Lady doth protest too much.
Lady doth protest too much.
It seems to me women vote overwhelmingly for economic security rather than economic liberty. How do you figure he's wrong?
See, people get upset when their expectations don't match their reality. I understand you're autistic, so I'm trying to explain to you how normal people behave. The general public is under the impression that the debates are fair and impartial, and no one has heard the questions before, because part of what they're judging is the candidate's ability to think on their feet, not their ability to memorize a short speech. If people find out the debate is not fair and impartial, and is in fact just a show, and even rigged in favor of one side or the other, they'll get very, very, angry. If the public gets angry enough about the political process, they start pulling out guillotines and such. This is why it's a good idea to not make the people too angry with all the lies and the deceit.
You could also just try google. It's not like democrats having dead people vote and busing minorities from polling place to polling place is any big secret.
Okay. Well, for non-autists, here's how it works. The man says something to the woman like "hey baby, wanna come see my collection of erotic Japanese lithographs?" (or in the modern parlance, "netflix and chill") This is called a "pretext." No one actually cares about the lithographs. It's just an excuse to be alone.
Once you're alone, the man and the woman chat and flirt. The girl tosses her hair, laughs at jokes that aren't funny and generally signals her interest and availability to the man. When the guy thinks she's ready, and will agree to move forward, he tries to kiss her, and honk her boobs. He does not get the express written consent of the woman (and Major League Baseball) before making his move. Essentially, he's reading her mind. And this is exactly what she wants him to do: correctly read her mind. She does not want some pussy meekly asking "M'lady, w-would it be acceptable if I was to kisseth thy on the lips, and grabbeth of they womanhood?"
Now, most of the time, this works out well and sexy-time ensues, because she wouldn't have agreed to be alone with the man, or laughed at the stupid jokes if she didn't want to get physical with him. Sometimes, though, the woman is incredibly naive, and actually just wanted to see the lithographs. Sometimes she's a cocktease who just wanted the attention (particularly from a rich, famous man) and so she led him on. She will then say "no, this isn't what I wanted" and so long as the man stops when she says "no," his worst crime is failing to read a woman's mind. But there's no malice involved, and no reason to condemn an honest misunderstanding as "sexual assault." Everyone should just feel a little embarrassed, move on, and not talk about it again.
This is why modern feminist ideas of "rape culture" are stupid. Before the sexual revolution we didn't let men and women be alone together. We had chaperones. We socially shamed men who wanted to be alone with women as pigs and women who wanted to be alone with men as sluts. This prevented most cases of unwanted touching. Now however, they want to be able to put themselves in positions where unwanted touching can occur without judgement, but when the man fails to read the woman's mind properly, she's suddenly a poor innocent victim and the man needs to punished (by government, even!).
You don't get to have it both ways. Women are either incapable of navigating sexual situations in which case we go back to chaperones and slut shaming, or they're strong independent wymynz and they can deal with a misplaced grope here and there when somebody gets their wires crossed without having to run to the state.
Personally, I don't give a shit about any of this crap. I think feminism is retarded. What I find hilarious is the feminists telling me Trump is the bad man for disrespecting women and therefore I need to give up on the policies of his I like. But Hillary, silencing her husband's rape victims (objectively worse), and they're not willing to give up on their policies to dump her! Clearly, the president's treatment of women in private is not actually that big of a deal to them. If it isn't a big deal to them, and it's THEIR FUCKING ISSUE, then why the hell should I care?
It'd be like yelling at a Democrat that they can't vote for Hillary now because her Wall Street speeches reveal she'll use executive actions to enact gun control. If you're voting for the Democrat, you either want the guns snatched, or you don't give a shit about guns anyway. It's not your issue, and not persuasive!
Article II of the constitution doesn't say anything about the Presidency being a proxy battle for gender culture wars, so I do not give a fuck one way or the other how the president treats women in private. Feminists can take their gender politics bullshit and cram it right up their pussies. Nobody else wants to grab them, that's for damn sure.
Scientific polling that makes voting feel meaningless
My problem with the polling is it's not really scientific. The pollster picks the demographics for the poll, but never justifies why those demographics are reasonable. Frequently they're very unreasonable. If I made a poll for California but made my sample 80% Republicans and said "Trump will win California," would you trust it? But I could do that, say it's a "scientific poll" (because it uses numbers?) and then people would bandy it around for propaganda purposes.
The polls aren't falsifiable right now because nobody really knows what the electorate thinks right now. An awful lot of these polls comes from what are essentially advertising agencies, they're used to shape public opinion ("9 out of 10 dentists prefer anal"), going for bandwagon effect to gain support or demoralization against the other side, when no one can check their results they shape the results to whatever the people paying for the poll want, and then a week before the election they try to actually get it right so they can say "see, we're accurate, trust us next cycle!"
What about percentage-wise, though? Think celebrities split 50/50 on Clinton vs Trump?
Jerry Springer should moderate the final debate.
Only if they do a paternity test for Chelsea so Jerry can say to Bill "You are.......not the father! It's Webb Hubbell!!!"
Strange, it looks like he admitted defeat to me. Why else not agree to accept the result? That's what a child does when they know they are going to lose.
I took it as a warning to the Democrats. The Dems have a long, long history of voter fraud and Trump is putting them on notice that he's wise to their schemes, and we're not taking it this time.
It's almost as if the Bush and Clinton families are both criminal enterprises...
Okay that was funny.
I'm saying Hitler's rants against Jews are legendary. He never had a nice thing to say about Jews. He was not trying to "trick" Jews into supporting him only so he could betray them later.
Trump says nice things about blacks and hispanics. He kisses black babies and tweets out smiling pictures of him saying "I love hispanics!!" This is nothing like the behavior of a racist who hates blacks and hispanics.
Your argument is that Trump is like Hitler because Hitler didn't write down he wanted to gas Jews, and Trump hasn't written down that he wants to gas Mexicans. Have you not written down your plan to gas Whites? Oh you haven't, have you? Therefore you're just like Hitler and Trump, never writing down your genocide plans. (I have written down my plan to gas Eskimos, so therefore I'm not like Hitler and Trump and you).
And he's always released information on his schedule, when it suited his purposes. He has never rushed to dump everything ASAP. Assange is a political actor, just like every other political actor, and just like Snowden and Greenwald released his stuff in different timed waves for political purposes.
If he were dumping stuff strategically to hurt Trump you'd still be gargling his cock about how "Assange is your friend he fights for freedumb!" But right now his political purpose is taking down the corrupt DNC and media establishment, the rancid Clinton Foundation and the psychopathic Clinton crime family. Because you support these things for some bizarre reason you're all pissy at Assange now. Yawn.
That's not a complete sentence. I'm assuming your IQ is in the 85 range?
The following statement is not true. The previous statement is true.