It's definitely humiliating, especially considering people don't do this to cisgender women. I look awful without makeup, and for a lot of us, it's the only thing that lets us pass. The equivalent would be asking an old woman with thinning hair to remove her wig for the photo--and this was done in public in front of everyone in the office; not in a private room. Forcing her to take off the makeup wasn't even standard procedure.
Worse yet, exposing a trans person in public is a spectacular way to invite people to abuse them later. A lot of trans folks need to stay hidden for their own physical safety. Exposing her in public means painting a target on her back.
A state employee singled out a trans person against the office's own policy, humiliated her in front of an audience, and made absolutely sure her driver's license photo looked as ugly as possible, all for no reason whatsoever. It wasn't even required per office policy; the only point was to make her suffer.
No, this isn't the worst thing that can happen to a trans person. The worst things are the violent hate crimes. But it's not okay for people to casually mistreat you in public.
It's definitely humiliating, especially considering people don't do this to cisgender women. I look awful without makeup, and for a lot of us, it's the only thing that lets us pass. The equivalent would be asking an old woman with thinning hair to remove her wig for the photo--and this was done in public in front of everyone in the office; not in a private room. Forcing her to take off the makeup wasn't even standard procedure.
Worse yet, exposing a trans person in public is a spectacular way to invite people to abuse them later. A lot of trans folks need to stay hidden for their own physical safety. Exposing her in public means painting a target on her back.
A state employee singled out a trans person against the office's own policy, humiliated her in front of an audience, and made absolutely sure her driver's license photo looked as ugly as possible, all for no reason whatsoever. It wasn't even required per office policy; the only point was to make her suffer.
No, this isn't the worst thing that can happen to a trans person. The worst things are the violent hate crimes. But it's not okay for people to casually mistreat you in public.
Ok, I can see your point but I still don't really know how this is newsworthy.
Edit: There weren't any reporters crusading for me when I was getting whipped by towels in the locker room by 7th and 8th graders who already had beards. Trans people aren't the only ones bullied but they're getting disproportionate attention. I'd be more scared if I was a cis-female breaking up with my boyfriend nowadays. I hope my daughter skips dating until she, and her potential suitors, are about 30.
If a state is going to have photo ID documents, the state has a genuine public security interest that ID documents show people's faces in an unaffected and inalterable condition, displaying their precise physiological features.
If a state is going to have photo ID documents, the state has a genuine public security interest that ID documents show people's faces in an unaffected and inalterable condition, displaying their precise physiological features.
Here's the deal with that: I'm willing to bet any amount of money that supervisor has never demanded this of a non-trans female. I'm quite sure she would admantly CLAIM she has and then wouldn't be able to cite a single example, in the same way the bathroom bill crowd says they are concerned about transgender predators stalking people in bathrooms despite not being able to point to a single, solitary case of that actually happening.
This is about, above all else, the needless cruelty around this issue. In a comment about this incident on Twitter, someone mentioned the comments on their Facebook feed about this story had multiple people specifically using the word HE in capital letters, on purpose, to refer to her. And the hand sanitizer......who tells another person to scrub their face with hand sanitizer in public instead of, oh I don't know, pointing them to the bathroom?? All I see here is people who get off on treating someone they see as different or less than like shit. This is about, at best, the utter indifference to this community in the United States, and outright hostility and persecution at worst.
I tend to agree but i wouldn't bet on it because transwomen tend to have more elaborate and "methodical" makeup to accentuate some and particularly hide some other facial features (which are a little more variable with their starting physiological makeup) to really transform their appearance, while women use makeup to accentuate typically the same, typically already somewhat pronounced and culturally preferred physiological features, so their natural physiology can easily and "naturally", i mean by an untrained eye, be "decoded" from a photo with makeup. Maybe an untrained eye can't so easily decode a potential guy robbing a bank (a genius disguise) from the photo of a transwoman.
What if an otherwise totally unrecognizable goth chick came into the offices? I sense that the issue is not specifically gender based but based around the limitations of any police state.
I tend to agree but i wouldn't bet on it because transwomen tend to have more elaborate and "methodical" makeup to accentuate some and particularly hide some other facial features (which are a little more variable with their starting physiological makeup) to really transform their appearance, while women use makeup to accentuate typically the same, typically already somewhat pronounced and culturally preferred physiological features, so their natural physiology can easily and "naturally", i mean by an untrained eye, be "decoded" from a photo with makeup. Maybe an untrained eye can't so easily decode a potential guy robbing a bank (a genius disguise) from the photo of a transwoman.
What if an otherwise totally unrecognizable goth chick came into the offices? I sense that the issue is not specifically gender based but based around the limitations of any police state.
I believe your concerns about facial recognition technology are well-founded.
I tend to agree but i wouldn't bet on it because transwomen tend to have more elaborate and "methodical" makeup to accentuate some and particularly hide some other facial features (which are a little more variable with their starting physiological makeup) to really transform their appearance, while women use makeup to accentuate typically the same, typically already somewhat pronounced and culturally preferred physiological features, so their natural physiology can easily and "naturally", i mean by an untrained eye, be "decoded" from a photo with makeup. Maybe an untrained eye can't so easily decode a potential guy robbing a bank (a genius disguise) from the photo of a transwoman.
What if an otherwise totally unrecognizable goth chick came into the offices? I sense that the issue is not specifically gender based but based around the limitations of any police state.
Expect you are expanding what a driver licence is for.
She is not going to be out of the house without her make up, so if she does gets carded by a police officer the picture is less likely to match now than it did when the picture was taken making that confrontation worse off for her.
bob_veng seems to describe the degree of makeup that many cisgender and transgender women use on, say, YouTube, and not what most people use in the real world.
Also, facial recognition technology is actually a bad thing and only deepens the surveillance state to no real benefit to anyone but the ruling class.
As far as bullying goes, the lack of attention and concern about bullying was never a good thing. Bullying itself was institutionally supported in that school staff could and often did ignore it or brush it off or make excuses for it instead of actually dealing with it and acting on real concern for student safety. Similarly, discrimination against, for example, transgender people is also often institutionally supported and as such it is newsworthy and should not be brushed off as irrelevant.
Also, the experience of being singled out for something like this in a busy DMV strikes me as the sort of thing that nightmares are about. It can be and often is legitimately traumatizing.
The reason a trans person would wear makeup for a license photo is because they would wear makeup in public. It would be like shaving your beard for a license photo. Unless you're normally beardless, shaving it would only make the photo less accurate.
Every single time that that trans woman shows anyone her license, she will be somewhere in public and therefore wearing makeup. Even if our only priority was the accuracy of the photo, keeping her standard appearance intact, with her makeup on, is still in fact the logical option.
I think it's more that people view bullying as something relatively mild and benign and yet people have been bullied to the point of severe trauma and suicide attempts. This doesn't mean they're weak or fragile, it means the abuse has been that intense. It is abuse, harassment, assault, battery, and worse.
We're also missing something else here. It's not an excuse for anything, but we all know how kids generally are from the ages of 10-16. Some of the behavior you engage in at that age would be considered nothing less than sociopathic when you're 30 or 40. When kids are bullies, you either punish them, or someone socks them in the mouth one day on the playground and they change their stripes. You can't do either of these things to adults. The assumption is you are supposed to grow the hell out of it by your mid-20s.
The US has said that Jewish settlements in occupied areas are consistent with international law. The rationale for this appears not to be a new evaluation of what the law requires (there's a full discussion of legal views on this issue here), but the belief that the existing situation is a barrier to peace and changing that situation will make peace easier.
It's easy to agree that the existing situation is a barrier to peace, but it's not at all easy to agree that recognizing the existing situation as a fait accompli will somehow make peace easier.
For the US this could be seen as a logical extension of its earlier decision to recognize the whole of Jerusalem, including the annexed eastern portion. However, there was a potential argument for treating Jerusalem as a special case, which should be exempted from the normal requirements of the law. That's much harder to do with the West Bank. Thus, rather than taking the line that they accept the requirements of the Geneva Convention in general, but feel that's not appropriate in the specific case of Jerusalem, the US position now seems to me to be that the law in general should recognize facts on the ground.
The problem with this position is that it accepts law is only meaningful where you have the power to enforce it. There is certainly a logic to the idea that laws need popular support and I imagine we can all think of laws that have ultimately collapsed because they did not have that. However, that's a slightly different idea to only giving regard to laws that can be upheld by force (given that up until yesterday Israel was the only country in the world that argued settlements were legal, there was clearly no lack of support for the law in this case). A core principle of law is that it should apply to everyone and this decision just helps put another nail in the coffin of the idea that there can be such a thing as international law in the first place.
This will have wider implications for the way the US deals with other countries. For instance it will be harder to continue to argue that the Russian annexation of the Crimea is illegal, or that China is not entitled to do whatever it wants to its Uighur population.
Speaking from a pure impeachment perspective, am I the only one who thinks this is going to be just as big a waste of time and effort as the Bill Clinton impeachment was? Just as background, I was not in favor of the Clinton impeachment either, and it cost me many heated arguments with my parents...
We're also missing something else here. It's not an excuse for anything, but we all know how kids generally are from the ages of 10-16. Some of the behavior you engage in at that age would be considered nothing less than sociopathic when you're 30 or 40. When kids are bullies, you either punish them, or someone socks them in the mouth one day on the playground and they change their stripes. You can't do either of these things to adults. The assumption is you are supposed to grow the hell out of it by your mid-20s.
Unfortunately, not many people can escape their experiences as teens. It tends to set the template for the lives of way too many people...
We're also missing something else here. It's not an excuse for anything, but we all know how kids generally are from the ages of 10-16. Some of the behavior you engage in at that age would be considered nothing less than sociopathic when you're 30 or 40. When kids are bullies, you either punish them, or someone socks them in the mouth one day on the playground and they change their stripes. You can't do either of these things to adults. The assumption is you are supposed to grow the hell out of it by your mid-20s.
Unfortunately, not many people can escape their experiences as teens. It tends to set the template for the lives of way too many people...
We're also missing something else here. It's not an excuse for anything, but we all know how kids generally are from the ages of 10-16. Some of the behavior you engage in at that age would be considered nothing less than sociopathic when you're 30 or 40. When kids are bullies, you either punish them, or someone socks them in the mouth one day on the playground and they change their stripes. You can't do either of these things to adults. The assumption is you are supposed to grow the hell out of it by your mid-20s.
Unfortunately, not many people can escape their experiences as teens. It tends to set the template for the lives of way too many people...
It's hard to get past trauma without help.
Some of the people that bullied me in High School have approached me in the years since. Some I forgave with no problem, some got no reply from me at all. It's complicated on both sides apparently...
Edit: I will say, the ones I forgave were the ones I thought were the most clueless back then. I had more bullies than friends in HS so I haven't been to any of my HS reunions.
I have no problem with this change in policy myself but listening to the vitriol on the local radio station (WJR which leans right) I'm starting to see what these folks have to put up with. I have no idea why people who have no personaI stake in this have such intransigent views. It's borderline insanity...
As an addendum to my above comment, anti-big government includes non-interference in personal freedom, gender issues not excluded. Adults should be able to decide for themselves. Children otoh is a separate issue that is more grey to me...
If people would like an example of how even the most mundane of tasks most of us take for granted being able to do everyday can turn into humiliating nighmares for others, I present this story of a transgender women being forced to remove her make-up with hand sanitizer to get her driver's license photo taken:
OMG. The things that traumatize people these days I swear. She'll probably be scarred for life now.
These kids wouldn't survive two minutes in my old High School locker room...
Bullyng is not something to be proud One thing that i personally HATE with passion is this "sheep culture", where the bully can humiliate the victim all day and when the victim teaches the guy a lesson and puts him in his place, the victim is punished. For eg, a guy was stealing launch money and the launch of a smaller child. The smaller child putted a "nasty" thing in her launch and ... Got suspended. That is awful.
Anyway, about what i talk about affirmative action programs and all subjectivity that they generate. Here is a case of studants that are OBVIOUS non white who got reproved in the racial tribunal to determine who had the right to affirmative action and who have no right ( Here is the news - translated by google ) this while a blonde guy with german surname got a slot by the affirmative action program source (also translated by google ), note that university here is different than on US. You do a test(vestibular), those with the highest score, pick the slots. No interview, no resume, etc required.
Speaking from a pure impeachment perspective, am I the only one who thinks this is going to be just as big a waste of time and effort as the Bill Clinton impeachment was? Just as background, I was not in favor of the Clinton impeachment either, and it cost me many heated arguments with my parents...
Bill Clinton sorta kinda committed perjury in a civil suit about whether he got a blowjob from an intern. Trump was atrempting to materially influence his own re-election by bribing and extorting a country to the tune of half a billion dollars in military aide. Taxpayer funded military aide mind you. He likely would have SUCCEEDED in doing so if the alarm hadn't been sounded. The entire GOP defense shifts so often and gets so many holes blown in it on a daily basis, it's hard to even keep track of how many different excuses and explanations there have been. Sometimes there are 3 or 4 new ones a day. Everyone of these witnesses have confirmed EVERYTHING.
So if by "waste of time" you mean will he be removed from office, then of course not. I sincerely believe you wouldn't get 20 Republican Senators to cross over if he murdered a 5-year old child on the White House lawn. But I mean, come on......this was extortion and bribery to manufacture a foreign investigation of his chief domestic political rival, using OUR tax dollars appropriated by Congress. Liberals pay taxes too. I'm not gonna sit here and be asked to sit ideally by while this mobster using that money to try to secure his own re-election through tactics he apparently learned from the Gambino family. What exactly DOES qualify as impeachable??
Speaking from a pure impeachment perspective, am I the only one who thinks this is going to be just as big a waste of time and effort as the Bill Clinton impeachment was? Just as background, I was not in favor of the Clinton impeachment either, and it cost me many heated arguments with my parents...
Bill Clinton sorta kinda committed perjury in a civil suit about whether he got a blowjob from an intern. Trump was atrempting to materially influence his own re-election by bribing and extorting a country to the tune of half a billion dollars in military aide. Taxpayer funded military aide mind you. He likely would have SUCCEEDED in doing so if the alarm hadn't been sounded. The entire GOP defense shifts so often and gets so many holes blown in it on a daily basis, it's hard to even keep track of how many different excuses and explanations there have been. Sometimes there are 3 or 4 new ones a day. Everyone of these witnesses have confirmed EVERYTHING.
So if by "waste of time" you mean will he be removed from office, then of course not. I sincerely believe you wouldn't get 20 Republican Senators to cross over if he murdered a 5-year old child on the White House lawn. But I mean, come on......this was extortion and bribery to manufacture a foreign investigation of his chief domestic political rival, using OUR tax dollars appropriated by Congress. Liberals pay taxes too. I'm not gonna sit here and be asked to sit ideally by while this mobster using that money to try to secure his own re-election through tactics he apparently learned from the Gambino family. What exactly DOES qualify as impeachable??
Breaking a law is impeachable. Did Trump break any laws or was he just being a clueless asshole? That's the question. Breaking unwritten 'protocol' is not impeachable in my opinion and this persecution might just put this dipshit in for another 4 years...
Edit: Keep in mind that Clinton DID break a law and I still didn't think it was impeachable. Even if they would have removed him from office with a Republican Senate I didn't think it would have been worth it.
@jjstraka34
Do you think the Clinton impeachment had any bearing on the 2000 election? I'm just curious as to your opinion. Maybe the Democrats are trying the same tactic if it is seen as having worked back then.
Breaking a law is impeachable. Did Trump break any laws or was he just being a clueless asshole? That's the question. Breaking unwritten 'protocol' is not impeachable in my opinion and this persecution might just put this dipshit in for another 4 years...
Edit: Keep in mind that Clinton DID break a law and I still didn't think it was impeachable. Even if they would have removed him from office with a Republican Senate I didn't think it would have been worth it.
As has been stated many, many, many times in the past - the Constitution is vague on the requirement of impeachment. "High crimes and misdemeanors", and it's up to congress to decide what fits.
Do you think blatant abuse of power should be an "impeachable offense"? I suspect most people in the country would agree, if asked in the generic, "Should a president be subject to impeachment if that president is found to have willfully abused the powers of his office to order to secure reelection?" (Abuse of power was one of Nixon's charges, mind you)
Trump extorted a foreign nation's help in investigating his chief political rival by withholding billions in aid. There's really no world in which I can square that circle to think"Yeah. Okay. That's fine. I think that should be fair game for all presidencies to come". It's an ethical trainwreck and damaging to the fabric of our democracy.
Breaking a law is impeachable. Did Trump break any laws or was he just being a clueless asshole? That's the question. Breaking unwritten 'protocol' is not impeachable in my opinion and this persecution might just put this dipshit in for another 4 years...
Edit: Keep in mind that Clinton DID break a law and I still didn't think it was impeachable. Even if they would have removed him from office with a Republican Senate I didn't think it would have been worth it.
As has been stated many, many, many times in the past - the Constitution is vague on the requirement of impeachment. "High crimes and misdemeanors", and it's up to congress to decide what fits.
Do you think blatant abuse of power should be an "impeachable offense"? I suspect most people in the country would agree, if asked in the generic, "Should a president be subject to impeachment if that president is found to have willfully abused the powers of his office to order to secure reelection?" (Abuse of power was one of Nixon's charges, mind you)
Trump extorted a foreign nation's help in investigating his chief political rival by withholding billions in aid. There's really no world in which I can square that circle to think"Yeah. Okay. That's fine. I think that should be fair game for all presidencies to come". It's an ethical trainwreck and damaging to the fabric of our democracy.
I'm not sure that the majority of everyday Americans will agree with you. Most can't see past the fact that they have a job and their pay is OK. I guess we'll see next year.
I'm not sure that the majority of everyday Americans will agree with you. Most can't see past the fact that they have a job and their pay is OK. I guess we'll see next year.
@jjstraka34
Do you think the Clinton impeachment had any bearing on the 2000 election? I'm just curious as to your opinion. Maybe the Democrats are trying the same tactic if it is seen as having worked back then.
I think it caused Gore to run away from him when he was still wildly popular, caused him to put Liberman on the ticket, which led to a lot of "there is no difference betwern the parties" that even I bought into, because I was 18 and letting Rage Against the Machine dictate my politics. I wised up about 48 hours after election night.
I still think Gore probably won Florida. I think there is at least a 50/50 chance 9/11 never happens if Gore is in office (though if it had, you would have NEVER seen the months if not YEARS of benefit of the doubt Democrats gave to Bush initially given to Gore, of that I am as certain of anything ever). The Supreme Court stopping the vote count in Florida on partisan lines changed this country forever. If you really want to get into the weeds about it, between Nixon basically committing treason by sabotaging Johnson's talks with the Vietnamese during the campaign, and Reagan's people making sure the hostages would not be released to damage Carter, I'm not sure there has been a single Republican Presidency in the last 50+ years that has been obtained legitimately.
I'm not sure that the majority of everyday Americans will agree with you. Most can't see past the fact that they have a job and their pay is OK. I guess we'll see next year.
A plurality, and near majority of Americans already believe impeachment is warranted (Over 50% believe an inquiry should be held).
In the generic, where you wouldnt have a hardening of partisanship - I'm fairly certain people believe abuse of power is impeachable.
I agree, but unfortunately what they're trying to impeach him on isn't going to get the job done. The Ukraine thing is not impeachable in my opinion. I think the Democrats screwed this up royally and I hope it doesn't bite them in the ass (but I think it's going to). I'm hoping for a moderate Democrat to come on strong but I'm not holding my breath...
Edit: Playing on the Kurd betrayal and adding in the kow-towing to Russia, Turkey and North Korea would have played better to the religious right who have an Apocolyptic worldview. Played correctly the Democrats could've pulled this off. Unfortunately none of them asked my opinion...
Comments
Worse yet, exposing a trans person in public is a spectacular way to invite people to abuse them later. A lot of trans folks need to stay hidden for their own physical safety. Exposing her in public means painting a target on her back.
A state employee singled out a trans person against the office's own policy, humiliated her in front of an audience, and made absolutely sure her driver's license photo looked as ugly as possible, all for no reason whatsoever. It wasn't even required per office policy; the only point was to make her suffer.
No, this isn't the worst thing that can happen to a trans person. The worst things are the violent hate crimes. But it's not okay for people to casually mistreat you in public.
Ok, I can see your point but I still don't really know how this is newsworthy.
Edit: There weren't any reporters crusading for me when I was getting whipped by towels in the locker room by 7th and 8th graders who already had beards. Trans people aren't the only ones bullied but they're getting disproportionate attention. I'd be more scared if I was a cis-female breaking up with my boyfriend nowadays. I hope my daughter skips dating until she, and her potential suitors, are about 30.
Here's the deal with that: I'm willing to bet any amount of money that supervisor has never demanded this of a non-trans female. I'm quite sure she would admantly CLAIM she has and then wouldn't be able to cite a single example, in the same way the bathroom bill crowd says they are concerned about transgender predators stalking people in bathrooms despite not being able to point to a single, solitary case of that actually happening.
This is about, above all else, the needless cruelty around this issue. In a comment about this incident on Twitter, someone mentioned the comments on their Facebook feed about this story had multiple people specifically using the word HE in capital letters, on purpose, to refer to her. And the hand sanitizer......who tells another person to scrub their face with hand sanitizer in public instead of, oh I don't know, pointing them to the bathroom?? All I see here is people who get off on treating someone they see as different or less than like shit. This is about, at best, the utter indifference to this community in the United States, and outright hostility and persecution at worst.
What if an otherwise totally unrecognizable goth chick came into the offices? I sense that the issue is not specifically gender based but based around the limitations of any police state.
I believe your concerns about facial recognition technology are well-founded.
Expect you are expanding what a driver licence is for.
She is not going to be out of the house without her make up, so if she does gets carded by a police officer the picture is less likely to match now than it did when the picture was taken making that confrontation worse off for her.
Also, facial recognition technology is actually a bad thing and only deepens the surveillance state to no real benefit to anyone but the ruling class.
As far as bullying goes, the lack of attention and concern about bullying was never a good thing. Bullying itself was institutionally supported in that school staff could and often did ignore it or brush it off or make excuses for it instead of actually dealing with it and acting on real concern for student safety. Similarly, discrimination against, for example, transgender people is also often institutionally supported and as such it is newsworthy and should not be brushed off as irrelevant.
Also, the experience of being singled out for something like this in a busy DMV strikes me as the sort of thing that nightmares are about. It can be and often is legitimately traumatizing.
Every single time that that trans woman shows anyone her license, she will be somewhere in public and therefore wearing makeup. Even if our only priority was the accuracy of the photo, keeping her standard appearance intact, with her makeup on, is still in fact the logical option.
It's easy to agree that the existing situation is a barrier to peace, but it's not at all easy to agree that recognizing the existing situation as a fait accompli will somehow make peace easier.
For the US this could be seen as a logical extension of its earlier decision to recognize the whole of Jerusalem, including the annexed eastern portion. However, there was a potential argument for treating Jerusalem as a special case, which should be exempted from the normal requirements of the law. That's much harder to do with the West Bank. Thus, rather than taking the line that they accept the requirements of the Geneva Convention in general, but feel that's not appropriate in the specific case of Jerusalem, the US position now seems to me to be that the law in general should recognize facts on the ground.
The problem with this position is that it accepts law is only meaningful where you have the power to enforce it. There is certainly a logic to the idea that laws need popular support and I imagine we can all think of laws that have ultimately collapsed because they did not have that. However, that's a slightly different idea to only giving regard to laws that can be upheld by force (given that up until yesterday Israel was the only country in the world that argued settlements were legal, there was clearly no lack of support for the law in this case). A core principle of law is that it should apply to everyone and this decision just helps put another nail in the coffin of the idea that there can be such a thing as international law in the first place.
This will have wider implications for the way the US deals with other countries. For instance it will be harder to continue to argue that the Russian annexation of the Crimea is illegal, or that China is not entitled to do whatever it wants to its Uighur population.
Unfortunately, not many people can escape their experiences as teens. It tends to set the template for the lives of way too many people...
It's hard to get past trauma without help.
Some of the people that bullied me in High School have approached me in the years since. Some I forgave with no problem, some got no reply from me at all. It's complicated on both sides apparently...
Edit: I will say, the ones I forgave were the ones I thought were the most clueless back then. I had more bullies than friends in HS so I haven't been to any of my HS reunions.
https://www.michiganradio.org/post/new-policy-makes-it-simpler-transgender-people-change-gender-ids
Edit: Even the radio talk-show hosts, who also lean right, didn't know how to address the hostility of the callers. It's frankly scary.
Bullyng is not something to be proud One thing that i personally HATE with passion is this "sheep culture", where the bully can humiliate the victim all day and when the victim teaches the guy a lesson and puts him in his place, the victim is punished. For eg, a guy was stealing launch money and the launch of a smaller child. The smaller child putted a "nasty" thing in her launch and ... Got suspended. That is awful.
Anyway, about what i talk about affirmative action programs and all subjectivity that they generate. Here is a case of studants that are OBVIOUS non white who got reproved in the racial tribunal to determine who had the right to affirmative action and who have no right ( Here is the news - translated by google ) this while a blonde guy with german surname got a slot by the affirmative action program source (also translated by google ), note that university here is different than on US. You do a test(vestibular), those with the highest score, pick the slots. No interview, no resume, etc required.
Other thing. A famous guy who depends of the gun ownership to make his show possible is being privated from his natural right by a small non violent victimless ""crime""" https://www.change.org/p/donald-j-trump-pardon-kyle-myers-fps-russia?recruiter=673653002
Bill Clinton sorta kinda committed perjury in a civil suit about whether he got a blowjob from an intern. Trump was atrempting to materially influence his own re-election by bribing and extorting a country to the tune of half a billion dollars in military aide. Taxpayer funded military aide mind you. He likely would have SUCCEEDED in doing so if the alarm hadn't been sounded. The entire GOP defense shifts so often and gets so many holes blown in it on a daily basis, it's hard to even keep track of how many different excuses and explanations there have been. Sometimes there are 3 or 4 new ones a day. Everyone of these witnesses have confirmed EVERYTHING.
So if by "waste of time" you mean will he be removed from office, then of course not. I sincerely believe you wouldn't get 20 Republican Senators to cross over if he murdered a 5-year old child on the White House lawn. But I mean, come on......this was extortion and bribery to manufacture a foreign investigation of his chief domestic political rival, using OUR tax dollars appropriated by Congress. Liberals pay taxes too. I'm not gonna sit here and be asked to sit ideally by while this mobster using that money to try to secure his own re-election through tactics he apparently learned from the Gambino family. What exactly DOES qualify as impeachable??
Breaking a law is impeachable. Did Trump break any laws or was he just being a clueless asshole? That's the question. Breaking unwritten 'protocol' is not impeachable in my opinion and this persecution might just put this dipshit in for another 4 years...
Edit: Keep in mind that Clinton DID break a law and I still didn't think it was impeachable. Even if they would have removed him from office with a Republican Senate I didn't think it would have been worth it.
Do you think the Clinton impeachment had any bearing on the 2000 election? I'm just curious as to your opinion. Maybe the Democrats are trying the same tactic if it is seen as having worked back then.
As has been stated many, many, many times in the past - the Constitution is vague on the requirement of impeachment. "High crimes and misdemeanors", and it's up to congress to decide what fits.
Do you think blatant abuse of power should be an "impeachable offense"? I suspect most people in the country would agree, if asked in the generic, "Should a president be subject to impeachment if that president is found to have willfully abused the powers of his office to order to secure reelection?" (Abuse of power was one of Nixon's charges, mind you)
Trump extorted a foreign nation's help in investigating his chief political rival by withholding billions in aid. There's really no world in which I can square that circle to think"Yeah. Okay. That's fine. I think that should be fair game for all presidencies to come". It's an ethical trainwreck and damaging to the fabric of our democracy.
I'm not sure that the majority of everyday Americans will agree with you. Most can't see past the fact that they have a job and their pay is OK. I guess we'll see next year.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/?ex_cid=rrpromo
A plurality, and near majority of Americans already believe impeachment is warranted (Over 50% believe an inquiry should be held).
In the generic, where you wouldnt have a hardening of partisanship - I'm fairly certain people believe abuse of power is impeachable.
I think it caused Gore to run away from him when he was still wildly popular, caused him to put Liberman on the ticket, which led to a lot of "there is no difference betwern the parties" that even I bought into, because I was 18 and letting Rage Against the Machine dictate my politics. I wised up about 48 hours after election night.
I still think Gore probably won Florida. I think there is at least a 50/50 chance 9/11 never happens if Gore is in office (though if it had, you would have NEVER seen the months if not YEARS of benefit of the doubt Democrats gave to Bush initially given to Gore, of that I am as certain of anything ever). The Supreme Court stopping the vote count in Florida on partisan lines changed this country forever. If you really want to get into the weeds about it, between Nixon basically committing treason by sabotaging Johnson's talks with the Vietnamese during the campaign, and Reagan's people making sure the hostages would not be released to damage Carter, I'm not sure there has been a single Republican Presidency in the last 50+ years that has been obtained legitimately.
I agree, but unfortunately what they're trying to impeach him on isn't going to get the job done. The Ukraine thing is not impeachable in my opinion. I think the Democrats screwed this up royally and I hope it doesn't bite them in the ass (but I think it's going to). I'm hoping for a moderate Democrat to come on strong but I'm not holding my breath...
Edit: Playing on the Kurd betrayal and adding in the kow-towing to Russia, Turkey and North Korea would have played better to the religious right who have an Apocolyptic worldview. Played correctly the Democrats could've pulled this off. Unfortunately none of them asked my opinion...