But the Obama administration didn't declare that the innocent citizens of those countries (that is to say - the people ISIS are slaughtering) aren't allowed to run away from the terrorists who are killing them.
the clue is in the name. The word "Extreme" literally means "beyond the pale" and "too much", "unacceptable", "excessive". There is absolutely no scenario where "government action" and "extreme" in the same sentence is ever a good thing.
If Trump wanted to convince Americans that this was an appropriate response to a threat (as incredibly small as the threat is)... then he would not have called it "extreme" - the message is pretty clear, this is an act of war against the world - especially America's fellow signatories of the refugee convention - who are now having to pick up the slack as their partner shirks it's agreed responsibilities. Has our dear fascist emperor asked himself what happens is they follow suite (who could blame them ?) The few who are open and likely to stay so (Canada right now, Germany says so but that could change if the election doesn't go Merkels way) wouldn't be able to take everybody.... and the refugees won't stop fleeing the horrors that drove them from their homes in the first place. I've got a hint for the president - if you close your borders to refugees, they STILL come - only now they come as illegal immigrants. The only possible outcome of extreme vetting... is ZERO vetting. Nobody vets illegal immigrants.
Nice stereotype you got there would be a shame if something happened to it. Oh crap. Its a scientiffic fact that conservatives are far more anxious than liberals and readily swayed by fear - especially unrealistic fears. Just look how afraid they are of refugees - no liberal would let millions die out of fear that a few may be terrorists. We are just not that scared of them. But we do know facts. And its a fact that abortion cannot be banned. Only safety in abortion can be banned. That is what the global gag order does - and it kills millions.
I'm afraid nothing in those stories make me doubt he is a serial sexual assaulter. At worst, I see a victim suffering from such severe PTSD as a result of what happened to her at a very young age that her capacity to make her case very well suffers for it, and some opportunists who tried to use her for their own ends. I don't see any reason to doubt her claims. Now, those details, may have been a cause to doubt it, if there wasn't also a tape in which he admitted to serial assault - and dozens of OTHER credible complaints against him.
I'm not a court of law, I can't find him guilty - but I can sure say that with the facts as known, I'd say the preponderance of available evidence points to him being guilty. Frankly the man has never in his entire life shown, for a single moment, the slightest shred of decency, honesty or conscience. So it becomes quite impossible for me to believe that there is anything so unconscionable he WOULDN'T do it. It's like arguing that one of the murders Dahmer was convicted of couldn't have been him because it was too gruesome for him.
You're like a guy who sticks a gun against somebody's head and says "Just because every other time somebody took a large calibre bullet to the brain at point blanc range doesn't mean you'll die THIS time".
In other words... a moron.
If you're going to argue there is any chance in hell that THIS time the global gag order will NOT kill millions of women - you have to give evidence for that insane statement, show something that is different in the world now that will change the outcome. You did nothing of the kind. You just want us to look on at somebody doing something that has never failed to kill millions of people... and what ? Hope for the best ?
Actually, wrong, 45 Cal Lugers DO exist. They are very rare and only a few were ever made, but they are a thing. At least one was plated in gold and last sold at auction for over a million dollars.
We don't KNOW who they were from so whoever told you that HAD to be making it up - there is literally no way of knowing. The unknown person who laid the charges dropped them after he was elected and her identity was never made public.
Seriously... is this what passes for "news" in the rightwing world ? Stories that are literally IMPOSSIBLE to be true ?
No, that is decidedly NOT what he said. What he said was you can grab them without asking and get away with it. Without asking = without consent.
He NEVER suggested they were throwing themselves at him. If he had LIBERALS wouldn't give a damn. We think that's their right ! We were NEVER upset about the word pussy (republicans were). WE were upset about the word "grab".
Listen to it again, the whole thing. He is clearly bragging that he can grab women by their genitals without asking permission and get away with it.
Seriously though - do you think that the global gag rule is anything BUT signing a death warrant for millions of women ? Because it's been that every time a republican has signed it since Reagan, is it somehow going to magically *not* kill them this time ? And don't come with "taxpayer money for abortions" - that doesn't happen anywhere domestically or abroad though republicans love pretending it does to keep their base riled up. And the law against that has nothing whatsoever to do with the global gag order, that's the Helm's act.
They may be left wing talking points. They are also true. And I'm not preaching civil insurrection. i'm preaching self defence.
We've been listening to conservatives promise to take up arms against the government if it threatens their freedom all our lives. Now the government actually IS threatening people's freedom... and you can't handle the fact that it's the LIBERALS who are actually willing to DO it.
I think in-group loyalty is a big part, but there are more. Conservative respect for authority includes tradition and they habe a strong moral value around sexual purity (one liberals also do not share). Then they see welfae going out indiscriminately so "others" get it (goes against in-group loyalty), people who violate their sexual purity values (such as gay or transgender people) get it... and worst if all single mothers get it, and get more than most ! That is rewarding promiscuous black women for their premarital sex !
Now I do not agree with any of this stuff... but I can see how, if you consider group loyalty and sexual purity to be key moral values, welfare could appear to you to be promoting immorality (it doesn't it just refuses to punish individuals for having broken communities).
>People talk about "toxic masculinity" but "toxic femininity" is never mentioned; women are encouraged to embrace their aspects, while men are discouraged.
You seem to have missed that "toxic" is a qualifier. It's not a critique of masculinity. Only of that part of masculine cultural expectation which is toxic to other people. The part that says bullies are doing their victims a favour by forcing them to toughen up. The part that has football teams gangrape girls. The part that thinks gaybashing proves your masculinity. The part that has locker room talk not be just sexual but be objectifying.
And that part decidedly IS toxic.
It is, also, the part that makes it so any man who doesn't fit it's presuppositions of what manhood should be gets tortured for it. Attacking toxic masculinity IS encouraging men to be allowed to be themselves. It's attacking the very thing that stops them. And the truth is that the vast majority of feminists are women - so the rhetoric tends to focus more on their perspectives. It's not that they don't care about the poor boy stuffed in the locker room -but it never happened to them. When they talk of the problems they see, it's simply easier to overlook problems that only happened to somebody else. Male feminists can, do and should be bringing that part up. And mainstream feminists praise it when they do. The point where MRAs differ from them is that the MRAs mostly defend the bulies. When they want to cover their asses, then only do they bring up the other men (the rest of the time they mock them as manginas, cucks, betas and a whole collection of other slurs they made up) - they never do anything to help them, because in reality they despise them and are in fact demanding the right to keep bashing on them - but they bring them up when they want to cover their asses, and then they blame feminism for it. But if you listen carefully, you can hear what they are REALLY saying is that they blame feminists for treating the rest of the men like human beings, oh and of course for saying women don't actually OWE it to men to fuck them on demand.
As far as I'm concerned the MRA movement is mostly made up of a bunch of jocks who were the hot shit in high school and got laid all the time and then grew up and didn't make it big... now their lives suck, they don't have good jobs (because they never bothered to study), they drink too much and earn too little and their marriage to the cheerleader failed (a story so common it's a cliche)... and they are pissed. They want the world to treat them like it did in their glory days, they honestly believe they are entitled to that - and they blame feminism for depriving them of it. After all if "women don't owe men sex" then that explains why, these days, they can't GET laid.
No, we reserve it for sources who don't follow standard editorial practise, where MOST stories are flagrant lies that can easily be disproven. Nobody is saying mainstream media never prints wrong stories, never makes mistake and doesn't sometimes just plain lie - but it's rare because of a strong construct of editorial practises that rule out the majority of fuckups before they get to print. We reserve "fake news" for sources that don't follow those practises and print anything that appeals to their political agenda.
Look how many flagrant lies were made up about Clinton. Even Pizzagate. Now where is the lies about Trump ? He DID say those things to Billy Bush - we HEARD him on the tape. We have PROOF. And that DOES make the women who accused him of it more believable.
We didn't NEED to make up fake news about Donald Trump - he was quite capable of saying and doing things all by himself that ought to make any decent person drop out of a race !
That whole thing after "in the sense of" came from YOU - he never said it and even if he HAD said it I wouldn't believe it because it's ridiculously stupid and if that was his intent he would have said "they let you grab them by the pussy".
The entire speech made it clear that he was bragging that being rich and famous means you can grab them WITHOUT consent and get away with it.
Except that there WAS sexual assault charges pending against Trump at the time of the election - that was news, reporting that charges were pending was reporting a fact viewers had a right to know. There were dozens of credible accusations from women who were not pressing charges as well - that too was news, these women knew Trump - had real histories - reporting the accusations was news.
Reporting an easily disproven hoax on the other hand is blatant propaganda. CNN never said Trump was a rapist. They reported the TRUTH: lots of women accuse him of sexual misconduct. Breitbart reprinted a hoax about a non-existent pedophile ring without any reason whatsoever to think it's true - no victim, no accuser - they printed an accusation without an accuser ! That is insane.
Indeed. I could have tried to quit, with a very high risk of failure, and put my daughter at risk - or I could take the much more guaranteed but not 100% effective option. I opted for the latter.
Cussing out a federal agency or not is not a measurement of degree of bias. It is merely indicative of a key difference between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives tend to respect authority, it's considered a key value to them. Liberals tend to question and be critical of authority.
There are a number of such key value differences between conservatives and liberals - and strong science to back up that concept. Conservatives tend to value in-group loyalty extremely highly. Hence conservatives tend to be anti-immigrant and generally don't mix much with people of different cultures or values or ethnicities. They say things like "take care of our own first". Liberals on the other hand tend to attach almost no value whatsoever to in-group loyalty, it's just not a value they care about. So they'll form their social groups across any and all lines, they'll care equally for a sick child of a neighbour or the sick child of an immigrant - they don't see a difference.
Conservatives are, in general, far more anxious than liberals - they simply are more afraid (so the whole "snowflake" and "safe space" thing is doubly-stupid) - and you can see that in the way so many conservative arguments are framed around "the threat". Conservatives argue we can't save millions of refugee lives because a few of the refugees may be terrorist - but even if we deem these the most astoundingly wonderfully effective terrorists in history, and assume they can kill thousands - that doesn't make any sense to a liberal. The threat is tiny, so they don't focus on it - and besides the outcome even if the threat happens isn't that bad to them - since they don't value in-group loyalty that much the cannot consider "a thousand of our own" to be a greater loss than "millions of them". To a liberal - there is no "ours" or "them".
These are differences in fundamental morality. Note - not in LEVEL of morality. Both groups are highly moral - and indeed both believe the other to be entirely IMMORAL - but that's because the moral values they subscribe to are completely different. So yeah, cussing out the FBI is not a big deal for a liberal - if they did something WTF-worthy then they deserve to get WTF'd. To a conservative it goes against that deep respect for authority moral - and so seems like a huge deal. Breitbart wouldn't run that because their readership would be offended. This is key to understanding the birther movement. Why was it so important to them to try and prove Obama was not a legitimate president - why would they cling to such an obvious piece of bullshit ? Because resisting the greatest authority in the land, despising him as much as they wanted to - well that goes against their morality, the only way to square the circle was to convince themselves his authority was not legitimate. You can see the inverse of the same process happening right now as Trump flat-out lies about crowd-sizes and TV-ratings, and denies having lost the popular vote on utterly spurious grounds. Why would he CARE ? He's president, the highest authority in the land. He won the election and he was inaugurated - why wouldn't he just be happy - why make such a big deal of those things ? Because he helped plant the seed that respect for authority only applies to legitimate authority, and anything that calls even the slightest question over the legitimacy of his authority (and certainly over the degree of mandate he got from voters) is perceived as a very real threat to him. He cannot imagine that anybody would obey him in anything if they think his authority is not absolutely 100% legitimate and mandated. Which is doubly quixotic fear because frankly the people who are resisting him couldn't care less. They would be resisting just as much if he HAD won the popular vote. They care about WHAT he is doing - they question authority, they don't respect it by default and how legitimate it is doesn't enter into the equation at all. The only reason they keep bringing it up is because of how nicely it gets under his skin.
So no, the cussing is entirely unrelated to the degree of bias - it's merely indicative of the moral differences between the target audiences.
I switched to vaping when my wife fell pregnant. As a vaper I'm under NO illusions that this is a HEALTHY alternative, that's bullshit. Healthier yes, but not healthy.
While I agree with your second sentence, A day of "renewal and reconciliation" is not similar in my mind. Not even slightly. I didn't go google what every president before that did though, I'm sure there were others with equally disconcerting themes (especially on the right in America nationalism, including ethno-nationalism, and patriotism has always been deemed a virtue - while it seems the left takes the approach of "you should love your country enough to acknowledge it's flaws and imperfections") - but it also isn't an action that stands on it's own, it's wording and approach sits within the context of everything else he did. This includes giving prominent pride of place in his speech to "America First" -the official slogan of the American NAZI movement for almost a century now - right back to their first formation in the 1920s.
I know there are some such politicians who claim to carry the mantle of feminist, but since their positions are flagrantly against the meaning of the word - the vast majority of feminists (of all genders) do not accept them as such. That they get a disproportionate level of influence is sadly true, much like whatever the Rust Belt thought they were voting for will definitely be taking second place to the reasons why the KKK voted for Trump.
The vast majority of feminists do support men's shelters. Indeed the standard feminist platform these days includes "helping men who are marginalized, victimized or oppressed by the societal gender expectations on men". Gender roles harm large swathes of all genders, and modern-day feminists are equally committed to breaking them down on both sides. Indeed, this seems to be at the top of what MRAs most hate about them - apparently telling the less-macho boys, the bookish or sensitve boys, that they are fine as they are, that it's okay to cry and bottling up emotions will kill you... well apparently that makes those macho guys who built their entire sense of self-worth out of their sense of machoness feel really angry. In a strange zero-sum logic, they can't feel manly if people who don't like the same things they like get to feel manly as well, they can't feel manly unless they have somebody to feel superior to - who also feels inferior to them.
The strangest thing in the world these last two years have been watching nerds try to become MRAs... and MRAs using them for leverage. The jocks didn't start accepting nerds - they are *still* the guys who bulllied you all your life, they just saw them as usefull suddenly. Milo didn't become a champion for nerds, and he never was one, he STILL thinks (as he once wrote) that we're all "overweight and embarassing betas" - we just became useful cockroaches to him. Personally - I will not be used.
Even the original NAZIs were NAZIS long BEFORE they ever committed genocide. Hell almost 3 decades before ! Hell, they were NAZIs before Hitler even joined the party !
Imagine if there were mass protests in the streets of Germany when Hitler became president in 1929, before he was chancelor, before he was Fuhrer, while the system of checks and balances were still intact ? Imagine if Germany had known the signs to look for - and the leftists and moderates (Who were the majority) had stood up to him when his politics first became part of the mainstream, before they had no power to do anything about it anymore.
You can't fight NAZIs AFTER they start the genocide, then the only thing that stops them is full-scale war. Punching them now is the more peaceful option.
We have an advantage they didn't have. We DO know the signs. We know what things mean "this person wants to be a dictator and will do his damndest to become one". We have seen Trump consistently act exactly has Musolini and Hitler did. We see the president now doing exactly what a dictator would do. Gagging scientists, erasing topics from communications, telling grossly egregious lies which are so blatantly obvious that their ONLY possible purpose can be to reward those who spread them and punish those who insist on reality, signing a death warrant for millions of women world-wide, ostensibly to restrict abortion (but anybody who can read knows that banning abortion is impossible - laws against it do not and never have reduced abortion rates, all you CAN do by making a law against it is to kill women - if he actually wanted to reduce abortion he would make birth control free -that actually works), getting his supporters riled up into blaming vulnerable people for their own problems, claiming to be a man of the people then stuffing his cabinet with elites (it's the wealthiest cabinet in history), using the slogan "America First" - for decades already the official slogan of the American NAZI and NEO-NAZI movements - right back to the John Birch society (Doctor Seus even commented on it in a cartoon in 1941), defunding government scientists whose results he dislikes, signing a go-ahead for DAPL in flagrant violation of the Sioux treaty and the will of the people (the fact that he's a major investor in the pipeline didn't influence that all right ?), overturning decades of US policy by trying to form an alliance with Russia against China... because an imperialist, expansionist dictator will make such a reliable friend right ? Emboldening and embracing racist and white supremacist movements (with a result that hate crimes have been at an all-time high since his election - including violence and harassment. There is hardly a POC left in the USA who hasn't head "Trump won go back to " at least once since then).
We have seen this happen before, we are seeing it happen now. Historically - there are only two possible outcomes: a civil war or a world war. But maybe... we're seeing a third, one I hadn't seen before because it's never happened before. We're seeing mass protest and resistence from day one. We're seeing the people fight back - while their democratic institutions still function. That has never happened before. That may mean... there could be a third way. I'm up for trying at least, and if it doens't work - then I'll put my hopes in a civil war rather than a world war. It would be better to start fighting him inside America, before he starts fighting everybody else.
Slashdot Mirror
But the Obama administration didn't declare that the innocent citizens of those countries (that is to say - the people ISIS are slaughtering) aren't allowed to run away from the terrorists who are killing them.
the clue is in the name. The word "Extreme" literally means "beyond the pale" and "too much", "unacceptable", "excessive". There is absolutely no scenario where "government action" and "extreme" in the same sentence is ever a good thing.
If Trump wanted to convince Americans that this was an appropriate response to a threat (as incredibly small as the threat is)... then he would not have called it "extreme" - the message is pretty clear, this is an act of war against the world - especially America's fellow signatories of the refugee convention - who are now having to pick up the slack as their partner shirks it's agreed responsibilities. Has our dear fascist emperor asked himself what happens is they follow suite (who could blame them ?) The few who are open and likely to stay so (Canada right now, Germany says so but that could change if the election doesn't go Merkels way) wouldn't be able to take everybody.... and the refugees won't stop fleeing the horrors that drove them from their homes in the first place.
I've got a hint for the president - if you close your borders to refugees, they STILL come - only now they come as illegal immigrants. The only possible outcome of extreme vetting... is ZERO vetting. Nobody vets illegal immigrants.
Nice stereotype you got there would be a shame if something happened to it. Oh crap. Its a scientiffic fact that conservatives are far more anxious than liberals and readily swayed by fear - especially unrealistic fears. Just look how afraid they are of refugees - no liberal would let millions die out of fear that a few may be terrorists. We are just not that scared of them.
But we do know facts. And its a fact that abortion cannot be banned. Only safety in abortion can be banned. That is what the global gag order does - and it kills millions.
I'm afraid nothing in those stories make me doubt he is a serial sexual assaulter. At worst, I see a victim suffering from such severe PTSD as a result of what happened to her at a very young age that her capacity to make her case very well suffers for it, and some opportunists who tried to use her for their own ends. I don't see any reason to doubt her claims.
Now, those details, may have been a cause to doubt it, if there wasn't also a tape in which he admitted to serial assault - and dozens of OTHER credible complaints against him.
I'm not a court of law, I can't find him guilty - but I can sure say that with the facts as known, I'd say the preponderance of available evidence points to him being guilty. Frankly the man has never in his entire life shown, for a single moment, the slightest shred of decency, honesty or conscience. So it becomes quite impossible for me to believe that there is anything so unconscionable he WOULDN'T do it. It's like arguing that one of the murders Dahmer was convicted of couldn't have been him because it was too gruesome for him.
You're like a guy who sticks a gun against somebody's head and says "Just because every other time somebody took a large calibre bullet to the brain at point blanc range doesn't mean you'll die THIS time".
In other words... a moron.
If you're going to argue there is any chance in hell that THIS time the global gag order will NOT kill millions of women - you have to give evidence for that insane statement, show something that is different in the world now that will change the outcome. You did nothing of the kind. You just want us to look on at somebody doing something that has never failed to kill millions of people... and what ? Hope for the best ?
Actually, wrong, 45 Cal Lugers DO exist. They are very rare and only a few were ever made, but they are a thing. At least one was plated in gold and last sold at auction for over a million dollars.
Oh god who told you that bullshit ?
We don't KNOW who they were from so whoever told you that HAD to be making it up - there is literally no way of knowing.
The unknown person who laid the charges dropped them after he was elected and her identity was never made public.
Seriously... is this what passes for "news" in the rightwing world ? Stories that are literally IMPOSSIBLE to be true ?
No, that is decidedly NOT what he said. What he said was you can grab them without asking and get away with it.
Without asking = without consent.
He NEVER suggested they were throwing themselves at him. If he had LIBERALS wouldn't give a damn. We think that's their right !
We were NEVER upset about the word pussy (republicans were). WE were upset about the word "grab".
Listen to it again, the whole thing. He is clearly bragging that he can grab women by their genitals without asking permission and get away with it.
Seriously though - do you think that the global gag rule is anything BUT signing a death warrant for millions of women ? Because it's been that every time a republican has signed it since Reagan, is it somehow going to magically *not* kill them this time ? And don't come with "taxpayer money for abortions" - that doesn't happen anywhere domestically or abroad though republicans love pretending it does to keep their base riled up. And the law against that has nothing whatsoever to do with the global gag order, that's the Helm's act.
A pistol is now an assault rifle ?
They may be left wing talking points. They are also true. And I'm not preaching civil insurrection. i'm preaching self defence.
We've been listening to conservatives promise to take up arms against the government if it threatens their freedom all our lives. Now the government actually IS threatening people's freedom... and you can't handle the fact that it's the LIBERALS who are actually willing to DO it.
I think in-group loyalty is a big part, but there are more. Conservative respect for authority includes tradition and they habe a strong moral value around sexual purity (one liberals also do not share).
Then they see welfae going out indiscriminately so "others" get it (goes against in-group loyalty), people who violate their sexual purity values (such as gay or transgender people) get it... and worst if all single mothers get it, and get more than most ! That is rewarding promiscuous black women for their premarital sex !
Now I do not agree with any of this stuff... but I can see how, if you consider group loyalty and sexual purity to be key moral values, welfare could appear to you to be promoting immorality (it doesn't it just refuses to punish individuals for having broken communities).
How disrespectful. What a way to talk to your mother. Go to your womb !
>People talk about "toxic masculinity" but "toxic femininity" is never mentioned; women are encouraged to embrace their aspects, while men are discouraged.
You seem to have missed that "toxic" is a qualifier. It's not a critique of masculinity. Only of that part of masculine cultural expectation which is toxic to other people. The part that says bullies are doing their victims a favour by forcing them to toughen up. The part that has football teams gangrape girls. The part that thinks gaybashing proves your masculinity. The part that has locker room talk not be just sexual but be objectifying.
And that part decidedly IS toxic.
It is, also, the part that makes it so any man who doesn't fit it's presuppositions of what manhood should be gets tortured for it. Attacking toxic masculinity IS encouraging men to be allowed to be themselves. It's attacking the very thing that stops them. And the truth is that the vast majority of feminists are women - so the rhetoric tends to focus more on their perspectives. It's not that they don't care about the poor boy stuffed in the locker room -but it never happened to them. When they talk of the problems they see, it's simply easier to overlook problems that only happened to somebody else. Male feminists can, do and should be bringing that part up. And mainstream feminists praise it when they do.
The point where MRAs differ from them is that the MRAs mostly defend the bulies. When they want to cover their asses, then only do they bring up the other men (the rest of the time they mock them as manginas, cucks, betas and a whole collection of other slurs they made up) - they never do anything to help them, because in reality they despise them and are in fact demanding the right to keep bashing on them - but they bring them up when they want to cover their asses, and then they blame feminism for it.
But if you listen carefully, you can hear what they are REALLY saying is that they blame feminists for treating the rest of the men like human beings, oh and of course for saying women don't actually OWE it to men to fuck them on demand.
As far as I'm concerned the MRA movement is mostly made up of a bunch of jocks who were the hot shit in high school and got laid all the time and then grew up and didn't make it big... now their lives suck, they don't have good jobs (because they never bothered to study), they drink too much and earn too little and their marriage to the cheerleader failed (a story so common it's a cliche)... and they are pissed. They want the world to treat them like it did in their glory days, they honestly believe they are entitled to that - and they blame feminism for depriving them of it. After all if "women don't owe men sex" then that explains why, these days, they can't GET laid.
No, we reserve it for sources who don't follow standard editorial practise, where MOST stories are flagrant lies that can easily be disproven. Nobody is saying mainstream media never prints wrong stories, never makes mistake and doesn't sometimes just plain lie - but it's rare because of a strong construct of editorial practises that rule out the majority of fuckups before they get to print.
We reserve "fake news" for sources that don't follow those practises and print anything that appeals to their political agenda.
Look how many flagrant lies were made up about Clinton. Even Pizzagate. Now where is the lies about Trump ? He DID say those things to Billy Bush - we HEARD him on the tape. We have PROOF.
And that DOES make the women who accused him of it more believable.
We didn't NEED to make up fake news about Donald Trump - he was quite capable of saying and doing things all by himself that ought to make any decent person drop out of a race !
That whole thing after "in the sense of" came from YOU - he never said it and even if he HAD said it I wouldn't believe it because it's ridiculously stupid and if that was his intent he would have said "they let you grab them by the pussy".
The entire speech made it clear that he was bragging that being rich and famous means you can grab them WITHOUT consent and get away with it.
Except that there WAS sexual assault charges pending against Trump at the time of the election - that was news, reporting that charges were pending was reporting a fact viewers had a right to know. There were dozens of credible accusations from women who were not pressing charges as well - that too was news, these women knew Trump - had real histories - reporting the accusations was news.
Reporting an easily disproven hoax on the other hand is blatant propaganda. CNN never said Trump was a rapist. They reported the TRUTH: lots of women accuse him of sexual misconduct. Breitbart reprinted a hoax about a non-existent pedophile ring without any reason whatsoever to think it's true - no victim, no accuser - they printed an accusation without an accuser ! That is insane.
Indeed. I could have tried to quit, with a very high risk of failure, and put my daughter at risk - or I could take the much more guaranteed but not 100% effective option. I opted for the latter.
Cussing out a federal agency or not is not a measurement of degree of bias. It is merely indicative of a key difference between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives tend to respect authority, it's considered a key value to them. Liberals tend to question and be critical of authority.
There are a number of such key value differences between conservatives and liberals - and strong science to back up that concept.
Conservatives tend to value in-group loyalty extremely highly. Hence conservatives tend to be anti-immigrant and generally don't mix much with people of different cultures or values or ethnicities. They say things like "take care of our own first".
Liberals on the other hand tend to attach almost no value whatsoever to in-group loyalty, it's just not a value they care about. So they'll form their social groups across any and all lines, they'll care equally for a sick child of a neighbour or the sick child of an immigrant - they don't see a difference.
Conservatives are, in general, far more anxious than liberals - they simply are more afraid (so the whole "snowflake" and "safe space" thing is doubly-stupid) - and you can see that in the way so many conservative arguments are framed around "the threat". Conservatives argue we can't save millions of refugee lives because a few of the refugees may be terrorist - but even if we deem these the most astoundingly wonderfully effective terrorists in history, and assume they can kill thousands - that doesn't make any sense to a liberal. The threat is tiny, so they don't focus on it - and besides the outcome even if the threat happens isn't that bad to them - since they don't value in-group loyalty that much the cannot consider "a thousand of our own" to be a greater loss than "millions of them". To a liberal - there is no "ours" or "them".
https://www.ted.com/talks/jona...
These are differences in fundamental morality. Note - not in LEVEL of morality. Both groups are highly moral - and indeed both believe the other to be entirely IMMORAL - but that's because the moral values they subscribe to are completely different.
So yeah, cussing out the FBI is not a big deal for a liberal - if they did something WTF-worthy then they deserve to get WTF'd. To a conservative it goes against that deep respect for authority moral - and so seems like a huge deal. Breitbart wouldn't run that because their readership would be offended. This is key to understanding the birther movement. Why was it so important to them to try and prove Obama was not a legitimate president - why would they cling to such an obvious piece of bullshit ? Because resisting the greatest authority in the land, despising him as much as they wanted to - well that goes against their morality, the only way to square the circle was to convince themselves his authority was not legitimate. You can see the inverse of the same process happening right now as Trump flat-out lies about crowd-sizes and TV-ratings, and denies having lost the popular vote on utterly spurious grounds. Why would he CARE ? He's president, the highest authority in the land. He won the election and he was inaugurated - why wouldn't he just be happy - why make such a big deal of those things ? Because he helped plant the seed that respect for authority only applies to legitimate authority, and anything that calls even the slightest question over the legitimacy of his authority (and certainly over the degree of mandate he got from voters) is perceived as a very real threat to him. He cannot imagine that anybody would obey him in anything if they think his authority is not absolutely 100% legitimate and mandated. Which is doubly quixotic fear because frankly the people who are resisting him couldn't care less. They would be resisting just as much if he HAD won the popular vote. They care about WHAT he is doing - they question authority, they don't respect it by default and how legitimate it is doesn't enter into the equation at all. The only reason they keep bringing it up is because of how nicely it gets under his skin.
So no, the cussing is entirely unrelated to the degree of bias - it's merely indicative of the moral differences between the target audiences.
That does not, however, fit the observations of the study you are commenting on.
What ? In the same way that a 45 Luger can eliminate a migraine ?
I switched to vaping when my wife fell pregnant. As a vaper I'm under NO illusions that this is a HEALTHY alternative, that's bullshit. Healthier yes, but not healthy.
While I agree with your second sentence, A day of "renewal and reconciliation" is not similar in my mind. Not even slightly. I didn't go google what every president before that did though, I'm sure there were others with equally disconcerting themes (especially on the right in America nationalism, including ethno-nationalism, and patriotism has always been deemed a virtue - while it seems the left takes the approach of "you should love your country enough to acknowledge it's flaws and imperfections") - but it also isn't an action that stands on it's own, it's wording and approach sits within the context of everything else he did. This includes giving prominent pride of place in his speech to "America First" -the official slogan of the American NAZI movement for almost a century now - right back to their first formation in the 1920s.
I know there are some such politicians who claim to carry the mantle of feminist, but since their positions are flagrantly against the meaning of the word - the vast majority of feminists (of all genders) do not accept them as such. That they get a disproportionate level of influence is sadly true, much like whatever the Rust Belt thought they were voting for will definitely be taking second place to the reasons why the KKK voted for Trump.
The vast majority of feminists do support men's shelters. Indeed the standard feminist platform these days includes "helping men who are marginalized, victimized or oppressed by the societal gender expectations on men". Gender roles harm large swathes of all genders, and modern-day feminists are equally committed to breaking them down on both sides. Indeed, this seems to be at the top of what MRAs most hate about them - apparently telling the less-macho boys, the bookish or sensitve boys, that they are fine as they are, that it's okay to cry and bottling up emotions will kill you... well apparently that makes those macho guys who built their entire sense of self-worth out of their sense of machoness feel really angry. In a strange zero-sum logic, they can't feel manly if people who don't like the same things they like get to feel manly as well, they can't feel manly unless they have somebody to feel superior to - who also feels inferior to them.
The strangest thing in the world these last two years have been watching nerds try to become MRAs... and MRAs using them for leverage. The jocks didn't start accepting nerds - they are *still* the guys who bulllied you all your life, they just saw them as usefull suddenly. Milo didn't become a champion for nerds, and he never was one, he STILL thinks (as he once wrote) that we're all "overweight and embarassing betas" - we just became useful cockroaches to him. Personally - I will not be used.
Even the original NAZIs were NAZIS long BEFORE they ever committed genocide. Hell almost 3 decades before ! Hell, they were NAZIs before Hitler even joined the party !
Imagine if there were mass protests in the streets of Germany when Hitler became president in 1929, before he was chancelor, before he was Fuhrer, while the system of checks and balances were still intact ? Imagine if Germany had known the signs to look for - and the leftists and moderates (Who were the majority) had stood up to him when his politics first became part of the mainstream, before they had no power to do anything about it anymore.
You can't fight NAZIs AFTER they start the genocide, then the only thing that stops them is full-scale war. Punching them now is the more peaceful option.
We have an advantage they didn't have. We DO know the signs. We know what things mean "this person wants to be a dictator and will do his damndest to become one". We have seen Trump consistently act exactly has Musolini and Hitler did. We see the president now doing exactly what a dictator would do. Gagging scientists, erasing topics from communications, telling grossly egregious lies which are so blatantly obvious that their ONLY possible purpose can be to reward those who spread them and punish those who insist on reality, signing a death warrant for millions of women world-wide, ostensibly to restrict abortion (but anybody who can read knows that banning abortion is impossible - laws against it do not and never have reduced abortion rates, all you CAN do by making a law against it is to kill women - if he actually wanted to reduce abortion he would make birth control free -that actually works), getting his supporters riled up into blaming vulnerable people for their own problems, claiming to be a man of the people then stuffing his cabinet with elites (it's the wealthiest cabinet in history), using the slogan "America First" - for decades already the official slogan of the American NAZI and NEO-NAZI movements - right back to the John Birch society (Doctor Seus even commented on it in a cartoon in 1941), defunding government scientists whose results he dislikes, signing a go-ahead for DAPL in flagrant violation of the Sioux treaty and the will of the people (the fact that he's a major investor in the pipeline didn't influence that all right ?), overturning decades of US policy by trying to form an alliance with Russia against China... because an imperialist, expansionist dictator will make such a reliable friend right ? Emboldening and embracing racist and white supremacist movements (with a result that hate crimes have been at an all-time high since his election - including violence and harassment. There is hardly a POC left in the USA who hasn't head "Trump won go back to " at least once since then).
We have seen this happen before, we are seeing it happen now. Historically - there are only two possible outcomes: a civil war or a world war. But maybe... we're seeing a third, one I hadn't seen before because it's never happened before. We're seeing mass protest and resistence from day one. We're seeing the people fight back - while their democratic institutions still function. That has never happened before. That may mean... there could be a third way. I'm up for trying at least, and if it doens't work - then I'll put my hopes in a civil war rather than a world war. It would be better to start fighting him inside America, before he starts fighting everybody else.