You seem to not know his history of posting, which is not fully being misogynistic, but certainly him being sexist. That was the point of saying "he came back," making two posts on his return which show the same beliefs he had in the past.
You'll have to excuse me if I don't fully take your assessment of his postings in the spirit in which you intend.
If she's the Dem candidate you can bet that "shrill" will be one of the more mild disses that Trumplicans throw at her.
Shrill, humorless, nasty. The same as was said of Hillary. With Trump of course being worse on all three accounts, but people don't say that about men.
I guess I can post it here also. here is Yang's Climate change policy. He does want to help nuclear (I did not see if he talked about what to do with nuclea waste). He does not dislike the green new deal. He is in favor of a carbon tax (he calls it a fee). https://www.yang2020.com/blog/climate-change/
By "leaders" I mean inspiring folks to want to follow them, which is different than actually running things well. I picked out Reagen/Kennedy/Obama as leaders in the charismatic sense. I hold everyone to the same standard. You can't browbeat feel into being inspired.
What the reps do and what the idea says are different things. Again concentrating just on improving supply regardless of demand is a bad idea, you need to look into both. But I am not sure if the theory cares about marginal taxes, since most economic theories think of it in a world with freedom of trade (not always reality, specially with the new tariffs). So supply should not be affected by higher taxes as one, that affects incomes and 2 in free trade supply production would move to where it is economically better, so in theory if taxes makes companies move production, that should not have an effect in supply (again if trade is free). I guess that in theory the higher taxes would help demand if they are redistributed efficiently in a way that the benefits outweigh the negatives, more spending over saving for example.
You are engaging in a very common categorical error. Look into the work of Amos Tversky. Then reflect on the errors of your thinking.
If the guy is white, wearing a cowboy hat, speaks in a drawl, and has an American flag plastered on the back of his pickup truck, he probably prefers Donald Trump to Barack Obama. Amos ain't going to prove me wrong about that.
It seems close to undisputed that Neymar was wrongly accused of rape. Noting that makes me a sexist? That's a classical heuristic error. Are the journalists who wrote the article sexist as well? It appears that, in your view, reasonable people can't disagree about the complex issues of sexism and rape allegations. This makes you a much greater part of the problem in today's society than me.
Actually, I am in many ways a bad lefty on this topic. I've been chided frequently for "blaming the victim."
The thread is about whether or not a "rape culture" exists. Many folks on the "definitely exists" side of the discussion routinely argue that false rape claims almost never happen. They also point to specific examples of rape in the news as evidence that rape culture exists. But some disagree as to the extent of rape culture, so pointing to counterpoints in the media is definitely relevant--unless you only want news stories that align with your political POV? A world famous soccer player was wrongly accused of rape. That seems like an appropriate topic within the thread.
Yes, that was what i was getting at. The reporters had to cover Neymar. That was their jobs, they had no choice. But when we post, we are under no such obligation.
I'll repeat the point; why does Warren, and you called out Warren alone on this point, need to be a "leader", especially when you distinguish that from running things well? Running things well should be the important bit right?
There was a lengthy discussion about the allegations against Ronaldo. If that was appropriate for conversation, so is a discussion about the allegations against Neymar.
Of course it is, but human beings are apes. We often pick leaders based on subjective, irrational feelings. It isn't the only criteria, but charisma matters. I discussed Warren because I thought that was the topic of conversation. I'm also trying to be more careful with my words, so I've replaced "leadership" with "charisma."
Humans are literal apes friend. Humans are in fact among the Great Apes, although we seem to have fallen away from our ape roots. Please help me Make Apes Great Again.