I tend to only hand around people on the dissident right (I don't know what to call right wingers who deviate from the mold since alt right is so poisoned) who are pro trans and LGBT issues so my perspective on their overall acceptance to be skewed.
But yeah, ive heard of and seen the left wing TERFs and the like so I know anti trans bias exists there too.
Heh, I didn't even know the term TERF until I came out and my "mentor" introduced me to some of the terminology. I'm surprised it's known outside the community!
For those who aren't aware, TERF is a pun on "turf" and stands for Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist, a word for feminist folks who don't support trans rights--the folks who think that feminism should be for cisgender women (and maybe trans men) but not trans women or cis men.
There are indeed some transphobic schools of thought on the left.
I tend to only hand around people on the dissident right (I don't know what to call right wingers who deviate from the mold since alt right is so poisoned) who are pro trans and LGBT issues so my perspective on their overall acceptance to be skewed.
But yeah, ive heard of and seen the left wing TERFs and the like so I know anti trans bias exists there too.
Heh, I didn't even know the term TERF until I came out and my "mentor" introduced me to some of the terminology. I'm surprised it's known outside the community!
For those who aren't aware, TERF is a pun on "turf" and stands for Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist, a word for feminist folks who don't support trans rights--the folks who think that feminism should be for cisgender women (and maybe trans men) but not trans women or cis men.
There are indeed some transphobic schools of thought on the left.
That is undoubtedly true, but who are their vocal representatives in positions of governmental power pushing for policies that can actually do harm?? Because the right-wing reactionary anti-trans movement has the entire Republican Party. The elite leftist feminist version has.......who exactly??
If impeachment is available as a remedy for serious abuse of power, what could constitute such abuse?
I stopped caring about impeachment right after I read the transcript because I realized then and there it was a dead end, lost cause. Of course they would inevitably try to revise history, I knew they were going to go with the "it's not real!" lie long before they cobbled together some half baked story to support it, with nothing to lean on but conjecture, but it was obvious to me then it was a big L. I have seen almost no concern over this from anyone.
I can think of several examples that would have been serious enough to measure up to impeachment, I've mentioned them before. How Bush lied to get us into Iraq. How Bush lied to get us into Iraq, the other time with the younger Bush, and how he tortured people. The murder-by-drone program of Obama I am iffy about, could go either way, maybe you could call it a legitimate military tactic but it is very civilian-murdery to the point of being cruel and excessive. You know what? Put murdering Soleimani up there as debatable too.
These all had affected human life in one way or another and could have had disastrous consequences. I don't care about military foriegn aid, and don't agree with the strategy of funding military counters to "Russian aggression", so none of this matters to me and not much to the average voter. Impeachment has a certain anti democratic nature to it I find distasteful to use in all but the extreme circumstances. But to be clear, I don't agree with your version of events in the first place.
If there is one thing the years of RussiaGate taught me, there are no lengths the left political/media machine will not go to in order to cling to their elaborately constructed conspiracy theories that are ultimately built upon houses of sand.
The TLDR version is that you are conflating gaps in knowledge or information, or the use of non standard channels, with proof of guilt. This has been a mistake we have seen before, and Trump has always done this.
I tend to only hand around people on the dissident right (I don't know what to call right wingers who deviate from the mold since alt right is so poisoned) who are pro trans and LGBT issues so my perspective on their overall acceptance to be skewed.
But yeah, ive heard of and seen the left wing TERFs and the like so I know anti trans bias exists there too.
Heh, I didn't even know the term TERF until I came out and my "mentor" introduced me to some of the terminology. I'm surprised it's known outside the community!
For those who aren't aware, TERF is a pun on "turf" and stands for Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist, a word for feminist folks who don't support trans rights--the folks who think that feminism should be for cisgender women (and maybe trans men) but not trans women or cis men.
There are indeed some transphobic schools of thought on the left.
I am aware of it because I am very much an environmentalist, not a climate change activist but concerned with deforestation, biodiversity, etc. The activist group I was in took a lot of heat for being TERFs. This was all Greek to me at the time, I didn't know or care about this stuff, I was in it for the natural world. They also had some weird race rules like how I had to admit I was racist if I was white and to basically speak when spoken to if around a POC (not kidding) so I hopped out of there and didn't look back. It was an eye opening moment for me and when I realized I couldn't belong to left leaning groups, these moral rules are all an affront to my own beliefs tbh.
Whether you care about it or not is immaterial. It was allocated by elected representatives and illegally withheld to extort an investigation of his political rival. Or more accurately, to provide the APPEARANCE of an investigation on the surface, which gives away the whole game. Not a single person who actually had the balls to go under oath disputes this, and all the people who claim to have another explanation won't do so themselves. To say nothing of Trump literally BRAGGING in the last 24 hours that the House doesn't have the evidence because HE has the evidence and won't provide it to the branch of government charged with oversight of the Executive.
The entire defense of this, from the Republican Senate on down, is nothing more than "fuck you, so what??" And yeah, he's always gone through "non-standard lines of communication" because that is what the heads of criminal enterprises do to inoculate themselves from guilt. It's why RICO was invented. But since we've been told in no uncertain terms he can't be held criminally accountable for anything, then the Congressional method is all there is. And then the same people come back and say it needs to meet a criminal burden of proof, when the defendant is literally withholding all relevant evidence. What a convenient little paradox that has been constructed.
Whether you care about it or not is immaterial. It was allocated by elected representatives and illegally withheld to extort an investigation of his political rival. Or more accurately, to provide the APPEARANCE of an investigation on the surface, which gives away the whole game. Not a single person who actually had the balls to go under oath disputes this, and all the people who claim to have another explanation won't do so themselves. To say nothing of Trump literally BRAGGING in the last 24 hours that the House doesn't have the evidence because HE has the evidence and won't provide it to the branch of government charged with oversight of the Executive.
The entire defense of this, from the Republican Senate on down, is nothing more than "fuck you, so what??" And yeah, he's always gone through "non-standard lines of communication" because that is what the heads of criminal enterprises do to inoculate themselves from guilt. It's why RICO was invented. But since we've been told in no uncertain terms he can't be held criminally accountable for anything, then the Congressional method is all there is. And then the same people come back and say it needs to meet a criminal burden of proof, when the defendant is literally withholding all relevant evidence. What a convenient little paradox that has been constructed.
It's an interesting story, this whole thing, but nobody is hiding evidence. The accusers have none and are relying solely on conspiracy, conjecture, and pre conceived notions of his character. Simple as.
If the republican response was indeed "fuck you", right on the Senate floor, I would be overjoyed, because how else do you respond to malicious liars? That should be the default response from right wing figures to left wing media smears, in my honest opinion. Right wing opinion wouldn't move down a dip, and would probably improve.
There was a time when this would have had electoral repercussions, but I doubt it now. Most right wingers I know are finally starting to treat left wing smears the way the left has always treated right wing ones, with complete and utter dismissal, very well deserved. When that democratic representative was threatening and intimidating little girls and was met with a collective shrug, I realized nothing the right wing complains about to the left will ever matter, because they themselves don't matter. Therefore even if it was true, I would hope for some poetic justice and let them speak their objections to the uncaring void, which seems to be exactly what's happening.
Impeachment has a certain anti democratic nature to it I find distasteful to use in all but the extreme circumstances. But to be clear, I don't agree with your version of events in the first place.
If there is one thing the years of RussiaGate taught me, there are no lengths the left political/media machine will not go to in order to cling to their elaborately constructed conspiracy theories that are ultimately built upon houses of sand.
The TLDR version is that you are conflating gaps in knowledge or information, or the use of non standard channels, with proof of guilt. This has been a mistake we have seen before, and Trump has always done this.
It's an interesting story, this whole thing, but nobody is hiding evidence. The accusers have none and are relying solely on conspiracy, conjecture, and pre conceived notions of his character. Simple as.
If the republican response was indeed "fuck you", right on the Senate floor, I would be overjoyed, because how else do you respond to malicious liars? That should be the default response from right wing figures to left wing media smears, in my honest opinion. Right wing opinion wouldn't move down a dip, and would probably improve.
There was a time when this would have had electoral repercussions, but I doubt it now. Most right wingers I know are finally starting to treat left wing smears the way the left has always treated right wing ones, with complete and utter dismissal, very well deserved. When that democratic representative was threatening and intimidating little girls and was met with a collective shrug, I realized nothing the right wing complains about to the left will ever matter, because they themselves don't matter. Therefore even if it was true, I would hope for some poetic justice and let them speak their objections to the uncaring void, which seems to be exactly what's happening.
I know we have very different views of Mueller's report, but in that case it seems more understandable as there is at least some doubt about what happened in relation to the substantive issues at the heart of the report (though not about Trump's obstruction of the investigation). In the case of Ukraine there is no doubt at all about the substantive issues. Even Trump doesn't deny that he:
- deliberately withheld funding from Ukraine.
- sent an envoy to Ukraine to ask them to announce an investigation into Biden.
- sacked the ambassador there.
The issue isn't what happened, but why. Trump has presented various defenses for his actions, such as his "concern over corruption", but none of those seem serious to me - and none of them have had more than the briefest shelf life. I really don't see how pointing out that lack of a real defense, or asking for documents or testimony to be produced to demonstrate what Trump's real intentions for his actions were, can be described as a smear.
His defense to impeachment now is that as President he's entitled to do anything he wants as long as it's not a crime - and as @jjstraka34 says that includes hiding evidence showing whether or not he has actually committed a crime. I've presented evidence to show that impeachment as a remedy has historically been about more than criminal activity and that that was also the intention of the framers of the US Constitution - so that defense seems incredibly flimsy to me.
Just in common sense terms I don't think it makes sense to say the President's power is absolute. Under that argument Trump would be entitled to use nuclear bombs on Iran tomorrow - he has the technical ability to do that as Commander in Chief and, if his judgment can't be challenged, then neither can his actions. Forgive me if my memory is faulty, but I think you've argued in the past this scenario would not be a problem as Trump's generals would refuse to obey their orders in this situation. That though relies on them challenging his judgment - and that will be harder to do in future if he is acquitted on the basis his judgment can't be challenged.
This type of issue is not in fact ancient history, but has been considered in living memory as part of the debate over the 25th Amendment to the Constitution. That provides that, in the event of a dispute about whether the President is capable of discharging his duties, Congress will decide if he should be removed - a 2/3 majority of both houses is needed to do that, i.e. a slightly higher standard than impeachment. While the process is quite similar, the intention of the 25th Amendment is to deal with lack of capacity, rather than abuse of power. However, the same principle underlies both the 25th Amendment route and impeachment - the President is not a dictator and his judgment can be challenged and ultimately over-ridden by Congress.
Incidentally, I had no idea what your reference to threatening little girls was about. Googling it, the most likely of several not very likely options seemed to be this reference to the 1964 election. Is that what you are concerned about?
That is undoubtedly true, but who are their vocal representatives in positions of governmental power pushing for policies that can actually do harm?? Because the right-wing reactionary anti-trans movement has the entire Republican Party. The elite leftist feminist version has.......who exactly??
Basically, no one. It's a total false equivalence to suggest that because there are a fraction of feminists on the left that are trans exclusionary that this is in any way comparable to conservative orthodoxy, which is vehemently anti LGBTQ.
That is undoubtedly true, but who are their vocal representatives in positions of governmental power pushing for policies that can actually do harm?? Because the right-wing reactionary anti-trans movement has the entire Republican Party. The elite leftist feminist version has.......who exactly??
Basically, no one. It's a total false equivalence to suggest that because there are a fraction of feminists on the left that are trans exclusionary that this is in any way comparable to conservative orthodoxy, which is vehemently anti LGBTQ.
This trend is nothing new btw. Black women have been marginalized by the feminist movment at large since suffrage. This is where the entire idea of intersectionality comes from. That within marginalized groups, there are subsets that are even MORE marginalized, and often abandoned by their ostensible allies. The very idea this is something worth discussing has been mocked on the right for years. Even saying the word elicits eyerolls and rage.
...
I stopped caring about impeachment right after I read the transcript because I realized then and there it was a dead end, lost cause. Of course they would inevitably try to revise history,...
You have not read the transcript because it is still hidden. You've read a summary, if you've read anything and aren't relying on what the pundits have said, it says on the thing it's not a transcript.
Check it again if you don't believe me. And people have testified it is not accurate - specifically Vindman testified that specific mentions of Burisma are now ...s among others being wrong with the so called transcript that is not a transcript.
Whether you care about it or not is immaterial. It was allocated by elected representatives and illegally withheld to extort an investigation of his political rival. Or more accurately, to provide the APPEARANCE of an investigation on the surface, which gives away the whole game. Not a single person who actually had the balls to go under oath disputes this, and all the people who claim to have another explanation won't do so themselves. To say nothing of Trump literally BRAGGING in the last 24 hours that the House doesn't have the evidence because HE has the evidence and won't provide it to the branch of government charged with oversight of the Executive.
The entire defense of this, from the Republican Senate on down, is nothing more than "fuck you, so what??" And yeah, he's always gone through "non-standard lines of communication" because that is what the heads of criminal enterprises do to inoculate themselves from guilt. It's why RICO was invented. But since we've been told in no uncertain terms he can't be held criminally accountable for anything, then the Congressional method is all there is. And then the same people come back and say it needs to meet a criminal burden of proof, when the defendant is literally withholding all relevant evidence. What a convenient little paradox that has been constructed.
It's an interesting story, this whole thing, but nobody is hiding evidence. ....
If the republican response was indeed "fuck you", right on the Senate floor, I would be overjoyed, because how else do you respond to malicious liars? That should be the default response from right wing figures to left wing media smears, in my honest opinion. Right wing opinion wouldn't move down a dip, and would probably improve.
There was a time when this would have had electoral repercussions, but I doubt it now. Most right wingers I know are finally starting to treat left wing smears the way the left has always treated right wing ones, with complete and utter dismissal, very well deserved. When that democratic representative was threatening and intimidating little girls and was met with a collective shrug, I realized nothing the right wing complains about to the left will ever matter, because they themselves don't matter. Therefore even if it was true, I would hope for some poetic justice and let them speak their objections to the uncaring void, which seems to be exactly what's happening.
Nobody is hiding evidence? Ummm...
Trump is hiding evidence. The GOP is hiding evidence.
Where's Bolton's testimony?
Where's Pompeo's testimony?
Where's Trump's testimony?
Where are ant of the documents? Why are the documents we get almost totally redacted? It's a coverup because he did it. He's told us he did it but then he lies and says he didn't. Read the fake transcript, it is incriminating as hell as it is.
Why are there no witnesses allowed in the trial?
This impeachment trial is a partisan coverup.
People would cheer if Republicans just said fuck you and shut the case down.
And that's how Democracy dies, in thunderous applause.
Pompeo CRUMBLES in interview when reporter calls him out to his face for lying and NOT DEFENDING Maria Yovanovitch and other State Department Employees on YouTube ...MELTDOWN
This is why these officials only appear on Fox News where the can lie unchecked.
The best part of this is when he asks her if she can find Ukraine on a map. He has aides bring out a world map with no writing on it. She points right to it. Which undoubtedly sent him into even more of an inner rage. Geography is for elitist snobs. REAL Americans have no idea where other countries are on maps.
Mary Louise Kelley is kind of awesome. She went to Iran within days of the Soleimani assassination. She was on the streets of Tehran during his funeral, when people were alternating between sobbing and shouting "Death to America"
@WarChiefZeke "But I also believe in states and community rights, and I really can't say I like the idea of forcing some christian town to enact pro-gay laws if that's not what they support. They deserve some level of autonomy. I'm still wondering where the acceptable line is to draw here, between the community and individual, but certainly it doesn't go as far as denying economic opportunities to people."
Here's a line. NOBODY HAS THE RIGHT TO TAKE RIGHTS AWAY FROM ANYONE ELSE. "Pro-gay laws" are just an attempt to give a minority the SAME RIGHTS that the majority enjoy. These "Christian communities" lose no rights by letting gay or trans people work, live and shop in the same community. But they ARE apparently fine with taking those rights away from other people.
The problem is that a disturbingly growing number of people believe they've got rights they don't really have. Mark my word, next few years we gonna hear more offended morons claiming they've got a right to not get wet on a beach. Facepalm.
The best part of this is when he asks her if she can find Ukraine on a map. He has aides bring out a world map with no writing on it. She points right to it. Which undoubtedly sent him into even more of an inner rage. Geography is for elitist snobs. REAL Americans have no idea where other countries are on maps.
Pompeo must have been like damn she knows more than me!
I'm sure most of the conservative yes-men Pompeo hires to work for him could not find Ukraine on a map.
Since a lot of people on international media says that Bolsonaro is "racist, fascist, misogynistic(...)" that his Afro friend is only to maintain appearances(was his friend since his Cadet times), i will show what he accomplished in one year of government
Stocks rising to record values
Convinced Trump to not put tarrifs into Brazilian goods
A trade deal with EU
Gave more autonomy to majors. Now a lot of majors of mostly small cities are cancelling public expenses on the carnival(that should't exist) in favor of building homes for necessitated people. Carnival should be abolished. But since this exist. At least the government should't support it.
The homicide rate dropped 25%, would dropped more if the congress din't had barred his gun decrees.
4 more countries will not demand Visas for brazilian tourists
In 2019, only ONE invasion perpetrated by the "MST" terrorist group happened
No, he is not perfect. There are a lot of things that i disagree with him. Eg :
Since a lot of people on international media says that Bolsonaro is "racist, fascist, misogynistic(...)" that his Afro friend is only to maintain appearances(was his friend since his Cadet times), i will show what he accomplished in one year of government
Stocks rising to record values
Convinced Trump to not put tarrifs into Brazilian goods
A trade deal with EU
Gave more autonomy to majors. Now a lot of majors of mostly small cities are cancelling public expenses on the carnival(that should't exist) in favor of building homes for necessitated people. Carnival should be abolished. But since this exist. At least the government should't support it.
The homicide rate dropped 25%, would dropped more if the congress din't had barred his gun decrees.
4 more countries will not demand Visas for brazilian tourists
In 2019, only ONE invasion perpetrated by the "MST" terrorist group happened
No, he is not perfect. There are a lot of things that i disagree with him. Eg :
Womb control
War on Drugs
Militarism
Unionism
But Bolsonaro was far better than anyone else.
"Racist"
In one of his weekly Facebook broadcasts on Thursday, Bolsonaro declared: “Indians are undoubtedly changing … They are increasingly becoming human beings just like us.”
Since a lot of people on international media says that Bolsonaro is "racist, fascist, misogynistic(...)" that his Afro friend is only to maintain appearances(was his friend since his Cadet times), i will show what he accomplished in one year of government
Stocks rising to record values
Convinced Trump to not put tarrifs into Brazilian goods
A trade deal with EU
Gave more autonomy to majors. Now a lot of majors of mostly small cities are cancelling public expenses on the carnival(that should't exist) in favor of building homes for necessitated people. Carnival should be abolished. But since this exist. At least the government should't support it.
The homicide rate dropped 25%, would dropped more if the congress din't had barred his gun decrees.
4 more countries will not demand Visas for brazilian tourists
In 2019, only ONE invasion perpetrated by the "MST" terrorist group happened
No, he is not perfect. There are a lot of things that i disagree with him. Eg :
Womb control
War on Drugs
Militarism
Unionism
But Bolsonaro was far better than anyone else.
"Racist"
In one of his weekly Facebook broadcasts on Thursday, Bolsonaro declared: “Indians are undoubtedly changing … They are increasingly becoming human beings just like us.”
That is a bad translation of a out of context speech. He was saying that indigenous communities are having access to things that only the modern world can offer and "evolving" by abandoning practices like burying deficient children alive.
Look to his wife. She has a lot of obvious indigenous traits.
And Brazil is a white minority country. Even if he was racist, If a large group of non whites voted from a racist, is because the other choice is worse...
Worker protection laws working assumes 3 things, which rarely ever converge:
1.) That workers are aware or made aware of what their rights are. And no, the barely discernible posters in the break room don't count.
2.) That if they ARE aware of their rights, they have the monetary means to fight for them legally.
3.) That the employer fears the punishment enough to even care. Losing you business or freedom would make them think twice. Insignificant monetary fines won't.
This is basically the problem with all American buisness laws, the punishment is so low it makes the crime profitable, even when caught.
In other countries it's not unheard of for those guilty of corporate malfeasance to go to jail. You will never see that in the U.S where capital writes the laws.
Since a lot of people on international media says that Bolsonaro is "racist, fascist, misogynistic(...)" that his Afro friend is only to maintain appearances(was his friend since his Cadet times), i will show what he accomplished in one year of government
If media calls someone racist, fascist, misogynist etc. that only means they have no real arguments so they resort to shaming rhetoric, so defending against it does nothing but providing it with some credibility.
I guess, such tactic probably used to work in the past, but nowadays nobody cares anymore about brain farts. Which is quite concerning, honestly, for should a real racist or fascist figure take up the power, everyone would just assume media is flailing helplessly again instead of calling their real nature out.
In one of his weekly Facebook broadcasts on Thursday, Bolsonaro declared: “Indians are undoubtedly changing … They are increasingly becoming human beings just like us.”
Lol, yeah. Saying something on social media is somehow making one racist. Lol again.
I guess, such tactic probably used to work in the past, but nowadays nobody cares anymore about brain farts. Which is quite concerning, honestly, for should a real racist or fascist figure take up the power, everyone would just assume media is flailing helplessly again instead of calling their real nature out.
Yep. Only real facists/racists wins with the "trivialization" of the therm ...
(...)
This is basically the problem with all American buisness laws, the punishment is so low it makes the crime profitable, even when caught.
In other countries it's not unheard of for those guilty of corporate malfeasance to go to jail. You will never see that in the U.S where capital writes the laws.
All labor laws hurts workers. USA has one of the best salaries in the world exactly due the fact that working law is less extreme.
The result of hard penalties and harsh labor laws is this
From what I can understand here, he is calling indigenous tribes living a more primitve lifestyle as "becoming human beings". Basic language comprehension would dictate that to become MORE human, one would have to be LESS than human to begin with.
I think it says alot that someone like Joe Rogan is beyond the moral pale for the left. He is the true "middle" of American politics, having normie-tier opinions on just about everything.
At some point they are going to have to concede some of this stuff is misguided or they will isolate themselves from everyone. Rogan is the political pundit for the apolitical person.
But in my opinion, the only reason Rogan is on blast is to find another way to attack Sanders, since so much of the centrist corporate left despises him. They are content to use him as a tool otherwise to promote certain figures.
Now that he has had multiple polls showing him as the front runner the hit pieces are coming out like clockwork.
So much for the lie about the media being liberal. They can't handle a real left of center candidate
I could go on about the phenomenon of Woke Capital and how the ideology it peddles is antithetical to all that people like Bernie Sanders stand for , but I would probably sound like a madman to you all, moreso than usual. Suffice to say, I don't think every modern corporation pushing the same brand of identity politics is an accident. Identity politics, or social justice, is meant to replace the economic justice that Sanders fights for.
To put it another way, Woke Capital and their media cronies are perfectly fine with a suffering underclass of millions barely able to get by, dying early,and robbed of the basic life goals their parents easily attained, as long as the ruling class has the right sexual and racial backgrounds, this is fine and even ideal. The Sanders view is that identity is second to the common economic struggles we all face.
So when I say the media is liberal, they are a particular brand of one, wedded to all the worst elements of society and with a lot of cultural power.
I watch Rogan occasionally, but I view him as very little but a gateway drug to reactionary YouTube. He is a show that talks about politics for people who "hate" politics (even though they don't), but that's because people are just talking out of their ass for half the show. I've seen him give a full-throated endorsement of the idea that Hillary Clinton has personally had people murdered.
THAT BEING SAID......I fully accept and support his endorsement of Bernie, because I know for a fact all the young men who watch his show will vote for Trump if he isn't the nominee. And it's likely most of them vote for Trump anyway. But if even 10-15% of them go for Sanders that is WAY more than the total margin was in WI, MI and PA based on his subscriber numbers. In this media age, Joe Rogan is more influential than every cable news channel combined. I don't necessarily think that's GOOD, but it is undeniably true.
My recent support of Bernie is almost entirely because I realize Democrats are in a hostage situation with his supporters. A large contingent of them not only will not support another nominee, but some of them will turn to Trump out of spite. Many more centrist or older Democrats may be wary, may not even like him, but they WILL vote for him over Trump. I cannot in any way say that about at least 25-30% of Sander's supporters. They are wearing a political suicide bomb and they WILL pull the trigger.
I disagree about the number of Bernie supporters deciding to go for Trump if Bernie doesn't win the nomination. I see no evidence for massive numbers of votes going that way. I do feel Bernie is the best candidate to defeat Trump.
Comments
For those who aren't aware, TERF is a pun on "turf" and stands for Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist, a word for feminist folks who don't support trans rights--the folks who think that feminism should be for cisgender women (and maybe trans men) but not trans women or cis men.
There are indeed some transphobic schools of thought on the left.
That is undoubtedly true, but who are their vocal representatives in positions of governmental power pushing for policies that can actually do harm?? Because the right-wing reactionary anti-trans movement has the entire Republican Party. The elite leftist feminist version has.......who exactly??
I stopped caring about impeachment right after I read the transcript because I realized then and there it was a dead end, lost cause. Of course they would inevitably try to revise history, I knew they were going to go with the "it's not real!" lie long before they cobbled together some half baked story to support it, with nothing to lean on but conjecture, but it was obvious to me then it was a big L. I have seen almost no concern over this from anyone.
I can think of several examples that would have been serious enough to measure up to impeachment, I've mentioned them before. How Bush lied to get us into Iraq. How Bush lied to get us into Iraq, the other time with the younger Bush, and how he tortured people. The murder-by-drone program of Obama I am iffy about, could go either way, maybe you could call it a legitimate military tactic but it is very civilian-murdery to the point of being cruel and excessive. You know what? Put murdering Soleimani up there as debatable too.
These all had affected human life in one way or another and could have had disastrous consequences. I don't care about military foriegn aid, and don't agree with the strategy of funding military counters to "Russian aggression", so none of this matters to me and not much to the average voter. Impeachment has a certain anti democratic nature to it I find distasteful to use in all but the extreme circumstances. But to be clear, I don't agree with your version of events in the first place.
If there is one thing the years of RussiaGate taught me, there are no lengths the left political/media machine will not go to in order to cling to their elaborately constructed conspiracy theories that are ultimately built upon houses of sand.
The TLDR version is that you are conflating gaps in knowledge or information, or the use of non standard channels, with proof of guilt. This has been a mistake we have seen before, and Trump has always done this.
I am aware of it because I am very much an environmentalist, not a climate change activist but concerned with deforestation, biodiversity, etc. The activist group I was in took a lot of heat for being TERFs. This was all Greek to me at the time, I didn't know or care about this stuff, I was in it for the natural world. They also had some weird race rules like how I had to admit I was racist if I was white and to basically speak when spoken to if around a POC (not kidding) so I hopped out of there and didn't look back. It was an eye opening moment for me and when I realized I couldn't belong to left leaning groups, these moral rules are all an affront to my own beliefs tbh.
The entire defense of this, from the Republican Senate on down, is nothing more than "fuck you, so what??" And yeah, he's always gone through "non-standard lines of communication" because that is what the heads of criminal enterprises do to inoculate themselves from guilt. It's why RICO was invented. But since we've been told in no uncertain terms he can't be held criminally accountable for anything, then the Congressional method is all there is. And then the same people come back and say it needs to meet a criminal burden of proof, when the defendant is literally withholding all relevant evidence. What a convenient little paradox that has been constructed.
It's an interesting story, this whole thing, but nobody is hiding evidence. The accusers have none and are relying solely on conspiracy, conjecture, and pre conceived notions of his character. Simple as.
If the republican response was indeed "fuck you", right on the Senate floor, I would be overjoyed, because how else do you respond to malicious liars? That should be the default response from right wing figures to left wing media smears, in my honest opinion. Right wing opinion wouldn't move down a dip, and would probably improve.
There was a time when this would have had electoral repercussions, but I doubt it now. Most right wingers I know are finally starting to treat left wing smears the way the left has always treated right wing ones, with complete and utter dismissal, very well deserved. When that democratic representative was threatening and intimidating little girls and was met with a collective shrug, I realized nothing the right wing complains about to the left will ever matter, because they themselves don't matter. Therefore even if it was true, I would hope for some poetic justice and let them speak their objections to the uncaring void, which seems to be exactly what's happening.
I know we have very different views of Mueller's report, but in that case it seems more understandable as there is at least some doubt about what happened in relation to the substantive issues at the heart of the report (though not about Trump's obstruction of the investigation). In the case of Ukraine there is no doubt at all about the substantive issues. Even Trump doesn't deny that he:
- deliberately withheld funding from Ukraine.
- sent an envoy to Ukraine to ask them to announce an investigation into Biden.
- sacked the ambassador there.
The issue isn't what happened, but why. Trump has presented various defenses for his actions, such as his "concern over corruption", but none of those seem serious to me - and none of them have had more than the briefest shelf life. I really don't see how pointing out that lack of a real defense, or asking for documents or testimony to be produced to demonstrate what Trump's real intentions for his actions were, can be described as a smear.
His defense to impeachment now is that as President he's entitled to do anything he wants as long as it's not a crime - and as @jjstraka34 says that includes hiding evidence showing whether or not he has actually committed a crime. I've presented evidence to show that impeachment as a remedy has historically been about more than criminal activity and that that was also the intention of the framers of the US Constitution - so that defense seems incredibly flimsy to me.
Just in common sense terms I don't think it makes sense to say the President's power is absolute. Under that argument Trump would be entitled to use nuclear bombs on Iran tomorrow - he has the technical ability to do that as Commander in Chief and, if his judgment can't be challenged, then neither can his actions. Forgive me if my memory is faulty, but I think you've argued in the past this scenario would not be a problem as Trump's generals would refuse to obey their orders in this situation. That though relies on them challenging his judgment - and that will be harder to do in future if he is acquitted on the basis his judgment can't be challenged.
This type of issue is not in fact ancient history, but has been considered in living memory as part of the debate over the 25th Amendment to the Constitution. That provides that, in the event of a dispute about whether the President is capable of discharging his duties, Congress will decide if he should be removed - a 2/3 majority of both houses is needed to do that, i.e. a slightly higher standard than impeachment. While the process is quite similar, the intention of the 25th Amendment is to deal with lack of capacity, rather than abuse of power. However, the same principle underlies both the 25th Amendment route and impeachment - the President is not a dictator and his judgment can be challenged and ultimately over-ridden by Congress.
Incidentally, I had no idea what your reference to threatening little girls was about. Googling it, the most likely of several not very likely options seemed to be this reference to the 1964 election. Is that what you are concerned about?
Basically, no one. It's a total false equivalence to suggest that because there are a fraction of feminists on the left that are trans exclusionary that this is in any way comparable to conservative orthodoxy, which is vehemently anti LGBTQ.
This trend is nothing new btw. Black women have been marginalized by the feminist movment at large since suffrage. This is where the entire idea of intersectionality comes from. That within marginalized groups, there are subsets that are even MORE marginalized, and often abandoned by their ostensible allies. The very idea this is something worth discussing has been mocked on the right for years. Even saying the word elicits eyerolls and rage.
You have not read the transcript because it is still hidden. You've read a summary, if you've read anything and aren't relying on what the pundits have said, it says on the thing it's not a transcript.
Check it again if you don't believe me. And people have testified it is not accurate - specifically Vindman testified that specific mentions of Burisma are now ...s among others being wrong with the so called transcript that is not a transcript.
Nobody is hiding evidence? Ummm...
Trump is hiding evidence. The GOP is hiding evidence.
Where's Bolton's testimony?
Where's Pompeo's testimony?
Where's Trump's testimony?
Where are ant of the documents? Why are the documents we get almost totally redacted? It's a coverup because he did it. He's told us he did it but then he lies and says he didn't. Read the fake transcript, it is incriminating as hell as it is.
Why are there no witnesses allowed in the trial?
This impeachment trial is a partisan coverup.
People would cheer if Republicans just said fuck you and shut the case down.
And that's how Democracy dies, in thunderous applause.
WITH thunderous applause.
FTFY.
This is why these officials only appear on Fox News where the can lie unchecked.
Here's a line. NOBODY HAS THE RIGHT TO TAKE RIGHTS AWAY FROM ANYONE ELSE. "Pro-gay laws" are just an attempt to give a minority the SAME RIGHTS that the majority enjoy. These "Christian communities" lose no rights by letting gay or trans people work, live and shop in the same community. But they ARE apparently fine with taking those rights away from other people.
Pompeo must have been like damn she knows more than me!
I'm sure most of the conservative yes-men Pompeo hires to work for him could not find Ukraine on a map.
No, he is not perfect. There are a lot of things that i disagree with him. Eg :
But Bolsonaro was far better than anyone else.
"Racist"
In one of his weekly Facebook broadcasts on Thursday, Bolsonaro declared: “Indians are undoubtedly changing … They are increasingly becoming human beings just like us.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/24/jair-bolsonaro-racist-comment-sparks-outrage-indigenous-groups
That is a bad translation of a out of context speech. He was saying that indigenous communities are having access to things that only the modern world can offer and "evolving" by abandoning practices like burying deficient children alive.
Look to his wife. She has a lot of obvious indigenous traits.
And Brazil is a white minority country. Even if he was racist, If a large group of non whites voted from a racist, is because the other choice is worse...
This is basically the problem with all American buisness laws, the punishment is so low it makes the crime profitable, even when caught.
In other countries it's not unheard of for those guilty of corporate malfeasance to go to jail. You will never see that in the U.S where capital writes the laws.
I guess, such tactic probably used to work in the past, but nowadays nobody cares anymore about brain farts. Which is quite concerning, honestly, for should a real racist or fascist figure take up the power, everyone would just assume media is flailing helplessly again instead of calling their real nature out.
Lol, yeah. Saying something on social media is somehow making one racist. Lol again.
Yep. Only real facists/racists wins with the "trivialization" of the therm ...
All labor laws hurts workers. USA has one of the best salaries in the world exactly due the fact that working law is less extreme.
The result of hard penalties and harsh labor laws is this
Over 50% Youth Unemployment in Spain
https://www.spanishnews.es/20120402-over-50-youth-unemployment-in-spain-3723/
I had a employee to help with "housework" but after the government made it much more strict, i had to fire her...
At some point they are going to have to concede some of this stuff is misguided or they will isolate themselves from everyone. Rogan is the political pundit for the apolitical person.
But in my opinion, the only reason Rogan is on blast is to find another way to attack Sanders, since so much of the centrist corporate left despises him. They are content to use him as a tool otherwise to promote certain figures.
Now that he has had multiple polls showing him as the front runner the hit pieces are coming out like clockwork.
I could go on about the phenomenon of Woke Capital and how the ideology it peddles is antithetical to all that people like Bernie Sanders stand for , but I would probably sound like a madman to you all, moreso than usual. Suffice to say, I don't think every modern corporation pushing the same brand of identity politics is an accident. Identity politics, or social justice, is meant to replace the economic justice that Sanders fights for.
To put it another way, Woke Capital and their media cronies are perfectly fine with a suffering underclass of millions barely able to get by, dying early,and robbed of the basic life goals their parents easily attained, as long as the ruling class has the right sexual and racial backgrounds, this is fine and even ideal. The Sanders view is that identity is second to the common economic struggles we all face.
So when I say the media is liberal, they are a particular brand of one, wedded to all the worst elements of society and with a lot of cultural power.
THAT BEING SAID......I fully accept and support his endorsement of Bernie, because I know for a fact all the young men who watch his show will vote for Trump if he isn't the nominee. And it's likely most of them vote for Trump anyway. But if even 10-15% of them go for Sanders that is WAY more than the total margin was in WI, MI and PA based on his subscriber numbers. In this media age, Joe Rogan is more influential than every cable news channel combined. I don't necessarily think that's GOOD, but it is undeniably true.
My recent support of Bernie is almost entirely because I realize Democrats are in a hostage situation with his supporters. A large contingent of them not only will not support another nominee, but some of them will turn to Trump out of spite. Many more centrist or older Democrats may be wary, may not even like him, but they WILL vote for him over Trump. I cannot in any way say that about at least 25-30% of Sander's supporters. They are wearing a political suicide bomb and they WILL pull the trigger.
If you say racist things, you are a racist. Where you say it is inconsequential.