Never been a fan of Farrakhan myself. Anti-Semitism displays ignorance and bigotry no matter who expresses it. Being a supporter of black rights doesn't mean you're inherently free from any given form of bigotry. I think as Americans we tend to think of racism as a "white people thing," because racism from whites has caused so much more violence and discrimination in this country than racism from other races. (...)
I agree; there are any forms of "racism", not only whites on "minorities", can be mixed race people on blacks(as many Afro Caribbeans suffers), whites on whites, look to Irish treatment on USA or Slavic treatment during WW2, indigenous on blacks, Asians on Semites, etc, etc, etc.
To be fair most cases of racism on asians on other asians have historical reasons, i mean, an Chinese/Korean who hate Japaneses by what Hirohito did is similar to a Pole/Ukraine who hate Russia by what Stalin did to them. Anyway, an interesting article
IS nypost not the ultraextremefarsuperduperaltright.blogspot.com
I honestly think that depends how you define racism. If a little in group preference is racism, then everyone is racist. Even if not openly. If is the believe in the superiority of a race, then is completely different.
@WarChiefZeke "Just like with the word "even", people can't just start adding mountains of baseless conjecture wherever a gap is found and expected it to be taken as fact."
1. Its called grammar. Just a single word, even a single SYMBOL, can COMPLETELY change the entire meaning of a sentence.
This is true. But how, exactly, does the word "even'' imply a proclivity towards rape, except for the particular target, or how does it imply any reason in particular, since none are stated, for why they wouldn't do it? My interpretation still appears to be the reasonable one, and the one he attests to.
This is such a tangential subject to what my point originally was, but what is an internet forum if not a place to dissect minutiae.
It's mostly because it's one of the things he is "known" for. This entire counter-culture of right-wing Youtube commentators focusing on anti-PC topics is not going to even be visible unless you are made aware of the eco-system in the first place.
Exclusive: Police called to attempted break in at Vancouver property linked to Huawei CFO
https://globalnews.ca/news/4745145/wanzhou-vancouver-break-in/?utm_source=notification/ Vancouver police were called Sunday morning to a Dunbar home believed to be owned by Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou’s husband. The property on West 28th Avenue is one of two in the city that property records show are owned by Xiaozong Liu. That is the same name as a man identified in Chinese media as Meng’s husband. The other home is in Shaughnessy. According to police, investigators received a 911 call about a home being broken into on West 28th Avenue near Crown Street around 5:30 a.m. Pacific time.
A day after a neo-Nazi is convicted of murder, associates of the country's oldest, most violent skinhead groups charged with hate crimes
https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/12/08/day-after-neo-nazi-convicted-murder-associates-countrys-oldest-most-violent-skinhead-groups?fbclid=IwAR0qTrKF-ZI4wT29jrkKcizYBVDpndfRr_WE8APKpH5s2lfFzS-6kGZyDHE Individuals associated with some of the country’s oldest and most violent racist skinhead groups have been charged with hate crimes in Washington state, just hours after a jury convicted a neo-Nazi of murder for his actions at the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. Travis David Condor, a member of the band Birthrite and head of hate music record label American Defense Records, was among nine people arrested at a bar in Lynwood, Washington, early Saturday morning. The Snohomish County Sheriff's Office said in a release that the people in custody attacked a black DJ at the Rec Room Bar while shouting racial slurs at the man.
What a young Michelle Obama learned about Barack from his beat-up, yellow Datsun
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/08/michelle-obama-what-she-learned-about-barack-from-his-dented-yellow-datsun.html When a young Michelle Obama first visited Barack at Harvard Law School, she was surprised to see him pull up in a "snub-nosed, banana-yellow Datsun." It was in that moment that she knew: "Life with Barack would never be dull," the former first lady wrote in her new book "Becoming." The two had recently started dating, having met in 1989 after Barack took a summer position as an associate at Chicago law firm Sidley Austin where Michelle was a first-year lawyer. Barack, 28, lived frugally as a "loan-strapped" student. Still, when she arrived in Cambridge, Massachusetts to visit after he returned to law school, she was surprised to see the condition of his rusted, beat up car, bought used on his student budget. She asked, in awe, "You drive this thing?" Smiling, the future president turned the key in his Datsun. "The engine revved and the car spasmed violently before settling into a loud, sustained juddering that shook us in our seats," wrote Michelle. "Just give it a minute or two," he assured her. "It goes away."... It did occur to Michelle that Barack might never make any money, she wrote, but the idea of life with him seemed exciting. "It would be some version of banana yellow and slightly hair-raising," she wrote. "I knew it even then."
Want to know what haunts Trump in his darkest hours? Track his projection
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/12/3/1816876/-Want-to-know-what-haunts-Trump-in-his-darkest-hours-Track-his-projection?detail=emaildksp Trump's main mode of combat will naturally be the fusillade at his fingertips, and as vindictive, paranoid, and rage-filled as those tweets will be, they will also be a window into Trump's greatest fears. Trump's most desperate moments inevitably express themselves as projections on to others. Donald Trump is about to be the subject of an extreme pressure test—hunkered down in the White House fending off a barrage of explosive revelations emanating from the Russia probe, multiple investigations by the House Democratic majority, and various lawsuits wending their way through the courts. Trump's main mode of combat will naturally be the fusillade at his fingertips, and as vindictive, paranoid, and rage-filled as those tweets will be, they will also be a window into Trump's greatest fears. Trump's most desperate moments inevitably express themselves as projections on to others. Exhibit A was Trump's retweet last week of all is his perceived enemies, including Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, behind bars. Projection is a psychological defense mechanism in which individuals attribute characteristics they find unacceptable in themselves to another person. For example, a husband who has a hostile nature might attribute this hostility to his wife and say she has an anger management problem.
Sitting quietly and listening to people praise sacrifice and kindness was torture for Trump
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/12/6/1817430/-Sitting-quietly-and-listening-to-people-praise-sacrifice-and-kindness-was-torture-for-Trump?detail=emaildksp The fact that they were all gathered for a funeral did not dim the conversations between Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, George Bush, Barack Obama and their families. But the arrival of Donald Trump immediately cast a gloom over the whole affair. While the former presidents listened and responded to both moments of humor and calls for prayer during the service for President George H W Bush, Trump and Melania glared straight ahead, slowly reducing the paper program in his hands into a crumpled mass. There were hymns. Trump didn’t sing. There were readings. Trump didn’t even bother to look at the words. There were jokes. Trump didn’t laugh. If Trump’s presence was so galling that it cast a pall over a funeral, attending the event was obviously no more pleasurable for Trump. He sat through most of the ceremony with his face twisted in a frown and his arms folded across his chest. Because the qualities that earned the elder Bush praise in the National Cathedral—his kindness to strangers, his humility in the face of history, his refusal to shirk the blame for his own actions, and above all his reluctance to strike back against insults—were all counter to anything in Trump’s own nature, the fact that they were getting praise, amounted to little less than an insult to Trump.
The GOP's refusal to reckon with Trump is already hurting their chances of taking back the House
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/12/4/1816990/-The-GOP-s-refusal-to-reckon-with-Trump-is-already-hurting-their-chances-of-taking-back-the-House?detail=emaildksp In a new piece, the New York Times' Jonathan Martin reports on the congressional GOP's fearful refusal to reckon with their massive election night loss, an abdication of responsibility largely fomented by Donald Trump, whom no Republican wants to publicly criticize in any truthful post-mortem. This cult of personality is not only making it impossible for Republicans to correct their course, but it also seems to be dissuading comeback attempts and might even send some members into early retirement. Rep. David Young offers one such example. Young was narrowly turfed out of his seat in Iowa's 3rd District last month by Democrat Cindy Axne, who beat him by a 49-47 margin. In theory, he'd be a pretty decent candidate to try again in 2020, but he doesn't sound keen. In talking to Martin, Young bemoaned the "Trump effect" on his race and explained, "That's why you see a lot of people, myself included—who are asked: 'Are you going to do it again?'—saying: 'I'm just going to wait and watch.'" It's not clear which other soon-to-be-former representatives Young has in mind, but Martin spoke with one sitting Republican who didn't lose in 2018 who might nevertheless call it quits over his exhaustion with Trump. That's Illinois Rep. Adam Kinzinger, who represents his state's conservative 16th District, which supported Trump by a wide 56-38 margin. Kinzinger called Trump's refusal to acknowledge his party's defeat "disgusting," and even compared his reaction unfavorably to Obama's after Democrats lost the House in 2010.
On unrelated political news: Trump is apparently floating the idea of asking Mark Meadows to be his new Chief of Staff.
Mark Meadows is the current chair of the Freedom Caucus in the House of Representatives. He's also a pretty hardline tea-party type conservative, and is 100% opposed to the Mueller investigation. If Meadows is made the Chief of Staff, it'll be all out war before Trump and Mueller.
Apparently he admitted to walking in on naked girls dressing and bothering them. On purpose. Clearly and unequivocally sexual harassment, I don't know if it fits the legal definition of assault, but it might as well.
I didn't know about it either.
Got you. I think this was in reference to his pageants, right?
I seem to recall (but I may be 100% mistaken) that he had pageants with underage women too. I feel like I remember the context of that comment being that he was walking in and seeing 15 and 16 year olds naked. I might be totally wrong on that part.
Another story of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump publicly bragging about violating women’s privacy and bodily autonomy has emerged. Women have shared stories of being harassed by Trump in the very ways he has publicly boasted about. On an appearance on The Howard Stern Show in 2005, published on Sunday by CNN, Trump described going backstage at the beauty pageants while the contestants were undressed. “Before a show, I’ll go backstage and everyone’s getting dressed, and everything else, and you know, no men are anywhere, and I’m allowed to go in because I’m the owner of the pageant and therefore I’m inspecting it,” he said. “You know, I’m inspecting because I want to make sure that everything is good.” “You know, they’re standing there with no clothes. ‘Is everybody okay?’” he continued. “And you see these incredible looking women, and so, I sort of get away with things like that.” According to interviews BuzzFeed News conducted with former Miss Teen USA contestants, Trump did just that in 1997. Four women who were competing in the pageant that year — including one who was 15 at the time — recalled that Trump walked into the dressing area while they were changing. “I remember putting on my dress really quick because I was like, ‘Oh my god, there’s a man in here,’” Mariah Billado, former Miss Vermont Teen USA, said. Billado remembered Trump saying something like, “Don’t worry, ladies, I’ve seen it all before.” Another who was 17 at the time recalled that it seemed Trump felt “it was his given right… because he owned the pageant.” “At the time, you’re a teenager, you’re intimidated — it’s Donald Trump, he runs the pageant,” she said. Another former contestant has told the same story. Tasha Dixon, who competed as Miss Arizona at age 18, told CBS2 LA, “He just came strolling right in, there was no second to put a robe on or any sort of clothing or anything. Some girls were topless, other girls were naked.” She added that they were in “a very physically vulnerable position.” “Who do you complain to? He owns the pageant,” she added. “So there’s no one to complain to, everyone there works for him.” But on another episode of Stern’s show, Trump also implied that he slept with contestants. When asked if he had ever had sex with a Miss Universe or Miss USA contestant, he answered, “I never comment on things like that.” Later when someone in the background said, “Give us the first letter of the country you had sex with,” Trump responded, “How many letters are there?”
Jesus Christ I never realized Trump made those comments on the Howard Stern show. Somehow in the information flow that honestly escaped my notice. Probably because the focus is on the tape which is defend able.
I'm not trying to rag on you guys, but man, you had a slam dunk in terms of evidence there and I stumble on it myself.
I take back my comments on Trump.
That's odd. I looked it up and found a list of statements here, but I'd actually rate that as less damning than the Access Hollywood tape. The comments to Howard Stern mostly just describe an extremely crass and promiscuous man. Aside from the "peeking at underage models" thing, most of it could be described as "locker room talk."
Jesus Christ I never realized Trump made those comments on the Howard Stern show. Somehow in the information flow that honestly escaped my notice. Probably because the focus is on the tape which is defend able.
I'm not trying to rag on you guys, but man, you had a slam dunk in terms of evidence there and I stumble on it myself.
I take back my comments on Trump.
That's odd. I looked it up and found a list of statements here, but I'd actually rate that as less damning than the Access Hollywood tape. The comments to Howard Stern mostly just describe an extremely crass and promiscuous man. Aside from the "peeking at underage models" thing, most of it could be described as "locker room talk."
There's no room for interpretation in those comments.
The thing with the tape is that it is incredibly vague. "They let you do it" can mean anything from they actively enjoyed it and went along with it, I imagine even for Trump there isn't a complete shortage of those attracted to wealth or fame especially when he was a much more generally liked figure, to them being scared and not wanting to say no. The interpretation you suggest may be even worse if it's true, but there isn't any reason to believe that.
» show previous quotes This is true. But how, exactly, does the word "even'' imply a proclivity towards rape, except for the particular target, or how does it imply any reason in particular, since none are stated, for why they wouldn't do it? My interpretation still appears to be the reasonable one, and the one he attests to.
This is such a tangential subject to what my point originally was, but what is an internet forum if not a place to dissect minutiae.
It's mostly because it's one of the things he is "known" for. This entire counter-culture of right-wing Youtube commentators focusing on anti-PC topics is not going to even be visible unless you are made aware of the eco-system in the first place.
I urge you to listen to Sargon's points of view before you would describe him as right wing, as he is anything but right wing on policy or in his own interpretation. Certainly not far right which he has actively been against from the start. The only thing he really agrees with the right on are immigration and on an anti-PC culture, which is most of what he spends his time on, so I guess I can imagine why you would think so without spending a lot of time listening.
Not that I think being generally right wing would mean he's liable to make rape threats, mind you.
@WarChiefZeke "There's no room for interpretation in those comments.
The thing with the tape is that it is incredibly vague. "They let you do it" can mean anything from they actively enjoyed it and went along with it, I imagine even for Trump there isn't a complete shortage of those attracted to wealth or fame especially when he was a much more generally liked figure, to them being scared and not wanting to say no. The interpretation you suggest may be even worse if it's true, but there isn't any reason to believe that."
100%, absolute, no frickin way. Not fighting it, and giving consent are 2 COMPLETELY different things. Its even commented on with the girls in the dressing room, "Who would you complain to?" Your average person doesn't have the money for a lawsuit. When someone with the money and power that Trump has tries to do something, what exactly is a scared person supposed to do? He/said she/said never seems to be in favor of the victim in these situations. And with someone as sue happy as Trump, how exactly do you defend yourself. The only person here going through mental gymnastics to defend the inexcusable here is you. I cannot, and will not tolerate someone making light of, and defense of ADMITTED SEXUAL ASSAULT. I have talked to you, been close friends with with people who have been assaulted and outright raped to let crap like this slide.
Jesus Christ I never realized Trump made those comments on the Howard Stern show. Somehow in the information flow that honestly escaped my notice. Probably because the focus is on the tape which is defend able.
I'm not trying to rag on you guys, but man, you had a slam dunk in terms of evidence there and I stumble on it myself.
I take back my comments on Trump.
That's odd. I looked it up and found a list of statements here, but I'd actually rate that as less damning than the Access Hollywood tape. The comments to Howard Stern mostly just describe an extremely crass and promiscuous man. Aside from the "peeking at underage models" thing, most of it could be described as "locker room talk."
Peaking at under age models without clothes on, and using your power as owner of the paegant to do so strikes me as HIGHLY alarming. With the recent revelations about Jeffrey Epstein, a man Trump is known to have spent time with, it raises some serious questions. I would be shocked if he hasn't had sex with underage girls.
@WarChiefZeke "There's no room for interpretation in those comments.
The thing with the tape is that it is incredibly vague. "They let you do it" can mean anything from they actively enjoyed it and went along with it, I imagine even for Trump there isn't a complete shortage of those attracted to wealth or fame especially when he was a much more generally liked figure, to them being scared and not wanting to say no. The interpretation you suggest may be even worse if it's true, but there isn't any reason to believe that."
100%, absolute, no frickin way. Not fighting it, and giving consent are 2 COMPLETELY different things. Its even commented on with the girls in the dressing room, "Who would you complain to?" Your average person doesn't have the money for a lawsuit. When someone with the money and power that Trump has tries to do something, what exactly is a scared person supposed to do? He/said she/said never seems to be in favor of the victim in these situations. And with someone as sue happy as Trump, how exactly do you defend yourself. The only person here going through mental gymnastics to defend the inexcusable here is you. I cannot, and will not tolerate someone making light of, and defense of ADMITTED SEXUAL ASSAULT. I have talked to you, been close friends with with people who have been assaulted and outright raped to let crap like this slide.
I don't know where you got the idea that I was making light of or defending admitted sexual assault, but that's obviously not what i'm saying, and if you're going to get this worked up maybe just take a break for awhile.
Jesus Christ I never realized Trump made those comments on the Howard Stern show. Somehow in the information flow that honestly escaped my notice. Probably because the focus is on the tape which is defend able.
I'm not trying to rag on you guys, but man, you had a slam dunk in terms of evidence there and I stumble on it myself.
I take back my comments on Trump.
That's odd. I looked it up and found a list of statements here, but I'd actually rate that as less damning than the Access Hollywood tape. The comments to Howard Stern mostly just describe an extremely crass and promiscuous man. Aside from the "peeking at underage models" thing, most of it could be described as "locker room talk."
There's no room for interpretation in those comments.
The thing with the tape is that it is incredibly vague. "They let you do it" can mean anything from they actively enjoyed it and went along with it, I imagine even for Trump there isn't a complete shortage of those attracted to wealth or fame especially when he was a much more generally liked figure, to them being scared and not wanting to say no. The interpretation you suggest may be even worse if it's true, but there isn't any reason to believe that.
Jesus Christ I never realized Trump made those comments on the Howard Stern show. Somehow in the information flow that honestly escaped my notice. Probably because the focus is on the tape which is defend able.
I'm not trying to rag on you guys, but man, you had a slam dunk in terms of evidence there and I stumble on it myself.
I take back my comments on Trump.
That's odd. I looked it up and found a list of statements here, but I'd actually rate that as less damning than the Access Hollywood tape. The comments to Howard Stern mostly just describe an extremely crass and promiscuous man. Aside from the "peeking at underage models" thing, most of it could be described as "locker room talk."
Peaking at under age models without clothes on, and using your power as owner of the paegant to do so strikes me as HIGHLY alarming. With the recent revelations about Jeffrey Epstein, a man Trump is known to have spent time with, it raises some serious questions. I would be shocked if he hasn't had sex with underage girls.
Yeah, "peeking at underage girls" when you're some 40-something year old freakin' man and not some young kid is a big deal.
As far as Epstein goes, as far as i'm aware as soon as the accusations were brought to light he completely distanced himself from Epstein, but also as far as i'm concerned every famous person, actor, and politician from Trump to Clinton on down should be investigated on the basis of that association.
On unrelated political news: Trump is apparently floating the idea of asking Mark Meadows to be his new Chief of Staff.
Mark Meadows is the current chair of the Freedom Caucus in the House of Representatives. He's also a pretty hardline tea-party type conservative, and is 100% opposed to the Mueller investigation. If Meadows is made the Chief of Staff, it'll be all out war before Trump and Mueller.
It already is war. Trump's just been mostly waging it on Twitter this whole time.
He fired Comey and Sessions because of Mueller. Trump also declared himself vindicated when Cohen was described by the Justice Department as paying Daniels and others to influence the election at Trump's direction.
Trump has not stopped lying about the Mueller investigation and he has not stopped meddling in the investigation. He doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt people have been giving him. Never forget he has performed criminal acts alongside Michael Cohen and the others who have pled guilty and been found guilty.
Jesus Christ I never realized Trump made those comments on the Howard Stern show. Somehow in the information flow that honestly escaped my notice. Probably because the focus is on the tape which is defend able.
I'm not trying to rag on you guys, but man, you had a slam dunk in terms of evidence there and I stumble on it myself.
I take back my comments on Trump.
That's odd. I looked it up and found a list of statements here, but I'd actually rate that as less damning than the Access Hollywood tape. The comments to Howard Stern mostly just describe an extremely crass and promiscuous man. Aside from the "peeking at underage models" thing, most of it could be described as "locker room talk."
Peaking at under age models without clothes on, and using your power as owner of the paegant to do so strikes me as HIGHLY alarming. With the recent revelations about Jeffrey Epstein, a man Trump is known to have spent time with, it raises some serious questions. I would be shocked if he hasn't had sex with underage girls.
Yeah, "peeking at underage girls" when you're some 40-something year old freakin' man and not some young kid is a big deal.
As far as Epstein goes, as far as i'm aware as soon as the accusations were brought to light he completely distanced himself from Epstein, but also as far as i'm concerned every famous person, actor, and politician from Trump to Clinton on down should be investigated on the basis of that association.
It is legitimate that all of them should be looked into, but I doubt it will be. For one thing, Epstein himself has been basically inoculated from facing justice. The other is that even though one of the girls has flat-out said she was offered up to Alan Dershowitz for sex by Epstein, Dershowitz is still making television appearances on a nightly basis AFTER that charge was brought to light.
It already is war. Trump's just been mostly waging it on Twitter this whole time.
He fired Comey and Sessions because of Mueller. Trump also declared himself vindicated when Cohen was described by the Justice Department as paying Daniels and others to influence the election at Trump's direction.
Trump has not stopped lying about the Mueller investigation and he has not stopped meddling in the investigation. He doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt people have been giving him. Never forget he has performed criminal acts alongside Michael Cohen and the others who have pled guilty and been found guilty.
Just a few things: Comey was fired before Mueller was made the special council. He was the reason that Mueller was made special council (Comey was investigating Trump over "The Russia thing", and was fired because of it, as he stated in a televised interview with Lester Holt).
I dont disagree that there's been a bit of a war - but it's going to get a LOT worse. Like. Trump may be more likely to fire Mueller and start pardoning people.
It already is war. Trump's just been mostly waging it on Twitter this whole time.
He fired Comey and Sessions because of Mueller. Trump also declared himself vindicated when Cohen was described by the Justice Department as paying Daniels and others to influence the election at Trump's direction.
Trump has not stopped lying about the Mueller investigation and he has not stopped meddling in the investigation. He doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt people have been giving him. Never forget he has performed criminal acts alongside Michael Cohen and the others who have pled guilty and been found guilty.
Just a few things: Comey was fired before Mueller was made the special council. He was the reason that Mueller was made special council (Comey was investigating Trump over "The Russia thing", and was fired because of it, as he stated in a televised interview with Lester Holt).
I dont disagree that there's been a bit of a war - but it's going to get a LOT worse. Like. Trump may be more likely to fire Mueller and start pardoning people.
It's also worth noting that his new pick for Attorney General is not only someone who oversaw the Iran Contra pardons, but he also was in line to become Trump's defense attorney last year. Which is frankly what Trump 100% believes the Attorney General's job is anyway.
@WarChiefZeke Because you ARE defending it. When someone has admitted to comminting multiple sexual assaults, on tape, with corroborating stories from victims, and boats that he can get away with it and is allowed to do it because he is famous, there is NO ROOM for thinking that is okay. Benefit of the doubt is so far gone that it can't be seen from the rear view window. If you think the his actions described in the Hollywood Access tapes are defendable, what is someone supposed to think. This isn't subjective, what Trump describes himself doing is sexual assault, defending his comments, or even saying that they are defendable is defending sexual assault.
You once told me, without any room for doubt, it was not okay to ascribe sinister motives to your fellow forumites.
As such i'm a little disappointed to see you hitting the Agree button with a comment that quite literally accuses me of being a defender of sexual assault who was making light of it.
@WarChiefZeke: I do have a comment! You don't need to quote my previous post; I actually wrote the "ascribing absurd or sinister views to another forumite" thing into the thread rules (all of the moderators worked on the rules; I just wrote most of the text). I remember that part very well, and it is indeed a critical principle of this thread that we not throw out accusations of nefarious intent. As always, if you see someone being accused, please report the post via the "Flag" function and the moderating team will deal with it, though Rule 7 prevents us from discussing individual cases publicly.
For clarity's sake, the Agree button doesn't mean whole-hearted agreement with every part of a given post, or any given interpretation of a post. I've mentioned before that I'll give an Agree to comments that I only partly agree with, and I think that's pretty standard. There's not really a way to upvote Paragraph 1 but not Paragraph 2 (it's all one comment), and there's not really a way to divine somebody's views by their reactions alone. I'll often give an agree to a post even if there's just one minor point that I agree with.
To set the record straight, I can confirm that I absolutely do not consider you to be a defender of sexual assault. My opinion of you as a forumite and a contributor to this thread is a lot higher than that!
This debate has been about what constitutes sexual assault; not whether or not sexual assault is acceptable. No one here is supporting sexual assault; we're arguing over whether certain examples qualify. It's the difference between saying "the defendant is not guilty of murder" and saying "murder is okay." One of those is debatable; the other isn't even under discussion.
We might disagree over individual instances and accusations, but nobody here is pro-rape or rape-tolerant.
@WarChiefZeke "Just like with the word "even", people can't just start adding mountains of baseless conjecture wherever a gap is found and expected it to be taken as fact."
1. Its called grammar. Just a single word, even a single SYMBOL, can COMPLETELY change the entire meaning of a sentence.
This is true. But how, exactly, does the word "even'' imply a proclivity towards rape, except for the particular target, or how does it imply any reason in particular, since none are stated, for why they wouldn't do it? My interpretation still appears to be the reasonable one, and the one he attests to.
This is such a tangential subject to what my point originally was, but what is an internet forum if not a place to dissect minutiae.
To answer your question, in that sentence "even" acts as a qualifier. Without it a possible meaning would be simply "I wouldn't rape you under any circumstances", though context could suggest otherwise. With it, that meaning is no longer possible: instead it means either "there are circumstances in which I would rape you" or "I wouldn't rape you, but would do something else to you".
As for Sargon attesting to the meaning, in the video you linked he admitted he'd considered including the word "even" very carefully. He clearly knew the importance and chose to include it to increase the provocativeness of the comment. Taken together with his comments about the appropriate power balance between men and women and his failure to apologize for any unintended slight on women generally, I feel safe in concluding that he was not simply conducting an experiment to demonstrate how unreasonable SJW attacks on him were. However, I've now had my say on this issue and won't respond further.
It already is war. Trump's just been mostly waging it on Twitter this whole time.
He fired Comey and Sessions because of Mueller. Trump also declared himself vindicated when Cohen was described by the Justice Department as paying Daniels and others to influence the election at Trump's direction.
Trump has not stopped lying about the Mueller investigation and he has not stopped meddling in the investigation. He doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt people have been giving him. Never forget he has performed criminal acts alongside Michael Cohen and the others who have pled guilty and been found guilty.
Just a few things: Comey was fired before Mueller was made the special council. He was the reason that Mueller was made special council (Comey was investigating Trump over "The Russia thing", and was fired because of it, as he stated in a televised interview with Lester Holt).
I dont disagree that there's been a bit of a war - but it's going to get a LOT worse. Like. Trump may be more likely to fire Mueller and start pardoning people.
Good point.
I guess I mean he's been covering up his criminal activity - that kind of war. But totally Mueller after Comey fired. But Trump's been all out obstruction since he was elected and before the election he was breaking laws and engaging in light treason.
All his life he's seen laws as inconveniences in his path.
--------
Comey calls on Americans to 'use every breath we have' to oust Trump in 2020
Former FBI director Jim Comey (R), a Trump character witness, said this: "All of us should use every breath we have to make sure the lies stop on January 20, 2021."
Asked if Trump's tweets could be viewed as witness tampering, Comey answered carefully -- insisting he had no insight into Mueller's thinking.
"I'm not prepared to judge it," Comey said, "but again, if I were prosecuting a case in the Southern District of New York and a prominent person started attacking my witnesses, I'd want to know so what's going on there and does that cross the line from free speech, which we have to keep protected, into something else?"
(...) This debate has been about what constitutes sexual assault; not whether or not sexual assault is acceptable. No one here is supporting sexual assault; we're arguing over whether certain examples qualify. It's the difference between saying "the defendant is not guilty of murder" and saying "murder is okay." One of those is debatable; the other isn't even under discussion.
Yes, for example if someone lies to a woman in order to get sex. It should be considered a crime? What if she is had drink alcohol? What if both are under alcohol influence? I an not talking about completely drunk, there are many "degrees of gray". What a "sugar daddy" proposal?
---------------------
Anyway, an interesting video about Bolsonaro and most lies against him.
The first point of debunk is the military dictatorship The second is "out of context" "you don't deserve" The third is "racism"(look to her wife) The forth is the "whatsapp fake news"
One more thing. About article 13. It shows exactly how the state operates. Enforces an regulation that the left and right is against, that the population is against, only to benefit a small minority... Honestly, on best case scenario, people on EU will be forced to use VPN. In worst case, the entire world will copy this legislation.
@WarChiefZeke in relation to the definition of sexual assault, you've put an extreme spin on the behavior Trump admitted to in the Access Hollywood tape (in order to justify that as not admitting to assault). I don't understand though why you are not suggesting the same innocent interpretation for the Howard Stern story.
In order to justify the tape comments you say we can't know whether individuals provided social cues inviting advances in the first place. Nor can we know whether they gave consent in retrospect to those advances. It's of course perfectly possible to make the same argument about the behavior at pageants. I expect the contestants smiled at him, which could suggest that they would welcome further attentions. The fact that no-one complained about his behavior indicates that they welcomed it ...
What is the distinction between these stories? On the face of it seems to me obvious that Trump is admitting inappropriate behavior in both cases and I would class grabbing women by the pussy as more serious than looking at them naked. If you'll defend him on that count though, why not the other?
That gives increased clarity that a second referendum is a realistic option. That's because, in the absence of a change to the law, the UK will exit the EU on 29th March 2019, with or without a deal. There's not time to hold a referendum before that so, if the UK could not unilaterally withdraw its notice, they would have needed to get unanimous agreement from all other EU countries to allow for a delay. While that would have been possible anyway, the option to withdraw their notice makes it certain.
That will almost certainly harden the position of those MPs that would prefer to remain in the EU, meaning that to have any chance of success in the vote May will need to get support from virtually all the committed Brexiteers. To that end there have been some more conciliatory noises from Downing Street today about obtaining clarification from the EU over the backstop, but it's doubtful that will sway anyone. The government has said the vote on the proposed Brexit will go ahead tomorrow as planned - if it does so it therefore seems almost certain that the government will lose, which is why there is a lot of behind the scenes pressure at the moment from ministers to get May to think again.
Chandler, Arizona, is working with large numbers of self-driving vehicles across the city. Thus far, the presence of self-driving cars has proved uncontroversial; the local residents are fairly satisfied with how they're operating. The only complaints are that they tend to drive slowly (self-driving cars are programmed to always obey the speed limit) and have some trouble merging lanes.
"In the early versions they tested on closed courses, the vehicles were programmed to be highly aggressive. Apparently during these aggression tests, which involved obstacle courses full of traffic cones and inflatable crash-test objects, there were a lot of screeching brakes and roaring engines and terrified interns. Although impractical on the open road, part of me wishes I could have experienced that version as well. "
I, too, wish I could have experienced this. (This link was also my first encounter of the term YOLO).
Yeah lol bakeries and the damn internet are definitely exactly the same and analogies that use them are 100% accurate. People's free speech rights are under threat whenever you can't get a cake from Bakery A rather than Bakery B, *in the exact same way* that a handful of tech giants who control almost all expression on the internet can threaten your free speech rights when they agree to act in coordination to punish a particular person.
And there is the crux of the right's position: "We want to right to discriminate others, but no one can discriminate against us."
That gives increased clarity that a second referendum is a realistic option. That's because, in the absence of a change to the law, the UK will exit the EU on 29th March 2019, with or without a deal. There's not time to hold a referendum before that so, if the UK could not unilaterally withdraw its notice, they would have needed to get unanimous agreement from all other EU countries to allow for a delay. While that would have been possible anyway, the option to withdraw their notice makes it certain.
That will almost certainly harden the position of those MPs that would prefer to remain in the EU, meaning that to have any chance of success in the vote May will need to get support from virtually all the committed Brexiteers. To that end there have been some more conciliatory noises from Downing Street today about obtaining clarification from the EU over the backstop, but it's doubtful that will sway anyone. The government has said the vote on the proposed Brexit will go ahead tomorrow as planned - if it does so it therefore seems almost certain that the government will lose, which is why there is a lot of behind the scenes pressure at the moment from ministers to get May to think again.
It's almost as if the entire thing was a poorly (if at all) thought out primal scream from half the population, and the leaders who led the leave movement abandoned ship and all responsibility the moment it passed. They set fire to the ship and then abandoned it. Now the EU is supposed to bail out Britain because (predictably) it's not going at all like anyone imagined. On a side note, Prime Ministers have lost their position for FAR less than May's trouncing in the polls in 2017 and the mess this Brexit situation has become. How exactly does she manage to hang onto power if this goes badly??
Comments
To be fair most cases of racism on asians on other asians have historical reasons, i mean, an Chinese/Korean who hate Japaneses by what Hirohito did is similar to a Pole/Ukraine who hate Russia by what Stalin did to them. Anyway, an interesting article
Your baby is a little bit racist, science says
https://nypost.com/2017/04/13/your-baby-is-a-little-bit-racist-science-says/
IS nypost not the ultraextremefarsuperduperaltright.blogspot.com
I honestly think that depends how you define racism. If a little in group preference is racism, then everyone is racist. Even if not openly. If is the believe in the superiority of a race, then is completely different.
Arrest of Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou derails B.C. trade mission to China
https://globalnews.ca/news/4744947/arrest-huawei-executive-b-c-trade-china/?utm_source=notification/Exclusive: Police called to attempted break in at Vancouver property linked to Huawei CFO
https://globalnews.ca/news/4745145/wanzhou-vancouver-break-in/?utm_source=notification/Vancouver police were called Sunday morning to a Dunbar home believed to be owned by Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou’s husband.
The property on West 28th Avenue is one of two in the city that property records show are owned by Xiaozong Liu. That is the same name as a man identified in Chinese media as Meng’s husband. The other home is in Shaughnessy.
According to police, investigators received a 911 call about a home being broken into on West 28th Avenue near Crown Street around 5:30 a.m. Pacific time.
A day after a neo-Nazi is convicted of murder, associates of the country's oldest, most violent skinhead groups charged with hate crimes
https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/12/08/day-after-neo-nazi-convicted-murder-associates-countrys-oldest-most-violent-skinhead-groups?fbclid=IwAR0qTrKF-ZI4wT29jrkKcizYBVDpndfRr_WE8APKpH5s2lfFzS-6kGZyDHEIndividuals associated with some of the country’s oldest and most violent racist skinhead groups have been charged with hate crimes in Washington state, just hours after a jury convicted a neo-Nazi of murder for his actions at the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia.
Travis David Condor, a member of the band Birthrite and head of hate music record label American Defense Records, was among nine people arrested at a bar in Lynwood, Washington, early Saturday morning.
The Snohomish County Sheriff's Office said in a release that the people in custody attacked a black DJ at the Rec Room Bar while shouting racial slurs at the man.
What a young Michelle Obama learned about Barack from his beat-up, yellow Datsun
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/08/michelle-obama-what-she-learned-about-barack-from-his-dented-yellow-datsun.htmlWhen a young Michelle Obama first visited Barack at Harvard Law School, she was surprised to see him pull up in a "snub-nosed, banana-yellow Datsun."
It was in that moment that she knew: "Life with Barack would never be dull," the former first lady wrote in her new book "Becoming."
The two had recently started dating, having met in 1989 after Barack took a summer position as an associate at Chicago law firm Sidley Austin where Michelle was a first-year lawyer.
Barack, 28, lived frugally as a "loan-strapped" student. Still, when she arrived in Cambridge, Massachusetts to visit after he returned to law school, she was surprised to see the condition of his rusted, beat up car, bought used on his student budget. She asked, in awe, "You drive this thing?"
Smiling, the future president turned the key in his Datsun. "The engine revved and the car spasmed violently before settling into a loud, sustained juddering that shook us in our seats," wrote Michelle.
"Just give it a minute or two," he assured her. "It goes away."...
It did occur to Michelle that Barack might never make any money, she wrote, but the idea of life with him seemed exciting.
"It would be some version of banana yellow and slightly hair-raising," she wrote. "I knew it even then."
Want to know what haunts Trump in his darkest hours? Track his projection
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/12/3/1816876/-Want-to-know-what-haunts-Trump-in-his-darkest-hours-Track-his-projection?detail=emaildkspTrump's main mode of combat will naturally be the fusillade at his fingertips, and as vindictive, paranoid, and rage-filled as those tweets will be, they will also be a window into Trump's greatest fears. Trump's most desperate moments inevitably express themselves as projections on to others.
Donald Trump is about to be the subject of an extreme pressure test—hunkered down in the White House fending off a barrage of explosive revelations emanating from the Russia probe, multiple investigations by the House Democratic majority, and various lawsuits wending their way through the courts.
Trump's main mode of combat will naturally be the fusillade at his fingertips, and as vindictive, paranoid, and rage-filled as those tweets will be, they will also be a window into Trump's greatest fears. Trump's most desperate moments inevitably express themselves as projections on to others.
Exhibit A was Trump's retweet last week of all is his perceived enemies, including Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, behind bars.
Projection is a psychological defense mechanism in which individuals attribute characteristics they find unacceptable in themselves to another person. For example, a husband who has a hostile nature might attribute this hostility to his wife and say she has an anger management problem.
Sitting quietly and listening to people praise sacrifice and kindness was torture for Trump
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/12/6/1817430/-Sitting-quietly-and-listening-to-people-praise-sacrifice-and-kindness-was-torture-for-Trump?detail=emaildkspThe fact that they were all gathered for a funeral did not dim the conversations between Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, George Bush, Barack Obama and their families. But the arrival of Donald Trump immediately cast a gloom over the whole affair. While the former presidents listened and responded to both moments of humor and calls for prayer during the service for President George H W Bush, Trump and Melania glared straight ahead, slowly reducing the paper program in his hands into a crumpled mass. There were hymns. Trump didn’t sing. There were readings. Trump didn’t even bother to look at the words. There were jokes. Trump didn’t laugh.
If Trump’s presence was so galling that it cast a pall over a funeral, attending the event was obviously no more pleasurable for Trump. He sat through most of the ceremony with his face twisted in a frown and his arms folded across his chest. Because the qualities that earned the elder Bush praise in the National Cathedral—his kindness to strangers, his humility in the face of history, his refusal to shirk the blame for his own actions, and above all his reluctance to strike back against insults—were all counter to anything in Trump’s own nature, the fact that they were getting praise, amounted to little less than an insult to Trump.
The GOP's refusal to reckon with Trump is already hurting their chances of taking back the House
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/12/4/1816990/-The-GOP-s-refusal-to-reckon-with-Trump-is-already-hurting-their-chances-of-taking-back-the-House?detail=emaildkspIn a new piece, the New York Times' Jonathan Martin reports on the congressional GOP's fearful refusal to reckon with their massive election night loss, an abdication of responsibility largely fomented by Donald Trump, whom no Republican wants to publicly criticize in any truthful post-mortem. This cult of personality is not only making it impossible for Republicans to correct their course, but it also seems to be dissuading comeback attempts and might even send some members into early retirement.
Rep. David Young offers one such example. Young was narrowly turfed out of his seat in Iowa's 3rd District last month by Democrat Cindy Axne, who beat him by a 49-47 margin. In theory, he'd be a pretty decent candidate to try again in 2020, but he doesn't sound keen. In talking to Martin, Young bemoaned the "Trump effect" on his race and explained, "That's why you see a lot of people, myself included—who are asked: 'Are you going to do it again?'—saying: 'I'm just going to wait and watch.'"
It's not clear which other soon-to-be-former representatives Young has in mind, but Martin spoke with one sitting Republican who didn't lose in 2018 who might nevertheless call it quits over his exhaustion with Trump. That's Illinois Rep. Adam Kinzinger, who represents his state's conservative 16th District, which supported Trump by a wide 56-38 margin. Kinzinger called Trump's refusal to acknowledge his party's defeat "disgusting," and even compared his reaction unfavorably to Obama's after Democrats lost the House in 2010.
Mark Meadows is the current chair of the Freedom Caucus in the House of Representatives. He's also a pretty hardline tea-party type conservative, and is 100% opposed to the Mueller investigation. If Meadows is made the Chief of Staff, it'll be all out war before Trump and Mueller.
https://thinkprogress.org/trump-beauty-pageants-naked-2dc4b6c6d507/
Another story of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump publicly bragging about violating women’s privacy and bodily autonomy has emerged. Women have shared stories of being harassed by Trump in the very ways he has publicly boasted about.
On an appearance on The Howard Stern Show in 2005, published on Sunday by CNN, Trump described going backstage at the beauty pageants while the contestants were undressed. “Before a show, I’ll go backstage and everyone’s getting dressed, and everything else, and you know, no men are anywhere, and I’m allowed to go in because I’m the owner of the pageant and therefore I’m inspecting it,” he said. “You know, I’m inspecting because I want to make sure that everything is good.”
“You know, they’re standing there with no clothes. ‘Is everybody okay?’” he continued. “And you see these incredible looking women, and so, I sort of get away with things like that.”
According to interviews BuzzFeed News conducted with former Miss Teen USA contestants, Trump did just that in 1997. Four women who were competing in the pageant that year — including one who was 15 at the time — recalled that Trump walked into the dressing area while they were changing.
“I remember putting on my dress really quick because I was like, ‘Oh my god, there’s a man in here,’” Mariah Billado, former Miss Vermont Teen USA, said.
Billado remembered Trump saying something like, “Don’t worry, ladies, I’ve seen it all before.” Another who was 17 at the time recalled that it seemed Trump felt “it was his given right… because he owned the pageant.”
“At the time, you’re a teenager, you’re intimidated — it’s Donald Trump, he runs the pageant,” she said.
Another former contestant has told the same story. Tasha Dixon, who competed as Miss Arizona at age 18, told CBS2 LA, “He just came strolling right in, there was no second to put a robe on or any sort of clothing or anything. Some girls were topless, other girls were naked.” She added that they were in “a very physically vulnerable position.”
“Who do you complain to? He owns the pageant,” she added. “So there’s no one to complain to, everyone there works for him.”
But on another episode of Stern’s show, Trump also implied that he slept with contestants. When asked if he had ever had sex with a Miss Universe or Miss USA contestant, he answered, “I never comment on things like that.” Later when someone in the background said, “Give us the first letter of the country you had sex with,” Trump responded, “How many letters are there?”
The thing with the tape is that it is incredibly vague. "They let you do it" can mean anything from they actively enjoyed it and went along with it, I imagine even for Trump there isn't a complete shortage of those attracted to wealth or fame especially when he was a much more generally liked figure, to them being scared and not wanting to say no. The interpretation you suggest may be even worse if it's true, but there isn't any reason to believe that.
Except, well, his Howard Stern comments.
I urge you to listen to Sargon's points of view before you would describe him as right wing, as he is anything but right wing on policy or in his own interpretation. Certainly not far right which he has actively been against from the start. The only thing he really agrees with the right on are immigration and on an anti-PC culture, which is most of what he spends his time on, so I guess I can imagine why you would think so without spending a lot of time listening.
Not that I think being generally right wing would mean he's liable to make rape threats, mind you.
The thing with the tape is that it is incredibly vague. "They let you do it" can mean anything from they actively enjoyed it and went along with it, I imagine even for Trump there isn't a complete shortage of those attracted to wealth or fame especially when he was a much more generally liked figure, to them being scared and not wanting to say no. The interpretation you suggest may be even worse if it's true, but there isn't any reason to believe that."
100%, absolute, no frickin way. Not fighting it, and giving consent are 2 COMPLETELY different things. Its even commented on with the girls in the dressing room, "Who would you complain to?" Your average person doesn't have the money for a lawsuit. When someone with the money and power that Trump has tries to do something, what exactly is a scared person supposed to do? He/said she/said never seems to be in favor of the victim in these situations. And with someone as sue happy as Trump, how exactly do you defend yourself. The only person here going through mental gymnastics to defend the inexcusable here is you. I cannot, and will not tolerate someone making light of, and defense of ADMITTED SEXUAL ASSAULT. I have talked to you, been close friends with with people who have been assaulted and outright raped to let crap like this slide.
As far as Epstein goes, as far as i'm aware as soon as the accusations were brought to light he completely distanced himself from Epstein, but also as far as i'm concerned every famous person, actor, and politician from Trump to Clinton on down should be investigated on the basis of that association.
He fired Comey and Sessions because of Mueller. Trump also declared himself vindicated when Cohen was described by the Justice Department as paying Daniels and others to influence the election at Trump's direction.
Trump has not stopped lying about the Mueller investigation and he has not stopped meddling in the investigation. He doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt people have been giving him. Never forget he has performed criminal acts alongside Michael Cohen and the others who have pled guilty and been found guilty.
I dont disagree that there's been a bit of a war - but it's going to get a LOT worse. Like. Trump may be more likely to fire Mueller and start pardoning people.
You once told me, without any room for doubt, it was not okay to ascribe sinister motives to your fellow forumites.
As such i'm a little disappointed to see you hitting the Agree button with a comment that quite literally accuses me of being a defender of sexual assault who was making light of it.
Do you have a comment?
For clarity's sake, the Agree button doesn't mean whole-hearted agreement with every part of a given post, or any given interpretation of a post. I've mentioned before that I'll give an Agree to comments that I only partly agree with, and I think that's pretty standard. There's not really a way to upvote Paragraph 1 but not Paragraph 2 (it's all one comment), and there's not really a way to divine somebody's views by their reactions alone. I'll often give an agree to a post even if there's just one minor point that I agree with.
To set the record straight, I can confirm that I absolutely do not consider you to be a defender of sexual assault.
This debate has been about what constitutes sexual assault; not whether or not sexual assault is acceptable. No one here is supporting sexual assault; we're arguing over whether certain examples qualify. It's the difference between saying "the defendant is not guilty of murder" and saying "murder is okay." One of those is debatable; the other isn't even under discussion.
We might disagree over individual instances and accusations, but nobody here is pro-rape or rape-tolerant.
As for Sargon attesting to the meaning, in the video you linked he admitted he'd considered including the word "even" very carefully. He clearly knew the importance and chose to include it to increase the provocativeness of the comment. Taken together with his comments about the appropriate power balance between men and women and his failure to apologize for any unintended slight on women generally, I feel safe in concluding that he was not simply conducting an experiment to demonstrate how unreasonable SJW attacks on him were. However, I've now had my say on this issue and won't respond further.
I guess I mean he's been covering up his criminal activity - that kind of war. But totally Mueller after Comey fired. But Trump's been all out obstruction since he was elected and before the election he was breaking laws and engaging in light treason.
All his life he's seen laws as inconveniences in his path.
--------
Comey calls on Americans to 'use every breath we have' to oust Trump in 2020
Former FBI director Jim Comey (R), a Trump character witness, said this:
"All of us should use every breath we have to make sure the lies stop on January 20, 2021."
Asked if Trump's tweets could be viewed as witness tampering, Comey answered carefully -- insisting he had no insight into Mueller's thinking.
"I'm not prepared to judge it," Comey said, "but again, if I were prosecuting a case in the Southern District of New York and a prominent person started attacking my witnesses, I'd want to know so what's going on there and does that cross the line from free speech, which we have to keep protected, into something else?"
https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/09/politics/james-comey-donald-trump-2020/index.html
---------------------
Anyway, an interesting video about Bolsonaro and most lies against him.
The first point of debunk is the military dictatorship
The second is "out of context" "you don't deserve"
The third is "racism"(look to her wife)
The forth is the "whatsapp fake news"
----------------------
One more thing. About article 13. It shows exactly how the state operates. Enforces an regulation that the left and right is against, that the population is against, only to benefit a small minority... Honestly, on best case scenario, people on EU will be forced to use VPN. In worst case, the entire world will copy this legislation.
In order to justify the tape comments you say we can't know whether individuals provided social cues inviting advances in the first place. Nor can we know whether they gave consent in retrospect to those advances. It's of course perfectly possible to make the same argument about the behavior at pageants. I expect the contestants smiled at him, which could suggest that they would welcome further attentions. The fact that no-one complained about his behavior indicates that they welcomed it ...
What is the distinction between these stories? On the face of it seems to me obvious that Trump is admitting inappropriate behavior in both cases and I would class grabbing women by the pussy as more serious than looking at them naked. If you'll defend him on that count though, why not the other?
That gives increased clarity that a second referendum is a realistic option. That's because, in the absence of a change to the law, the UK will exit the EU on 29th March 2019, with or without a deal. There's not time to hold a referendum before that so, if the UK could not unilaterally withdraw its notice, they would have needed to get unanimous agreement from all other EU countries to allow for a delay. While that would have been possible anyway, the option to withdraw their notice makes it certain.
That will almost certainly harden the position of those MPs that would prefer to remain in the EU, meaning that to have any chance of success in the vote May will need to get support from virtually all the committed Brexiteers. To that end there have been some more conciliatory noises from Downing Street today about obtaining clarification from the EU over the backstop, but it's doubtful that will sway anyone. The government has said the vote on the proposed Brexit will go ahead tomorrow as planned - if it does so it therefore seems almost certain that the government will lose, which is why there is a lot of behind the scenes pressure at the moment from ministers to get May to think again.
"In the early versions they tested on closed courses, the vehicles were programmed to be highly aggressive. Apparently during these aggression tests, which involved obstacle courses full of traffic cones and inflatable crash-test objects, there were a lot of screeching brakes and roaring engines and terrified interns. Although impractical on the open road, part of me wishes I could have experienced that version as well. "
I, too, wish I could have experienced this. (This link was also my first encounter of the term YOLO).
Court documents reveal details of Huawei CFO’s Vancouver connection, legal defence
https://globalnews.ca/news/4745065/new-huawei-cfo-details-affidavit/?utm_source=notification/What The Ebbs And Flows Of The KKK Can Tell Us About White Supremacy Today
https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2018/12/08/671999530/what-the-ebbs-and-flows-of-the-kkk-can-tell-us-about-white-supremacy-today?fbclid=IwAR2DuCpBLlHsGFng6iwK1wgSCG_8384Kx5MGsyO4v6SCq764uOnOOv48wFY