121–130 of 648 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
50 years ago: "We, women, are not sexual devices!" 2017: Putting on pink clit caps. I bet 1984 customers is way another set of people.
I don't get why everyone assumes that you can only be a female if you have a vagina
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, wasn't Hillary Clinton breaking the Constitution when she was accepting donations from Saudi Arabia at the Clinton Foundation while secretary of state?
So does Hillary get to spend the foundation money on herself?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, wasn't Hillary Clinton breaking the Constitution when she was accepting donations from Saudi Arabia at the Clinton Foundation while secretary of state?
Why is anyone still talking about Hillary Clinton? Donald Trump is the man in office. Hillary Clinton has nothing to do with anything. However Clinton may or may not violated the Constitution is absolutely irrelevant to the question of whether Trump is violating it now.
Because we're trying to ascertain if the complainers are genuinely principled or partisan hacks. I've a feeling most of them would be turning a blind eye if it wasn't trump.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. Clinton's impeachment passed the House majority hurdle but never got the 2/3rds majority of the Senate required for the conviction. Agreed on the Republican majority. I suspect the best the US can hope for is a Republican bloodbath in the 2018 midterms to deliver House and Senate back to Democrat control. I don't believe the chances of that are high though.
Once everyone loses their healthcare they might change their minds
If you mean the voters, my understanding is it's a fairly high hurdle from a structural standpoint -- there are far more democrats up for reelection than republicans.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you have it backwards. The second he is no longer aligned with their agenda, they will clutch their pearls, blow up one of the existing scandals, and away we go.
That too, but I think a big enough scandal will be used regardless of alignment. Pence isn't unpredictable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Once everyone loses their healthcare they might change their minds
Well, the legislators won't be losing their healthcare :) If you mean the voters, my understanding is it's a fairly high hurdle from a structural standpoint -- there are far more democrats up for reelection than republicans.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The hats were meant more as a symbol of feminine solidarity and to reclaim the word pussy though right? It's not trying to be anatomically correct, and afaict doesn't inheriently exclude trans people any more than it excludes progressive mens issues or the black lives matters movement. I am honestly asking from a position of near total ignorance. edit: Is it just that it's more a missed opportunity to pick a more inc…
You're not wrong, but there is more context. There is a near inexhaustible list of feminist art that defines womanhood as an anatomical feature or set of features, and seeing this March that is ostensibly for all women be so tone deaf to this existing fault in the feminist community shows a real lack of understanding of what it takes to truly be intersectional. This is what makes the symbol exclusionary to non-binary…
This is amazing. The womens marches over the weekend and these seem to be an indicator of a very sudden awakening.
50 years ago: "We, women, are not sexual devices!" 2017: Putting on pink clit caps. I bet 1984 customers is way another set of people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're not wrong, but there is more context. There is a near inexhaustible list of feminist art that defines womanhood as an anatomical feature or set of features, and seeing this March that is ostensibly for all women be so tone deaf to this existing fault in the feminist community shows a real lack of understanding of what it takes to truly be intersectional. This is what makes the symbol exclusionary to non-binary…
i'm an outsider to all of this, but i've seen this come up repeatedly on my twitter feed and it seems like a lot of contention for what must be cumulatively (trans, non-binary) less than one percent of women(?)