|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: US election aftermath
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
While I have sympathy with anything designed to avoid a Trump presidency, the Supreme Court doesn't have the power to do what the petition seeks to have it do. The petition is essentially asking that the Supreme Court act unconstitutionally.
I'm not so sure about that. Courts have the power to overturn elections in cases where the electoral process is hopelessly compromised. In fact, if I recall correctly you reside in a state where a federal court recently exercised exactly that power.
Not quite. The court did not throw out the results of any elections. It did order that a special election be held, essentially reducing terms from two years to one year.
But the main distinguishing factor between that and the petition is that there was actually a lawsuit and a trial. Yes, if a proper lawsuit is filed, a number of remedies might be available, whether in the trial court or on appeal.
But the petition simply asks SCOTUS—in the absence of any actual legal proceeding, much less any kind of developed factual record—to step in, declare the election invalid and order new elections.
Federal courts have no constitutional power to do anything unless they have an actual case or controversy, brought by a plaintiff with standing, before them. No such plaintiff has brought a case here, so no ability for any federal court, including SCOTUS, to act. That's why what the petition appears to seek would be unconstitutional.
Also, what Beeswax Altar said.
[ 13. December 2016, 17:21: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
While I have sympathy with anything designed to avoid a Trump presidency, the Supreme Court doesn't have the power to do what the petition seeks to have it do. The petition is essentially asking that the Supreme Court act unconstitutionally.
I'm not so sure about that. Courts have the power to overturn elections in cases where the electoral process is hopelessly compromised. In fact, if I recall correctly you reside in a state where a federal court recently exercised exactly that power.
Not quite. The court did not throw out the results of any elections. It did order that a special election be held, essentially reducing terms from two years to one year.
Given that the election stipulated that the winner would hold office for two years and the federal court threw out that result, that seems a very strained interpretation of not throwing out the results.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
Semantics maybe—I would not describe it as throwing out the results, because all candidates elected will in fact take office. I would describe it reducing, in this article instance, the term of office set by the Constitution from two years to one year. Consider it strained if you like. As you said, this happened in the state where I live, and I haven't heard anyone here describe it as throwing out the results of the election.
But as I said, lots of remedies might be available to a court if the matter is properly before it, including ordering new elections. The problem here is not that a court can never order new elections. It's that this petition doesn't present an actual case or controversy to SCOTUS or any other federal court, so no federal court currently has the power to make order any relief at all.
[ 13. December 2016, 17:46: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
I should modify what I said above—some press releases did indeed say that the court order overturned the will of voters expressed in the election. Perhaps I should say that outside of statements such as those press releases, I haven't heard anyone describe it as throwing out the results of the election.
Apologies.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Oh I see, a sexually assaulting incompetent multi-times business cheat vulture capitalist is the best of the lot. I'm dreaming of a White Christmas for the banana republic. ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif) Ctl-alt-delete to that sort of alt-right thinking.
It might be rather worse than that.
Key quote from the end of the article
quote:
When Il Duce claimed that he would further “clarify” matters, his audience understood that “clarification” was a synonym for violence. Ben-Ghiat has been thinking about these words as Election Day nears. On the stump, Trump keeps saying that order will be restored on January 20th, as soon as he takes office. “He means everything he says,” Ben-Ghiat said. “Authoritarians never pivot.”
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Oh I see, a sexually assaulting incompetent multi-times business cheat vulture capitalist is the best of the lot. I'm dreaming of a White Christmas for the banana republic. Ctl-alt-delete to that sort of alt-right thinking.
It might be rather worse than that.
Key quote from the end of the article
quote:
When Il Duce claimed that he would further “clarify” matters, his audience understood that “clarification” was a synonym for violence. Ben-Ghiat has been thinking about these words as Election Day nears. On the stump, Trump keeps saying that order will be restored on January 20th, as soon as he takes office. “He means everything he says,” Ben-Ghiat said. “Authoritarians never pivot.”
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
But he did pivot. He was pro-choice, then pro-life. He was for the war on Iraq, then against it. He thought climate change was a hoax, then he never said that, now it looks like it might be again. He was going to "lock her up", then it wasn't worth the trouble. It'll be a real struggle to mean everything he said.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
But he did pivot. He was pro-choice, then pro-life. He was for the war on Iraq, then against it. He thought climate change was a hoax, then he never said that, now it looks like it might be again. He was going to "lock her up", then it wasn't worth the trouble. It'll be a real struggle to mean everything he said.
Games played to get into power. The key issue is what does the authoritarian do when in power?
We may not know the full extent of his real agenda. Based on appointments so far, it will be pursued with authoritarian vigour. Pro-business? For sure. Anti-labour. For sure. Anti-immigration? For sure. America first and bugger the treaties? For sure. Muslims? Not sure, but I think some selective treatment is very much on the cards.
I think the administration will be ruthless.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
In other countries, the army takes over. Could you have a revolution? He is reported to have appointed some ex-generals to his cabinet. Riddle me this: how many grnerals does it take to make a junta?
How did Rome go from republic to emporer?
[ 14. December 2016, 12:16: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
But he did pivot. He was pro-choice, then pro-life. He was for the war on Iraq, then against it. He thought climate change was a hoax, then he never said that, now it looks like it might be again. He was going to "lock her up", then it wasn't worth the trouble. It'll be a real struggle to mean everything he said.
He says whatever he thinks the person directly in front of him wants to hear.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
And there we come to the key question. Who is Trump, really? The real man? Is all this flipfloppery (remember when that was a dealbreaker, for John Kerry? Those were the days, my friends!) a facade, a cunning cloak for the power grab? Or is Trump actually a feather, tossed by the winds of Twitter and popularity?
They told us character in a President was important. Talk about pivots, that is clearly no longer important to many voters. But it is -- it is possibly the question upon which all this discussion hinges.
Unfortunately the only way now to learn the answer, is time. Tiny Fingers will either drive the country into a ditch, or not. Barack Obama is, now, clearly proven to be uninterested in taking all the guns/setting up a Muslim Caliphate/imposing martial law, etc. etc. We can clearly see it. All the energy wasted in denouncing him for it, buying ammo to defend oneself, or fanatically cooking up signs that sharia law was coming, are now seen to be beating the air, a total waste of valuable and scarce brain cells.
And so I sincerely hope it will be, four years (please God, may it not be eight) from now. There will be a new thread about the incoming President. And we will agree that all the awful things we were worrying about in December 2016 were phantoms. Please, Jesus, let it be so. (And while you're at it, Lord, would you like to read The Better Angels of Our Nature? Lemme know, I'll lend you my copy.)
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Brenda wrote:
quote:
Unfortunately the only way now to learn the answer, is time. Tiny Fingers will either drive the country into a ditch, or not. Barack Obama is, now, clearly proven to be uninterested in taking all the guns/setting up a Muslim Caliphate/imposing martial law, etc. etc. We can clearly see it. All the energy wasted in denouncing him for it, buying ammo to defend oneself, or fanatically cooking up signs that sharia law was coming, are now seen to be beating the air, a total waste of valuable and scarce brain cells.
Actually, I suspect a lot of the people who believed that Barack Obama was a gun-stealing, caliphate-building, Communist terrorist, still believe that, albeit in a compartamentalized sort of a way, ie. it doesn't really impact the way they live their everyday lives.
And the thing is, it's easy to continue believing those things about Obama, because THEY WERE NEVER BASED ON LOGIC OR EVIDENCE TO BEGIN WITH.
So that's a little bit different than the people who believe unflattering allegations about Trump, because for the most part those allegations ARE based on things that he really has said and done. It's not just that some internet cranks are making up stuff about him being Putin's Man In Washington, for example. He really DID go on TV and invite the Russians to hack Hillary Clinton's e-mail account.
That said, I agree that Trump likely won't have sold the USA to Russia, interned all Muslims in concentration camps, or launched televised grope-a-thons from the White House lawn, by the end of his period in office, no matter how long it lasts. My point is just that, unlike the allegations directed against Obama, the stuff said about Trump does have some actual basis in his own words and actions.
[ 14. December 2016, 14:39: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
That's the point. The Mango Molester has said a very great many things indeed, most of it totally incompatible with itself and much of it in denial of physical possibility. (Wall, for example.) The only proof now is action.
We should of course keep on throwing his vile words back into his teeth. Do words have meaning, or not? (It could be argued that if they don't, this is the Sin against the Holy Spirit that Jesus was talking about. You can't have discourse if the words are debased.) I am attending the March on Washington in January, and am mulling over signs. I am thinking "The Future Is Nasty", and also "This Pussy Bites," if only I can find one of my daughter's beany baby cats.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Brenda Clough:
And there we come to the key question. Who is Trump, really? The real man? Is all this flipfloppery (remember when that was a dealbreaker, for John Kerry? Those were the days, my friends!) a facade, a cunning cloak for the power grab? Or is Trump actually a feather, tossed by the winds of Twitter and popularity?
Hillary Clinton couldn't throw stones at anybody for flip flopping. Keep in mind she did her flip flopping while in office.
quote:
originally posted by Brenda Clough:
They told us character in a President was important. Talk about pivots, that is clearly no longer important to many voters. But it is -- it is possibly the question upon which all this discussion hinges.
And everybody told them it wasn't. Bush 41 has character. Bob Dole has character. Didn't matter. We are all hypocrites now. Can't put the genie back in the bottle.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Hillary Clinton couldn't throw stones at anybody for flip flopping. Keep in mind she did her flip flopping while in office.
The Clinton tu quoque has to be the most tired defence imaginable for Trump. It needs to be retired, given a rest home to end all rest homes with "do not resuscitate" emblazoned on its file so it can end its days in peace.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
I'm sorry but if you wanted to throw stones at Donald Trump for lack of character and flip flopping you should have nominated somebody other than Hillary Clinton.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Yeah, it's hard to see where Clinton is on choice, climate change or independence of the judiciary. She got War in Iraq wrong by most estimations, but doesn't try to deny it.
By the way out of interest can you think of a single valid criticism of Trump where you wouldn't say Clinton did something that was morally equivalent and worse?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Between Bill and Hillary Clinton?
Not really
Trump takes it to the extreme. However, that was bound to happen. Like I said, the genie was let out of the bottle. All the countries in Europe were laughing at us because we cared about the private life of Bill Clinton. Some saw it as progress that a man with the morals of the French political class could get elected and survive impeachment. Guess what? Now, we have our own Jean-Marie Le Pen too. Only ours won.
4 more years of Bush 41 doesn't seem near as bad as it did in 1992, does it?
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I'm sorry but if you wanted to throw stones at Donald Trump for lack of character and flip flopping you should have nominated somebody other than Hillary Clinton.
IT isn't actually the same thing, though. Clinton's shifting is based on a variety of things, expediency being the most damning. But she operates on the same principles as do most politicians.
Trump's switching seems to have little rational or though out pattern. He shifts within the same speech/conversation.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Between Bill and Hillary Clinton?
Not really
Trump takes it to the extreme. However, that was bound to happen. Like I said, the genie was let out of the bottle. All the countries in Europe were laughing at us because we cared about the private life of Bill Clinton.
Pseudo-morality and fear, the Republican secret sauce. Now they have to pretend to like the flavour.
quote:
4 more years of Bush 41 doesn't seem near as bad as it did in 1992, does it?
Hell of a low standard.
ETA:Pseudo-morality and fear is the secret sauce of the political right, the Americans do not hold the patent unfortunately.
[ 14. December 2016, 18:11: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
And there's interesting info in the comments. The saving of data out of his reach, for instance.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
Trump walks into the dressing rooms of teenaged girls. He grabs pussy, and boasts of it. This is unforgivable in my book. I will call him on it to my dying day. (Another protest sign idea:
this happens to be an Xmas ornament, but it would transfer well to a large placard.
Bill Clinton (who was not running this cycle, recall) at least dealt with consensual partners, and had the decency or hypocrisy to not brag aloud on camera of his prowess. Tiny Fingers is just vulgar, in addition to being an abuser.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Bill Clinton (who was not running this cycle, recall) at least dealt with consensual partners, and had the decency or hypocrisy to not brag aloud on camera of his prowess. Tiny Fingers is just vulgar, in addition to being an abuser.
Consensual in the easy manner in which there's consent between a young woman just out of college and a president of the US.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Bill Clinton (who was not running this cycle, recall) at least dealt with consensual partners, and had the decency or hypocrisy to not brag aloud on camera of his prowess. Tiny Fingers is just vulgar, in addition to being an abuser.
Consensual in the easy manner in which there's consent between a young woman just out of college and a president of the US.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
You are suggesting that groping is equivalent? Or, perhaps, okay, since the perpetrator is a Republican.
I have suggested that all female Cabinet members buy a large leather handbag. Carry it in front at all times.
[ 14. December 2016, 20:15: Message edited by: Brenda Clough ]
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
The Scots have a design that's hands free. And they aren't all furry. Or equipped with dangly bits.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og, King of Bashan
Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
You are suggesting that groping is equivalent? Or, perhaps, okay, since the perpetrator is a Republican.
In the eyes of the law, there are degrees, and groping a stranger is, I suspect, worse than the boss getting a BJ from his intern, who happens to be about his daughter's age.
Still, most of us know that you shouldn't do either of those things, and I think that should be your bottom line. "Well, what Bill Clinton did wasn't nearly as bad as what Donald Trump did" isn't a convincing argument to me. It's just all varying degrees of unacceptable behavior.
People always say that Europe looked at Clinton and wondered what the big deal was. Which makes me wonder, how much of a difference is there between patriarchal prudishness on this side of the pond and patriarchal winking and acceptance on the other?
--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy
Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
You are suggesting that groping is equivalent? Or, perhaps, okay, since the perpetrator is a Republican.
In the eyes of the law, there are degrees, and groping a stranger is, I suspect, worse than the boss getting a BJ from his intern, who happens to be about his [adult] daughter's age.
In the eyes of the law only one of those is actually a crime. Is that what you mean by "degrees"?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og, King of Bashan
Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562
|
Posted
Yes. But you still shouldn't do either of those things.
Thanks for adding content to my post when replying, BTW.
--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy
Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Yes. But you still shouldn't do either of those things.
Actually "in the eyes of the law" (your chosen standard of judgment) you only shouldn't do one of those things.
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Thanks for adding content to my post when replying, BTW.
No problem. It's an important distinction "in the eyes of the law".
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Bill Clinton (who was not running this cycle, recall) at least dealt with consensual partners, and had the decency or hypocrisy to not brag aloud on camera of his prowess. Tiny Fingers is just vulgar, in addition to being an abuser.
Consensual in the easy manner in which there's consent between a young woman just out of college and a president of the US.
An adult is an adult, and I think there CAN be consent between a recent college-grad and a POTUS(workplace harassment issues might come into play here, though no more than in any other office).
However...
What Juanita Broadrick alleged was in no way consensual. Now yes, you can certainly get around her claims by saying that she was lying, but that kind of puts liberal Democrats in an awkward position, eg. was Anita Hill lying, too?
And one more "however"...
While Trump himself did appear with Juanita Broadrick to drive that point home, it wasn't the main basis of his defense. Instead, he said that he had been lying when he bragged about groping women. Which is plausible enough, but kind of misses the point: Even simply wanting people to think that you did those sorts of actions is pretty bad, since it suggests an endorsement.
TL/DR: The Democrats were on shaky ground in attacking Trump on the sexual-assault allegations, but not for the main reasons that Trump put forward.
[ 14. December 2016, 21:11: Message edited by: Stetson ]
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
What Juanita Broadrick alleged was in no way consensual. Now yes, you can certainly get around her claims by saying that she was lying, but that kind of puts liberal Democrats in an awkward position, eg. was Anita Hill lying, too?
So if any woman, anywhere, has ever lied about sexual assault, that means every woman, everywhere, who ever cries assault must be disbelieved, otherwise we're hypocrites? Really???
I so thought we were past this crap.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
[ 14. December 2016, 21:25: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og, King of Bashan
Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Yes. But you still shouldn't do either of those things.
Actually "in the eyes of the law" (your chosen standard of judgment) you only shouldn't do one of those things.
I think you missed the leap I made from paragraph one, where I discussed the fact that one act was worse than the other (in fact, one is illegal and one is not), and paragraph two, where I intended to go beyond legal discussion, and suggest that either act is something you shouldn't do. Think of illegal behavior as a special subset of things you shouldn't do. When the intern offers you a BJ, you could, I suppose, ask for an ID, confirm she is over 18, and get on with it and sleep like a baby. In my book, you should also consider how it will affect your family life, the likelihood that the intern will develop feelings for you that you cannot reciprocate, etc, and give a polite "please don't be embarrassed when I say this, and I promise I won't tell anyone about this, but no thanks."
--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy
Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Consensual in the easy manner in which there's consent between a young woman just out of college and a president of the US.
One wonders just what courses she took at college anyway. Nothing would have stopped her from screaming and running out of the room.
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og, King of Bashan
Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Consensual in the easy manner in which there's consent between a young woman just out of college and a president of the US.
One wonders just what courses she took at college anyway. Nothing would have stopped her from screaming and running out of the room.
I'm going two ways on this one. While I don't remember any detail suggesting that in the instant case she didn't want to be having sexual contact with the President, I don't think that "nothing was stopping you from screaming and running" is a great standard for consent.
--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy
Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
You are suggesting that groping is equivalent? Or, perhaps, okay, since the perpetrator is a Republican.
I have suggested that all female Cabinet members buy a large leather handbag. Carry it in front at all times.
I was making no comment at all on Trump's behaviour, simply on your assertion that Clinton's was consensual. I have very great difficulty in seeing real consent there.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Meanwhile, back in 2016...
"Flynn, Trump’s national security adviser, mishandled classified information, Army records show." (Yahoo)
It was judged by a secret investigation to be accidental. The article also reviews various other problems with Flynn.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
What Juanita Broadrick alleged was in no way consensual. Now yes, you can certainly get around her claims by saying that she was lying, but that kind of puts liberal Democrats in an awkward position, eg. was Anita Hill lying, too?
So if any woman, anywhere, has ever lied about sexual assault, that means every woman, everywhere, who ever cries assault must be disbelieved, otherwise we're hypocrites? Really???
I so thought we were past this crap.
No, obviously, it's possible to believe that one woman is telling the truth, while another woman is lying. But then, within the context of a political cut-and-thrust, you can damned well expect that the other side is going to ask you to explain, why you think Hill was telling the truth and Broadrick was lying.
Do you think that's a discussion that any of Bill Clinton's feminist defenders wanted to be having on the campaign trail? In terms of realpolitik alone, the optics are not good at all.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
No, it is clear from the old transcripts that Lewinsky invited the contact. That Bill went along was clearly wrong, but he was thinking with the little brain and not the big brain.
Whereas the Mango Mussolini was clearly battening upon girls who did not consent and in whom he was (as their employer) had huge power. And he has neither repented nor apologized. I doubt if taxing him with it will help -- he is sure to tweet in fury. But I am not the only Nasty Woman out there unwilling to give him a pass. This is NSFW (some female nudity)
[URL=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/haunting-photos-feature-trumps-sexist-comments-drawn-on-womens- bodies_us_584ef639e4b0bd9c3dfddf27]but shows you the sort of outrage that women are feeling.[/URL]
[link broken in line with two-click rule]
[ 15. December 2016, 05:00: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Consensual in the easy manner in which there's consent between a young woman just out of college and a president of the US.
One wonders just what courses she took at college anyway. Nothing would have stopped her from screaming and running out of the room.
I'm going two ways on this one. While I don't remember any detail suggesting that in the instant case she didn't want to be having sexual contact with the President, I don't think that "nothing was stopping you from screaming and running" is a great standard for consent.
Well, I took Amanda's "screaming and running" as a synechdoce or a metonym or whatever you'd call it. The basic meaning "There was nothing to stop Lewinsky from refusing Bill Clinton's advances."
Though, as I said earlier, there is still the issue of workplace harassment, if a boss is having sex with his staff.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
What Juanita Broadrick alleged was in no way consensual. Now yes, you can certainly get around her claims by saying that she was lying, but that kind of puts liberal Democrats in an awkward position, eg. was Anita Hill lying, too?
So if any woman, anywhere, has ever lied about sexual assault, that means every woman, everywhere, who ever cries assault must be disbelieved, otherwise we're hypocrites? Really???
I so thought we were past this crap.
No, obviously, it's possible to believe that one woman is telling the truth, while another woman is lying. But then, within the context of a political cut-and-thrust, you can damned well expect that the other side is going to ask you to explain, why you think Hill was telling the truth and Broadrick was lying.
Do you think that's a discussion that any of Bill Clinton's feminist defenders wanted to be having on the campaign trail? In terms of realpolitik alone, the optics are not good at all.
I am a Bill Clinton feminist defender and I would be happy to examine the evidence against Bill alongside the evidence against Trump. Of course, as noted above, Bill was not running for President.
The argument you're making is the argument we've seen throughout the election-- one that was ultimately quite successful. It's false equivalence. Any accusations made against Trump are met with parallel accusations against Hillary (or some surrogate of hers, even though no surrogates were running for office). These accusations are continually presented as equivalent simply because they are both superficially similar accusations even if the gravity of the two crimes or the evidence to support the accusations are quite dissimilar. No they are both presented by both media and Trump supporters as equivalent in the name of being "fair" or "not hypocritical". No exploration of what evidence lies behind the accusations, simply present the rumor, innuendo, accusation and that is enough. And yes, Comey, we're ALL looking at you.
It's pure BS. Sadly for us as a nation, it proved to be highly effective BS.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
This is NSFW (some female nudity)
[URL=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/haunting-photos-feature-trumps-sexist-comments-drawn- on-womens-bodies_us_584ef639e4b0bd9c3dfddf27]but shows you the sort of outrage that women are feeling.[/URL]
sigh
See, here is the problem: those images will teach absolutely no one anything. If someone agrees with the message, they do it need to see the images. If they disagree, they will change nothing unless those are their daughters.
[link broken again]
[ 15. December 2016, 05:01: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Given that Russia is involved in your election, why is Pussy Riot and Femen not part of the deal?
I am still wondering if a revolution is possible.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
Cliffdweller, so much more cogent than me!
![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif) ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
hosting/
NSFW warnings are good, but not enough. Our practice is to put any material that might get someone into trouble if it's cached on their drive by virtue of having clicked on a link at least two clicks away from the Ship. That specifically applies to nudity.
Thank you for your cooperation.
/hosting
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Well, I took Amanda's "screaming and running" as a synechdoce or a metonym or whatever you'd call it. The basic meaning "There was nothing to stop Lewinsky from refusing Bill Clinton's advances."
Though, as I said earlier, there is still the issue of workplace harassment, if a boss is having sex with his staff.
Actually, per reports back in the day, it was the other way around: she purposely sought him out. And her "friend" Linda Tripp egged her on, for political reasons.
Personally, I think ML was acting out, due to a "relationship" with her high school teacher. (Not sure if she was underage, but she was still in school.) He and his wife held a press conference, way back when, wherein he said something like "she's a liar; you can't believe anything she says; why yes, we did have a relationship".
It was a bad thing and shouldn't have happened, IMHO. But it reportedly wasn't a matter of him pressuring her.
I now return to 2016.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Cliffdweller wrote:
quote:
These accusations are continually presented as equivalent simply because they are both superficially similar accusations even if the gravity of the two crimes or the evidence to support the accusations are quite dissimilar.
You don't think that Juanita Broadrick's accusations against Bill Clinton were of at least equal gravity to what Trump claimed to have done? Are you aware of what her accusations were?
I partially take the point about evidence, but remember, my comparison was to Anita Hill(as an example). As far as I can recall, there wasn't much more evidence for her allegations than there was for Broadrick's allegations against Clinton. In both cases, we were being asked to take the word of the accuser at face value.
I have to go to work. I'll continue this later.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
FWIW, I personally think that Anita Hill's allegations were true, because they had an air of plausibility about them, and IIRC no one came forward with any evidence that she was part of some covert plan to frame Clarence Thomas.
However, from what I remember, I don't think the things Thomas is alleged to have done(or more accurately, said) at his office were serious enough to keep him off the SCOTUS, though I seem to remember his testimony before the committee being a little shifty.
As for Broadrick, I think it likely that she had some sort of physical encounter with Bill Clinton. Whether or not it was consensual, I have no idea.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
But it reportedly wasn't a matter of him pressuring her.
Then **he** should have run screaming from the room.
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
