"That guy's got a serious weight problem," Trump said during a campaign rally in Manchester, New Hampshire, on Thursday night, as a protester was removed from the arena. "Go home. Start exercising. Get him out of here please. Got a bigger problem than I do. Got a bigger problem than all of us."
Asked if the president apologized, the supporter replied, "No, why would he apologize?"
Oh Got no! I am just as cynical as you are, I was only talking about the personal stuff with another poster. I actually think that you and I are in line with a lot of things, just don't like personal insults is all. Snark, sure but that was a bit direct and ugly.
Fair enough. Maybe I have lost my bearings. Tell me how "Then there are those fascinating 'power differentials' across women....." can be interpreted as a personal insult.
P.S. There is nothing wrong with being a 'movement person'. I am one. And as a result I pretend to understand all kinds of things that escape others. Including (much to my regret) the high tolerance and support that many movement people feel in regards to political violence.
The high-energy, highly productive women I referenced earlier? Yes, they were 'movement people' too. At least one, still is.
........ For a moment there I wondered if the rules do not apply Progressive feminists (sic). Just like the rules do not apply to Donald Trump.
I know Bill certainly does not need me to defend him, but this was uncalled for. Bill clearly includes anyone who breaks the rule regardless of who they are. I think he shows remarkable tolerance and restraint and enforces forum rules in a totally equitable fashion.
Apologies for the tongue in cheek. You are not a movement person are you Sir D?
Virtue-signalling feminists have been making up things about female behaviour for a very long time. FWIW, I have on numerous occasions worked closely with high energy, productive women who never felt the requirement to virtue signal or invent things about the sociology of women.
Hierarchy is where you find it. Everywhere.
Oh Got no! I am just as cynical as you are, I was only talking about the personal stuff with another poster. I actually think that you and I are in line with a lot of things, just don't like personal insults is all. Snark, sure but that was a bit direct and ugly.
........ For a moment there I wondered if the rules do not apply Progressive feminists (sic). Just like the rules do not apply to Donald Trump.
I know Bill certainly does not need me to defend him, but this was uncalled for. Bill clearly includes anyone who breaks the rule regardless of who they are. I think he shows remarkable tolerance and restraint and enforces forum rules in a totally equitable fashion.
Apologies for the tongue in cheek. You are not a movement person are you Sir D?
Virtue-signalling feminists have been making up things about female behaviour for a very long time. FWIW, I have on numerous occasions worked closely with high energy, productive women who never felt the requirement to virtue signal or invent things about the sociology of women.
Just a friendly reminder that I'd like — well, require actually — to have this remain one of the very few outlets for civil discourse on this particular subject.
Ironclad rule #1: no personal attacks against other posters. Ridicule ideas all you want, but not those who present them.
For a moment there I wondered if the rules do not apply Progressive feminists (sic). Just like the rules do not apply to Donald Trump.
I know Bill certainly does not need me to defend him, but this was uncalled for. Bill clearly includes anyone who breaks the rule regardless of who they are. I think he shows remarkable tolerance and restraint and enforces forum rules in a totally equitable fashion.
Just a friendly reminder that I'd like â well, require actually â to have this remain one of the very few outlets for civil discourse on this particular subject.
Ironclad rule #1: no personal attacks against other posters. Ridicule ideas all you want, but not those who present them.
For a moment there I wondered if the rules do not apply Progressive feminists (sic). Just like the rules do not apply to Donald Trump.
Just a friendly reminder that I'd like — well, require actually — to have this remain one of the very few outlets for civil discourse on this particular subject.
Ironclad rule #1: no personal attacks against other posters. Ridicule ideas all you want, but not those who present them.
Location: Blinding You With Library Science! Gender:
Posted:
Aug 15, 2019 - 7:25am
westslope wrote:
westslope has the temerity to state the obvious: Then there are those fascinating 'power differentials' across women..... maryte wrote:
Those are typically a result of race, which is why I mentioned that. Unless you have specific examples beyond that, you're just blowing it out your ass.
My thoughts exactly. You are full of it.
More virtue signalling? You can invent the world as you wish to see it.
Virtue signalling?
Take your neoliberal stigmatizing claptrap to the curb.
westslope has the temerity to state the obvious: Then there are those fascinating 'power differentials' across women.....
maryte wrote:
Those are typically a result of race, which is why I mentioned that. Unless you have specific examples beyond that, you're just blowing it out your ass.
My thoughts exactly. You are full of it.
More virtue signalling? You can invent the world as you wish to see it.
Location: Blinding You With Library Science! Gender:
Posted:
Aug 15, 2019 - 5:48am
westslope wrote:
maryte wrote:
Exactly. Also, interesting (and not in the good way) how few men actually recognize the power differential between men and women (and same can be said for power differentials across race).
Then there are those fascinating 'power differentials' across women.....
Those are typically a result of race, which is why I mentioned that. Unless you have specific examples beyond that, you're just blowing it out your ass.
Exactly. Also, interesting (and not in the good way) how few men actually recognize the power differential between men and women (and same can be said for power differentials across race).
Then there are those fascinating 'power differentials' across women.....
Three years ago, Rickey Halbert was torn about whether to vote for President Trump.
On the one hand, he had read about Trumpâs extramarital affairs and the women who alleged he had sexually assaulted them. Halbert, a Defense Department employee, didnât think the candidate matched his moral compass.
Then again, he believed Trump would reduce the number of abortions in the country.
In the end, he said, that convinced him to vote for the president, like most of his fellow evangelicals.
In the years since, heâs watched as Trump restricted abortion access, rolled back gay rights and tried to reduce both legal and illegal immigration. Heâs listened as Trump has made racist statements and been accused of rape.
He has reached the same conclusion as so many evangelicals across the country: In 2020, heâll support the president. This time, it wonât be a hard choice. (...)
Location: Blinding You With Library Science! Gender:
Posted:
Aug 14, 2019 - 5:29am
BlueHeronDruid wrote:
If you think this is, was, or has been unusual, you haven't been concealing a vagina for the past several decades while simultaneously trying to get an education, to advance in one's career, or even to deal with law enforcement. Poor judgment? More like sport.
Exactly. Also, interesting (and not in the good way) how few men actually recognize the power differential between men and women (and same can be said for power differentials across race).
Trump, commander in chief and president of the worldâs only superpower, thinks he is the worldâs most picked-upon person. The man who victimizes others insists that he is the biggest victim of all. And the greatest indignity? His critics (sometimes a majority of Americans) keep calling him racist and misogynistic, fiscally irresponsible, lazy, corrupt, authoritarian, impulsive and erratic based on his racist and misogynistic, fiscally irresponsible, lazy, corrupt, authoritarian, impulsive and erratic rhetoric and actions. The unfairness of it all!
On a very macro level, of course you're right. She's not a minor. The concerning thing isn't the acts per se, its the notion that the President would use the power of his office to unduly influence a still young girl. As you say....bad judgment, not illegal.
If you think this is, was, or has been unusual, you haven't been concealing a vagina for the past several decades while simultaneously trying to get an education, to advance in one's career, or even to deal with law enforcement. Poor judgment? More like sport.
Embarrassing excerpt: Online criticism almost immediately followed FXâs announcement of the series, with some Twitter users complaining that the networkâs intended premiere date of Sept. 27, 2020, could affect the final stretch of the presidential campaign.
I did not. I was being purely facetious. Aside from Bill Clinton's bad judgement, why should anybody get excited if a young woman (not a girl) in her 20s decides to sexually please an older man?
To divert attention from foreign policy adventurism and other issues?
It all reinforces the image of the USA as being deeply morally corrupt. A place where people with deep Christian beliefs are out-of-the-closet killers of innocent grandchildren and grandparents.
As for Monica Lewinsky's bad judgement, well, what can I say. In an American world of celebrity narcissism, she seems to have made out well. As a business investment, one could easily argue that the return on those brief sexual encounters was pretty damn good.
On a very macro level, of course you're right. She's not a minor. The concerning thing isn't the acts per se, its the notion that the President would use the power of his office to unduly influence a still young girl. As you say....bad judgment, not illegal.
Religion in the US is now a credential. Its membership in a club, not direction on how to live. The conflicts intensify when you marry political "beliefs" with a religious group or groups. Life begins at conception and should be respected, yet funding for poor children and healthcare is cut? Everyone is created equal, yet they (generally) embrace a politcal party that enables racism? The integrated alignment of religion and politics raises questions about the very teachings, beliefs, and actions of a religion. It also doesn't help that religion has perpetrated the largest ever, organized, systematic abuse of children on a global scale. Christians no longer have an assumption of morality anywhere outside their own group.
Monica Lewinsky made mistakes, but she spent 2 decades struggling with a place in history and managing her personal life. I saw her interviewed once, and she said: "imagine trying to get a job with the name Monica Lewinsky". She was shamed in a time when you couldn't turn lemons into lemonade. She hasn't profited from the encounter, and arguably with a White-house internship on her resume at 22 would have done better not being a household name.
As for Monica Lewinsky's bad judgement, well, what can I say. In an American world of celebrity narcissism, she seems to have made out well. As a business investment, one could easily argue that the return on those brief sexual encounters was pretty damn good.
