US Elections -- The Wrath of Khan

[Ormond]

2 hours ago, DanteGabriel said:

Another sitting Republican member of Congress has declared he won't vote for Trump -- Pennsylvania rep Charlie Dent.

http://www.mcall.com/news/local/elections/mc-pa-charlie-dent-vote-trump-clinton-20160803-story.html

So far it's one guy who's retiring and two swing state representatives, so low-hanging fruit. But I expect we'll see more, especially as more primaries conclude and as Maximum Leader continues to open his sphincters in public.

The Senate is part of the Congress, and Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska declared way back in February that he would not vote for Trump in the general election, and as far as I know he has not changed that position. And he is not retiring nor from a "swing state" (though Nebraska does include the "swing district" where Clinton could possibly pick up one electoral vote.)

[James Arryn]

1 minute ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Oh jfc, how did i know someone would come in with the rapesplaining/rape excusing/rape apology bullshit.  

Look, if you want to point out that he has not been convicted, comment on the fact that he has been accused.  Bringing up things like the case not being strong (they hardly ever are, rape is difficult to prove) or that some former coworker might think it's a relationship gone sour (rape allegations are so often explained away this way) is stomach churching.  Stop contributing to this aspect of rape culture, please.  

To be clear, I know nothing about Assange's case and oppose what he's trying to do politically...but are you suggesting guilty by accusation when it comes to rape? Even understanding the sad realities of getting rape convictions, the idea that we ought to assume guilt or ~ guilt is problematic for me. The fact that rape is hard to prove ought not change that.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Just now, James Arryn said:

To be clear, I know nothing about Assange's case and oppose what he's trying to do politically...but are you suggesting guilty by accusation when it comes to rape? Even understanding the sad realities of getting rape convictions, the idea that we ought to assume guilt or ~ guilt is problematic for me. The fact that rape is hard to prove ought not change that.

Thank you.

[DanteGabriel]

2 minutes ago, Ormond said:

The Senate is part of the Congress, and Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska declared way back in February that he would not vote for Trump in the general election, and as far as I know he has not changed that position. And he is not retiring nor from a "swing state" (though Nebraska does include the "swing district" where Clinton could possibly pick up one electoral vote.)

It's a fair point to remember Sasse took a stand against Trump while Trump was still riding pretty high. I guess I tend to forget him in these calculations because I don't track him as part of the current movement that seemed to start up as the DNC closed and Trump launched his courageous assault on grieving military parents.

[IamMe90]

8 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Oh jfc, how did i know someone would come in with the rapesplaining/rape excusing/rape apology bullshit.  

Look, if you want to point out that he has not been convicted, comment on the fact that he has been accused.  Bringing up things like the case not being strong (they hardly ever are, rape is difficult to prove) or that some former coworker might think it's a relationship gone sour (rape allegations are so often explained away this way) is stomach churching.  Stop contributing to this aspect of rape culture, please.  

I think you're misconstruing the order of events here. It is not:

Person A) "Julian Assange was accused of rape." 

Notone: "But he hasn't been convincted!" 

It is actually more along the lines of: 

Person A) "No one should take "the rapist" [i.e, Julian Assange] seriously..."

Notone: "He hasn't been convicted, though. Here are the specifics of the case as they're known currently:...." 

Do I support Assange? No. Do we need the specifics of alternate theories of the case? Maybe, maybe not. But it's entirely fair to point out that Assange hasn't been convicted of any crimes when people bandy about loaded terms like "the rapist" freely, as if they are fact. 

If it's your view that one must point out that someone is accused of rape whenever they rebuke a person for calling someone a rapist in the absence of a conviction, despite the fact that it was perfectly clear from the previous posts that the person has been accused, in order to not contribute to rape culture, your definition of rape culture is absurdly broad. 

[Swordfish]

15 hours ago, BloodRider said:

Swordfish is doing the Trump apologetic two-step.  It's all the rage.  It's the dance for hte men who can't justify their vote, so they shit on everyone else's reasons for voting for anyone else, and allemande right when asked to come up with positive Trump traits or actions.

This is opposed to the Trump tail-chase twirl, where you believe the Trump spin so much your are so dizzy as to think he isn't really all that bad, not really a racist, and actually might do some good.

 

I have literally no idea what any of this is meant to mean.  I have never been a trump supporter, and nothing here is at all indicative of anything I've ever posted on this board.

if anyone in this thread is shitting on people's reasons for voting for 'someone else' it's the HRC supporters.

 

15 hours ago, TrackerNeil said:

So Clinton should alienate powerful people?

 

I have made no comment on what HRC should or should not do.  Please do not put words in my mouth, even if it makes it easier for you to form an 'argument' out of your canned talking points.

 

Quote

Call me a sellout if you will, but it seems to me that you don't get much done in the way of policy without working with everyone of power. It's nice to fantasize about flipping off the wealthy and creating a socialist utopia, but in the real world rich people have influence, and it's better to have them inside the tent pissing out than outside pissing in.

All probably true.  I'm just pointing out that the position of supporters of HRC appears to have 'evolved' now that the billionaires are supporting her, and not 'the other guy'.

Which is pretty predictable.

 

13 hours ago, LongRider said:

For one, I believe that the machines can be compromised in various ways.  One doesn't need the web.  I have heard reports of machines voting for one party when the voter voted for the other party.  Also, I think that voting results can be compromised ad the data needs to be transferred out of the machine.  Now, you should rightly say, where is your proof of this, and I'm afraid I'm remembering things I've read over the years about the machines, so it may not the type of proof you want and I acknowledge this.

Sure.  I'm not arguing that voting machines can be hacked.  I'm just not sure paper is less hackable.

 

[Dr. Pepper]

2 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

To be clear, I know nothing about Assange's case and oppose what he's trying to do politically...but are you suggesting guilty by accusation when it comes to rape? Even understanding the sad realities of getting rape convictions, the idea that we ought to assume guilt or ~ guilt is problematic for me. The fact that rape is hard to prove ought not change that.

What?  No, I'm suggesting people stop trying to explain away rape charges by saying the case isn't strong or that someone who knows someone thinks it could be a relationship gone sour.  I explicitly noted that it's relevant to point out that the person is thus far only accused, not yet convicted.

 

[mormont]

Let's drop the ins and outs of the Assange case, unless it somehow directly relates to the election. Start a thread on that if you like (though there have been several already). For now, I think it suffices to note that in relation to the Wikileaks stuff about Clinton, Assange claims to be concerned about extradition to the US as a result of the rape charge he faces in Sweden.

[Maithanet]

8 minutes ago, Ormond said:

The Senate is part of the Congress, and Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska declared way back in February that he would not vote for Trump in the general election, and as far as I know he has not changed that position. And he is not retiring nor from a "swing state" (though Nebraska does include the "swing district" where Clinton could possibly pick up one electoral vote.)

I feel like there are three levels of non-support for Trump that we are seeing from Republicans:

1.  Refuse to endorse him. 

2.  Refuse to endorse and say you will not vote for him.

3.  Say you will vote for Clinton to stop Trump. 

 

There are a fair few republicans who are in the first category.  Senators Sasse and Flake are in the second category, but they have also said people shouldn't vote for Hillary.  This week we saw the first Congressional Republicans actually say they will vote for Clinton to prevent a Trump presidency.  That is actually a pretty big deal.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

2 minutes ago, mormont said:

Let's drop the ins and outs of the Assange case, unless it somehow directly relates to the election. Start a thread on that if you like (though there have been several already). For now, I think it suffices to note that in relation to the Wikileaks stuff about Clinton, Assange claims to be concerned about extradition to the US as a result of the rape charge he faces in Sweden.

That's not actually correct. He is not concerned about extradition to the US "as a result of" the rape investigation in Sweden (as I understand it, Sweden has not formally "charged" him with any crimes, it's an investigation still).  His claim is that he's concerned about extradition to the US because of the US military documents and video Wikileaks released about US military actions in Iraq. 

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

On 8/3/2016 at 4:24 AM, mormont said:

I think that's not unexpected, since you offered few indications about how you were using the term. But it seems to me you're wrong, and that the statement is straightforwardly controversial for the reasons I've already noted: that it singles out one particular cause of absence from work that applies only to female workers.

You appear to want to use the term in some pseudo-intellectual divorced-from-context higher-realm-of-pure-reason way. But this isn't maths we're talking about, it's people. In the nature of things, there is simply no way to make a statement about pregnancy that divorces it from the context of gender politics. It would seem to me that the real 'intellectual dishonesty' here would be to pretend that we can, just for the purpose of finding an interpretation that excuses the self-evident misogyny of the comment.

It's pretty clear you're not actually interested in a discussion of this topic. If you were, you would have made an actual attempt to respond to my post, as opposed to quoting the first sentence only and then engaging in this kind of vaguely insulting non-response. 

Tellingly, you've made no attempt to demonstrate that the claim is untrue - ie: that what he is saying is controversial as a matter of fact. All you're doing is repeating the same claim you've made before - that merely identifying certain facts about the world as true, when they are true - is objectionable or misogynist. I've never heard a good argument for why this is true, and you haven't provided any argument at all.

The idea that somehow true factual statements about the world are rendered factually controversial merely because those factual statements are offered in the context of an actually factually controversial claim is facially bogus. As an obvious example: The fatal shooting of Michael Brown by Officer Darren Wilson is factually controversial. Now, tend to think it's not actually that controversial, as the preponderance of the evidence suggests it was a justifiable homicide in self-defense, and the forensic evidence demonstrates that a significant number of initial eyewitnesses were either mistaken or simply lied about what happened. But I am happy to concede there is more than enough wiggle room here for reasonable people to offer some kind of good faith disagreement. But simply because the event itself is controversial does not mean that all factual statements about the event are controversial. For example, the statement that "Officer Darren Wilson fatally shot Michael Brown" is not a factually controversial statement, even though the broader "context" of the event is subject to factual controversy.

The idea that somehow ALL statements about a controversial incident are therefore somehow rendered controversial merely by their proximity to the underlying incident is both fundamentally mistaken and obviously problematic. Whether intentionally or not, it threatens to completely obfuscate any quest for truth by placing in doubt facts which are not actually in doubt. 

[DanteGabriel]

Let me first say that no one should be giving Melania Trump any shit about nude modeling 20 years ago. It's straight-up slut-shaming and I've said as much to friends and acquaintances who've posted such things. I wouldn't even try to attack Trump for any perceived hypocrisy with his newfound objections to porn, because there are literally thousands of better things to attack him for. I will limit myself to hoping that the false prophets in the religious right, who have soiled themselves by allying with a thrice married casino mogul who lies, cheats, and brags about it, are squirming and exquisitely uncomfortable looking their own hoodwinked devotees in the eye.

That said, Politico has a pretty damning story that suggests strongly that Melania Trump was abusing her visa and working illegally when said nude photos were taken.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/melania-trump-immigration-donald-226648

This comes a few days after they scrubbed a Trump website thatfalsely claimed she had an architecture degree. So there you have it: Donald Trump, for his third marriage, imported uneducated foreign labor illegally, to do a job regular Americans wouldn't. Just like his resort workers.

[Dr. Pepper]

I was just making a post about that, Dante.  I hadn't wanted to comment at first since the original NY Post article was almost explicitly about slut shaming Melania.  I still feel a little uncomfortable about the whole thing because it's all based off something meant to slut shame the spouse of a political figure, which is disgusting.  

But this political figure is also running on an anti-undocumented worker platform, which brings up issues of hypocrisy.  I think Melania's modeling issue is probably a lot less damning (and also really icky just based on how it's being reported) than the fact that Trump continues to create products outside of America and also continues to bring in outside workers on visas despite a huge part of his campaign about doing it all in America with Americans.  

[TrackerNeil]

28 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

 

I have literally no idea what any of this is meant to mean.  I have never been a trump supporter, and nothing here is at all indicative of anything I've ever posted on this board.

if anyone in this thread is shitting on people's reasons for voting for 'someone else' it's the HRC supporters.

 

 

I have made no comment on what HRC should or should not do.  Please do not put words in my mouth, even if it makes it easier for you to form an 'argument' out of your canned talking points.

 

All probably true.  I'm just pointing out that the position of supporters of HRC appears to have 'evolved' now that the billionaires are supporting her, and not 'the other guy'.

Which is pretty predictable.

 

Sure.  I'm not arguing that voting machines can be hacked.  I'm just not sure paper is less hackable.

 

I think someone needs a hug. 

DanteGabriel, hug Swordfish, please.

[Castel]

10 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

Wow. Events have shown Paul Ryan to be a huge coward, but he is really topping himself now. Will he really just meekly accept Trump pissing on his shoes? He isn't as old as McCain, his race isn't as difficult, and he has better fundraising. He really doesn't need this. I guess the question now, is there any words or actions of Trump's that could cause Ryan to withdraw his nomination? I guess now we just need some video of him acting as Trump's butler, like Christie did.

 

Can panicked Republicans rid themselves of Trump? Here are 7 options.
Spoiler alert: None of those options are good.

http://www.vox.com/2016/8/3/12368148/trump-drop-out-republicans

In the face of an utter narcissist incapable of any break everyone looks like a coward. Ryan is the Speaker and did the pragmatic thing and supported the nominee of his party. Now that said nominee is being almost suicidally unconcerned with just about anything and anyone Ryan looks weak for having done it. But Trump could have theoretically been sane and taken the incredible honor and duty entrusted to him seriously.

 

29 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

 

All probably true.  I'm just pointing out that the position of supporters of HRC appears to have 'evolved' now that the billionaires are supporting her, and not 'the other guy'.

Which is pretty predictable.

Clinton supporters had a problem with Warren Buffet, who has been for things like higher taxes for years? 

Hell, I've seen some Bernie types who'd talk about him positively. 

 

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

7 minutes ago, Castel said:

Clinton supporters had a problem with Warren Buffet, who has been for things like higher taxes for years? 

Hell, I've seen some Bernie types who'd talk about him positively. 

 

I suspect Swordfish was referring to people like Meg Whitman, who was an avowed Republican billionaire who is now supporting Hillary. 

[Castel]

3 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

I suspect Swordfish was referring to people like Meg Whitman, who was an avowed Republican billionaire who is now supporting Hillary. 

Ah, that's fair enough I guess.

[IamMe90]

5 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

I suspect Swordfish was referring to people like Meg Whitman, who was an avowed Republican billionaire who is now supporting Hillary. 

I'm pleased with the story insofar as it signals that key figures related to the GOP are defecting from supporting Trump, and how that may relate to his overall chances in the general election, but I definitely wasn't pleased to read that she'd be actively fundraising for her. It's not only bad optics, but clearly a lot of people (such as myself) have legitimate grievances about the extent that the uber wealthy are involved in politics. It seems that some people here are actually happy that HRC is receiving the boost in funding, yet I have to wonder how they feel about the extent to which the Koch brothers are involved in political fundraising.  

[mormont]

25 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

It's pretty clear you're not actually interested in a discussion of this topic.

I'm certainly not interested in any further discussion of it. My response and my argument are clear. It doesn't appear that you understood them, which is a shame, but not something I'm inclined to take further.

[aceluby]

47 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

 

All probably true.  I'm just pointing out that the position of supporters of HRC appears to have 'evolved' now that the billionaires are supporting her, and not 'the other guy'.

Which is pretty predictable.

 

You still have yet to actually state what position you are actually pointing out, so it's hard to argue how predictable this vague position you haven't defined and if someone tries it's 'putting words into your mouth'.