Dr. Drumpflove

thom4s je 23. nov 2017 ob 11:17 izjavil:

je razmerje nekako 100:1 kjer vodijo vaši jype

Vem, revni in nemočni itak nimate nobenega vzvoda prisile z izjemo nasilja, tako da vam večina žensk uspe pobegniti, bogati in sposobni se pa moramo, strinjam se, obnašati bolj odgovorno in prenehati s takim početjem.

thom4s je 23. nov 2017 ob 11:17 izjavil:

Na dailystormer.hk maš spisek fickificki elite in je razmerje nekako 100:1 kjer vodijo vaši jype. Mediji o temu ne poročajo kaj preveč, ker nočejo izpasti rasisti in pa antisemiti :D

Haha, dailystormer Stran za manipuliranje nacijev, ki imajo iq bliže nadarjenemu šimpanzu kot nadarjenemu človeku.

thom4s je 23. nov 2017 ob 12:13 izjavil:

pecorin je 23. nov 2017 ob 12:09 izjavil:

Haha, dailystormer Stran za manipuliranje nacijev, ki imajo iq bliže nadarjenemu šimpanzu kot nadarjenemu človeku.

LOL, a lahko pokažeš eno novico tam ki je fejk news? Kjer citirajo CNN seveda ne šteje.

Ti boš vrj. rekel, da so jim vzeli internetno domeno, ker širijo non-fake news, katerega "MSM" ne upajo, ne pa vso mogoče sovraštvo? No na "MSM" ti še vedno ostane vsaj Hanity, da se boš lahko kopal v sovraštvu dialektike nas proti njim (Us vs. them)...

Kaj npr. pišejo o ženskah tam?

The hostility in particular towards women, especially white women, is also quite bizarre. A query on his site for "women" typically reveals barely contained anger that women should have the right to do things like vote[53][54][55] or have opinions in general[56] – usually directed towards white women – and declaring "your worst enemy is not Jews, White Man, but your own females."

(več na https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Daily... in mnogih drugi www straneh)

Uau. Spin doctor v svojem elementu. Najprej sicer lahko pojasniš, kje enačim vsako spolno nasilje z posilstvom, kar mi, za levičarje precej značilno, podtikaš. In kdo trdi, da je Janković posiljevalec?

A če te prav razumem torej: ko šef grabi delavko za rit in ta stiska zobe, da ne bi izgubila službe, ne gre za spolno nasilje ampak za ... malo zabave z nekaj zlorabe položaja?

Ko brez njene privolitve zahteva spolni odnos?

A so stisnjeni zobje že privolitev?

Iatromantis je 23. nov 2017 ob 13:18 izjavil:

thom4s je 23. nov 2017 ob 12:13 izjavil:

pecorin je 23. nov 2017 ob 12:09 izjavil:

Haha, dailystormer Stran za manipuliranje nacijev, ki imajo iq bliže nadarjenemu šimpanzu kot nadarjenemu človeku.

LOL, a lahko pokažeš eno novico tam ki je fejk news? Kjer citirajo CNN seveda ne šteje.

Ti boš vrj. rekel, da so jim vzeli internetno domeno, ker širijo non-fake news, katerega "MSM" ne upajo, ne pa vso mogoče sovraštvo? No na "MSM" ti še vedno ostane vsaj Hanity, da se boš lahko kopal v sovraštvu dialektike nas proti njim (Us vs. them)...

Vprašal sem te kaj je na tisti strani fejk njuws? Seveda si samo izvedel feministični čustveni izliv o stvareh ki jih nikoli ne bi očital Ahmedu, Mohamedu in Abdulu. Zakaj taki dvojni standardi? Zaradi cene melanina na prostem trgu?

thramos je 23. nov 2017 ob 14:20 izjavil:

A če pod očitno prisilo zašepeta: "da", pa je?

Prisila je očitna? Na podlagi česa?

thramos je 23. nov 2017 ob 14:43 izjavil:

Če ne bo privolila (boš ti povedal na kakšen način), bo odpuščena recimo.

Aha!

thramos je 23. nov 2017 ob 14:43 izjavil:

A je važno?

Zelo. Privoljenje v zameno za ekonomsko korist definitivno pomeni, da ne gre za posilstvo.

thramos je 23. nov 2017 ob 14:52 izjavil:

Torej: če "da" izdavi skozi stisnjene zobe, ker ve, da bo drugače odpuščena ("ekonomska korist" torej), gre za privolitev in vse je ok?

Če "da" izdavi skozi stisnjene zobe, verjetno ekonomska korist ni tisto, za kar jo tisti trenutek skrbi.

thramos je 23. nov 2017 ob 14:58 izjavil:

Skrbi jo roka na riti, ampak a obdržati službo ni ekonomska korist?

Roka na riti je spolni napad.

Res? Nisem opazil, ti si trdil, da šele post-festum in skozi zobe.

Da tega sploh ne omenjamo:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/...

thramos je 23. nov 2017 ob 17:21 izjavil:

Post festum spet podtikaš.

Preberi kdaj kakšen svoj prispevek.

thramos je 23. nov 2017 ob 17:21 izjavil:

A skozi zobe je problem?

Ja, je.

Cervantes je 23. nov 2017 ob 22:12 izjavil:

Včasih je čisto koristno zgrabiti za rit.

Na Balkanu se tako dela, ja.

V civiliziranih družbah se pa pošlje (danes že elektronsko) pošto z obrazcem, kjer druga stranka obkljuka kvadratke, poleg katerih so navedene še dopustne manire.

Heh. Vdam se.

thramos je 23. nov 2017 ob 22:55 izjavil:

Heh. Vdam se. ;((

No, da slišimo, zakaj je spolnost posebna kategorija? Kak dober nekatoliški argument me zanima.

Cervantes je 23. nov 2017 ob 23:04 izjavil:

Kmalu bo ppstalo politično nekorektno že, če boš punco prijazno pogledal, kaj šele, da bi ji pomežiknil.

Če si ti star 90 (al kok si že) ona pa 9, potem ja, creepy.

Cervantes je 23. nov 2017 ob 23:04 izjavil:

Pol se pa razmnožujmo. Al kaj?

To se da vse z epruvetami zrihtat.

No, to se je zgodilo.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/23/us/p...

Lawyers for Michael T. Flynn, President Trump’s former national security adviser, notified the president’s legal team in recent days that they could no longer discuss the special counsel’s investigation, according to four people involved in the case — an indication that Mr. Flynn is cooperating with prosecutors or negotiating a deal.



Dva komentarja:

https://twitter.com/NormEisen/status/93...

BAD NEWS FOR TRUMP. Flynn may or may not have dirt on the Prez, but he surely will roll over on Kush, who will flip like a pancake on daddy-in-law's obstrution. They are gonna have to start frisking Jared for a wire in the Oval. Today is Cursegiving not Thanksgiving for POTUS. I negotiated a cooperation deal for a target with Mueller's office when he was US Atty and lemme tell ya, he's not gonna give one to Flynn unless he implicates someone up the ladder. That means Kushner, Don Jr., or Big Daddy. They are all having indigestion tonight.

https://twitter.com/renato_mariotti/sta...

THREAD: What does today's news that Flynn's lawyers are no longer sharing information with the Trump legal team tell us about the state of Mueller's investigation? (Hint: It tells us a lot.)

While most of us were celebrating Thanksgiving with our families, the @nytimes broke the news that lawyers for former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn told Trump's lawyers that they could no longer discuss the Mueller investigation.

Defense attorneys representing individuals that are under investigation typically agree to share information with each other about what they've learned from the government. The government tries to reveal as little as possible about what it's doing to the defense, so defense attorneys try to glean as much as they can from their brief conversations with prosecutors and from the questions their clients are asked during interviews. Those nuggets of information are valuable and are usually the basis of the stories we're reading in the media about the Mueller investigation. The lawyers representing people under investigation dissect those nuggets just like I do for you. Usually defense attorneys enter into a "joint defense agreement." Sometimes it's written down but often it isn't. Basically it's an agreement that your client are on the same side and so your statements to each other (among attorneys) are privileged.

The fact that Flynn's lawyers aren't sharing information with Trump's lawyers means that they believe it is no longer in Flynn's interest to do so. It is highly likely that it means Flynn is pursuing a cooperation deal with Mueller. That's a shocking development because it means that Flynn does not expect Trump to pardon him or his son, or he believes that him or his son could be convicted of unpardonable state offenses. If pardons are off the table, cooperation is likely the right move for Flynn.

This makes the behavior of Flynn's son, who made baseless attacks against Mueller on Twitter, seem bizarre. It also calls into question Manafort's strategy. Manafort's lawyers have publicly blasted Mueller, and the only obvious upside of that strategy is that it pleases Trump. According to @Comey, Trump told him that Flynn "is a good guy. I hope you can let this go." If Flynn thinks HE won't get a pardon, after Trump made that request on his behalf, why does Manafort think he'll get one? (One answer could be that a pardon of Flynn could be used by Mueller as evidence of Trump's "corrupt intent" to prove obstruction, because it could indicate Trump's strong desire to relieve Flynn of criminal liability. A Manafort pardon wouldn't impact an obstruction case.)

To pursue a deal, Flynn would generally have to agree to waive his Fifth Amendment right and agree to an interview with Mueller's team. They would give him limited protection (called "proffer" protection) as to his statements. Mueller could use any leads he generated off of what Flynn said and could also the statements against him if Flynn said something different on the witness stand later. So defense attorneys don't bring their client in to seek cooperation unless they think they can get a deal.

To get a deal, Flynn would need to prove testimony that helped the government make a chargeable case against someone else. It's not enough for Flynn to try hard, although even his attempt to cooperate could be considered by the judge at sentencing.

Now that we know Flynn is trying to cooperate, the recent news that Mueller is looking at Flynn business partner Bijan Khan takes on new meaning. It's possible that Flynn has flipped on Khan, or that Khan's cooperation lead to Flynn's cooperation.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/mi...

Obviously Mueller will push Flynn for information on everyone he is investigating, but the mere fact that Flynn is cooperating doesn't mean that Flynn's testimony is sufficient to charge any particular person. A completed deal would just mean SOMEONE else could be charged. A deal for Flynn would likely mean that Mueller would accept a guilty plea to a single felony charge and would potentially recommend a reduced sentence depending on the extent of his cooperation. It is unlikely to result in complete immunity.

Typically federal prosecutors require their cooperators to answer all questions on all subjects related to the investigation, so when someone "flips," it often generates many new leads and avenues to investigate. Flynn's cooperation would further lengthen the investigation. So Trump lawyer Ty Cobb's prediction that the entire investigation could wrap up shortly after the new year is looking worse by the minute.

No no. Ne brani kurb.
če si bil tiho 20-30 let si pač navadna kurba.
Še hujše, kurba, ki je vedela, da se spravljajo tudi na mladoletne pa še zmeraj nisi naredila ničesar, ko si prilezla do položaja, ko je bilo to možno narediti.
Tole mahanje po kretenih brez, da se spravlja na te "žrtve" mi gre že pošteno na k*rac. V enem trenutku se je treba zavedat tudi svoje odgovornosti do družbe. S tem, da si tiho si kar se mene tiče aktivno sodeloval pri problemu.
Za enega kretena bi bilo treba sklatiti vsaj še 50 drugih, ki so bili zaradi denarja in slave tiho.

thramos je 24. nov 2017 ob 11:58 izjavil:

Okoli Weinsteina je bil cel kup žensk, ki so "sporazumno prodajale svoje telo" predvsem zato, ker so bile obkrožene s takšnimi kreteni, kot ste tule. Saj so vedele, da se v tistih okoliščinah ne da upirat.

To ne drži. Posiljene so bile. Niso ga poklicale in mu ponudile spolnih uslug v zameno za dobre vloge, ampak si je on domišljal, ko so si dobre vloge že zaslužile s profesionalnostjo, da če delajo zanj, mu pripadajo tudi njihova telesa.

Je pa jasno, da če želiš politično diskreditirat človeka, moraš poskušat zabrisat razliko med tema dvema situacijama. Mislim, da se temu strokovno reče hinavstvo.

thramos je 24. nov 2017 ob 13:32 izjavil:

Saj veš, da si z: "Ne brani kurb." direktno med kreteni, zaradi katerih so žrtve tiho?

Ja, je, zato jaz tega ne bi nikdar izjavil: Ti pa bi, ker si feminist samo dokler je Janković župan, potem pa ne boš več.

:+1:

Parce que je ne parle pas Francais.

thramos je 24. nov 2017 ob 17:39 izjavil:

Sploh se nimam za feminista, mi je pa povsem jasno kdaj naj bi šlo za spolno nasilje z zlorabo položaja. In bom vedno, tudi ko bo moj kandidat obtožen česa podobnega, proti njemu nastopil enako.

Absolutno. Tako jasno ti je, da si pripravljen enačiti telefonski pogovor s posilstvom.

thramos je 24. nov 2017 ob 17:39 izjavil:

Iskati neke za lase privlečene razlike v početju vplivnežev, ker je en njegov, s strani človeka, ki naj bi drugače kao zagovarjal pravice žensk, pa je posebno gnusna hinavščina.

Že to, da si se pripravljen zaradi politike spustiti na nivo potvarjanja dejstev, veliko pove o tem, kakšen odnos do žensk imaš v resnici.

xmetallic je 24. nov 2017 ob 21:06 izjavil:

zakaj tega ne bi izkoristil?

Ker gre za koruptivno dejanje.

xmetallic je 24. nov 2017 ob 21:06 izjavil:

Če se obe strani strinjata, in menita da od tega imata korist tle ni nič spornega.

Zloraba položaja je vedno sporna, ostaja pa žalostno dejstvo, da se ji ne moreš izogniti tako, da glasuješ za koga drugega.

jype je 24. nov 2017 ob 18:29 izjavil:

Absolutno. Tako jasno ti je, da si pripravljen enačiti telefonski pogovor s posilstvom.

Jaz? Kje? A spolni odnos, do katerega naj bi prišlo, je tudi potekal preko telefonskega pogovora?

jype je 24. nov 2017 ob 18:29 izjavil:

Že to, da si se pripravljen zaradi politike spustiti na nivo potvarjanja dejstev, veliko pove o tem, kakšen odnos do žensk imaš v resnici.

Brez dvoma ti ne bo problema pokazat, katera dejstva naj bi potvarjal.

V resnici je ravno obratno. Ko gre za pravice (žensk), je meni vseeno kdo jih zlorablja, medtem ko ti, gnusno, zagovarjaš kršitev le zato, ker gre za tvojega kandidata. Kar je novo dno tvojega pisanja. Če se je tudi ob "metanju v fojbe" dalo sklepat, da ti na koncu še vedno gre za pravice tistih, ki so jih zlorabljali metani v fojbe, je ob tejle temi popolnoma jasno, da ti gre le za ideloški boj, saj z veseljem teptaš pravice žensk, ki jih v drugih temah tako veselo braniš.

In other news:

Ob dnevu boja proti nasilju nad ženskami pristojna ministrica izpostavlja ničelno toleranco do vseh oblik nasilja in poudarja, da tudi spolno nadlegovanje na delovnem mestu ni nedolžno dajanje komplimentov, temveč nezakonita zloraba moči. V okviru mednarodne akcije bo po več državah na nasilje nad ženskami opozarjala oranžna barva.

Ženske so spolnemu nadlegovanju na delovnem mestu izpostavljene, odkar so množično vstopile v sfero dela: iz zasebne se je nasilje preselilo v javno sfero. Spolno nadlegovanje tudi nima stalnega bivališča zgolj v hollywoodski industriji, prisotno je na vseh delovnih mestih, izpostavljene so mu ženske vseh starostnih skupin in na vseh stopnjah organizacijske položajne lestvice,"

Da naj bi nekdo zahteval in nato dvakrat tudi dobil spolne usluge, je seveda popolnoma druga zgodba.

Pobarvajte se oranžno.

Pac-Man je 25. nov 2017 ob 12:51 izjavil:

A veš tisto, ko Rusi o tvoji kandidaturi za predsednika govorijo januarja, ti pa poženeš lift šele junija?

Trump formally announced his candidacy on June 16, 2015, with a campaign rally and speech at Trump Tower in New York City.

Definitiven dokaz o neobstoju povezav. No puppet. :)

O kandidatih se začne govorit šele ko kandidat uradno pristopi h kandidaturi? V Sloveniji se je tudi tedne* prej govorilo o kandidatih še preden so ti sploh uradno vstopili v tekmo za predsednika. A če bo čez 4 leta Kanye West kandidiral boš isto pisal, da gre za ruske povezave? Čeprav je že leto nazaj objavil, da razmišlja o kandidaturi za predsednika.

*da bo Pahor kandidiral se je vedlo že leta prej. Hitro okrivit Ruse za vmešavanje v slovenske volitve. /s

In še parafrazirano:

Demokracija je teorija, da stranke vedo, kaj volivci želijo in si zaslužijo posledic.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/vi...

In this bastion of Virginia-brand conservatism, dozens of Democratic women roared on a recent night as their organization’s leader crowed over their party’s historic electoral triumph.

For the first time since 1961, Chesterfield County backed a Democrat for governor — and the driving forces in this Richmond suburb included women who defiantly trumpeted a political label their party has ducked for decades.

“Are we done?” Kim Drew Wright asked members of the organization that she and her allies christened the Liberal Women of Chesterfield County after President Trump’s election last year.

“Noooooo!” the women shouted back.

Until Gov.-elect Ralph Northam (D) won Chesterfield County three weeks ago, the stretch of suburban and rural communities southwest of Richmond had been considered reliably Republican.

Yet voters infuriated by Trump, many of them women and Hispanics who have migrated to the county in recent years, are redefining Chesterfield and alarming Virginia Republicans who have depended on the area to make up for the support the party lacks in urban areas.

...

The Liberal Women of Chesterfield County is an example of a new breed of Democratic activism in the Richmond suburbs. The group, which says it has admitted nearly 3,000 followers to its private Facebook page, has established 13 neighborhood chapters and canvassed more than 50,000 homes in a get-out-the-vote effort. On Election Day, the group worked with the local Democratic committee to staff all 75 of the county’s polling places, something that the local party on its own had previously been unable to accomplish.

...

“I wouldn’t have done this every day for the past year if I hadn’t gotten so angry about Trump,” said Wright, 46, a mother of three who observed politics from the sidelines before last year’s presidential election. “Once you wake up and see how important local elections are, it’s hard to go back to the shadows and stick your head in the sand. Now we have our eye on everybody, from dogcatcher on up.”

Wright and her allies insisted on including “liberal” in the group’s name, reviving a political brand that Republicans and even some Democrats have lampooned or avoided. “It was defiance,” she said. “My mission is to change that connotation of ‘liberal.’ ”