Who is this and why should we care? i would love to see what you and O,s Twitter feeds are are. Talk about an echo chamber.
She probably is not yet ready to be the president, doesn’t lie enough, but I am. Sure she is qualified to run HUD.
Pretty amusing actually. Not sure if thread worthy, maybe for the Hangout. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/24/books/naomi-wolf-outrages.html Love the crawfishing publisher. (Houghton rep) added that while the publisher “employs professional editors, copyeditors and proofreaders for each book project, we rely ultimately on authors for the integrity of their research and fact-checking.” The interviewer, Matthew Sweet, and the author seem to have handled it surprisingly well in follow up (via Twitter). At least she's owning it and he's not doing any sort of end-zone dance like an American interviewer would do at this point.
It was pretty funny. If she wrote an entire book on a research fail ("death recorded"). Plus, the last sentence revealed another pretty awful fail.
No doubt but why should we care there are people associated with campaigns who are equally not credible. This is what she actually did as an advisor. Political consultant Wolf was involved in Bill Clinton's 1996 re-election bid, brainstorming with the president's team about ways to reach female voters.[67] During Al Gore's unsuccessful bid for the presidency in the 2000 election, Wolf was hired as a consultant to target female voters, reprising her role in the Clinton campaign. Wolf's ideas and participation in the Gore campaign generated considerable media coverage and criticism.[68] According to a report by Michael Duffy in Time, Wolf was paid a monthly salary of $15,000 "in exchange for advice on everything from how to win the women's vote to shirt-and-tie combinations." This article was the original source of the widely reported assertion that Wolf was responsible for Gore's "three-buttoned, earth-toned look."[67][69] In an interview with Melinda Henneberger in The New York Times, Wolf denied ever advising Gore on his wardrobe. Wolf herself said she mentioned the term "alpha male" only once in passing and that "[it] was just a truism, something the pundits had been saying for months, that the vice president is in a supportive role and the President is in an initiatory role ... I used those terms as shorthand in talking about the difference in their job descriptions".[70] Sebastian Gorka was actually in the Whitehouse. Credentials Shortly after taking a position in the Trump administration in early 2017, Gorka drew criticism from multiple commentators in academia and politics, who characterized him as a fringe figure in academic and policy-making circles.[6][7][17][53][54][55][56] Business Insider politics editor Pamela Engel has described Gorka as being "widely disdained within his own field."[7][57] A number of academics and policymakers questioned Gorka's knowledge of foreign policy issues, his academic credentials and his professional behavior.[6][7][53][55][58][56][59] Andrew Reynolds, professor of political science at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, questioned the validity of Gorka's doctoral degree, noting discrepancies between how doctorates are normally awarded and how Gorka's was awarded. Reynolds said that the evaluations of each referee on Gorka's PhD committee was "a page of generalized comments – completely at odds with the detailed substantive and methodological evaluations that I've seen at every Ph.D defence I've been on over the last twenty years." According to Reynolds, no less than two of the three referees only had Bachelor of Arts degrees, and one of the referees had published with Gorka previously, in violation of the academic expectation that reviewers have no personal or other form of interest in the success of a candidate's thesis.[60] [note 1] Georgetown University associate professor Daniel Nexon reviewed Gorka's PhD thesis, describing it as "inept" and saying "It does not deploy evidence that would satisfy the most basic methodological requirements for a PhD in the US".[55] The journal Terrorism and Political Violence had never used Gorka as a reviewer because, according to the associate editor, he "is not considered a terrorism expert by the academic or policy community."[61] In August 2017, Gorka falsely asserted that the Obama administration"invented" the term "lone-wolf terrorism", when in fact the term had been widely used in the academic literature, media and by governments long before Barack Obama took office.[62]Responding to his academic critics, Gorka said that there was an ongoing "proxy war" and that others were attacking him as a way to attack Trump.[63] In February 2017, Stephen Walt, a professor of international affairs at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, voiced his reservations about Gorka influencing policy in the White House, saying: "Gorka does not have much of a reputation in serious academic or policymaking circles. He has never published any scholarship of significance and his views on Islam and US national security are extreme even by Washington standards. His only real 'qualification' was his prior association with Breitbart News, which would be a demerit in any other administration."[64] According to BuzzFeed, Gorka was unable to obtain a security clearance to work in the Hungarian Parliament.[65]
This means everything the feminist movement stands for is clearly false and a lie. Down with feminism!
[Premium Post] This is quite a good thread, as it is a perfect encapsulation of how many liberals' minds are deeply flawed. They take a goal that they find desirable (attacking an enemy, promoting a cause, pushing towards their desired policy objective) and then emotion takes over as they build a case. When building that case, they give the benefit of the doubt to things they instead they should think critically about and question. They make mistake after mistake because they start first with the outcome and then go out and find data points that they think will support that narrative or outcome. Obviously the proper way to go about things is to evaluate facts and information and build your outcome on the basis of those facts or observations. Climate change is the perfect example of this. The data does not support it, rampant fraud has been exposed that has been used to shape public opinion, and no cost-benefit analysis even comes close to supporting many of the policies that have been enacted. But the emotions take over and these passionate, self-righteous people erroneously believe they are on a crusade to save the world from an (imaginary) existential threat. Logic dies when emotion takes over, as does critical thinking and evaluation. I do have to give credit to this woman in that she opened her mind to accepting that her fundamental thesis was flawed. Most liberals, when confronted with thesis-shattering thoughts, do one of two things: 1) Double down on their flawed argument; 2) Call you a name / a Russian agent / a racist / denier / etc. GOOD DAY
I really wasn't paying attention to whom she was an advisor or giving it any political weight. Just thought the situation was awkwardly funny.
It's too bad you can't learn the grace of this woman and admit to how wrong you are in nearly Every. Single. Post. you make.
I have no issue with laughing at the supposed authority on this subject but trying to tie her to Clinton and Gore is the height of hypocrisy.
