Reece Witherspoon now admitting she had to blow some director at age 16 to get a job But he was a Dem donor so its all good http://ew.com/movies/2017/10/17/ree...e-was-sexually-assaulted-by-a-director-at-16/
Jennifer Lawrence saying some Hollywood producer said she was 'perfectly f---able' after being told to lose weight But he was a Dem donor so its all good http://ew.com/movies/2017/10/17/jen...ectly-f-able-after-being-told-to-lose-weight/
When I was young, I thought we would have flying cars by now .. Instead, we've got "Demonic Clown Drag Queens" doing 'story time' at the Michelle Obama Public Library
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/chelsea-handler-announces-she-apos-233022941.html "I have joined forces with EMILY's List to elect more women to public office..." Isn't that great; another narrow-minded interest group. It has nothing to do with competence. Hillary was a liar. So was Donna Brazile. So was Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. Are those the people that galvanized her? The Weinstein situation has made quite a few folks (Tim Robbins, Maureen Dowd) begin a new round of male-bashing. But women can be just as ruthless in their own way if not sexually. They don't have the market cornered on virtue...
Their big mistake was being caught in one or two memorable lie. Our prevaricator in chief has demonstrated if you gush out 7-10 whoppers a week, no one is particularly memorable.
It's ironic how Trump is being accused of colluding with the Russians. Do we have real proof? Hillary, Brazile and Wasserman-Schultz were colluding to steal the nomination from Bernie. Has the Left forgiven them or is there some doubt as to what they were up to? My point in illustrating what Hillary and the other women did was to indicate that women are just as apt to be ruthless Machiavellian's as men. It was not a compare and contrast Hillary with Trump exercise.
GQ Magazine's UK writer Rupert Myers just deactivated his Twitter account. The reason? He was just accused of sexually assaulting a woman.
Nothing is proven. I think it more a case of being investigated instead of being accused. So far as I know nothing has risen to the level of charges or indictment.
I like to ask questions like that to keep the conversation going. I also know that I don't have all the facts so I try not to engage in what I call absolute statements of fact. If someone knows otherwise I'm willing to hear it out.
Ha ha... that's probably true... It's like the old Rooster joke: A rooster in the barn was having sex with all the animals. Constantly. One day the farmer told the rooster he was going to die of a heart attack if kept having sex with all the animals. The rooster said, "I know what I'm doing." One day the farmer happened upon the rooster. He was lying motionless in the field. The farmer said, "I knew it. You done killed yourself like I warned ya!" The rooster looked up, put his finger up to his lips, pointed to the sky and said, "Shhhh, buzzards..."
I'm hoping they are discredited outcasts, irrelevant to the future of the party. What's worrisome is the lack of charismatic younger leaders among Democrats. Republican successful efforts to crack and pack Congressional/Legislative districts have seriously cut into their competitors' ability to develop centrist young leaders.
And a lot of the young men you see at a pro-abortion rally are only on the side of "abortion rights" so that young women will be available to them for sex and any resulting pregnancies can be "dealt with".
I'm not saying it's ok, but the vast majority of the lies that Trump tells are just useless, irrelevant ramblings. "My inaugural address had more people than anyone." "I call veteran's widows more than other presidents." "We have the votes." Etc... Whether we like it or not, Trump has diarrhea of the mouth and twitter thumb, and he just spouts stuff. If you want to argue that all the little lies or exaggerations or whatever are just disguising the bigger more substantial lies, then that's fine. When he's shown to have lied about something that actually matters, I'm happy to get outraged over that. Right now I'm just mildly annoyed with him. But so far, there's no indication he's been covering up illegal activity. The lies of the other people listed in that comment are WAY more substantial, and they stand out a lot more. And so far, none of those lies have led to fundamentally and permanently changing the entire health care economic landscape in this country.
If you're looking for significant lies, Obama rightly gets criticized for having said "if you like your insurance plan, you'll get to keep it". In the last week Trump has repeatedly said "you'll have great health insurance" while chipping away at Obamacare. That as big a lie as Obama's initial lie. Nothing Trump has done to chip away at Obamacare improved the situation for those with health insurance, including the Executive Order that claimed to allow insurance providers to sell across state lines, which they already have via law inside Obamacare. The removal of the subsidies isn't giving anyone "great health care". Some have become so immune from Trump's diarrhea at the mouth and thumbs that they are numb to the big lies.
Obama also said the individual mandate was not a tax. The fact that it was a tax made it Constitutional per Roberts. Is that not correct?
Fortunately, it doesn't take a Constitutional Scholar to rule on the truthfulness of "misdirection" coming from Trump camp.
I was thinking about this the other day, as I was watching Pelosi have multiple senior moments in front of a hot mic. I think one of the issues for you is that this next generation of Dem leaders will almost certainly be minorities. You basically guaranteed this once you guys made the questionable determination to abandon white people to the Rs. When this happens, as it almost certainly will happen, I wonder if the members of the other minorities in your coalition will accept a person from one of these other groups? It wont be easy, and will take a special person to hold it together. This is a self-created problem you have made for yourselves through selling your souls to identity politics. It was on its way to happening before Obama. IMO, he saved your side from splintering. Now that possibility is back. I look at what exists in Europe, with all the different political parties as one possible path ahead for modern Dems.
I think that is a great point. The democratic party has a tent that largely consist of groups of people with very disparate single issue voters. The only reason they are democrats are that their single issue doesn't fit within the Republican tent. ie. I'm black...but I'm straight, value traditional family, want low taxes, support the military, go to church...hmmm, 4 out of 5 dentists surveyed say this guy should be a republican but he's been sold on the idea that black people vote for democrats. The one thing he values that doesn't fit the R platform is affirmative action. Maybe he's not a majority democrat after all. Maybe at some point, he decides I'd rather get 80% of what I believe versus nothing from the democrats.
