US Elections: Groper in Chief

[The Marquis de Leech]

9 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

Apparently not as much as you are into meaningless trendy internet buzz phrases like "false equivalency"

If it was 2013 you would said "strawman!"

And if this were 1940, you'd be saying "that Hitler guy... he's racist. But that Churchill guy is also racist. So both sides are racist, so it doesn't really matter who wins the war."

[HoodedCrow]

Willfully downplaying the problem of false equivalency is the same as not understanding it.

[felice]

26 minutes ago, Ariadne23 said:

So, now that the election is over, here is how I feel about this: staying married to, and defending, a man who she knows abuses his authority to act like an occasionally well over the legal line pick-up artist seriously damages her credibility as a feminist.

On the other hand, I think the bar for insisting that someone has to get a divorce irrespective of their personal feelings about their partner needs to be pretty damn high. Yes, Bill probably behaved unacceptably, but that's not Hillary's fault, and it put her in a no-win situation. And there's a huge difference between someone behaving badly and trying to hide it, and behaving badly and boasting about to the entire world while getting tens of millions of Americans to endorse him and his behaviour. There are men and boys going around imitating Trump right now, and I don't think it's likely that Bill inspired much in the way of copycat behaviour.

[LongRider]

30 minutes ago, Fez said:

Its Kushner's revenge. That's Trump's son-in-law. Christie led the prosecution against Kushner's father 12 years ago. When the inner circle didn't think Trump would win, Christie was allowed to lead the transition; it was a shit assignment that wouldn't mean anything after Clinton won. But now that Trump's won its one of the most important tasks around for the incoming administration, far too nice a plum to let Christie have anymore.

Thanks!  The whole family is just filled to the brim with such nice folks!  Christie is an ass and deserves the demotion though.  He must just be loving how the trials of his former staff members turned out.  Think he'll visit them in prison?  Hope he has an indictment for himself coming soon.

[Dr. Pepper]

2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Folks the SCOTUS with Scalia ruled in favor of marriage equality.  Trump will not, even with multiple SCOTUS appointments, find rolling back marriage equality easy.

Not easy, but there are ways that it can become effectively null.  Let's not forget all of the anti-abortion laws that swept large swaths of the country.  The Supreme Court made a ruling in favor of women and Roe v. Wade, but before then, abortion was nearly impossible for millions of women due to petty laws and closed clinics.  I'm not sure why states wouldn't try working their way into screwing over equal marriage, starting probably with these 'religious liberty' bills that allow people to discriminate. 

Further, there's more than just marriage when it comes to LGBTQ+ concerns.  There are anti-discrimination measures needed for things like housing and employment, not to mention these asinine and horrible so-called bathroom billss.  For families, there continue to be lots of complications for same sex couples concerning custody and legal parentage.  Let's not even get started on foster care and adoption by same sex couples or even LGBT individuals.  It was only this year that the last state was prevented from banning same sex couples, but it can easily make it's way up to the Supreme Court and a Trump/Pence stacked court would fuck over thousands of families and children.  

So, let's not brush it off like we have nothing to worry about, please.

[LongRider]

5 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

I'm not sure why states wouldn't try working their way into screwing over equal marriage, starting probably with these 'religious liberty' bills that allow people to discriminate. 

Pence tried that in Indiana and who's to say he won't try to influence Trump on stacking the court with others of his ilk.  Religious liberty laws are really scary and dangerous. 

[Ariadne23]

3 minutes ago, felice said:

On the other hand, I think the bar for insisting that someone has to get a divorce irrespective of their personal feelings about their partner needs to be pretty damn high. Yes, Bill probably behaved unacceptably, but that's not Hillary's fault, and it put her in a no-win situation.

I disagree. Are you really sure about this? It's too much to ask that wealthy feminist politicians not stay married to rapists? And actively defend him? 

I cut the stuff about Trump because finally, finally it's not a matter of who is worse or whatever. Trump is worse. Of course. But the election's over. This is no longer a thing. And Hillary is no exemplar feminist, for all that she's done for women everywhere. I still think a person's personal life matters. If she's asking for my support as woman, and she did, I don't want to rally behind an uninspiring figure whose personal decisions are unfathomable to me when I could've been supporting Elizabeth Warren for President if Hillary had just not ran like Cheryl Mills evidently wanted.

[DunderMifflin]

34 minutes ago, R'hllor's nasty lobster said:

just because you may not grasp the meaning doesn't make them meaningless

Blurting them out in contexts where they dont belong without explanation renders them meaningless. It becomes just a thing you blurt out when you don't like something someone said.(Or you don't like the person who said it ) "False equivalency" has become that.

[Zorral]

30 minutes ago, felice said:

On the other hand, I think the bar for insisting that someone has to get a divorce irrespective of their personal feelings about their partner needs to be pretty damn high. Yes, Bill probably behaved unacceptably, but that's not Hillary's fault, and it put her in a no-win situation. And there's a huge difference between someone behaving badly and trying to hide it, and behaving badly and boasting about to the entire world while getting tens of millions of Americans to endorse him and his behaviour. There are men and boys going around imitating Trump right now, and I don't think it's likely that Bill inspired much in the way of copycat behaviour.

For what it's worth, I agree with this comment you made.

Hillary made a choice that many spouses have made, to remain married to a philandering, unfaithful partner, with whom there are children, business and very long life-time ties. To say she should not have and that disqualifies her as a feminist means -- what?  That persons thinking they have the right to make that choice for her and label her has no marriage and family experience?  Wants to tell other people what to do?

I would be, have been and continue to be far more concerned about her business dealings and neoliberal hawkish philosophies than about whether she remained/remains married to a man who humiliated her no end in front the entire world.  Unless, of course, somehow it could be proved that this -- this! -- was a primary motivator for her to believe she was entitled to be POTUS in her own right and campaign badly twice, as she's just not a natural campaigner, and lose twice.  But proving that would be mighty difficult.

 

[DraculaAD1972]

Regarding Trumps character, I thought this piece by Martin Amis was interesting. He seems less worried by Trumps attitudes to women than by other aspects of Trumps personality: 

http://harpers.org/archive/2016/08/don-the-realtor/

[OldGimletEye]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/11/11/if-you-voted-for-trump-because-hes-anti-establishment-guess-what-you-got-conned/

Quote

An organizational chart of Trump’s transition team shows it to be crawling with corporate lobbyists, representing such clients as Altria, Visa, Coca-Cola, General Electric, Verizon, HSBC, Pfizer, Dow Chemical, and Duke Energy. And K Street is positively salivating over all the new opportunities they’ll have to deliver goodies to their clients in the Trump era. Who could possibly have predicted such a thing?

The answer is, anyone who was paying attention. Look at the people Trump is considering for his Cabinet, and you won’t find any outside-the-box thinkers burning to work for the little guy. It’s a collection of Republican politicians and corporate plutocrats — not much different from who you’d find in any Republican administration.

 

[Ariadne23]

6 minutes ago, Zorral said:

For what it's worth, I agree with this comment you made.

Hillary made a choice that many spouses have made, to remain married to a philandering, unfaithful partner...

 

To be clear, I have no problem with open marriages and polyamory, or even straight up infidelity because it's none of my business. I have a problem with sexual assault.

You cannot be a feminist and condone serial sexual assault of other women. This should not be a complicated statement.

Let's not anyone put words in my mouth there because it is a pretty big distinction.

[OldGimletEye]

Oh, I know people have been worried about Trump's court appointments, which they should rightly worry.

But, around 2018 Trump also gets to make some appointments to the FED to include the chairperson.

Given Trump's idiotic comments about monetary policy, well, in his defense, they were not really dumber than what your average Republican was going around saying, that too is a bit scary.

I just hope it isn't perennial idiot David Malpass. But it probably will be.

[LongRider]

5 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/11/11/if-you-voted-for-trump-because-hes-anti-establishment-guess-what-you-got-conned/

An organizational chart of Trump’s transition team shows it to be crawling with corporate lobbyists, representing such clients as Altria, Visa, Coca-Cola, General Electric, Verizon, HSBC, Pfizer, Dow Chemical, and Duke Energy. And K Street is positively salivating over all the new opportunities they’ll have to deliver goodies to their clients in the Trump era. Who could possibly have predicted such a thing?

Can all sorts of scandals/bribes/payola be far away?  Thanks to Obama we've not had much in scandals in Washington the past 8 years.  Sounds like the ground is being plowed for scandals to me.  Let the greed begin. 

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, LongRider said:

Can all sorts of scandals/bribes/payola be far away?  Thanks to Obama we've not had much in scandals in Washington the past 8 years.  Sounds like the ground in being plowed for scandals to me.  Let the greed begin. 

Refresh my memory. But wasn't 2000 the last time the Republicans controlled everything?

And we know how that turned out.

It's gonna be good times, I tell ya.

[LongRider]

Just now, OldGimletEye said:

Refresh my memory. But wasn't 2000 the last time the Republicans controlled everything?

And we know how that turned out.

It's gonna be good times, I tell ya.

Good times?  K Street has been awfully quiet of late, seem like they're ripe for  a party.  Revitalize the K Street Project and heat up the hot tub!  The GOP is back in town boys!

[ummester]

4 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Refresh my memory. But wasn't 2000 the last time the Republicans controlled everything?

Trump isn't a normal Republican, he's on a different page economically. The Repulicans won't agree with his isolationist policy - but if he doesn't deliver on this, middle America will turn sour.

 

The media admitting they are smug idiots

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/commentary-the-unbearable-smugness-of-the-press-presidential-election-2016/

One of the best things to come out of this.

[DunderMifflin]

Can't believe CBS posted this scathing dissection of journalists 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/commentary-the-unbearable-smugness-of-the-press-presidential-election-2016/

"We diagnose them as racists in the way Dark Age clerics confused medical problems with demonic possession. Journalists, at our worst, see ourselves as a priestly caste. We believe we not only have access to the indisputable facts, but also a greater truth, a system of beliefs divined from an advanced understanding of justice."

 

"That’s the fantasy, the idea that if we mock them enough, call them racist enough, they’ll eventually shut up and get in line. It’s similar to how media Twitter works, a system where people who dissent from the proper framing of a story are attacked by mobs of smugly incredulous pundits."

 

Hardcore ninja'd

 

 

 

[OldGimletEye]

17 minutes ago, ummester said:

Trump isn't a normal Republican, he's on a different page economically. The Repulicans won't agree with his isolationist policy - but if he doesn't deliver on this, middle America will turn sour.

 

The media admitting they are smug idiots

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/commentary-the-unbearable-smugness-of-the-press-presidential-election-2016/

One of the best things to come out of this.

Meh, on some things he's different. But, on lot of things he's not that different. Under Trump we're going to get:

1. de-regulation of the Financial Industry

2. Probably repeal of the ACA.

3. Supply Side Tax Cuts, which will mainly benefit the wealthy.

4. Probably no attempt to take on Monopolies or Monopsonies.

5. Nothing on minimum wage or  the strengthening of collective bargaining rights.

Now, as I have said before, Trump's huge tax cuts, which will mainly benefit the wealthy, will generate aggregate demand which is certainly needed and will be helpful. However, there are better and more efficient ways to generate aggregate demand than tax cuts that mainly benefit the wealthy.

And some point, when nominal rates return to something that looks normal, some sort of "austerity" will need to be imposed. The natural candidate for that would be eliminating the Trump tax cuts. But, the Republicans will probably oppose that, arguing instead the need to cut things like Social Security and Medicare.

 

[ThinkerX]

1 hour ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Not easy, but there are ways that it can become effectively null.  Let's not forget all of the anti-abortion laws that swept large swaths of the country.  The Supreme Court made a ruling in favor of women and Roe v. Wade, but before then, abortion was nearly impossible for millions of women due to petty laws and closed clinics.  I'm not sure why states wouldn't try working their way into screwing over equal marriage, starting probably with these 'religious liberty' bills that allow people to discriminate. 

Further, there's more than just marriage when it comes to LGBTQ+ concerns.  There are anti-discrimination measures needed for things like housing and employment, not to mention these asinine and horrible so-called bathroom billss.  For families, there continue to be lots of complications for same sex couples concerning custody and legal parentage.  Let's not even get started on foster care and adoption by same sex couples or even LGBT individuals.  It was only this year that the last state was prevented from banning same sex couples, but it can easily make it's way up to the Supreme Court and a Trump/Pence stacked court would fuck over thousands of families and children.  

So, let's not brush it off like we have nothing to worry about, please.

I regarded most of these 'gains' as misguided or ridiculous from the outset.

What seems to be getting completely ignored on this board is that the US is NOT center-left.  Rather, it is center-right.  In that environment, such concerns will be treated with apathy at the very best, and much more likely scorn and resentment.  Ignoring this is a certain recipe for disaster, period. 

 

Concentrate on the things you can win that won't get half the populace ticked off at you.  Things like SS and Medicaid.  Regulation of the financial industry.  *GRADUAL* minimum wage hikes. Infrastructure.

The whole 'rights for LGBT' thing does little but arouse the ire of large segments of the population.

So does abortion - which get right down to it, is difficult to justify from a moral perspective.

Paid maternity leave is iffy at best. Barely doable, and a legitimate means of funding must be found at that.