"Hard-boiled misogyny" is when you describe a lifestyle as Trump literally described his own. You site the indiscretions of Bill as if they are those of Hilary.
If you can site where Hilary indulges in "Hard-boiled misogyny" on the level of Trump I might take you seriously but until then, not so much.
Trump's clearly stated tax policies literally describe one who is in favor of enriching the affluent. Clinton's clearly stated tax policies literally describe one who is in favor enriching our shrinking middle class. Now I realize there's a long ways between stated policy goals and what is actually done but I'll be damned if I'll vote for the candidate (Trump) who is straight up telling me he is going to fuck me in the ass versus the candidate (Clinton) who might despite what she is telling me.
How do Trump supporters arrive at the "might stand up to wall street" conclusion for a clear member of the oligarch class whose tax plan clearly favors the affluent as opposed to Clinton who has at least furnished one that seems to favor the middle class?
Please, tell me, how on earth to arrive do you arrive at the conclusion that some one like him will favor the middle class over the affluent? There's certainly nothing in the few actual policy proposals he's floated that suggests that.
He's literally stating a lifestyle of misogyny. In other words, he's describing his own actions. If some one tells me they beat their children (thus describing their actions) I'm going to think that they are scum. Likewise, if some one tells me they objectify women in their day to day life I am going to think they are scum as well. It's not like he's caught saying "I'd like to bang her", he's literally describing a lifestyle of being a sexual predator.
And yet you cant refute my comment that Clinton can't completely ignore the Bernie supporters. Furthermore, at the very least, she hasn't furnished a tax plan that completely favors the wealthy like Trump has. Sure, in order for her tax plan to benefit the middle class it has to pass what will likely be a Republican controlled congress but it's a step better then a plan that blatantly favors the affluent.
As I said before, your 70% / 100% ratios are clearly flip flopped.
Mod up please. A simple look at the two candidates tax plans shows a clear Trump bias towards wealth inequality and the enrichment of our most wealthy. I'm a Bernie fan and feel like the parent poster is as well but to then side with Trump after Clinton won the nomination because he's an "outsider" (yeah right, a billionaire outsider. Give me a break.) is just nonsense when his stated policy is Republican policy as usual, enriching the wealthy,
Sorry "bro", the reason people are upset here isn't because of "locker room banter" it's because Trump is literally describing a lifestyle of sexual abuse.
Are you dense or did you not bother to actually read what Trump said? Trump is literally talking about living a Mad Men style 1950's misogynist lifestyle in the 21st century.
This is a nonsense claim on his part. People like him are addicted to money and power. The vast majority of us common folk could live amazingly happy lives off the mere interest of 10 million dollars (probably a lot less). He didn't keep pursuing wealth for any other reason than that he wants the power that comes with it. Who do you think some one like that is going to want to deal with, the common person or our affluent power brokers?
Your ratios are backwards. At least Clinton is coming from a party that almost elected Bernie Sanders. She at least has to try to look like she's trying to help the common person. Trump has gotten himself the nomination of our political party that in the last 30 years has made no effort to hide who they favor with their tax policy.
"At least Trump bragging about trying to bang some married woman isn't going to gut any labor laws, make him beholden to the corporatocracy, or cost any of us commoners our jobs."
His tax policy will. The policy he's laid out will not only cost us jobs and sink us further in debt but are obviously tailored to enriching the rich.
Tabloid crap aside, I don't understand how some one from the oligarch class got "common man" status but it's completely clear that he's all about enriching himself and his fellow oligarchs. Clinton is at least politics as usual for the Democrats.
It's a bit shocking to me that this article was modded up at least twice to get the "interesting" tag. The purpose this press release serves is to inform us about a patent dispute. It has literally nothing to do with the FBI.
If that obsurd criteria is what you're going with now (and you have not been consistant) then shouldnt Ukraine be annexing Russia? If the semi-mythological norseman that is Rurik set up his capital there then it seems they should be in charge.
Also, modern Russian culture has faaaar less to do with the era of Rurik and far more to do with later Slavic and Byzantine influnces. Not at all trying to be rude but "Russia" of that era was mostly a bunch of fur trappers and the associated merchants. Not much population density there to develope any kind of firm culture
...and just as i posted, current Russian culture, language, religion (actually i didn't post about that but it is) is based on Eastern and Southern European culture so after Russia annexes Ukraine we can divide the whole mass amoungst the Slavic countries since Russians would all be speaking Mongolian if they had not been exposed to the countries West of them.
And wait, the KKK and Westboro Baptist "Church" are both culturally conservative institutions which is the domain of the Republican party. Just because the KKK was pro democrat back when the South was doesnt mean they didnt flip over to the Republican party with the rest of the South during the civil rights movement.
I have no idea where you're getting Westboro is some how a attached to the Democratic party but just off the top of my head the Republican party is the one with all the hangups about gays, transgenders, and the like, the protesting of which is why anyone knows who Westboro "church" are. It's not blue states that made a big fuss when gay marriage was made legal nationally. It is blue states that legalized gay marriage before the supreme court case though.
Please quote my exact text where I bring up the angry activists "first".
As for protesters coming from other states, that's not something that never happens without some crazy conspiracy or some shadow group to pick up travel expenses. Traveling between US states is hardly a major expense.
It also follows that some one driven to travel to another state to protest something is more likely to be of the fanatically type who causes trouble over local protesters who are invested in their local community. thus the much higher ratio of arrests for what was incredibly likely to be a minority of the protesters.
Shoot, I remember during the Iraq war protests in San Francisco prior to our invasion a good sized crew of Oregon anarchists came into town and used the protest an excused to do some gorilla action style vandalism and that's only from my own experience from the one major protest I've ever attended.
With the information you've furnished here it really feels like you're starting with the assumption of conspiracy and then grasping at anything that supports that. You've certainly failed to produce any actual evidence as everything you've posted is pure conjecture.
Russian culture grew from that of the East Slavs, with their pagan beliefs and specific way of life in the wooded areas of Eastern Europe. Early Russian culture was much influenced by neighbouring Finno-Ugric tribes and by nomadic, mainly Kipchak and Iranic peoples of the Pontic steppe. In the late 1st millennium AD the Varangians (supposedly Scandinavian Vikings), also took part in the forming of Russian identity and Kievan Rus' state. Kievan Rus' had accepted Orthodox Christianity from the Eastern Roman Empire in 988, and this largely defined the Russian culture of the next millennium as the synthesis of Slavic and Byzantine cultures.[7]
Your whole culture is based on those from East and South of you
The Cyrillic script/srlk/ is a writing system used for various alphabets across Eastern Europe and north and central Asia. It is based on the Early Cyrillic, which was developed in the First Bulgarian Empire during the 9th century AD at the Preslav Literary School.[2][3][4] It is the basis of alphabets used in various languages, past and present, in parts of Southeastern Europe and Northern Eurasia, especially those of Slavic origin, and non-Slavic languages influenced by Russian
Your alphabet too.
Even Russia's brief dabbling in communism was taking an idea from a Brit.
Really by your logic where you claim Ukraine should be part of Russia because of a common cultural history, Russia should be collectively annexed by Eastern Europe, not your backwards Russia annexing them.
"On taxes, "the Clinton plan is pretty much Obama extended," Williams said. "On the whole, she proposes a fairly small increase in taxes that would be borne almost entirely by the wealthy." Her plan would increase revenues collected by $1.1 trillion over 10 years, according to the Tax Policy Center’s modeling."
"Moody’s concluded that Trump’s proposals would make the U.S. economy less global and would substantially increase the federal debt, benefit the wealthy disproportionately, and push unemployment up. "
As for exacerbating current racial tensions it's how he talks about about racial groups and uses xenophobia as a tool.
"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists."
His lovely tweet "#JebBush has to like Mexican Illegals because of his wife"
His insistence that we have to fear all Muslims immigrants
It's certainly a less clear cut point then his budget plan as it can't be easily quantified like money can but it's there.
Slashdot Mirror
"Hard-boiled misogyny" is when you describe a lifestyle as Trump literally described his own. You site the indiscretions of Bill as if they are those of Hilary.
If you can site where Hilary indulges in "Hard-boiled misogyny" on the level of Trump I might take you seriously but until then, not so much.
I'll try to be more clear here.
Trump's clearly stated tax policies literally describe one who is in favor of enriching the affluent. Clinton's clearly stated tax policies literally describe one who is in favor enriching our shrinking middle class. Now I realize there's a long ways between stated policy goals and what is actually done but I'll be damned if I'll vote for the candidate (Trump) who is straight up telling me he is going to fuck me in the ass versus the candidate (Clinton) who might despite what she is telling me.
How do Trump supporters arrive at the "might stand up to wall street" conclusion for a clear member of the oligarch class whose tax plan clearly favors the affluent as opposed to Clinton who has at least furnished one that seems to favor the middle class?
Please, tell me, how on earth to arrive do you arrive at the conclusion that some one like him will favor the middle class over the affluent? There's certainly nothing in the few actual policy proposals he's floated that suggests that.
He's literally stating a lifestyle of misogyny. In other words, he's describing his own actions. If some one tells me they beat their children (thus describing their actions) I'm going to think that they are scum. Likewise, if some one tells me they objectify women in their day to day life I am going to think they are scum as well. It's not like he's caught saying "I'd like to bang her", he's literally describing a lifestyle of being a sexual predator.
And yet you cant refute my comment that Clinton can't completely ignore the Bernie supporters. Furthermore, at the very least, she hasn't furnished a tax plan that completely favors the wealthy like Trump has. Sure, in order for her tax plan to benefit the middle class it has to pass what will likely be a Republican controlled congress but it's a step better then a plan that blatantly favors the affluent.
As I said before, your 70% / 100% ratios are clearly flip flopped.
Mod up please. A simple look at the two candidates tax plans shows a clear Trump bias towards wealth inequality and the enrichment of our most wealthy. I'm a Bernie fan and feel like the parent poster is as well but to then side with Trump after Clinton won the nomination because he's an "outsider" (yeah right, a billionaire outsider. Give me a break.) is just nonsense when his stated policy is Republican policy as usual, enriching the wealthy,
Sorry "bro", the reason people are upset here isn't because of "locker room banter" it's because Trump is literally describing a lifestyle of sexual abuse.
Are you dense or did you not bother to actually read what Trump said? Trump is literally talking about living a Mad Men style 1950's misogynist lifestyle in the 21st century.
This is a nonsense claim on his part. People like him are addicted to money and power. The vast majority of us common folk could live amazingly happy lives off the mere interest of 10 million dollars (probably a lot less). He didn't keep pursuing wealth for any other reason than that he wants the power that comes with it. Who do you think some one like that is going to want to deal with, the common person or our affluent power brokers?
Your ratios are backwards. At least Clinton is coming from a party that almost elected Bernie Sanders. She at least has to try to look like she's trying to help the common person. Trump has gotten himself the nomination of our political party that in the last 30 years has made no effort to hide who they favor with their tax policy.
"At least Trump bragging about trying to bang some married woman isn't going to gut any labor laws, make him beholden to the corporatocracy, or cost any of us commoners our jobs."
His tax policy will. The policy he's laid out will not only cost us jobs and sink us further in debt but are obviously tailored to enriching the rich.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org...
http://www.politifact.com/trut...
Tabloid crap aside, I don't understand how some one from the oligarch class got "common man" status but it's completely clear that he's all about enriching himself and his fellow oligarchs. Clinton is at least politics as usual for the Democrats.
Oh good, more assholes yelling into their phones while in public spaces. That's exactly what we need.
It's a bit shocking to me that this article was modded up at least twice to get the "interesting" tag. The purpose this press release serves is to inform us about a patent dispute. It has literally nothing to do with the FBI.
Mod up please. The fact that Apple was able to patent these things is beyond absurd. Our patent office needs to learn to say "no" in a big way.
If that obsurd criteria is what you're going with now (and you have not been consistant) then shouldnt Ukraine be annexing Russia? If the semi-mythological norseman that is Rurik set up his capital there then it seems they should be in charge.
Also, modern Russian culture has faaaar less to do with the era of Rurik and far more to do with later Slavic and Byzantine influnces. Not at all trying to be rude but "Russia" of that era was mostly a bunch of fur trappers and the associated merchants. Not much population density there to develope any kind of firm culture
"Actually"... wait, what the heck did you just refute?
Your hard-on for King Rurik is great and all but a single monarch does not establish eternal domain over any territory.
...and just as i posted, current Russian culture, language, religion (actually i didn't post about that but it is) is based on Eastern and Southern European culture so after Russia annexes Ukraine we can divide the whole mass amoungst the Slavic countries since Russians would all be speaking Mongolian if they had not been exposed to the countries West of them.
Who do you think should get Moscow? Serbia?
And wait, the KKK and Westboro Baptist "Church" are both culturally conservative institutions which is the domain of the Republican party. Just because the KKK was pro democrat back when the South was doesnt mean they didnt flip over to the Republican party with the rest of the South during the civil rights movement.
I have no idea where you're getting Westboro is some how a attached to the Democratic party but just off the top of my head the Republican party is the one with all the hangups about gays, transgenders, and the like, the protesting of which is why anyone knows who Westboro "church" are. It's not blue states that made a big fuss when gay marriage was made legal nationally. It is blue states that legalized gay marriage before the supreme court case though.
Please quote my exact text where I bring up the angry activists "first".
As for protesters coming from other states, that's not something that never happens without some crazy conspiracy or some shadow group to pick up travel expenses. Traveling between US states is hardly a major expense.
It also follows that some one driven to travel to another state to protest something is more likely to be of the fanatically type who causes trouble over local protesters who are invested in their local community. thus the much higher ratio of arrests for what was incredibly likely to be a minority of the protesters.
Shoot, I remember during the Iraq war protests in San Francisco prior to our invasion a good sized crew of Oregon anarchists came into town and used the protest an excused to do some gorilla action style vandalism and that's only from my own experience from the one major protest I've ever attended.
With the information you've furnished here it really feels like you're starting with the assumption of conspiracy and then grasping at anything that supports that. You've certainly failed to produce any actual evidence as everything you've posted is pure conjecture.
Correction: "East and South" should be "West and South"
From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Russian culture grew from that of the East Slavs, with their pagan beliefs and specific way of life in the wooded areas of Eastern Europe. Early Russian culture was much influenced by neighbouring Finno-Ugric tribes and by nomadic, mainly Kipchak and Iranic peoples of the Pontic steppe. In the late 1st millennium AD the Varangians (supposedly Scandinavian Vikings), also took part in the forming of Russian identity and Kievan Rus' state. Kievan Rus' had accepted Orthodox Christianity from the Eastern Roman Empire in 988, and this largely defined the Russian culture of the next millennium as the synthesis of Slavic and Byzantine cultures.[7]
Your whole culture is based on those from East and South of you
From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The Cyrillic script /srlk/ is a writing system used for various alphabets across Eastern Europe and north and central Asia. It is based on the Early Cyrillic, which was developed in the First Bulgarian Empire during the 9th century AD at the Preslav Literary School.[2][3][4] It is the basis of alphabets used in various languages, past and present, in parts of Southeastern Europe and Northern Eurasia, especially those of Slavic origin, and non-Slavic languages influenced by Russian
Your alphabet too.
Even Russia's brief dabbling in communism was taking an idea from a Brit.
Really by your logic where you claim Ukraine should be part of Russia because of a common cultural history, Russia should be collectively annexed by Eastern Europe, not your backwards Russia annexing them.
Oops. so sorry. you werent replying to a post of mine.
You're running far, far off on a tangent here. Please try to stay on topic.
According to the link, while the CIA was doing a bit earlier the major action in training rebels began as a means of containing ISIS
I'll speak louder since you didn't get me the first time. THEY SPEAK THEIR OWN LANGUAGE.
They are a distinct people.
Last things first because it's easy
http://www.politifact.com/trut...
Some samples:
"On taxes, "the Clinton plan is pretty much Obama extended," Williams said. "On the whole, she proposes a fairly small increase in taxes that would be borne almost entirely by the wealthy." Her plan would increase revenues collected by $1.1 trillion over 10 years, according to the Tax Policy Center’s modeling."
"Moody’s concluded that Trump’s proposals would make the U.S. economy less global and would substantially increase the federal debt, benefit the wealthy disproportionately, and push unemployment up. "
As for exacerbating current racial tensions it's how he talks about about racial groups and uses xenophobia as a tool.
"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists."
His lovely tweet "#JebBush has to like Mexican Illegals because of his wife"
His insistence that we have to fear all Muslims immigrants
It's certainly a less clear cut point then his budget plan as it can't be easily quantified like money can but it's there.