Current Time 0:01 / Duration 3:57 FOX News Harris’ ‘desperate’ claims about Trump are becoming ‘dangerous,’ Kevin McCarthy warns 0 View on Watch View on Watch The New York Times reported on Friday that Vice President Kamala Harris critiqued intelligence reports for how they described female leaders of other countries. "Ms. Harris, the first woman to hold her office, ordered up a review that scrutinized multiple years of briefing reports from various intelligence agencies, looking for possible gender bias," the authors wrote in the Times. San Mateo: Protect Your Pet Starting At $10 a month Lemonade San Mateo: Protect Your Pet Starting At $10 a month Ad Harris' attention to the briefing reports stemmed from her being "struck by the way two foreign leaders were described." After officials scrutinized the reports, they found "some questionable word choices but no widespread pattern," the Times reported, citing a senior intelligence official who requested anonymity to discuss the review. EMINEM CAMPAIGNS FOR KAMALA HARRIS. WILL IT SWAY DETROIT VOTERS? Intelligence officials were prompted to add "a new training class for analysts on how to judge and assess female foreign leaders," the Times wrote. READ ON THE FOX NEWS APP More specifically, the Times reported that the "class now teaches intelligence analysts how to better assess the context in which women leaders operate and the possible impact of gender on their career paths, decision-making and policy choices, according to a U.S. official." "The episode proved to be a preview of Ms. Harris’s priorities. The vice president put questions about gender and race at the center of many of the policy discussions in her office, aides and former administration officials said," the Times reported. Democratic presidential nominee Vice President Kamala Harris speaks to reporters in Houston, Friday, Oct. 25, 2024. AP Newsroom Democratic presidential nominee Vice President Kamala Harris speaks to reporters in Houston, Friday, Oct. 25, 2024. AP Newsroom © AP Newsroom Harris reportedly caught the attention of Avril Haines, the first female director of national intelligence in the US, when the Democratic presidential nominee shared concern about possible gender bias in briefing reports in the intelligence community. Intelligence officials are now regularly checking for potential gender bias, a senior official told the Times. Furthermore, intelligence officials shared with the Times that Harris wanted more intelligence reporting on how gender inequalities in various nations weaken their national security. 7 Retirement Income Strategies Once Your Portfolio Reaches $500k fisherinvestments.com 7 Retirement Income Strategies Once Your Portfolio Reaches $500k Ad "She paid particular attention to Africa, Southeast Asia and the Caribbean — regions that have been overlooked in mainstream foreign-policy making, one of them said," intelligence officials told the Times. The Harris campaign nor Biden administration officials responded to a request for comment. The information shared by intelligence officials was part of the Times' report on Harris being silent on her policy record as she "appeals to moderate voters and tries to defy Donald J. Trump’s claims that she represents ‘the radical left.'" The Times explained further that Harris’ past record in combating gender bias in intelligence agencies, promoting "equity" in the government's response to the coronavirus pandemic, and other measures "aimed at systemic disparities" have not been touted on the campaign trail. "While Ms. Harris’s allies describe this as a defining feature of her vice presidency — one that separates her from her predecessors, including Democrats — she is not running on this part of her record," the Times reported. PVC Leather Universal Size Car Seat Cover 5 Seats Fit For Most Cars Temu-AD PVC Leather Universal Size Car Seat Cover 5 Seats Fit For Most Cars Ad "She rarely talks explicitly about how she would use government to address racism and sexism — and only sparingly mentions her own status as potentially the first woman, first Asian American and first Black woman to hold the presidency." HARRIS FINALLY ADDS POLICY PAGE TO CAMPAIGN WEBSITE, DEVOTES SEVERAL SECTIONS TO TRUMP A former aide to the vice president told the Times that Harris "was always interested in gender." "We all knew it was really important to her, so we would proactively add that to her briefings. She didn’t have to ask for it," said the aide, who requested anonymity. While her record may suggest that Harris is focused on women and minorities, her aides maintain that the vice president is concerned about any "overlooked group, including low-income Americans of any race or ethnicity." Many of Harris' past positions have been put in the spotlight since she ascended to the top of the ticket after President Biden withdrew from the presidential race. AP Images Many of Harris' past positions have been put in the spotlight since she ascended to the top of the ticket after President Biden withdrew from the presidential race. AP Images © AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta Many of Harris' past positions have been put in the spotlight since she ascended to the top of the ticket after President Biden withdrew from the presidential race. For example, Harris supported taxpayer-funded surgery for trans prisoners and illegal immigrants when responding to a questionnaire conducted by the American Civil Liberties Union. Original article source: NY Times reports show Harris critiqued intelligence reports for how they described fem
-
-
-
-
Nobody is telling you how FUCKED every military on Earth just became. Everyone is watching the war. The missiles flying. The explosions. Nobody is talking about the fact that Israel just made missiles OBSOLETE. The Iron Beam. A 100-kilowatt laser. Deployed in LIVE COMBAT for the first time in human history. Not a test. Not a prototype. Real war. Real Iranian missiles. Destroyed in mid-air. By a beam of light. → Cost per Iron Dome interceptor: $50,000 → Cost per Iron Beam shot: $2 → That is not a typo. Two. Dollars. Iran spent $20,000 building a drone. Israel deleted it with $2 of electricity. Iran fires 100 drones in a swarm attack. Cost to Iran: $2,000,000. Cost to Israel: $200. 💀 Here's what nobody is explaining to you: This doesn't just change THIS war. This changes ALL war. Forever. → Every missile Iran has ever built is now worthless scrap metal → Russia's entire missile stockpile? Obsolete overnight. → China's "carrier killer" ballistic missiles? The ones they spent $50,000,000,000 developing? Junk. → North Korea's only leverage — its missile program? Gone. → The Iron Beam never runs out of ammo. It runs on ELECTRICITY. → It fires at the speed of light. Nothing can dodge it. → It's silent. No explosion. The missile just vanishes. → Every country that invested in missiles just watched decades of military spending become worthless in real time. The US spent $200,000,000,000 on missile defense over 40 years. Israel just replaced it with a laser that costs less than a coffee per shot. This is not an upgrade. This is the end of an era. The age of missiles just died on live television and nobody is talking about it. Bookmark this. You're watching the biggest shift in military history since the atomic bomb.
-
When people lose a political battle do they historicaly turn into angry yelling people as to deal with the loss Searching the web 48 results Yes, historically and psychologically, people (and groups) who lose a major political battle often respond with heightened anger, vocal outrage, yelling/protesting, resentment, and sometimes radicalization. This isn't universal—some accept defeat gracefully and move on—but it's a very common pattern across time, cultures, and ideologies. It's not just "sore losing"; it's a mix of emotional coping, group dynamics, and strategic behavior.Why this happensPsychological mechanisms: Political loss threatens identity, status, and worldview. Anger serves as a defense— it masks grief, fear, or helplessness, provides a sense of agency ("I'm fighting back!"), and bonds the "losers" together against the "winners." Resentment can feel empowering; it turns passive defeat into active narrative of injustice or betrayal. Scapegoating opponents (or "elites," "traitors," etc.) is classic. Contempt and rage can even be enjoyable in the short term as they elevate the self above the "enemy." Group polarization: In defeat, factions often radicalize. Moderates get sidelined, while louder, angrier voices dominate the conversation. This creates echo chambers where outrage is rewarded with attention, loyalty, and status within the group. "Radical loser" dynamic: Some thinkers describe how those who feel like societal or political "losers" adopt aggression as identity—lashing out to reclaim dignity or visibility. This shows up in both left- and right-wing movements after defeats. Historical examplesAncient & early modern: After military or political defeats (e.g., Athens condemning leaders like Phocion post-losses), losers often turned to bitter recriminations, purges, or mob anger. Grievance-fueled rebellions like Bacon's Rebellion (1676 Virginia) started with angry colonists feeling unprotected and ignored by authorities—leading to violence and burning the capital. U.S. history: The 1790s were full of rage—Whiskey Rebellion mobs tarred-and-feathered tax collectors; partisan newspapers accused opponents of betraying the Revolution. Post-Civil War, defeated Southern ex-Confederates channeled anger into Democratic Party resurgence, voter suppression, and Jim Crow. William Jennings Bryan's 1896 loss (and the Populist movement's collapse) saw agrarian "losers" fuel fiery rhetoric against "eastern elites," influencing later movements. 20th-century labor strikes or civil rights setbacks often involved angry protests turning confrontational. Recent patterns: Losers of elections frequently enter a "wilderness" phase of internal anger and finger-pointing. Examples include post-2016 progressive/Democratic infighting (some turning to strident resistance or identity-focused outrage), or post-2020 Trump supporters embracing "stolen election" narratives that fueled protests and threats. On the other side, losses have led to accusations of fascism or betrayal, with vocal media and street anger. Both sides show extremists using more negative, angry language than moderates. This pattern appears across the spectrum—left after economic/globalization "losses," right after cultural or foreign policy shifts, populists feeling like "globalization losers," etc. Anger often drives participation (protests, voting, organizing) but can also lead to violence, conspiracy thinking, or long-term bitterness if unresolved.Not always "yelling" foreverMany groups eventually adapt: they regroup, moderate, learn lessons, or win future battles. The U.S. survived the angry 1790s and became a stable nation. Populist energy from 1890s "losers" reshaped parties without destroying democracy. But unchecked, it can deepen polarization, erode trust, or spawn extremism.In short, yes—turning to loud, angry expressions is a frequent historical response to political loss. It helps process the pain and rally the faithful, but it risks becoming performative or destructive if it replaces constructive strategy. Humans are tribal; defeat stings, and yelling is one way we cope and signal we're not done fighting. The healthier paths (reflection, adaptation, bridge-building) exist but are harder in polarized times.
-
-
-
-
-
No comments:
Post a Comment