In a rational world this would completely shatter his chances for any presidential nomination from a major party (or probably the first indictment would)
However, there are a good number of people who believe so firmly in trump that they'll view this in exactly the same light as a left wing leader being arrested at a civil rights protest or admitting they smoked weed. To them this is a feather in his cap, it burnishes his credentials as being anti-establishment and proves whatever batshit conspiracy theories he's spouting.
I think democrats are too quick to overlook that risk and I think that's dangerous.
I was trying to come up with a hamfisted analogy and clearly missed the mark.
I'm pretty sure Bernie has actually been arrested at civil rights protest, so that's probably a better example. I actually think that makes him more qualified to be president.
Presumably trump enthusiasts feel similarly about his mounting list of felonies. I think that should immediately disqualify him from being considered as a candidate, but a lot of people obviously don't and I have to assume that's because they believe in authoritarian psuedo-dictatorship in the same way I believe in civil rights.
It's the right play politically. Consider if the roles were reversed.
If Bernie Sanders was arrested for breaking into Walmart headquarters and demanding they unionize, he'd absolutely say something like "It's not about breaking the law, it's about standing up for the millions of Americans who are struggling to make ends meet while the Walton family continues to amass wealth. That's what this is about. It's not about me, it's about us."
His supporters believe in his cause and they'd absolutely eat that up. I don't really get why people are so into thuggish authoritarian rule - but if that's what gets you up in the morning, then seeing Trump admit to this is surely exciting.
But the cool thing about open standards is that there's a clear pathway to creating an everything app. Especially if decentralized ids gain some traction, then we could have an app that combines mastodon and pixelfed but presents the different posts in a sensible way.
I can't really wrap my head around what such an app could look like, but it's much more feasible to build one than it would be with closed services. I'm hopeful that freedom to experiment without lockin will lead to some really neat ideas
Right but one thing I really admired about that italian company was that they'd bring on engineers as apprentices right out of high school and train them on software or machining. I think that'd really admirable, and it's great that people can work their way into high paid positions.
But i still fail to see why an engineer with a high school education should be paid more than a nurse or teacher with some college education. Is the former really that much of harder job, or that much less in demand?
I haven't spent much time in the north of Italy but we have some suppliers there and every single one of the engineers at the one I worked with was male. I don't doubt they have equal pay for the same job, but I don't believe for a minute that the average women in northern italy makes the same as an average man.
As for voting, there was only one woman on the supreme court that voted to overturn roe vs wade. The rest of the votes came from men
Suggesting that the perfect attributes required to lead a major company just happen to coincidentally be those that are bestowed on white men is absurd. I don't see much point in continuing this discussion.
women by and large choose not to do Work like taking risks, or being in the public eye and taking responsibility for failures that may not be your fault.
Saying something ridiculously sexist like "There wouldn't be wars if society was run by women" or any other similar forms such as "the future is female" is just as braindead stupid as someone saying:
"Racism would disappear if X was run by Y people"
True, but women make up the majority of the population in the US, and so in an equal society we'd expect them to make up a very slight majority of fortune 500 CEOs, congressional representatives, supreme court justices and presidents. Whether or not you think that'd make a real difference in the world doesn't change that it's a perfectly legitimate goal and I don't think it's one that's particularly sexist.
If you were to argue that you should have more women in those roles to make up for the historical injustice... that becomes a bit less clear as it would create a situation where present day men are disenfranchised to make up for the mistakes of our forefathers.
It certainly does appear to be narrowing, and it'll be interesting to see if the teenagers of today manage to hold such a narrow gap as the decades go by.
They don't make that distinction against men because they're actively trying to attack men, and so want all of those 'miscommunications' and 'oh i didn't mean it that way even though thats absolutely what i said' bullshitery so they can hide how outrageously sexist they are being while pretending not to be.
Perhaps there's some truth to that, though in my circles i hear a lot more about the patriarchy than complaints about men in general.
The fallacy you are claiming they are making is the same one you made yourself when you waltzed in here and made it all about how hard things are for women.
I suppose i'm trying to defend a position that's not my own, and yeah, using "men" to describe a system created by some men to advantage all (or at least white) men in a broad way is absolutely sexist - but it's hardly the main issue here.
The government of Russia ≠ the people of Russia. Men are just a gender. There is no government of men. When you say "men are the problem", you are talking about individual men and men as a whole.
Obviously you are technically correct, but I still think many feminists use "men" as a shorthand for the broader male-dominated system. If I say "I love the way women smell" I really don't need to clarify that I probably don't mean all women in all situations, it's kinda obvious.
Where is the outrage over any of the injustices that men face
That's a logical fallacy. There probably should be more outrage about those things, but that doesn't change the initial situation.