A Woman's World
Link to quote: Trump's denial is the Second Big Lie. Ask Hillary Clinton.
The old axiom used to be that it was "a man's world." That has changed dramatically in the 21st century, as the numbers indicate:
"When it comes to college enrollment and graduation rates, women continue to surpass men by large margins. In fact, according to recent data summarized by The Chronicle of Higher Education, the gender gap in college graduation is larger in some states than some racial/ethic differences in graduation rates.
College Enrollment
Nationwide, women comprised 58% of all college students in 2020, up from 56.6% six years earlier. Women have outnumbered men among college students for decades, but the gap continues to widen. In 1979, about 200,000 more women were enrolled in college than men. By 2021, that difference had grown to about 3.1 million more women than men in college.
Using data from the U.S. Department of Education for fall 2020 college enrollments, The Chronicle found that women students outnumbered men in every state. In 13 states, women made up 60% or more of college students. West Virginia, where 50.2% of college students were women, had the lowest percentage difference between men and women students."
Women Continue To Outpace Men In College Enrollment And Graduation
As has historically been the case going back to when universities actually bestowed an education on the graduates, the graduates for the most part fill leadership roles throughout the society. Since woman have achieved such status in our society, I thought it might be time to grade the women (at least a few notable examples) who have taken up such positions. I will confine it to what I consider 5 of the most influential.
1) Hillary Clinton, graduate of Wellesley College and Yale Law School. She was the United States Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013 in the administration of Barack Obama. It was she who failed to defend Americans in the city of Benghazi, Libya, which resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya. Special forces were available as close as Sicily (maybe an hour away).
Later she ran for president and after being excused by FBI Director James Comey for having and later destroying classified documents on her private server, her campaign launched the insidious Russia/collusion hoax against her political opponent Donald Trump. One of the greatest lies in history. Some lefties still believe it to this very day. It was also her that began the birther campaign against her primary opponent in the 2008 election, Barack Obama.
She gets an F.
2) Kamala Harris, graduate of Howard University and the University of California (Hastings College of Law). She was a San Francisco DA, AG of California, Senator from California and Joe Biden's notorious choice for vice president. Her California held positions are up for debate, but her selection for vp is not. Joe Biden said he would choose a black woman to be his vp and gave no other reasons for the choice. When Biden had to be culled from the 2024 election by the powers that be in the democrat party, Harris was crowned the candidate for the Presidency. She spoke to nobody for about 45 days. When the campaign allowed her to speak, we quickly found out why they had her muzzled: she was dull whited and disingenuous via changing all of her old hard left positions to that of "a moderate."
She gets an F.
3) Rhonda "Randi" Weingarten, graduate of Cornell University and Yeshiva University. This is the woman who has had the greatest influence on the education of young children. Since 2008 she has been president of the American Federation of Teachers. During her tenure has union openly acted as a political wing of the democrat party. She has opposed Charter schools which have routinely outperformed the public schools, as well as opposing standardized testing for not benefiting certain groups, she has promoted community schools which utilize nonacademic programs, she has also resisted any attempts at curtailing teacher tenure, she is also opposed to giving tax credits to people wanting to send their children to the better private schools and last but not least she was a big reason why Biden shut down schools during the pandemic.
She gets an F.
4) Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, graduate of Boston University. Her main claim to fame was winning the all-important primary election in New York's mostly immigrant community in which registered democrats outnumber Republicans by about 6 to one, otherwise known as the 14th congressional district. Through the endorsement and support of far-left organizations such as Move on and Democracy for America she was able to unseat the democrat caucus chair and 10 term incumbent Joe Crowley. The general election was then a piece of cake, since voters there seem to simply vote by party affiliation. She became an instant phenomenon. Today she is another self-described Socialist along with Bernie Sanders and the current mayor of NYC. Every time she opens her mouth, she demonstrates how incredibly ignorant she actually is.
She gets an F.
5) Claudine Gay, graduate of Phillips Exeter Academy and Stanford University. In 2023 after years of work at Harvard University promoting DEI and "anti-racism," she was named the president of Harvard in 2023. Her downfall came swiftly after the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Isreal when former Harvard President Larry Summers called her out for not adequately condemning the attacks. There was also the matter of antisemitism on the Harvard campus which helped lead to the congressional committee hearings on antisemitism on college campuses. It was noteworthy that the three college presidents sitting before the committee all happened to be women. When Claudine Gay was asked by Rep Elise Stefanik if a call for genocide of the Jewish people would qualify as a violation of Harvard's code of conduct, Gay responded: "It can be, depending on the context." Most observers were shocked. The other two female college presidents had already echoed Gay's sentiment. Immediately many in congress were calling for their resignations. Although former president Obama wanted Gay to hang on, there were other things about Gay already being uncovered and Gay eventually resigned along with Liz Magill.
She gets an F.
Sorry for all my female friends and acquaintances, but the first female class of the 21st century gets a resounding F.
Tags
Who is online
118 visitors
Good morning and welcome to the Vic Eldred Cast.
We begin the morning with the US Navy removing mines from the Strait of Hormuz and by 10:AM a blockade may go in effect.
Two U.S. Navy guided-missile destroyers pushed through the Strait of Hormuz on April 11, 2026, conducting a mine-clearance operation that the American military chose to announce publicly, a move designed to send an unmistakable message to Tehran: the waterway stays open.
2 US Navy destroyers transit Strait of Hormuz, CENTCOM says
[deleted][✘]
F
They earned it.
Do you know who else gets one?
The man of faith who got the Church into politics:
And let's not forget this guy:
Now under criminal investigation after allegations that he sexually assaulted a former staff member.
He also earned his marks.
If you think Leo got the CC into politics, your reading of history is woeful.
As to Swalwell, tar and feathers would be an appropriate start.
As to lists, do you really want to go down that tit-4-tat boulevard and bore 'our' readers on the same seed?
I want to refresh your stellar memory in that Popes have historically stayed out of politics. Swalwell is in trouble because he is now a liability for his party.
There is no tit for that on the list. I have a 20-1 advantage
Are you now opposed to this if true? Or only if it is a democrat?
Jury finds Trump liable for sexual abuse, awards accuser $5M
You decry the pope for disagreeing with Trump over a matter of humanity.
What do you expect a man of peace to do when the head of the most powerful military threatens to wipe out a civilization?
Since when does a pope NOT comment on current events?
Truth Details | Truth Social
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
Truth Details | Truth Social
Trump is a lunatic. What drives you to continue to support Trump no matter what?
I believe in law and order. Never lawfare.
What was the evidence in the Trump case you cite?
Are you a practicing Catholic?
Except when Trump directs his AG to go after political opponents.
Good grief man, how can you not see the double standard you are employing?
No
What bizarre point are you trying to make?
[deleted][✘]
Ah, you mean you only trust the 'laws' administered by rightwing conservative Christian fascists and reject the laws, juries and court rulings of the United States of America that convicted that piece of shit Donnie of 34 felonies and found him liable for the rape of Jean E Carol. The convictions still stand because there was nothing wrong with the court cases, the 'lawfare' allegations are just from Trump sycophants desperate to suck his toes of which it's clear there are many here on NT. Not a good look, but whatever floats their boat.
I've ask that question many times and only heard crickets in response.
Carroll v. Trump, No. 23-793 (2d Cir. 2024)
And that he hired an illegal to be his nanny
Some woman said she heard someone say something that she claimed something happened 30 years ago but the person making the claim could not recall details.
A CIVIL case does not find guilt. Additionally the burden of proof is significantly lower than a criminal case.
Now the question is, why did she wait so long to make the accusation? it is plausible that, like the case with Justice Kavanaugh, where she was a puppet brougt in to pathetically make him look bad.
Kavanaugh the Blubberer had no equals when it came to looking bad.
I practiced almost exclusively on catholic girls when I was in high school, and I always tried to make sure they had a lot to talk about in the confessional ...
although generally I don't listen to any spreaders of religious bullshit, I'll give this new pope props for dragging american free speech into the vatican and calling out the worlds biggest hypocritical heretic on the planet while he's still breathing ...
BINGO
It is a long list of offences. The odd thing about Swalwell is that unlike many congressmen he doesn't have a lot of money. Not good when you need legal aid.
She had nothing but hearsay and an anti Trump jury.
It was a travesty of justice. One that will go down in history as a stain on the judicial system.
Just this: you are again the side of anyone vs Trump.
I was brought up to be Catholic, but I'm not part of any religion in which the leader of it violates religious restrictions.
As I recall the Pope during the 1940's never uttered a word on politics. When WWII ended he rose his hands and thanked God for peace
Here is the thing TiG, politicians have enemies. I can point to Obama and Biden going after Trump, but all that matters is WERE CRIMES COMMITTED?
If Brennan committed perjury for instance, he should be held accountable. It is that simple
Nope.
Trump is the only thing going down as a stain on this nation's history. As long as disgusting rightwing constitution-shredding Christo-fascists keep their dirty little hands off our judicial system it will be just fine.
If he did what he's accused of he should be strung up alongside his fellow sexual predator Donald Trump. Fuck ALL the fucking sexual predators and rapists regardless of which side of the aisle they're from, they should all fucking fry. Why some on the right are obsessed with allegations about Democrats while COMPLETELY ignoring the mountain of allegations and actual court cases proving responsibility of their own fat fuck in the white house should be a mystery, but it's not. The obvious answer is these scum bag bigoted Trump supporters don't actually give a fuck about crime or sexual predators; they are only looking for their angle to attack Democrats. Fucking pathetic losers.
he was too busy providing new identities to nazis and telling them where to go in south america to escape ...
Biden, personally, never went after Trump legally and the legal acts that were taken by Garland were logical and lawful. You are pointing to a fantasy/conspiracy theory (again). Garland, if anything, dropped the ball.
Trump, however, provably, went after his political enemies. He directed his AG to go after Comey, et.al.
How can you ignore what Trump is doing while exaggerating (into fantasy) what took place under Biden?
You asked me for my evidence and I provided it. Now it is your turn to put up or shut up. Show your evidence that the jury was biased.
You are still in denial aisle
Here:
Biden’s collusion is easy to spot when it comes to Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith’s federal prosecutions of former president Donald Trump. As I’ve noted a few times , Smith’s special-counsel designation is a political artifice, not a legal necessity. There is no conflict of interest between the Biden DOJ and Biden’s political opponent — as there is , by contrast, in the Biden DOJ’s investigation of Biden’s son . Indeed, the Biden Justice Department, under Biden’s appointed attorney general, Merrick Garland, was investigating Trump for two years before Garland named Smith special counsel.
Smith’s appointment was not called for by DOJ’s special-counsel regulations. It was sheer partisanship: Biden and Garland knew that Trump’s would campaign on the claim — a quite colorable claim – that Biden was exploiting his executive authority to his political advantage by having his rival prosecuted (pretty much the same thing House Democrats impeached Trump for in 2019, after he tried to pressure Ukraine to investigate Biden). To try to blunt Trump’s claim, Garland appointed Smith in order to project the illusion of independence: We were to see Smith as an earnest career prosecutor making a unilateral assessment of whether to charge Trump, free of oversight by Garland and Biden.
That is fiction, of course. All executive power is reposed in the president. Jack Smith has no power of his own; the power he exercises is Biden’s. In so doing, he answers to Biden’s AG, who also answers to Biden.
No one should be surprised, then, at this gem buried in a February 10 Politico report : Biden has “grumbled to aides and advisers that had Garland moved sooner in his investigation into former President Donald Trump’s election interference, a trial may already be underway or even have concluded.” I believe this is why Smith — who could have pushed hard for a relatively swift trial in Florida on a very strong obstruction case against Trump regarding the Mar-a-Lago documents — brought such a legally dubious case against Trump in Washington: Biden and Democrats have made the Capitol riot central to their 2024 campaign, so Smith was under great pressure to bring whatever related charges he could theorize.
In any event, the notion that Biden has no involvement and no stake in prosecutions of his election opponent being pursued by his subordinates in his Justice Department employing his executive power is daft.
Need more? At Thursday’s Supreme Court argument regarding Trump’s immunity claim, Justice Samuel Alito asked prosecutor Michael Dreeben whether, in taking an important stand regarding the scope of executive power, Dreeben was speaking in his capacity as a lawyer on Smith’s staff or for the Biden Justice Department. Dreeben conceded: “I am speaking on behalf of the Justice Department.” Manifestly, there is no daylight between President Biden, the Biden Justice Department, and the federal prosecutions of Biden’s opponent that — if Smith has his druthers — will keep Trump chained to courtrooms for four to six months while Biden is out campaigning in battleground states.
Naturally, it is easier to discern Biden’s lawfare collusion in the federal prosecutions of Trump than in the criminal cases brought by elected Democratic prosecutors in the states of Georgia and New York. But the collusion is plain to see there, too.
It came to light in connection with the defense motions to disqualify Fulton County district attorney Fani Willis and her paramour, Nathan Wade (formerly the lead prosecutor on Trump’s case), that Wade consulted with the Biden White House Counsel’s Office during the investigation. This came on the heels of reported consultations between Willis’s office and the Democratic-dominated House January 6 Committee — the committee to which then-speaker Nancy Pelosi, in a move even she conceded was unprecedented, nixed the appointment of members chosen by Republican leadership.
The J6 Committee worked cooperatively with the Biden Justice Department, then theatrically issued criminal referrals calling for Trump’s prosecution , after which Smith filed his indictment at a time designed to trigger a trial in the months leading up to Election Day 2024. Two weeks later, Willis filed her RICO indictment against Trump , echoing the same “election interference” allegations and relying on common evidence.
One could argue that, because of the commonality, it is only natural that Willis would work with the feds. When state and federal prosecutors investigate and charge crimes arising out of the same factual transactions, they must of necessity consult on matters of scheduling and the questioning of witnesses. Of course, that would not explain why Wade, a state line prosecutor, would be meeting with Biden’s White House staff — i.e., the political side of the administration — rather than his law-enforcement counterparts in the “we never, ever do politics, no siree” Biden Justice Department.
Willis is sufficiently tainted and incompetent that there is little prospect she can get her unwieldy case to trial before the November election, as Democrats hoped. Still, Biden’s fingerprints are on it.
Biden’s collusion with Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg’s prosecution of Trump , which has just finished its first week of trial testimony, is more subtle — more of the dog-that-didn’t-bark variety. If you were unfamiliar with how the federal government works, you might well miss it.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s not all subtlety. To be his lead prosecutor, Bragg recruited Matthew Colangelo. Most prosecutors see themselves as working in law enforcement; Colangelo specializes in anti-Trump enforcement. He comes to the DA’s office from a stint as one of the very top lawyers in the Biden Justice Department — the associate attorney general overseeing the government’s civil, civil-rights, antitrust, and tax-enforcement activities .
To put it mildly, it is highly unusual for a lawyer in so lofty a federal perch to decamp to a county DA’s office for a line-prosecutor post — even allowing that the county is in the Big Apple and the trial gig is a prosecution of Donald Trump, which will make Colangelo a very famous fellow. But in this instance, it is a seamless transition. Prior to joining the top echelon of Biden’s Trump-hostile Justice Department, Colangelo had worked at the New York attorney general’s office — where Bragg was then a top deputy and where Colangelo specialized in lawsuits against Trump and his organization. It was Colangelo’s work against Trump that Bragg touted in running for district attorney in blue, blue Manhattan — the borough where Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden beat Trump by close to 80 percentage points in the 2016 and 2020 elections, respectively.
But let’s put Colangelo aside as the bridge from Biden to Bragg. The best collusion evidence in the New York case is the silence of the Justice Department and the Federal Election Commission.
The FEC was created by Congress in 1974 to ensure uniform enforcement of federal campaign law, for which Democrats began pushing in the post-Watergate years. A specialized bureaucracy was deemed necessary because the regulation of campaign funding has profound implications for the projection of political speech — the core of the First Amendment’s free-expression guarantee. Hence, the campaign laws are abstruse and controversial — subject to repeated court challenges, many of them successful, since their inception.
To get a firm grip on federal campaign-finance enforcement, and to avoid overly aggressive applications of this dubious legal edifice that could easily lead to further chipping away by the federal courts, the Justice Department and the FEC have been given exclusive jurisdiction over enforcement, as the FEC put it in approving a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between itself and the Justice Department just a year ago — i.e., not long after Bragg filed his indictment of Trump, in which he did not dare admit that he was endeavoring to enforce federal campaign law . The feds take up the entire campaign-finance-enforcement field, as one would expect given that we’re talking about federal law that controls federal campaigns and elections. As the MOU elaborates, the Justice Department has “exclusive jurisdiction” over criminal enforcement; the FEC has “exclusive jurisdiction” over civil enforcement.
Biden’s Collusion in the Anti-Trump Lawfare Gambit | National Review
Now everyone knows.
You are trying to equate it to a criminal case. Civil court can indeed determine that a person did what they were being sued for. And in this case a civil court and jury found that Trump did indeed sexually attack Kelley.
It doesn't matter, and that is a despicable attempt of victim blaming.
That is as obvious as the Sioux wanting to ambush the 7th Calvary.
My claim was that the evidence used was her telling a friend that she was sexually accosted in the middle of a busy department store. Verified. That is what they used as evidence.
Not to mention it was a NYC jury.
Nothing says biased more than a Trump hating group of New Yorkers.
Imagine someone posting conspiracy theory deeming me to be the one in denial.
Imagine someone supporting Trump, still, claiming anyone is in denial.
I asked ChatGPT to fact check, in summary, what you posted. I pasted it directly to ChatGPT and asked it to fact check:
That's not evidence of a biased jury. Try again, you made the claim now you need to show it wasn't a lie.
Yes, it is. Ask the family of Nicole Brown Simpson.
Leftist ChatGPT can't save you from the truth.
That is your 'rebuttal'?
Another set of wild claims from you fact-checked with links and you shake your head and chant 'nuh-uh'??
Yup. That's it.
I tested out ChatGPT and it is no better than Google. I suppose you think Google id nonbiased. Google the 2020 riots and see how many times Jan 6th comes up.
When Trump grabbed E Jean Carrolls pussy did he do it because he was a celebrity ?
Good point… his performance was so bad it cost him his nomination,,,,.[✘]
Those who hate their bullshit being fact-checked tend to dismiss the fact-checkers. If your claims do not square with reality you deem the fact-checkers 'biased'.
The fact-check from ChatGPT came with links. So pen a rebuttal if you think the fact-checking is wrong.
Your mere claim of bias means nothing.
isn't that what maga said it was, by his traitorous supporters in attendance, after trump's instigated insurrection?
So your claim is just another lie.
A few notes on this mess of an "article" besides being just more political misogyny.
I believe that any of the five you mentioned would have used spell check to their advantage.
Wrong. Popes have put themselves at the center of world politics since the fifth century.
A HISTORY OF THE POPES FROM THE GREAT SCHISM TO THE SACK OF ROME. INTRODUCTION . THE RISE OF THE PAPAL POWER .
Agreed, you could have included almost any five women from either of Trumps two Cabinets to at least attempt a better case.
Well at least you have finally come around to agree with me on that one /S
That's one unfounded opinion.
Is it misogyny to call out antisemitism?
I believe that any of the five you mentioned would have used spell check to their advantage.
Is that allowed now?
Wrong. Popes have put themselves at the center of world politics since the fifth century.
You have to go back to the fifth century? What about modern times?
Agreed, you could have included almost any five women from either of Trumps two Cabinets to at least attempt a better case.
I could easily list praiseworthy women such as J.K.Rowling or Margaret Thatcher, but the topic was the first generation of influential women.
I'm not "comparing" anything. There is nothing to compare. You apparently don't know the difference between the 2.
You really should do some research before talking.
Prove she's a victim.
I don't have to. She was found to be a victim by a jury in court.
Just like a JURY IN COURT in Mississippi once acquitted the killers of Emmit Till.
So, once again, provide your evidence that the jury was biased. Pulling shit out of left field is meaningless as is comparing one jury to a completely different one.
Right now the claim stands as a lie since there is absolutely nothing to back up that claim.
Thatcher predates all five of the women you criticized.
[✘]
So you can't. But then again, I already knew you couldn't.
Include the rest of my quote. I dare you!!! [✘] just include the full quote...
[deleted][✘]
First generation of influential women ? There is no such thing. Women of all eras have been influential.
From ChatGPT (because I know you love it soooo much!).:
Once one needs to call another a liar is when I know I have won the debate.
once a trump supporter deflects off topic is when you know you've won the debate ...
I usually do it a bit differently. I paste the article or the link but then I ask AI to Asses in terms of :
For example, when asked to handle the same article in this manner ChatGPT returned:
AI is a tool, and as with any tool the output you get is dependant on the input.
Yes.
too bad there's no gear in the rear for maga vets to hide behind here ...
And some like Hypatia were flayed alive by X-tian mobs.
Nice model!
You get an F for this far right propaganda piece.
Thanks! I have used that prompt so much that now I just put the link or article/comment in and ask for my standard assessment.
I have also stressed the importance that the results that I see need to be verifiably true by a potentially hostile interlocutor.
I still do not trust the links to anything slightly obscure especially when creating a bibliography. This is not because I do not necessarily believe what it is saying, but rather the corpus that it was trained on may have material that is not commonly available unless it is paid for. So it sends you to a book or paper behind a paywall or tries to find that book or paper elsewhere, generally leading to a "Page Not Found" error, especially on some of the more esoteric themes I research.
It's misogyny to limit your name calling to a small group of educated and politically similar women while there are so many other influential male idiots
who cannot tell the difference between true antisemitism and anti - Israeli government policies. They are not the same.
Netanyahu walks a very tight rope between Gaza, Iran and now Lebanon.
Most Israelis Disapprove of Government's Handling of Iran War, Survey Shows - Israel Political News
OPINION: Silence is not an option - a Jewish response to Gaza's humanitarian crisis - Jewish News
The Popes started in the FIFTH Century and had remained critically influential up to 1870 when they were forced to give up the Papal States, and it's Army and Navy.
The Popes are still influential in civilized circles.
As determined by you? There have been many generations of influential women though out time.
Your opinions are based on a myopic view through a very tiny lens.
[deleted][✘]
Nope.
The only one name-calling is you.
I'm supposed to be offlimits.
And what did I call you or anyone else?
When you lie or deliberately mistake facts, then it's what you cause, no one else.
Why was Hilary antisemitic?
How about 4 and a half hours plus prep and flight time = 6 hours In Croatia on a training mission.
How was Kamala antisemitic?
She is after all married to a Jewish gentleman.
.
Your arguments are opinionated and fractuous.
This is one of the craziest, most worthless articles I can ever recall seeing on Newtalkers.
I take that as high praise coming from someone who still believes in Hillary's bullshit.
Hillary Clinton is a typical establishment politician. She is not remotely radical. Donald Trump is a lunatic.
That is all there is to it.
I never included Hillary in the radical left. She is machine style politician and she once inherited a huge political machine.
She is guilty as charged of dirty politics. Her lies have lived on beyond being debunked.
She also was an election denier and she called half the country deplorables. She never got over her loss to Trump
The left as a whole still never got over that loss. 10 years they have been crying about it.
Everyone was convinced that he couldn't 🫷 n including me. I voted nonetheless and that is the great lesson from American voters. Get out there and vote!
Careful what you wish for, Hungary being a fine example of what happens.
As were Richard and Donald with Roger Stone, king of "dirty tricks" and their little gang.
Trump trumps Clinton 20 to 1.
And Trump isn't an election denier? goof grief. You call more than half of the population scum, trump calls them losers. Neither of you are credible.
She lives rather quietly, few heed her calls; she wrote a book that people won't read. Is she on the news every damned day lying to everyone?
No, that would be the idiot who mails in his ballots while blaming his 2020 loss on mail in ballots which actually carried him to victory in 2024
which is why he for some unexplainable reason why he wants them eliminated by fiat. that is some fucked up logic,
just like his execution of his Iranian excursian.
You deserve him.
We need him.
Here is what we didn't need:
Sorry, I couldn't resist!
I can't make out that pictographic. Is that Trump grabbing some pussy? Or maybe tweddle-deeing somebody's tea-bag?
No need to get vile. Just say the women blew it.
This is the comment I was replying to:
But since you brought it up in 3.1.7 , I would call that mountain, "All Better Than Trump".
I would take any one of those capable women over our current and worst President. None of them could or would possibly have fucked up America so hard and so fast as the madman Trump. He has smashed the rule of law, thrown away the good will of other nations, abandoned our allies, and started senseless war not for the good of the nation but for the glorification and enrichment of himself.
Worst president?
There are three that fit the bill. Biden, the one you use for an avatar and the grinning ass, Jimmy Carter. We must do an expose eventually to educate those who sleep through earthquakes.
Funny how your ‘worst presidents’ all left behind major legislation that still shapes the country.
Donald Trump’s legacy is norms trashed, standards lowered, and using the DOJ for personal vendettas.
That’s quite a comparison. Some of us recognize an earthquake when we see the White House being demolished (both literally and figuratively), while others dance around the rubble and call it revolution.
LMAO!
The debacle in American health care being the most notable example.
Causing the passage of a law that expanded coverage by tens of millions of people versus ‘concepts of a plan’ coming in ‘two weeks’ for a decade really ought to tell one about the lack of concern that DJT has about healthcare for the American people.
and yet here you are.
meanwhile President Petty Panties has squashed the contract with the Archdiocese of Miami to house unaccompanied minors
because the effing Pope was mean to him.
Pathetic crybaby will never be on a mountain monument either unless he pays for it.
As for healthcare.
An army needs to be healthy. A nation needs to be healthy, not just those that can afford or have made it to Medicare.
Medicare which President Grump wants to cap or do away with so he can bomb more countries, maybe even the Vatican.
Sure, kick out the immigrants and then take healthcare from the poor, what have you got; Post Depression, Pre War poverty for all.
Only American criminals and Robber Barons like Musk preying on other Americans.
Sounds like Utopia /s
You dont get it (sarc). We need to apply Social Darwinism to everything and let the chips fall where they may.
You forgot mind-numbingly stupid and sexist. It is rather hilarious though because it shows how fucking backwards rightwing conservatism is. I almost feel sorry for them, almost. No wonder they have so many involuntarily celibate cucks among their ranks. All anyone with more than half a brain can do is laugh when these low IQ misogynists give well educated Americans with tens times more spine and understanding of the world a failing letter grade.
[✘]
F - - -- - - - - - - - - - - --
Not counting the statue there are 2 other 'loser' ladies in that 'painting'.
Careful ... They are starting to go after defamation
Are you okay Vic? You wrote an article giving women in public life grades of "F". I give Trump F minus minus minus.... I posted a meme that he himself posted on his social media which implies he is a Jesus Christ like figure. That used to be called blasphemy until the religious right decided they didnt want to follow their religion anymore.
Rightwing religious conservatives aren't smart enough or educated enough to shine a single one of those women's shoes, so it makes them angry and they lash out like the impotent little incels they are.
meh, that's what happens when they have to eat testosterone pills like tic tac's just to be able to spank the monkey in unison whenever the oracle of maga issues his latest truth social edict/tweet at 4am EST every morning ...
The question is are you ok? As you said the article was about the first group of female leaders in the 21st century
I just saw Trump admitting to reposting the 'Trump as Jesus' propaganda poster and he said he thought it was depicting him as a doctor. And what's even more hilarious is that his loyal boot lickers are so fucking gullible and stupid they will probably claim to believe him.
Trump claims the Jesus-like image he posted was meant to depict him as a doctor | CNN Politics
Heavy projection with this one
Let's see, behavioral symptoms exhibited by many white rightwing conservative males; irritability and aggression? Check. Poor decision-making? Double check. Social withdrawal? Check. Increased secrecy about drug use? They refuse to admit alcohol is a drug, think red light therapy on their balls is a good idea and don't think taking way too much testosterone supplements and steroids is a bad thing, so check, check and check.
Predicting harm among incels (involuntary celibates): the roles of mental health, ideological belief and social networking (accessible) - GOV.UK
Why Steroids Are Now Turning Young Men into Dangerous Incels - NewsBreak
How testosterone explains our weird politics | Vox
[✘]
People aware of more than the average bear a weight to educate the rest as Trump and his far 'right' fanatics and all their stupid fool em' trix, have seriously prostituted themselves to the oligarchy we now see running US in to the see how far we've fallen when Trump comes a callin out how he loves the uneducated and the unsuccessful. He said he hangs out with 'Losers, because it makes me feel better,'Adimits 'I hate guys that are very very successful'
What are your thoughts on this comment ?
Wasn't Trump gonna only promote the best and the brightest into positions ?
Those are his words basically telling maga and any who might support he, that they are uneducated unsuccessful FOOLS !
For once, I might have to agree with the YMCA one two pump chump, named Donny boy TRump.
How people defend one blatantly exclaiming they are losers, is just beyond me, but, carry on folks, nothing to see here, well accept for the demolishing of a once great country....
Made zero sense and had nothing to do with my comment. Nonsensical blather.
The Pitt is having fun with the hypocrisy. You know, it often occurs to me that Jesus spent a lot of time calling out hypocrites.
[✘]
and losing almost every case; Drumpf just lost another lawsuit against the WSJ for some Epstein BS.
President Donald Trump has triumphed in his legal crusade against the media, securing a staggering $56 million in settlements from three major companies: ABC News, Meta (Facebook), and Paramount Global. The payouts follow a series of lawsuits in which Trump accused the media giants of defamation, censorship, and deceptive practices.
Trump's Media War: $56M in Settlements from ABC, CBS, and Facebook
Look! It's Dr. Don the proctologist, who reaches right up your ass to make sure he has it all.
They were not wins, they were settlements in either an attempt to curry favor or make him go away. Most of the cases that actually go as far as a courtroom are readily laughed out of it shortly after.
An Orwellian attempt to redefine wins if there ever was one
all thought it was prudent to placate Trump to stay on his "good side" rather than contest his claims in court where they would have almost certainly won.
Its on the same level as Republican politicians who are afraid to criticize or even vote against Trump policies out of fear of retribution.
From the keyboard of Captain Doublespeak to our readers eyeballs.
Extortion.
Yes, Vic, the presidency has a lot of power, and an unscrupulous character can abuse that power to coerce others to do as he wishes.
Such an admirable person, that Trump. So smart to grant that scumbag more power than any other human on the planet.
The absence of Republican women seems rather telling. Why do Trump Republicans deliberately limit the potential of the United States?
Returning to the list of Democratic 'F' women: How many wars did those 'F' women start? Which of the 'F' women are responsible for the $19 trillion of national debt created under our two most recent testosterone enhanced Presidents? Which are responsible for undermining the status of the dollar as a global reserve? Which are seeking European participation awards? Which of these 'F' women need an oversized room to hold their balls?
Didn't Trump Republicans win the culture wars? Why is it necessary to burnish the saddles on these dead horses? Is it because Trump Republicans haven't got anything else? Or do they simply see the writing on the wall?
From all the Trump Republican whining about 'F' women you'd think the 'F' stood for FORMIDIBLE.
Oh, gee, a misogynistic screed. I'm shocked. No, really.
you know what it takes to get mentioned ...
Here is what I just completed a verbal joust with my editorial assistant with:
We can disagree about these public figures. That is fair. What is not fair is to treat contested claims as settled fact and then build a sweeping conclusion on top of them. And it starts right at the foundation. That opening line about universities “actually bestowing an education” is doing a lot of work without any support. If standards have declined, that would affect everyone, not just one group. It doesn’t explain why women are enrolling and graduating at higher rates while men are not. That’s an indication of a participation gap, not a grading issue, and the argument never accounts for it.
In the case of Hillary Clinton, Benghazi was investigated repeatedly, including on a bipartisan basis, and no finding supports the claim that she deliberately failed to act or denied available military support. The “Russia hoax” line ignores the documented conclusion that Russia did interfere in the election and the investigation documented multiple instances of obstructive behavior. The email investigation did not result in criminal charges under the law. Even the birther claim attributed to her lacks credible evidence. The evidence is not a record of clear-cut failure but rather a set of disputed claims presented as certainties.
The same pattern holds with Kamala Harris. Yes, Biden said he would choose a Black woman. That does not mean she lacked qualifications. She had already served as a state attorney general and U.S. senator. The claim that she was “muzzled” is speculation. The criticism that she adjusted positions is not unique to her. It is common in national campaigns across both parties. If the argument is about performance, then it should address actual decisions and outcomes, not lean on subjective impressions of tone.
With Randi Weingarten, the argument collapses complexity into a single point of blame. School closures during COVID were driven by a mix of state policy, local decision-making, and evolving public health guidance. Teachers’ unions were part of that process, not the sole driver of it. Disagreements over charter schools, testing, and tenure are long-standing policy debates. Calling those positions failures assumes the conclusion without proving it.
The critique of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez follows the same path. Her district leans heavily Democratic. That is true. But she still won a primary against an incumbent and a general election under the same system as everyone else. That is how representation works. Dismissing her as “ignorant” is a substitute for an argument not an argument in its own right. If her policies are flawed, then engage the policies.
With Claudine Gay, the account strips away context. Her testimony reflected a distinction universities routinely make between protected speech and punishable conduct. That distinction is controversial, but it is not unique to her. Other university leaders gave similar answers. Her resignation involved multiple pressures, not a single exchange. Reducing it to one moment may be rhetorically effective to people not paying attention, but it is not analytically sound.
So step back and look at the structure. A claim of declining standards with no evidence. A participation gap left unexplained. Five selectively chosen examples, all from one side of the political spectrum, framed in the worst possible light. No counterexamples. No balancing evidence. And from that, a conclusion about an entire “female class.” So instead of analysis we see a few cherry-picked examples stretched into a conclusion they do not support.
seems like maga wishes to be the sole arbiter of determining which american women should be looked up to and admired ...
Hillary Clinton neither invented or promoted birtherism. There was a low level staffer on her campaign that passed along something she was sent in an email which was started by someone not associated with the campaign.
By 2011 the birther frenzy was dying down some, and Hawaii had twice confirmed that Obamas original birth certificate was in the state archives. Despite these facts Trump kick started it to try and create a political base for himself in the Republican Party.
And just look at how well that pejorative line worked...