|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: US election aftermath
|
Og, King of Bashan
Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
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.
Exactly.
Politico ran a story yesterday purporting to show how Clinton lost Michigan. Union leaders and local organizers are blaming her campaign for sending them to Iowa and ignoring their ground indicators that Michigan was much closer than the five point lead the campaign was sure they had. Apparently when someone called the Brooklyn office on Tuesday afternoon to beg them to organize last-second get out the vote buses, the campaign had already popped the corks on the first celebratory bottles of champagne and was making calls offering folks spots on the transition team.
Sour grapes? 20/20 hindsight? Actual grievances?
--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy
Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
The reason the election turned as it did does not have a single factor answer. No one thing would have changed the results.
And given that many tiny-fingered, orange votes were driven by imaginary concerns, it would be difficult to address all the issues.
--------------------
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
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by lilBuddha:
IT isn't actually the same thing, though.
Not to Clinton supporters obviously. To everybody else, it is exactly the same thing.
quote:
originally posted by lilBuddha:
But she operates on the same principles as do most politicians.
So does Trump. However, having not spent his entire adult life in politics, he isn't as smooth as the average politician. Trump learned politics by watching politicians on television.
quote:
originally posted by lilBuddha:
Pseudo-morality and fear, the Republican secret sauce. Now they have to pretend to like the flavour.
Pseudo-morality and fear are everybody's secret sauce. At least you don't have to worry about the Koch brother funded Dominionist Tea Party seizing power and turning the nation into an anarcho capitalistic theocracy that is one half Gault's Gulch and one half Atwood's Gilead. Did I fail to include any Left wing boogeymen?
quote:
originally posted cliffdweller:
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???
He's saying just the opposite, actually. Since "rape culture" and the "epidemic of sexual assault on college campuses" have become issues, feminists have insisted that if a woman says she was raped we should believe her. Juanita Broderick claims Bill Clinton raped her. Therefore, she should be believed. Calling her a liar is raping her all over again. Clinton was not acquitted. The charge has not been conclusively proven to be false. Thus, Clinton got away with rape. Just applying the same rules to Bill Clinton that feminists want to apply to a boys in college. I challenge you to look at Juanita Brodderick's claims. Tell me why you believe her claims are false. Then, we can apply that same standard of proof to every single woman who claims to be raped. Fair enough?
Hillary Clinton enabled Bill Clinton's abuse of women for decades. She slut shamed all of his accusers. The whole lot of them were bimbos. What did that make Bill? A feminist icon like Hillary Clinton giving credence to the misogynistic double standard to advance her own political ambition.
quote:
originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Whereas the Mango Mussolini was clearly battening upon girls who did not consent
Clearly battering upon girls who did not consent? Did you actually listen or read the transcript of what he actually said? I ask because I find it hard to believe you would say clearly from what he actually said. For instance, Trump said he hit on a married woman and she rejected him. Then, he backed off. He then said women would let him get away with touching them because he was famous. In other words, they CONSENTED because he was famous. The whole grab them by the pussy comment was no more a confession to sexual assault than his shoot somebody on 5th Avenue claim was evidence he planned to commit murder.
quote:
originally posted by cliffdweller:
It's false equivalence.
Bill Clinton was accused of the exact same thing. Feminists stood by their man. One said all women should put on their knee pads and do for Bill Clinton what Monica Lewinsky did. Sorry, if you supported Bill Clinton, you don't get to criticize Trump and expect to be taken seriously. That goes double if you enabled him the way Hillary Clinton did. Should have nominated somebody with more credibility on the issue.
quote:
originally posted by lilBuddha:
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.
Nudity bates the clicks. No telling how much money web sites have made showing scantily clad pictures of Ariel Winter under the pretense of defending her from body shamers. Got to admire Ariel Winter for keeping herself in the spotlight. Sophia Vegara taught her well.
--------------------
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
|
|
Og, King of Bashan
Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And given that many tiny-fingered, orange votes were driven by imaginary concerns, it would be difficult to address all the issues.
How about this point from the Politico article.
There were fewer tiny-fingered, orange votes cast in Michigan than there were W votes cast in the same state in 2004. W lost, Trump won. Clinton didn't need Obama turnout, she could have won with Kerry turn out.
True, there were a lot of factors at play. But I really hope that we don't look back at this and discover that one factor was the Clinton campaign doing a c-student job of organization.
--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy
Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Beeswax wrote:
quote:
He's saying just the opposite, actually. Since "rape culture" and the "epidemic of sexual assault on college campuses" have become issues, feminists have insisted that if a woman says she was raped we should believe her. Juanita Broderick claims Bill Clinton raped her. Therefore, she should be believed. Calling her a liar is raping her all over again. Clinton was not acquitted. The charge has not been conclusively proven to be false. Thus, Clinton got away with rape. Just applying the same rules to Bill Clinton that feminists want to apply to a boys in college. I challenge you to look at Juanita Brodderick's claims. Tell me why you believe her claims are false. Then, we can apply that same standard of proof to every single woman who claims to be raped. Fair enough?
For the record, I don't know if Hillary Clinton herself subscribes to the blanket notion that all rape complainants have to be believed. I'm pretty sure, though, that among the Democratic voting bloc(a bloc which would include me, were I an American) there are a significant number of people who believe that, or come pretty close in any case.
In Canada, after Jian Ghomeshi was acquitted of sexual assault, numerous activists, including several high-profile politicians, began sporting buttons that read I Believe Victims", which, given the facts of the case they were responding to, would seem to indicate that they didn't think court verdicts in favour of the accused need to be taken into account.
That's a Canadian example, but I'm sure the political culture is not that different south of the border. Assuming such views find any significant degree of support among Democrats, it would make it somewhat awkward for the Clinton campaign to go after Juanita Broadrick.
[ 15. December 2016, 16:51: 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
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
It's the implied belief of the Obama Administration given how they interpret Title IX.
--------------------
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 Og, King of Bashan:
True, there were a lot of factors at play. But I really hope that we don't look back at this and discover that one factor was the Clinton campaign doing a c-student job of organization.
I think it is undeniable this is the case.
--------------------
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
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Whereas the Mango Mussolini was clearly battening upon girls who did not consent
Clearly battering upon girls who did not consent? Did you actually listen or read the transcript of what he actually said? I ask because I find it hard to believe you would say clearly from what he actually said. For instance, Trump said he hit on a married woman and she rejected him. Then, he backed off. He then said women would let him get away with touching them because he was famous. In other words, they CONSENTED because he was famous. The whole grab them by the pussy comment was no more a confession to sexual assault than his shoot somebody on 5th Avenue claim was evidence he planned to commit murder.
[/QB]
I was thinking specifically of his boast that he could go into the dressing rooms of the Miss Teen America contestants and ogle them while they were naked. These were under-aged girls. They were beauty contestants, but had certainly not consented to let a 60-year-old man barge in on them dressing.
I don't have to infer or imply. Tiny Fingers bragged of this himself, in his own words, and was proud of it. Every parent would agree: this is egregious. What if it were your daughter in that dressing room, clutching her underwear? My daughter is no longer a teen (oh, would that I could introduce her to the Mango Mussolini! She is a US Army major, an Afghan war vet, and could snap him in half). But I am still her mother, and on behalf of all mothers everywhere, I am coldly furious.
I think my sign in January should say, "NASTY and PROUD of it."
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Originally posted by BA:
quote:
feminists have insisted that if a woman says she was raped we should believe her.
In the past, and still in loads of ways, the tendency was to consider the charge with suspicion first and reluctantly admit the possibility when evidence allowed no other rational conclusion.
What feminism* wants is for women's voices to be heard and not automatically dismissed. This is not a wish to eliminate due process or ignore the possibility of false testimony, but a desire to be treated equally.
*In general. There are a variety of opinions, of course.
--------------------
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
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Brendan Clough:
I was thinking specifically of his boast that he could go into the dressing rooms of the Miss Teen America contestants and ogle them while they were naked.
Trump never mentioned the Miss Teen USA pageant. Some past Miss Teen USA contestants have said he walked into the dressing room. Other said he did not. Those who said he did not gave two reasons to support their claim. One, the dressing room was secure with numerous adult chaperones. Two, if anything inappropriate involving teenage girls would have happened, there would have been gossip. So, Donald Trump repeatedly walked in on naked underage girls and we didn't hear about it until the October before an election?
quote:
originally posted by Brenda Clough:
What if it were your daughter in that dressing room, clutching her underwear?
Like most parents, I'd say something probably to the press. See above.
quote:
originally posted by lilBuddha:
This is not a wish to eliminate due process or ignore the possibility of false testimony
Yes, they do favor a Kafkaesque version of due process for college boys accused of sexual assault.
--------------------
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
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by Brenda Clough:
What if it were your daughter in that dressing room, clutching her underwear?
Like most parents, I'd say something probably to the press. See above.
[/QB][/QUOTE]
You wouldn't ask your daughter first what she wanted. And you would go to the press? Really? So now your daughter can be confronted by everyone who wants, and is doubly upset, including now at you. Ridiculous. ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif) Supportive parents take the lead of their child and support them.
--------------------
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
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Because journalists never print stories based on sources that wish to remain anonymous?
--------------------
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
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
And your priority would be the journalists of course. ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Sorry, if you supported Bill Clinton, you don't get to criticize Trump and expect to be taken seriously.
Bill Clinton ran in 1992 and 1996. He was impeached and acquitted in 1999. Juanita Broaddrick made her public claim in an interview with NBC after the impeachment, and NBC didn't air it until after the acquittal. When she was subpoenaed in the Paula Jones case, she went on legal record in early 1998 denying that she had been raped:
quote:
During the 1992 Presidential campaign there were unfounded rumors and stories circulated that Mr. Clinton had made unwelcome sexual advances toward me in the late seventies. Newspaper and tabloid reporters hounded me and my family, seeking corroboration of these tales. I repeatedly denied the allegations and requested that my family's privacy be respected. These allegations are untrue and I had hoped that they would no longer haunt me, or cause further disruption to my family. (Legal affidavit in Paula Jones case published by the Washington Post in January 1998)
People who voted for Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996 were supposed to believe something Juanita Broaddrick flatly denied until 1999?
She recanted this affidavit when Kenneth Starr gave her immunity for perjuring herself, but Starr decided that the rape she suffered wasn't relevant to his case, since she stood fast in her statements that Clinton had not bribed her to stay quiet.
She had all kinds of good reasons for not wanting to make a public accusation. According to Wikipedia, she told Paula Jones' investigators,
quote:
“[ I]t was just a horrible horrible thing,” ... she “wouldn’t relive it for anything.” ... “[Y]ou can’t get to him, and I’m not going to ruin my good name to do it… there’s just absolutely no way anyone can get to him, he’s just too vicious."
It is precisely because of the kind of thing that Juanita Broaddrick went through that feminists in the intervening years started saying that people should be believed when they claim to have been sexually assaulted. When Clinton raped Broaddrick in 1978, acquaintance rape wasn't an acknowledged occurrence; the phrase hadn't even become current. Had she told more people that Clinton had raped her, had she gone to the police, there was a very good chance that they would have said it was her fault for inviting him into her motel room in the first place. In the 1990s, this was still happening.
You're saying people in the 1990s should have had the ideas and awareness they have today, ideas and awareness that were only developed more recently because of the horrors victims suffered in the wake of being raped.
Yeah, I voted for Bill Clinton in 1992, because I thought his policies seemed slightly more acceptable than George H.W. Bush's. The political judgement I made then, however faulty it may have been, does not automatically invalidate political judgements I make 24 years later.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
So, Donald Trump repeatedly walked in on naked underage girls and we didn't hear about it until the October before an election?
Not going to comment on the allegation itself, but recent events do not make this kind of defence particularly compelling.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
What Ruth said.
What Hillary supporters have and are saying is simply:
1. Rape allegations, no matter against whom, should be heard.
2. Rape allegations, no matter against whom, should be investigated.
3. Hillary Clinton has not been accused of rape.
re: #3: Whether or not Hillary was kind & nice or mean & nasty to her husband's accusers is entirely irrelevant. One can understand how much more complicated relationally the situation is when it is your own spouse than it is in a case where you are a dispassionate observer. I'm quite happy to give her-- or any other innocent spouse in that scenario-- a free pass, just as I give a free pass to parents whose child has just been murdered to cry "execute him!" even if they were passionate anti-death penalty advocates previously. We are human, and our human relationships will get in the way of perspective. That doesn't give Bill a free pass, but it should give her a pass when the only crime she's accused of is being "nasty" to another woman.
re: #2: It seems to me that Bill's past sexual indiscretions, including this one, have been well investigated. Broderick's recanting was a compelling factor in Bill's not being prosecuted in the case. That may or may not be a just outcome-- we'll never know. That happens in rape cases-- sadly, it can often be hard to prove, and people can, as noted, give false testimony/recant for a number of reasons, some valid, some not. But I'm satisfied that it was investigated, and willing to hold the cognitive dissonance of not knowing as a necessary byproduct of the world we live in, and an innocent-until-proven-guilty judicial system.
Similarly, the very serious rape allegations against Trump should be investigated with the same level of very very intense scrutiny Bill was subjected to. And yes, in the "court of public opinion" I am inclined to believe the accusations vs Trump more than those against Bill. That should not surprise anyone. We all tend to believe the people we like more than the people we dislike. Which is why we attempt to have a judicial system that weeds out jurors who have close relationships, positively or negatively, with either the defendant or the victim. So, sure, I have a bias against Trump-- based on a lot of the things he's said. But that's again, why we have a judicial system in place that is supposed to have some checks and balances in place-- although there is good reason to doubt that it's working as well as it ought.
re: #1: Broderick should be heard. She wasn't heard in the past for the reasons Ruth mentioned. She should be heard now. If her accusations cannot be proven one way or the other (as appears to be the case), we cannot expect Bill to be convicted (either legally or in the court of public opinion). But that doesn't mean we can't support her and also give her the benefit of the doubt. Again, it is possible-- necessary in fact-- to carry some level of cognitive dissonance when dealing with these sorts of situations.
--------------------
"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
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And given that many tiny-fingered, orange votes were driven by imaginary concerns, it would be difficult to address all the issues.
How about this point from the Politico article.
There were fewer tiny-fingered, orange votes cast in Michigan than there were W votes cast in the same state in 2004. W lost, Trump won. Clinton didn't need Obama turnout, she could have won with Kerry turn out.
True, there were a lot of factors at play. But I really hope that we don't look back at this and discover that one factor was the Clinton campaign doing a c-student job of organization.
Oh, I think it's clear that was one factor, along with just the general cluelessness/arrogance of our liberal echo-chamber in general. There were many factors-- a real s**t-storm of them, in fact. There's the apparent Russian meddling, there's Comey's probably treasonous meddling, there's the DNC incompetence and corruption re Sanders, there's the GOP incompetence and corruption that led to Trump's getting the nomination... need I go on? Please say no.
I don't know that Clinton's poor campaign organization tops that list. There are others that grate harder for me. But sure, that was a factor.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Pangolin Guerre
Shipmate
# 18686
|
Posted
This is a non sequitur, given the direction in which the discussion has moved, but this is the most appropriate place for my public self-flagellation.
On a different thread, I wrote that I thought that Trump may well not finish his term, for reasons legal, or personal (boredom or being overwhelmed), and that in that there was some hope. Now that we see the composition of his cabinet, I realise that even if I am correct, it matters not a damn. We're screwed, regardless of who is at the helm. Climate change deniers, evolution deniers, homophobes... it really doesn't matter whether Trump is POTUS or not.
If someone would be so kind as to pass me a scourge.
Posts: 758 | From: 30 arpents de neige | Registered: Nov 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pangolin Guerre:
Now that we see the composition of his cabinet, I realise that even if I am correct, it matters not a damn. We're screwed, regardless of who is at the helm. Climate change deniers, evolution deniers, homophobes... it really doesn't matter whether Trump is POTUS or not.
As I understand it, if Trump resigned and Pence came into power, he could change the cabinet. The real reason the situation is messed up is that Pence and Ryan, the next in line, would not be a good thing either.
--------------------
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
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
I can't imagine the Predator Elect resigning. Would that not make him a Loser, like Nixon? No no, he may well hole up in his penthouse in New York and let others do all the work. But he'd want to be able to show up at White House dinners, shake the hands of celebs, make incoherent speeches -- all the stuff that he would really enjoy.
I would be willing to believe that Ivanka and Pence would keep him from molesting women or starting a nuclear wars, simply because it would be bad for business. But anything else? Yes. Go look at Kansas, to see what devout conservative principles can do for a polity when applied energetically.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
As I understand it, if Trump resigned and Pence came into power, he could change the cabinet. The real reason the situation is messed up is that Pence and Ryan, the next in line, would not be a good thing either.
Back around 1973 the same was said about Nixon -- if he's impeached, we're stuck with Agnew. That problem solved itself, and we got rid of both of them.
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pangolin Guerre:
This is a non sequitur, given the direction in which the discussion has moved, but this is the most appropriate place for my public self-flagellation.
On a different thread, I wrote that I thought that Trump may well not finish his term, for reasons legal, or personal (boredom or being overwhelmed), and that in that there was some hope. Now that we see the composition of his cabinet, I realise that even if I am correct, it matters not a damn. We're screwed, regardless of who is at the helm. Climate change deniers, evolution deniers, homophobes... it really doesn't matter whether Trump is POTUS or not.
If someone would be so kind as to pass me a scourge.
Sadly, I am inclined to agree. And Pence's policies are every bit as dreadful as Trump's.
The only slight advantage to a Pence administration would be that I think there will be far less chance that Pence would get us into a nuclear war impulsively at 3 am some night over some perceived slight. Doesn't mean that we won't get into a nuclear war-- just that it won't happen impulsively and personal insults won't be as much of a trigger.
That might allow us to sleep thru the night and stop looking up every time we hear a loud noise, But other than that, yeah, I think you're quite right. We're s*****d.
I had the wise foresight to marry a Canadian 20 years ago, so I may have a hide-hole if the wind currents from our nuclear winter prove favorable...
--------------------
"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
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
Speaking of Nuclear War, how long before the U.S. is at war with some nation? I'm thinking the first month at the rate Trump is going.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Wesley J
Silly Shipmate
# 6075
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Speaking of Nuclear War, how long before the U.S. is at war with some nation? I'm thinking the first month at the rate Trump is going.
Or even before he takes office...
Paywall, Humble Mate. Can't see a thing apart from the headline.
The story is on all news sites though - Chinese nick US underwater drone.
--------------------
Be it as it may: Wesley J will stay. --- Euthanasia, that sounds good. An alpine neutral neighbourhood. Then back to Britain, all dressed in wood. Things were gonna get worse. (John Cooper Clarke)
Posts: 7354 | From: The Isles of Silly | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
I find myself cross referencing odd news stories nowadays. This one, for example: Human ancestors
It is curious, isn't it, how males always interpret groups with one dominant male and a number of mates as if they would be that lucky individual, whereas they wuld probably be one of the discontented hanging around and perpetually challenging the dominant male to take over?
And boy, does that behaviour seem to resurface in places it really shouldn't.
God, why on earth did you pick that sort of being to become us? And how on earth do we sort it out?
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
It's a mind-blowing article. First, can they really tell the sex of a hominid by its footprints? Stride length, I can believe, and therefore likely range of height. Weight, if the impressions are good enough. I doubt you can sex someone with much confidence from 30m of footprints, especially is they belong to a species we know so little about that our type specimen, Lucy, is described in the article as now apparently an outlier.
But even if they are right about the three females, as you say, why assume it's one male and three mates? Why not two parents and three children? Or five members of a larger group? Or an infant queen, her female bodyguard, two of the royal astrologers, and an amusing uncle visiting from down the Rift Valley.
Last night, QI, the British trick question show, had one about wolves: who leads the wolf pack? Wrong answer: the alpha male. It seems that most wolf packs are family groups, and as far as they have leaders it is the parents. The ethologist who came up with 'alpha male' based it on a study of a captive group, and has spent the rest of his career trying to persuade people he was wrong, but no one listens. The concept of the alpha male is very dear to some; very useful.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
It is curious, isn't it, how males always interpret groups with one dominant male and a number of mates as if they would be that lucky individual, whereas they wuld probably be one of the discontented hanging around and perpetually challenging the dominant male to take over?
{tangent alert}
I saw a TV program about mating season among elk or some related species.
It turns out that while the physical fights for dominance are in progress, the smaller and younger males mate with the females. I assume the fighting males don't realize what's going on.
{/tangent alert}
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
God knows we have proven, over time, that drawing analogies from other animals to us is not especially helpful. All that stuff about Social Darwinism comes to mind. And that is even assuming that the original observations and theorizing were correct in the first place.
As (hopefully) rational beings with the (optimistically anticipated) ability to reason and (please Lord) alter our behavior, we must hope that the better side of Tiny Fingers' nature will prevail. There is little evidence of that so far, but it's
not for want of exhortation and advice.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Trump says "Let them keep it!" after China agrees to return drone he had previously accused them of stealing.
Umm, good job looking out for America's interests?
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Trump says "Let them keep it!" after China agrees to return drone he had previously accused them of stealing.
Umm, good job looking out for America's interests?
Just as he will say "Let them keep it!" when Russia annexes what's left of Ukraine, and maybe Lithuania and Estonia for good measure.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
Baby Fanta really needs a time out.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
David Goode
Shipmate
# 9224
|
Posted
The Electoral College votes were interesting. After all that talk of electors refusing to vote for Trump, he only lost two votes. But Clinton managed to lose four of hers, double the loss; not to mention another three electors who were ruled out of order because they failed to vote for her when bound to do so.
Posts: 654 | From: Cambridge | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by David Goode:
The Electoral College votes were interesting. After all that talk of electors refusing to vote for Trump, he only lost two votes. But Clinton managed to lose four of hers, double the loss; not to mention another three electors who were ruled out of order because they failed to vote for her when bound to do so.
Do we know who they were going to vote for? There were some last-minute hail-Mary plays where Clinton electors would vote for a moderate (or at least sane) Republican in hopes of pulling in at least 37 of the republican trump electors
--------------------
"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
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by David Goode:
[qb] Do we know who they were going to vote for? There were some last-minute hail-Mary plays where Clinton electors would vote for a moderate (or at least sane) Republican in hopes of pulling in at least 37 of the republican trump electors
AIUI the four electors who were expected to vote for Hillary voted for other Democrats, such as Sanders. There was also one vote for an Indian chief.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
There was also a Democratic elector in Hawaii who did not vote for Hillary.
There were two Republican electors in Texas who did not vote for Trump.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by David Goode:
The Electoral College votes were interesting. After all that talk of electors refusing to vote for Trump, he only lost two votes. But Clinton managed to lose four of hers, double the loss; not to mention another three electors who were ruled out of order because they failed to vote for her when bound to do so.
I didn't look at the results closely (read: at all) but I know one of the electors from the great state of Washington had said before the plebescite that she wasn't going to vote for Hils no matter what the popular vote in the state.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
David Goode
Shipmate
# 9224
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by David Goode:
The Electoral College votes were interesting. After all that talk of electors refusing to vote for Trump, he only lost two votes. But Clinton managed to lose four of hers, double the loss; not to mention another three electors who were ruled out of order because they failed to vote for her when bound to do so.
I didn't look at the results closely (read: at all) but I know one of the electors from the great state of Washington had said before the plebescite that she wasn't going to vote for Hils no matter what the popular vote in the state.
Ah, yes, American democracy. Con hundreds of millions of ordinary people into imagining that they are voting for the next president when they are in fact only voting for the 538 special people, themselves appointed on slates by the very parties standing in the election, who will choose the president; and then, when any of the special people vote the wrong way, discount that vote and replace the recalcitrant voter with another voter who can be relied upon to vote the "right" way.
Posts: 654 | From: Cambridge | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Goldfish Stew
Shipmate
# 5512
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by David Goode:
Ah, yes, American democracy. Con hundreds of millions of ordinary people into imagining that they are voting for the next president when they are in fact only voting for the 538 special people, themselves appointed on slates by the very parties standing in the election, who will choose the president; and then, when any of the special people vote the wrong way, discount that vote and replace the recalcitrant voter with another voter who can be relied upon to vote the "right" way.
And remind me again how the British elect their head of state?
--------------------
.
Posts: 2405 | From: Aotearoa/New Zealand | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Goldfish Stew: quote:
And remind me again how the British elect their head of state?
Hey, *we* got it right in 1688 ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif) The saving in election costs alone...
BTW, if you're in Aotearoa she's *your* head of state too.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
David Goode
Shipmate
# 9224
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Goldfish Stew:
And remind me again how the British elect their head of state?
Not a meaningful comparison.
Having said that, I'd do away with the monarchy today if it was up to me.
Posts: 654 | From: Cambridge | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
David Goode: quote:
I'd do away with the monarchy today if it was up to me.
You *want* a circus like the American Presidential election every umpty years over here?
Also... the Royal Family are not perfect (far from it), but are you willing to take the risk of ending up with Nigel Farrago (or someone even worse, if such a thing be possible) instead? Because I'm not, which is why I am (reluctantly) not a republican.
(with apologies to US shipmates for the tangent)
[ 21. December 2016, 10:47: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
David Goode
Shipmate
# 9224
|
Posted
It doesn't have to be an American style circus. Plenty of other republics manage to do presidential elections without descending to that.
And, yes, it's a risk worth taking, I think.
Posts: 654 | From: Cambridge | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
David--
quote:
Originally posted by David Goode:
quote:
Originally posted by Goldfish Stew:
And remind me again how the British elect their head of state?
Not a meaningful comparison.
Having said that, I'd do away with the monarchy today if it was up to me.
All right. Go ahead and fix your gov't. Then report back to us American Shipmates, and we'll take your ideas under advisement.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
Vomit warning
I watched a little bit of Bill O'Reilly last night and there was a discussion about Electoral College Reform. The argument was interesting. If the EC was replaced by a simple popular vote majority, this would disenfranchise the white majority. It would also mean that candidates would concentrate on the large urban centres where most of the votes are and ignore the rural areas which have solid white majorities. The discussion also noted that a clear majority of white men have deserted the GOP. It characterised the 'liberal press campaign' for EC reform as essentially racist, based on the argument that the white majority could not be trusted to do the right thing.
I could hardly believe my ears. The EC was defended on racist and sexist grounds on the basis that the campaign for reform was itself racist. And Hillary Clinton's popular vote majority was 'blamed' on California!
All done with a straight face.
--------------------
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
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
Here is a map showing which states were won by Hillary and which by Trump.
From what I have read, voters were much more influenced by economic issues than race. Economic issues affect people's everyday lives, while race is usually secondary.
The economy is in bad shape, and Washington doesn't realize it. They point to a low unemployment rate while ignoring the fact that there is a lower percentage of people with jobs now than there has been for more than thirty years. Many people have given up trying to find jobs. The economy is growing at a rate of about one percent a year, and the population is increasing at a higher rate.
I just read in our local newspaper that the Volvo truck factory, which is located about twenty miles from me, is laying off its second shift workers. A while back they laid off the third shift. Aside from the local hardship this will cause (especially in an area which is not prosperous at the best of times), it is an indicator of the state of the national economy. The layoffs have come because of a reduced demand for trucks. Since trucks are used to transport goods, the reduced demand means that fewer goods are being transported. Presumably the people who used to produce these goods are now unemployed or underemployed.
If the Democrats had kept their eyes open to the real economic situation, they might have won the election.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by David Goode:
quote:
Originally posted by Goldfish Stew:
And remind me again how the British elect their head of state?
Not a meaningful comparison.
Having said that, I'd do away with the monarchy today if it was up to me.
The "Head Of State" issue is a red-herring, because the Queen doesn't actually have any real power to enact policy.
Suffice to note that, under the Westminister system, a party CAN actually win a majority government without even winning a plurality of the votes, ie. they can get the majority of available seats in the Commons, even thougn some other party beat them in the popular vote. This has happened numerous times that I can think of in provincial elections, including at least one time when it benefitted the party I support.
So, no, not much better than the Electoral College system, in terms of accurately representing the will of the majority.
[ 21. December 2016, 13:22: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
And how many people voted for Theresa May?
--------------------
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
|
|
David Goode
Shipmate
# 9224
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
And how many people voted for Theresa May?
Another meaningless comparison. In this country we vote for a local member of parliament (MP), in geographic constituencies with more or less equal numbers of voters. The party with the most MPs elected wins, and forms the government, either on its own, or in coalition with other parties if it doesn't have an overall majority of MPs, and then chooses its prime minister. By convention, that's the person who also happens to be the party's elected leader, though it needn't be.
Posts: 654 | From: Cambridge | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
How is it meaningless? The United States chooses it's president the way it chooses it's president which is the way it's chosen it's president for over 200 years and that has NEVER been by overall popular vote. Saying that all other democracies choose their governments based on popular vote alone is pure and utter nonsense. You can't live in the UK complain about Trump not winning the popular vote and be OK with the SNP having more members of parliament than the UKIP or Lib-Dems. Don't give me that crap about Scotland being its own separate kingdom either. Scotland and England have far more similarities than New York and Nebraska.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
