Shitty Assed Program
Shitty Assed Program
No fucking way. This has got to be some kind of alt-right/4chan/cuck joke parody, right? Woman convinces beta male to have "open relationship" so she can fuck alphas on the side, SHOCKING beta with no game can't score, harasses actually capable women and helps ruin otherwise successful company.
"Sluts and cucks ruin everything for everyone." This has to be a joke, right?
No, it's reality.
And right here you have the *only* good or at least moderately useful thing about abrahamic revelation cults (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) as a primitive operating system of society: Executed well, they keep the sexual imbalance in check with sexual moral codes, see that every pot has a lid and prevent an all-out anarchic fight over women in which a few men get most of the women. A circumstance hat usually eventually gives rise to fanatism and degeneration/destruction.
"Girls, kiss the fascists where ever you find them!" - Kurt Tucholsky
So this guy is harassing someone as to have sex with her. How is this sexism? Apart from the word being similar that is? Did he claim she is a lesser person because she is a woman? Or should spread her legs on demand because she is a woman and he is a man?
What really annoys me that all over the world in this debate people confuse inappropriate behavior with sexism.
This implies that it would be less of an inappropriate behavior if the was bugging me (a man) for sex. And I seriously beg to differ. If the man would be bugging another man for sex in the same manner it would be just as annoying.
I really wish people and especially the press wouldn't constantly mix this up, so we'd have a chance to actually solve true sexism.
In the final tally 11-million more people voted against him than voted for him. That's a fucking avalanche.
>which generally carries a much lesser penalty.
Where the hell is THAT true ? In practically every legal system in the free world attempted murder carries the EXACT SAME penalties as actual murder.
> The judge could only sentence for the lesser crime he agreed to.
And you conveniently forget that, that lesser crime is liable for a sentence of up to 10 years. To give 6 months on a crime with an up-to-10-years sentence requires very, very strong mitigating circumstances. A judge who does that is effectively saying "this person has pled guilty, or technically broken a law, with no malicious intent and his actions really shouldn't be a crime but since I'm forced to punish him I'll give him a rap on the knuckles".
Now there are certainly times when that is exactly the appropriate thing for a judge or jury to do. There are definitely times when lenience from a court is exactly what a free society demands. Giving the teacher in the Scope's trial a 1 dollar fine was the best outcome possible under a bad law. The reason we give courts in free countries such discretion is exactly because we believe they need to be able to show mercy or leniency at times. The single most immoral thing about tough-on-crime laws and the drug was has been the proliferation of mandatory-minimum-sentences which remove that discretion.
Brock Turner was NOT however an example of the kind of case for whom that discretion exists. Turner was exactly an example of the kind of person who should have faced the full might of the law. Here was a rapist asshole - who still shows absolutely no remorse, whose father described his rape as "20 minutes of action" and blames the whole thing on "drinking and promiscuity" (there is no crime in promiscuity - but sexual acts with a drunk person who cannot consent is not promiscuity - it is rape). A crime which evoked such horror in passersby that they intervened, tackled him and held him down until police arrived to try and rescue his victim (people tend not to readily get involved in crimes that don't affect them personally - doing so shows how upsetting that scene must have been).
This was a case with extreme aggravating circumstances. The judge would be fully justified to reject the plea bargain and insist Brock faces up the original charge sheet and stands trial (whatever he pleads) but having accepted the bargain - the judge OUGHT to have given him the maximum allowed sentence. Preferably in a maximum security prison where he had high odds of experiencing lots of bigger men than himself treating him with the same complete lack of respect for his bodily autonomy that he had shown that poor girl.
>It was this way LONG before Trump came to power.
True - but don't think for one second that he does not fully intend to capitalise on it, and make it worse so he has even more to capitalise on.
Credible does not mean "real".
It means "likely to be real".
Real can only be determined AFTER you show up. Credible determines IF you show you up - and to a lesser extent how you show up.
It may not be his fault- but he is fully aware of this fact - and directed them against an innocent person. That amounts to attempted murder with a deadly weapon.
Just because the weapon in this case happens to be the police changes nothing - using the police as a weapon isn't even new. Ever heard of "suicide by cop" ?
They replaced the intern with a badly trained and quite incontinent labradoodle last week.
" manufactured outrage"
I can only conclude that you live in a different universe to the rest of us. Where Flynn wasn't fired because he was never hired because your president hired competent people to help pursue his entirely sane policies. Well good luck to President Sanders and I hope he makes your reality even more advanced - from the fact that you can now browse the web in entirely different universes I would say his policies are already paying off since you must be several decades ahead of us technologically !
The Constitution applies to the U.S. government and to the citizens of the united states. It does not include geographic limitations of any kind. All of this making borders a Constitution free zone is completely unConstitutional. I don't care if the ground I am standing on is legally considered to be the Greater 2nd Empire of Mars, I am still a U.S. Citizen and the border guard is still a representative of the U.S. government. The Constitution applies. Obviously it isn't being respected, but it certainly applies.
"Just because he uses it for twitter does not mean hes using it for official business"
You don't seem to understand that when he tweets, he is using it for "official business". Once you understand that simple and obvious point then you will be in a place to begin to get a clue. Hint: "I was the president when I tweeted it, but it was just me having personal fun and I was in no way acting as the President at the time" doesn't fly.
Real Users find the one combination of bizarre input values that shuts down the system for days.