2016 US Presidential Election

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Nov 03, 2016 8:07 pm UTC

Yakk wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:We have Trump, on tape, bragging about sexual assault. I guess it's not a confession because it wasn't a formal statement? Or because it's possible he was lying just to impress someone? I don't think that makes it not a confession; confessions can be false, after all.
He's claiming ability. It's bragging. It's not the same as admitting to having done it. It's still pretty awful, but it's not exactly the same thing.
No, he stated he "just goes in and kisses women he finds attractive". The second comment could be evaluated as a confession or bragging, but the first one he is explicitly describing what he *does*. I mean, he could be lying, but he wasn't saying "I could do X", he was saying "I do X and I cannot help myself".


Ah, that line. Yes, he does say that, but for assault, it's got to be unwanted, and he's rather explicitly claiming the opposite. In a boorish way, sure, and we can reasonably doubt that his claims are anything like true. But it's not the thing you're claiming it is. For him to admit assault would require him to admit that it's unwanted.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7212
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Nov 03, 2016 8:48 pm UTC

Trump didn't say they wanted it; he said they let him get away with it. Because he's rich; because he's a celebrity. Because they really have very little other choice. He's not claiming they consent; he's claiming they keep their mouths shut.

But let's pretend like he actually said "All beautiful women want to let me kiss them because I'm a celebrity, so rather than making sure I have their consent, I kiss them as soon as I see them". Okay: That still counts as an admission of sexual assault. Because if I say "I drink a bottle of Jack Daniels every time I get behind the wheel, but I also drink lots of coffee with it, so I'm not even slightly drunk", I'm still admitting (unwittingly) to drunk driving. It doesn't matter that I don't think I am; alcohol doesn't work that way. Regardless of what Trump thinks he's saying, he's admitting to having kissed women against their will -- because consent doesn't work that way.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6588
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby ucim » Thu Nov 03, 2016 10:25 pm UTC

I have family that is constantly pointing me to "before it's news". The latest one is:

http://beforeitsnews.com/conspiracy-the ... 78120.html

I don't give the site much credence, but following the links doesn't always lead down the rabbit hole. Comments?

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6562
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Thu Nov 03, 2016 10:27 pm UTC

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... nald-trump
Anyone have a corroborating source for this? Seems pretty scandalous but I haven't seen anything on the other news sites.
Many at the FBI support Trump over Clinton. They're rationale is that Clinton corruption is worse than Trump corruption.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6327
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Thu Nov 03, 2016 10:35 pm UTC

ucim wrote:I have family that is constantly pointing me to "before it's news". The latest one is:

http://beforeitsnews.com/conspiracy-the ... 78120.html

I don't give the site much credence, but following the links doesn't always lead down the rabbit hole. Comments?

Jose


Reading a little bit, it only follows if you assume Hillary is corrupt and she has incriminating emails - there is no evidence that she had incriminating emails, and it seems like everything comes from Fox News and RealClearPolitics, which are hardly trustworthy.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Thu Nov 03, 2016 11:09 pm UTC

ucim wrote:I have family that is constantly pointing me to "before it's news". The latest one is:

http://beforeitsnews.com/conspiracy-the ... 78120.html

I don't give the site much credence, but following the links doesn't always lead down the rabbit hole. Comments?

Jose
Well you can say anything. Robbery, murder, sexual assault and so on. And you can believe anything.

These are quotes from Nature News, I believe a natural foods blog? I just knew murder was going to rise like a ghost. Perhaps the most interesting was the Datto backup until I realized that the source was Politico and that the date was October of last year.
Spoiler:
The so-called "deep state" -- the powerful insiders who really run the intelligence services and inner layers of untouchable bureaucracy -- has decided Hillary Clinton is too damaged to defend any longer. Even if she were to win by stealing the election, she would be so mired in criminal investigations and political illegitimacy that she would rip the nation to shreds while fighting for her own political survival.

It has now been decided, I believe, that Hillary Clinton will be taken out of power by releasing criminally damaging emails which have long been held by the NSA and FBI. This will likely happen before the coming weekend. Once that is accomplished, the next goal will be to wait for President Trump to take office, then destroy the U.S. economy through a controlled, global debt collapse so that Trump can be blamed for the near collapse of western economies. (Remember: The deep state isn't pro-Trump. They're still all about defending the establishment. But Hillary is one bridge too far for even the statists to stomach...)

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/055863_deep_ ... z4OzMrmJNS
Beware of what may yet unfold in the coming days. Like a cornered wild animal, the Clintons are extremely dangerous when they realize they have nothing to lose by going "full murder" in an attempt to save themselves.

I will not be surprised the least bit if bodies of people in high places start piling up over the next week. Watch for news reports of mysterious car crashes, swimming pool accidents or "natural" deaths involving people like James Comey, who'd better have armed security personnel around him at all times.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/055863_deep_ ... z4OzODhnkn

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10010
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby addams » Fri Nov 04, 2016 3:30 am UTC

ucim wrote:I have family that is constantly pointing me to "before it's news". The latest one is:

http://beforeitsnews.com/conspiracy-the ... 78120.html

I don't give the site much credence, but following the links doesn't always lead down the rabbit hole. Comments?

Jose

In the instructions it says, "Do not feed the Trolls."


but, but, but...really? Deep-State?
Kind'a like Deep Throat?
The so-called "deep state" -- the powerful insiders who really run the intelligence services and inner layers of untouchable bureaucracy -- has decided Hillary Clinton is too damaged to defend any longer.

Even if she were to win by stealing the election, she would be so mired in criminal investigations and political illegitimacy that she would rip the nation to shreds while fighting for her own political survival.
Who wrote that?
Trump?

He can't write.
He hired someone.

Who? Who is endorsing Trump?
The head of both the FBI and the CIA?

Trump threatened endless legal entanglements.
Legal entanglements are his native milieu.

Maybe, they like high profile, dead-end cases, too.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
duckshirt
Posts: 567
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 1:41 am UTC
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby duckshirt » Fri Nov 04, 2016 6:13 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:Trump didn't say they wanted it; he said they let him get away with it. Because he's rich; because he's a celebrity. Because they really have very little other choice. He's not claiming they consent; he's claiming they keep their mouths shut.

Sounds like he is probably claiming they consent...

Feel free to argue otherwise but I don't think the general population agrees, it's too much of a stretch to assume
lol everything matters
-Ed

elasto
Posts: 3574
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Fri Nov 04, 2016 10:03 am UTC

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have made renewed attacks on each other's fitness for office as polls suggest the race for the White House is tightening.

Mrs Clinton - who has seen her national opinion poll lead shrink in recent days - targeted her Republican rival's temperament and attitude to women.

Mr Trump said she would be followed into the White House by criminal investigations.

Mr Trump has gained ground on Mrs Clinton in a number of swing states, including Florida and North Carolina, according to polls. Some national tracker polls are now suggesting the two candidates are neck-and-neck.

Nice.

Once again, this is the person the voters think is a better choice than Clinton:

At that point in the audio, Trump and Bush appear to notice Arianne Zucker, the actress who is waiting to escort them into the soap-opera set.

“Your girl’s hot as shit, in the purple,” says Bush, who’s now a co-host of NBC’s “Today” show.

“Whoa!” Trump says. “Whoa!”

“I’ve got to use some Tic Tacs, just in case I start kissing her,” Trump says. “You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait.”

“And when you’re a star, they let you do it,” Trump says. “You can do anything.”

“Whatever you want,” says another voice, apparently Bush’s.

“Grab them by the pussy,” Trump says. “You can do anything.”

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Fri Nov 04, 2016 12:12 pm UTC

elasto wrote:Once again, this is the person the some voters think is a better choice than Clinton:
FTFY

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26533
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Nov 04, 2016 12:15 pm UTC

duckshirt wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:Trump didn't say they wanted it; he said they let him get away with it. Because he's rich; because he's a celebrity. Because they really have very little other choice. He's not claiming they consent; he's claiming they keep their mouths shut.

Sounds like he is probably claiming they consent...

As already pointed out, consent does not work that way. Someone claiming they don't drive drunk because they also drink a lot of coffee, or because alcohol doesn't affect them, is still admitting to drunk-driving even if they don't know they're admitting to that.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6562
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Fri Nov 04, 2016 12:54 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
elasto wrote:Once again, this is the person the some voters think is a better choice than Clinton:
FTFY

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/mos ... ry-twitter
Fun fact, the amount of people who switched their vote from Trump to Clinton or vice versa is .5%.
The main reason polls are changing is that undecided and third parties are changing their vote back to Trump or Clinton.

User avatar
SDK
Posts: 675
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 7:40 pm UTC
Location: Canada

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby SDK » Fri Nov 04, 2016 4:45 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
duckshirt wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:Trump didn't say they wanted it; he said they let him get away with it. Because he's rich; because he's a celebrity. Because they really have very little other choice. He's not claiming they consent; he's claiming they keep their mouths shut.

Sounds like he is probably claiming they consent...

As already pointed out, consent does not work that way. Someone claiming they don't drive drunk because they also drink a lot of coffee, or because alcohol doesn't affect them, is still admitting to drunk-driving even if they don't know they're admitting to that.

Affirmative consent is great, but that's not how the world worked even a few years ago. If they never said no, he's not guilty of sexual assault. (Just to be clear, they probably did say no, at least in a few cases based on all the other evidence, but Trump did not admit to that)
The biggest number (63 quintillion googols in debt)

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1935
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Sableagle » Fri Nov 04, 2016 4:48 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Many at the FBI support Trump over Clinton.
Son_of_an_FBI_Agent_in_Mississippi wrote:My father carries {a pistol} and three spare magazines. He says it's possible he'll run out of ammunition one day but by the time he does there'll be a line of dead niggers from here to the coast.
Something about that kind of bothered me a little at the time, and it's stuck with me.
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7212
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Nov 04, 2016 6:00 pm UTC

SDK wrote:Affirmative consent is great, but that's not how the world worked even a few years ago. If they never said no, he's not guilty of sexual assault. (Just to be clear, they probably did say no, at least in a few cases based on all the other evidence, but Trump did not admit to that)
That's the point; of *course* coffee doesn't make alcohol magically disappear -- and of *course* being a celebrity doesn't make consent magically disappear. if he's telling the truth, it's pretty clear he's committed sexual assault at some point. That's why it's an admission, even if Trump doesn't think it is. A confession given in ignorance is still a confession.

User avatar
SDK
Posts: 675
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 7:40 pm UTC
Location: Canada

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby SDK » Fri Nov 04, 2016 6:17 pm UTC

He confessed to kissing women, and implied that he doesn't ask permission first. Living in the "no means no" days instead of the "yes means yes" days, that's not sexual assault unless he continues kissing them (or trying to) after they have told him not to. That information is not in what he's said. You can find that information elsewhere and draw conclusions based on that, but this is not a confession to a crime, it's a confession to being a scumbag.
The biggest number (63 quintillion googols in debt)

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Fri Nov 04, 2016 6:49 pm UTC

Three days out from the election everybody who is awake and alert knows about that video and what Trump says. He confesses to nothing specific with anyone, and he doesn't say he groped any one women's privates. None of the people who have accused him have filed charges. It comes down to who do you believe.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7212
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Nov 04, 2016 6:51 pm UTC

I don't think sexual assault laws have undergone a fundamental nation-wide change in the past decade. And if they haven't, that means sexual assault was still any sexual contact that isn't explicitly consented to (verbally or otherwise). Now, that can be hard to prove (that consent wasn't explicitly given), but luckily, *somebody* got recorded talking about how they don't even *wait* for some form of explicit consent...

@morriswalters: They probably haven't filed charges because the statute of limitations has long since passed.

elasto
Posts: 3574
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Fri Nov 04, 2016 7:16 pm UTC

SDK wrote:He confessed to kissing women, and implied that he doesn't ask permission first. Living in the "no means no" days instead of the "yes means yes" days, that's not sexual assault unless he continues kissing them (or trying to) after they have told him not to.

That 'rule' has never made any sense though. It means you can have sex with unconscious people. Well, until they wake up and tell you to stop.

User avatar
SDK
Posts: 675
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 7:40 pm UTC
Location: Canada

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby SDK » Fri Nov 04, 2016 7:27 pm UTC

You edited your post since, Hippo, but charged is different from convicted. What I'm saying is that I don't think any judge would convict someone if that was their confession (absent other evidence).

Turns out I may be wrong though. My understanding of sexual assault laws was that the "unwanted" part has to be communicated, barring extreme circumstances (like grabbin' 'em by the pussy?). The "affirmative consent" and "only yes means yes" stuff is recent, mainly just the standard on many university campuses these days, and I thought the legal definition was pretty clear that consent was not required. Every legal definition I could find just talks about "unwanted sexual contact" though, nothing about communication, so you may be right. I've never heard of anyone being punished for kissing someone, but that's definitely within the legal definition if they're not interested. Sorry for my confusion. Turns out Trump is more than just a scumbag.

pedit: Yeah, elasto, you got it. I was wrong.
The biggest number (63 quintillion googols in debt)

elasto
Posts: 3574
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Fri Nov 04, 2016 7:34 pm UTC

Yeah. It wouldn't make sense in any other context either, of course.

It's not ok for doctors to inject you with a needle without asking just so long as they stop after you object...
It's not ok for someone to slap you in the face without asking just so long as they stop after you object...
So it's not ok for someone to kiss you intimately without asking just so long as they stop after you object.

All three will run into legal issues - though the third is of course quite difficult to successfully prosecute, given that consent can legitimately be given non-verbally...

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11092
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Yakk » Fri Nov 04, 2016 7:44 pm UTC

Non-verbal consent can be given to the others as well. It just tends not to fly in court nearly as well.

The presumption of consent from a woman under sexual aggression is a social, not legal, construct.
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Fri Nov 04, 2016 7:48 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:@morriswalters: They probably haven't filed charges because the statute of limitations has long since passed.
It was inconvenient that it worked out that way, since we have a confession. It would have been a slam dunk for any prosecution.

Chen
Posts: 5487
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Chen » Fri Nov 04, 2016 7:59 pm UTC

From my limited searching capability with the filters in place here, I got the following as a description of that hot mic incident (the relevant part about kissing people and grabbing them by their genitals):

“I’ve got to use some Tic Tacs, just in case I start kissing her,” Trump says. “You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait.”

“And when you’re a star, they let you do it,” Trump says. “You can do anything.”

“Whatever you want,” says another voice, apparently Bush’s.

“Grab them by the p---y,” Trump says. “You can do anything.”


It's vulgar and definitely shows his misogyny, but there's no way it would hold up in court as evidence of actual assault he had performed. The "I don't even wait" followed by "...they let you do it" does also seem to indicate that he's saying there is some sort of consent there.

The tape shows his true colors and he may in fact be guilty of sexual assault to a variety of women, but the tape is in no way proof of it. It's proof of his character but not of any actual act.

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11092
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Yakk » Fri Nov 04, 2016 8:10 pm UTC

It is no more a confession than "I handled that traitor" would be if the person in question was found dead.

It is also no less a confession.

If a woman claimed she was kissed "out of the blue" without consent, it is evidence that he did indeed do it. Like the dozen women who have pretty much stated he did.

The confession is not conclusive evidence, but it is evidence. No confession is conclusive evidence.
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6588
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby ucim » Fri Nov 04, 2016 9:21 pm UTC

The legality [of the pussy-grabbing] isn't even all that important... what's important is that it's yet another indication of how Trump thinks of the people around him. Tools to be used for his pleasure. Subjects to submit to his will. And he expects as much.

This will be our position to him as the governed, should he win.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6562
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Fri Nov 04, 2016 9:24 pm UTC

ucim wrote:The legality [of the pussy-grabbing] isn't even all that important... what's important is that it's yet another indication of how Trump thinks of the people around him. Tools to be used for his pleasure. Subjects to submit to his will. And he expects as much.

This will be our position to him as the governed, should he win.

Jose

A Trumper would totally let his daughter get felt up by Trump if it meant Clinton wouldn't get to murder another baby or take their guns. Well, maybe not his daughter. After all, his daughter isn't a slut who's asking for it.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7212
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Nov 04, 2016 10:13 pm UTC

SDK wrote:You edited your post since, Hippo, but charged is different from convicted.
Yeah, sorry; I realized after I made the post that I didn't like my argument very much.
SDK wrote:Turns out I may be wrong though. My understanding of sexual assault laws was that the "unwanted" part has to be communicated, barring extreme circumstances (like grabbin' 'em by the pussy?). The "affirmative consent" and "only yes means yes" stuff is recent, mainly just the standard on many university campuses these days, and I thought the legal definition was pretty clear that consent was not required. Every legal definition I could find just talks about "unwanted sexual contact" though, nothing about communication, so you may be right. I've never heard of anyone being punished for kissing someone, but that's definitely within the legal definition if they're not interested. Sorry for my confusion. Turns out Trump is more than just a scumbag.
Yeah, I can see how you might think that recent focus on affirmative consent is reflective of a shift in our laws, but that's more the social end than the legal end. From what little I've seen, most laws in the US regarding sexual assault do not place the burden of communicating nonconsent on the victim; rather, it's the actor's responsibility to confirm that consent has been given.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6562
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Fri Nov 04, 2016 10:42 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
SDK wrote:You edited your post since, Hippo, but charged is different from convicted.
Yeah, sorry; I realized after I made the post that I didn't like my argument very much.
SDK wrote:Turns out I may be wrong though. My understanding of sexual assault laws was that the "unwanted" part has to be communicated, barring extreme circumstances (like grabbin' 'em by the pussy?). The "affirmative consent" and "only yes means yes" stuff is recent, mainly just the standard on many university campuses these days, and I thought the legal definition was pretty clear that consent was not required. Every legal definition I could find just talks about "unwanted sexual contact" though, nothing about communication, so you may be right. I've never heard of anyone being punished for kissing someone, but that's definitely within the legal definition if they're not interested. Sorry for my confusion. Turns out Trump is more than just a scumbag.
Yeah, I can see how you might think that recent focus on affirmative consent is reflective of a shift in our laws, but that's more the social end than the legal end. From what little I've seen, most laws in the US regarding sexual assault do not place the burden of communicating nonconsent on the victim; rather, it's the actor's responsibility to confirm that consent has been given.

If SDK is confused, it's due to the lack of enforcement and a lack of reporting. It's the same reason why sexual assault rates are skyrocketing in the military and elsewhere. It's not that people are more rapey, it's that people who used to be cowed into silence, are now coming forward.

Also, Clinton is on the knife's edge.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ele ... t-so-much/
If she loses a single state in her firewall, she loses it all.
PS McMullen, you had only one fucking job, and you couldn't even close on Utah. And you call yourself a Mormon Republican. Why isn't Mitt endorsing him? Might push him over the top.

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 1113
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Liri » Sat Nov 05, 2016 12:37 am UTC

I'm not trusting Nate any more. Sam Wang with Princeton gives a brief mention of why 538 looks so different from most other polling aggregates here.

We'll know in a few days in any case. I just talked to a friend from college who wrote-in Stein in NC. No point chewing him out now. He at least voted straight Democratic for the rest of the ticket.
There's a certain amount of freedom involved in cycling: you're self-propelled and decide exactly where to go. If you see something that catches your eye to the left, you can veer off there, which isn't so easy in a car, and you can't cover as much ground walking.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6327
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Sat Nov 05, 2016 1:58 am UTC

ucim wrote:I have family that is constantly pointing me to "before it's news". The latest one is:

http://beforeitsnews.com/conspiracy-the ... 78120.html

I don't give the site much credence, but following the links doesn't always lead down the rabbit hole. Comments?

Jose


Well, the two biggest stories have been proven false (or Clinton must be sending Bret Baier death threats).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyl ... ge%2Fstory
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

elasto
Posts: 3574
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Sat Nov 05, 2016 6:09 am UTC

Melania Trump was paid for 10 modeling jobs in the US worth $20,056 that occurred in the seven weeks before she had legal permission to work in the country, according to detailed accounting ledgers, contracts and related documents provided to the Associated Press.

The details of Melania Trump’s early paid modeling work in the US emerged in the final days of a bitter presidential campaign in which her husband, Donald Trump, has taken a hard line on immigration laws and those who violate them. Trump has proposed broader use of the government’s E-verify system allowing employers to check whether job applicants are authorized to work. He has noted that federal law prohibits illegally paying immigrants.

Melania Trump, who received a green card in March 2001 and became a US citizen in 2006, has always maintained that she arrived in the country legally and never violated the terms of her immigration status. During the presidential campaign, she has cited her story to defend her husband’s hard line on immigration.

Any normal candidate? Revelations would be very embarrassing.

Post-truth-Trump? Would be amazed if it any effect at all.

Full story

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10270
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Sat Nov 05, 2016 6:32 am UTC

Don't you know? Making money by screwing the system is proof of how smart Trump is. /sarcasm

User avatar
Jumble
Posts: 1184
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 6:48 am UTC
Location: London(ish), UK.
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Jumble » Sat Nov 05, 2016 2:39 pm UTC

Can I just say that watching your election (in, frankly, utter horror) from the other side of the Atlantic I was perplexed by the FBI action last week. We have very strict rules on purdah in the UK Civil Service that kick in at fixed points ahead of elections, national referendums, etc. We must not act to influence the election, either personally or officially through our departments. If I wish to become involved in the political debate I am required to officially resign from my post. Usually (if, for example, you ran as an MP and were unsuccessful) your department will keep the post open for you if you wish to return after the election. Even using this (supposedly anonymous) account I was careful not to comment on the Brexit referendum until the horrible day that the result was announced. I believe these rules also apply equally to our security agencies.

Do you have a similar system or did the FBI not consider their announcement last week to be relevant to the election?
Spoiler:
Giant Speck wrote:You're a demon! DEMON!!!!

Oregonaut wrote:CURSE YOU VILLAIN!!
PhoenixEnigma wrote:Jumble is either the best or worst Santa ever, and I can't figure out which. Possibly both.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6327
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Sat Nov 05, 2016 2:53 pm UTC

The Hatch Act prevents executive employees from campaigning, and then there are DOJ policies Comey violated (and was warned about ahead of time) that prevented him from discussing ongoing investigations close to elections if they might interfere. Comey definitely violated the latter policy, and may he violated the Hatch Act if he released it deliberately to affect the election, which he probably did because his actions make no sense otherwise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatch_Act_of_1939
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 1113
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Liri » Sat Nov 05, 2016 2:53 pm UTC

Jumble wrote:Do you have a similar system or did the FBI not consider their announcement last week to be relevant to the election?

You are very responsible!

I saw something about a 6-week cutoff, but I don't know if it's just tradition or actually encoded (I think it's encoded, some Act starting with a 'H'...)

I don't buy the argument that Comey was faced with a tough decision and acted correctly. It's deliberately affecting the election. People can point to the praise Democrats gave him when he recommended not pressing charges, but that's because charges would have been bullshit. At that time he was already acting irresponsibly by saying she was "extremely careless". Like why the hell would you do that if not to imply, "Hey, she's not a criminal, but you should all be Even More Angry at her now. Look how above the rules she is!"

Edit: yeah, what Thesh said
There's a certain amount of freedom involved in cycling: you're self-propelled and decide exactly where to go. If you see something that catches your eye to the left, you can veer off there, which isn't so easy in a car, and you can't cover as much ground walking.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6327
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Sat Nov 05, 2016 3:20 pm UTC

Basically, the whole FBI needs to be cleaned up due to the Hatch Act:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... nald-trump
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6562
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Sat Nov 05, 2016 4:06 pm UTC

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/tru ... l-succeed/
Regardless of who wins Tuesday, there's policy to be decided that isn't immigration/xenophobia.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/tru ... l-succeed/
Short term or long term?
Some policymakers, particularly on the left, see infrastructure investment primarily as a jobs program, like the New Deal’s Works Progress Administration. In this framing, the goal of infrastructure spending is to provide a short-term stimulus that jump-starts the economy — more jobs lead to more spending, which leads to more hiring, and so on.
Many economists embraced that logic during the depths of the recession in 2008-09 and in the early stages of the recovery, when the economy badly needed a boost. But now, with the unemployment rate at 4.9 percent, the need for an immediate stimulus is less clear. Some economists, especially conservative ones, are skeptical that government spending does much to boost the economy outside of recessions. The Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that it often takes 20 years for the full effects of federal infrastructure investment to be felt.
“I think of it as a long-term economic growth issue,” said Keith Hennessey, a lecturer at Stanford and the former head of President George W. Bush’s National Economic Council. “If it increases short-term employment, great — but that’s not as important.” Short-term employment is, however, important to politicians, who want results that will help them win re-election. That difference in emphasis can have practical implications: It gives politicians an incentive to push for projects that create the most jobs quickly, rather than ones that offer the best payoff in the long term.

Build new projects or repair old ones?
A decision that policymakers face is whether to focus on building new projects or maintaining old ones. The nation’s roads, bridges and airports have a massive backlog of deferred maintenance. Many economists see that backlog as a top infrastructure priority: Economists like spending on repairs and maintenance because it’s cheaper in the long run to maintain existing infrastructure than to let it deteriorate and be forced to start over. Maintenance also takes out the guesswork — we already know which bridges and highways are the most valuable. “One of the benefits of an emphasis on deferred maintenance is that it’s done on the infrastructure that’s heavily used,” said Summers, who served in the Clinton and Obama administrations. But politicians might not play along. A new bridge or expressway is more marketable than filling potholes — hence the “bridges to nowhere” A large share of federal infrastructure spending is executed by block grants to state and local governments, which decide how the money gets spent. Some economists consider that a good thing. “Let them spend it on what they consider most important,” said Sherle Schwenninger, the founder of the World Economic Roundtable and a director at New America, a left-leaning think tank. “There will be some waste and pet projects, but a lot of them will start repairing potholes and replacing water pipes, moving power lines underground, etc.”


How big?
Politicians only want to spend in the billions, but economists want at least a trillion in spending. And that's spending on maintenance, which is cheaper, and not brand new stuff, which is pricey.
How do we pay for it?
Historically, most government infrastructure projects at both the state and federal level have been paid for with borrowed money, via government bonds. Economists often warn about the risks of too much debt. But in this case, some economists see borrowing as an argument in favor of infrastructure spending, not against it.

This argument is a bit technical, but the short version is this: The U.S. and other rich nations have been stuck in a prolonged period of low economic growth. That pattern, and the low interest rates that come with it, have discouraged private investment — why build a new factory or invest in a new project if you won’t get a decent return on your investment? Infrastructure spending, because it relies on long-term borrowing, would probably drive up interest rates, encouraging more private investment while improving the long-term productive capacity of the U.S. economy. Infrastructure investment, Summers said, “enables us to have more financial stability with the same level of demand at a higher interest rate.”
Not everyone buys Summers’s theory. But even if he is wrong, low interest rates mean that it is remarkably cheap for the U.S. to borrow money right now. That means the government can afford to borrow more than it could during a period of higher interest rates. (Of course, interest rates could always rise.)
Many politicians from both parties, however, are wary of increasing the national debt. Clinton has pledged repeatedly not to “add a penny” to the debt.
Alternately, you could leverage public money as seed money to get private money involved, like toll highways and stuff. I think that's just a corporate welfare since all it does is sell off public assets at lower prices instead of giving the savings over to the public.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Diadem » Sat Nov 05, 2016 5:50 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:Basically, the whole FBI needs to be cleaned up due to the Hatch Act:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... nald-trump

How did the FBI become so pro-Trump? That's kind of weird. Usually civil service is pretty pro-establishment, and pretty conservative in the "not wanting any change" sense of the word. Hillary seems like a pretty good candidate for them. Perhaps a bit too left-wing, but she's unlikely to make any major reforms or rock the boat too much. Trump is pretty much the opposite. There's the chance that he'll be an exceptionally weak president who will pretty much let the civil service do whatever they want, and I guess that's ideal (from their point of view), but there's also the risk that he'll be very authoritarian, or will just start reforming entire departments.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3685
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Dark567 » Sat Nov 05, 2016 6:12 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:How did the FBI become so pro-Trump? That's kind of weird. Usually civil service is pretty pro-establishment, and pretty conservative in the "not wanting any change" sense of the word. Hillary seems like a pretty good candidate for them. Perhaps a bit too left-wing, but she's unlikely to make any major reforms or rock the boat too much. Trump is pretty much the opposite. There's the chance that he'll be an exceptionally weak president who will pretty much let the civil service do whatever they want, and I guess that's ideal (from their point of view), but there's also the risk that he'll be very authoritarian, or will just start reforming entire departments.
The FBI tends to recruit from other law enforcement, which also tends to be very pro-Trump. In general right now, the perception is that the GOP is supportive of law enforcement agents(LEA) as they currently stand, and the Democrats are pro-reform. Trump, in particular, has been vocal about supporting current LEA practices, so it is not a surprise that they would support him.
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests