Women's March

[Stadler]

I still think the unmarried person has a responsibility to respect other people's relationships.  That doesn't necessarily take away any responsibility from the married person.  I see it as a duty in addition to the married person's responsibility to keep their vows.

I mean, we have tortuous interference for interfering with a competitor's business relationships.  It's not that much of a stretch to apply this to marital relationships.

Penalties for adultery usually punish both the married and unmarried person.  And you can even plead 2nd degree murder down to manslaughter if you kill a guy that you catch screwing your wife, because your temporary rage is somewhat justified.

So I think I'm more in the mainstream, at least of historical legal thought, when it comes to the notion that both people are to blame.

It used to be in many jurisdictions that you COULD sue the partner in an adulterous affair, but that doctrine has been pretty much abandoned, and in some cases (like Charlotte, where I checked after finding out about my ex's first affair. ) that rejection was codified into law. So maybe historically, but not currently.  In any event, it's really a moral question versus an accountability question.   

I still think that we are responsible for our own actions.  I probably wouldn't "hit on" a married woman if I knew she was married, but that is MY moral quandary, not anyone else's.    And ultimately, if we do believe that "consent" is solely in the hands of the party making the decision, I can't be responsible for whether that woman (in my case; it's obviously not always a woman depending on the actors involved) decides to sleep with me or not.  Think of the ramifications here; you are by extension opening the door to the "did you see what she was WEARING?" defense in rape cases.   If a wife (or husband) is not culpable for cheating because of the overtures of the other party, why then should a rapist be solely culpable without regard to the overtures of the victim? 

[Stadler]

Even then, they'll find a way to justify it or excuse the wreckage as the fault of the "other side".

I'm pretty sure some will.  However, I think it's a lot easier in politics for people to deny credit for successes to people they don't like (See Obama, Barack H.) than to excuse your own side for catastrophic failures (Bush's 25% approval rating after Iraq and the mortgage meltdown).

I'm sure something like 25% of his supporters will remain loyalists, though.  In his own words, he could shoot people in the street, and his supporters would still have his back.

HAHAHAHA, love how you lay out this fancy psychological reasoning, and then use it yourself to bolster your case.  You're doing the same thing with regards to "Obama, Barack H" that you accuse others of doing for Trump (and even falsely attributed failures to Bush - the mortgage meltdown - to boot!).   Your argument is premised on a faulty set of assumptions, so like a Jenga tower based on a pillow, it's destined to fail.   You assume that everyone on the right is an intellectually blind sycophant just looking for ways of justifying their position, whereas the left is just chock full of people who are clear, lucid and see the world as it is.   That's not an accurate portrayal.   We are not talking about two different species.   Yes, science is telling us there are some basic differences in thought patterns, but we are all humans.  Our "delusion level" is not set by our political party; your assumption is wrong there too, because not all of us, present company included, fit neatly into nice little party buckets. 


Your theory doesn't at all address those of us that, for example, are social liberals and economic conservatives (like me).  It doesn't at all address those of us that, for example, don't live in the States.    Your theory doesn't at all address or explain the reasons why Trump ACTUALLY won (and hint, it has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with racism, bigotry, or any of the word-swords that get thrown around like they're Skittles from left to right). 

[Stadler]

That's no way to talk about Bill Clinton.

Funny, I just got done saying that "I know you are but what am I" is pretty much all Trump defenders have at this point.

Trump's lack of restraint is notably far worse than Bill's.

Says who?  You?   I've already demolished your argument as being as partisan and one-sided as any of the ones you're attacking.   I think there is ample evidence that Bill's lack of restraint is as rampant as Trump's, if not more.  I don't recall Trump being on the pedophile's plane.  Or subverting the law and using his influence to aid and abet his wife's Presidential campaign16 years after he left office.    I'm a Clinton fan, actually, I think he's one of the most politically astute people of his generation, but let's call a spade a spade. 

[Stadler]

Bill Clinton was never convicted of consensual sex, either.  Difference being that Bill Clinton didn't go around bragging about how he could likely get away with sexual assault, because he's a celebrity.

He didn't have to.  But he WAS accused of it.  Google "Juanita Brodderick". 

In any event, there's a legal argument to be made that "consent" can't be given in a work place environment where the male is in a superior/supervisory position over the female.    It's not an easy argument, but it's been done.   It is thankful for Bill that Monica is more interested in getting on with her life and raising her family than putting her name in the headlines. 

[Stadler]

That sums up Slick Willie as much as it does Trump.

Consensual sex is not the same thing as sexual assault.

Except Trump has never been convicted of sexual assault. No matter what anyone wants to say.

I've never been convicted of any of the illegal stuff I've done/do. Several of which are felonies with decent jail time.

I smell a new thread brewing!   "The Chino Files:  Stories from the Dark Side"

[Chino]

That sums up Slick Willie as much as it does Trump.

Consensual sex is not the same thing as sexual assault.

Except Trump has never been convicted of sexual assault. No matter what anyone wants to say.

I've never been convicted of any of the illegal stuff I've done/do. Several of which are felonies with decent jail time.

I smell a new thread brewing!   "The Chino Files:  Stories from the Dark Side"

I see what you did there?

[Stadler]

Bill Clinton was never convicted of consensual sex, either.  Difference being that Bill Clinton didn't go around bragging about how he could likely get away with sexual assault, because he's a celebrity.

I don't personally like Trump the man but I believe he is going to do more to improve the economy than Obama did.

Have you gotten a raise in the last 8 years? How much money have you made in your 401K since 2009? See any GM vehicles on the road lately? How many middle class people do you know that can't find a job?

That's not a strong argument.  I'd rather not go into too much detail, but "YES, but far less than the raises I got between 1996 and 1008. Almost none, because I pulled a lot out to cover losses from the housing crash, which, as I have written before, I believe is at least partially due to Obama.  A ton, what's the point?  A decent amount; not so much "finding a job" but job mobility is almost zero."

You didn't mention the "Have you bought a house since 2009?".   Again, rather not go into too much detail, but my record with houses between 1998 and 2008 is like the Patriots in the Belichick era, and since then is more like the Pagano era Colts. 

You also didn't mention anything about healthcare, which I don't think I have to elaborate on.

Let's not pretend that "BUSH=ECONOMICALLY BAD" and "OBAMA=ECONOMICALLY GOOD". 

[Tick]

Bill Clinton was never convicted of consensual sex, either.  Difference being that Bill Clinton didn't go around bragging about how he could likely get away with sexual assault, because he's a celebrity.

I don't personally like Trump the man but I believe he is going to do more to improve the economy than Obama did.

Have you gotten a raise in the last 8 years? How much money have you made in your 401K since 2009? See any GM vehicles on the road lately? How many middle class people do you know that can't find a job?

I live in the same state you do, and the economy in Connecticut blows. Have I gotten a raise in the last 8 years? I actually took 3 pay cuts on my last job I was at for 6 years. Then I was laid off. That answer your question?
Your situation apparently is sound, but working for a small flooring retail store I can tell you the climate has been awful since 08. Horrible at the end of Bush and no better now. Perspective is often times the view from our own windows. The economy is not in good shape. Having a job is the not the same thing as having a good job and yes I know quite of few people struggling in our state.
Plus healthcare cost has sky rocketed making it even tougher to make ends meet.

[Stadler]

Since this is a "Woman's Rights" thread, let's ask our resident experts. 

Harmony, Chknptpie:   If I told you about two men, and described them as follows, would YOU feel there is a meaningful distinction between them?  Aren't both indicative of a chronic and pervasive lack of respect for women?  Don't both, to Harmony's point, "marginalize" women?


Man One:  Accused of a multitude of sexual assaults, at least seventeen, two confirmed and/or substantiated, with at least two infidelities proved beyond reasonable doubt (he admitted to both).  One of the infidelities was ostensibly "consensual" but was in the workplace and involved him being the clear senior leader in the office and her as "intern".  Later, when brought to trial related to that "consensual" relationship, it was proved he lied under oath (during a previous sexual assault claim against him), played games with the definition of what "having sex" means (distinguishing between actual intercourse on one side, and oral sex and the manual insertion of various objects into her vagina on the other).  There are claims that he has in the past cavorted with a known convicted pedophile, and on at least one occasion took a flight on a private jet owned by that pedophile and known to stage "sex parties" in the air (presumably where jurisdiction of law enforcement is questionable).

Man Two:  Accused of a multitude of sexual assaults, at least ten, none confirmed or substantiated, and at least one infidelity on record (which he admitted to).   The infidelity was consensual; he later married the "mistress" and had one child with her.  In 2016, a tape was found where he professed to "hitting on a married woman" (though he also admitted that he was turned down, so no assault was either alleged or proven) and claiming that a famous person could "just start kissing [a woman]. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.  Grab ’em by the p****. You can do anything.", but not in fact, in reference to any person or any one event.

[cramx3]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/09/13/donald-trump-joined-by-ivanka-trump-to-outline-child-care-policy/?utm_term=.24fefaebe919

I always thought our country was pretty poor when it came to maternity leave.  I know Bernie was big on this too.

[jsbru]

When I mention Trump's complete lack of self-restraint, it's not limited simply to his sexual urges.  For more information, check out www.twitter.com

[hefdaddy42]

When I mention Trump's complete lack of self-restraint, it's not limited simply to his sexual urges.  For more information, check out www.twitter.com

No kidding.  This guy has absolutely NO sense of introspection or "look before you leap".  If a thought enters his mind, it exits his mouth (and way too frequently, his tiny, tiny hands, as they type onto twitter).

[jsbru]

You assume that everyone on the right is an intellectually blind sycophant just looking for ways of justifying their position, whereas the left is just chock full of people who are clear, lucid and see the world as it is.

I never said or assumed that.

However, if you look at pretty much every objective metric, the economy has substantially improved in general under Obama.  With that said, that doesn't mean everyone's doing great.  But no one ever does.  Even if an economy generally improves, there's going to be geographical areas and careers that buck the trend.

2008 was a pretty devastating blow to our economy, and it was always going to take a long time to recover from it.

[jsbru]

Additionally, it's one thing to say that the economy is good, but Obama had nothing to do with it.

That's not the argument from the Obama haters, though.  Their argument is that the economy is terrible, and Obama caused it.  That's pretty much demonstrably false.

[Stadler]

When I mention Trump's complete lack of self-restraint, it's not limited simply to his sexual urges.  For more information, check out www.twitter.com

You lost me at "www.twitter.com".   He shouldn't be there, we shouldn't be there, and in my humble opinion, in-depth meaningful nuanced political discussion is NOT there. 

[Stadler]

When I mention Trump's complete lack of self-restraint, it's not limited simply to his sexual urges.  For more information, check out www.twitter.com

No kidding.  This guy has absolutely NO sense of introspection or "look before you leap".  If a thought enters his mind, it exits his mouth (and way too frequently, his tiny, tiny hands, as they type onto twitter).

But this is a great example.  You guys both know full freaking well that if the argument against Obama was "his tiny hands" or if the argument against Kennedy was "his orange hair" you guys would be shitting yourself to slam the arguments as meaningless, petty and irrelevant. 

If your arguments are SO great, if your position is SO right, you wouldn't need to worry about his "urges" or his "hands".    Bottom line? What is he doing AS PRESIDENT.  What policies are being advocated, and which are being disregarded.   Where is the money being spent, where is it not. 

I note more and more that the argument is becoming more and more ad hominem, and less and less substantive, and that screams one thing - and one thing only - to me:  YOUR ARGUMENTS AREN'T THAT STRONG. 

[Stadler]

Additionally, it's one thing to say that the economy is good, but Obama had nothing to do with it.

That's not the argument from the Obama haters, though.  Their argument is that the economy is terrible, and Obama caused it.  That's pretty much demonstrably false.

As usual, it's always somewhere in between.  But you're crying for "FAIR" assessments for Obama, but have no problem whatsoever slamming Bush and Trump for everything from economics to dick size.  If you want "fair" you have to be fair across the board.   To me, no one metric says "good" or "bad", and every metric has to be related not just to "what came before" but also "where SHOULD it be"?    If I'm the Patriots and I score 20 points against the Steelers - very good team - and then score 28 against the Newtown High School Junior Varsity team, it's fair to say that the Pats improved their score number, are moving in the right direction, and that the Newtown team is not as good as the Steelers, but the Pats should have put up a whole lot more than 28 points against them and so that's not a fair measure.

I can remember a business review with Jack Welch, at GE. The boss of my business went in and gave his pitch, but his numbers showed a 5% loss this year, as compared with last year. Another leader came in and was actually bragging about how HIS 5% was awesome because it was "black" (positive) whereas the one before (my bosses) was "red" (loss).  And Welch ripped him a new ass (almost fired him) because my boss - based on industry projections - was supposed to be around negative 10 or 12%, and the "braggart" should have been around positive 15% compared to his competitors.   

Obama didn't send us into the tubes, but one of the key reasons I attribute a good portion of the economic crash to Obama is because it was in significant part based on a distinct lack of consumer confidence that never really came back under Obama, at least until the most recent numbers (and some of that can be attributed to his being a lame duck).   Simple fact: he was not economically reliable, and investment money proceeded cautiously under him.   That's not the sign of a strong economy under any circumstances.

[El Barto]

Since this is a "Woman's Rights" thread, let's ask our resident experts. 

Harmony, Chknptpie:   If I told you about two men, and described them as follows, would YOU feel there is a meaningful distinction between them?  Aren't both indicative of a chronic and pervasive lack of respect for women?  Don't both, to Harmony's point, "marginalize" women?


Man One:  Accused of a multitude of sexual assaults, at least seventeen, two confirmed and/or substantiated, with at least two infidelities proved beyond reasonable doubt (he admitted to both).  One of the infidelities was ostensibly "consensual" but was in the workplace and involved him being the clear senior leader in the office and her as "intern".  Later, when brought to trial related to that "consensual" relationship, it was proved he lied under oath (during a previous sexual assault claim against him), played games with the definition of what "having sex" means (distinguishing between actual intercourse on one side, and oral sex and the manual insertion of various objects into her vagina on the other).  There are claims that he has in the past cavorted with a known convicted pedophile, and on at least one occasion took a flight on a private jet owned by that pedophile and known to stage "sex parties" in the air (presumably where jurisdiction of law enforcement is questionable).

Man Two:  Accused of a multitude of sexual assaults, at least ten, none confirmed or substantiated, and at least one infidelity on record (which he admitted to).   The infidelity was consensual; he later married the "mistress" and had one child with her.  In 2016, a tape was found where he professed to "hitting on a married woman" (though he also admitted that he was turned down, so no assault was either alleged or proven) and claiming that a famous person could "just start kissing [a woman]. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.  Grab ’em by the p****. You can do anything.", but not in fact, in reference to any person or any one event.

You omitted that Man Two cavorted with the same known pedophile. Traveled on the same questionably named jet. Was accused of rape by a 13 year old "attendee" at one of the sex parties. Not really necessary to your point that they're both lecherous douchebags, but if we're comparing them let's be fair about it.

[Stadler]

Since this is a "Woman's Rights" thread, let's ask our resident experts. 

Harmony, Chknptpie:   If I told you about two men, and described them as follows, would YOU feel there is a meaningful distinction between them?  Aren't both indicative of a chronic and pervasive lack of respect for women?  Don't both, to Harmony's point, "marginalize" women?


Man One:  Accused of a multitude of sexual assaults, at least seventeen, two confirmed and/or substantiated, with at least two infidelities proved beyond reasonable doubt (he admitted to both).  One of the infidelities was ostensibly "consensual" but was in the workplace and involved him being the clear senior leader in the office and her as "intern".  Later, when brought to trial related to that "consensual" relationship, it was proved he lied under oath (during a previous sexual assault claim against him), played games with the definition of what "having sex" means (distinguishing between actual intercourse on one side, and oral sex and the manual insertion of various objects into her vagina on the other).  There are claims that he has in the past cavorted with a known convicted pedophile, and on at least one occasion took a flight on a private jet owned by that pedophile and known to stage "sex parties" in the air (presumably where jurisdiction of law enforcement is questionable).

Man Two:  Accused of a multitude of sexual assaults, at least ten, none confirmed or substantiated, and at least one infidelity on record (which he admitted to).   The infidelity was consensual; he later married the "mistress" and had one child with her.  In 2016, a tape was found where he professed to "hitting on a married woman" (though he also admitted that he was turned down, so no assault was either alleged or proven) and claiming that a famous person could "just start kissing [a woman]. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.  Grab ’em by the p****. You can do anything.", but not in fact, in reference to any person or any one event.

You omitted that Man Two cavorted with the same known pedophile. Traveled on the same questionably named jet. Was accused of rape by a 13 year old "attendee" at one of the sex parties. Not really necessary to your point that they're both lecherous douchebags, but if we're comparing them let's be fair about it.

Add it in.  I'm game.  My point isn't to make Trump look good.  My point is to highlight the blatant and unabashed white-washing by trying to pretend that somehow Clinton's sexual abuse is absolvable but Trump's is not.  I'm with you: they're both lecherous scumbags. 

[hefdaddy42]

When I mention Trump's complete lack of self-restraint, it's not limited simply to his sexual urges.  For more information, check out www.twitter.com

No kidding.  This guy has absolutely NO sense of introspection or "look before you leap".  If a thought enters his mind, it exits his mouth (and way too frequently, his tiny, tiny hands, as they type onto twitter).

But this is a great example.  You guys both know full freaking well that if the argument against Obama was "his tiny hands" or if the argument against Kennedy was "his orange hair" you guys would be shitting yourself to slam the arguments as meaningless, petty and irrelevant. 

If your arguments are SO great, if your position is SO right, you wouldn't need to worry about his "urges" or his "hands".    Bottom line? What is he doing AS PRESIDENT.  What policies are being advocated, and which are being disregarded.   Where is the money being spent, where is it not. 

I note more and more that the argument is becoming more and more ad hominem, and less and less substantive, and that screams one thing - and one thing only - to me:  YOUR ARGUMENTS AREN'T THAT STRONG.

FFS, Stadler, the point wasn't about his tiny hands.  That was, literally, a throwaway addition at the last moment before I posted.  My post wasn't about his tiny hands, as if that is a real criticism. 

It's about his depth of thought (read: none) and introspection (no evidence whatsoever).  It's not even about ideas (my positions vs. his), it's solely about his personality and character.

Tiny hands be damned.

[jsbru]

I just can't fathom how Obama was responsible for a housing crash that started before he even won the Democratic primary, which he was not even expected to win.

Absolving him from being responsible for the housing crash has nothing to do with partisan blinders.  It has to do with factual impossibility.

[chknptpie]

Since this is a "Woman's Rights" thread, let's ask our resident experts. 

Harmony, Chknptpie:   If I told you about two men, and described them as follows, would YOU feel there is a meaningful distinction between them?  Aren't both indicative of a chronic and pervasive lack of respect for women?  Don't both, to Harmony's point, "marginalize" women?


Man One:  Accused of a multitude of sexual assaults, at least seventeen, two confirmed and/or substantiated, with at least two infidelities proved beyond reasonable doubt (he admitted to both).  One of the infidelities was ostensibly "consensual" but was in the workplace and involved him being the clear senior leader in the office and her as "intern".  Later, when brought to trial related to that "consensual" relationship, it was proved he lied under oath (during a previous sexual assault claim against him), played games with the definition of what "having sex" means (distinguishing between actual intercourse on one side, and oral sex and the manual insertion of various objects into her vagina on the other).  There are claims that he has in the past cavorted with a known convicted pedophile, and on at least one occasion took a flight on a private jet owned by that pedophile and known to stage "sex parties" in the air (presumably where jurisdiction of law enforcement is questionable).

Man Two:  Accused of a multitude of sexual assaults, at least ten, none confirmed or substantiated, and at least one infidelity on record (which he admitted to).   The infidelity was consensual; he later married the "mistress" and had one child with her.  In 2016, a tape was found where he professed to "hitting on a married woman" (though he also admitted that he was turned down, so no assault was either alleged or proven) and claiming that a famous person could "just start kissing [a woman]. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.  Grab ’em by the p****. You can do anything.", but not in fact, in reference to any person or any one event.

You omitted that Man Two cavorted with the same known pedophile. Traveled on the same questionably named jet. Was accused of rape by a 13 year old "attendee" at one of the sex parties. Not really necessary to your point that they're both lecherous douchebags, but if we're comparing them let's be fair about it.

Add it in.  I'm game.  My point isn't to make Trump look good.  My point is to highlight the blatant and unabashed white-washing by trying to pretend that somehow Clinton's sexual abuse is absolvable but Trump's is not.  I'm with you: they're both lecherous scumbags.

Ha, being a woman doesn't make me an expert here guys. I don't really feel I have enough knowledge to make an opinion on BC. I was too young at the time to really understand what happened. One of those men however is currently cutting women's rights and that's what matters to me now.

[TAC]

What rights did he cut?

Just asking, not baiting. I've been trying to pay attention.

[jsbru]

Ha, being a woman doesn't make me an expert here guys. I don't really feel I have enough knowledge to make an opinion on BC. I was too young at the time to really understand what happened. One of those men however is currently cutting women's rights and that's what matters to me now.

Nope.  Bill Clinton did some stuff kinda sorta similar 20-30 years ago.  Therefore your criticism of Trump is invalid. 

[El Barto]

What rights did he cut?

Just asking, not baiting. I've been trying to pay attention.

The only things I'm aware of is cutting funding for foreign aid groups that provide abortions, and stripping away the mandate that ACA policies cover contraception. Tricia (SP???) might have another example I'm not aware of. I wouldn't really call these the stripping away of rights, but it is continuing right down the path that does, witch is the GOP's problem with Planned Parenthood. I wouldn't call that a loss of rights, either, but the practical ramifications are troubling as hell and pretty poorly founded.

[chknptpie]

What rights did he cut?

Just asking, not baiting. I've been trying to pay attention.

Here is the specific Executive memorandum that he signed that impacts women's rights.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/23/presidential-memorandum-regarding-mexico-city-policy

His budget proposal has some impact to women's rights - I'm not fully educated on this one yet
The repeal of the ACA (more on congress than Trump) directly impacts funding for Planned Parenthood
He has nominated numerous candidates who are against women's rights.

[TAC]

Oh, that's the one where he doesn't want the U.S. to pay for abortions in other countries. Is that an issue?

I read somewhere that that is one of those things that Republican presidents repeal and Democratic presidents allow.

[Stadler]

I just can't fathom how Obama was responsible for a housing crash that started before he even won the Democratic primary, which he was not even expected to win.

Absolving him from being responsible for the housing crash has nothing to do with partisan blinders.  It has to do with factual impossibility.

Not even close.   I've written about it - here - easily five or six times.   The short answer is, the market is a predictor of future profits.  If there are no profits to be had, people don't invest.  It's better to sit on your money than to invest it and lose it.  So around Feb of 2007 or so, Obama threw his hat in the ring.  We knew Bush wasn't going to run, so it was down to about four people, McCain, Romney, Clinton, Edwards and Obama.   Like in 2016, Clinton had the early lead with the Superdelegates and what not, but then a funny thing happened.  In places like Philly, where I lived, Obama did a LOT better than anyone thought he was going to.  And so if you track "consumer confidence" - a leading indicator of where markets are going to go, and whether consumers, and this includes investors, were willing to risk their money - you start to see some synergies.   All the movement happened AFTER he declared, and AFTER he started his "change you can believe in" and AFTER the grass roots thing started to take hold.  I know - FOR A FACT - that in my industry, commercial real estate (and I personally bought and sold impaired properties, so I wasn't part of the "mortgage fiasco") my investors said point blank: "We don't know what is going to happen.   There's a growing backlash to the Bush years, we know if this swings left, we're going to have SOME change in environmental/business regulation, and if it swings to this Obama guy, we have NO IDEA where those changes are going to go.  We're going to wait this out."   And then Obama won, and the wait continued, as he did start to put a ton of limits on the movement of money.   

I'm over-simplifying this because I simply do not have time to cull all the dates again.  I'll see if I can find where I wrote this before in more detail with cites and links and stuff.   But it's REAL.  I'm not saying it's ALL Obama, but I am saying that we hd the same (bad) rules for two decades and had at least 12 soft landings when the same thing that happened in '07 and '08 happened, without a crash, but once there was no certainty as to how it was going to be handled, and once consumer confidence cratered (during his term it hit the lowest levels EVER, and until very recently was well under 100, the bench mark for average) there was no one willing to keep their money in the market and take the chance that he'd do the right thing.  And at least ECONOMICALLY, he has shown a consistent lack of understanding of how the markets work, throughout his terms in office. 

[Stadler]

Since this is a "Woman's Rights" thread, let's ask our resident experts. 

Harmony, Chknptpie:   If I told you about two men, and described them as follows, would YOU feel there is a meaningful distinction between them?  Aren't both indicative of a chronic and pervasive lack of respect for women?  Don't both, to Harmony's point, "marginalize" women?


Man One:  Accused of a multitude of sexual assaults, at least seventeen, two confirmed and/or substantiated, with at least two infidelities proved beyond reasonable doubt (he admitted to both).  One of the infidelities was ostensibly "consensual" but was in the workplace and involved him being the clear senior leader in the office and her as "intern".  Later, when brought to trial related to that "consensual" relationship, it was proved he lied under oath (during a previous sexual assault claim against him), played games with the definition of what "having sex" means (distinguishing between actual intercourse on one side, and oral sex and the manual insertion of various objects into her vagina on the other).  There are claims that he has in the past cavorted with a known convicted pedophile, and on at least one occasion took a flight on a private jet owned by that pedophile and known to stage "sex parties" in the air (presumably where jurisdiction of law enforcement is questionable).

Man Two:  Accused of a multitude of sexual assaults, at least ten, none confirmed or substantiated, and at least one infidelity on record (which he admitted to).   The infidelity was consensual; he later married the "mistress" and had one child with her.  In 2016, a tape was found where he professed to "hitting on a married woman" (though he also admitted that he was turned down, so no assault was either alleged or proven) and claiming that a famous person could "just start kissing [a woman]. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.  Grab ’em by the p****. You can do anything.", but not in fact, in reference to any person or any one event.

You omitted that Man Two cavorted with the same known pedophile. Traveled on the same questionably named jet. Was accused of rape by a 13 year old "attendee" at one of the sex parties. Not really necessary to your point that they're both lecherous douchebags, but if we're comparing them let's be fair about it.

Add it in.  I'm game.  My point isn't to make Trump look good.  My point is to highlight the blatant and unabashed white-washing by trying to pretend that somehow Clinton's sexual abuse is absolvable but Trump's is not.  I'm with you: they're both lecherous scumbags.

Ha, being a woman doesn't make me an expert here guys. I don't really feel I have enough knowledge to make an opinion on BC. I was too young at the time to really understand what happened. One of those men however is currently cutting women's rights and that's what matters to me now.

It was meant tongue-in-cheek, but always respectfully.   Not to be taken too seriously, or in any way as derogatory. 

[Stadler]

Ha, being a woman doesn't make me an expert here guys. I don't really feel I have enough knowledge to make an opinion on BC. I was too young at the time to really understand what happened. One of those men however is currently cutting women's rights and that's what matters to me now.

Nope.  Bill Clinton did some stuff kinda sorta similar 20-30 years ago.  Therefore your criticism of Trump is invalid. 

Jeezum Crow.  At least get the argument right.  It's not that her criticism is invalid.  Her criticism is totally valid (not that it's even our place to say whether it is or isn't).     The argument is that YOUR - you, JoeBros. - dismissal of Clinton as not in the same league as Trump is way off base.  The argument is that you keep pining for moderation, but your comments don't seem to reflect that. 

[Stadler]

Oh, that's the one where he doesn't want the U.S. to pay for abortions in other countries. Is that an issue?

I read somewhere that that is one of those things that Republican presidents repeal and Democratic presidents allow.

I'm not sure I agree with Chknptpie on the ACA thing - in theory, anyway, the access to women's health will still be there, just paid for differently (maybe) - but she's dead on on the foreign thing.  That's bad, because it will likely lead to more abortions, and without the funding, more dangerous abortions.  This isn't speculation; we've been playing ping pong with this since Reagan (whoever said that "Republicans remove it, then the next Democrat puts it back" was exactly right) and the data is clear.   I'm very much against that Order.  The rest, we have to see how it plays out.

[cramx3]

Oh, that's the one where he doesn't want the U.S. to pay for abortions in other countries. Is that an issue?

I read somewhere that that is one of those things that Republican presidents repeal and Democratic presidents allow.

I'm not sure I agree with Chknptpie on the ACA thing - in theory, anyway, the access to women's health will still be there, just paid for differently (maybe) - but she's dead on on the foreign thing.  That's bad, because it will likely lead to more abortions, and without the funding, more dangerous abortions.  This isn't speculation; we've been playing ping pong with this since Reagan (whoever said that "Republicans remove it, then the next Democrat puts it back" was exactly right) and the data is clear.   I'm very much against that Order.  The rest, we have to see how it plays out.

I believe that was the person you quoted  but serious question since I don't understand this order Trump signed that you two are discussing.  Are we currently (before this was signed) funding abortions in other countries?  Why is that something America should/would do?  I don't understand, I am pro-choice but trying to understand what this means.

[El Barto]

Oh, that's the one where he doesn't want the U.S. to pay for abortions in other countries. Is that an issue?

I read somewhere that that is one of those things that Republican presidents repeal and Democratic presidents allow.

Not wanting to pay for abortions in another country is perfectly reasonable, for the simple reason that not wanting to pay for anything in a foreign country is reasonable. The problem is that the republicans are increasingly disinterested in separating abortion providers from health providers. Again, see Planned Parenthood. They provide all kinds of medical services aside from abortion, and seem to do a pretty good job of separating that aspect of their practice for the purposes of public finance. As I understand it the foreign aid thing is the same situation. US money is not supposed to go to abortion, but if your clinic provides them, even without using US money, you get no money for anything. Bye bye low cost contraception, STD screening and pre-natal care. 

[TAC]

I read somewhere that that is one of those things that Republican presidents repeal and Democratic presidents allow.

 we've been playing ping pong with this since Reagan (whoever said that "Republicans remove it, then the next Democrat puts it back" was exactly right)

I believe that was the person you quoted   

 

I was thinking the same thing!

   Why is that something America should/would do? 

Wondering the same thing.

[TAC]

The problem is that the republicans are increasingly disinterested in separating abortion providers from health providers. Again, see Planned Parenthood. They provide all kinds of medical services aside from abortion, and seem to do a pretty good job of separating that aspect of their practice for the purposes of public finance.

I can see that.