Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Sunday, January 08, 2017

OTP 9 Jan. 2017: What’s next for sports, politics, and TV in 2017?

Cyclical trends may obscure the connection at times, but you can’t permanently disentangle sport from politics:

“Sport in 2017 will con­tinue to be a resur­gent and resounding plat­form for athlete-​​led social activism,” says Dan Lebowitz, exec­u­tive director of Northeastern’s Center for the Study of Sport in Society. “If his­tory repeats itself, 2017 will be this generation’s 1967, a year in which promi­nent ath­letes held a social jus­tice summit to call out insti­tu­tion­al­ized inequity, con­front it, and cat­a­pult a con­ver­sa­tion that America still needs to hear, embrace, and lead.”

Today we have football’s Colin Kaeper­nick, whose national anthem protest cap­tured the nation’s atten­tion, and col­lege basketball’s Bronson Koenig, who protested the Dakota Access Pipeline and then reflected on his expe­ri­ence for The Players’ Tribune.

(As always, views expressed in the article lede and comments are the views of the individual commenters and the submitter of the article and do not represent the views of Baseball Think Factory or its owner.)

 

BDC Posted: January 08, 2017 at 09:10 PM | 1952 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: activism, kaepernick, politics, social justice

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 11 of 20 pages ‹ First  < 9 10 11 12 13 >  Last ›
   1001. Renegade (((JE))) Posted: January 11, 2017 at 01:13 PM (#5381708)
   1002. simon bedford Posted: January 11, 2017 at 01:15 PM (#5381709)
I am relieved that Trump appears to be more of a go with the flow type of guy.
   1003. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 11, 2017 at 01:18 PM (#5381710)
The New York Times explains basic journalistic standards:
In a brief interview in the Times newsroom on Tuesday evening, Dean Baquet, the executive editor of The Times, said the paper would not publish the document because the allegations were “totally unsubstantiated.”

“We, like others, investigated the allegations and haven’t corroborated them, and we felt we’re not in the business of publishing things we can’t stand by,” Mr. Baquet said.

On social media, some left-leaning writers who generally oppose Mr. Trump expressed skepticism about the document published by BuzzFeed. “An anonymous person, claiming to be an ex-British intel agent & working as a Dem oppo researcher, said anonymous people told him things,” wrote Glenn Greenwald, the journalist who was instrumental in publishing Edward Snowden’s leaks about government surveillance.

Those dabbling in fake news are actually helping to inoculate Trump from potentially deserved criticism for things he may actually do, but since they got to spend the day making urine jokes it was apparently worth it.
   1004. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: January 11, 2017 at 01:20 PM (#5381711)
   1005. Lassus Posted: January 11, 2017 at 01:23 PM (#5381713)
Jason needs to stop taking internet lessons from Uncle Rico, who is obviously trolling him.
   1006. Renegade (((JE))) Posted: January 11, 2017 at 01:23 PM (#5381714)
Here's another reminder that twitter links often come up blank.
FIXED! :)

EDIT: Watch it, Lassus. I've yet to meet a dog who wants a piece of Rico.
   1007. BDC Posted: January 11, 2017 at 01:28 PM (#5381718)
helping to inoculate Trump from potentially deserved criticism for things he may actually do

Is there any indication so far that Trump can ever suffer any political setback for anything he does or says? If such a thing were remotely possible I might stop laughing at the pee jokes.
   1008. Lassus Posted: January 11, 2017 at 01:28 PM (#5381719)
Watch it, Lassus. I've yet to meet a dog who wants a piece of Rico.

I also have cats, which I doubt work out as well as the pugs for Rico.

(Not that I would ever let that happen; but the cats like the dogs, so if Rico attacks a dog, there will be problems.)
   1009. BDC Posted: January 11, 2017 at 01:29 PM (#5381720)
{laughs hysterically again at "Goldwater Republican"}
   1010. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: January 11, 2017 at 01:31 PM (#5381722)
FIXED! :)

I think this is about the 4th time I've saved you from yourself on those twitter links. I want my name in the end credits if you ever decide to produce a movie.
   1011. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 11, 2017 at 01:31 PM (#5381723)
I think humor is perhaps the best weapon to use against one such as Trump. And the jokes are pretty darn funny.
   1012. Renegade (((JE))) Posted: January 11, 2017 at 01:36 PM (#5381724)
I think this is about the 4th time I've saved you from yourself on those twitter links. I want my name in the end credits if you ever decide to produce a movie.
I might be able to snare you an EP credit on an obscure reality show starring a former bodybuilder from Central Europe. Close enough?
   1013. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: January 11, 2017 at 01:36 PM (#5381725)
Is there any indication so far that Trump can ever suffer any political setback for anything he does or says?

The only thing that saved him on election day was the electoral college system, and he's about to enter the White House with approval ratings of minus 14 per cent. It's not as if he's ensconced in a presumption of innocence.
   1014. Ron J Posted: January 11, 2017 at 01:41 PM (#5381727)
Oh to answer Jason's question about why the Trump report didn't surface in time to matter in the Republican primary:

Quoting from a Guardian story

In this case, the request for opposition research on Donald Trump came from one of his Republican opponents in the primary campaign. The research firm then hired one of its sub-contractors who it used regularly on all things Russian: a retired western European former counter-intelligence official, with a long history of dealing with the shadow world of Moscow’s spooks and siloviki (securocrats).

By the time the contractor had started his research, however, the Republican primary was over. The original client had dropped out, but the firm that had hired him had found a new, Democratic client. This was not necessarily the Hillary Clinton campaign or the Democratic National Committee. Opposition research is frequently financed by wealthy individuals who have donated all they can and are looking for other ways to help.

(IOW the Republicans evidently didn't get serious about Trump until too late in the game. Not exactly news)
   1015. The Good Face Posted: January 11, 2017 at 01:43 PM (#5381728)
Is there any indication so far that Trump can ever suffer any political setback for anything he does or says?


Tough to say. Since the attacks against him are so hysterical and hyperbolic, we have no real way of knowing how people might respond to something with substance. Every time you guys lose your minds over OMG NAZIS, Russians using l33t hax0rz to elect a Manchurian Candidate, Trump being some kind of Super Rapist, OMG Golden Showers (lulz!), etc., the bar gets higher and higher. At this point, people are just numb and you're probably drifting close to dead girl/live boy territory.

   1016. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: January 11, 2017 at 01:44 PM (#5381729)
I think this is about the 4th time I've saved you from yourself on those twitter links. I want my name in the end credits if you ever decide to produce a movie.

I might be able to snare you an EP credit on an obscure reality show starring a former bodybuilder from Central Europe.


How's this? If you can find a way to eliminate all movie credits other than a list of the actors and the director, I promise to vote for Rubio.

Signed, Big Fan of "THE END"
   1017. Rickey! No. You move. Posted: January 11, 2017 at 01:44 PM (#5381732)
Is there any indication so far that Trump can ever suffer any political setback for anything he does or says?


No. And to be clear, Clapper isn't really concerned that holding Trump's head under in a bowl of his own piss is going to prevent "serious" criticism going forward. He's concerned that the current point-and-laugh is undermining his Dear Leader. Clapper is a ####### robot.
   1018. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: January 11, 2017 at 01:47 PM (#5381733)
Those dabbling in fake news are actually helping to inoculate Trump from potentially deserved criticism for things he may actually do, but since they got to spend the day making urine jokes it was apparently worth it.


Fear not, YC. All these golden shower jokes will amount to squat.
   1019. madvillain Posted: January 11, 2017 at 01:50 PM (#5381735)
The NYTs lecturing on unverified sources, now that is rich:

On September 7, 2002, Miller and fellow Times reporter Michael R. Gordon reported the interception of "metal tubes" bound for Iraq. Her front-page story quoted unnamed "American officials" and "American intelligence experts" who said the tubes were intended to be used to enrich nuclear material, and cited unnamed "Bush administration officials" who claimed that, in recent months, Iraq had "stepped up its quest for nuclear weapons and [had] embarked on a worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb".


The Times, as they are wont, is jealous (butthurt really) that they were too chickenshit to publish the document and is now furiously engaged in as much doublespeak as they can with regards to it:

This is excellent, from their report on the dossier:

• The Washington firm and the former British spy, not identified here because of a confidential source agreement with The New York Times, gave the memos first to their clients but later to the F.B.I. and multiple journalists at The Times and elsewhere. The memos, totaling about 35 pages, also reached a number of members of Congress.


Right, only our unnamed, unverified sources are fit to print!



...What exactly prompted American intelligence officials to pass on a summary of the unvetted claims to Mr. Obama, Mr. Trump and Congress?


Gee, I dunno, a sense of duty? Perhaps a sense that as part of their job description they look into these things? Because they thought it was real, and important?

Whether any of the claims in the memos are true. American intelligence agencies have not confirmed them, and Mr. Trump has said they are a complete fabrication. In addition, one specific allegation — that Mr. Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen, met with a Russian official in Prague in August or September — has been denied by both Mr. Cohen, who says he has never been to Prague, and the Russian, Oleg Solodukhin.


Well that settles it!

Everyone is talking about this document and passing it around online. Why can’t I read it on your website?

Because the 35 pages of memos prepared as opposition research on Mr. Trump contain detailed claims that neither the intelligence agencies nor The Times have been able to verify, the editors decided to briefly summarize the claims and not publish the document.


The document passed enough muster in "intelligence agencies" to be sent to the very top, including to McCain and Obama and Trump, but because the Old Gray Lady can't verify every specific claim they won't publish it, just "summarize it". Talk about chickenshit. So they feel confident enough to summarize it but not actually print the full text so their readers can make of what they will?

The NYTs is arrogant and chickenshit, but we lefties have known this for years. They look out for themselves, and when they get redfaced because someone else had more moxie, as buzzfeed did here, they react as if all the other journalists in the world are 2nd rate sleazebags, because the NYTs would never print such unverified filth.

Get ####### real. You can bet had this dossier been published on Wikilinks the NYTs would have had a Sunday section devoted to it.
   1020. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 11, 2017 at 01:52 PM (#5381737)
helping to inoculate Trump from potentially deserved criticism for things he may actually do

Is there any indication so far that Trump can ever suffer any political setback for anything he does or says? If such a thing were remotely possible I might stop laughing at the pee jokes.


Unclear. It might have helped if people hadn't called him Hitler. Because - again - once you're at that point, you've hit him with everything under the sun including so many things fake and so people who aren't deranged over him no longer know where reality ends and faketion begins nor do they feel like bothering to find out where the line is.
   1021. Lassus Posted: January 11, 2017 at 01:53 PM (#5381738)
Unclear. It might have helped if people hadn't called him Hitler. Because - again - once you're at that point, you've hit him with everything under the sun including so many things fake and so people who aren't deranged over him no longer know where reality ends and fiction begins nor do they feel like bothering to find out where the line is.

I wish I could say this was the problem, but the dude has never been able to complete ten sentences in a row, he lies like a rug, and he's writing emotional tweets at 3 AM. There's the line, and there's no work involved.

The American electoral college preferred this to an establishment girl. That's about it.
   1022. BDC Posted: January 11, 2017 at 02:00 PM (#5381742)
you've hit him with everything under the sun both real and fake and so people who aren't deranged over him no longer know where reality ends and fiction begins

But Trump hit himself with quite a bit of #### directly out of his own mouth (as Lassus notes), and still won the Presidency going away. Many Presidents before have suffered hyperbolic attacks (Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, W) and eventually suffered politically for scandalous behavior and/or incompetence. Hyperbole was no inoculation against Watergate, Iran/Contra, Monica, or Katrina. Obviously Trump isn't even President yet and the odds are that he will encounter some genuine rough sailing before to long. It will be interesting to see how.
   1023. TDF, situational idiot Posted: January 11, 2017 at 02:00 PM (#5381744)
Is there any indication so far that Trump can ever suffer any political setback for anything he does or says? If such a thing were remotely possible I might stop laughing at the pee jokes.

Unclear. It might have helped if people hadn't called him Hitler. Because - again - once you're at that point, you've hit him with everything under the sun including so many things fake and so people who aren't deranged over him no longer know where reality ends and faketion begins nor do they feel like bothering to find out where the line is.
Were people calling him Hitler before or after he made fun of the disabled reporter? Before or after he said Megyn Kelly had "blood coming out of her whatever"?
   1024. zonk Posted: January 11, 2017 at 02:07 PM (#5381751)
Is there any indication so far that Trump can ever suffer any political setback for anything he does or says?


Tough to say. Since the attacks against him are so hysterical and hyperbolic, we have no real way of knowing how people might respond to something with substance. Every time you guys lose your minds over OMG NAZIS, Russians using l33t hax0rz to elect a Manchurian Candidate, Trump being some kind of Super Rapist, OMG Golden Showers (lulz!), etc., the bar gets higher and higher. At this point, people are just numb and you're probably drifting close to dead girl/live boy territory.


Of course, TGF answers the question he wants to answer rather the one asked -- i.e., anything "he does or says". There's hardly hysteria or hyperbole involved in simply playing tape of him speaking or printing something he's tweeted... and there's hardly hysteria or hyperbole involved in stating that normal people don't say such things or act in such ways, much less someone who seeks the office of President.

So - the sad answer is "no". His gob knobblers and pee slaves will continue to gobble whatever knobs and spray whenever/wherever/however necessary regardless.

What will ultimately destroy him - and hopefully before he destroys the country - is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's doing, with very few exceptions, he's surrounding himself with lickspittles and dumbasses, and to the extent he has any 'ideas' or 'policies' they sure as hell aren't going to deliver anything approaching the oodles of promises he's made.

Even Mussolini actually had to make the trains the run on time... Cheetoh Benito is going to have a far harder time doing that, given that it will take time to destroy the skeleton of the republic.

The best case is that the reality continues to sink his already historically low approval and his party basically dumps him out of self-preservation as domestic and international situations deteriorate - it's not like a man of his caliber won't provide ample opportunity to offer a whole menu of incidents they could use.

The worst case is that he manages to go the full Benito, perhaps aided and abetted by some 9/11 type incident, perhaps not.

The most likely case is that he daily cements his place in history as the worst joke ever perpetrated on a nation by its most deplorable of citizens and his name survives as mostly a cautionary tail against letting the inmates run the asylum.
   1025. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 11, 2017 at 02:10 PM (#5381753)
The American electoral college preferred this to an establishment girl. That's about it.


Ding! We have a winner.

So a question I have been meaning to ask undecided and Democratic voters, the sort that might presumably vote in the next Democratic Primary.

Will the gender of the nominee play into your 2020 primary vote decision? Will you be less likely (or more likely, I guess) to vote for a Democratic woman in the 2020 primary based on what happened to HRC in the 2016 general election?

From a "How electable is this candidate?" standpoint, did 2016 put you (potentially) off of voting for a women for Democratic nominee? I am not saying it is fair or unfair, I am just asking the question.




My Answer: Yes it does, sadly, count as a minus that is appears the glass ceiling is firmly in place. All things being equal I think a man is more electable than a woman, and that would be a factor in my vote, since electability is a factor I consider in primaries.
   1026. zonk Posted: January 11, 2017 at 02:18 PM (#5381756)
Unclear. It might have helped if people hadn't called him Hitler. Because - again - once you're at that point, you've hit him with everything under the sun including so many things fake and so people who aren't deranged over him no longer know where reality ends and faketion begins nor do they feel like bothering to find out where the line is.


Yes, yes... because it's unparalleled in the history of the nation.

It's a rather neat trick -- simultaneously beating back the leftist horde and also blaming them for being beaten back.

Of course, it's also the inevitable, logical conclusion of the mindset we've often seen on full display whenever incidents of things like sexual assault come up... The prominent power and prime mover of an offending act should take a back seat to cutesy analysis of how the opposition to the offending act behaved.
   1027. Rickey! No. You move. Posted: January 11, 2017 at 02:24 PM (#5381760)
you've hit him with everything under the sun both real and fake


This is a good category example of people making #### up to fit their bias. What "fake" news was Trump "hit with?"
   1028. The Good Face Posted: January 11, 2017 at 02:25 PM (#5381761)
Unclear. It might have helped if people hadn't called him Hitler. Because - again - once you're at that point, you've hit him with everything under the sun including so many things fake and so people who aren't deranged over him no longer know where reality ends and faketion begins nor do they feel like bothering to find out where the line is.


Of course. The funny thing is we said this was exactly what would happen over a year ago. The usual suspects laughed and gloated about the inevitability of President Hillary. Appears they've learned nothing and aren't in any hurry to change that.
   1029. zonk Posted: January 11, 2017 at 02:27 PM (#5381763)
This is a good category example of people making #### up to fit their bias. What "fake" news was Trump "hit with?"


Well, there was that time people claimed he said he could grab women by the ##### and they just let him, followed by pretending there were women who claimed he did indeed give their pussies an unwanted, unsolicited grab.

   1030. Renegade (((JE))) Posted: January 11, 2017 at 02:29 PM (#5381764)
   1031. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: January 11, 2017 at 02:29 PM (#5381765)
Once again you have to give the man credit for his transparency:

Trump suggests states that voted for him will get special attention

President-elect Donald Trump twice suggested at his news conference that states that voted for him overwhelmingly during the election would get special attention from his White House, especially on the issue of jobs and trade.

Referring to his victory in November, Trump said that many states “did get it right” by voting for him and those states would have better jobs, security and veterans services.

“And we focused very hard in those states, and they really reciprocated,” Trump said. “And those states are going to have a lot of jobs, and they’re going to have a lot of security. They’re going to have a lot of good news for their veterans.”

Later, he warned companies against moving jobs to Mexico or other countries from “places that I won.”

“But what really is happening is the word is now out, that when you want to move your plant to Mexico or some other place, and you want to fire all of your workers from Michigan and Ohio and all these places that I won, for good reason, it’s not going to happen that way anymore,” Trump said....
   1032. Rickey! No. You move. Posted: January 11, 2017 at 02:29 PM (#5381766)
Well, there was that time people claimed he said he could grab women by the ##### and they just let him, followed by pretending there were women who claimed he did indeed give their pussies an unwanted, unsolicited grab.


Precisely. But I'd really like Ray to answer this. Clapper will just spin, because Clapper. TGF will just make up whatever bullshit he thinks moves his goal of ur-fascist "order" for the sake of "his civilization" forward. But Ray is at least capable of interchange. So I'd like him, at least, to draw me a line where HE thinks "real news" begat "fake news" with regard to coverage of Trump.
   1033. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: January 11, 2017 at 02:30 PM (#5381767)
Will the gender of the nominee play into your 2020 primary vote decision? Will you be less likely (or more likely, I guess) to vote for a Democratic woman in the 2020 primary based on what happened to HRC in the 2016 general election?


I didn't vote for Hillary in the primary, but that was mostly a function of disagreeing with her on a bunch of different issues (and also being concerned about her general competence). If there were a female candidate who was a better match with my views and didn't have Hillary's baggage w/r/t Iraq and Mark Penn and stuff, I'd have no reservations about voting for her.
   1034. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: January 11, 2017 at 02:31 PM (#5381768)
At this point, people are just numb and you're probably drifting close to dead girl/live boy territory.


Show of hands - how many people here would be genuinely surprised if it turned out that Trump had killed a hooker (accidentally or otherwise)?
   1035. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: January 11, 2017 at 02:33 PM (#5381769)
Did anyone tell Obama about the 'mockingbird' sequel?


He, like just about everyone else, is pretending that it was never published... which would have been best.

We don't talk about the sequel to "A Canticle for Leibowitz", for similar reasons.
   1036. Lassus Posted: January 11, 2017 at 02:34 PM (#5381770)
We don't talk about the sequel to "A Canticle for Leibowitz", for similar reasons.

Well done.
   1037. Morty Causa Posted: January 11, 2017 at 02:34 PM (#5381772)

Did anyone tell Obama about the 'mockingbird' sequel?


This is scrapping the bottom of the barrel when it comes to a desperate need for tolling and click-baiting. Go Set a Watchman is not a sequel. It's a mere precursor, a version and rough draft of a finished product. Second, the two novels aren't, anyway, some biography of Atticus Finch.
   1038. zonk Posted: January 11, 2017 at 02:34 PM (#5381773)
Show of hands - how many people here would be genuinely surprised if it turned out that Trump had killed a hooker (accidentally or otherwise)?


Killed himself or had killed?

Because those tiny little hands are probably incapable of doing so on their own...
   1039. The Good Face Posted: January 11, 2017 at 02:36 PM (#5381775)
Show of hands - how many people here would be genuinely surprised if it turned out that Trump had killed a hooker (accidentally or otherwise)?


Me. You people have really gone around the bend here. No wonder you keep chasing after sensationalist lies and fake news.
   1040. Morty Causa Posted: January 11, 2017 at 02:36 PM (#5381776)
ERROR--Jolly Old:

Have you finished the Ted Williams biography?
   1041. Random Transaction Generator Posted: January 11, 2017 at 02:36 PM (#5381777)
You can read the transcript of Trump's pisser presser here.

NPR has helpfully added notes about things that were said.

After getting through about 50% of it, I had to stop. I just couldn't keep reading his fractured verse without getting a headache.
   1042. Kiko Sakata Posted: January 11, 2017 at 02:40 PM (#5381781)
Will the gender of the nominee play into your 2020 primary vote decision? Will you be less likely (or more likely, I guess) to vote for a Democratic woman in the 2020 primary based on what happened to HRC in the 2016 general election?


I may be naive, but Hillary Clinton was under investigation by the FBI for possible criminal wrongdoing while she was Secretary of State and the Director of the FBI publicly criticized her behavior. That may or may not have been a legitimate investigation or a partisan witch hunt, but I think that has to be taken into account when building the "America won't vote for a woman" narrative; America may just not have wanted to vote for a person who was under FBI investigation (and, of course, she got more votes than Trump anyway). That said, one lesson would appear to be that in the world of "identity politics" race beats gender, but we should have already learned that from the 2008 Democratic primary.
   1043. madvillain Posted: January 11, 2017 at 02:42 PM (#5381783)
That said, one lesson would appear to be that in the world of "identity politics" race beats gender, but we should have already learned that from the 2008 Democratic primary.


yup.
   1044. Lassus Posted: January 11, 2017 at 02:42 PM (#5381785)
Me. You people have really gone around the bend here. No wonder you keep chasing after sensationalist lies and fake news.

Yeah, that's kinda dumb. I'd certainly be surprised, at least for a few minutes.
   1045. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: January 11, 2017 at 02:42 PM (#5381786)
Did anyone tell Obama about the 'mockingbird' sequel?

Oops?


Not really. Obama's consistently chosen to look at our better sides rather than our worse sides, and Atticus Finch is a good example of a person who could rise to the occasion in spite of himself, or maybe because in the South of the mid-1950's it was easier to tell right from wrong than to separate good people from bad people, unless you automatically assign "bad people" status to every southerner who couldn't repudiate every more and custom that he'd grown up with. If you're going to apply absolute standards, the true heroes of the South in the aftermath of Brown could almost be listed without having to pause for breath. Very little progress in that region came about without outside pressure and the force of federal law.

P. S. Not that it has anything to do with the point, but Watchman was written before Mockingbird, so "sequel" only describes the publication date.

EDIT: coke to Morty
   1046. madvillain Posted: January 11, 2017 at 02:46 PM (#5381789)
Well, if Putin likes Donald Trump, I consider that an asset, not a liability. Because we have a horrible relationship with Russia. Russia can help us fight ISIS, which by the way, is number one tricky. I mean, if you look, this administration created ISIS by leaving at the wrong time. The void was created, ISIS was formed. If Putin likes Donald Trump, guess what folks? That’s called an asset not a liability. Now I don't know that I am going to get along with Vladimir Putin. I hope I do, but there is a good chance I won’t. And if I don’t, do you honestly believe that Hillary would be tougher on Putin than me? Does anybody in this room really believe that? Give me a break. Ok.


The leader of the free world ladies and gents...
   1047. Rickey! No. You move. Posted: January 11, 2017 at 02:47 PM (#5381791)
Yeah, that's kinda dumb. I'd certainly be surprised, at least for a few minutes.


Meh. Dude apparently either 1) likes to have whores piss on his face, or 2) is such a pig that he had whores get into a bed the Obamas slept in so HE could piss on them. There's really no level this ######### could descend to that would shock or amaze.
   1048. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: January 11, 2017 at 02:47 PM (#5381792)
Me. You people have really gone around the bend here.


Now, now, let's not be hasty. You must admit that he does have a certain hooker-killing je ne sais quoi about him, non? Probably took a trophy, had it covered in gold leaf, and put it in a place of honor on a marble shelf in his penthouse.

At least wait until we have time to buy a melon and a few pairs of kids' gloves for the backyard forensic reenactment of his hypothetical crime of passion.
   1049. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 11, 2017 at 02:48 PM (#5381793)
That may or may not have been a legitimate investigation or a partisan witch hunt, but I think that has to be taken into account when building the "America won't vote for a woman" narrative


To be clear I am not building that specific narrative, and of course every election (and candidate) is different, but I must admit (though it seems I am the only one) 2016 made me at least consider the idea that the glass ceiling was thicker than I thought or hoped.

I bet in 2020 though women candidates will be met with "is she qualified?" (because women candidates usually are in my experience) and in an ironic twist Trump will be brought up as a danger in having someone not fully qualified be President.

I hope I am wrong though.
   1050. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: January 11, 2017 at 02:51 PM (#5381795)
ERROR--Jolly Old:

Have you finished the Ted Williams biography?


I finished everything from his rookie season up through his 4 years under Bob Short. I've then gone on to other books, which reflects a habit I have of chasing footnotes and bibliographies down a series of rabbit holes. It doesn't help that I've already got so many of those other sources in my collection, like runs of SI, SPORT and TSN.

I'd still recommend it highly, with one caveat: For a major biography, in parts it seems little more than a rehash of other secondary sources, in particular Richard Ben Cramer's What Do You Think of Ted Williams Now? But if you want a one stop bio of The Kid, this would be the one.

P.S. I'm not sure I've mentioned this before, but one of the pleasures of the Bradlee book is the sidebars, some of which would've (and some of which wouldn't have) made it into the Sporting News of the time:

One that might have: During one of the early games in which the Boudreau Shift was employed, a dwarf with a baseball glove jumped onto the field and stationed himself where the third baseman usually played.

One that might not have: For over 40 years, Tom Yawkey was the angel of a whorehouse that he financed right next to his South Carolina plantation, for free use of his many guests who were traveling through. The madame was sort of the Belle Watling of Fenway South, and she may have been closer to him than any of his wives or baseball employees.
   1051. zonk Posted: January 11, 2017 at 02:54 PM (#5381797)
After getting through about 50% of it, I had to stop. I just couldn't keep reading his fractured verse without getting a headache.


You just need to read them with the proper image in your head.
   1052. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 11, 2017 at 02:57 PM (#5381800)
P. S. Not that it has anything to do with the point, but Watchman was written before Mockingbird, so "sequel" only describes the publication date.
Actually, the word "sequel" describes when the events in a work take place in relation to another work -- not the order in which the works were written or published. So, to the extent we pretend that Watchman was intended to be a standalone work rather than just a first draft of Mockingbird, it is, in fact, a sequel, since the events in Watchman take place after the events in Mockingbird.
   1053. Renegade (((JE))) Posted: January 11, 2017 at 02:58 PM (#5381804)
Well played, sir.

Very well played.
   1054. Morty Causa Posted: January 11, 2017 at 02:59 PM (#5381805)
I don't have a great read on current perceptions of American history (nevermind American history itself). Who is the last president of which there is a positive bi-partisan consensus? I get the sense that Eisenhower has some broad support.

Both the extreme right and the extreme left had qualms about Eisenhower. One wanted war; the other capitulation to socialist ideology. He stood steadfast against both. It is hard to appreciate the pilot who is adept at "merely" maintaining course in bad weather--until it's over. As I've said before, he kept his head when many were all too willing to lose theirs.

P.S. I think it is interesting to play mind games with him about how he would have responded, say, if someone in the press pool had had the nerve to ask him: "Boxers or briefs."
   1055. Ishmael Posted: January 11, 2017 at 03:02 PM (#5381807)
My Answer: Yes it does, sadly, count as a minus that is appears the glass ceiling is firmly in place. All things being equal I think a man is more electable than a woman, and that would be a factor in my vote, since electability is a factor I consider in primaries.

This seems pretty weak BM. Other people are sexist so, with a heavy heart, you'll have to avoid voting for female candidates as well.

Considering the paucity of evidence, I'd be pretty cautious of jumping to that sort of conclusion. Particularly if it means that you will be contributing to the problem of discrimination against candidates with policies you'd otherwise prefer based on their gender (or race, or religion, or whatever. Pretty much any characteristic is vulnerable to that kind of analysis.).

Anyway, if nothing else, it's an argument in favour of electoral reform.
   1056. zonk Posted: January 11, 2017 at 03:04 PM (#5381809)
Yeah, that's kinda dumb. I'd certainly be surprised, at least for a few minutes.

Meh. Dude apparently either 1) likes to have whores piss on his face, or 2) is such a pig that he had whores get into a bed the Obamas slept in so HE could piss on them. There's really no level this ######### could descend to that would shock or amaze.


I think people are missing a key component in the analysis of such a theoretical thought process here, though...

To wit -- Cheetoh Benito likes to have people give him stuff, perform services, or otherwise agree to do things for or to him but then not pay them for services rendered.

Hookers, or I suppose, their pimps or hookers in fear of their pimps tend to be less accommodating with such arrangements.

So - I think the answer is actually "No, I wouldn't be surprised"... but with the caveat that he probably would be able to skate on the killing as self-defense. In essence, I doubt he would seek out a hooker to kill or otherwise kill a hooker in a fit of rage so that would surprise me --- but I wouldn't be surprised if he "had to" kill a hooker in self-defense because she balked (violently) at renegotiating the price after the act.
   1057. Eddo Posted: January 11, 2017 at 03:05 PM (#5381810)
Meh. Dude apparently either 1) likes to have whores piss on his face, or 2) is such a pig that he had whores get into a bed the Obamas slept in so HE could piss on them. There's really no level this ######### could descend to that would shock or amaze.

That's quite a leap from a sexual kink to murdering someone.
   1058. BDC Posted: January 11, 2017 at 03:05 PM (#5381811)
I don't think I'd vote for a man over a woman in a 2020 primary just on electability grounds. Of course I'll be voting in the GOP primary so it's a bit different (#neverTrump :) I voted for Kay Hutchison over Rick Perry in the 2010 gubernatorial primary, and not tactically because I thought a Democrat had a better chance of beating Hutchison (the Republican was going to win either way).

I never vote tactically, anyway. I've voted for all kinds of unelectable lefties. The one time I took electability into account was '92 when I went for Bill Clinton in the primacaucus. I was ultimately disappointed in him. But (a) there wasn't a compelling leftward alternative (Paul Tsongas?) and (b) he was still better than another four years of 41.
   1059. The Good Face Posted: January 11, 2017 at 03:06 PM (#5381812)
At least wait until we have time to buy a melon and a few pairs of kids' gloves for the backyard forensic reenactment of his hypothetical crime of passion.


I'm fascinated by this urge you guys apparently have to re-enact the dumbest, most counterproductive acts of the GOP over the past couple of decades. Ah well, knock yourselves out.
   1060. madvillain Posted: January 11, 2017 at 03:07 PM (#5381815)
No, I didn’t. Well, let me tell you. Yeah. Let me just tell you what I do. When I leave our country, I’m a very high profile person, would you say? I am extremely careful. I’m surrounded by bodyguards. I’m surrounded by people. And I always tell them, anywhere, but I always tell them, if I’m leaving this country, “Be very careful. Because in your hotel rooms -- and no matter where you go, you’re gonna probably have cameras. I’m not referring just to Russia, but I would certainly put them in that category -- and number one I hope you’re going to be good anyway. But in those rooms you have cameras in the strangest places. Cameras that are so small with modern technology, you can’t see them and you won’t know. You better be careful or you’ll be watching yourself on nightly television.” I tell this to people all the time. I was in Russia, years ago, with the Miss Universe contest, which did very well. Moscow, the Moscow area. Did very, very well. And I told many people, “Be careful. Because you don’t wanna see yourself on television.” Cameras all over the place. And again, not just Russia. All over. Does anyone really believe that story? I’m also very much of a germaphobe, by the way. Believe me


If Karl Pilkington ever interviews Trump the transcriber will cut off his hands.
   1061. Morty Causa Posted: January 11, 2017 at 03:07 PM (#5381816)
One that might have: During one of the early games in which the Boudreau Shift was employed, a dwarf with a baseball glove jumped onto the field and stationed himself where the third baseman usually played.

Was this before or after the gag Veeck pulled? I remember from My Turn At Bat Williams recounting extreme versions of the shift. One, a joke shift, was when an exhibition game was played against a college team (I think it was). When he came to bat, time was called, and all the college players on the field except the pitcher and the catcher went and stood at various points in the right field stands.
   1062. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: January 11, 2017 at 03:08 PM (#5381818)
P. S. Not that it has anything to do with the point, but Watchman was written before Mockingbird, so "sequel" only describes the publication date.

Actually, the word "sequel" describes when the events in a work take place in relation to another work -- not the order in which the works were written or published. So, to the extent we pretend that Watchman was intended to be a standalone work rather than just a first draft of Mockingbird, it is, in fact, a sequel, since the events in Watchman take place after the events in Mockingbird.


I thought of adding that qualification, but then decided not to. Just to recapitulate:

The events in Mockingbird preceded the events in Watchman by two decades.

The publication date of Mockingbird preceded the publication date of Watchman (by over half a century).

Watchman was the original novel that Lee wrote, and then abandoned (or heavily revised, depending on how you look at it) upon the request / demand of her publisher, who then published Mockingbird. If Watchman had been accepted for publication, and quickly wound up in the remainder bins, there's no guarantee that Mockingbird would ever have seen the light of day. And Obama might have cited James Silver or Charles Morgan instead of Atticus Finch.

   1063. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: January 11, 2017 at 03:08 PM (#5381819)
Actually, the word "sequel" describes when the events in a work take place in relation to another work -- not the order in which the works were written or published. So, to the extent we pretend that Watchman was intended to be a standalone work rather than just a first draft of Mockingbird, it is, in fact, a sequel, since the events in Watchman take place after the events in Mockingbird.


or... you could say that since Watchman was (apparently) written first that Mockingbird is a prequel to Watchman since it was written later and takes place at an earlier time.

Anyway, my understanding is that Watchman was essentially a rough draft of a novel and that Mockingbird was originally a chapter or two inside Watchman (or a series of flashbacks/reminiscences inside Watchman), and that the Mockingbird we know evolved from her editing process which involved expanding the Mockingbird time frame sequences and eventually cutting everything else. (Alternately I've read that it wasn't so much evolution as a conscious decision, she had essentially written two stories and only one was any good)
   1064. zonk Posted: January 11, 2017 at 03:11 PM (#5381821)
At least wait until we have time to buy a melon and a few pairs of kids' gloves for the backyard forensic reenactment of his hypothetical crime of passion.

I'm fascinated by this urge you guys apparently have to re-enact the dumbest, most counterproductive acts of the GOP over the past couple of decades. Ah well, knock yourselves out.


Elections over.

It's about ensuring familial taint in case we do ultimately have future elections.

Too late to stop him, but it's important to plant the seeds now that allow seating of pimps who claim to have lost dear employees at potential future Ivanka debates.
   1065. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 11, 2017 at 03:13 PM (#5381823)
You better be careful or you’ll be watching yourself on nightly television
Huh. Pretty sure all evidence suggests that Trump gets off on watching himself on television.
   1066. Morty Causa Posted: January 11, 2017 at 03:13 PM (#5381824)
1052:

Point taken. So, if TKAM had been published second, it would be the prequel?

Nah, Go Set A Watchman is merely an aborted fetus, like Joyce's Stephen Hero, which was a draft of A Portrait of the Artist. Neither Go Set A Watchman or Stephen Hero are sequels or prequels. They are abandoned versions that were only published because of high status of the originals.
   1067. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: January 11, 2017 at 03:14 PM (#5381825)
One that might have: During one of the early games in which the Boudreau Shift was employed, a dwarf with a baseball glove jumped onto the field and stationed himself where the third baseman usually played.

Was this before or after the gag Veeck pulled? I remember from My Turn At Bat Williams recounting extreme versions of the shift. One, a joke shift, was when an exhibition game was played against a college team (I think it was). When he came to bat, time was called, and all the college players on the field except the pitcher and the catcher went and stood at various points in the right field stands.


IIRC this was in 1946, five years before Eddie Gaedel, possibly during the last visit to Fenway by the Indians that year. It seems to have been a spontaneous act on the part of the dwarf fan, one that took everyone by surprise.**

P. S. I might add that according to Bradlee, My Turn At Bat engaged in a certain amount of literary license, though essentially it got the main narrative right.

** Spontaneous fan gestures like this were treated a lot more tolerantly then than they would be today. During a 1948 doubleheader in Yankee Stadium, Joe Dimaggio actually signed an autograph for a kid who ran out to centerfield in the middle of a game, and the fans booed the cops who hustled him and his friends away. And (true story) in 1958, a future friend of mine actually threw a dead fish at Williams' feet while he was standing in the batter's box at Griffith Stadium, and managed to blend into the crowd without being discovered. The former Nats' announcer Bob Wolff wrote about this incident in his memoirs.
   1068. The Good Face Posted: January 11, 2017 at 03:15 PM (#5381827)
Elections over.


Yeah, you guys lost badly. Good times.

It's about ensuring familial taint in case we do ultimately have future elections.


People who are genuinely afraid of that wouldn't be talking about Trump the way they are.

Too late to stop him, but it's important to plant the seeds now that allow seating of pimps who claim to have lost dear employees at potential future Ivanka debates.


lolwut? You guys really have lost your damn minds.
   1069. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 11, 2017 at 03:15 PM (#5381828)
This seems pretty weak BM. Other people are sexist so, with a heavy heart, you'll have to avoid voting for female candidates as well.

Considering the paucity of evidence, I'd be pretty cautious of jumping to that sort of conclusion. Particularly if it means that you will be contributing to the problem of discrimination against candidates with policies you'd otherwise prefer based on their gender (or race, or religion, or whatever. Pretty much any characteristic is vulnerable to that kind of analysis.).


With all due respect I think you misunderstood and/or are misrepresenting my position. Perhaps I wasn't clear. And I think the "with heavy heart" nonsense should be left by the wayside.

Once more ... I think it is a factor. I, like the vast majority of voters, use "Is this candidate electable?" as a criteria. Right now there has been basically one female candidate* who was legitimately possible to win the presidency. The first time she lost in the primary to a black man. The second time she beat (in a tougher than expected battle) the non-Democrat for the Democratic nomination and lost to a male carnival barker.

That doesn't mean there were not other factors at play. At best HRC is a mediocre campaigner and speech giver. We all know that. But there does exist the possibility that sexism played a role in her defeat. This is real life with real consequences and we don't have the luxury of running a hundred simulations in various permutations in order to suss out the degree (or not) to which sexism might have played a role.

In 2020 given roughly equal candidates, one male and one female, I don't think it sexist or perpetuating sexism to - in a primary - favor the male candidate - if only because history (what little data we have) suggests a woman might have trouble being elected. Pretending there could never be any sexism and choosing to vote for the woman in an effort to break the glass ceiling and consequences be damned (another four years out of the White House) seems foolish to me.

And again I am not suggesting it is the only factor. Heck It won't be anywhere near the most important factor. But where electability is concerned (which is a criteria I use, though it sounds like you don't approve of it) I think it does count towards being electable.



* Which in and of itself leads on to suspect there might be sexism at play at the national level.
   1070. Omineca Greg Posted: January 11, 2017 at 03:16 PM (#5381830)
I'm really freaking out over here.

I've been busy so I haven't had any chance to pay attention to the news, so I don't know what's happening in the world. I spun the dial on my Jeep's radio as I was driving around this morning to catch up, and an unusual station came in. It's -30C up here, so we get all sorts of weird broadcasts, bouncing off the Northern Lights, I don't understand how it works, I'm not a physicist. But I'm always down for new sounds, so I stayed listening for awhile. It turned out it was classic rock, which is my favourite flavour (not counting free jazz), but that was mildly disappointing because I've really heard it all before. Sure enough, the first song that came on was "Stairway to Heaven", but as the familiar music washed out of the speakers, the first line sounded a little different...

There's a lady who's sure, all the showers are gold

and that's when it started to feel like I was in the Twilight Zone. I was thinking I had just misheard it, but then the next song came on, and I wasn't making any mistake there. It was Lou Reed's biggest hit, but there was an extra verse...

Donald came from Jamaica N Y C
Discovered he had a thing for pee
Went to Moscow, walked through the Ritz's doors
Hired 13 pretty pissy whores

Hey Donald, take a walk on the wild side

And the Russian girls say "душ да душ да душ душ да душ да душ дa душ дa душ да душ да душ да dooooo!"


I don't know how many people here know Russian, but I can translate that last part for you. "душ" means shower, pronounced "douche" and, well "да" you should know, means "yes". So reading it back, Lou was crooning (in Russian)...well you can work it out.

That's when I started to lose it. No normal person could imagine that, it had to be really happening. Next came Hall and Oates and I thought things had got back to normal...

I only smile when I lie and I tell them why...

But it wasn't a kiss that was on Daryl's list of the best things in life.

I was freaked green! Next came Dr. Hook's "When Urine Love With A Beautiful Woman"

They're doing commercials right now. They said Prince would be coming on after the break.

I'm afraid.

Is this happening to anybody else?


   1071. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 11, 2017 at 03:18 PM (#5381835)
No. And to be clear, Clapper isn't really concerned that holding Trump's head under in a bowl of his own piss is going to prevent "serious" criticism going forward. He's concerned that the current point-and-laugh is undermining his Dear Leader. Clapper is a ####### robot.

Sam has long demonstrated that he can't do substance, his thing is insults & name-calling that aren't usually found beyond middle school playgrounds, so it isn't really surprising that he fell for the political equivalent of a Nigerian e-mail scam, but I am a bit surprised that others, who normally hold themselves out as more sophisticated observers, have let their own partisanship put themselves in his camp. There is no shortage of anti-Trump news outlets that have had the BuzzFeed "documents" for months - and none of them were able to authenticate any aspect of it. You're being [willingly!] played for fools. Sad.
   1072. Lassus Posted: January 11, 2017 at 03:21 PM (#5381838)
Yeah, you guys lost badly. Good times.

Is there some quantitative line for "lost" vs. "lost badly"?
   1073. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 11, 2017 at 03:23 PM (#5381839)
Is there some quantitative line for "lost" vs. "lost badly"?


Conservatism never loses, it is only betrayed by conservative candidates.
Conservative candidates lose.
Liberals lose badly.

You are welcome.
   1074. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: January 11, 2017 at 03:24 PM (#5381841)
but I am a bit surprised that others, who normally hold themselves out as more sophisticated observers, have let their own partisanship put themselves in his camp.


Clapper saying this without the slightest sense of shame, he's a bot I tell ya, a bot.
   1075. Ron J Posted: January 11, 2017 at 03:25 PM (#5381842)
Mark Hunt is suing the UFC, president Dana White and former heavyweight champion Brock Lesnar alleging racketeering, among other things.

He alleges that the UFC has “affirmatively circumvented and obstructed fair competition for their own benefit, including being complicit in doping proliferation.”

I bring it up here because that's a pretty persistent complaint about Bud Selig.

Hunt's going after Lesnar because Lesnar failed a test before the fight (result came back to late to cancel the fight) and one after the fight. (and supposedly because he thinks that Lesnar does not want to go through discovery and can be pressured into a settlement)

UFC and White both have indemnification clauses so as I understand it Hunt is likely to have a tough time of it (though as I understand it, that's why the suit alleges racketeering -- not sure I get that) but Hunt is seemingly going after all of the money Lesnar was paid for the fight (which would easily be the biggest payday of Hunt's career)

   1076. Kiko Sakata Posted: January 11, 2017 at 03:26 PM (#5381845)
In 2020 given roughly equal candidates, one male and one female, I don't think it ... perpetuating sexism to - in a primary - favor the male candidate - if only because history (what little data we have) suggests a woman might have trouble being elected.


With all due respect and not wanting to "get into it" with you at all, I kind of think that is "perpetuating sexism" even if not outright "sexism" per se.
   1077. madvillain Posted: January 11, 2017 at 03:27 PM (#5381846)
so it isn't really surprising that he fell for the political equivalent of a Nigerian e-mail scam, but I am a bit surprised that others, who normally hold themselves out as more sophisticated observers, have let their own partisanship put themselves in his camp. There is no shortage of anti-Trump news outlets that have had the BuzzFeed "documents" for months - and none of them were able to authenticate any aspect of it. You're being [willingly!] played for fools. Sad.


From the Guardian today, which has the best timeline summary (much better than the NYTs half assed dossier on the dossier) I've read:

Another of the reports compiled by the former western counter-intelligence official in July said that members of Trump’s team, which was led by campaign manager Paul Manafort (a former consultant for pro-Russian politicians in Ukraine), had knowledge of the DNC hacking operation, and in return “had agreed to sideline Russian intervention in Ukraine as a campaign issue and to raise US/Nato defence commitments in the Baltics and Eastern Europe to deflect attention away from Ukraine”.

A few days later, Trump raised the possibility that his administration might recognise Russia’s annexation of Crimea and openly called on Moscow to hack Hillary Clinton’s emails.

In August, officials from the Trump campaign intervened in the drafting of the Republican party platform, specifically to remove a call for lethal assistance to Ukraine for its battle against Moscow-backed eastern rebels.


Manafort stepped down in August as campaign manager and the campaign steadily distanced itself from Page. However, Trump’s praise of Putin and defence of Moscow’s actions in Ukraine and Syria remained one of the few constants in his campaign talking points


There's a lot of smoke here. It's been smoldering since the primary. This dossier is just the latest in a series of data points that point towards a "special" relationship between the Russians and Trump.
   1078. The Good Face Posted: January 11, 2017 at 03:28 PM (#5381847)
Is there some quantitative line for "lost" vs. "lost badly"?


Any good outcomes for the Dems in the 2016 elections? Any silver linings? You lost the Presidency, both houses of Congress, the Supreme Court for the foreseeable future (better pray Ginsburg doesn't cark it), and have less state control than you've had since, like, ever. It was pretty much the worst case scenario for the Dems. You wanna spin that as something other than a bad loss, have fun. I'm going to stick with "lost badly".
   1079. Ishmael Posted: January 11, 2017 at 03:28 PM (#5381849)
In 2020 given roughly equal candidates, one male and one female, I don't think it sexist or perpetuating sexism to - in a primary - favor the male candidate - if only because history (what little data we have) suggests a woman might have trouble being elected. Pretending there could never be any sexism and choosing to vote for the woman in an effort to break the glass ceiling and consequences be damned (another four years out of the White House) seems foolish to me.

I'm sure when it comes down to it, you'll vote for the candidate you prefer based on other considerations. I don't mean to imply that you'd never vote for a woman. I tend to think gender and race and so forth are already folded into the general impression we have of the electability of a candidate.

But, if it's not in itself sexism (or racism etc.), of course the above paragraph describes perpetuating sexism.

I didn't say sexism doesn't exist, and I didn't say you should vote for a female candidate in order to break the glass ceiling. I said that you should probably vote for the best candidate and, ideally, get a better electoral system.
   1080. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: January 11, 2017 at 03:29 PM (#5381850)
I'd like to see how Trump explains away this video evidence.

(The improved version. Oh, internet.)
   1081. madvillain Posted: January 11, 2017 at 03:32 PM (#5381853)
I'd like to see how Trump explains away this video evidence.



Like his hairline, everything about Trump is fake.
   1082. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 11, 2017 at 03:35 PM (#5381856)
… At best HRC is a mediocre campaigner and speech giver. We all know that. But there does exist the possibility that sexism played a role in her defeat. This is real life with real consequences and we don't have the luxury of running a hundred simulations in various permutations in order to suss out the degree (or not) to which sexism might have played a role.

In 2020 given roughly equal candidates, one male and one female, I don't think it sexist or perpetuating sexism to - in a primary - favor the male candidate - if only because history (what little data we have) suggests a woman might have trouble being elected. Pretending there could never be any sexism and choosing to vote for the woman in an effort to break the glass ceiling and consequences be damned (another four years out of the White House) seems foolish to me.

Rght up until Election Day, Bitter Mouse was insisting that Hillary Clinton was a good candidate who would win convincingly with unprecedented support from women voters. Now that she has lost, he thinks that justifies voting against other female candidates. Did the McGovern, Carter, Mondale & Dukakis landslide losses make him less likely to vote for male candidates? Or maybe he is especially bitter this time because he had money riding on the outcome?

   1083. zonk Posted: January 11, 2017 at 03:37 PM (#5381857)
but I am a bit surprised that others, who normally hold themselves out as more sophisticated observers, have let their own partisanship put themselves in his camp.

Clapper saying this without the slightest sense of shame, he's a bot I tell ya, a bot.


Meh, he's the King of Surprised, the Prince of Concerned, the Duke of Could Be Worth Watching, and the Earl of I'm Not Saying But If I Were....
   1084. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 11, 2017 at 03:41 PM (#5381862)
With all due respect and not wanting to "get into it" with you at all, I kind of think that is "perpetuating sexism" even if not outright "sexism" per se.


So I should not use electable as a criteria or should I pretend that there is zero evidence of sexism in national elections?

I get what you are saying, but on some level politics is about compromising on many different things and there is a reason no one in politics is perfectly pure. If I can reduce the chance of another Trump being elected in exchange for a reduction in the chance of shattering the glass ceiling is that some sort of Devil's bargain?

Before the election there were plenty of surveys of women and they were not nearly as enthused about HRC's candidacy as similar surveys showed in 2008. They didn't like HRC (which is of course is fine, like and vote for whoever you want) and viewed the eventual election of a woman president as assured, so (I am paraphrasing) why bother getting excited about this election? This is not all women, but the results I saw were different than in 2008.

I thought the existent sexism would be counterbalanced by enthusiasm in women voters. In fact that was a primary source of my confidence in HRC. It never happened. Absent more evidence why should I believe it will happen in 2020?

Put another way in 2008, before the Iowa results, Obama had much less support from the African American community than one would expect. From everything I read large numbers of them simply didn't believe Obama could win and anyway liked HRC plenty and so were happy to support the candidate they thought had more electability. Once Obama won the very white state of Iowa the AA community decided Obama could win in a majority white nation and moved quickly to support him. I don't think (pre Iowa) they were being racist or perpetuating racism(EDIT: In any meaningful sense).

I think politics is about the art of the possible, or for candidates the more likely to win. It is not pure idealism. The presidency is too important to play in an ivory tower.
   1085. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: January 11, 2017 at 03:46 PM (#5381867)
That doesn't mean there were not other factors at play. At best HRC is a mediocre campaigner and speech giver. We all know that.


She was also extremely unpopular with the electorate at large (as well as her own party's base), had close ties to the business community in an environment where that was a strong negative, and was still carrying the baggage associated with her vote in favor of the Iraq war.

I think you'd want to nominate a woman whose candidacy wasn't so badly damaged right out of the gate before drawing any conclusions about the electoral viability of women as a group.
   1086. Lassus Posted: January 11, 2017 at 03:47 PM (#5381868)
Any good outcomes for the Dems in the 2016 elections? Any silver linings? You lost the Presidency, both houses of Congress, the Supreme Court for the foreseeable future (better pray Ginsburg doesn't cark it), and have less state control than you've had since, like, ever. It was pretty much the worst case scenario for the Dems. You wanna spin that as something other than a bad loss, have fun. I'm going to stick with "lost badly".

FAKE NEWS! Yes, I'm making fun of Ray here.

We certainly lost the presidency, although it was close.

We didn't have the House in the first place, so we didn't lose it. We appear to have gained six seats.

We lost the Senate, two seats from 50/50 to 48/52.

"Losing" the Supreme Court is a function of losing the Senate, so you're basically counting that twice for no reason.

I assume the state races went bad, probably really bad, but just not as badly as you say, because you're kind of incapable of telling the truth.

BTW, I actually also think we lost badly, it's just amusing that even in victory you can't tell the truth.
   1087. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: January 11, 2017 at 03:47 PM (#5381869)
So I should not use electable as a criteria or should I pretend that there is zero evidence of sexism in national elections?


I think you could consider that HRC (like Trump) is rather sui generis before deciding that a woman can't win, or even a Dem woman can't win.



   1088. Morty Causa Posted: January 11, 2017 at 03:47 PM (#5381870)
1085

And yet she got 3 million more votes than her opponent. Not only does that say something about her, it says loads about that opponent.
   1089. Renegade (((JE))) Posted: January 11, 2017 at 03:48 PM (#5381872)
OK, *this* *seems* interesting:
Wow. Jim Mattis just canceled his planned appearance tomorrow before the House Armed Services Committee
   1090. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 11, 2017 at 03:51 PM (#5381875)
We lost the Senate, two seats from 50/50 to 48/52.

Really? Are you sure you were paying attention?
   1091. Kiko Sakata Posted: January 11, 2017 at 03:52 PM (#5381876)
I thought the existent sexism would be counterbalanced by enthusiasm in women voters. In fact that was a primary source of my confidence in HRC. It never happened. Absent more evidence why should I believe it will happen in 2020?


I think you're confusing a lack of enthusiasm for Hillary Clinton, the one specific person, with "existent sexism".

A large number of people don't like Hillary Clinton, find her untrustworthy, and thought she did a lousy job as Secretary of State. You can argue that these people were wrong on all three counts, but that's what they believed.

Maybe you're not saying it, but I've seen a lot of commentary, both professional and from friends and family, of how horribly sexist America must be because "the most qualified Presidential candidate in history" got beat by a two-bit wannabe dictator. Frankly, as much as I loathe doing it, I have to give Trump his due on how he handled the "she's got so much more experience" critique: as Trump put it, "Yes, but she has bad experience" - Benghazi, the e-mail server investigation, she was the grandmother of Obamacare 30 years ago. Again, you think she was a good Secretary of State and Clintoncare would have been great. That's fine; I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying a large number of Americans disagree with you.

Does gender play a role in the opinions people form of others? Absolutely! Were there some people who did not vote for Hillary Clinton because she was a woman? Almost certainly: this country has something like 280 million eligible voters. Heck, there was probably one who didn't vote for Hillary because of a bias against first names starting with H (damn that Harry Truman! Worst President Ever! Well, except for Herbert Hoover, of course).

I just think there is (and was) ample evidence that Hillary Clinton was a uniquely bad candidate (by which I don't mean "worst ever", just "unique") in ways that had nothing to do with gender.
   1092. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: January 11, 2017 at 03:53 PM (#5381878)
Any good outcomes for the Dems in the 2016 elections? Any silver linings?

The Trump Admin is almost certain to be such a godawful trainwreck that the Dems will gain seats/support in 2018 no matter what they do... Yes I know that's not much of a silver lining. (Kind of like Kansas: Brownback being such an unmitigated disaster has transformed Kansas Dems from dead to "mostly dead")
   1093. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 11, 2017 at 03:54 PM (#5381879)
I think you'd want to nominate a woman whose candidacy wasn't so badly damaged right out of the gate before drawing any conclusions about the electoral viability of women as a group.


I think you could consider that HRC (like Trump) is rather sui generis before deciding that a woman can't win, or even a Dem woman can't win.


Well I didn't say a woman couldn't win. I think there is plenty of evidence that women have difficulty. They are vastly under represented at basically all levels of government and have only managed to hit credible candidate for the White House once. Even then I certainly don't think it is impossible for a woman to be elected as President.

But I pretty much have my answer, no one other than me thinks there is any sort of issue on this front. None of you consider it to be part of electability and would ignore it in 2020.

Thanks everyone for answering; I do appreciate the answers and the discussion, even if I am alone in my opinion. :)
   1094. zonk Posted: January 11, 2017 at 03:54 PM (#5381880)
OK, *this* *seems* interesting:

Wow. Jim Mattis just canceled his planned appearance tomorrow before the House Armed Services Committee


Well, at least he wasn't one of the few competent, respected choices for Cheetoh Benito administration... oh, wait - he was.

I'd make a joke about Aspargosa or whatever her name is -- but I understand that she did, in fact, recently get a job in the administration. She could always get a promotion, I guess.
   1095. The Good Face Posted: January 11, 2017 at 04:00 PM (#5381888)
We didn't have the House in the first place, so we didn't lose it.


Of course you did. Every House seat was up for election and the Dems wound up with fewer seats than the GOP. That's losing.

"Losing" the Supreme Court is a function of losing the Senate, so you're basically counting that twice for no reason.


No, it's a function of losing the Presidency, since he's the guy who gets to nominate new justices. If everything else was the same but Hillary won the Presidency, you almost certainly get Garland, or somebody similar, on the court.

BTW, I actually also think we lost badly, it's just amusing that even in victory you can't tell the truth.


What did I not tell the truth about?
   1096. madvillain Posted: January 11, 2017 at 04:03 PM (#5381892)
I'm starting to really like this Shindler guy, he cuts through all the BS and just calls a spade a spade. Hard to believe his fellow career spooks aren't mostly thinking the same things:

on cue, right-wing social media has come to the president-elect’s defense, absurdly claiming that the dossier is an Internet hoax that fooled anti-Trump Republicans. There is as much evidence for this claim as for the assertion that the dossier was compiled by Jimmy Hoffa with help from Bigfoot.

For their part, the Russians are denying everything. Castigating the dossier as “pulp fiction” and a “clear attempt to damage relations,’ the Kremlin is following the “fake news” path illuminated by Trump’s fans in the West. This lives up to the old spy wag that you should only believe any report when Moscow publicly denies it.

At this point, it’s functionally impossible to differentiate between social media claims made by the Trump administration, the Kremlin, the Wikileaks-Greenwald axis, and the Alt-Right. Now that Moscow has taken up the Nazi-frog meme beloved by the Alt-Right, any propaganda line between these groups has been erased altogether.


I noted yesterday elsewhere on the Internet that seeing the Russian embassy post a Pepe meme was one of the most bizarre and yet predictable things in the world. It's so obvious that Russia is playing the alt-right and alt-left. Wiki links for the alt-left, Pepe for the alt-right. A little something for all the paranoids on both sides.

gee, I've been saying the same thing:

What’s important here is that the IC leadership decided to brief a small circle of the most senior American officials on that dossier’s findings. They don’t do that, ever—treating raw private intelligence reports by foreigners as worthy of briefing to “the top”—unless they can corroborate significant portions of it.


No ####, they aren't going to waste time just to waste time. Despite what our own Assange, OJ thinks, the US intelligence agencies think this dossier is pretty important.

You #### with the Bull, you're gonna get the Horns eventually:

Trump needs this issue to go away, and he can easily make that happen by releasing his tax returns and financial records for the last couple decades, thereby demonstrating that he has no dark Kremlin secrets. However, in his presser today, the president-elect stated that nobody but journalists care about his tax returns, which he reiterated he has no intention of releasing to the public.

This continued stalling is a grave mistake, and things will only get nastier as more of Trump’s secrets are leaked to the media. Having repeatedly warned the president-elect to avoid needless fights with our spies, since they know things, let me add that it only will get worse from here if Trump doesn’t come clean soon.
   1097. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 11, 2017 at 04:07 PM (#5381894)
Mark Hunt is suing the UFC, president Dana White and former heavyweight champion Brock Lesnar alleging racketeering, among other things.
It's never RICO!
   1098. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 11, 2017 at 04:11 PM (#5381900)
In 2020 given roughly equal candidates, one male and one female, I don't think it sexist or perpetuating sexism to - in a primary - favor the male candidate - if only because history (what little data we have) suggests a woman might have trouble being elected.
You might not be personally motivated by prejudice, but I think that your statement is actually in the dictionary next to the phrase "perpetuating sexism."¹ Consider this analogy: a law firm looking to hire a new attorney, with two roughly equal candidates, one male and one female, favors the male on the grounds that history suggests that judges and jurors take male attorneys more seriously.




¹Note: my statement is a figure of speech. I do not believe that this phrase would actually be found in many dictionaries.
   1099. Theo^J Posted: January 11, 2017 at 04:15 PM (#5381902)


Show of hands - how many people here would be genuinely surprised if it turned out that Trump Sam had killed a hooker (accidentally or otherwise)?


Trump's opposition doesn't know which end is up at this point. That's why he's POTUS and you're making pee jokes. He has mastered the media and its audience, now it's time to take on the tougher birds who run things day to day.

We gave up true democratic republicanism a ways back, probably with the foundation of a national security state tasked with unelected power to do as it will. Trump ran to take these folks on, and they started fighting back immediately. Things will likely intensify as of next Friday.

On this end, it's all bread and circuses going forward. I suspect that if we get out of line, Trump win't be so laid back as his predecessor, but again, it'll be for show while the real battles rage behind the scenes.

Same as it ever was.
   1100. Lassus Posted: January 11, 2017 at 04:15 PM (#5381903)
No, it's a function of losing the Presidency, since he's the guy who gets to nominate new justices. If everything else was the same but Hillary won the Presidency, you almost certainly get Garland, or somebody similar, on the court.

Well, then you still counted it twice for no reason. Rather pedantic on my part, but if you're trying to go by some kind of quantitative listing - which is what I asked - that's just kind of double-dipping.


Of course you did. Every House seat was up for election and the Dems wound up with fewer seats than the GOP. That's losing.

Before the election, we had 188 seats, and you had 247 seats. After the election, we had 194 seats and you had 241 seats. I guess you're going by some "everyone starts at zero" judgment, but that's basically insane, so, I'm not sure how really to discuss it with you.

Maybe the swing is normally crazier, as in we should have gained 20 rather than 6 seats based on history, maybe? I don't know. But if you're going to judge an improvement as a loss, I would probably have to rescind my accusation of dishonesty, because you're operating on some alternate level of judgment.
Page 11 of 20 pages ‹ First  < 9 10 11 12 13 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Rough Carrigan
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogMarlins expecting to finalize $1.3B deal to sell team to Jeb Bush, Derek Jeter group
(80 - 9:00am, Apr 27)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogESPN will cut 100 on-air personalities today
(170 - 8:55am, Apr 27)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogHunter Greene Done Pitching For The Season | BaseballAmerica.com
(13 - 8:21am, Apr 27)
Last: The Duke

NewsblogWhat It's Like to Actually Pitch to Tebow
(22 - 8:17am, Apr 27)
Last: jacksone (AKA It's OK...)

NewsblogOTP 24 April 2017: Talking politics (and baseball) with the mayor
(559 - 8:02am, Apr 27)
Last: ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

Hall of Merit2018 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion
(192 - 3:42am, Apr 27)
Last: Rob_Wood

NewsblogHunter Greene is the star baseball needs. First he has to finish high school.
(63 - 2:58am, Apr 27)
Last: filihok

NewsblogESPN layoffs: A running list of reporters, anchors fired by the network - The Washington Post
(32 - 2:37am, Apr 27)
Last: Meatwad needs baseball

NewsblogOMNICHATTER today, diet tomorrow. April 26, 2017
(67 - 1:33am, Apr 27)
Last: Like Flies On Sherbert

NewsblogOT - March 2017 NBA thread
(2453 - 1:27am, Apr 27)
Last: Tin Angel

NewsblogDodgers to call up top prospect Cody Bellinger to aid outfield
(8 - 12:50am, Apr 27)
Last: Infinite Yost (Voxter)

NewsblogCarpenter out of lineup serving one-game suspension
(1 - 12:44am, Apr 27)
Last: Infinite Yost (Voxter)

Sox TherapyChris Sale Is A Terrible Person
(18 - 9:22pm, Apr 26)
Last: Jose is El Absurd Pollo

NewsblogChris Coghlan went full Superman to jump over Yadier Molina and scored ridiculous run
(45 - 8:46pm, Apr 26)
Last: Rickey! No. You move.

NewsblogWhen will Mets call up Amed Rosario | MLB.com
(18 - 8:06pm, Apr 26)
Last: JJ1986

Page rendered in 1.0598 seconds
47 querie(s) executed