Simon one of many broad brush examples. Yesterday you posted an image of the three waves of women's rights. The third being fighting against patriarchy. I then asked if you believed that the majority of the hundreds of thousands of women fell into that category. You then stated you believed that the majority of the women at the march were part of that faction. In essence whiny little b-----s.
So, the Womens March ... What Is It For?
by Simon 401 Replies latest social current
-
-
Simon
Yesterday you posted an image of the three waves of women's rights. The third being fighting against patriarchy. I then asked if you believed that the majority of the hundreds of thousands of women fell into that category. You then stated you believed that the majority of the women at the march were part of that faction. In essence whiny little b-----s.
Just to make things clearer:
First Wave: Suffrage
Movement succeeded in gaining women the right vote & other legal liberties
Second Wave: Equal Pay
Movement succeeded in securing career options for women and many reproductive rights
Third Wave: Patriarchy
No demands but blame the patriarchy for everything, argue about who's the best victim, use labels and identities, suggest we're a rape culture, ignore actual rape-cultures and promote them
The first and second waves are won and done. There are no rights that they do not have that this march was for (at least, none that anyone could tell us). That only leaves the 3rd wave if it was about feminism.
If not, then we're back to it being about the environment and the puzzle of why it was a womens march and so many dressed as vaginas.
-
bohm
Simon:
Another reason is that I doubt WikiLeaks would risk having links to Russian state sponsored hacking and be shown to be partisan.
I think you should look into Assange...
The original staff of wikileaks left because they came to believe Assange is a fascist who are in it for his own fame --- that's from Anonymous.
Remember the timeline: Assange leaked left and right about everyone up to around 2011 (I am not 100% sure about the year); he was on record saying the purpose of Wikileaks was to call out totalitarian regimes such as Putins Russia. He then reported he had a large treasure-trove of Russian information. Around that time the American banks cut off donations and wikileaks were about to go bust.
Suddenly Assange is at the embassy fleeing rape charges, and a moment later he is on RT today (Kremlin/Putin controlled propaganda outlet) IN Russia and wikileaks have no more financial problems...
After 2011 wikileaks have leaked information damaging for US/EU interests and not said a peep about Putin except some very general noises all the while leaking material believed to originate from FSB. You can find his name all over pro-Putin propaganda material and crackpottery.
This is not a far-left theory.. this is widely held by the Russian dissidents left to right, from Kasparov (by no means left; he believes Obama was one of the worst presidents and Regan the best) to Pussy Riot who, after a meeting with Assange, said he was compromised.
I know this is circumstantial but why do we know Assange is one of the good guys except he was believed to be around 2010?
-
Simon
You seem to take me saying that I doubt WikiLeaks would risk their reputation to mean that I think Assange is "one of the good guys".
I think he's an absolute tool. But, he's an idealist and likes to think he's better than others and seems to take pride in the reputation of WikiLeaks. Being caught compromised acting against the US at the behest of Russia would ruin them and I simply don't think he is likely to do that.
The rape charges (by a CIA operative) looked suspect from the start IMO.
-
bohm
Trump is either on to something with the election fraud or he isn't. If he isn't, he'll look a schmuck. If it turns out he is, and there is strong evidence that he might be from some reports, then the people who've been shouting "no way!" will look silly and it will be pretty devastating to dems.
Of course he will find wide spread "voter fraud"! He said so on the ABC 20/20 interview himself!
People who are dead and registered (because people die)! People who are registered in two states! (like his entire staff seems to be).
He will conclude all of these people must have voted HRC. He is already spreading lies (yes, lies!) about people who have told him they were standing in line with south-Americans (he know they were!) and then told to leave the line. This too will be believed to be true (I very much hope you will read this piece)
Then a few cases of genuine voter-fraud which can be stamped up (someone tells someone to vote for him, whatever, this happens every year in our elections) will be found an paraded around as "evidence" every single dead registered voter voted liberal.
Don't believe me?
The "the election was rigged" meme is already being spread as true on the alt-right twittersphere if you look into it using the usual lines: "You are just mad because you lost the election even though it was rigged".
Breitbart is going to support this claim, or rather, how important that investigation is. It will then find a number of double-registered voters and dead voters (even though there is no evidence actually false votes were cast) and THAT will be used as a line to further de-legitimize THAT aspect of the american democracy as well.
-
bohm
I think he's an absolute tool. But, he's an idealist and likes to think he's better than others and seems to take pride in the reputation of WikiLeaks. Being caught compromised acting against the US at the behest of Russia would ruin them and I simply don't think he is likely to do that
Why do you think he has a RT today show?
Who actually supports Assange on the wikileaks staff? (I only know about the anonymous post that said he was compromised and all of the original staff had left because they believed he was a fascist in it for the fame)
Why do the "serious" russian dissidents, left to right, believe he is compromised?
-
bohm
The rape charges (by a CIA operative) looked suspect from the start IMO
I don't have a lot of specific knowledge about the rape charge. It could be true or false; if it was CIA it would (as I see it) only make him more desperate and therefore more amenable to do what he could to keep wikileaks and his own ego afloat.
I mean, what would his choice be? Work with Ivan (which involve a show on RT today, and yes he did not do that for free, and not asking where his information came from) or go to jail and find out if the black-site stuff was still on?
-
bohm
Kasparov:
https://twitter.com/kasparov63/status/769009111098880000?lang=en
Tolokno:
Q: So Julian Assange didn’t deny that he was working with the Russian government?
A: He couldn’t deny it.
-
Simon
The thing with the election fraud issue is that just because Trump / breitbart push it for their own reasons, doesn't mean that it can't also be true.
If there is doubt and there are rumors then any decent democracy should investigate - failing to do this will leave lingering doubt over past and future elections.
There are stories about ballot boxes not containing the votes they were supposed to (I think things that were found during the Stein recount that didn't proceed) and more ballots than should have been cast in others. It's hard to know what is real and what is invented.
Bottom line is: if people think there might have been fraud, there needs to be investigations. The US election system looks 3rd world, partisan and needs to be trustworthy.
What's to lose? If nothing is found, Trump is a chump (and the 3-5 millions he's claiming look like a real stretch)
If something is found then they don't deserve the vote count they got and someone should go to prison.
-
bohm
Simon:
Just so we are speaking the same language.
By voter fraud we can mean two things. Either actual fraud, like someone deliberately trying to cast more than one vote, or the things Trump mentioned (people being registered in more than one state, as seems to be common for his staff)
Which of the two are we talking about?
Within the actual fraud category, the question is if actual fraud happens more often than the 0.0(dunno how many)04% which is estimated today --i.e. millions of actually, false votes as Trump believes.
I think Trump 100% made that up (look at the link I send).
The problem here is that Trump IS going to find a lot in the first category -- if his own staff and family does it, it must be very common.
We both know how that is going to play out: All those double-registered votes are democrats and something must be done. Trump already said that he know this
If you don't believe me all you need to do is listen.. many people already "know" this is true on twitter.
There is no chance Trump will look like an idiot to these people. Remember, they believed the birther issue for years: All trump needs to do is to say there is evidence, or that whatever findings there is is evidence, and it will be true. The discussion will be shifted to how "liberals are freaking out over voter-fraud allegations".
What is going to happen next? Trump will call for control on voting. more regulations. Especially in inner cities. That's a prediction I am willing to make.
All this does is that it will further undermine democracy: many people will now know the election was rigged, even when their candidate won.
The question is if Trump is such an idiot he will undermine the validity of an election he won ... or if there is something else happening.
If something is found then they don't deserve the vote count they got and someone should go to prison.
Yes, I agree. But if it turns out there is no actual evidence I think Trump should be impeached.
