What the polls show is that Trump's hard supporters who are women don't care that he brags about grabbing women's genitals, they most certainly show that Democratic women and other women do in fact care. But this is the Trump campaign in a nutshell; what happens outside the echo chamber doesn't count.
Do you have some way of verifying that feminists, as a group want "equal pay for unequal work"? I'm sure there's the odd feminist who probably espouses something like that, but the general concept is if two people do the same job, they should get the same pay, and further that if two people do the same job, they deserve to be treated equally. I doubt Trump grabs his male employees' genitals, so he shouldn't be grabbing women's either.
And who the fuck do you think invests Trump's wealth (whatever it may be). The idea that a guy who has been a real estate typcoon (or con-artist, depending on who you ask), is somehow running independently of bankers is absurd. It's the double standard again; Clinton gets roasted for the very things any sane and informed person knows Trump has been doing.
There was nothing hypothetical about his statement. He said that's what he does, and now there are a number of women confirming what he said. The one time Trump actually gets caught telling the truth, he and his supporters want everyone to believe that's the time he was a liar.
Or even better, the next time he's goes into work, starting grabbing female coworkers by the genitals and kissing them unannounced, or walking into their change rooms or bathrooms whenever he likes.
Let's just see how willing women are to have men treat them this way. I'll even buy popcorn to take to his trial, as he tries to defend himself with "Well, that's just a-okay 'cause Donny Trump says so, and I think all women are whores."
And now it's time for everybody's favorite game show, here every night until November 8 (that's November 28th for Trump supporters); it's Reinterpret Trump's Statements So He Looks Good!
The context was pretty clear, that Trump feels his wealth and fame means women will just let him grab their genitals without fear of retaliation. And he's right, that's what does happen, which is how Bill Cosby was able to sexually assault women for decades without fear. But I get it, you need to reinterpret that so women are whores and, you know, Donald Trump is just your average horny little devil.
For fuck's sake, there isn't going to be a nuclear war. Jesus fucking Christ, what the hell is wrong with people. Do you think Putin is suicidal? Yes, he could heavily damage the US, maybe even mortally, but the US's arsenal could turn much of Russia's populated areas to irradiated cinders in return.
If there wasn't going to be a nuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis, when tensions between Russia and the West were probably at their most dire, why is it you imagine there would be one now, when about the only real conflict zone is Syria?
Exactly. As with "Climategate", there's simply wish fulfillment. People who have bought heavily into a conspiracy theory simply cannot accept that even evidence contrary to their beliefs in fact disproves their theory, so they will insist that the evidence against is in fact evidence for.
I'm not belittling Russia's talent. It has always been a nation that has had a genius for making a little go a long way. But the fact is that the era of Russia as a major global player, the big competitor to the US, ended with the collapse of the USSR, and really, over the last quarter century, the chief rival has become China. Russia can be a menace, but aside from its nuclear delivery capacity, which is still significant, it isn't nearly as strong as it tries to make out. And ultimately, its nuclear arsenal, like every nuclear power's arsenal, isn't intended as offensive weapon at all, but rather as a last ditch defensive measure.
The US has been doing that, in one form or another since the before the Civil War. If you include campaigns like those against the Barbary Pirates, it has willingly adopted a fairly robust foreign policy since almost the beginning.
Let's not forget that much of what you call the Midwest was basically seized from the Indians, that much of the Southwest was actually northern Mexico until a shameless war of expansionism saw American forces marching into Mexico City in 1847. These sorts of actions are littered throughout US history, at the behest of Administrations of all political stripes.
The reality is you're just cherry picking to try to give the illusion that somehow things are different now, but really, how is, say, the Iraq invasion really that different than the Spanish-American War? And let's remember that, briefly, after that war, the US became one of the major imperial Great Powers, and that it still possesses a number of territories that were once part of the Spanish Empire.
The peoples of Europe freely entered the Common Market, which evolved into the EU. In fact, when the Eastern Bloc collapsed, a number of former Soviet satellites lined up to enter the EU. We can debate whether or not the EU has lived it up to what it was supposed to be, but the fact of the matter is that no tanks rolled across the French fields, no bombs were dropped on German or Italian cities, there were no occupying governments in Denmark, Belgium and the Netherlands, these nations, for the first time in European history freely joined together to create a common economic zone.
For the Russians, of course, losing traditional satellites/occupied regions like Poland, the Baltic states, and the other Central European Slavic states was a symbol of its decline. That these states, so long under the Russian thumb, then joined NATO, was seen as a slap in the face. Putin is trying to recover something of Russia's old power, but he runs a nation that, while improving in some respects, really is a midget compared to Europe and the US. The combined economic and military might of NATO dwarfs Russia. The US alone is able to project force to just about everywhere from the Arctic to the Antarctic circles, and while Russia still has a lot of military capability, it remains as it always was, a fundamentally land-based power, able to harass and dominate some of its Eurasian neighbors, but ultimately geopolitically weaker than its competitors.
But it's Russia, and everyone knows a country with a GDP smaller than the United Kingdom is some sort of mighty power!!!
Russia is a has-been with a military and nuclear arsenal largely inherited from its older scarier days. For Russia these days, "force projection" literally does mean the Black Sea and Syria.
It's a strange claim, because up here in British Columbia, particularly in Vancouver and Victoria, there's a huge demand for IT workers, to the point where the industry in BC is starting to get very worried that the lack of tech workers could cause serious problems.
He has a very small chance, less than 20% at this point. The problem for Trump is simple; energizing his base was never going to be enough. The GOP leadership hoped and prayed that once he got the nomination, he'd actually start behaving like someone who wanted to be president, but his refusal to even prepare for the first debate, and the bizarre Twitter war with Machado demonstrated amply that he had no intention of trying to seek broader support.
You can criticize the Democrats if you want, but when you're trying to win an election, actually trying to get a majority of voters from multiple ethnic backgrounds to weld an electoral coalition actually works. Building broad coalitions is the way you become president. It's how Reagan did it, by reaching across to enough Democratic voters to guarantee victory.
Fixing all your energy on about 40% of Republican voters was enough to get the nomination, largely because of how conventions work, but Presidential elections don't work like that. At some point, you have to start trying to attract people outside of your echo chamber. That's exactly why the observation "My God, he's going to run as Barry Goldwater" is such an important object lesson for any presidential candidate.
He's describing what he does. We now have people saying he's done it. Maybe they're lying, maybe he's lying, but it's clear someone's lying, and regardless of whose lying, at best it makes Trump look like a misogynistic woman-hating pig. The question really becomes whether the growing number of accusers are liars, and remember how well that's gone for Bill Cosby.
Slashdot Mirror
What the polls show is that Trump's hard supporters who are women don't care that he brags about grabbing women's genitals, they most certainly show that Democratic women and other women do in fact care. But this is the Trump campaign in a nutshell; what happens outside the echo chamber doesn't count.
Do you have some way of verifying that feminists, as a group want "equal pay for unequal work"? I'm sure there's the odd feminist who probably espouses something like that, but the general concept is if two people do the same job, they should get the same pay, and further that if two people do the same job, they deserve to be treated equally. I doubt Trump grabs his male employees' genitals, so he shouldn't be grabbing women's either.
And who the fuck do you think invests Trump's wealth (whatever it may be). The idea that a guy who has been a real estate typcoon (or con-artist, depending on who you ask), is somehow running independently of bankers is absurd. It's the double standard again; Clinton gets roasted for the very things any sane and informed person knows Trump has been doing.
Translation: I think women are whores.
There was nothing hypothetical about his statement. He said that's what he does, and now there are a number of women confirming what he said. The one time Trump actually gets caught telling the truth, he and his supporters want everyone to believe that's the time he was a liar.
Or even better, the next time he's goes into work, starting grabbing female coworkers by the genitals and kissing them unannounced, or walking into their change rooms or bathrooms whenever he likes.
Let's just see how willing women are to have men treat them this way. I'll even buy popcorn to take to his trial, as he tries to defend himself with "Well, that's just a-okay 'cause Donny Trump says so, and I think all women are whores."
And now it's time for everybody's favorite game show, here every night until November 8 (that's November 28th for Trump supporters); it's Reinterpret Trump's Statements So He Looks Good!
The context was pretty clear, that Trump feels his wealth and fame means women will just let him grab their genitals without fear of retaliation. And he's right, that's what does happen, which is how Bill Cosby was able to sexually assault women for decades without fear. But I get it, you need to reinterpret that so women are whores and, you know, Donald Trump is just your average horny little devil.
There's no evidence of a Trump recovery. If there's evidence for anything, it's that he's holding his base.
For fuck's sake, there isn't going to be a nuclear war. Jesus fucking Christ, what the hell is wrong with people. Do you think Putin is suicidal? Yes, he could heavily damage the US, maybe even mortally, but the US's arsenal could turn much of Russia's populated areas to irradiated cinders in return.
If there wasn't going to be a nuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis, when tensions between Russia and the West were probably at their most dire, why is it you imagine there would be one now, when about the only real conflict zone is Syria?
You're going to be very depressed come November 28th.
Exactly. As with "Climategate", there's simply wish fulfillment. People who have bought heavily into a conspiracy theory simply cannot accept that even evidence contrary to their beliefs in fact disproves their theory, so they will insist that the evidence against is in fact evidence for.
The "guy" in question was a known as a real estate con artist a quarter century ago, and his views on women in general have hardly been secret.
But hey. you wanted Bill Cosby for President, well this is what you get.
Press bias == reporting what Trump says
You know, there are actually people who are victims of persecution. And then there are people who are just victims of their own persecution complex.
I'm not belittling Russia's talent. It has always been a nation that has had a genius for making a little go a long way. But the fact is that the era of Russia as a major global player, the big competitor to the US, ended with the collapse of the USSR, and really, over the last quarter century, the chief rival has become China. Russia can be a menace, but aside from its nuclear delivery capacity, which is still significant, it isn't nearly as strong as it tries to make out. And ultimately, its nuclear arsenal, like every nuclear power's arsenal, isn't intended as offensive weapon at all, but rather as a last ditch defensive measure.
The US has been doing that, in one form or another since the before the Civil War. If you include campaigns like those against the Barbary Pirates, it has willingly adopted a fairly robust foreign policy since almost the beginning.
Let's not forget that much of what you call the Midwest was basically seized from the Indians, that much of the Southwest was actually northern Mexico until a shameless war of expansionism saw American forces marching into Mexico City in 1847. These sorts of actions are littered throughout US history, at the behest of Administrations of all political stripes.
The reality is you're just cherry picking to try to give the illusion that somehow things are different now, but really, how is, say, the Iraq invasion really that different than the Spanish-American War? And let's remember that, briefly, after that war, the US became one of the major imperial Great Powers, and that it still possesses a number of territories that were once part of the Spanish Empire.
The peoples of Europe freely entered the Common Market, which evolved into the EU. In fact, when the Eastern Bloc collapsed, a number of former Soviet satellites lined up to enter the EU. We can debate whether or not the EU has lived it up to what it was supposed to be, but the fact of the matter is that no tanks rolled across the French fields, no bombs were dropped on German or Italian cities, there were no occupying governments in Denmark, Belgium and the Netherlands, these nations, for the first time in European history freely joined together to create a common economic zone.
For the Russians, of course, losing traditional satellites/occupied regions like Poland, the Baltic states, and the other Central European Slavic states was a symbol of its decline. That these states, so long under the Russian thumb, then joined NATO, was seen as a slap in the face. Putin is trying to recover something of Russia's old power, but he runs a nation that, while improving in some respects, really is a midget compared to Europe and the US. The combined economic and military might of NATO dwarfs Russia. The US alone is able to project force to just about everywhere from the Arctic to the Antarctic circles, and while Russia still has a lot of military capability, it remains as it always was, a fundamentally land-based power, able to harass and dominate some of its Eurasian neighbors, but ultimately geopolitically weaker than its competitors.
However you choose to measure it, Russia's economy is a midget compared to the more populace Western states like the US, Germany, Britain and France.
But it's Russia, and everyone knows a country with a GDP smaller than the United Kingdom is some sort of mighty power!!!
Russia is a has-been with a military and nuclear arsenal largely inherited from its older scarier days. For Russia these days, "force projection" literally does mean the Black Sea and Syria.
It's a strange claim, because up here in British Columbia, particularly in Vancouver and Victoria, there's a huge demand for IT workers, to the point where the industry in BC is starting to get very worried that the lack of tech workers could cause serious problems.
Holding Russia accountable for its actions has been a general policy of US administrations since Truman.
It's ultimately an issue for roughly 40% of Republican voters; Trump's base.
He has a very small chance, less than 20% at this point. The problem for Trump is simple; energizing his base was never going to be enough. The GOP leadership hoped and prayed that once he got the nomination, he'd actually start behaving like someone who wanted to be president, but his refusal to even prepare for the first debate, and the bizarre Twitter war with Machado demonstrated amply that he had no intention of trying to seek broader support.
You can criticize the Democrats if you want, but when you're trying to win an election, actually trying to get a majority of voters from multiple ethnic backgrounds to weld an electoral coalition actually works. Building broad coalitions is the way you become president. It's how Reagan did it, by reaching across to enough Democratic voters to guarantee victory.
Fixing all your energy on about 40% of Republican voters was enough to get the nomination, largely because of how conventions work, but Presidential elections don't work like that. At some point, you have to start trying to attract people outside of your echo chamber. That's exactly why the observation "My God, he's going to run as Barry Goldwater" is such an important object lesson for any presidential candidate.
It's how Bill Cosby got away with an endless string of sexual assaults for decades.
He's describing what he does. We now have people saying he's done it. Maybe they're lying, maybe he's lying, but it's clear someone's lying, and regardless of whose lying, at best it makes Trump look like a misogynistic woman-hating pig. The question really becomes whether the growing number of accusers are liars, and remember how well that's gone for Bill Cosby.