Why Trump prevailed despite the cloud of sexual assault accusations over him

I thought I would put up the diatribe below as vivid evidence of how little Leftists understand and how one-eyed feminists are.  The author is Jenna Price, a long-time Australian Leftist journalist and academic.  Her publicity picture is below. 

Right from the start you can see that she is not a normal woman.  Active feminists rarely are.  What normal woman would allow a publicity shot of herself to go forward showing her with such messy hair?  She has no pride in her appearance at all, most unusual in normal women.  If she wants to represent women generally, she has certainly chosen a strange way to go about it.



But her hair is only a most incidental matter. It just enables her to refer to me as a patriarchal, sexist, xenophobic, racist, pedophilic member of the Ku Kux Klan -- and other such hate-speech.  The important thing is what she says.

And what she says is a classic exhibit of how Leftists never care about the full picture.  They have simplistic, narrow-focused explanations of everything. To read her, you would have to think -- and many Leftists do think it -- that Trump's attitude to women was important to the voters.  In fact, Trump voters  were quite clearly uninfluenced by it.  What does that mean?  Does it mean that Americans as a whole are unenlightened sexist pigs who delight in female suffering and inequality?  That is what Ms Price would have you think.

In fact, as many interviews with Trump voters show, most of them thought his attitude to women was bad but of incidental importance.  Astounding though it is to feminists, many Americans, including female ones, don't see feminist issues as all that important.  They have -- surprise, surprise! -- other political issues in mind that they think are far more important.  But reading Ms Price you would get no inkling of that. 

You would never know that most Americans, including Bill, are quite uninterested in what Hillary has betwen her legs.  Her ascent to to the presidency or not would prove nothing about glass ceilings.  They have been shattered long ago on the world scene.  Note the following female heads of government in recent decades:  Indira Gandhi, Sirimavo Bandaranaike, Golda Meir, Margaret Thatcher, Sheikh Hasina, Benazir Bhutto, Yulia Tymoshenko, Gro Harlem Brundtland, Cristina Kirchner, Helle Thorning-Schmidt, Helen Clark, Julia Gillard, Ameenah Gurib, Park Geun-hye, Nicola Sturgeon and Theresa May. And stodgy old Britain has had TWO female heads of government. Capable women CAN rise to the very top. Hatshepsut, Sobekneferu and Boadicea proved that long ago but you can't expect feminists to know any history.

So let me tell Ms Price and her ilk why feminist concerns were ignored by Trump voters.  Leftists claim that they voted for Mr Trump because they were ignorant snaggle-toothed, mouth breathing hillbillies who just hated everybody, including women.  But all the analyses of Trump support show the opposite -- that his vote was up among Hispanics and blacks compared with previous elections, that his vote among women was down only a little from the usual rough 50/50 split and that all social classes were well represented among his supporters.

So if demographics cannot explain the Trump vote, what can?  It's extremely simple.  Trump was the only one who offered liberation from Leftist oppression.  Those wonderful "progressive" changes that Obama and Hillary were offering could only be achieved by making most Americans do things that they were strongly disinclined to do -- make mainstream Americans love rampant homosexuals, Muslim Jihadis, black criminals and low-IQ Hispanic illegal immigrants -- etc.

Leftists are tyrants.  They think it is all in a good cause but it is still tyranny and those tyrannized don't like it. 

Had Leftists been less one-eyed in their policies towards minorities, they could still have accomplished much without antagonizing the majority. They could for instance have improved rights and services for homosexuals without pushing it all the way to a demand for homosexual marriage. Homosexual marriage did virtually nothing for homosexuals that they did not have already -- through civil partnerships, for instance.  But it did greatly antagonize believing Christians who know perfectly well what their Bible says about homosexuals.

So THAT is why so many voted for Trump. They see him as their liberator.  All other concerns faded into insignificance compared with the chance to throw off tyranny


There are still different rules for men and women.

Rules which make it possible for men to win and for women to lose. Rules which make it possible for a man to become president but not a woman.

Here are the rules for men. If you seek higher office, your history can include incitement of violence and abuse towards women. Your history can include the kind of racism and bigotry which echoes Hitler's rise to power. Your history will include running businesses which are still refusing to pay those who worked for you.

You can be as post-fact and as post-truth as you like because the population will not judge you. Your history can include a rejection of equal rights for the LGBTQI community. You can even intersect a couple of those, by demeaning Ghazala Khan, the mother whose son died fighting for the US.

Yet no one has put it better than Amelia Paxman, a 27-year-old documentary film maker in Queensland, who tweeted yesterday: "Tell me again how rape and sexual assault accusations will ruin a man's career".

Because, much more terrifying than electing Trump as president, more serious than that, is the permission this gives to treat women in a particular way, as s**** and w*****, as Miss Piggy and Miss Housekeeping, as commodities.

This was not the traditional political confrontation, of right versus left, or even of Right versus Left. This was about a decent flawed woman versus an indecent highly flawed man, a man who could tap into all the anxieties felt by those whose lives are changing around them.

We knew that Clinton's mistakes were made in the course of her career as a public servant, political transactions taking place in a political arena. Trump, on the other hand, hates people who are not like him. Women, blacks, Hispanics, gays and lesbians. And when he dismantles America's fledgling attempt at universal healthcare, he will target the sick, the elderly and those living with a disability.

But right now, Trump's target is women. They are the majority, and they are also deeply divided. For weeks we heard that evangelical and conservative women would vote for Clinton yet the figures tell us that many of those women voted for Trump. Maybe they thought violence and abuse was better than a woman who supported Roe v Wade.

Clinton's womanhood has always been considered fair game for public commentary, considered either unwomanly or not a good enough woman. Her steely ambition to reach the top job is in stark contrast to the expectation that women are compliant and accommodating. At the same she has been reviled for being too accommodating, too Stand By Your Man, shamed for not leaving her philandering husband.

Clinton shows us that women can never get it right. If women want to succeed we are coldly ambitious. You have trouble warming to us. We aren't authentic. Sometimes, we are shameless s**** and w*****, sometimes we asked for it. Sometimes we didn't say no loudly enough, often enough.

And yesterday for men, some men, many men, the defeat of Hillary Clinton was their dream come true, the ever-lasting buck's night, the moment in time when big swinging d**** proudly emerged to celebrate the death of another ambitious woman's dreams.

Powerful men are p****-grabbers yet powerful women p****-whip their men. This is still the world in which we live. There are different rules and different ways in which women are held accountable. Men have excuses, women are constructed as evil.

When Clinton won the nomination – as my women friends told me it would be all right, that I was over thinking things, that times had changed – I did what I always do: I worried. Worried that the US was not ready for a woman to lead; and that entrenched sexism and misogyny would destroy Hillary Clinton in the same way it had destroyed women before her.

Hillary parties? I wrote about them but I didn't go to any (was that it? Should I have gone? Please excuse my magical thinking).

And now it's done and so is she, the most qualified person ever to have stood for president.

When Amelia Paxman asks, "Tell me again how rape and sexual assault accusations will ruin a man's career" I can only reply that it won't. And it may not ever.

I read this from Clinton this morning: "To the little girls watching this, never doubt that you are valuable & powerful & deserving of every chance to achieve your dreams."

And those of you sitting on the sidelines, lips pursed, commenting about how this isn't about sexism and misogyny, race or class, please f*** off.

Or get off your behinds and join with people who want change; women's groups, human rights groups, environmental groups, anti-racism groups, unions. Yes, unions. Join with people who want your daughters and your sons to live in a world where even the poor, the black, the disenfranchised, hell yes, even the women, have a chance to shape a better world. Stop being divided and defeated. Build unbreakable coalitions for the good of the many. Please, please, as so many have said before me, don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

And in the meantime, never tell me to be grateful – and to appreciate – how far women have come. We have not.

SOURCE





Another 180 degree turn

Now Waleed Aly PRAISES Trump! The Project host says The Donald's victory in US election was not just due to 'an alliance of racist and sexist people' - but because he LISTENED

Television personality Waleed Aly has praised Donald Trump after the US businessman and former reality TV star won the presidential election.

Speaking from New York City on Thursday night, The Project's host claimed Mr Trump won the election because he 'listened' to people.

The 38-year-old, who has been in the US covering the election, interviewed rallygoers in the days leading up to the shock result.

'We went to the Trump rally. And yeah, I heard a lot of really crazy things at that rally but I also heard a lot of really normal things,' Aly revealed.

'I spoke to people who lost their businesses and couldn't find a way out. I spoke to people who didn't particularly like Trump but thought he was the only one listening.

'These are white working class states and they think no-one is listening.'

During the segment on Channel 10, Aly admitted he had questioned 'how can someone overtly sexist and racist' receive the most votes.  'That's pretty much the question I had before I got here,' Aly said.

'But the thing is, it's different once you are here. The Trump phenomenon isn't easy to understand but it's really easy to misunderstand.

'I think the easiest mistake to make would be to think that this is just an alliance between racist and sexist people. 'But that's not why he won the election.'

He insisted the nation had a different take on voting - and not because they were 'desperately looking for a misogynist racist to lead them'.

After interviewing locals, Aly said the Republican won simply because he promised to make changes after listening - and made their voices heard.

'He won on class, not because he is a racist or misogynist,' he said.

'They [voters] decided the system was screwing them and they voted for Trump to destroy it. Personally, I think it might all end in tears.'

But despite the shock election result, Aly called on Australians to take the newly elected US president 'seriously'.

'I think the real thing we need to take home is equality really matters, like it's serious but we hardly ever talk about it in Australian politics but we need to.

'I mean, Trump at least looked like he was listening and in the end, turns out, that counted for everything.

'Here in America, they have this saying about Trump voters that they don't take him literally, but they do take him seriously. I think we need to, too.'

SOURCE






US hints at Nauru refugee resettlement deal

This will probably die on the vine now

The US has strongly hinted that it has been in discussions with Australia about the possible resettlement of refugees from Nauru to the US.

The Australian last week revealed that refugees on Manus Island and Nauru will be offered permanent new homes in a handful of third countries, which could include northern hemisphere countries such as the US and Canada, as part of a multilateral resettlement deal the Turnbull government hopes to announce by the end of the year.

The resettlement deal would enable it to drastically downsize the processing centres on Manus and Nauru by offering permanent settlement to most of the 1800-odd recognised refugees on Manus and Nauru.

Sources told The Australian the government was in the final ­stages of negotiating the deals, of which several are understood to be in the northern hemisphere, suggesting the US or Canada may be being considered.

In response to questions about whether Australia and the US had held discussions over the issue of refugees on Nauru, the US State Department’s East Asian and ­Pacific Affairs Bureau spokeswoman Connie Paik appeared to confirm that talks had taken place.

In a carefully worded statement, Ms Paik said: “We are in regular contact with Australia and other countries that support ­humanitarian organisations and accept refugees for resettlement on a number of refugee-related ­issues. We encourage all countries to help create brighter futures for some of the world’s most vulnerable people by offering resettlement programs and alternative legal pathways for admission.

“The US has been a leader both in providing resettlement opportunities for refugees and in galvanising others to do so. For its part, the US has ­increased the number of refugees resettled in the US from 70,000 in FY 2015 to 85,000 in FY 2016 and to 110,000 in FY 2017, a more than 50 per cent increase over two years.”

Last Saturday, Malcolm Turnbull revealed that the Coalition government would introduce legislation to permanently bar refugees pro­cessed on Nauru and Manus Island from ever obtaining an Australian visa unless they first gained the immigration minister’s explicit permission.

SOURCE




Excessive force systemic at Ballarat: IBAC

Ballarat police who stripped a drunk, off-duty officer half naked while she was in custody and kicked and stomped on the vulnerable woman could be charged over the incident.

The January 2015 matter was been directed to the Director of Public Prosecutions after Victoria's anti-corruption watchdog found it was just one example of excessive force at the Ballarat station outlined in a report tabled in state parliament on Thursday.

IBAC commissioner Stephen O'Bryan QC made four recommendations, including human rights training for officers.

He also suggested the government should consider decriminalising public drunkenness, bringing it into line with every state but Queensland.

Both the government and Victoria Police have baulked at the prospect of decriminalising public drunkenness, saying the laws are there to protect the community and the drunk person themselves.

But acting deputy commissioner Luke Cornelius said Victoria Police would accept the four recommendations and were waiting on the DPP to decide whether charges should be laid.

"It is clear to us that our high standards and expectations in treating citizens with dignity and respect certainly fell short," Mr Cornelius told reporters.

The inquiry was launched after IBAC received CCTV footage from Victoria Police showing the 51-year-old woman being kicked, dragged, stripped and stomped on in police cells.

The officers involved did not know at the time that the woman, who had been arrested for public drunkenness, was a serving police officer on leave for medical reasons.

The woman at the centre of an investigation into shocking police brutality allegations is planning to sue the force. © Ten News The woman at the centre of an investigation into shocking police brutality allegations is planning to sue the force. At IBAC hearings in Ballarat in May, one of the officers involved denied kicking the drunk woman and insisted she only "touched" her with her foot to calm her down and another said the struggle ensued when the woman tried to escape the cell.

All officers involved have returned to work on reduced workloads.

The inquiry also investigated three other complaints of excessive use of force at Ballarat by one officer who later received a promotion to the rank of sergeant.

The officer dragged a woman into an interview room in 2010 and held two women in a choke hold when they refused to leave the station in 2009 - actions which he later admitted to IBAC were "entirely inappropriate".

The public hearings were told Ballarat station attracted more than three times the average number of assault complaints against officers.

Police Minister Lisa Neville said a line had definitely been crossed at Ballarat.

"There is no room in Victoria Police for these sorts of behaviours," she said.

SOURCE

Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.).    For a daily critique of Leftist activities,  see DISSECTING LEFTISM.  To keep up with attacks on free speech see Tongue Tied. Also, don't forget your daily roundup  of pro-environment but anti-Greenie  news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH .  Email me  here