Okay. You're right. He can be a politician. He is a politician. A stinking poor one, but since he is running for public office, he is by definition a "politician."

Doesn't change the fact he is unqualified to be President. He knows nothing. He promotes fear-mongering and encourages violence. He says he will do things as president that are clearly unconstitutional and outside his powers (banning Muslims, changing the libel laws so he can gain financially.) He is thin-skinned.

He has just revoked the press credentials of The Washington Post because he didn't like a front page story. The man doesn't understand the three branches of government plus the fourth estate of a free press.

I'm qualified to disqualify him because I am a thinking American who knows some history. Like Ken Burns. Like Mitt Romney.

Trump is a unifier, all right. For the first time in almost eight years, some Republicans are putting their love of country above partisanship. I've never been more proud of everyone who has the courage to tell the truth about Donald Trump.

He is patently unfit to serve our country. He has never done it before. He isn't interested in doing it now.

There is nothing quite like standing up to speak the truth that everyone knows but no one has the courage to say...and then looking back and seeing a sea of empty chairs behind you.
But it's not for nothing. When you collect your final paycheck, you will have learned a valuable lesson.

@Sayja
i can agree that that this is not a zero sum situation.

but i have to disagree that this video,or even the other video i posted has anything to do with 'mens rights".

and i have to take you to task for your specious claim that 'there seem to be a lot of men on the internet that feel threatened by feminism".

while i cannot speak for anybody other than myself,i can quite confidently state that i personally,do not feel threatened by feminism,but i find this "intersective third wave feminism" to be a form of feminism that,until recently i have been wholly unaware of ,to be out of touch and nothing that resembles the feminism i grew up with.

and i think that distinctions differentiating the two forms of feminism extremely important.

equality,fairness and justice are noble ideals to fight for and classic feminism did just that.it took amazing courage for those women to stand up and fight for issues regarding women.
see:suffragist movement of the 1800's.

or the bra-burners of the 60's fighting for their sexual rights and rejecting traditional social norms.that they owned their bodies and therefore.their future.

even the proud women of the 70's 80's and 90's who brought to light the casual nature of our society in regards to womens sexuality and heightened rape awareness.

what i find most disturbing,and i am struggling to understand (and maybe you can help me in that regard) is how the feminist movement which has taken courage and determination,addressing real and actual womens issues,has been perverted into this weird,perpetual victimhood decrying the "oppressive patriarchy".

because this new feminism is threatening and is garnering actual real life consequences.
see: stephanie guthrie vs greg elliot
see:the duke lacrosse players

cases where you don't actually have to BE harassed,you just have to "FEEL" as if you are being harassed.

or where you can accuse three boys of rape,get the coach fired and ruin three boys lives,and when it is revealed to all be a fabrication?

the accuser walks away with zero consequences.

so i find it delicious irony when some will defend these "third wave' feminists and state EMPHATICALLY,that words have consequences and that these men SHOULD pay a price for their words.

yet the accusers rarely,if ever,pay for THEIR words.no consequences for THEIR misrepresentation.they just falsely accused.which had real world consequences.

hypocrisy much?

and where was this "oppressive patriarchy" swooping in to protect these men?

can you explain how that is morally,or intellectually consistent?
because it appears to me to be pretty damn hypocritical.

so this woman disagrees with the current trend of feminism.
that is her right and she explains why she disagrees.
does this mean she deserves the death threats and threats of physical violence from these feminists?

so if you could explain to me this "third wave feminism" i would really appreciate it my friend,because i dont get it and it is a real break from the philosophical feminism that have grown accustomed.

I'm glad people post videos like this about my country. I would rather have everyone talking about it and making real changes from it than just ignoring it and accepting it.

It takes a lot of courage to hang out your dirty laundry for everyone to see, but sometimes that's what it takes to get clean.

Your such a coward bob... being terrified of refugees who've literally lost everything is 'leadership' in your view. Its amazing to me that you can somehow equate that to courage and leadership. That level of cognitive dissonance is just stunning.

@newtboy
@Lawdeedaw

you two are adorable.like an old couple that should have divorced decades ago but were unwilling to share the pet dog.

the arguments i see playing out here are one of distinctions,but what are we basing those distinction on?
well,Lawdeedaw has addressed that point and i happen to agree with him.

if you find an abuse of power cop video,where someone is shot or beaten to death acceptable.then you must also find this video acceptable,because they are both using the exact same metric.

that being said,i feel newtboy brings up a good point:context,meaning and ultimately the REASON for posting a video where someone dies.

i think i understand lawdeedaws intent on posting.to reveal the cultural hypocrisy we have in regards to homeless people.how they are invisible,disregarded and disenfranchised.that even though we cringe at having to see homeless people,nevermind interact with them.they are still human and can have just as much courage and moral integrity as any one of us,even though they are discarded and invisible.even though there is much hand-wringing and empty-worded rhetoric,disguised as compassion,making us have the feel-goods while we do nothing.

they are human and this mans humanity and sacrifice can be beautiful to behold.

but where is the context?
take away lawdeedaws poetic understanding...what is happening here,besides a man getting shot and the gunman riddled with bullets?

so newtboy brings up a good point.
so allow me to add some much needed context:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/homeless-man-saving-hostage-victim_55f06cdbe4b093be51bd1940

This was a depressing show of strength and loss of life from a brave man, and I feel better for having watched it. It gives me hope to know there are those with the self-sacrificing wherewithal to do things like this.

That could be me some day, and I would want nothing more than for people to honor that choice by seeing the act of courage it took to put ones self in that space. Hopefully it would inspire others to do good after seeing a video like this.

It was heartbreaking to see him stop and stand there, realizing he'd had it, and then just crumple in the church entryway like that.

That's quite the story to share, I commend your courage to type it out here. Bravo!

My personal story has similar details, but in a kind of strange reversal.

I just turned 30. I have an athletic/skinny build. My metabolism is such that I could eat fast food almost every meal and not become overweight, although that will surely change, and doesn't mean the other ill effects of fast food don't harm me. I have no allergies, no diseases, I've never even broken a bone.

But on multiple occasions I've sat in the dark alone, 911 predialed on my smartphone, fingers on my pulse, wondering if it was the moment I'd finally gone too far with the amphetamines.

I've had a physical since; doctor said I was healthy as a horse.

But I still fear the toll it took, that if I exercise too vigorously or have wild enough sex, my heart will just explode.

I suppose there's worse ways to go out.

"Hi, I'm Graham from News Xtraneous. Tom, your character in the movie seems to favour the reverse cowgirl. Do you find it hard to talk publicly about your favorite sexual position?"

Fuck this expectation of public figures to dutifully out themselves so that fast-selling feel-good stories about courageous-brave famous people can be written. When they chose to talk it's commendable, when you hound them its kinda despicable EYE-EM-OH.

Ah, this young Jedi is so sure of his ideas. Like Alan Watts said, "When you receive the message hang up the phone." But, our young Jedi does not yet have the correct receiver. Have courage young padawan, the truth is out there, the force be with you.

Some people aren't cynics and live life to the fullest ready to face all fear, death and beyond. I believe it's called courage

Youtube indeed has been a big part of the shift in people's minds. And it started with the brave individuals who told their truth, not knowing what grief it would bring them. But they had the courage.

I'm so proud that many are my friends.

You rock, dudes and dudettes!

Two things, no, actually three:
1. To answer your question directly: because letting LGBT people have these rights has no negative effects for society and requires very little effort. There are no measurable downsides here.
What's supposed to happen? Tell me what the negative effects will be. God's gonna make a pouty face and floods the earth again?
Another thing is, how is it the government's business who you can marry? Why should they get to decide that you can't marry shinyblurry if you really want to? Are you that fond of government intrusion in your life?
2. Capitulate? Are you at war with the gays? Did they stick a flag in your ass and declared it their territoty? Is it really an us vs. them situation? Are you sure you are not actually the problem?
You can only capitulate to an adversary. How are the homosexuals harming you? Are they taking anything away? Are they threatening you? Fact is, you are the one who wants to deny right and limit other people's freedom to be left the fuck alone. You're the agressor here. If you would stop that behaviour, nobody would give a fuck about you.
Why should I, who doesn't care what unknown gay people do, and we, who want them to have their rights, capitulate to agressors like you, who insist on regulating nobody's and especially not their own business? Why can't you leave the homosexuals alone? What's your fixation here?
3. Stop it with that "evolutionary dead end" crap! Every marriage with someone who is unable or unwilling to have kids is according to your definition one. Are you really willing to argue that people who can't procreate shouldn't marry? Are you going to tell every woman over 50 they can't (re)marry? Are you willing to walk up to a soldier who got his nuts blown off in Iraq that he can never ever marry the woman who doesn't care about his lack off balls? I'd love to see that. And what his buddies will do to you. And his wife.

Fact is, you don't like homosexuals. I don't know why but I do know that more and more people don't care about them. We're past the tipping point. That's why you feel it's "capitulating", because you know you're the minority now and your hatred and abuse won't be tolerated for long anymore. That's what you loose, the right to treat other's like shit. You can't kick that dog no more because it found the courage to bite back and we took away your ability to go old yeller on his ass. Must make you mad, foaming at the mouth mad.

That must be the new math.

So by your calculation the average black man is more likely to die by cop? It defies any common sense. Most black people support what the cops do. It's only a small percentage who don't.

I truly don't understand why you make the cops out to be ruthless killers who target black people when the truth is quite the opposite.

Cops risk their lives every day in places like Baltimore to protect the majority of black peace-loving people from the thugs who live among them. That is true selflessness and it takes courage and responsibility.

Not necessarily. Perhaps they're downvoting the very idea that a drug experience is the same as a religious one. Perhaps they are downvoting your contention that doing certain drugs and causing yourself a certain amount of permanent brain damage is an act of courage somehow.
I, for one, think they ARE very similar, and that they are both just as meaningless, and both entirely in the mind of the effected, not in the real world in any way.
It's a bit like saying 'to those that don't believe in pink elephants, you simply haven't become addicted to alcohol then suffered from detoxifying hallucinations from a lack of alcohol...as that's the only way to 'see' the 'real' pink elephants, or you can simply believe in them, even though you don't see them, because others have seen them and written about it.