling you out?
Like calling a h-m-s-xual “gay”, for example. That is calling him something he is not.
Merriam-Webster:
happily excited : MERRY
in a gay mood
keenly alive and exuberant : having or inducing high spirits
a bird’s gay spring song
You don’t want a keenly alive and happy VP? Why not?
She’s got my vote. We need more out spoken young people. She ain’t scared.
Yes, because that is not the original meaning of the word… as I have already explained, the word was co-opted by the h-m-s-xuals. The history of that is readily available in an internet query, which you have shown you are capable of doing. End of discussion.
The word means what it means, we know what it means, and it’s meant that for decades (I’m hearing it in old Seinfeld episodes as we speak)
And we know what meaning is being used when people callously use it as an insult
So, let’s stop doing that.
It’s pretty deceitful to use a dictionary entry to claim the definition is not what it is…and omit the #1 entry in the dictionary because it doesn’t fit what you want
Besides, if you really think the politician in the OP is telling people “don’t be happy”…why would we want a politician telling people to choose not to be happy?
OMG. I stated that the original meaning was not h-m-s-xual. Again, etymology proves it did not mean h-m-s-xual until they co-opted the word. So we should call all semi-auto rifles “assault weapons” because the antis call them that?
As to what I told you her meaning of gay was not h-m-s-xual, you stated she should not be allowed to use that word to mean other than h-m-s-xual, but you saw in the online dictionary it has other meanings, too. So, are we no longer allowed to use those other meanings? I told you that since the 90s that it described to the younger generations a quality of something being stupid or odd (in a stupid) way. You stated they should not be allowed to use it that way.
Take from that, back when h-m-s-xuals co-opted the word, would you have stated they should not be allowed to use it to mean h-m-s-xual? why is this such a difficult idea for you to understand? You seem to be actively refusing to understand. It is not a difficult concept.
I did not state that. Be honest. I told you what it means to younger generations.
I didn’t realize she was saying “don’t be happy”
That’s pretty depressing
You are being stupid now. Read what I stated it means to the younger generations.
I see you edited your post.
What, in your opinion, was the definition of the word as she used it when she told people to not be it?
Don’t be…what?
You saw I edited the post, but could not read what I posted? You cannot read my originial post, either? You are being intentionally obtuse.
