Random add: One of the bartenders at an LA hotel that I go to regularly was there as (I'm estimating probably 4-5 years old) and fled afterwards to California. Crazy to hear that story, I had never heard it or read about it prior to meeting him.
So I went looking for stories on this. I remembered that it was a slate story. Then someone supposedly debunked it like you're stating. I thought it resurfaced later that the FBI was indeed looking into it and it was still under investigation(here's the CNN story on it https://www.cnn.com/2017/03/09/poli...ussian-bank-and-trump-organization/index.html). The most recent thing I found was a New Yorker story from October(https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/...between-a-russian-bank-and-the-trump-campaign). It reminded me of weird shit surrounding it, like the communications between the 2 suddenly stopping after Alfa was reached for comment on the communications but before the story ran which seemed really fishy. Anyway TLDR there still is no clear answer of what was going on and why they were communicating.
Meh, even a simple message of “the overall representation should resemble our populace” is a worthwhile reason to elect more women.
Probably a semi-hot take: The women I know that are incredibly good at what they do have zero interest in running for political office. I know women that are embarrassingly smarter than me and more successful than me and they wouldn't drop into politics ever. I'm sure there are some that have that desire, but it certainly seems like a rarity.
As an aside: For instance, why would Bill Gates ever run for president? He's had more of a net positive human impact (and will continue to with the foundation structure) than arguably any human ever. At no point has he needed to be president to accomplish any of those goals. So even someone that was incredibly altruistic but was rich enough to know how DC works, would peace the fuck out unless they just wanted the title.
So you know smart women that aren’t interested in politics. Therefore most smart women are not interested in politics? Look at the state of American politics. Why is being smart even a qualifier?
How many men do you know that want to run for office? Also let's not pretend that the thing your describing isn't a societal construct
My point was moreso that most of the people that I know that are shooting for political office (in my area, I'm sure there are obviously some pretty heavy differentiating factors there) are terrible. The brilliant women that I know have zero interest. People are people, I'm sure there are some women that have a huge desire to accomplish policy goals, etc. It's just usually once you get to that level of rich and have an actual understanding of how things are dictated you realize that it's all bullshit and there's not much of an opportunity for real change.
Not to make an attempt to get psychoanalytical by any means but I know a lot of men that have a huge desire to be in political office but most women that I know that are at a similar level don't seem to want that in their life. I'm sure there is some reasoning there but I'm definitely not the expert on that front.
This is three straight awful takes. You don’t have to be smart or understand how things work to be rich. You’re also misinterpreting different types of intelligence.
It's not glorification by any means nor is that misogynistic (saying that the successful women I personally know don't want to run for political office), for all I know every woman in chicago and any other city could be an aspiring congresswoman or senator, but let's not pretend that you can be poor and run an effective political campaign in the vast majority of districts/states.
I in no way claimed you had to be smart to be rich, obviously there are a lot of rich idiots. My point is that within the current political structure the rich and accomplished get access (obviously as everything is based on campaigns and re-election). And often, once people see how things actually get done and the process behind them, they dramatically lose interest in being involved. I can't imagine that is a controversial statement.
I don't know you as a poster so calling you a misogynist was probably harsh. But let's say that what you're describing exists. Why do you think women might be less inclined to run for office? Are they biologically designed to not be interested in leadership? Or is this a societal thing we've created through centuries of inequality?
My average posting time is at like 4am and I still haven't uploaded a sig or avatar. What level of spelling expectation do you think is reasonable?
Assumption would be a combination of societal, not having the same level of complex that men have of needing the specific titles and power, and then I would assume that the children factor has to be a component. But like I said, I am by no means the arbiter of the female psyche I'm just relaying personal anecdotes.
I agree with that, but it also feels extremely liberal in the sense of more clap women *clap* Millionaire clap CEO clap War clap Criminals
Local news, but ensemble of Atlanta conservative/shock-jocky talk radio shitbags are about to lose their jobs. https://www.ajc.com/blog/radiotvtal...broadcaster-buys-wyay/DiFHTAgxVkKUoago962dfO/
People should attack her credentials for spending years putting people in jail for possessing and selling the same substance she just admitted to using.
the issue isnt her smoking weed or when she smoked it. its how she was smoking weed (and now flippantly reminiscing about it) around the time she was helping lock up poor people for drug offenses that is the issue
I guess we should’ve known a woman entering congress wearing a hijab would immediately be vilified by the media but I hoped we were better than that for some dumb reason.
Yeah, people are making a huge deal out of the wrong thing. It's clear that she wasn't lying about when she listened to Snoop and whatnot, just her pandering of "Well most of my family is in Jamaica ha ha!" while simultaneously having a gross past as a prosecutor that she isn't acknowledging. I'd really like her a lot more if she would freaking own up to that publicly, as far as I know she hasn't and has simply stated she's for criminal justice reform.
In fairness this is probably sound advice. But also as mentioned previously my typical posting is me getting home post-nightclub/bar so definite wildcard on the thought process and coherence level involved.
I'm not going to worry about Harris arresting people for drug crimes at a time when America as a whole didn't understand the lasting damage we were doing. Democrats Republican Independents were all on the antidrug tough on crime bullshit. She should have to answer to that and I'm sure she will if she hopes to win the primary but her actions as a DA were what her community wanted. I'm more interested in how she plans to right the wrongs that that era created and if she recognizes those wrongs.
Uhh, this wasn't the 80s by dude, this was like five years ago. Prosecutors were getting challenging for their tough on petty crime bs before that.
her community had just elected an extremely progressive DA and she just went super fear mongering to oust him and that was very recent history https://theintercept.com/2019/02/07/kamala-harris-san-francisco-district-attorney-crime/
I just assumed she wasn't a DA a few years back since we were talking about her smoking weed listening to snoop and 2pac by night and locking people up by day. Being tough on drugs at anytime past like 2005 is a problem for any dem hopeful.