It’s all fun and games until there’s a burly guy in your bathroom peering through that one-inch gap in the stalls when you’ve got your panties around your ankles. What we all said would happen has happened, and at Disneyland no less. When the transgendered came out swinging for the right to use whatever bathroom they want to, some of us said this is not a good idea. And our reasons weren’t that we don’t want men who live as women to feel comfortable or safe but because we knew (those of us who were born women and live with the very real threat of male violence every day) that predators would take advantage of this new “anything goes” policy and waltz into our safe spaces to violate us and no one would be able to do anything about it.
And now it’s happened.
Sounds like a war against women, to me, because no one seems to care about how the women feel about having men in their restrooms. Just sayin’.
I saw this headline and had to laugh. Ironically, but still a laugh, of sorts.
Wow, you’d think someone might have predicted this was going to happen. Oh wait. Someone did.
Even the media kisses his ass, because he brings in ratings. He’s so vitriolic they never know what he’s going to do next to keep things stirred up, and they love that. If he does manage to get the Republican nomination though, they’ll eat him alive, because he’s not fully a Liberal – I mean, in pretty much everything but name, but the Party matters to them, and he’d be running against the anointed [whoever gets the Democratic nomination]. At that point, they’d finally get around to vetting him, you can be sure.
It’s no secret that I’m not a Trump fan. That being said, the notion that anyone could in good conscience vote for Hillary Clinton is appalling to me. It makes me throw up in my mouth a little. This woman is so corrupt and proud of it. Trump may not be ideal, but my gosh, Hillary Clinton is so vile and beneath contempt that there’s no comparison at all. It sickens me that the “media” thinks no one else can see their double standard, their complete disregard for truth, or their biases. They like to think themselves qualified to vet a candidate when they bury facts about their candidate of choice. In their mind, lies justify the ends, so it’s okay. They aren’t qualified to vet piles of feces, let alone candidates for the Presidency of the United States.
Plenty of presidential candidates have had shady doings in their pasts, but can you think of anything that compares to Trump University?
Uh, hello? Are you kidding me? I assume you’ve never heard of Benghazi?! People DIED there! That’s just one, and it makes Trump University look like a preschool playground. Do some research media! The history of corruption surrounding Clinton is a long one. She’d be in jail now if you’d been doing your job.
That kind of on-the-fly fact-checking is unusual, but Trump necessitates it because he tells such a spectacularly large number of lies. He also enables it because those lies are often repeated and obvious. So we’re beginning to see those corrections appear right in the body of stories: the reporter relays what Trump said, and notes immediately that it’s false.
Good grief, Hillary makes her living on lies, has been fired from jobs for unethical violations which included lying, and you people don’t even mention this! Let me guess, your “fact checking” only applies to the candidate(s) not on the Democrat ticket?
Trump has shown the press that the best way to do it is to cover him like every candidate should be covered. That means not just planting a camera at his rallies and marveling at how nuts it all is, but doing the work to fully vet his background, correcting his lies as swiftly and surely as they can, exploring what a Trump presidency would actually mean, and generally doing their jobs
If you people were doing your jobs, you’d have vetted Hillary a long time ago, and she would not be on the Democratic ticket now. Why don’t you cover her “like every candidate should be covered”? Oh, sorry, I couldn’t hear you over the sound of your double standard screaming nah nah nahnahnah with its fingers in its ears.
Calling Isis a “gang of murderous thugs pretending to act in the name of faith”, Sir Richard advocated looking at the causes of extremist violent movements.
Here’s why what Sir Branson said is idiotic: ISIS is NOT a “gang of murderous thugs pretending to act in the name of faith.” They ARE acting in the name of their faith! The majority of Muslims you meet are not! Ask any Islamic cleric and they will tell you, if they’re not practicing the law of lying to non-Muslims, (taqiyya and kitman) that Islamic law says to kill infidels.
The KKK, on the other hand, were NOT in compliance with American Law. They actually WERE a radical extremist group, acting outside the bounds of the American Constitution or any Christian religion they may have claimed to belong to.
The KKK were breaking laws, and dare I say it, sinning. Neither American Law nor Christianity advocate killing others if they disagree with you.
ISIS, on the other hand, are being true and compliant to their Islamic faith and laws.
THAT is the difference and why what Sir Richard said is idiotic.
But nine friends, classmates and neighbors who grew up with Carson told CNN they have no memory of the anger or violence the candidate has described.
That person is unrecognizable to those whom CNN interviewed, who knew him during those formative years.
All of the people interviewed expressed surprise about the incidents Carson has described. No one challenged the stories directly. Some of those interviewed expressed skepticism, but noted that they could not know what had happened behind closed doors.
So let me get this straight, CNNPolitics … You can’t find “evidence” that Ben Carson struggled with anger issues as a young man, so that makes him an unworthy candidate somehow? In other words, “He was better and nicer than he said, so that’s bad!” You’re really trying to write a hit piece based on that?!
Seriously? Are you people really that dense or is it just that you think I am? Do you even hear yourselves anymore?
Sure wish you’d looked as hard for evidence about Obama when he was campaigning.
*shaking my head in disgust*