"I can hardly think about it. It makes me sick thinking about how nasty this could get for a woman,” Marianne Mason said, clutching her stomach as she waited for Sen. Kamala Harris of California to arrive at a town hall event at the University of Iowa on a recent Wednesday night. "How are they supposed to rebut someone like Trump? I want to see a woman in the White House, I really do. But I just don’t know if it can happen against him."...Ridiculous. If you can't stand up to Trump, how are you going to stand up to Putin, Kim Jong-Un, and the rest of the world's bullies? To say women have to wait until Trump isn't the opponent is to say a woman should never be President.
"I think against Trump any woman is going to have difficulty with electability, that’s just kind of a reality we have to contend with," said Emily Van Kirk, 22, at a West Des Moines campaign event with Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts in March. “We need to make sure we are making an informed decision about who is actually going to be able to combat the things he says that are not only derogatory but just ignorant about women.”
Shirley Ehlers, a retiree from Perry, Iowa, who has been active in women’s political organizations in her community, agreed. “We have Trump for president, and that says a lot," Ehlers said. "That shows a disrespect in this country for women at a lot of different levels. I think we need to address that first before a woman can win."
ADDED: I don't know why these woman-doubters think Joe Biden is better equipped to take on Trump. He was very weak debating Paul Ryan in the VP debate in 2012. Here's my live-blog of that debate, preserving my perception of how pathetic Biden's performance was. He's 8 years older now. I don't understand why he's even asking to be considered adequate. His announcement of his candidacy, wafting dishonest racial bullshit, disqualified him from consideration, in my opinion. And that was tightly scripted and pre-recorded, so a lot of poor judgment and poor delivery could be hidden. Imagine him exposed on the debating stage. These people who think Biden is a safe choice must have a really abysmal opinion of the other candidates. Maybe they're already coming to terms with an inevitable Trump victory in 2020 and they're just aching to avoid the pain of a second-in-a-row failed female candidate.
ALSO: A woman can stand up to Trump in the same way a man would. Hillary Clinton wanted to use a special female privilege against Trump. She and her proponents worked hard at portraying him as offensively sexist for criticizing her, being disrespectful, and seeming physically intimidating. I think that's a mistake if you're asking for the role of President. The campaign is a test, and there can be no special treatment once you become President, so you shouldn't act like you need gender-based accommodations on the test.
Posts
166 comments:
Jeb Bush is confused by this.
Remember when Trump was unelectable?
Stop fretting, people.
Exactly.
Trump/Haley 2020 is going to be a juggernaut.
Maybe they would be more comfortable if we just handed them the presidency without working for it? Like a minority set aside thing. That's really the only way women can succeed in this country (according to the democrats)
OK. A trans man would be a woman, right. Problem solved. What about that Jenner guy...I mean woman. But she thinks like a man and that gives us a Trump redux.
Can a woman beat Trump?
So far the only data is based on that poorly simulated woman who lost.
Marianne Mason said, clutching her pearls.
Gender is irrelevant. How about the things that matter like policy, experience, smarts and ability?
"That shows a disrespect in this country for women at a lot of different levels."
Not nearly as much as the Demos running Hillary, who has provided cover for Bill's actions against women for 40+ years.
Can a man beat Trump? So far nobody has.
Are we talking about a 'woman-woman' or a 'woman-with-a-penis'...
It's all so confusing and hard to keep up with Dems these days.
Trump vs. woman or Trump vs. tranny...give us a hint libs...which?
The problem the left have is they cannot help calling everyone a misogynist or a racist at every turn.
"If you can't stand up to Trump, how are you going to stand up to Putin, Kim Jong-Un, and the rest of the world's bullies?"
I've worked with and for many women in an occupation (sales) and industry that are demanding and confrontational. There is no gender related reason why a woman couldn't and shouldn't challenge Trump for the office of POTUS. I am willing to bet none of the current candidates is afraid of Trump - that they're in the race for 2020 proves it. It is equally clear that they haven't figured out how to compete with him, but there is no reason to expect that they cannot. Noted that this concern does not come from the candidates, at least not directly.
The clickbait driven "firsts" biz is ridiculous.
This shit is just ambitious writers trying to get somebody to notice them.
Otherwise, it's empty bullshit.
Dave Begley said...
Gender is irrelevant. How about the things that matter like policy, experience, smarts and ability?
4/29/19, 8:49 AM
------------
What an old fashion notion....one that I agree with.
Female leftists are especially creepy and dangerous.
Locally - the mommy nanny fascists are on the march, ruining lives and destroying whole industries with their mommy-nanny emotions. The sweet spot for teenager mentality. "for the children"..
Beware.
Amy, Kirsten, Elizabeth, Kamala, and Tulsi.
These are the female candidates. A woman could be Trump. These women can’t.
Why are all these Democratic women so sexist?
What have they heard and seen around them to make Democratics so sexist?
I blame gender studies and MSM.
Hillary even turned feminists off women.
To say women have to wait until Trump isn't the opponent is to say a woman should never be President.
There is a difference between “a woman cannot beat Trump” and “none of the female Democrats currently in the race can beat Trump.”
These are tells for the cognitive dissonance they are experiencing with knowing that Trump will be re-elected.
They know deep down that Trump will be re-elected, but they can't acknowledge that so it comes across as something else. I.e. Trump is to nasty for a woman to run against.
We're going to see more and more of this.
The election will come down to 47% vs 47% +/- 1%.
Anyone can beat anyone.
Maybe they're already coming to terms with an inevitable Trump victory in 2020 and they're just aching to avoid the pain of a second-in-a-row failed female candidate.
It sounds like 5th stage Kübler-Ross reasoning of getting over Hillary butthurt. It's been a long two + years , but we still love the ladies.
I get sick just thinking about this woman, thinking about an imagined woman politician, bringing a better world for all (W)omen.
Heartbreaking.
***At a Peace Pavilion West, our Leader peers out from his dais. He celebrates (W)oman. Come see what we’re about. Ice cream socials. Check-ups required.
“We need to make sure we are making an informed decision about who is actually going to be able to combat the things he says that are not only derogatory but just ignorant about women.”
Such as?????
I do get annoyed at the idea of electability. There is this wonderful way of determining who is electable....its called an election.
Maybe if they had women to run who weren't abysmally horrible. Maybe they'll get lucky and the Republican who runs in 2024 will go back to the norm of not fighting back.
He was very weak debating Paul Ryan in the VP debate in 2012. Here's my live-blog of that debate, preserving my perception of how pathetic Biden's performance was.
He was, but my very Dem friends and family loved it. That's what I think about when people try to blame Trump for the crassness and rudeness in politics.
"Lefty, lunatic positions sound so much more reasonable coming from a lefty male."
But, but, don't the lefties drone on and on about sex/gender being just a social construct?
I hearken back to the article form last week, or before, moaning about how Tiger has a comeback but other women weren't given that chance.
You take opportunities, you aren't given them. Hillary tried to be given the Presidency; that didn't work because Trump took it. The women in this article have not learned that lesson.
Another small bite that promises to make the 2020 Progressive Autophagy Primary a somewhat entertaining event. I’m still stumped as to how they squeeze em all into a stage for debates.
Realistically at this point I doubt anyone, man or woman, could beat Trump... unless an economic collapse occurs within the next 18 months (which is certainly a very real possibility). Historically running against an incumbent with good economy humming along is a long shot. And the Dems and the media (BIRM) seem to have bungled every attempt to destroy Trump so far.
Maybe they can watch and learn if they can: that Trump is already trans-man
https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2017/march/trump-clinton-debates-gender-reversal.html
Their problem is, Trump gets personal. He goes there. Usually the candidate is dignified and has his minions take the personal shots.
There's got to be a woman somewhere who can handle him. It would be awesome to see. It happens in the movies, the smart sophisticated woman putting a cad in his place, but not real life?
Just have LLR-approved Slow Joe plaigarize 1 or 2 women's personal story and viewpoints.
Problem solved!
"I can hardly think about it. It makes me sick thinking about how nasty this could get for a woman,” Marianne Mason said, clutching her [pearls]...
Biden claimed Mitt Romney's Republicans wanted to but blacks "back in chains". Julian Bond claimed GWB supported the murder of James Byrd by dragging him behind a truck. Her concern about nastiness to women can only be interpreted as desiring female-only protection since nothing could be nastier than these examples she is unconcerned about.
His announcement of his candidacy, wafting dishonest racial bullshit, disqualified him from consideration, in my opinion.
Yet apparently Trump's wafting dishonest racial bullshit in the announcement of his candidacy didn't disqualify him from consideration.
Even though I always thought Ann's "cruel neutrality" was bullshit, at least in the past she tried (rather unsuccessfully) to be "cruelly neutral". Now this is nothing but a Trump fan page.
Sirimavo Bandaranaike (the world's first woman prime minister - Sri Lanka 1960)
Indira Gandhi
Benazir Bhutto (prime minister of Pakistan - twice.)
Margaret Thatcher (one of the three great prime ministers of Great Britain in the 20th century - and the longest serving.)
Angela Merkel
There is a difference in size between the Statue of Liberty and the woman who crawled up on the statue's base for a publicity stunt.
"Can a woman beat Trump?"
Sorry to be pedantic, but the short answer is "Yes, of cours,e" (Wasn't Maggie Thatcher once PM of England?), but that's not the question.
The question posed is actually, "Can a leftwing Democrat woman beat Trump?"
No surprise to anyone here, and not my original thought, but the semantic Orwellian game of the Left is to toggle back and forth from the particular (Democrat Women) to the general (women), when it suits their political needs.
Most "women" organizations are "leftwing Democrat women" organizations. Ditto for blacks.
The "Congressional Black Caucus" is the "Congressional Black Democrat Caucus".
Back to the original question. Yes, a moderate, intelligent woman could beat Trump. Are there any in the Democrat Party? Of the declared candidates only Tulsi Gabbard has shown any commonsense. The rest are shrill, left-wing hacks.
Yet apparently Trump's wafting dishonest racial bullshit in the announcement of his candidacy didn't disqualify him from consideration.
Or maybe, he's already disqualified from consideration.
Realistically at this point I doubt anyone, man or woman, could beat Trump... unless an economic collapse occurs within the next 18 months (which is certainly a very real possibility). Historically running against an incumbent with good economy humming along is a long shot. And the Dems and the media (BIRM) seem to have bungled every attempt to destroy Trump so far.
Yet in spite of the good economy, Trump bumps along at 40% approval with much higher strongly negative than strongly approve. I don't know where the 8% of further votes he needs to once again lose the popular vote (especially if China is still crippling the U.S. soybean industry because of Trump's foolish tariffs) yet squeak out a win in the Electoral College.
I KNOW Mrs. Ehlers! that hit close to home! But it seem like she's got the cart ahead of the horse.
Sarah Sanders could run and win easily . So could Kellyanne Conway. Stay tuned all you whining oppressed Feminist buttercups.
Or maybe, he's already disqualified from consideration.
Unfortunately, no.
Prof. Althouse:
Thank you for a great post. I do disagree on Biden's weakness in debating Ryan - he was substantively weak but he carried the evening with his bullshit and his aggressive attitude. I lost a lot of respect for Ryan that night: He shouldn't have lost, but he sure did.
"[T]here can be no special treatment once you become President, so you shouldn't act like you need gender-based accommodations on the test."
This is spot-on, and it reminds me of what bothers me most about both leftist activism and "special accommodations" in the academic world: We are training people to be unable to cope.
And so poor Ms. Mason clutches her stomach and can hardly think about how awful it will be for a woman to run against Trump. Who taught her, not only to be like this, not only to speak about it to people she doesn't know, but to be proud of it, as if it's an indictment of the rest of us rather than an admission of pathetic fragility?
To say women have to wait until Trump isn't the opponent is to say a woman should never be President.
Is that attitude "sexist" or "sexually charged"?
The FED is under Trump's control now. If they try to crash the economy again he will simply end their earthly existence. We then will end up with an American Gold backed dollar. Trump really likes living up to Andrew Jackson's standard of political courage.
Unfortunately, no.
Depends whose mind you're reading.
A Democrat getting elected in MA of CA is no big feat so elevating Kamala or Warren just because of that (is there something else?) hardly seems enough.
Part of me wants Trump to trip up (ha!) so there's a primary challenger and its Nikki Haley - she should be a great first woman president. It would drive the left f-ing nuts to have Biden have to run against Haley.
"These people who think Biden is a safe choice must have a really abysmal opinion of the other candidates."
Rather, I believe that these people have a realistic opinion of the other candidates and they realize that the candidates are abysmal. Candidate Trump, as dislikeable as he was (is now as President Trump and was as businessman Trump) came with his own star power and prestige - earned or otherwise. With this group of candidates, Democrat voters are attempting to create it for them, i.e., "(s)he's a ROCKSTAR!" None of them are rock stars. For the most part, they don't even seem like people who would even attend a rock concert. They are geeks and losers. I mean, Beto O'Rourke looks like a stretched-out Fred Rogers FFS. It is going to be a brutal campaign and, to me, it looks like the Democrats are going to be brutalized.
I don't see why the US can't have a Maggie Thatcher, or Angela Merkel, or, heck, even a Sirimavo Bandaranaike, if you want a left-winger and one who used her late husbands reputation to rise higher than he did.
Lots of women in vastly more male-dominated societies manage to rise to the top, and they have done so by fighting fair, according to the political rules of their times and nations.
And there have been many women governors, though perhaps not as many as one would expect, in global terms.
Perhaps there is something peculiar in the American leadership castes. I think one could consider the very ideology of feminism as a problem here. Or its a problem with the American cursus honorum, the rules of the caste. Or its sheer chance.
There must be some bad beans going around:
'MIT biologist Nancy Hopkins ’64 said she felt physically ill as a result of listening to Summers’ speech at a National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) luncheon, and she left the conference room half-way through the president’s remarks. '
Fellas, if she has a hyphenated name, she just might get sick all the time.
Blogger Freder Frederson said...
Asked:
"...I don't know where the 8% of further votes he needs..."
And answered:
"Now this is nothing but a Trump fan page."
Extrapolate from this.
If want to go back to 2008, Biden Lost to Palin in their debate. In fact having seen Biden question SCOTUS nominees, when did he EVER win any intellectual Contest. Nominating a woman seems like the D's best bet. It will sew up the stupid woman vote and if it's Harris, will energize Black voters.
Yes, a moderate, intelligent woman could beat Trump. Are there any in the Democrat Party? Of the declared candidates only Tulsi Gabbard has shown any commonsense.
@Bay Area Guy, have you seen Tulsi Gabbard’s commercial? To me it was as though she’s running against Obama.
We then will end up with an American Gold backed dollar.
Can some gold standard advocate kindly explain to me how you can have a 20 trillion dollar economy (that is the U.S. economy alone) based on a gold standard when the entire value of gold ever mined is somewhere around $7.5 trillion (and the value of U.S. gold reserves is $332 billion).
Granted the value of the U.S. reserves is at the statutory rate of $42.22 an ounce. So the actual market value is 30 times or so greater than that, which gets you to $1.5 trillion or so. Still nowhere near enough to even cover the budget, let alone the rest of the economy.
If a woman can't deal with Trump in an election...how is she going to deal with our nations enemies?
Who is the Democrat equivalent of:
Nikki Haley?
Sarah Palin?
Condi Rice?
Ridiculous. If you can't stand up to Trump, how are you going to stand up to Putin, Kim Jong-Un, and the rest of the world's bullies? To say women have to wait until Trump isn't the opponent is to say a woman should never be President.
+1
IMO, this kind of idiocy is similar to the "feminist" whining you blogged about, complaining that other women athletes weren't "given" the same comeback ability that Tiger Woods got.
Problems with the cursus honorum - ideally a candidate for President should come with an executive track record. Running a State, or a Cabinet department, or at least having been VP.
But thats not been the American situation recently. The Democrats have two governors/ex-governors running (Hickenlooper and Inslee), but neither get money or press. Biden really is the most "qualified" candidate that can attract support. Why?
There is something structural going on.
As for Trump, if I recall correctly, when he announced in 2015 he was generally considered a novelty candidate, a disrupter, one in it for publicity or vanity, or even a Democratic plant. The other significant Republicans, which included "proper" candidates that were successful current or ex-governors and the like, should have seen him off. But they didn't, mainly I think because they committed gross political malpractice in ignoring what was, by Sept 2015, a clear political phenomenon, of a populist revolt. They clearly saw that a parade had formed, and normal politics required politicians to run to the head of it, and try to out-Trump Trump. Rhetorically anyway.
But that didn't happen. Week after week, disaster after disaster, they stuck to failed strategies and tactics.
I agree with the "If you can't stand up to Trump . . ." line of thinking.
But I think that beneath what these people are bemoaning (a woman can't beat Trump) is (1) that the American people are too ignorant and bigoted not to fall for Trump's poor view of women (not that I think he has such a view, but that's the lefty perception), and (2) a sense that he is having a tremendously successful presidency (not that they can admit such a thing to themselves, but it's in the back of their minds somewhere) and so we're going to lose, so let's not put up another woman to get beaten.
Trump bumps along at 40% approval with much higher strongly negative than strongly approve. I don't know where the 8% of further votes he needs to once again lose the popular vote (especially if China is still crippling the U.S. soybean industry because of Trump's foolish tariffs) yet squeak out a win in the Electoral College.
Presidential approval polls aren't particularly good gages for electoral college votes, especially 18 months out. In order to defeat Trump a candidate has to win swing votes in critical districts that went for Trump in 2016. A candidate will have to convince those voters that things are going badly for them. And remember it's not going to be some generic Dem candidate. It's going to be a real person with real flaws going up against a person who will shine the biggest brightest spotlight on those flaws in a very public way.
Inability to beat Trump doesn't have anything to do with women generally. It has to do with the women they've offered.
Freder Frederson said...
His announcement of his candidacy, wafting dishonest racial bullshit, disqualified him from consideration, in my opinion.
Yet apparently Trump's wafting dishonest racial bullshit in the announcement of his candidacy didn't disqualify him from consideration.
Really? Got some examples?
Or is this just more leftist "I say it';s true, therefore it is" BS?
Oh, and check out Obama's approval rating at the matching point in his presidency.
There's going to be a lot of people who don't like Trump, but like the growing economy, and who are intelligent enough to know that the Democrats will screw it all up if any of them get elected.
Trump may very well be the first person to win the Presidency twice, while "losing" the popular vote twice. But, right now, he's headed for a win in 2020
Gold-backed currencies never have been fully backed, to be clear.
There were always vastly more British pounds in circulation than there was gold to redeem them. Many more pounds than guineas.
A gold backed currency is a similar sort of thing to fractional reserve banking.
"But that didn't happen. Week after week, disaster after disaster, they stuck to failed strategies and tactics."
That's because all them get $$$ from big donors AND they truly believe in open borders, Bad trade deals, globalism, and making PC statements about everything. They proved that when they make it clear when they all proudly refused to vote for Trump, and welcomed the idea of President Hillary. The only exception was Ted Cruz. And since Jan 2017, none of them have sincerely supported Border Security or re-negotiating the bad trade deals.
I agree with AA about Biden, especially being disqualified by his “fine people” hoax. He is a weak campaigner, and now has to disavow the one thing ostensibly in his favor, his long record and experience. His appeal, soon to be frittered away, is that he is not a left wing loon. He lacks the courage to defend his reasonably moderate record though, and is kowtowing to the woke.
It's like all the Democrats are saying, vote for me I am the most spineless, the most driven by twitter mobs! The cowardly lion as candidate. Trump has a zillion flaws, but cowardice is not amongst them.
I fully expect Trump to lose and the USA and dumbshit RINOs & "Moderates" will get what they wished for, good and hard. By 2024 they'll be whining about President Harris, terrorist attacks, High taxes, and a tanked stock market. Maybe they'll restart the tea party.
Margaret Thatcher could have gone toe to toe with Trump, and she'd have beat him too.
"Inability to beat Trump doesn't have anything to do with women generally. It has to do with the women they've offered."
Exactly. This agonizing isn't about women, it's about making the dubious choice of Biden to be the Donk standard-bearer. Because who else do they have?
rcocean,
Correct, up to a point. The caste-war issue has changed US politics. The divergence of the leadership caste from the volk became apparent to all.
Still, it is remarkable that no Trump-opponent has even attempted to co-opt his issues, however disingenuously. There is a remarkable dearth of Machiavellis in US politics.
Well, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitch-
... oh.
"Still, it is remarkable that no Trump-opponent has even attempted to co-opt his issues, however disingenuously. There is a remarkable dearth of Machiavellis in US politics."
You mean, triangulation?
Say what you will about Bill Clinton, but he was a heck of a retail politician.
Really? Got some examples?
If you don't consider: "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people." racist bullshit, then there is no such thing.
Saying grudgingly "and some, I assume are good people" does not negate the racist screed that precedes it. And don't forget the nonsense assertion that somehow Mexico is "sending" us people rather than the fact that these people come of their own free will for a better life. We can gloss over the fact that we no longer have a net illegal immigration from Mexico because Trump probably considers all beaners and wetbacks the same
I heard someone on the Sunday shows quote boxer Mike Tyson, "Everyone has a plan, until they get punched in the face."
I do think women are more likely than men to live within a cocoon of group think. In my experience women's book club discussions are non-confrontational; it's bad manners to directly disagree with the opinion of another member of a group. You can say, "my take on that is....", but you can't say, "Oh I completely disagree with Susan, and here's why she is wrong." or "Susan can you defend what you just said by citing a specific example?" Perhaps this isn't true of women politicians. But put a person who hasn't had to defend and reformulate their opinions in front of a camera, and they often end up looking stupid, and that makes that person a weaker candidate.
To add to the list, Golda Meir and Janet Jagan (two Jewish-Americans from the Midwest who ended up running foreign countries), and Khaleda Zia and Sheikh Hasina (who alternate in office in Bangla Desh), as well as several Northern European premiers (and that's not even mentioning Argentina, Brazil and Chile).
There is something in the traditional feminist complaint that it's harder for a woman than for a man to combine toughness on the one hand with approachability or personability on the other in a way that appeals to the public. Thatcher, Gandhi, Meir came from times in their countries' histories when toughness was valued above all else, and if the toughest contender was a woman, so be it. In less stressful times, voters are apt to look for someone able to combine hardness with likability, and women tend too look too hard or too soft.
This year's candidates have a problem bringing hard and soft together. Moreover, the nature of today's Democratic Party is such that a particularly hard-nosed candidate like Thatcher or Meir couldn't make headway. If voters want toughness, they'll vote for Trump. A "tough" former prosecutor like Klobuchar or Harris, isn't that tough and certainly isn't very personable or likable. Warren, the hammer of the middle classes, talks militant in the voice of a timid old school teacher. Tulsi Gabbard isn't ready for higher office. Gillibrand isn't a very effective campaigner either. Maybe her grandmother - reputed to have been the glue that held the Albany Democratic machine together - would have made a better candidate.
The campaign is a test, and there can be no special treatment once you become President
Obama already disproved that idea.
A woman who could beat trump would have to have the following qualities:
1. A logical mind
2. A rich sense of humor
3. A healthy disdain for identity politics.
In other words, it couldn't be a Democrat.
That's not racist bullshit, Freder (but that doesn't mean there's no such thing). And that's even assuming we are considering Mexicans to be a "race."
Yes, it's a weird locution to suggest Mexico is "sending" us people. But the idea that many of the people breaking the law to enter the U.S. are not Mexico's finest may be right or it may be wrong, but it's not racist. There, I said it.
Destiny is calling. America needs a woman who blythely continues to assert her entitlement to an office that she lost by 50,000 votes.
Stacey Abrams--your time has come. YOU can take on Trump.
I can see the NYT story the day after the election:
"TRUMP BEATS WOMAN"
To his long list of odious habits and disrespect of women, add another Woman Beating. Last night he beat (Hilary, Kamala, Kristen etc) to within an inch of her political life. Perhaps even to her political death.
Yadda, yadda, yadda
John Henry
Lefties think Biden stomped all over Ryan in that debate for some reason. That was back when they loved the old groper.
Sheesh, Clinton herself, who I have absolutely zero respect for, stood up quite well against Trump in the debates. Her problems were in areas unrelated to her gender.
I do think the 2018 congressional elections should give the Trump team some concern. The GOP candidates were back on their heels for some reason (the economy was pretty good then--they should have campaigned on peace, full employment, and the effects of tax cuts for average Americans), and the Democrats were and are highly motivated. The standard response is that Trump wasn't at the head of the ticket, so he didn't drive GOP turnout. That's true, but Trump also infuriates many Dems and drives turnout on that side.
The 2020 presidential race will be a knife fight.
Freder Frederson is able to read minds.
He knows Trump was grudging.
Knows that for a fact, mind you.
And he also knows Trump would use the racist words that Freder Frederson uses so easily.
But it's just that Trump is too abashed to say mean things out loud.
Either that or Freder Frederson is a racist ass hole.
Does using explicitly racist language make Freder Frederson racist?
More or less racist than Trump, who does not use that language?
Mind reading.
It comes with the Democratic voting registration.
"Ridiculous. If you can't stand up to Trump, how are you going to stand up to Putin, Kim Jong-Un, and the rest of the world's bullies? To say women have to wait until Trump isn't the opponent is to say a woman should never be President."
It is ridiculous. It is what they are saying. It is the logical outcome of women-are-special feminism.
"The campaign is a test, and there can be no special treatment once you become President, so you shouldn't act like you need gender-based accommodations on the test."
What do you mean? Claiming special treatment is the whole point of modern women-are-special feminism, which won't stop once a woman reaches the White House. And of course women candidates will demand special accommodations. After all, they are special.
Watch Brad Parscale on "Meet the Press" and tell me Trump is in danger.
Setting up the loss and its myriad excuses to come.
Blogger wild chicken said...
There's got to be a woman somewhere who can handle him.
I suspect there are plenty of women who could handle him. Sarah Palin, Condi Rice, Nikki Haley are a few pols who come to mind.
The problem is that none of the women who could handle him are Democrats.
I think your statement needs to be "There's got to be a Democrat woman somewhere who can handle him."
I don't think there are any.
None of the women I mentioned above would have a problem with Joe Biden sniffing her hair or groping her either. If he was stupid enough to try, he would get a sharp "Watch it, Buster" and if that was not enough a slap or some other physical response.
John Henry
Blogger Freeman Hunt said...
Inability to beat Trump doesn't have anything to do with women generally. It has to do with the women they've offered.
Good point, Freeman but I would go further. I think inability to beat PDJT has nothing to do with them being female or male, Dem or Rep.
I think it has everything to do with trying to beat PDJT. I think he is incredible.
Whoever the Dems run, it will be like watching the Washington Generals play the Harlem Globetrotters.
John Henry
The that's not funny crowd can't stand up to Trump.
A comedian could.
There have been many female political leaders of great nations--Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meier, Indira Gandhi, and Angela Merkel, not to mention Tansu Ciller and Benazir Bhutto. In the US we have had many successful female state governors.
Do any of the female Democratic candidates measure up to these people? It seems like a truckload of grifters, phonies, minor leaguers, and race-baiters.
That's why the four leading Dem candidates are men.
And don't forget the nonsense assertion that somehow Mexico is "sending" us people
So you deny the fact that the Mexican government encourages its poor people to emigrate to the United States? I suppose they never published comic books that showed even illiterate peasants how to do so?
Gahrie rebuts: So you deny the fact that the Mexican government encourages its poor people to emigrate to the United States? I suppose they never published comic books that showed even illiterate peasants how to do so?
Mexico gets more money from remittances than from oil sales. Damn right they encourage emigration!
Freder Mexico's best shops in the US, vacations in the US, buys real estate in the US and often sends their children to be educated in US Universities but they do not illegally immigrate to the US. Unless there is political upheaval like Communism, no reasonably developed country exports its best.
The only way a Democrat woman could be Trump is to stop being a Democrat and out Trump Trump. Then again, such a person wouldn't be a Democrat today.
Birkel, I took your suggestion and watched that interview. (It was actually Face the Nation, I assume that's what you meant.) Parsale is very impressive, and it sounds like he's heading up a pretty effective campaign. More winning!
If the Left didn't hate Maggie Thatcher, they could learn something from her.
Female sex, feminine gender, and politics.
Is Palin a candidate? There are some other viable choices.
For a movement (current-wave feminism) that claims there are absolutely no biological differences between the sexes, this must be really confusing.
buwaya said...
Still, it is remarkable that no Trump-opponent has even attempted to co-opt his issues, however disingenuously. There is a remarkable dearth of Machiavellis in US politics.
They can't, because the Democrat base won't let Democrats do it, and the Chamber of Commerce donors won't let the Establishment GOP do it.
Politics is the art of the possible. Democrat base voters don't believe that they have to compromise to win, so they're not going to, and they're not going to vote for a candidate who does compromise.
Bill Clinton's triangulating worked because, after 12 years of Regan and Bush 41, Democrat voters were desperate for a win.
Modern Democrat voters aren't, yet, desperate for a win
chuck, Margaret Thatcher would be a great example to follow, but she could think clearly. She could never be a Democrat.
"But the idea that many of the people breaking the law to enter the U.S. are not Mexico's finest may be right or it may be wrong, but it's not racist. There, I said it."
If you assert that a group of people possess traits that are demonstrably untrue,that is pretty much the definition of racism.
And it is a fact backed up by hard data that people in this country illegally are much less likely than the general population to commit the kind of crimes Trump accuses them of.
I would be much more forgiving if he said "the vast majority are good people".
“The question posed is actually, "Can a leftwing Democrat woman beat Trump?"”
And in particular can a left wing ding back fro a dark blue state who has never had to take a serious political attack from a man win? In Dem circles intersectionality virtue points keep left wing female politicians from ever having to seriously defend themselves and their idiotic ideas. Free college. Forgiveness of student debt. Open borders. Medicare for all (including all the foreigners coming through our open borders). Eliminate 1st and 2nd Amdts (others too, no doubt). Ban fossil fuels AND nuclear energy, etc. And to pay for it, massively increase corporate and individual income taxes, esp on those who can most easily flee the country with their wealth and impose a wealth tax, tanking the economy, again, four years after the first female President who spent eight years destroying the economy. Trump would call out their idiocy, ignoring that they are women, so must be coddled, ignoring that foreign countries aren’t going to coddle them due to their gender, but instead assume that they are weak and feckless, challenging their leadership probably more than they would many men. The women who have made good leaders in other countries, and those Republican leaders whom we think could do the job, are tough, and everyone knows it, and they didn’t win through their virtue signaling and intersectionality points. Trump is going to laugh at them because that is how he fights. Most women don’t like being laughed at, and pull the picked on victimhood thing. Won’t work against a Trump who doesn’t care.
Tracy Flick: [narrating] You might think it upset me that Paul Metzler had decided to run against me, but nothing could be further from the truth. He was no competition for me, it was like apples and oranges. I had to work a little harder, that's all. You see, I believe in the voters. They understand that elections aren't just popularity contests. They know this country was built by people just like me who work very hard and don't have everything handed to them on a silver spoon. Not like some rich kids who everybody likes because their fathers own Metzler Cement and give them trucks on their 16th birthday and throw them big parties all the time. No, they don't ever have to work for anything. They think they can just, all of a sudden, one day out of the blue, waltz right in with no qualifications whatsoever and try to take away what other people have worked for VERY, VERY hard for their entire lives! No, didn't bother me at all!
"If you assert that a group of people possess traits that are demonstrably untrue,that is pretty much the definition of racism."
Okay, that's pretty much the definition of really, really stupid.
To the extent Trump has a bad history with women in terms of infidelity and raw statements and actions, I would think all else equal a woman would be BETTER positioned to call him out on those things. That means someone who can take a shot and shoot one back, which I suspect many Democratic women have not had to do because of their female privilege in Democratic politics. So maybe the expectation is that a woman can't beat Trump unless she is willing to actually fight, and that would be unfair in some fashion?
Beyond that, I do not understand where these people are coming from, except that maybe someone working for a male candidate is putting out a meme that gullible people are swallowing.
*****************************
Federson says:
And it is a fact backed up by hard data that people in this country illegally are much less likely than the general population to commit the kind of crimes Trump accuses them of.
NO, that oft-quoted factoid is about ALL immigrants, there is no good data about those here illegally. How would you even go about collecting it?
"Okay, that's pretty much the definition of really, really stupid."
Well if you want to believe trump is really, really stupid rather than a racist,that is your prerogative.
As for me, I don't think trump is that bright, but no way is he really,really stupid.
Blogger Martin said...
..., there is no good data about those here illegally. How would you even go about collecting it?
Maybe have a census, or something?
I think women stand up to Trump all the time. So many in his inner circle and cabinet are women. Kelly Ann, Ivanka, Sarah Hucklebee Sanders, his CIA director is a woman, Homeland security was a woman until she just resigned, add Nikki Haley our former ambassador. These women are no shrinking violets and I am sure they tell him their opinion in no uncertain terms. He seems to only like Mike Pence for the male perspective. He has lunch with him a lot (see morning briefing on PJ Media)
Instead of a Presidential debate, maybe have a cooking contest?
Freder Frederson said...
"But the idea that many of the people breaking the law to enter the U.S. are not Mexico's finest may be right or it may be wrong, but it's not racist. There, I said it."
If you assert that a group of people possess traits that are demonstrably untrue,that is pretty much the definition of racism.
And it is a fact backed up by hard data that people in this country illegally are much less likely than the general population to commit the kind of crimes Trump accuses them of.
That's a lie. The average illegal alien in the US commits more crimes than does the average US Citizen. Now, the average illegal alien is more likely to be young and male.
So if you want to play statistical games, you can try to claim that young male illegal aliens are less likely to be convicted of crimes than young male US Citizens, you can make that claim.
But it's a garbage claim. Because the victims of those crimes are still hurt, and they wouldn't have been victimized if the illegal alien who attacked them wasn't here.
That leaves aside their criminal behavior being here, working "under the table" (shorting Social Security, which is on the road to bankruptcy), engaging in identity theft, and the large number of "sanctuary" prosecutors who don't charge them with crimes, because they don't want them caught and expelled.
So, Freder, you keep on pushing that lie, and establishing that your position is such utter crap that even you know it.
Since if it wasn't crap, you wouldn't have to lie to defend it
Freder Frederson said...
I would be much more forgiving if he said "the vast majority are good people".
But they're not good people. Good people don't jump the line. Good people don't force themselves illegally into a place where they're not entitled to be.
Trump cutting down on the number of those bad people coming to the US is what led to an increase in wages for actual good people: Americans without college degrees, trying to work and support a family.
The fact that you couldn't care less about those actual American good people. Freder, is one of the demonstrations of what a bad person you are.
Go ahead and demonstrate it, Freder Frederson.
Your assertion without evidence is not persuasive.
“Maybe have a census, or something?”
But the Census would have to ask for immigration status in order to distinguish illegal from lega immigrant, and from citizens. And the Dems are challenging reinstating that question in the Decennial Census in the Supreme Court right now. What are they afraid of? That Freder will be shown wrong?
Yet apparently Trump's wafting dishonest racial bullshit in the announcement of his candidacy didn't disqualify him from consideration.
I eagerly await your link to said announcement. Please include the racial bullshit Trump wafted.
The arguments for and against a female President can be put quite succinctly, hat tip Britannia :
For : Margaret Thatcher
Against : Theresa May
I suspect it's rather like picking a male President - it kinda depends on which one you get.
I wouldn't worry too much about what's between the candidate's legs. Between the ears is what you should be worrying about.
Nevermind, Freder. I read your post at 10:25 AM.
You really are - to quote you - a fucking moron.
and the large number of "sanctuary" prosecutors who don't charge them with crimes, because they don't want them caught and expelled.
You accuse me of lying and then make this completely unsubstantiated, unsupportable claim.
Give me a fucking break.
If you assert that a group of people possess traits that are demonstrably untrue,that is pretty much the definition of racism.
This is dishonest even by your standards. Trump’s statement shows that he meant the opposite of the above. It implies that there are best and not best categories, which completely declares your assertion that Trump was categorizing ALL Mexicans.
Try thinking more and emoting less.
For some reason, many seem to think we "need" a woman President.
As I look around at all the women in power; from our Congress and Supreme Court to European leaders--I remain highly skeptical.
Oh-
Since you're not allowed to criticism women, I'm a firm no at this point in time.
Amadeus 48 said...
Destiny is calling. America needs a woman who blythely continues to assert her entitlement to an office that she lost by 50,000 votes.
Stacey Abrams--your time has come. YOU can take on Trump.
4/29/19, 10:38
Thanks for the laugh Amadeus 48!!!
Stand up to Putin? The dems could care less. All they want is someone elected that will reliably hand out the goodies their interest groups.And we havn't had a pudendumated president, yet.
As I have said before: the problem for these women is not their vaginas; it is their radical feminism.
Men don't like it. Many women don't like it. Many minority men don't like it.
Radical Feminism is toxic and offputting and any woman who wears that hat is not likely electable.
But that is all we are being offered. I'd vote for a Palin, a Haley, a Rice in a second.
They are not whack job, man hating feminists.
But this is too Cruelly Neutral™ for Ms. Althouse to want to recognize. She raises valid points, but to see her beloved ideology being essentially not just a speed bump but a WALL to electability...that is a lot to swallow.
I was at a Joe Biden speech about six months ago. He is frankly, an utterly abysmal public speaker. Hackneyed, cornpone, inarticulate, and half a dozen other similar adjectives. He laughs at his own jokes. He has a tendency to suddenly intensify his emotions and raise his voice without building up to it. It suddenly feels like he got emotional and started yelling at you.
Worst retail politician I've ever heard.
Ann Richards or Dianne Feinstein in their prime could possibly have beaten Trump in 2016. Estrogen and ovaries have nothing to do with it.
Ann says Biden disqualified himself, but I expect she'll vote for him if he's the candidate.
John Henry beat you at 10:38, ICTA. ;-)
Marianne, Emily and Shirley need to man up.
@mockturtle
John Henry beat you at 10:38, ICTA. ;-)
"the beatings will continue until the morale improves"
... but for your morale:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFqX9J7HNdM&list=RDXFqX9J7HNdM&start_radio=1
Nice, ICTA! Thank you. :-)
Freder Frederson said...
and the large number of "sanctuary" prosecutors who don't charge them with crimes, because they don't want them caught and expelled.
You accuse me of lying and then make this completely unsubstantiated, unsupportable claim.
So, let's see, you don't provide a single shred of support for any of your claims, and attack me for making a solid one.
One example, after 15 seconds searching: https://hotair.com/archives/2017/04/29/baltimore-warns-prosecutors-think-twice-charging-illegal-immigrants/
So, let's see, you don't provide a single shred of support for any of your claims, and attack me for making a solid one.
I figured you would find something like this. I should have cut you off from the beginning and said "I'm sure you might find some instances where prosecutors are recommending not prosecuting minor crimes". But what Trump was alleging was serious felonies, not minor crimes that are frequently prosecuted against poor people but middle class people get a pass on.
My wife voted for Trump. The lady next door voted for Trump. The lady across the street voted for Trump. The lady in the house behind us I think voted for Trump or at least didn't vote for Hillary. Maybe there's a lot of women out there who don't think Trump is some kind of threat. I bet all of them would vote for an American Margaret Thatcher. I would too.
and the large number of "sanctuary" prosecutors who don't charge them with crimes, because they don't want them caught and expelled.
You accuse me of lying and then make this completely unsubstantiated, unsupportable claim.
Give me a fucking break.
I live in a community with a packing plant. (code for lots of illegal aliens)
Small community, eating at a cafe, pumping gas, waiting in line at the DMV, at the pep club pot luck, I hear city, and county officers repeat the same story. Illegals do not get arrested for DUI, fender benders with no insurance (a state law) pot possesion, breaking and entering, personal assualt. A slew of crimes that local law enforcement wants no part of. Paperwork is insane...and useless. My wife saw an armed robber run out of a c-store at 9:30 in the morning following an attempted robbery. Everyone knew who it was, nothing ever charged.
Those officers will tell you that more than 50% of the crimes committed are committed by illegals.
This is life in a sanctuary city.
I live in a community with a packing plant. (code for lots of illegal aliens)
Are you telling me a small town in Iowa (I assume) has declared itself a sanctuary city? Too bad the state passed a law banning sanctuary cities last year. The "paperwork is insane" excuse is bullshit. There is no difference in the paperwork involved in charging a legal resident or an illegal one. After the case is adjudicated is when the deportation procedures start, and that is handled by the Feds.
And if your town officials hate illegal immigrants so much and blame them for half the crimes committed in your fair city, why don't they just get the packing plant shut down for violating employment (and I bet a shit load of health and safety) regulations?
Don't you care about the crimes committed by the plant owners?
This reminds me of a conversation I once had with Chuck. He called PDJT "racist" and I asked him to provide examples.
He failed epically in pretty much the same way you are failing epically here.
When did Mexicans become a race?
If they are not a race, how can badmouthing them be racist?
Just sounds like pure chuckishness on your part.
Not very bright.
John Henry
As for whether illegal criminals commit more crime than native population, how stupid does one have to be to deny it?
They have committed at least 1 crime by being here. Plus all the other crimes every single one of us commits every time we go outside. An average of a felony a day, by some counts.
But the illegal immigrant will have committed at least 1 extra just by being here.
John Henry
Greg Q,
We had a great example the other day. A JUDGE, a person who has a particular duty to uphold the law, I person who swore an oath to uphold the law, helped an illegal alien escape from ICE.
I think the bailiff helped too.
Thank Trump that someone takes our laws seriously and this judge (and bailiff) has been arrested. Hopefully, if found guilty, she will be defrocked, disbarred and shunned for the rest of her life as a pariah. A bit of jail time would not do any harm either.
John Henry
San Francisco will not arrest, much less investigate, for any crime under $1,000 in value. Unless there is actual human injury. I think there are a number of other CA cities with similar policies.
I just heard on No Agenda this afternoon that Dallas is implementing a policy of no consequences for any crime under $750.
Following an April 11 memo issued by the district attorney, Creuzot's office will no longer prosecute those busted for marijuana possession for the first time, those caught with just a trace amount of drugs or misdemeanor criminal trespass cases that do not involve someone trespassing on residential property. Most controversially, Creuzot also plans to decline prosecuting anyone caught stealing $750 or less worth of necessary personal items, like baby formula, diapers or food.
https://www.dallasobserver.com/news/dallas-da-creuzot-under-fire-for-criminal-justice-reforms-11646752
John Henry
I just heard on No Agenda this afternoon that Dallas is implementing a policy of no consequences for any crime under $750.
Time to create our own consequences.
My wife voted for Trump. The lady next door voted for Trump. The lady across the street voted for Trump. The lady in the house behind us I think voted for Trump or at least didn't vote for Hillary. Maybe there's a lot of women out there who don't think Trump is some kind of threat. I bet all of them would vote for an American Margaret Thatcher. I would too.
Myself, my daughters and my closest friends just to name a few.
They have committed at least 1 crime by being here.
Actually, illegally crossing the border is a civil violation, not a crime.
Time to create our own consequences.
So are you advocating vigilantism and perhaps a good old fashioned lynching or two?
Didn't your mom ever tell you two wrongs don't make a right.
Are you telling me a small town in Iowa (I assume) has declared itself a sanctuary city? Too bad the state passed a law banning sanctuary cities last year. The "paperwork is insane" excuse is bullshit. There is no difference in the paperwork involved in charging a legal resident or an illegal one. After the case is adjudicated is when the deportation procedures start, and that is handled by the Feds.
Your assesment of law enforcement re, illegals is uninformed by officers that have been doing it for several decades. Sure, charge them, jail them, arreign them, get a confession. Call Ice. Ice prioritizes who they pickup. Unless they have nothing else to do, the small stuff is ignored, and the city and county can't afford to jail them all. Maybe for a short while, while they let some out, to make room. The legal system is full of prosecutorial discretion. Local law enforcement is forced to prioritze their assets where they get the best return.
The plant gets raided from time to time. Again priorities rule. The illegals working there have SS#. Law prohibits checking too deeply. The kids cant be asked for proof of legal residence at school. In fact, they bus elementary kids across town, that don't have a grasp of speaking Spanish,(actually, "spanglish", the spanish version of pigeon English.)displacing citizens for the comfort of illegals.
I just heard on No Agenda this afternoon that Dallas is implementing a policy of no consequences for any crime under $750.
Well, good for them. If they spend less time and money prosecuting poor people for petty crimes (I guarantee you if you got busted for stealing a few hundred dollars worth of stuff, at most you would get a nolo contendre plea and no record) maybe they can spend more time countering bullshit "affluenza" defenses by rich little assholes who kill four people while hopped up on Valium and alcohol.
Freder isn't familiar with broken windows theory of policing, apparently,
What risk? This is not a sex issue. Show us your principles.
Freder isn't familiar with broken windows theory of policing, apparently,
Well I am, it's just I don't think that it is particularly effective, and there is very little evidence to contradict my opinion. It is very effective at criminalizing and ruining the lives of poor people at great expense for very little (if any) gain.
Your assesment of law enforcement re, illegals is uninformed by officers that have been doing it for several decades. Sure, charge them, jail them, arreign them, get a confession. Call Ice. Ice prioritizes who they pickup. Unless they have nothing else to do, the small stuff is ignored, and the city and county can't afford to jail them all. Maybe for a short while, while they let some out, to make room. The legal system is full of prosecutorial discretion. Local law enforcement is forced to prioritze their assets where they get the best return.
Sounds like that it is not that your town refuses to prosecute petty criminals, not because they may or may not be illegal immigrants, but because they lack the resources to enforce the law. Maybe if you middle and upper middle class and rich people were willing to shell out a few more bucks in taxes to improve the courts and law enforcement, you could drive all the criminals, both legal and illegal, out of town.
As for the packing plant, sitting by and passively complaining about how nothing can be done because the Federal government has to follow stupid regulations demonstrates your lack of imagination. Send out the fire department to do fire inspections monthly. Kick the managers and company representatives out of the country club, the Rotarians, the Chamber of Commerce. Treat their kids if they get busted for possession of pot or underage drinking the same as you would the children of their (allegedly) illegal employees. Reassess their tax status. I guarantee you, you would be rid of your pesky packing plant and it's illegal employees within a couple of years.
Here, I got another idea for you.
Have the town council or Mayor issue a decree that considering Iowa's proud traditions of supporting labor rights, and concerns about the conditions at the plant, the town invites Union representatives to try and organize the plant. Furthermore, local law enforcement will forcefully defend the full rights of labor organizers to legally encourage unionization of the plant.
I bet that will cut down the time the plant closes to less than a year.
Well I am, it's just I don't think that it is particularly effective,
Short way of Freder saying that he don't believe no science.
and there is very little evidence to contradict my opinion.
Simply a lie.
It is very effective at criminalizing and ruining the lives of poor people at great expense for very little (if any) gain.
Any reason why they just had to break that window?
A woman is not going to be elected anytime soon. Looking at the treatment of Nikki Haley and Sarah Palin and others, and even the treatment of Sarah Sanders and Kirstjen Neilsen by left-leaning women, I perceive that no Republican woman has much of a chance. But Republican women will not forget, and easily resist the calls for "sisterhood" when the Democrats put up a left-wing woman.
Short way of Freder saying that he don't believe no science.
That's rich coming from you. And if you want to provide proof, provide a link to the "science" you assert exists.
Simply a lie.
As I helpfully provide when I accuse someone of being a liar, clicking on "lie" would provide a link to demonstrate that my claim was, indeed, a lie. Please provide such a link.
Disney already knows America won't vote Kamala Harris into the oval office.
Because Disney had the same choice in the form a casting Captain Marvel as she was in the original MCU - Monica Rambeau, a black woman and leader of the Avengers.
For all their talk of being "woke" and breaking glass ceilings, they left this one well enough alone and went with a white girl instead.
You think Disney doesn't understand it's audience? Doesn't understand marketing and branding? Of course they do, they've made billions because of it. And they chose not to bet on a African-American Female to be the masthead of the next generation of Avengers.
America won't either. And the Democrats know it.
A woman can stand up to Trump in the same way a man would.
Bad advice. When a woman tries to mimic a man, she comes across (to men) as silly as a tranny trying to act feminine and seductive.
Men and women are different. Period.
As I helpfully provide when I accuse someone of being a liar, clicking on "lie" would provide a link to demonstrate that my claim was, indeed, a lie.
Also a lie.
@Feder, you are parroting the latest fad in sociological circles, and certainly it is true that the theory was misapplied in Newark, NJ, a shithole of a city right down there with Camden (also in NJ).
But then you have to deal with the success of the program under Giuliani's administration? Or did the citizens of New York City suddenly become nicer to each other with Rudy in Gracie Mansion and revert to form under DeBlasio?
https://news.grabien.com/story-old-man-joe-biden-slurs-his-way-through-first-speech-preside
Watch a very disturbing Old Joe slur his way through his speech. Dementia??
Blogger Freder Frederson said...
"I just heard on No Agenda this afternoon that Dallas is implementing a policy of no consequences for any crime under $750.
Well, good for them. If they spend less time and money prosecuting poor people for petty crimes (I guarantee you if you got busted for steali"
Until it's your stuff.
But then you have to deal with the success of the program under Giuliani's administration? Or did the citizens of New York City suddenly become nicer to each other with Rudy in Gracie Mansion and revert to form under DeBlasio?
Well, again you are lying. The first sentence is correct, Broken Windows did appear to be a major success under Giuliani. But your second statement is an outright lie. In spite of the doom sayers telling us end of stop and frisk and the lightening up on Broken Windows would turn New York back into the New York of the eighties. Crime rates have not risen. New York remains the safest large city in the country and 2018 saw record low crime numbers (289 murders).
Freder Frederson said...
I just heard on No Agenda this afternoon that Dallas is implementing a policy of no consequences for any crime under $750.
Well, good for them. If they spend less time and money prosecuting poor people for petty crimes (I guarantee you if you got busted for stealing a few hundred dollars worth of stuff, at most you would get a nolo contendre plea and no record) maybe they can spend more time countering bullshit "affluenza" defenses by rich little assholes who kill four people while hopped up on Valium and alcohol.
Where do you live? i ask because I wish to rob you of $700. Then get 10 other people to each do the same.
You can replace a broken car window for less that $750. Here's hoping you get a broken car window every day, by some homeless guy who wants to steal some $5 item out of your car.
"But what Trump was alleging was serious felonies, not minor crimes that are frequently prosecuted against poor people but middle class people get a pass on."
Look up the MS-13 crime records. Those are serious felonies, and the vast majority of the members are immigrants.
And, again, I note you demand others provide links and evidence, while you provide nothing but your arrantly stupid proclamations.
Blogger Freder Frederson said...
"I just heard on No Agenda this afternoon that Dallas is implementing a policy of no consequences for any crime under $750.
Well, good for them
Soon Freder will be crying about food deserts in the ghetto.
One thing Freder definitely won't be doing: opening up a store in the ghetto to fix the problem.
Post a Comment