TriGirl

Highly doubt it. She's a political appointee, with some history with the GOP: https://pl.usembassy.gov/our-relationship/our-ambassador/

Then there are those who take the good bits of the church construct, and cut out the bad. I love what this church leader is doing in Toronto: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/01/world/canada/gretta-vosper-reverend-atheism.html The story actually makes me want to check out a church service -- something I have not wanted to do in decades.

The process to get the warrant was flawed (what Comey admitted). But once the warrant was granted, the next steps happened based on what was learned when the investigators were following the intent of the warrant that, though flawed in its reasoning, was still granted legally in the first place. A routine stop for a broken headlight does not result in the dismantling of an entire vehicle. Come on.

And just when I moved to your area of the world!

You can blame the loss of the extra space on newspapers. As news copy is written in a lot of concise, short sentences, an article has a lot of them (fewer participles). Extra spaces between those sentences adds up to column inches, which ultimately costs money.

Nowhere near an equitable comparison.

True, one does not equal the other. However, I used to identify as an atheistic Pagan. Atheist = no personified deities/no belief in imaginary friends. Pagan = recognizing how the wheel of the year correlates to the cycle of life, and appreciating (celebrating) those stages throughout the year. Also how we're all dependent on the planet, and all in this together. At some point in my growth "atheist" described me more accurately than "Pagan," so that's how I've self-identified for quite some time. Interestingly, I'm more accepted in my military clan as an atheist than I ever was as a declared Pagan, though I still do enjoy many of the traditions because of what they stand for.

It's nice when people can admit they were wrong, isn't it? Though the article does include the above quoted text, the bolding (mine) is not noted anywhere else in the responses from the right. Instead of appreciating that, when presented with evidence to the fact, someone can admit their flaws, this group wants to scream, "I told you so!" and claim Comey was wrong about EVERYTHING. Yet, they can't seem to admit when their own flaws are so obviously exposed. So, according to the president, since Comey admitted flaws in the system in the case, he can't possibly be right about, or have acted appropriately toward, or have shown any professionalism in any other situation? Got it.

U.S. nationals don't have that anymore. We had a discussion about that at the World Champs in Gold Coast last year. We're keeping the all-female categories for the time being for two reasons: a) in many countries, women aren't allowed (or are "strongly discouraged") from being so close to men in their teams. This gives the women an opportunity to participate that is culturally acceptable. And b) some countries would (or do) cut women out of the sport entirely. Having a category that requires the team to be all female means that if those countries want to win all the medals, they have to develop and field an all-female team as well.

My question for you is: how is this news to you? China has been doing it for decades, whether it is toward religious minorities (or the religious at all), ethnic minorities, or just citizens who voice an opinion against the CCP. I'm pretty sure it's where North Korea got the idea.

Hate to hear about the racism bullshit that STILL happens (and sexism, and ... etc). Glad the system worked like it should. Loved the nuclear facility fireworks story. Made me chuckle!

Yes. I attended that flight school, with students from multiple countries. Now I also work in security cooperation, which includes all the programs that bring foreign students to our schools (and us to theirs). I can see where you would want to think this, but actually, they need to be integrated. If they're buying our stuff, and we exercise/train/deploy with them globally, we need to learn together. And yes, there is the rule about private weapons on bases, but like pretty much all other firearm-related laws, they can only be enforced once they're demonstrably broken (read: punished for violating)

Didn't he say when he got elected that he wasn't going to take the salary? Of course, what's $400k/year compared to the millions his properties make off of official visits, but still -- had anyone seen evidence that he has returned or donated his salary?

Actually, I studied Physics and Russian in college. It's the 24+ years in the Marine Corps that has better shaped my impressions of the patriarchy. Yep, it's a closed society, with a higher concentration of the attitude; but at least as a service we're working really hard to counter that culture.

I'll correct myself here. I heard a better description on Bill Maher this weekend. The problem on the one side was better identified as male chauvinism (take out the phrase "toxic masculinity" entirely). The counter to this, which should have been a good thing, has in some cases become an equal problem: female chauvinism. I like that comparison better. It's more accurately descriptive, IMHO.

The only one better to be fired would be Steven Miller!

I have to chime in on the misuse of a word. Toxic masculinity is not the gender opposite of toxic feminism. The word I think you're all looking for is femininity, not feminism. Dr. Peterson started it. He first said (per the Wiki article and subsequent quoting here) that feminism contributed to the threat to masculinity. He continued by positing men were encouraged to be more feminine under this construct, which illustrates his misuse of the word "feminism". This is not how feminism works. Feminism, is simply the idea that everyone has the right to the same opportunities, having their abilities judged without regard to gender (including men being able to take on roles that society has assigned to women). That is a very basic example -- gender identity should be included in this freedom. The patriarchy is the construct that only cis-gendered men have the right, or should be encouraged, to be in positions of power and influence. Laws restricting women's equal access (or the opportunities of anyone who isn't a cis-gendered, hetero male), per the patriarchy, at best are seen as a desire to "protect" women, and at worst are intended to codify the cis-gendered man's lock on these opportunities. [/soapbox]

This morning I saw a live press event at the G-7 with POTUS and Angela Merkel. In it, he managed to call Xi a strong leader.

CNN reported this morning that someone who was at the briefing confirmed he said to nuke the hurricane while it was in the Atlantic, because he's heard it can be done. He probably saw it on TV -- a little production called "Sharknado."

This is what I meant by my stepmother being a "traditional" Republican. These are the main points of the platform she supports.

Two words: my dad. (expanded version: not only watches ONLY Fox News for his information, but only the opinion shows. "Can't stand" the actual journalists like Shep Smith -- LOVES Judge Jeanie. Lives in a rural community of Michigan with others of his same belief system. Uneducated, so did not develop critical thinking skills. Forwards the conspiracy emails of his pals.) Dad's wife is a "traditional" Republican, so she butts in and redirects the conversation to something more educated and reasonable when he gets out of hand, but she still likes to blanket blame Democrats with the accusations made by the same said network. It's tough to visit without arguing. Usually his wife just changes the channel to HGTV or something else we can agree on!

Only if the other players support and defend said constitution, as they pledged to do when they took office (Congress, I'm talking to you).

Not to mention, this was published in 2009. It's kinda old news.

Absolutely. During the height of the wars, money was taken from State and given to Defense -- and State already had a small percentage of the budget compared to DoD. Once things started progressing in Iraq, the military started getting the "nation building" tasks (what we are not at all suited to perform), as the ones who are supposed to do that did not have the resources to do so. We had the money, so we got the added responsibility. Instead, the right answer is to give the people who know how to do this stuff (State, USAID, etc) the resources to do their jobs, and military requirements will shrink anyway. Security isn't always -- or more accurately, usually is not -- found at the end of a weapon. But, it takes an educated, experienced group of people (legislature, executive) to implement those courses of action.

Hey, Jerry -- Yes, it is good finally to see some from his party making statements. I want to see the congressional censure, though. And yes, agreed: the silence is deafening.