Maybe Trump will not be such a terrible president. - Page 21

Emily's Cat · 17th November 2016, 06:04 PM

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

Aw, but blaming white people is all the rage now!

Well, I suppose I'm just not trendy then...

phiwum · 17th November 2016, 06:13 PM

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

George W Bush
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b020c386de2f5e
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/i...=1006032214455

Ronald Reagan
https://mic.com/articles/85379/10-re...mit#.dm0o8UsFs
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...xtreme-racist/

Nixon
http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/c...ault-on-blacks
http://gawker.com/5712014/richard-ni...an-you-thought

They weren't attacked as racist at the time, simply because it wasn't done.

Caveat: I can't find anything about Bush Sr., mostly because I can't be bothered to sift through all of the Bush Jr. stuff that google seems to think I need to see instead. It may or may not exist, I'm just not going to put in that amount of effort.

I'm sure that people have cast democrats as racist as well. Again, I'm not going to bother with the research.

Thanks for the citations. I didn't recall these persons being called racist at the time and as you've suggested, that might have to do with political etiquette.

I certainly don't think that it is particularly plausible that Bush Sr. was racist in any deep sense. He probably had some implicit racist views, as many of us do, but he was a pretty decent guy. Reagan seemed decent enough too, but he was a kinda opaque figure, an actor at heart, so I won't commit myself there.

I don't think W was racist, but I might be forgetting evidence. The obvious high point of his administration was his explicit attempt to discourage Islamophobia after 9/11.

Sabrina · 17th November 2016, 06:15 PM

Well I've finally seen some evidence of saner heads prevailing in the Trump "administration"... reportedly he is considering Mitt Romney for the Secretary of State position.

I am not, overall, a fan of Mitt Romney, but he at least brings a level of experience and level-headedness to Trump's potential cabinet that was sorely lacking thus far. I'm not fully aware of his prior positions on foreign policy, but he is at least not likely to inadvertently (or deliberately) insult foreign heads of state and is also unlikely to put up with most of Trump's bullpoop.

Trump is still an idiot, but if he can at least be brought around to considering people with actual political chops in key positions, then my mind will be eased, at least slightly.

Mumbles · 17th November 2016, 06:17 PM

Originally Posted by Sabrina

Well I've finally seen some evidence of saner heads prevailing in the Trump "administration"... reportedly he is considering Mitt Romney for the Secretary of State position.

Not a chance. Until and unless he's confirmed, don't believe it.

trustbutverify · 17th November 2016, 06:23 PM

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Well, I suppose I'm just not trendy then...

I know a certain President-elect who would disagree.

trustbutverify · 17th November 2016, 06:37 PM

Originally Posted by Sabrina

Well I've finally seen some evidence of saner heads prevailing in the Trump "administration"... reportedly he is considering Mitt Romney for the Secretary of State position.

Well, at least Romney's not a complete buffoon. So there's that.

Speaking of complete buffoons, I read Alex Jones' claims Dump made a personal call thanking him for his support. I don't know if it's true, but if it is, wow. This thing is turning into a parody of itself.

steve s · 17th November 2016, 07:36 PM

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

To be fair, there is also no proof Donald Trump did that. Quite a few women came forward after that Access Hollywood tape aired. None of them accused him of "grabbing pussy".

Jill Harth came forward years before the bus video was released, and she said he grabbed her.

Steve S

Sabrina · 17th November 2016, 07:38 PM

Originally Posted by Mumbles

Not a chance. Until and unless he's confirmed, don't believe it.

I did say it was only "reportedly"; in analyst speak that means "we aren't sure, but it's a possibility".

Belz... · 17th November 2016, 07:44 PM

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Well, I suppose I'm just not trendy then...

#EmilysCatFTW

Stacko · 17th November 2016, 07:58 PM

Michael Flynn, key aide to Donald, sat in on intel briefings while advising foreign clients.

Quote:

Retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who has reportedly been offered the role of national security adviser in Donald Trump’s White House, began receiving classified national security briefings last summer while he was also running a private consulting firm that offered “all-source intelligence support” to international clients.

Flynn’s relationship with his overseas clients is coming in for new scrutiny amid recent disclosures that two months ago, during the height of the presidential campaign, his consulting firm, the Flynn Intel Group, registered to lobby for a Dutch company owned by a wealthy Turkish businessman close to President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey.

Robert Kelley, the chief counsel to the Flynn Intel Group, read a statement from Flynn to Yahoo News on Thursday, promising that “if I return to government service, my relationship with my company will be severed, in accordance with the policy announced by President-elect Trump.”

But critics today dismissed Flynn’s pledge as “Too little, too late,” given that he began sitting in on U.S. intelligence briefings for Trump in August while working for foreign clients. Classified national security briefings are by tradition provided to the major presidential candidates and their top aides.

This administration will end up rivaling Reagan's for indictments and convictions of officials.

wareyin · 17th November 2016, 08:16 PM

Originally Posted by Stacko

Michael Flynn, key aide to Donald, sat in on intel briefings while advising foreign clients.

This administration will end up rivaling Reagan's for indictments and convictions of officials.

You think so? I predict that this administration has so many scandals, indictments, and convictions that by comparison it makes Reagan's look like Obama's.

marplots · 17th November 2016, 08:18 PM

Originally Posted by Stacko

Michael Flynn, key aide to Donald, sat in on intel briefings while advising foreign clients.

This administration will end up rivaling Reagan's for indictments and convictions of officials.

Maybe Ed Snowden will get pardoned.

Delphic Oracle · 17th November 2016, 08:21 PM

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

<snip>
Moreover, he didn't claim to assault women without their consent. He said that they would let him do it, because he was a star. In other words, he was bragging about them giving him consent.

Note: the following also potentially applies to Bill Clinton.

When a disequilibrium of power exists between the two parties and there is the presence of implied consequences (future career prospects, financial security, social ostracism, etc) you can have a situation that could be described as reluctant or coerced consent. I'm not saying I know this occurred in any given instance, nor will I wade into trying to compare this to physically violent assault.

Simply put, lack of overt objection in the face of implied consequences is not true consent.

Remember, sexual assault is not about sexual gratification for the perpetrator. It is about the overthrow of another person's will. Sex is the weapon used to impose debilitating humiliation and shame on another human being as a vehicle for validating the attacker's supremacy. It is not the goal in and of itself.

ETA: I had a former co-worker who's boss was showing her nude photos of herself. After a while this escalated to videos and eventually solicitations for sexual acts. When she described how she felt, she basically said "I wanted to tell her to stop," she paused, then continued, "but I have a mortgage...and." At this point she trailed off, looking a quite crushed. She may not have connected every dot there, but the implications are quite clear. Does the superior have to literally say "I'll fire you if you tell me no" before it crosses the line? Legally, it would be hard to make a case, of course, but legality and decency don't exactly align all the time.

Regnad Kcin · 17th November 2016, 08:23 PM

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Yes, that comment did come from Hillary, and yes, I expect that made many people very angry, because it was not specific and it was directed at a large number of people indiscriminately.

Here's what she said:

Originally Posted by Hillary

You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people — now 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive, hateful, mean-spirited rhetoric. Now some of those folks — they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America.

But the other basket — and I know this because I see friends from all over America here — I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas — as well as, you know, New York and California — but that other basket of people are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they’re just desperate for change. It doesn’t really even matter where it comes from. They don’t buy everything he says, but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won’t wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they’re in a dead end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.

It was a clunky method of making a reasonable point. As the word themselves show, she was labeling people deplorable based on their deplorable behavior (as well as, in the second paragraph, empathizing with Trump supporters who are not guilty of that behavior). Contrary to what you state, she was being quite discriminate.

marplots · 17th November 2016, 08:40 PM

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

Note: the following also potentially applies to Bill Clinton.

When a disequilibrium of power exists between the two parties and there is the presence of implied consequences (future career prospects, financial security, social ostracism, etc) you can have a situation that could be described as reluctant or coerced consent. I'm not saying I know this occurred in any given instance, nor will I wade into trying to compare this to physically violent assault.

Simply put, lack of overt objection in the face of implied consequences is not true consent.

Remember, sexual assault is not about sexual gratification for the perpetrator. It is about the overthrow of another person's will. Sex is the weapon used to impose debilitating humiliation and shame on another human being as a vehicle for validating the attacker's supremacy. It is not the goal in and of itself.

All that sounds reasonable until I start thinking about it. Then the abstraction gets away from me. For example, how do you manage to align a lack of overt objection to the part about overthrowing another person's will? If it's not sexual in nature, doesn't the attacker require objection and resistance? Otherwise, what's the point? Someone who acquiesces wouldn't meet their idea of a worthy target.

And I'm still at a loss to figure out how someone who is rich and powerful is supposed to distinguish unwanted sexual attention from wanted sexual attention, since they can't divorce themselves from their station in life. It seems they might just as easily be victimized by the "gold digger" of legend. If the instrument of control (in the gold digger case) is sex and attention itself, is that no longer a misdeed?

For me it cycles back to the "unwanted" part of the "unwanted sexual attention." But even that requires some level of honest communication. The proverbial cold shoulder, or some signal. Something. A slap on the face or a kick in the nuts would do. As would a police report. Something.

Meadmaker · 17th November 2016, 08:47 PM

Originally Posted by steve s

Jill Harth came forward years before the bus video was released, and she said he grabbed her.

Steve S

Yeah. You're right.

It's a complicated issue. At it's core, it definitely shows a repugnant pattern of behavior......and yet.....does it disqualify him from being President?

It's so hard for me to judge, because I think there is an incredibly long list of things that ought to disqualify him from being President, and the sexual aspects of his behavior is only peripherally related to that list.

Delphic Oracle · 17th November 2016, 08:49 PM

Originally Posted by marplots

All that sounds reasonable until I start thinking about it. Then the abstraction gets away from me. For example, how do you manage to align a lack of overt objection to the part about overthrowing another person's will? If it's not sexual in nature, doesn't the attacker require objection and resistance? Otherwise, what's the point? Someone who acquiesces wouldn't meet their idea of a worthy target.

Hence why I prefer not to get into trying to weigh coercion through implied consequences vs. physical violence as tactics.

Quote:

And I'm still at a loss to figure out how someone who is rich and powerful is supposed to distinguish unwanted sexual attention from wanted sexual attention, since they can't divorce themselves from their station in life. It seems they might just as easily be victimized by the "gold digger" of legend. If the instrument of control (in the gold digger case) is sex and attention itself, is that no longer a misdeed?

"I got what I wanted" seems to be the core similarity. Total domination of a resistant target is perhaps it's own case. But they both at least share a disregard for other people's preferences.

ETA: I suppose that could apply to the "gold digger" as well. Using less volatile language, I would call that a form of manipulation. Offering sexual favors is the ploy used to shield intent towards the goal of gaining a desired result and they have no regard for the damage to the victim. The difference in paradigm could probably be chalked up to social dynamics of the differences in perceived power the sexes tend to have (more true historically, but still true to a great degree).

Quote:

For me it cycles back to the "unwanted" part of the "unwanted sexual attention." But even that requires some level of honest communication. The proverbial cold shoulder, or some signal. Something. A slap on the face or a kick in the nuts would do. As would a police report. Something.

It's hard for "honest" communication to occur when potentially life-altering implications exist. Hell, it's hard to get honest communication between two close friends or lovers unless there's an atmosphere of non-judgmental trust. Even lifelong romantic partners tend to need a bit of reassurance that a hard truth will be heard fairly before they can utter it, sometimes. We're social creatures, we're aware of social consequences (consciously or not). That's why sometimes it's easier to say something to a stranger than to a friend. There's far less potential for it to work its way around your social circle and unravel a whole series of unstated, underlying troubles.

Meadmaker · 17th November 2016, 08:55 PM

Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin

Here's what she said:

It was a clunky method of making a reasonable point. As the word themselves show, she was labeling people deplorable based on their deplorable behavior (as well as, in the second paragraph, empathizing with Trump supporters who are not guilty of that behavior). Contrary to what you state, she was being quite discriminate.

It's interesting to me that I had never seen the second paragraph of that quote.

It totally changes the meaning.

She said "half", but she was really drawing two categories, and I don't think she meant to express a size relationship of any kind. In a way, she was saying something almost exactly like what Emily's Cat has been saying. She is saying, "Sure, there are racists and sexists among Trump supporters, but they aren't all racist and sexist, and we have to reach out to those people who have reason to believe government has let them down."

The story of this election is that, although she recognized the problem, she didn't, or couldn't successfully reach out to them and convince them that she offered hope to those people.

Tero · 17th November 2016, 09:00 PM

Trump and Ryan, what a team. The poor won't have to suffer long in the Ryan budget plan because they won't live very long.

Minoosh · 17th November 2016, 10:18 PM

Originally Posted by marplots

And I'm still at a loss to figure out how someone who is rich and powerful is supposed to distinguish unwanted sexual attention from wanted sexual attention, since they can't divorce themselves from their station in life. It seems they might just as easily be victimized by the "gold digger" of legend. If the instrument of control (in the gold digger case) is sex and attention itself, is that no longer a misdeed?

I have to disagree. The gold digger is in a position of far less power, and the rich, powerful man is presumably sophisticated enough to deflect overtures from so-called gold diggers. And in Trump's case he wants the attention, he wants to be the feudal baron, the one who sees tribute as simply his due.

Originally Posted by marplots

For me it cycles back to the "unwanted" part of the "unwanted sexual attention." But even that requires some level of honest communication. The proverbial cold shoulder, or some signal. Something. A slap on the face or a kick in the nuts would do. As would a police report. Something.

Donald can't believe there could be "unwanted sexual attention." They all want him, per him. "No ... don't ... stop" would be heard as "no, don't stop." He won't understand anything subtle. Plenty of men would wait for a clear signal before groping a woman. I don't think he would. It shouldn't have to take a kick in the nuts. A normal man, sensing lack of interest, would presumably back off. Donald can't conceive of a lack of interest. He's a stud, a feudal lord, those women are his. Sometimes women go along in order to avoid making an enemy who could ruin their lives. This might affect men too, who are also subject to such harassment. The one in power wants to get away with things, to assert the power. It's much more important to him or her than having enthusiastic consent to give and receive sexual pleasure.

The predators aren't the prey. They're really not.

Mumbles · 17th November 2016, 10:56 PM

Originally Posted by Minoosh

Donald can't believe there could be "unwanted sexual attention." They all want him, per him. "No ... don't ... stop" would be heard as "no, don't stop."

You still don't get him. He knows, he simply doesn't care.

This is important to understand about him.

Jrrarglblarg · 17th November 2016, 11:03 PM

Originally Posted by Stacko

Michael Flynn, key aide to Donald, sat in on intel briefings while advising foreign clients.

This administration will end up rivaling Reagan's for indictments and convictions of officials.

Trump will be huge. Reagan was a piker.

Delphic Oracle · 17th November 2016, 11:06 PM

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

It's interesting to me that I had never seen the second paragraph of that quote.

It totally changes the meaning.

She said "half", but she was really drawing two categories, and I don't think she meant to express a size relationship of any kind. In a way, she was saying something almost exactly like what Emily's Cat has been saying. She is saying, "Sure, there are racists and sexists among Trump supporters, but they aren't all racist and sexist, and we have to reach out to those people who have reason to believe government has let them down."

The story of this election is that, although she recognized the problem, she didn't, or couldn't successfully reach out to them and convince them that she offered hope to those people.

I don't know if I can gleam quite that much positive intent from the statement, but we all interpret differently.

As to the focus of the statement going towards the negative view and failing to connect with the people potentially winnable to her side?

I chalk that up as yet another example of how our society is starting to view everything in terms of what we're against rather than what we're for.

Darat · 17th November 2016, 11:56 PM

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

In the US, we use an electoral vote system. In the state of WA, there was absolutely 100% no doubt whatsoever that Clinton would win.

My vote for someone other than Clinton did absolutely 100% NOT favor Trump. My vote did not contribute to Trump's win in any fashion whatsoever.

Furthermore, they only "favored" Trump because you're assuming that those votes would have gone to Clinton. I mean, seriously, it's extraordinarily unlikely that votes that went to Gary Johnson would ever have gone to Clinton. If anything, any of the votes that the libertarian candidate garnered (which were significantly higher than for any other party) would only have strengthened Trump's win if they'd been forbidden to vote 3rd party.

Surely you see the error in your reasoning? If no one had voted for Clinton would she have still won?

Darat · 18th November 2016, 12:00 AM

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

There were several women who came forward claiming sexual assault and harassment from Bill Clinton. It wasn't only one willing intern.

Is BC in record claiming he had sexually assaulted women? If he isn't then it is an apple and pears comparison.

Darat · 18th November 2016, 12:15 AM

Originally Posted by marplots

All that sounds reasonable until I start thinking about it. Then the abstraction gets away from me. For example, how do you manage to align a lack of overt objection to the part about overthrowing another person's will? If it's not sexual in nature, doesn't the attacker require objection and resistance? Otherwise, what's the point? Someone who acquiesces wouldn't meet their idea of a worthy target.

And I'm still at a loss to figure out how someone who is rich and powerful is supposed to distinguish unwanted sexual attention from wanted sexual attention, since they can't divorce themselves from their station in life. It seems they might just as easily be victimized by the "gold digger" of legend. If the instrument of control (in the gold digger case) is sex and attention itself, is that no longer a misdeed?

For me it cycles back to the "unwanted" part of the "unwanted sexual attention." But even that requires some level of honest communication. The proverbial cold shoulder, or some signal. Something. A slap on the face or a kick in the nuts would do. As would a police report. Something.

Sadly you are demonstrating the very argument made by a lot of abusers and rapists "she never struggled", "she could have screamed". The idea that unless someone struggles or screams or otherwise reacts then consent is given is a hideous idea.

Stacko · 18th November 2016, 02:02 AM

The pettiness here is amazing.

Pres.-elect Trump to go on "a thank you tour" of states he won in the election "in the next couple of weeks," a Trump official says.

Normally it's the pissed off voters you have to explain that the President of US is every American's President and not the President.

Meadmaker · 18th November 2016, 04:39 AM

Originally Posted by Stacko

The pettiness here is amazing.

Pres.-elect Trump to go on "a thank you tour" of states he won in the election "in the next couple of weeks," a Trump official says.

Normally it's the pissed off voters you have to explain that the President of US is every American's President and not the President.

Fascinating.

This governing business must not be any fun, with all the meetings and office seekers and picking cabinets. Rallies are so much more fun. Except, now that he's not a candidate, but the President-elect, all these rallies block traffic. Also, he isn't on Air Force One yet, but I'm sure he still has a sizable government entourage, which means a big taxpayer expense when he travels. That's not going to play so well. He will discover what whiners the American people can be, and there won't be any more, "But Hillary is worse."

Welcome to reality, Donald. The problem with winning the election is that you actually have to do something after you win.

In fact, I'll bet this "victory tour" never happens. And he'll call it an inaccurate press story.

Meadmaker · 18th November 2016, 04:44 AM

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

I don't know if I can gleam quite that much positive intent from the statement, but we all interpret differently.

As to the focus of the statement going towards the negative view and failing to connect with the people potentially winnable to her side?

I chalk that up as yet another example of how our society is starting to view everything in terms of what we're against rather than what we're for.

I don't understand what that last sentence means. I see her statement, the complete statement that is, as saying that government has to reach out to the people who aren't doing so well in the modern economy. That seems like a positive statement.

In terms of electoral success, she obviously didn't get that message across. It shows she understood the problem, but just couldn't get that message out to voters.

Stacko · 18th November 2016, 04:59 AM

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

In fact, I'll bet this "victory tour" never happens. And he'll call it an inaccurate press story.

I think they'll shift to him visiting some of the states he didn't win as outreach after this is called out as the ego stroke it is. That's pretty standard after a Presidential win. He will call it an inaccurate press story.

Stacko · 18th November 2016, 05:09 AM

Donald takes credit for saving Ford factory that was not closing.

Quote:

Ford had planned to move production of the Lincoln MKC, a small SUV, to Mexico but had always intended to keep the plant in Louisville open to continue making another model, the Escape.

It was not clear how many jobs, if any, would have been lost, as the company was planning to expand production of the better-selling Escape at the plant.

After Trump’s tweets, the company confirmed it would not be moving production of the Lincoln MKC from Kentucky.

...

She said she did not know when the decision had been taken or whether Trump had any influence on it. On Tuesday, Ford’s chief executive, Mark Fields, said the election result would not change the company’s plans.

This is going to be the hardest part of dealing with the new administration. Every administration attempts to spin stories but Donald's will be delivering outright fabrications.

Fast Eddie B · 18th November 2016, 05:33 AM

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

It's so hard for me to judge, because I think there is an incredibly long list of things that ought to disqualify him from being President, and the sexual aspects of his behavior is only peripherally related to that list.

Good point.

It would be nice if the President served as some sort of role model. Karen said during the Lewinsky scandal her son came home from school and asked what a "blow job" was, having heard about it in school regarding the President. Today's parallel would be a child confused over what it means to "grab pussy".

How important that "role model" aspect is remains for each individual to decide for themselves. But, importantly, the electorate did not see that aspect as disqualifying in this particular case.

Mumbles · 18th November 2016, 05:34 AM

Originally Posted by Stacko

I think they'll shift to him visiting some of the states he didn't win as outreach after this is called out as the ego stroke it is. That's pretty standard after a Presidential win. He will call it an inaccurate press story.

Doubt it. This guy that holds grudges for, literally, decades.

OTOH, if they can get him to meet with Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, maybe Preibus or someone actually put another leash on him...

Belz... · 18th November 2016, 05:36 AM

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Fascinating.

This governing business must not be any fun, with all the meetings and office seekers and picking cabinets.

Don't forget campaign financing.

Fast Eddie B · 18th November 2016, 05:45 AM

Just pushed by CNN: Jeff Sessions appointed to be Attorney General.

"To the victor go the spoils."

Belz... · 18th November 2016, 05:56 AM

Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B

Just pushed by CNN: Jeff Sessions appointed to be Attorney General.

"To the victor go the spoils."

Huh...

Originally Posted by Wiki

Sessions was ranked by National Journal in 2007 as the fifth-most conservative U.S. Senator, siding strongly with the Republican Party on political issues. He supported the major legislative efforts of the George W. Bush administration, including the 2001 and 2003 tax cut packages, the Iraq War, and a proposed national amendment to ban same-sex marriage. He was one of 25 senators to oppose the establishment of Troubled Asset Relief Program. He has opposed the Democratic leadership since 2007 on most major legislation, including the stimulus bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act. As the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, he opposed all three of President Barack Obama's nominees for the Supreme Court.

Yeah "maybe" he won't be such a terrible president, indeed.

Stacko · 18th November 2016, 06:00 AM

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

Huh...

Yeah "maybe" he won't be such a terrible president, indeed.

He was rejected by the GOP for judge post in the 80's for being too racist.

marplots · 18th November 2016, 06:44 AM

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

ETA: I suppose that could apply to the "gold digger" as well. Using less volatile language, I would call that a form of manipulation. Offering sexual favors is the ploy used to shield intent towards the goal of gaining a desired result and they have no regard for the damage to the victim. The difference in paradigm could probably be chalked up to social dynamics of the differences in perceived power the sexes tend to have (more true historically, but still true to a great degree).

It's hard for "honest" communication to occur when potentially life-altering implications exist. Hell, it's hard to get honest communication between two close friends or lovers unless there's an atmosphere of non-judgmental trust. Even lifelong romantic partners tend to need a bit of reassurance that a hard truth will be heard fairly before they can utter it, sometimes. We're social creatures, we're aware of social consequences (consciously or not). That's why sometimes it's easier to say something to a stranger than to a friend. There's far less potential for it to work its way around your social circle and unravel a whole series of unstated, underlying troubles.

You make some good points. I think now I'm rather too focused on the exceptions and outliers instead of the norms.

Let me draw a parallel with a topic from another thread. The questions there are about how clearances (secret, top secret and the like) are handled. While there are clear rules in play, at some point participants are just "supposed to know" how to behave. They are supposed to apply the overarching rule to specific situations not covered. And simultaneously, they are expected to lean to the "keep it secret" side when doubt arises.

The overarching rule for this topic would then be something like: respect the agency and personal space of women (and by extension, men as well). Default toward the non-threatening to minimize mistakes.

We can also look to corporate versions of sexual harassment policies for "cultural standards."

ETA: I also wonder if the notion that women are better communicators comes into play, especially when it comes to more nuanced "signals." It seems that (if true) it would be both an advantage and a disadvantage. On the other hand, we don't want to give men the excuse of being too boneheaded to "get it."

marplots · 18th November 2016, 06:56 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

Sadly you are demonstrating the very argument made by a lot of abusers and rapists "she never struggled", "she could have screamed". The idea that unless someone struggles or screams or otherwise reacts then consent is given is a hideous idea.

And yet, what could the alternative be?

The only thing I can think of is something akin to "enthusiastic acceptance" or, similarly, just allow women to always dominate the interaction -e.g. it goes nowhere at all, or stops immediately, when a woman fails to directly push things.

Is this what women want? It may be. I've been out of the game (married some 30+ years) too long to know what things are like now. What I remember is a bit of coy, of pursuit and pursued, of approach and rebuff. There was an idea of "winning" affection, of romance, of "proving."

In short, what I remember is a kind of structure and accepted roles. If all that has been swept away, I expect things may be more confusing now. Not worse, perhaps even much better. But it was handy to have a structure.

What I don't doubt is that women and men still find a way to hook up. I trust the underlying biology.

Minoosh · 18th November 2016, 07:18 AM

Originally Posted by Stacko

This administration will end up rivaling Reagan's for indictments and convictions of officials.

But it was under Obama that Flynn was allowed into these briefings, correct?

17th November 2016, 06:04 PM	#801
Emily's Cat Rarely prone to hissy-fits Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth Posts: 15,396	Originally Posted by Argumemnon Aw, but blaming white people is all the rage now! Well, I suppose I'm just not trendy then...
	__________________ I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.

17th November 2016, 06:15 PM	#803
Sabrina Wicked Lovely Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 9,810	Well I've finally seen some evidence of saner heads prevailing in the Trump "administration"... reportedly he is considering Mitt Romney for the Secretary of State position. I am not, overall, a fan of Mitt Romney, but he at least brings a level of experience and level-headedness to Trump's potential cabinet that was sorely lacking thus far. I'm not fully aware of his prior positions on foreign policy, but he is at least not likely to inadvertently (or deliberately) insult foreign heads of state and is also unlikely to put up with most of Trump's bullpoop. Trump is still an idiot, but if he can at least be brought around to considering people with actual political chops in key positions, then my mind will be eased, at least slightly.
Sabrina Wicked Lovely Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 9,810

17th November 2016, 06:17 PM	#804
Mumbles Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 8,520	Originally Posted by Sabrina Well I've finally seen some evidence of saner heads prevailing in the Trump "administration"... reportedly he is considering Mitt Romney for the Secretary of State position. Not a chance. Until and unless he's confirmed, don't believe it.
Mumbles Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 8,520

17th November 2016, 06:23 PM	#805
trustbutverify Philosopher Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 8,895	Originally Posted by Emily's Cat Well, I suppose I'm just not trendy then... I know a certain President-elect who would disagree.
	__________________ "To me, Hitler is the greatest man who ever lived. He truly is without fault, so simple and at the same time possessed of masculine strength" -Leni Riefenstahl Wollen owns the stage

17th November 2016, 06:37 PM	#806
trustbutverify Philosopher Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 8,895	Originally Posted by Sabrina Well I've finally seen some evidence of saner heads prevailing in the Trump "administration"... reportedly he is considering Mitt Romney for the Secretary of State position. Well, at least Romney's not a complete buffoon. So there's that. Speaking of complete buffoons, I read Alex Jones' claims Dump made a personal call thanking him for his support. I don't know if it's true, but if it is, wow. This thing is turning into a parody of itself.
	__________________ "To me, Hitler is the greatest man who ever lived. He truly is without fault, so simple and at the same time possessed of masculine strength" -Leni Riefenstahl Wollen owns the stage

17th November 2016, 06:13 PM	#802
phiwum Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 12,734	Originally Posted by Emily's Cat George W Bush http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b020c386de2f5e https://answers.yahoo.com/question/i...=1006032214455 Ronald Reagan https://mic.com/articles/85379/10-re...mit#.dm0o8UsFs http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...xtreme-racist/ Nixon http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/c...ault-on-blacks http://gawker.com/5712014/richard-ni...an-you-thought They weren't attacked as racist at the time, simply because it wasn't done. Caveat: I can't find anything about Bush Sr., mostly because I can't be bothered to sift through all of the Bush Jr. stuff that google seems to think I need to see instead. It may or may not exist, I'm just not going to put in that amount of effort. I'm sure that people have cast democrats as racist as well. Again, I'm not going to bother with the research. Thanks for the citations. I didn't recall these persons being called racist at the time and as you've suggested, that might have to do with political etiquette. I certainly don't think that it is particularly plausible that Bush Sr. was racist in any deep sense. He probably had some implicit racist views, as many of us do, but he was a pretty decent guy. Reagan seemed decent enough too, but he was a kinda opaque figure, an actor at heart, so I won't commit myself there. I don't think W was racist, but I might be forgetting evidence. The obvious high point of his administration was his explicit attempt to discourage Islamophobia after 9/11.

17th November 2016, 07:36 PM	#807
steve s Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 5,865	Originally Posted by Meadmaker To be fair, there is also no proof Donald Trump did that. Quite a few women came forward after that Access Hollywood tape aired. None of them accused him of "grabbing pussy". Jill Harth came forward years before the bus video was released, and she said he grabbed her. Steve S
steve s Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 5,865	__________________ "Nature abhors a moron." -- H. L. Mencken

17th November 2016, 07:38 PM	#808
Sabrina Wicked Lovely Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 9,810	Originally Posted by Mumbles Not a chance. Until and unless he's confirmed, don't believe it. I did say it was only "reportedly"; in analyst speak that means "we aren't sure, but it's a possibility".
Sabrina Wicked Lovely Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 9,810

17th November 2016, 07:44 PM	#809
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In a post-fact world Posts: 92,152	Originally Posted by Emily's Cat Well, I suppose I'm just not trendy then... #EmilysCatFTW
	__________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward

17th November 2016, 07:58 PM	#810
Stacko Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 10,837	Michael Flynn, key aide to Donald, sat in on intel briefings while advising foreign clients. Quote: Retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who has reportedly been offered the role of national security adviser in Donald Trump’s White House, began receiving classified national security briefings last summer while he was also running a private consulting firm that offered “all-source intelligence support” to international clients. Flynn’s relationship with his overseas clients is coming in for new scrutiny amid recent disclosures that two months ago, during the height of the presidential campaign, his consulting firm, the Flynn Intel Group, registered to lobby for a Dutch company owned by a wealthy Turkish businessman close to President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey. Robert Kelley, the chief counsel to the Flynn Intel Group, read a statement from Flynn to Yahoo News on Thursday, promising that “if I return to government service, my relationship with my company will be severed, in accordance with the policy announced by President-elect Trump.” But critics today dismissed Flynn’s pledge as “Too little, too late,” given that he began sitting in on U.S. intelligence briefings for Trump in August while working for foreign clients. Classified national security briefings are by tradition provided to the major presidential candidates and their top aides. This administration will end up rivaling Reagan's for indictments and convictions of officials.

17th November 2016, 08:16 PM	#811
wareyin Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: Georgia, USA Posts: 8,561	Originally Posted by Stacko Michael Flynn, key aide to Donald, sat in on intel briefings while advising foreign clients. This administration will end up rivaling Reagan's for indictments and convictions of officials. You think so? I predict that this administration has so many scandals, indictments, and convictions that by comparison it makes Reagan's look like Obama's.

17th November 2016, 08:18 PM	#812
marplots Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 29,167	Originally Posted by Stacko Michael Flynn, key aide to Donald, sat in on intel briefings while advising foreign clients. This administration will end up rivaling Reagan's for indictments and convictions of officials. Maybe Ed Snowden will get pardoned.

17th November 2016, 08:21 PM	#813
Delphic Oracle Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2016 Posts: 5,414	Originally Posted by Meadmaker <snip> Moreover, he didn't claim to assault women without their consent. He said that they would let him do it, because he was a star. In other words, he was bragging about them giving him consent. Note: the following also potentially applies to Bill Clinton. When a disequilibrium of power exists between the two parties and there is the presence of implied consequences (future career prospects, financial security, social ostracism, etc) you can have a situation that could be described as reluctant or coerced consent. I'm not saying I know this occurred in any given instance, nor will I wade into trying to compare this to physically violent assault. Simply put, lack of overt objection in the face of implied consequences is not true consent. Remember, sexual assault is not about sexual gratification for the perpetrator. It is about the overthrow of another person's will. Sex is the weapon used to impose debilitating humiliation and shame on another human being as a vehicle for validating the attacker's supremacy. It is not the goal in and of itself. ETA: I had a former co-worker who's boss was showing her nude photos of herself. After a while this escalated to videos and eventually solicitations for sexual acts. When she described how she felt, she basically said "I wanted to tell her to stop," she paused, then continued, "but I have a mortgage...and." At this point she trailed off, looking a quite crushed. She may not have connected every dot there, but the implications are quite clear. Does the superior have to literally say "I'll fire you if you tell me no" before it crosses the line? Legally, it would be hard to make a case, of course, but legality and decency don't exactly align all the time.
	Last edited by Delphic Oracle; 17th November 2016 at 08:30 PM.

17th November 2016, 08:23 PM	#814
Regnad Kcin Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: New York Posts: 10,269	Originally Posted by Emily's Cat Yes, that comment did come from Hillary, and yes, I expect that made many people very angry, because it was not specific and it was directed at a large number of people indiscriminately. Here's what she said: Originally Posted by Hillary You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people — now 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive, hateful, mean-spirited rhetoric. Now some of those folks — they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America. But the other basket — and I know this because I see friends from all over America here — I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas — as well as, you know, New York and California — but that other basket of people are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they’re just desperate for change. It doesn’t really even matter where it comes from. They don’t buy everything he says, but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won’t wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they’re in a dead end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well. It was a clunky method of making a reasonable point. As the word themselves show, she was labeling people deplorable based on their deplorable behavior (as well as, in the second paragraph, empathizing with Trump supporters who are not guilty of that behavior). Contrary to what you state, she was being quite discriminate.
	__________________ My heros are Alex Zanardi and Evelyn Glennie.

17th November 2016, 08:40 PM	#815
marplots Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 29,167	Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle Note: the following also potentially applies to Bill Clinton. When a disequilibrium of power exists between the two parties and there is the presence of implied consequences (future career prospects, financial security, social ostracism, etc) you can have a situation that could be described as reluctant or coerced consent. I'm not saying I know this occurred in any given instance, nor will I wade into trying to compare this to physically violent assault. Simply put, lack of overt objection in the face of implied consequences is not true consent. Remember, sexual assault is not about sexual gratification for the perpetrator. It is about the overthrow of another person's will. Sex is the weapon used to impose debilitating humiliation and shame on another human being as a vehicle for validating the attacker's supremacy. It is not the goal in and of itself. All that sounds reasonable until I start thinking about it. Then the abstraction gets away from me. For example, how do you manage to align a lack of overt objection to the part about overthrowing another person's will? If it's not sexual in nature, doesn't the attacker require objection and resistance? Otherwise, what's the point? Someone who acquiesces wouldn't meet their idea of a worthy target. And I'm still at a loss to figure out how someone who is rich and powerful is supposed to distinguish unwanted sexual attention from wanted sexual attention, since they can't divorce themselves from their station in life. It seems they might just as easily be victimized by the "gold digger" of legend. If the instrument of control (in the gold digger case) is sex and attention itself, is that no longer a misdeed? For me it cycles back to the "unwanted" part of the "unwanted sexual attention." But even that requires some level of honest communication. The proverbial cold shoulder, or some signal. Something. A slap on the face or a kick in the nuts would do. As would a police report. Something.

17th November 2016, 08:47 PM	#816
Meadmaker Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 25,535	Originally Posted by steve s Jill Harth came forward years before the bus video was released, and she said he grabbed her. Steve S Yeah. You're right. It's a complicated issue. At it's core, it definitely shows a repugnant pattern of behavior......and yet.....does it disqualify him from being President? It's so hard for me to judge, because I think there is an incredibly long list of things that ought to disqualify him from being President, and the sexual aspects of his behavior is only peripherally related to that list.
	__________________ Yes, yes. I know you are right. But would it hurt you to provide some information?

17th November 2016, 08:49 PM	#817
Delphic Oracle Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2016 Posts: 5,414	Originally Posted by marplots All that sounds reasonable until I start thinking about it. Then the abstraction gets away from me. For example, how do you manage to align a lack of overt objection to the part about overthrowing another person's will? If it's not sexual in nature, doesn't the attacker require objection and resistance? Otherwise, what's the point? Someone who acquiesces wouldn't meet their idea of a worthy target. Hence why I prefer not to get into trying to weigh coercion through implied consequences vs. physical violence as tactics. Quote: And I'm still at a loss to figure out how someone who is rich and powerful is supposed to distinguish unwanted sexual attention from wanted sexual attention, since they can't divorce themselves from their station in life. It seems they might just as easily be victimized by the "gold digger" of legend. If the instrument of control (in the gold digger case) is sex and attention itself, is that no longer a misdeed? "I got what I wanted" seems to be the core similarity. Total domination of a resistant target is perhaps it's own case. But they both at least share a disregard for other people's preferences. ETA: I suppose that could apply to the "gold digger" as well. Using less volatile language, I would call that a form of manipulation. Offering sexual favors is the ploy used to shield intent towards the goal of gaining a desired result and they have no regard for the damage to the victim. The difference in paradigm could probably be chalked up to social dynamics of the differences in perceived power the sexes tend to have (more true historically, but still true to a great degree). Quote: For me it cycles back to the "unwanted" part of the "unwanted sexual attention." But even that requires some level of honest communication. The proverbial cold shoulder, or some signal. Something. A slap on the face or a kick in the nuts would do. As would a police report. Something. It's hard for "honest" communication to occur when potentially life-altering implications exist. Hell, it's hard to get honest communication between two close friends or lovers unless there's an atmosphere of non-judgmental trust. Even lifelong romantic partners tend to need a bit of reassurance that a hard truth will be heard fairly before they can utter it, sometimes. We're social creatures, we're aware of social consequences (consciously or not). That's why sometimes it's easier to say something to a stranger than to a friend. There's far less potential for it to work its way around your social circle and unravel a whole series of unstated, underlying troubles.
	Last edited by Delphic Oracle; 17th November 2016 at 08:59 PM.

17th November 2016, 08:55 PM	#818
Meadmaker Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 25,535	Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin Here's what she said: It was a clunky method of making a reasonable point. As the word themselves show, she was labeling people deplorable based on their deplorable behavior (as well as, in the second paragraph, empathizing with Trump supporters who are not guilty of that behavior). Contrary to what you state, she was being quite discriminate. It's interesting to me that I had never seen the second paragraph of that quote. It totally changes the meaning. She said "half", but she was really drawing two categories, and I don't think she meant to express a size relationship of any kind. In a way, she was saying something almost exactly like what Emily's Cat has been saying. She is saying, "Sure, there are racists and sexists among Trump supporters, but they aren't all racist and sexist, and we have to reach out to those people who have reason to believe government has let them down." The story of this election is that, although she recognized the problem, she didn't, or couldn't successfully reach out to them and convince them that she offered hope to those people.
	__________________ Yes, yes. I know you are right. But would it hurt you to provide some information?

17th November 2016, 09:00 PM	#819
Tero Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: North American prairie Posts: 2,216	Trump and Ryan, what a team. The poor won't have to suffer long in the Ryan budget plan because they won't live very long.
	__________________ I've deleted the one blog link. You can find the humor blog by searching "the kari report blogspot." Politics blog: https://esapolitics.blogspot.com/

17th November 2016, 10:18 PM	#820
Minoosh Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 12,330	Originally Posted by marplots And I'm still at a loss to figure out how someone who is rich and powerful is supposed to distinguish unwanted sexual attention from wanted sexual attention, since they can't divorce themselves from their station in life. It seems they might just as easily be victimized by the "gold digger" of legend. If the instrument of control (in the gold digger case) is sex and attention itself, is that no longer a misdeed? I have to disagree. The gold digger is in a position of far less power, and the rich, powerful man is presumably sophisticated enough to deflect overtures from so-called gold diggers. And in Trump's case he wants the attention, he wants to be the feudal baron, the one who sees tribute as simply his due. Originally Posted by marplots For me it cycles back to the "unwanted" part of the "unwanted sexual attention." But even that requires some level of honest communication. The proverbial cold shoulder, or some signal. Something. A slap on the face or a kick in the nuts would do. As would a police report. Something. Donald can't believe there could be "unwanted sexual attention." They all want him, per him. "No ... don't ... stop" would be heard as "no, don't stop." He won't understand anything subtle. Plenty of men would wait for a clear signal before groping a woman. I don't think he would. It shouldn't have to take a kick in the nuts. A normal man, sensing lack of interest, would presumably back off. Donald can't conceive of a lack of interest. He's a stud, a feudal lord, those women are his. Sometimes women go along in order to avoid making an enemy who could ruin their lives. This might affect men too, who are also subject to such harassment. The one in power wants to get away with things, to assert the power. It's much more important to him or her than having enthusiastic consent to give and receive sexual pleasure. The predators aren't the prey. They're really not.

17th November 2016, 10:56 PM	#821
Mumbles Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 8,520	Originally Posted by Minoosh Donald can't believe there could be "unwanted sexual attention." They all want him, per him. "No ... don't ... stop" would be heard as "no, don't stop." You still don't get him. He knows, he simply doesn't care. This is important to understand about him.
Mumbles Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 8,520

17th November 2016, 11:03 PM	#822
Jrrarglblarg Guest Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 12,673	Originally Posted by Stacko Michael Flynn, key aide to Donald, sat in on intel briefings while advising foreign clients. This administration will end up rivaling Reagan's for indictments and convictions of officials. Trump will be huge. Reagan was a piker.
Jrrarglblarg Guest Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 12,673

17th November 2016, 11:06 PM	#823
Delphic Oracle Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2016 Posts: 5,414	Originally Posted by Meadmaker It's interesting to me that I had never seen the second paragraph of that quote. It totally changes the meaning. She said "half", but she was really drawing two categories, and I don't think she meant to express a size relationship of any kind. In a way, she was saying something almost exactly like what Emily's Cat has been saying. She is saying, "Sure, there are racists and sexists among Trump supporters, but they aren't all racist and sexist, and we have to reach out to those people who have reason to believe government has let them down." The story of this election is that, although she recognized the problem, she didn't, or couldn't successfully reach out to them and convince them that she offered hope to those people. I don't know if I can gleam quite that much positive intent from the statement, but we all interpret differently. As to the focus of the statement going towards the negative view and failing to connect with the people potentially winnable to her side? I chalk that up as yet another example of how our society is starting to view everything in terms of what we're against rather than what we're for.

17th November 2016, 11:56 PM	#824
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 97,827	Originally Posted by Emily's Cat In the US, we use an electoral vote system. In the state of WA, there was absolutely 100% no doubt whatsoever that Clinton would win. My vote for someone other than Clinton did absolutely 100% NOT favor Trump. My vote did not contribute to Trump's win in any fashion whatsoever. Furthermore, they only "favored" Trump because you're assuming that those votes would have gone to Clinton. I mean, seriously, it's extraordinarily unlikely that votes that went to Gary Johnson would ever have gone to Clinton. If anything, any of the votes that the libertarian candidate garnered (which were significantly higher than for any other party) would only have strengthened Trump's win if they'd been forbidden to vote 3rd party. Surely you see the error in your reasoning? If no one had voted for Clinton would she have still won?
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

18th November 2016, 12:00 AM	#825
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 97,827	Originally Posted by Emily's Cat There were several women who came forward claiming sexual assault and harassment from Bill Clinton. It wasn't only one willing intern. Is BC in record claiming he had sexually assaulted women? If he isn't then it is an apple and pears comparison.
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

18th November 2016, 12:15 AM	#826
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 97,827	Originally Posted by marplots All that sounds reasonable until I start thinking about it. Then the abstraction gets away from me. For example, how do you manage to align a lack of overt objection to the part about overthrowing another person's will? If it's not sexual in nature, doesn't the attacker require objection and resistance? Otherwise, what's the point? Someone who acquiesces wouldn't meet their idea of a worthy target. And I'm still at a loss to figure out how someone who is rich and powerful is supposed to distinguish unwanted sexual attention from wanted sexual attention, since they can't divorce themselves from their station in life. It seems they might just as easily be victimized by the "gold digger" of legend. If the instrument of control (in the gold digger case) is sex and attention itself, is that no longer a misdeed? For me it cycles back to the "unwanted" part of the "unwanted sexual attention." But even that requires some level of honest communication. The proverbial cold shoulder, or some signal. Something. A slap on the face or a kick in the nuts would do. As would a police report. Something. Sadly you are demonstrating the very argument made by a lot of abusers and rapists "she never struggled", "she could have screamed". The idea that unless someone struggles or screams or otherwise reacts then consent is given is a hideous idea.
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

18th November 2016, 02:02 AM	#827
Stacko Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 10,837	The pettiness here is amazing. Pres.-elect Trump to go on "a thank you tour" of states he won in the election "in the next couple of weeks," a Trump official says. Normally it's the pissed off voters you have to explain that the President of US is every American's President and not the President.

18th November 2016, 04:39 AM	#828
Meadmaker Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 25,535	Originally Posted by Stacko The pettiness here is amazing. Pres.-elect Trump to go on "a thank you tour" of states he won in the election "in the next couple of weeks," a Trump official says. Normally it's the pissed off voters you have to explain that the President of US is every American's President and not the President. Fascinating. This governing business must not be any fun, with all the meetings and office seekers and picking cabinets. Rallies are so much more fun. Except, now that he's not a candidate, but the President-elect, all these rallies block traffic. Also, he isn't on Air Force One yet, but I'm sure he still has a sizable government entourage, which means a big taxpayer expense when he travels. That's not going to play so well. He will discover what whiners the American people can be, and there won't be any more, "But Hillary is worse." Welcome to reality, Donald. The problem with winning the election is that you actually have to do something after you win. In fact, I'll bet this "victory tour" never happens. And he'll call it an inaccurate press story.
	__________________ Yes, yes. I know you are right. But would it hurt you to provide some information?

18th November 2016, 04:44 AM	#829
Meadmaker Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 25,535	Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle I don't know if I can gleam quite that much positive intent from the statement, but we all interpret differently. As to the focus of the statement going towards the negative view and failing to connect with the people potentially winnable to her side? I chalk that up as yet another example of how our society is starting to view everything in terms of what we're against rather than what we're for. I don't understand what that last sentence means. I see her statement, the complete statement that is, as saying that government has to reach out to the people who aren't doing so well in the modern economy. That seems like a positive statement. In terms of electoral success, she obviously didn't get that message across. It shows she understood the problem, but just couldn't get that message out to voters.
	__________________ Yes, yes. I know you are right. But would it hurt you to provide some information?

18th November 2016, 04:59 AM	#830
Stacko Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 10,837	Originally Posted by Meadmaker In fact, I'll bet this "victory tour" never happens. And he'll call it an inaccurate press story. I think they'll shift to him visiting some of the states he didn't win as outreach after this is called out as the ego stroke it is. That's pretty standard after a Presidential win. He will call it an inaccurate press story.

18th November 2016, 05:09 AM	#831
Stacko Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 10,837	Donald takes credit for saving Ford factory that was not closing. Quote: Ford had planned to move production of the Lincoln MKC, a small SUV, to Mexico but had always intended to keep the plant in Louisville open to continue making another model, the Escape. It was not clear how many jobs, if any, would have been lost, as the company was planning to expand production of the better-selling Escape at the plant. After Trump’s tweets, the company confirmed it would not be moving production of the Lincoln MKC from Kentucky. ... She said she did not know when the decision had been taken or whether Trump had any influence on it. On Tuesday, Ford’s chief executive, Mark Fields, said the election result would not change the company’s plans. This is going to be the hardest part of dealing with the new administration. Every administration attempts to spin stories but Donald's will be delivering outright fabrications.

18th November 2016, 05:33 AM	#832
Fast Eddie B Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Lenoir City, TN/Mineral Bluff, GA Posts: 6,785	Originally Posted by Meadmaker It's so hard for me to judge, because I think there is an incredibly long list of things that ought to disqualify him from being President, and the sexual aspects of his behavior is only peripherally related to that list. Good point. It would be nice if the President served as some sort of role model. Karen said during the Lewinsky scandal her son came home from school and asked what a "blow job" was, having heard about it in school regarding the President. Today's parallel would be a child confused over what it means to "grab pussy". How important that "role model" aspect is remains for each individual to decide for themselves. But, importantly, the electorate did not see that aspect as disqualifying in this particular case.

18th November 2016, 05:34 AM	#833
Mumbles Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 8,520	Originally Posted by Stacko I think they'll shift to him visiting some of the states he didn't win as outreach after this is called out as the ego stroke it is. That's pretty standard after a Presidential win. He will call it an inaccurate press story. Doubt it. This guy that holds grudges for, literally, decades. OTOH, if they can get him to meet with Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, maybe Preibus or someone actually put another leash on him...
Mumbles Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 8,520

18th November 2016, 05:36 AM	#834
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In a post-fact world Posts: 92,152	Originally Posted by Meadmaker Fascinating. This governing business must not be any fun, with all the meetings and office seekers and picking cabinets. Don't forget campaign financing.
	__________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward

18th November 2016, 05:45 AM	#835
Fast Eddie B Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Lenoir City, TN/Mineral Bluff, GA Posts: 6,785	Just pushed by CNN: Jeff Sessions appointed to be Attorney General. "To the victor go the spoils."