I don't think so at all. It seems to me that people are defending a racist by pretending he's being sarcastic. No wonder we have such a problem with police shootings. I mean the cop literally says he's a racist and implies his colleagues are, but no, he must be sarcastic. The lengths people go to defend cops are incomprehensible and honestly, disgusting.
> What’s happening now, though, is the rise of the female archetype. Examples Ismail gave that embody the female archetype are open-sourcing, the maker movement...
One might say open-sourcing and the maker movement equally embody the male archetype of risk taking and managing scarcity.
The right ran 200 yards further right. As much as I hate Reagan, that guy wouldn't recognize the current GOP. There are barely any moderate republicans left.
The current GOP is defunding everything from the state department, EPA to education. Meanwhile the democrats (outside of Sanders who's a self-defined independent, and Warren) are afraid to even suggest universal healthcare because it would be too left-leaning.
If a significant portion of the US population doesn't want Universal Healthcare, then it is too left leaning. Just because many European countries have adopted a policy doesn't mean the US should, especially if the populace disagrees.
You live in a bubble if you think a handful of countries in Europe qualify as "everyone else" in the world, and also if you think those countries haven't had any issues with Universal Healthcare.
Ya know, the country that scored tops on that study.
The fact is that there are a lot of people in the US that don't think they should be paying for everyone else's healthcare. This causes numerous problems when you are trying to implement a healthcare plan that covers everyone equally, for somewhat obvious reasons. I'd argue that the the US healthcare system will always be crippled as long as people feel this way, and I'm not sure how to change their minds.
No, my point is that moderate SHOULD mean somewhere in the middle. But if the geometric middle is moved 100 yards right, then "moderate" loses its meaning.
The "left" is moderate, the current right is something else.
There were far more candidates that did not run on racist, misogynist platforms, ie. Bush, Rubio, Johnson. Trump was never the most moderate. The Republican party didn't even choose him. Their constituents did. And if they had been paying attention they would have known a demagogue could have walked off with the party base.
I take that back; Kasich was the most moderate. He also had very little charisma, unfortunately. He could have been a perfect VP for this administration if the two could get along.
Trump was typically more moderate on the economy and tax policy, abortion, military. His stance on immigration is the more conservative than the rest. Rubio and most of the rest were very strict on abortion, had typical Republican ideas on tax, support interventionist military campaigns, but had varying but less conservative stances on immigration. Although Trump's behavior was boorish and comedic at times, that appeals to Americans and gets you media exposure. Just like the coolness of Obama and Bill Clinton.
If the DNC didn't engage in shenanigans, wouldn't the Democratic demagogue have had a much better chance at winning than Hillary?
Which is interesting, because Kasich is not in any objective sense a moderate. (I live in his state) Relative to the rest of that field, sure, but that's what is alarming.
Well, the media liked giving him lots of attention and air time. It was in the best interest of left wing demagogues to get a fresh new bad guy for the new season of American Politics.
Those were the days. Sadly, of the issues for which Candidate Trump was politically moderate, few have survived into his presidency. Actually, I can't think of any.
Matthew, the person you are arguing with, or rather, hurling snark at, did not make the claim that language should never evolve. I'm not sure why you felt so compelled to end a reasoned comment on such a nasty note.
I am in full support of this code. It approaches a sensitive subject with the care it deserves and does not seek to strip anyone of their dignity. Quite a world away from the punitive actions advocated by Erik Michaels-Ober on other projects.
> However, because this mistake has stood since 1985, I have changed all of the pronouns to be female, to make up for lost time. If someone would like to revert this patch or switch to neutral pronouns after 30 years, feel free to set your alarm clock for 2045.
Is that how it works? If using a gendered pronoun (contentious) was a mistake, what sense is to be found in repeating it?
Interesting! I cannot recall any such marketing materials for Ovaltine. The only reference I can find regarding this strategy is from 2000[0]. Both the drink and the brand, in my experience at least, have always been associated with comfort, family, pajamas and bedtime. I seem to recall "Ovalteeney" being a mild pejoritve to describe those of a quiet/calm nature.
Putting aside your condescending commentary, and disregarding for the time being your hysterical proclamations of closed borders, pray tell... What is it you feel my non-EU wife and I, both living in Edinburgh, are putting up with (or not, as you say)?
How great did Britain become due to the influx of foreign cultures? Would people eat Tikka Masala without Brits learning that style of cooking from the Indians? And would The Beatles have been what they were if they never visited India? Going back to Top Gear, like a quarter of the stuff they do is because of open borders between the UK and the EU. Sailing across the English Channel? Racing through the chunnel? When they visit the US they have to deal with visas and law enforcement and the threat of being deported just because they're foreigners.
I'm not even talking specifically about the EU, the glory days of the British car industry was pre-EU. But the UK seems like it used to be a land of big goals, populated by dreamers who would get things done, impossible things. And the UK today, shrinking back from the rest of the world, stands as a stark contrast to the nation that sailed across the seas and established the most successful colonies and invented the car and invented the computer and owned property on every continent.
I don't know what you and your wife are experiencing in Scotland, I've never been there. But as an outsider looking in, the Britain that exists today seems a lot more afraid of the world than the Britain I learned about in history class. You might think it's condescending or hysterical, but remember that the UK literally owned land on every continent, in Asia and Africa and North America and South America and Antarctica and Europe and Australia. And now they're facing down the prospect of losing Scotland.
I'm sure some people called the fall of the Western Roman Empire "condescending and hysterical" too.
