And if you step over the line you deserve to be criticised for it. Politics is grubby at the best of times, but comments like "emotional support" are damaging to more than just politicians.
Like I said, I'm fairly sure a male politician in the same circumstances wouldn't face accusations of needing a crutch/ emotional support.
If you want to make out there's no misogyny there that's up to you. It's pretty clear to me.
Some of the absolute shit politicians come out with are astounding, and that's all sides. I'd be more worried about Kamala being the stooge of the ultra rich Americans than any insult thrown at her from anywhere.
IMHO if she were male she'd get 10 times worse specially in the race baiting capital of the world.
Trump gets treated with kid gloves by the the left and right wing media compared to Harris.
Are you taking the piss? Both Biden and Trump get battered from all sides at times, haven't they both been accused of being nonces?
Kid gloves my arse.
“Loopholes”?I've not said they should pay more then they're expected too and I'm sure there are plenty that give to charity. What I'm against is the tax loopholes they'll jump through so they don't have to pay the tax they should pay. Like scruffy Jim fucking off to Monaco or salting your money away into the Cayman islands or Switzerland.
Not sure what a “cop put” is, but you seem to think legislation is thought about on Sunday and enacted on Monday!This is such a cop put. It's been a mantra of the DNC since Obama's tenure.
But, okay!
I stopped being worried you might actually have stumbled upon some revelation when you said “legal.”"How billionaires use charity to avoid taxes?
Many charitable organizations set up by billionaires are tax-exempt, and charitable donations are tax deductible. You can completely control when to make a donation, and of what size, depending on how much taxable income you have in a given year; it's a nimble method of offsetting taxes."
There's always a reason for these things and there's loads of 'legal' ways to avoid taxes:
And Here are Just a Few Examples...
Yep, that's my assumption. I did offer you the chance to name the others that you would have referred to as emotional support or a crutch. You chose not to answer."Fairly sure" about a male politician is not a fact, is it?
That's just your assumption/ opinion because of your reading of my post.
I find her a fairly weak politician underpinned that she dropped out of the original push to be Dem leader and Pres, by not even winning her own State, ffs. It's got FA to do with her being female.
Tw@ that Clinton is, she's a hardline politician that can stand on her own and has done before bringing in her running mate.
Is that a misogynistic opinion for you, Mr White Knight?
I said in comparison to Harris.Are you taking the piss? Both Biden and Trump get battered from all sides at times, haven't they both been accused of being nonces?
Kid gloves my arse.
I said in comparison to Harris.
If you can't see that despite everything Trump says and does the press are letting him get away with all sorts of shit (racism, sexism, flat out lies, slander and more), yet castigating Harris for the smallest thing, then you're blind.
You're just not being objective here.That just isn't true at all, if you want to see true sexism misogyny and racism check the tory threads on female politicians.
Biden has just been battered by the press and the public, Trump just gets it all the time. Harris advocated want her to have some sort of Thunberg immunity it isn't happening.
You're just not being objective here.
You can criticise Harris all you like without being racist, sexist or misogynistic. It has nothing to do with right wing or left wing, just the terminology and language used.I don't think I am, I quite like Harris she's a lot better than that **** Trump.
That being said in general it's acceptable to nail a right wing woman to a post but it's sexist racist and misogynist to do it to a left wing one, just pointing out the hypocrisy and double standards.
You can criticise Harris all you like without being racist, sexist or misogynistic. It has nothing to do with right wing or left wing, just the terminology and language used.
Much of the criticism Sarah Palin got (for example) was sexist and misogynistic. And Sarah Palin deserved a whole lot of criticism.
And much of the criticism Harris is getting now is racist, sexist and misogynistic.
I get your point but I think you’re generaliz(s)ing. Maybe you should go back and take a look at some of the comments about Liz Cheney. A true heroine; about the only GOPer of any gender or colo(u)r who called out Trump for what he is and was willing to sacrifice her job to be on the correct side of defending democracy without compromising her right wing political views.But strangely I don't see anyone defending the right wing ladies and giving them cover, I am right when it comes to that because it's evidenced even on this board.
IMHO any criticism of left wing female politicians is marked down as a bit racist sexist or just poor form, she's had it easy compared to her male counterparts and right wing female counterparts.
She and her team have marketed her race she shouldn't be surprised it gets a few comments, her and her team are trying to get the first female president through to the oval office don't be surprised that gets remarked on too.
I certainly don't have a problem with any politician being criticised (whether I agree with the criticism or not). Including Harris.But strangely I don't see anyone defending the right wing ladies and giving them cover, I am right when it comes to that because it's evidenced even on this board.
IMHO any criticism of left wing female politicians is marked down as a bit racist sexist or just poor form, she's had it easy compared to her male counterparts and right wing female counterparts.
She and her team have marketed her race she shouldn't be surprised it gets a few comments, her and her team are trying to get the first female president through to the oval office don't be surprised that gets remarked on too.
I'm not sure about that. Maybe they need the racist, sexist dogs voting for them.And the funny thing is that if Trump/Vance and their fans concentrated on on legitimate criticisms instead of the racist, sexist dog whistles they'd have a much better chance of winning.
Of course they do. The platform is owning the libs. The cruelty is the point. Whatever they can do to “own” or be cruel to the perceived enemy — the cause of all the woe in the nation and the world — they’ll do because it cements their vote, and their grift. I am guessing the percentage of never-voted-before-but-voted-this-time Trump supporters in 2016 was extraordinarily high.I'm not sure about that. Maybe they need the racist, sexist dogs voting for them.