Trump (Part 4)

[claig]

Continuing discussion of the Trumpquake and populist rebellions

See I also care about jobs, security and the economy. But I manage to find time to care about women's rights as well. The fact that the leader of the most powerful country in the world appears to believe that women are less than human does matter to me.

Women's right are not in jeopardy in the USA. Give examples if you can.

Women's rights in jeopardy:

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/07/ohio-abortion-ban-bill-heartbeat-passes-state-house?client=safari

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/03/donald-trumps-ever-shifting-positions-on-abortion/?client=safari

Squishy - I know Goldacre's work. It's excellent. Have you read Freakonomics - spurious correlations presenting as causation, the wider point that we need greater accountability from our journalistic, scientific and political bodies (my interpretation, because that's where I am going with this).

'Children' with beards - I didn't ask why they lie (that's obvious). I asked why we get straight-faced journalism pointing to pictures of men with beards and calling them children. What's your view of this?

I want the same things as you do - clean air and water, equality, quality of life, self-articulation, etc. for everybody. We differ in that you think we have enough accountability and transparency already. I think that we need more. I want to see journalists stand up and say, "I wrote this article referring to men with beards are children because...". I want to see the same from politicians, from science, religious organisations, and all others. No organisation should be exempt from this process.

If Einstein (for example) had been a misogynist (I have no idea whether he was) it wouldn't have mattered to his career or scientific legacy.

But someone's attitude to other human beings is relevant when they have a political career and power over other human beings.

Especially where the person has a history of bullying and a disregard for reality when it suits them.

Why on earth anyone would regard this as unimportant is a mystery.

<a class="break-all" href="http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/elections/2016/donald-trump-abortion.html?referrer=www.google.co.uk/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">For you SouthallGirl.

This is by no means an exhaustive list:
The appointment of Tom Price - not just bad news for women's right to safe, legal abortions he also opposes affordable access to contraception.
www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/29/tom-price-health-secretary-planned-parenthood-trump

The perpetuation of rape myths. www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-denials-are-rape-myths-stereotypes-101-advocates-say-n667651
And his own comments during the campaign and previous behaviour towards women. Of course his own admissions of sexual assault matter. Of course a leader who openly expresses contempt for women will have a negative effect on women. I am amazed that you think it doesn't matter!

"Why on earth anyone would regard this as unimportant is a mystery."
Unfortunately I think in some cases it might be because they don't really give a shit about women, Glass unless the women are being attacked by Muslims.

and this from 2 days ago.

How on earth anyone can think that womens rights aren't under thread, god alone knows

*threat

Women's right are not in jeopardy in the USA. Give examples if you can.

The appointment of a pro-life judge to the Supreme Court, when Obama's proposal has been blocked for almost a whole year?

Having a President that objectifies women, that says that grabbing their genitals is locker-room talk?

Continuing to have very little maternity protection? Destroying health care for those out of work (through which single mothers are affected)?

I'd like you to show to us how will women's rights be protected or increased (because they're not great in the US at the moment) under this administration, rather.

fourmummy most of the articles I saw had the word "children" in inverted commas when it appeared alongside photos of older looking migrants.
"I want to see the same from politicians, from science, religious organisations, and all others. No organisation should be exempt from this process." - Fine, but if you are waiting for this to happen before making up your mind on issues like climate change, you will be waiting a long time. How certain do you have to be that man-made climate change is a scam in order to ignore it?

'Children' with beards - I didn't ask why they lie (that's obvious). I asked why we get straight-faced journalism pointing to pictures of men with beards and calling them children. What's your view of this?

I may have missed it, but do you have an actual example? Preferably more than one, as you used the plural.

'Children' with beards - I didn't ask why they lie (that's obvious). I asked why we get straight-faced journalism pointing to pictures of men with beards and calling them children

They have been instructed not to rock the 'saving-children' schtick, so that our govt can continue to bring in young men of fighting age. Where are their women, their sisters and mothers? We are being fuck over again.

That Vice article, Roussette.

Bob Geldof is 65 and had a life before groupthink mentality took over younger people, so he really should know better. He does little performing these days, little songwriting so his income must come from somewhere. I know he has money, but even wealthy people want an income from somewhere other than savings. You can make a fair living via charitable movements.

Geldof has been an ambassador for the One Young World organisation for 6 years and travels worldwide to speak at their annuals. Their strategic partner is listed as the brewer, Anheuser-Busch only. But Delegates are sent from: BNP Paribas, Barclays, Citi, Barclays, CocaCola, KPMG, BMW, Lenovo (IBM), Siemens, Unilever, Telefonica, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers, J&J, etc etc.

Sounds like big business hiding behind the skirts of doing good.

Top billionaires and business people who want to put "America First", jobs first and the people first, liberated from the puppets in the political class and immune to the climate claims of Sir Bob and the teams.

RTFT, claig. Did you read the opinions of the man who's just been appointed to the Labor Department? And Pro-immigration to boot www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/8/13888146/trump-labor-puzder-andrew-immigration

Trump's team is all over the place. A shambles, I'd say.

And while we're at it, which "teams"?

'Did you read the opinions of the man who's just been appointed to the Labor Department?'

Yes, but all these people will have to fall in line behind Trump now. Trump has appointed some politically correct Establishment servant types who opposed him during the election, but now they will have to follow the people's line under Trump.

'Trump's team is all over the place. A shambles, I'd say.

And while we're at it, which "teams"?'

That is what the media and their "teams" say. The teams are their teams of servants and spinners who push the elite's line in trying to fool the people.

"Where are their women, their sisters and mothers?"

Well that news story was specifically about unaccompanied child refugees from Paris, so by definition there mothers are not there.
If I was a mother weighing up the risks of entrusting my children to people traffickers or keeping them in a war zone or starving in a Lebanese refugee camp, I may well decide to send my adolescent sons and not my daughters. It must be a horrific decision to have to make.
Unaccompanied boys run a risk of being sexually abused or sold into sex slavery, but for unaccompanied girls that risk is almost a certainty.
Maybe this feeds into their decision. I do agree we should be taking more families and women from refugee camps in the middle east though.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-37695637

My great grandparents made a similar decision when they sent my asylum-seeking grandfather to Britain. The plan was for the rest of the family to follow later, but they never did.

Yes, but all these people will have to fall in line behind Trump now. Trump has appointed some politically correct Establishment servant types who opposed him during the election, but now they will have to follow the people's line under Trump.

Why?

I thought they were already "for the people"
Top billionaires and business people who want to put "America First", jobs first and the people first

So, are they "for the people" or will they be forced to be by Trump?

And why not choose people from worker's unions, for example? People who have been working for NGOs? People who do lots of volunteering?
You know, people who, all their lives, have been for the actual people, not "the people".

Before Roe v Wade... “If you were a white upper-middle-class person, you could drive to New York to get your abortion. It works similarly in states with more burdens and restrictions. But if you don’t have the capacity to travel because of your economic status, then you can’t access the services that you need.”

Pence says this “I long to see the day that Roe vs. Wade is consigned to the ash heap of history where it belongs and we again embrace a culture of life in America. And I promise you, different from the agenda of our opposition of abortion on demand, including partial birth abortion and public funding of abortion"

Back to the 70's on womens rights then... and you can't see that???

Yes, they want to take away the rights to end an unwanted pregnancy, while also taking away the support to raise those children.
Nice going for women's rights.

I suppose there would be more white babies for adoption, though.

Top billionaires and business men are famous for "putting the people
first"

I know squishy. It's very very scary isn't it...

Yet fingers in the ears Trumpsters deny womens rights will be eroded under Trump. Lunacy