Hodad

Why do you people say this? It's stupid. Not remotely true. Are you abjectly ignorant of economic history, just parroting a Trump boast? Or do you know it's a lie and just hope that other people are dumb enough to believe it?

Oh, I don't know about that. Seems like they both work pretty hard to achieve government spending.😜 Given that similarity, I'm significantly persuaded by what they want to spend on.

Butker told a crowd of women that they had wasted their time educating themselves to pursue the "diabolical lie" of career ambitions and that he and Jesus think a woman's place is cooking and cleaning. Like that's all they are good for. Now that's farking demeaning. I, on the other hand, think women are capable of doing and being all the great things they dream of achieving and should be supported in those efforts. Like little boys, they should dream big and shoot for the stars. And have faith that they can achieve. And they need all the support they can get, because all along the way they are going to meet a-holes like Butker who will tell them not to be astronauts and not to cure cancer and not to become leaders, that they'll be much more fulfilled if they abandon those dreams and follow god's plan to cook and clean and breed. The conversation definitely has something to do with women, but you lie when you claim that I demean women. I demean all the patriarchal bullshit that would sideline half the world's brains and talent and turn them into a servant class.

I take it back. Maybe you're not playing stupid. I don't know how to say it slower or more simply. It is a fact that I hold "homemakers" (parents or otherwise) in lower regard than many other occupations. There is no specificity whatsoever to women. Again, an analogy for the particularly slow: I don't respect liars. Lying is a behavior. People of Hispanic descent (among every other category of humanity) are capable of lying. To apply your specious logic, you would then say that I am demeaning Hispanics when I say that I don't respect liars. Obviously this is false. I have said nothing to demean Hispanics by identifying a behavior that I don't respect. If you can't understand how that is logically invalid and dishonest, I don't know how you tie your shoes in the morning.

What's dishonest about it is pretending you have an actual question. What's "ignorant" about it is your Gish gallop of nonsense ranging from demonstrably false to unsupported opinion to conspiracy crazy. The fact is that country has enjoyed a rather dramatic upward trajectory since Biden took office. Oh, and the leading alternative tried to stage a coup and end the Republic as we know it. So it's not a difficult choice in the least.

You can say I demean a choice or behavior, but it's an outright lie to say I demean women as a category. And it's not that I don't respect them at all. I respect them less. Because they are doing less. Literally and objectively.

I don't think those examples hold up. Gore, Clinton and Biden all won the popular vote. A slim loss in the electoral college isn't the people crying out for change.

That's nonsense, and you know it. Those are criminals plain and simple. This "people's house" meme is as stupid as people who take cop cars for joyrides and then pretend it's fine because it was purchased with "their tax money." A howling mob assaulted police, smashed doors and windows, broke into a closed facility, chased lawmakers through the building and threatened to kill the vice president--all in an effort to overturn a democratic election. Every single person involved is a criminal and a traitor. Don't do the crime if you can't pay the time. Fark 'em.

What was there to rebut? As usual, you have nothing to add. You just hang around to wave your pom-poms for "the team." I guess everyone needs a hobby.

You're just doubling down on the dumb? Okay. Again, criticizing a choice any gender can make is not demeaning any specific gender. It's "demeaning" the choice. This is true and obvious, and your lies won't change that. I don't respect liars. Women are capable of lying. Oh no, in your specious argument I'm "demeaning" women again!🙄 Stop digging.

Get back to me after you learn the difference between "fairing" and "faring."

Lol. You've speciously deployed the dumbest line of argument I've seen in a long time. Per your "logic," if one criticizes a behavior, and it's possible for women to engage in said behavior, then one is "demeaning women." I don't think that even requires a rebuttal, does it? Take a look around. Get a feel for the place. You've hit the bottom of the barrel. 🤦‍♂️

Do you have a reading problem? Throughout this thread I have explicitly said multiple times that I was commenting on a behavior that applies to women and men. Explicitly. You're welcome to disagree with my evaluation of the behavior, but you're not welcome to lie about what I've said. I have not anywhere in this thread--or others--been demeaning to women. Indeed, I've been the one to say that in the modern world there is nothing holding women back from being and doing nearly anything. Nothing, that is, except patriarchal a-holes who think the "purpose" of women is to breed and cook and clean. Butker told women who had invested 4+ years of hard work bettering and empowering themselves that it was based on a "diabolical lie." That their true calling was as homemakers. You're lying about what he said. You're lying about what I said. You're just plain dishonest.

They're not saying he was bad at appearing presidential. They're saying he was literally bad at the job. Historically bad.

Apparently you're just sexist enough to think that only women are stay at home parents. It's 2024, dude. Catch up. If I said that murderers are scum, am I demeaning men? No, I'm making a statement about murderers. So stop lying.

Stop lying. I'm not demeaning women. What I say applies to any stay at home parent. I think less of equally capable people who don't have careers because they are literally doing less. It doesn't mean I'd be rude to them or disrespect them or treat them poorly. And I damn sure would get up on stage at the SAHP convention and tell them they'd all been lied to and were wasting their time. Note the difference.

Of course it's not a full time job. That's silly. Perhaps it once was, but we don't hunt and gather anymore. We don't trek down to the crick to do our warshin' and fetch the water. We don't spend all day kneedin' and risin' fresh bread for when Pa comes home from a hard day of chorin'. There is some labor, but it's not skilled labor, and it's a lot more "time" than work. Our housework takes a fraction--a literal fraction--of the time. The actual labor to run a load of laundry and load and unload the dishwasher takes an hour, tops. That's why anyone who wants to can work and raise children just fine. And half of stay-at-home parenting is meeting up with other parents for stroller walks, a stop by the playground, some light shopping and Starbucks before heading home for some doomscrolling. Where it's time to order in because it's been a busy day. And Zeus only knows what SAHPs do when they have school-aged children. If that's all one is good for, they are achieving their potential. For everyone who is capable of more, they are unchallenged, bored, and yes, in a state of atrophy--whether they know it or not. Most do. They'll tell you if you ask.

A: When half the staff is fired or quits and then states directly that he's unqualified for the job.

Lol. Staying at home is NOT a full time job. That's exactly why most people can indeed manage children and hold down a literal full time job. Or even a part time job. Staying at home for a few years during early childhood is a luxury--and a sacrifice--one most people don't get to make, but every woman or man I've known who has done that is bored out of their minds, desperate for any engagement and activity to keep their brains and skills from atrophying completely.

Yes, it should be obvious that women who have families and their own careers are doing more. How is this math difficult for you? The same is true for men. Perpetuating the species is a baseline activity. Contributing something to the species beyond a successive generation is is doing more. Marie Curie changed the world, won a Nobel prize and had two daughters who also went on to make notable contributions to humanity. Acknowledging that some accomplish more than others shouldn't be controversial. Sorry that hurts your feelings.

Bullshit. I'm not demeaning women whatsoever. (There's your dishonesty on full display again.) Just like men, some women accomplish more than others. Children who have two parents are lucky. Children who have two fully-actualized whole people as parents are luckier still.

Breeding and rearing children is the baseline for every animal on the planet. So yes, women who do more are going beyond that. A mother who has happy, healthy children has accomplished something. A mother who has happy, healthy children and a career has accomplished more. That should be obvious.

That's fine with me. I wish her luck with family and career. Do you think that she wishes to get an education because she has been fed a "diabolical lie" about finding fulfillment outside of her role as a homemaker? That's what Butker told those women in attendance. As they stood there, waiting for their diplomas, excited to see where their 4+ years of hard work could take them he told them it was all a lie. That he--and Jesus--want them to go make babies instead. You've wasted 4 years ladies, happy graduation.

Bullshit. They can't be "subverting" a law that isn't even relevant to their jurisdiction. Name the law. Name the jurisdiction. And the SCOTUS has spilled ink explaining the purpose of the pardon power. Trump (though not alone) clearly has and would again use that power for other purposes. You can't even be serious. The framers sat down and drafted a constitution specifically to separate powers and responsibilities to allow local governance to foster local interests. They did not sit down and draft pardon powers with the expectation that the POTUS would be unethical enough to use it to do himself legal and political favors. You know full well that that is not what Madison and Hamilton had in mind. That kind of behavior was almost unthinkable to those idealists.

You should probably be embarrassed that only 14% of Americans think Trump did nothing wrong. Not concerned with ethics? But you've also chosen to cite a poll from last month, before the trial. Was that deliberate? Today, after having seen much of the evidence, a majority of Americans think that Trump did indeed falsify his business records. More to the point, does that change your opinion one way or the other? And if not, it raises the question of why you are citing polls if you don't find them compelling?