Hodad

That's crap. Women's bodies are not "designed" at all, let alone "designed for homemaking." There is no body type to sweep the floors, do the dishes and cook the meals. We're not hunter gatherers anymore. There is no correlation between strength and speed and the ability to put food on the table. Today, our livelihoods are earned between the ears. and women are more than ready to compete intellectually. That's what pisses off Neanderthals like Butker, and why they want those "uppity women" to get back in their place. You people are always afraid of the erosion of your privilege and terrified at the thought of competing on a level playing field.

Yep. Butker is allowed to have and express those views. I'm allowed to acknowledge that he's a jackass--and cruel to boot, given what he's saying to those young women on a day that they are celebrating 4+ years of hard work and the opportunities it opens up. The bizarre part is pretending his meaning is unclear.

You are being patently dishonest in THIS THREAD. There is no need to look for evidence. Any person fluent in English knows exactly what Butker plainly said and what he plainly meant. You should be embarrassed to pretend that you don't understand it. Anything for "the team" I guess. And your laughably misplaced sense of "winning" is a Dunning Kruger case study waiting to happen.

The left? Lol. Yeah, they do. So does "the right." And everybody in the middle. That's the way our laws work. For example, marijuana is illegal at the federal level, but legal or decriminalized in half the states. State law enforcement is not required --and often not allowed -- to enforce federal law. We have different court systems too.

That's cause. There is no federal law requiring state or local officials to enforce immigration law--and they have a very good rationale for not wanting to be involved in doing so. This is the point of a federated government.

Oh, Fark off. You've been dishonest in many threads in your short tenure here, but this one takes the "gay cake." Butker is a piece of crap, but at least he has the courage to plainly say the shitty things he thinks, instead of pretending his message is anything other than it is.

Yes, exactly. It's NOT a coded message. There is nothing to decipher. Every woman sitting in the audience heard him loud and clear.

100%. What a jackass to poop on their special day. Fark that guy.

Again, Biden doesn't have any power over prosecutions in Manhattan. And, frankly, I'd be willing to bet that Biden wishes this case weren't happening. It's by far the worst of any of the indictments. If Biden were steering the ship, Trump would be in court for the airtight indictments like the documents.

Trump's attorneys did try to have the case dismissed based on the statute of limitations, but that effort failed. So that ship has sailed. This is a real trial and playing for keeps. As I said, it's not, in my view, a great case. The others are much better--strong to airtight. I don't actually think this one will end with Trump in an orange jumpsuit. But a guy can dream. Even if the jury finds him guilty, I expect probation. This poor judge is in an impossible position. He's trying hard not to put Trump in jail or Trump would be there already for the MANY violations of the gag order.

Oh, look, another uninformed foreigner eager to opine about US domestic politics. What a weird hobby. This "question" is just an excuse for an ignorant rant. If you have any actual questions, feel free to let us know.

Oh, so you're making up more of your "alternative facts" imagine a whole scenario beyond what is in the journal. You're imagining the age. You're imagining what Joe Biden was or wasn't wearing. Where and how these things happened. Maybe stop fantasizing about the scenario and stick to the facts. Including the fact that Ashley Biden has specifically addressed how hurtful these false accusations are, and how gross it is that you people turn her healing process into a weapon to do more harm.

Oh, so you believe in quantum justice and "Schroedinger's indictment." And OJ is innocent. 🙄 Look, there's no question they falsified the record to hide the payments to Daniels. Trump signed the personal checks to reimburse Cohen. It's not a quantum proposition. What happened happened. The questions are whether a jury will be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump knew (of course he did) and whether a jury will vote to hold him accountable. As before, if you can't do the time, don't do the crime. -- If you don't want to defend yourself in court against falsifying business records, keep your books on the level. You don't just want him to be acquitted. You literally think that he shouldn't even have to stand trial--that he should be above the legal system altogether.

Indeed, that may be a crime. Perhaps if anyone could find evidence to support that unsupported allegation they could bring charges... And I agree, since you think that bathing children is titillating your idea of pron would be very different from most "leftists."

He's charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. Why don't you know this prior to commenting on the case? Is it because it doesn't really matter what he's accused of, because Trump shouldn't be accountable to the law, so why bother to learn the facts? You're welcome to read the indictment for yourself. IMO, this is by far the least compelling case against Trump, but it doesn't mean it's without merit.

Goodness, you've cracked it! A lawyer who used to work in NY did a tour in D.C. and then went back to NY. Scandal!

I'm sure. As the old saying goes, “It is better to keep silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubts." The problem with that advice is that the fool rarely knows it's meant for him.

Again, Garland is in no way involved in or related to this case. It's an NY DA. You apparently want to put people in jail without even understanding the basic facts of the case. Par.🙄

OMG, the "party of law and order" is just chock full of whiners mewling about Trump being called to account for his actions. Remember when y'all used to say, "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime"? Oh, right, that was back in the days before you joined a cult of personality where Tump>country.

And of course you'd be here here making lascivious implications, exploiting this poor woman's personal pain for political gain. Politics > people for you. Do you know when behavioral counselors say to stop bathing with your children or stop bathing them together? When the child feels uncomfortable. That's the cue. You're taking a person's personal stream-of-consciousness thoughts--an exploration--as she tries to figure out why she is the way she is and turning it into a scandalous accusation. It's gross and cruel. -- Do you know what Ashley Biden said explicitly? "Repeatedly, I hear others grossly misinterpret my once-private writings and lob false accusations that defame my character and those of the people I love." <-- That's you. You're the people doing that. And I don't shower with my kids on the daily, but certainly have in situations where I can't keep them safe tubside. Cruise ships, campgrounds, pool locker rooms, etc. I have also bathed them day after day, year after year. Hundreds of times. And I never thought there was anything sexual about basic hygiene. The fact that you do think it's sexual is a huge red flag. Get help.

You are, as always, a shameless liar. Nowhere does it say she was a "teen" at the time. It's common for parents to bathe or shower with children. As always, if you think that's sexual, that's on you, perv.

We invest more in research after a crisis is established, not for the sake of establishing a crisis. In the 1970s and '80s --and even the '90s-- there was no galvanized response to climate change. There was just research, the same as every other field of science. That they discovered and proved out a crisis is as accidental as entomologists discovering the pollinator collapse. The science proved out in spite of not having any funding focus and in spite of being opposed by moneyed interests. Facts are stubborn things that way.

Lol. Despite many examples of science not needing a crisis to exist. Entomologists are just entomologists. They don't exist because of the pollinator collapse crisis, and there is no non-industry buying their conclusions. I suppose you think they're funded by "big honey" taking a run at "big sugar."🙄 Again, as to the other poster, your premise is demonstrably false. There was never any money to follow. AGW was a purely scientific discovery that became mainstream in spite of moneyed opposition. There is no "anti-oil" industry set up to oppose "big oil." Nobody was positioned to profit by getting off fossil fuels. Businesses (small by comparison) have spun up around it now that the science is settled, but there was no green energy industry at the time. They're abundant and relatively cheap and we all wish they weren't a problem so we didn't have to change our lifestyles, but alas, facts are facts.

Lol. So I'll take that as a hard yes from you on refusing to learn and quadrupling down. In no way, shape or form does pointing out an overwhelming--nearly unanimous--scientific consensus constitute an appeal to authority fallacy. In no way does pointing out that 99.9% of published research acknowledges AGW constitute an appeal to authority. This a "fact" as much as evolution and gravity. And there is nothing fallacious about pointing it out. Internet kooks who say "Nah, this is a hoax," are as ignorant and unqualified to contradict the scientific consensus as ridiculous as children who think they disappear when they cover their own eyes. I don't "run away" from your bad arguments. They simply run their course. As this one has. I provided you multiple authoritative sources for a definition and you can't manage to acknowledge a straightforward definition? Not really anywhere to go from here. If you're going to create your own "alternative facts" there's not much point in debating matters of opinion or policy. Your true colors are showing, and they aren't pretty.

First, the implication that there is no such thing as objective science--that all science is driven by delivering sponsored outcomes--is both wrong and incredibly rude. And stupid. Second, it's demonstrably untrue. When AGW was initially identified over 40 years ago, there was no politics attached to it, no dedicated funding, and no controversy. The studies clawed their way through conventional thinking the same way that most truths inevitably force their way to the top. And to get there the ideas had to fight through massively moneyed, vested interests. It's actually a beat-for-beat remake of the tobacco industry. Scientists who had no financial stake and no vested interests discovered an inconvenient truth about an incredibly powerful industry. Time after time and study after study independent scientists confirmed the link between smoking and lung cancer (or fossil fuels and warming) and at each step they were met with well funded disinformation campaigns from greedy industries--industries who sometimes actually funded pet scientists to muddy the waters. And still the science persevered. And the whole time, both the tobacco companies and the oil companies had their own scientists confirm the harmful effects. They knew the consequences of what they were doing, and still tried to convince people to keep consuming. Were you even aware that companies like Exxon and BP did their own climate research and confirmed AGW ages ago? Scientific American Yes, science requires funding. No, science does not require a crisis.