every teacher i know (several!) are utterly terrified by this scenario. schools USED to back a teacher up against kids/parents and bullshit claims. nobody wants to have to rely on local school board defending them in something like this... easier and safer to stock shelves at the grocery store.
School teaching has been economically disincentivized to the point now that only people with a strong desire to be around kids do it anyway.
i know several teachers, and NONE of them are trying to "brainwash" kids. there is growing burnout problems though. lots of folks go into teaching with idealistic stars in their eyes, and grow disillusioned in a few years. low pay, poor supervision, unrealistic expectations, and the paperwork has gotten to the point that they spend more time with that that the children they are supposed to be teaching. having idiots "supervising" them that have never BEEN teaching in a classroom full of kids doesn't help at all...talk about demoralizing.
This is perhaps true but the morality you attempt to imply is false. Sure in an environment where only people with a strong desire to be around kids are willing to be teachers you would likely find more perverts looking to take advantage. However it's wrong to believe that all people who have a strong desire to be around kids are perverts or desire to brainwash kids. Some recognize kids as the worlds most valuable resource (since they are society''s future) and just want to help them to be all they can be in order to have a positive impact on the future. As poorly as teachers get paid, there are more then a few to sacrifice whatever they can afford to buy out of their own pockets the school supplies that the kids need and the school no longer supplies. Still others who can't afford any money out of their own pockets spend their free time looking for ways to get others to supply the things kids needthru corporate sponsership and fund raising.
bullseye !
You can only expect teachers do so much of the job that parents did not do.
Yeah it's no surprise given the way he treats his supporters. I heard a report today about a fundraiser he held at Mar-A-Lardo over the weekend. He was in a particularly bitchy mood and along with the typical lies he spews at these events it was reported that he was complaining that his donors weren't coughing up nough money (this was an event where it cost $40,000 to get in sccording to the report). Supposedly he was refusing to take pictures with people saying they didn't give enough to have him take pictures with them. It kind of makes you wonder what hes doing with all the money, I mean supposedly everything the RNC brings in is going to him and there was that fund raiser not too long ago where he claimed to raise $50 Million in one day.
Don't think that an indiscreet sexworker should be called qualified.
I get what you're trying to say and compared to his lawyers this statement seems true. The only problem though is that if her testimony is true she was never hired for anything. It started with him inviting her to have dinner with him in his hotel suite and alledgedly her initial instinct was to refuse. Then her publicist or agent encouraged her to just go ahead and have dinner with him. So she agreed but just as her instincts were warning her, he greeted her in a robe and PJ's obviously wanting something other then dinner. She said she was uncomfortable with dining with him dressed like that and asked that he get dressed, which he did. Then they had dinner and afterwards she excused herself to the bathroom. When she came out he had stripped down to his boxers and when she tried to leave he blocked her way and proceeded to entice her into having sex in exchange for him putting her on his show the apprentice. She finally gave in and had the 3 minutes of sex on the hopes he would keep his promise about getting her on his show. Since he never held up his end of the deal he never hired her or paid her. Instead he detained her against his will and then convinced her to give into his wishes by offering her an enticement he never followed thru with. Which doesn't really fit the definition of hiring her. Also at the time she was not working as a prostitute but rather a porn star. So to hire her he would have had to offer her a role in a porn movie. Of course being that she wasn't a prostitute nor did he pay her for services rendered, she was under no obligation to remain discreet about it like some people apparently think she should have been.
I have no problem believing that she was a stripper as wll as a porn star, all I'm saying is that being a stipper and/or a porn star does not automatically mean a person is willing to be a prostitute. While porn stars don't make anywhere near what regular movie stars make they still make a pretty good chunks of change per movie, far more then the typical prostitute makes. Also even though a porn star is still engaging in sex, it's in a controlled environment with other actors who typically have no expectations beyond whatever is in the script. When a woman prostitutes herself she never knows for sure what she's getting herself into until it's happening. Often times men who seek out prostitutes have some strange ideas as to what is considered acceptable when getting down to the act. Similarly men who meet porn stars and/or strippers tend to think of them as being the same as a prostitue because in each case they are getting paid casssh in one amount or another. I feel pretty confident that Trump made that sort of assumption about her and that's why he felt it was okay to strip down to his boxers while she was in the bathroom.
i would agree with this. but there are degrees of virtue involved with anyone. i would trust her to walk my dog without a chaperone.
Since there are no prostitutes involved in this case or this discussion I have no idea of what you're talking about.
