Policy Moves vs Press Coverages

Today Trump announced 3 executive orders.
1. TTP is dead
2. Federal Hiring Freeze
3. No more tax dollars funding contraception outside the US

Trump had promised these moves in advance, but the press chose to make the big story this weekend about how many people attended the Inaugeration vs the prior Inaugeration or the weekend women's march. (Trump also influenced coverage by challenging the numbers, but the press didn't have to play along to the extent they did). Had the topic been about comparing economic numbers, the press would factor in weather and the day of the week in order to explain discrepancies. Those same factors could be used to defend the relatively low turnout for Trump, but of course they were omitted.

But the executive decisions are big deals; policy decisions that effect people. Crowd size is merely propaganda fodder to create a narrative. This is your "fake news" media in action.

 

Wait...why are you comparing press coverage over the weekend with Executive Orders signed today? Shouldn't you compare today's coverage?

Here is CNN at this moment...notice the Top political stories. TPP and No funding for NGO's that offer abortion services are front and center, literally.

 

Seattle, the CNN graphic you posted only emphasizes my point. The three headline stories which immediately catch the eye are:

1) Mass protests
2) Flynn and Russia
3) Women behind the march

All three of these stories are non-policy related and designed to create a stir over opposition to Trump based on non-defined protests, innuendo of collaboration with Russia, and protests again.

The Executive order stories are listed below in what is the equivalent of Page 9 in your newspaper.

 

Considering the Executive Order on the TPP was rather symbolic since it was already DOA in Congress and the NGO funding is a pretty minor tennis ball that gets batted back and forth between R and D administrations is it possible the Flynn investigation should be bigger news?

On the Womxn's march, it was the 2nd biggest protest march in American history, behind the Vietnam war. Shouldn't that be news?

 

Yes, based on the enormous scale of it, it was newsworthy. The Vietnam march was substantive. It was clearly defined as opposition to the war. Can anyone tell me what the hell Saturday was about, other than to bemoan the fact that Trump was elected?

 

It was more ambiguous than anti-Vietnam War but clearly it was a statement for women's rights.

 

While the message exists that there were a lot of women interested in protesting SOMETHING, the reality is that there was no clear message being sent. And in the wake of the march, actual females are getting blasted by the tranny contingent because actual females used elements of female biology in an attempts to name some of the oppression faced.

On top of that, the 'organizers' allowed self-avowed rapists (Biko) to speak while also giving a platform to Mock, who extols the virtues of minor children in 'sex work.'

And then, just for good measure, you had a female Trump supporter that some asshat actually tried to set on fire with a Bic-type lighter...

I do have to give props for the lack of overall violence that seems to go part and parcel with so many protests in this day and age...

 

Organized in part by a woman who advocates for Sharia law. The irony is just incredible.

 

And what rights do women lack in 2017? Moreover, what rights do men have that women lack?

Not the subject to misbehaviors ... but REAL lacking rights?

There's no excuse for bad behavior and I'll never condone it. Cat calls et al ... but at the same time, when you dress for cat calls, expect to GET cat calls.

I was in a FB discussion with a person who I later learned was a 20 year retired USAF LTC ... she'd been a squadron commander and twice promoted "below the zone"

The pitch of her rhetoric would have been understandable coming from a female in Saudi Arabia ... but that CLEARLY wasn't her experience. So once again ... lathered-up about something, but it wasn't clear what that something REALLY was ... as it ... REALITY here in THESE United States of America. She literally used her new pink hair color as an exhibit of her oppression. Ah ... men can't have beards in the USAF, either ... so ... it's not a sexist/misogynist policy. It's a discipline and practical policy ... get a hair cut and don't resemble a circus act with your 'style.' You'd think a squadron commander would have understood that.

There's no male/female pay scale in the armed forces, there's only rank and years of service. Rank is supposed to be earned.

I'd submit, in general, women have been the recipient of additional/preferred consideration simply because they are women. in this FB correspondent's case, she failed to note the inequality of having to perform undesirable duty for most A-10 pilots (Battalion Air Liaison) . This may have changed recently with the opening of offensive combat forces jobs to women, but during this LC's career, that wasn't so ... and the result was MEN had to continue to fill the undesirable job that a female Hawg driver wasn't assigned to do.

That was but ONE example.

One of my former Hawg Drivers admitted she'd used pregnancy to avoid "ANOTHER" desert deployment. Really? How many of her male squadron mates deployed, per their duty, when their wives were pregnant? Or the single male who may or may not have had a pregnant girlfriend?

Airline ... plenty of women at the airline ... paid the exact same thing as their male counterparts. In fact, Family leave actually grants some women the time off their male counterparts may not be able to obtain ... paid or otherwise.

Family law ... custody of children ... alimony? Is there any rational observer who can say there's equality here?

We were supposed to be educated on decency and the violations therein by the new POTUS ... by people wearing genitalia replicas on their noggins???? Give me a break.

So ... while my examples of equality are focused on what I know ... military and airline ... they are no less valid than anyone else's and I return to the question ... what was the purpose of the effort other than to rile some dander?

And ... as Sangre highlighted ... organized by a person who seeks to institute shariah law here in These United States. Stunning, really.

 

Oh ... and reference anything from CNN and know it falls on deaf ears here.

Also from CNN:
"The Boeing 777 struggles to maintain altitude when its fuel tanks are empty."

Anyone been held accountable for that ridiculous bit of "journalism?"

 

I doubt women would like to compare fatalities on the job for men vs. women.

 

Depending on the jurisdiction where one is located within the United States, some women lack the ability to make a decision on their own reproductive rights without a male politico having passed legislation limiting where and how those rights may be expressed...

Yes, it's a real thing. And while I realize that abortion is a lightning rod issue, there are very real concerns on the part of women when it comes to males telling an entire class how their body will be managed...

concur that the display was utter stupidity...

concur that this was yet another display of utter stupidity...as was allowing a confessed rapist to be a platform speaker. Apparently, once a male puts on a dress, all of their felonious assaults are forgiven...

 

so no women have ever voted in this same fashion?

It's ridiculous that only a woman can have the legal answer ... the answer which speaks for the entire society as reflected in its LAW.

with RARE exception, reproductive rights were exercised before the baby was conceived ... our problem is lacking responsibility ... and that includes the "sperm donors."

Here's an OUTSTANDING article about this written by a former pro-abortion activist.

 

Are there some that have? I'm sure there are. But look around almost every State legislature and ask yourself whether females are truly represented in the legislation that is being put forth requiring females (which includes rape victims) from being further traumatized by a ultrasound probe or to effectively have to leave the State to get a medical procedure.

You have companies that did not want to have to pay insurance companies to provide birth control for females yet had ZERO issues with those same carriers providing for the Viagra/Cialis pills for the male employees. See a disconnect there?

Except when the male chooses to abdicate his responsibility, the female is still the one who carries ALL of the health burden (and costs) and may very likely see their career go down the tubes...

Until males recognize that there ARE differences in how females are treated under the law, there are going to be issues...

 

mb227 and I disagree on many things but she better captured some of the concerns by the Womxn's marchers than I did previously.

The posts by JoeFan, Shark and Brad Austin on this thread (board) in relation to the Womxn's march is a prime example of why they need to march.

 

Husker
Since you keep using it I am guessing the x is intentional in women?
Probably does not mean Christ?

 

OK ... so we need quotas in legislature makeup? The issue is representation of the people when making law. This issue speaks to the sanctity of life ... a basic function of government is to defend life of its citizens ... and ... those who'll BE citizens. This isn't an attack on women ... it's a defense of the demonstrated value esteemed by our society in our law.

We don't think much of innocent human life.

yes ... and that's an issue for the market, not the government. In fact, it's somewhat ridiculous to seek insurance coverage for something which costs less than basic internet.

I thought I was reasonably clear on my estimation of the male's responsibility. Let me further say ... rather than the State supporting the death of innocent human life, I would support funds for paternity tests ... the male needs to be held accountable as the woman is held accountable ... as, like I said, the VAST majority of these 57 million abortions have been done for convenience ... the choice of the body was made and the result was a baby.

There is room for the law to allow for the truly difficult circumstances of real danger to the mother's life ... statistically very rare, but they do happen and the law can defend innocent human life while making allowance for that personal decision to risk term pregnancy or aborting the pregnancy. But for purposes of public policy/law, let's address what the law reveals in value of innocent human life.

there are going to be issues as long as we resist the fact men and women are different ... and the treatment under the law IS equal.

Thanks for your post.