Its not.

I truly do believe in a suspension of the 19th Amendment until women evolve much like men did. I also believe that those women's marches are hypocritical at best and much of them come across as angry women on their period.

On a side note, I would also abolish the 17th Amendment since US Senators are suppose to represent their states and not the constituents. That job is for the House of Representatives.

Stalin was different - prior to late 193x and after 1950. Between 1917 and 1930 it was a chaotic bloody mess through out of the system and he is personally responsible for many proven crimes, after 1950 he's highly positively remembered for massive economic, social and military improvements.
If you ask people who were actually the part of said period and branches - they all claim that the industrial, infrastructural and apartment complexes of nearly ALL ex-USSR members have survived the 1980 to 2000 ruination period (known as "perestroyka" in the west and "wreck" in east) solely by the long-holding infrastructure created during Stalin times!
He (Stalin) has elegantly solved the problem of long-happening nationalism by territorial transfer of conflicting nations at zero price. As an example, think about taking all current "refugees" from Europe and departing them back to their homeland, great solution if you ask me. The post 195x USSR was state where all nations and all major religions had virtually zero conflicts. Of course this was achieved by direct but efficient dictatorship and personality cult (which he himself never supported). He is also one of the few leaders of super-empires with lowest amount of personal property.

The similarities with Putin are scarce. The power vertical is strong, but way less strong than of Stalin. The oppression against political prostitutes/mercenaries and liberasts (those who always blame and curse their motherland, regardless of what and when) is waay less with no criminal prosecution. For example, in US such actions are currently criminally prosecuted and often with lethal force. The freedom of speech is similar to US (they both do not shine here). The media is way less lying and propagandistic than US (Stalin directly controlled and censored the media).

So Putin is really awesome as leader, but there are disturbing moments such as vertical of power and increasing mass surveillance - pretty similar to one in US. And the reason for justifying it has been - NATO march, massive US govt intervention in neighboring countries and Russia itself, which is directly financially linked to Bilderberg scum.

TL;DR They are two antagonizers with West being massive aggressor/puppet controller - igniting, massively funding war crimes and leading several wars on the globe, in parallel, for the sake of ruining neighborhood economies with ultimate goal of creating wrecked manipulative economy in direct external control to use their resources and cheap labor (brightest example in Ukraine the average income of individual during ruling of "hated" Yanukovitch was $400-1500, currently $40-300 with some west industries outsourcing their for cheap labor - kinda like "new India").

But as currently Trump is to pull back industry back to US (to create good paid jobs and quality products), to purge globalists (the Bilderberg criminals and its puppets) will hopefully loose their power and possibly transform the US from oppressive empire which feeds on war back into country which (hopefully) strives to excel economically and deals with its neighbors fairly (instead of seeding the controlled chaos and destabilization).

As this happens, the US funding of extremists and lying media will drop. With changed focus on actual enemies like islamistic militants (who were previously seeded by Bilderberg to spread chaos) the countries will have wide field for cooperation and the artificially created military, political and social tensions are likely to massively soften, leading to efficient and timely resolution of most current conflicts. This is why Russians and possibly Putin prefer Trump,

Oh.
So who paid the rioters?


Not entirely sure how "slightly higher upper body strength" and the "ability to pee while standing" should be such dominating factors when choosing who should vote.

While I agree more needs to be done to confront the cultural based inequalities of less developed countries, such changes have to come from inside those countries, a mass protest outside the Saudi embassy would have little effect.

These protests however can effect change in the US.

It is worth noting before the common man was given the vote in the UK it was thought they were incapable of an educated decision that accounted for the greater good of the nation. Given the reasons given for people recent choices in the Brexit vote, it is debatable whether such ability is wide spread with in the UK. Would you be happy for voting to return to the hands of an elite few?

There are groups responsible for these rioters and they are backed up heavily by global economic criminal George Soros.

http://abcnews.com.co/donald-trump-protester-speaks-out-i-was-paid-to-protest/

Also, men are better at voting not because of the ability to urinate while standing but because of the way they evolved as I have mentioned before.

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140410-can-we-drive-our-own-evolution
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-science-imagination/201305/genes-affect-culture-culture-affects-genes

As for the elite few, democracy only works in small groups. I prefer the system the ancient Germanic peoples had involving an assembly to elect a king (such assembly was a "thing" literally) which is basically kind of like the United States system of electing a president. We elect the electors. Then again, I would revise it that the presidential candidate gets the electoral votes automatically after winning the popular vote of a state or in the case of Maine, an electoral district.

I also believe in raising the voting age for anyone who neither served nor is currently serving in military, firefighting, law enforcement, or emergency medical response services to 25. By the way, I would have voted for the Brexit if I had a vote in the UK and I would be a member of UKIP. The EU and the UN are simply globalist mechanisms and globalism is dedicated towards turning a man into an interchangeable economic/consumer unit which is why big international special interest groups like big banks support such initiatives. They want to maximize profit for themselves and leave local communities with the costs whether it be financial or human.

OK you do realise the ABC link you sent is a fake news site

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABCnews.com.co

We live in a post truth world, you need to be a lot more ware of the information you envelop.

Next, the evolutionary link you sent me are valid, with scientific merit and something I believe, however Lets pull this apart.

Firstly, by definition 50% of the population (male or female) is below average. It's tragic really, all this money spent on education and so many remain below average. So I'm sure the 50% of above average women would balance out the 50% below average men.

Evolution allowed women to give birth and feed their young, after that they tended to take the jobs that their culture made available. Women have and continue to do harsh, physical and demanding work. The ability for a woman to spend her entire time as a caregiver or nurturer is a recent event, last 200 years. Before that only the rich and powerful could take such luxuries, even then they tended to pass those duties to other women and be part of the political machine. Some as pawns, others as queens.

For most of human history women have been labourers, part of the foundation of any society and numerically more significant than the military.

Women's absence from the military has as much to do with loss of labourers and ensuring a next generation can be born, as it did to do with the force they can use a pointy stick. Men are expendable, women less so. Loose 1/2 the women in the village you loose 1/2 reproductive ability. Loose 1/2 the men, monogamy not with standing, you don't loose 1/2 the reproductive ability.

It is culture, rather than evolution, that has restricted and continues to restrict a woman reach.

And while you'd say those 200 years of nannying could be enough to alter genes, its those same 200 years in which women have done the most to show themselves equal to men.

Just incase you think the wiki page has been subverted by a bunch of lefties

here's the whois for the domain
https://who.is/whois/abcnews.com.co

look at the domain owner

Paul Horner


And the chap paid to riot was called Now as a well mannered and educated person I shouldn't really be feeling smug, it shows bad taste.

No, no, no.... it is "alternative facts"


:)

To quote Adam Savage

Here's an interview with the guy. He's been outed months ago.

http://edition.cnn.com/videos/us/2016/12/13/fake-news-writer-cooper-intv-ac.cnn
http://www.businessinsider.de/fake-news-writer-paul-horner-thinks-he-got-trump-elected-2016-11

I can't think of one harsh and physically demanding job that a woman in a first world country does.

Sit in an air-conditioned clothes shop with the music blaring or comfy office.

It's the men who do all the dangerous and backbreaking work.

You're welcome.

And BTW, that last picture, that is a real captain of a real commercial fishing boat, and commercial fishing has a higher mortality rate than any other job in this country, including police, army, and fire.

it seems you're man with a woman's spirit inside - must be why you gay and have only one ball :P

facts ... what are facts anyway ?

Merriam-Webster reporting: https://www.merriam-webster.com/news-trend-watch/conway-alternative-facts-20170122

this is bizarrely entertaining to watch :p

Yeah, but Kleetus is just going to call it all fake, or propaganda photos, or some shit.
I seriously need to stop replying to him.