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 13 of 20 pages ‹ First  < 11 12 13 14 15 >  Last ›
   1201. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 11, 2017 at 08:21 PM (#5382069)
Sure. In Afghanistan.

Do you ask whether I really mean literally no one in the U.S.? Of course I don't mean that.


So then when you said "misogyny is a silly made-up thing" you actually didn't mean it was silly or made up at all. It is funny how someone who makes their hay here being a pedant's pedant semi-continuously says things that they "of course" don't really mean in the slightest.

But hey at least we all agree now that misogyny is not silly and is real. And hey there are even some people in the US who exhibit signs of this concept we all call misogyny. Now all there is to discuss is how many there are and the degree of influence they had. Well if we wanted to continue this discussion, which I certainly have no interest in.
   1202. Joe Bivens Will Take a Steaming Dump Posted: January 11, 2017 at 08:21 PM (#5382070)
1199---he put them there for schtupping purposes.
   1203. madvillain Posted: January 11, 2017 at 08:27 PM (#5382071)
My point is any serious intelligence work is covert (hidden) from the likes of you, and that what you want to believe and what's actually true are poles apart. I'm not sure what anonymous quotes you refer to, but nobody is willing to stand behind this report as tbe least bit accurate.


Comrade OJ -- unlike you, I do think there are things an ordinary citizen can learn about the workings of the US government. One can read a tremendous amount for example, from former US Intelligence agents, online even, in the comfort of home, and come to their own conclusions separate from Trump and his sycophants. I (among others)have concluded that the evidence, most of it granted circumstantial, when taken in its entirety, warrants serious investigation of possible contact between Russia and Trump, including collusion against Hillary. Someone upthread said it's basically Watergate, except with Russia as a side bonus. We should probably investigate further, even if nothing comes of it.

This is a guy, Carolla, who grew up with divorced parents who had nothing, did almost nothing, weren't invested either emotionally or financially in raising him or his sister. Carolla was working construction, carpentry, and carpet cleaning and barely making ends meet - living in a run down apartment with roommates, no health insurance, no money to pay for even a parking ticket - from 18-30 before he soon thereafter started to make inroads into a career, for one thing putting himself through improv school by the construction work and teaching boxing, etc.

White privilege, indeed. The guest started from his conclusion that since Carolla is at a certain station in life now - he's wealthy - it was due to white privilege.

If only.

He came from nothing to something?
   1204. BDC Posted: January 11, 2017 at 08:27 PM (#5382072)
The first woman president will be Republican

People used to say (for similar reasons) that the first black President would be a Republican.

The problem was that there weren't many black Republicans – has there been a serious Presidential run by a black Republican politician (as opposed to Keyes and Carson, as fairly whimsical outsiders)?

Same issue with women. Has there been a serious Presidential run by a woman Republican? Elizabeth Dole and Sarah Palin folded their campaigns very early. Carly Fiorina – she's in the Keyes/Carson wing.

Meanwhile, odds would seem good that the 2020 Democratic nominee will be either a black man (Cory Booker) or one of several white women (Warren, Gillibrand, Klobuchar, Streep) – or maybe even Oprah Winfrey if they get this TV-host thing down.

Who's the likeliest Republican woman to run in 2024? Is Nikki Haley going to parlay the UN into a Presidential run? You see the problem, just as a betting proposition.

First Latino President, now there the GOP has some established names, more so than the Democrats at this point.

I didn't really mean Streep. Just having a bit of fun. Though WTH knows.
   1205. BDC Posted: January 11, 2017 at 08:31 PM (#5382074)
He came from nothing to something?

Yes, just logically, the ability of a white guy to go from nothing to something hardly proves the nonexistence of white privilege. It might even be a good argument for its existence.
   1206. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 11, 2017 at 08:42 PM (#5382075)
Meanwhile, odds would seem good that the 2020 Democratic nominee will be either a black man (Cory Booker) or one of several white women (Warren, Gillibrand, Klobuchar, Streep) – or maybe even Oprah Winfrey if they get this TV-host thing down.


I think the defeat of Hillary damaged the chances near term of a woman president (again that might be a minority opinion of mine), still I am pleased to have one of my Senators mentioned, because Klobuchar is pretty awesome. I would love to see her as President.

I honestly have no idea who the Democratic nominee will be though. It was obvious it was going to be HRC in 2016, but 2020? Dunno.
   1207. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: January 11, 2017 at 08:44 PM (#5382077)
#1194:
You arguing otherwise is just you being a daft pedantic moron, as you are occasionally want to be.

#1197:
1194----it's "wont".


Correct. Nevertheless, I hope we can all agree that those Russian hookers squatting over the future of America were making hot wanton soup.
   1208. zenbitz Posted: January 11, 2017 at 08:45 PM (#5382078)
To be fair to Ray, the terminology ID confusing. White privilege is not the same privilege as being born with a silver spoon in your mouth (like say GW Bush or Trump.

That's just wealth. Privilege, in the white/male/hetero is more like a lack of friction.


It's by definition "default" privilege.
Someone - if any social class, race, sex or status who is born beautiful gets a similar edge in life (although one could debate the relative magnitudes)

   1209. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 11, 2017 at 08:46 PM (#5382079)
Yes, just logically, the ability of a white guy to go from nothing to something hardly proves the nonexistence of white privilege.


I wasn't attempting to prove the non-existence but rather to show that, whatever merits to the phenomenon in 2017 America, it is so cartoonishly applied as to be meaningless.

It might even be a good argument for its existence.


Perhaps. I suppose the argument would be that Carolla wouldn't have broken through at age 32 but for his whiteness.

Of course, then I could counter with someone like (off the top of my head) Kevin Hart, who also had a poor upbringing via a broken home and didn't go to college, and apparently worked as a shoe salesman:

Early life

Kevin Hart was born on July 6, 1979 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.[2] He was raised by his single mother, Nancy Hart,[2] and has one brother, Robert.[1] His father, Henry Witherspoon,[5] a cocaine addict, was in and out of jail throughout most of Kevin's childhood, and Kevin used humor as way to cope with his troubled family life.[2]

After graduating from high school, Hart briefly attended the Community College of Philadelphia and moved to New York City.[6][7][8][9] He then moved to Brockton, Massachusetts, and found work as a shoe salesman.[9] He began pursuing a career in stand-up comedy after performing at an amateur night at a club in Philadelphia.[10]

Career

Stand-up

Hart's first gig was at The Laff House in Philadelphia under the name of Lil Kev, which did not go well.[11] His career suffered a slow start, as he was booed off stage several times, once even having a piece of chicken thrown at him.[12] After those initial unsuccessful shows, Hart began entering comedy competitions throughout Massachusetts, and his fortunes soon turned for the better.[9]


I imagine we can agree that white privilege wouldn't explain Hart's success.
   1210. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 11, 2017 at 08:49 PM (#5382080)
… has there been a serious Presidential run by a black Republican politician (as opposed to Keyes and Carson, as fairly whimsical outsiders)?

He didn't run, but if Colin Powell had the "fire in the belly" for elective office, and been willing to adopt conventional GOP positions on domestic issues, he would have been a strong Republican contender in 1996 or 2000. He wasn't really interested in being a politician, so it never happened.
   1211. don't ask 57i66135; he wants to hang them all Posted: January 11, 2017 at 08:56 PM (#5382082)
Meanwhile, odds would seem good that the 2020 Democratic nominee will be either a black man (Cory Booker) or one of several white women (Warren, Gillibrand, Klobuchar, Streep) – or maybe even Oprah Winfrey if they get this TV-host thing down.
jon stewart, with franken as VP.
   1212. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: January 11, 2017 at 09:06 PM (#5382087)
Here's tonight's NewsHour interview with two intelligence people, concerning the Trump dossiers:

JUDY WOODRUFF: We take a closer look at Russia, the president-elect, and these latest revelations with former attorney at the National Security Agency Susan Hennessey. She is now a fellow at the Brookings Institution and is managing editor for the Web site Lawfare about the intersection of the law and national security. And John Sipher, he served almost 30 years at the CIA, both in the agency’s clandestine service and executive ranks. He was stationed in Moscow in the 1990s and he ran the CIA’s Russia program for three years. He’s now at CrossLead, a consulting firm.

And welcome to both of you.

So let’s start, Susan Hennessey, but I just want to ask both of you in brief, what do you make of this report?

SUSAN HENNESSEY, Former NSA Lawyer: Right.

So, for the moment, the real story is the allegations themselves are unverified. They’re obviously quite salacious in nature. The real story is that the intelligence community thought it was appropriate to brief the president of the United States and the president-elect.

That means that serious people are taking this seriously. That’s different than saying that the intelligence community believes the allegations or has substantiated them. But this is a matter that is not just simply a matter of fake news or something that we should disregard.

It clearly passes some degree of preliminary credibility.

JUDY WOODRUFF: John Sipher, your take?

JOHN SIPHER, Former CIA Officer: I think the question is, is this real?

And there are things on the positive side and the negative side on that. On the positive side, for those of us who have lived and worked and worked in Russia and against the Russians, it does feel right. It does feel like the kind of thing that Russians do. A lot of those details fit.

Also, I think, the author has some credibility, which is on the positive side.

JUDY WOODRUFF: This is the former British intelligence officer.

JOHN SIPHER: That’s right. Yes.

On the negative side, it really is hard to make a distinction if we don’t know who those sources are. He talks about his sources providing various information. In the CIA, before we would put out a report like that, an intelligence report, there could be, you know, hundreds of pages of information on that person’s access, on their suitability, on their personality.

We don’t have that. And, secondly, the fact that a lot of this reporting is the presidential administration in Russia and the Kremlin is a little bit worrying, because, I mean, that’s essentially a hard nut to crack. And U.S. intelligence agencies have been trying to do that for years, and the fact that he has this much data about them does put it into question a little bit.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Susan Hennessey, let’s talk about your organization, Lawfare.

You had a copy of this, what, several weeks ago. And you started looking into it, decided not to put it out, but you did look into it. How did you go about figuring out or trying to figure out what’s real and what isn’t here?

SUSAN HENNESSEY
: Right.

So, the document was shared with us to — so that we could provide some professional input as to whether or not it was credible. As we were satisfied that the relevant government entities were aware of the documents, and then like everybody else, we attempted to talk to people in various communities to see whether or not the allegations seemed credible to them.

I think the point that we’re at now, it’s really not about our organization or anyone else verifying the specific facts. The FBI is conducting an investigation. We will expect — there are very specific allegations in this document. Those allegations can either be proven true or proven false.

And so we should expect some answers that provide some additional clarity. One important note is just because a single fact in the document is true, it doesn’t mean the rest of the document is true. And just because a single fact in the document is false, that doesn’t mean the rest of the document is false.

JUDY WOODRUFF: That the entire thing is false.

Well, John Sipher, let’s go back to what you said a minute ago. You said there are parts of this that are credible, and you said it’s the way the Russians operate. What did you mean by that?

JOHN SIPHER: It must look odd to views or anybody who has read this thing. It’s such a different world.

But Russia is a police state. Russia has been a police state for much of its history. And this is the way they often do business. They collect blackmail on people. When I lived there, we had audio and video in our houses. We were followed all the time. Restaurants and places, hotels like this are — have video and audio in them. They collect this.

They do psychological profiling of people to try to see who might be sources for them. This is just the way the Russians operate. So when you read this, it smacks of the kind of thing that we would believe is credible. That doesn’t mean it is.

JUDY WOODRUFF: The methods.

JOHN SIPHER: Right, the methods, right, and the — right.

JUDY WOODRUFF: But you went on to say that the precise details in here are not borne out, are not verified by any individuals outside of this report, the British — the British office.

JOHN SIPHER: Right.

And in that sense, it’s difficult because of the hyperpartisan atmosphere here. The fact that this is now in the public is going to spin up on the salacious details and these type of things, whereas I think the FBI does have a lot of experience doing very sensitive investigations like this, working with partners overseas and others to try to put this together, because there are a lot of details that we as citizens can’t follow up on.

Did people travel during those certain days? Who are these people? And that’s the kind of stuff that we just can’t do, and the FBI can and will.

JUDY WOODRUFF: For example, Susan Hennessey, there’s a reference in here to an attempt to get the FISA court, the court that has to OK investigations, surveillance of individuals, permission for them to look at four different people who were working for the Trump campaign, the Trump Organization. How unusual would something like that be?

SUSAN HENNESSEY: So, certainly, it’s highly unusual in the context of a political campaign or a presidential election.

That said, there is news reports that perhaps there were additional attempts to secure a FISA warrant, and that the FBI reportedly obtained one in October. If the allegations in the documents are true, are accurate, those are the kinds of things that would fall within FISA.

That’s the type of warrant that the government would pursue. That said, just like everything else, we’re a step away from actually verifying the substance of that.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Verifying.

John Sipher, if you’re in charge of the investigation to figure out what is and what isn’t right, if anything is accurate in here, what do you need to do now?

JOHN SIPHER: What you need to do is take each piece of this document and run it to ground.

So, you need to find out — they talk — the issue here is not the salacious details, the blackmail piece. The issue here is the criminal behavior if people in the Trump campaign were working with Russian intelligence to collect information on Americans.

If that’s the case, there’s a lot of detail in there that needs to be verified. And we have to find out, did the people travel on the days they said they traveled, those type of things? So, there are a lot of things to run down that you can run down with your partners and information that you can collect as part of an investigation in U.S. travel records, all these type of things.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Susan Hennessey, what would you add to that? If you were involved in trying to determine if any parts of this are accurate or to verify that they’re not accurate, how would do you that?

SUSAN HENNESSEY: Right.

So, certainly, the FBI is going to be calling on all of their resources to investigate the specific allegations, things like travel records, things like financial documents. They’re also going to need to draw on intelligence sources. And so there are specific sort of comments about meetings between Putin and others, very sort of high-level, high-value intelligence targets.

They would really need to reach very deeply into their intelligence networks and the networks of allied intelligence agencies in order to see if anything to lend credibility or substantiate these very serious allegations.

JUDY WOODRUFF: John Sipher, we saw that Senator John McCain had a role, the Republican senator, of course, from Arizona, had a role in this. How did he come into this, and does that tell us anything?

JOHN SIPHER: Well, Senator McCain, obviously, has a lot of experience working with the government on sensitive things and has always been a hawk on Russia issues. And I’m supportive of that. I think he’s been good in that case.

My understanding is the author of this himself provided information, this information to get to the FBI, through Mr. McCain, who got the information through the FBI.

And, obviously, other news places had it. What’s interesting is President Trump, President-elect Trump seems to think that the intelligence agencies themselves leaked this information, whereas it doesn’t seem to me that that’s the case.

The fact that you and others have had this for so long and actually held off on putting it suggests to me that this information has been out there for a while, and I think that’s why General Clapper and others briefed the president-elect on this last Friday.

JUDY WOODRUFF: What would you add to that?

SUSAN HENNESSEY: So, I think this is an incredibly important point.

So, when President-elect Trump today seemed to suggest that he believes the intelligence community leaked this, saying it would be a blot if they had done so, there’s absolutely no indication that the intelligence community is the source of the documents.

BuzzFeed, the organization that published this document, this is actually not even an intelligence community document. It is a private company. It’s not even classified material. And so a little bit, there is a suspicion that once again Donald Trump is using his personal attacks on the intelligence community a little bit to divert attention away from the substance of the allegations.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Very quickly to both of you, how confident are you that we’re going to know eventually whether this is — whether any of this is accurate?

JOHN SIPHER: I have confidence.

Yes, I have confidence that the FBI is going to follow this through. My nervousness is that these kind of things are going to dribble and drabble out for the next several years and cause a real problem for this administration going forward.

SUSAN HENNESSEY: Because this is so important to the credibility of the president, we would really want to see him establish some kind of independent commission or council in order to really get to the bottom of these facts and provide some reassurance to the American people, not only that this is being investigated, but also that President-elect Trump himself is taking this matter very seriously.

JUDY WOODRUFF: [Susan & John], we thank you both.


   1213. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: January 11, 2017 at 09:14 PM (#5382089)
And while I won't copy and paste this, the NewsHour also had a joint interview with the chief ethics lawyers for the last two presidents, Norm Eisen (for Obama) and Richard Painter (for G.W. Bush). The interview is interspersed with clippings from today's press conference with Trump's Attorney, Sheri Dillon. Let's just say that neither Bush's nor Obama's ethics lawyers found Dillon's legal interpretations of the conflict of interest issue convincing.

Is Trump’s plan for his company enough to avoid conflicts of interest?

The moderator is Steve Inskeep of the NewsHour.
   1214. BDC Posted: January 11, 2017 at 10:02 PM (#5382094)
A fairly staid character by current American political standards:

Óttarr Proppé will become Iceland's Minister of Health. He first rose to fame in an entirely different field however, as the singer for heavy metal band HAM and singer of punk rock group Dr.Spock. He even took part in the preliminaries to the Eurovision song contest in Iceland with a band called Pollapönk.
   1215. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 11, 2017 at 10:03 PM (#5382096)
Meanwhile, odds would seem good that the 2020 Democratic nominee will be either a black man (Cory Booker) or one of several white women (Warren, Gillibrand, Klobuchar, Streep) – or maybe even Oprah Winfrey if they get this TV-host thing down.
The SJWs want Kamala Harris.
   1216. Random Transaction Generator Posted: January 11, 2017 at 10:20 PM (#5382101)

People used to say (for similar reasons) that the first black President would be a Republican.


Bloom County strip, from 1988.
   1217. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 11, 2017 at 10:20 PM (#5382102)
The SJWs want Kamala Harris.

Once you win with an inexperienced first-term Senator, there is a tendency to go back to the well. However, she hasn't done anything, yet, and would have to overcome the opposition of Bitter Mouse and the other sexists in her party.
   1218. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 11, 2017 at 10:21 PM (#5382103)
The SJWs want Kamala Harris.


Well if anyone has insight into the minds of Democrats it would be you, right?
   1219. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 11, 2017 at 10:23 PM (#5382104)
the opposition of Bitter Mouse


Heh. Funny stuff.
   1220. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 11, 2017 at 10:45 PM (#5382109)
the opposition of Bitter Mouse


Heh. Funny stuff.


You can walk your comments back, if you like, and I'd be happy to accept from you that your position as stated and affirmed in posts 1025, 1084, and 93 was poorly thought out. And this isn't a trap or a gotcha; I'd be happy to accept your reconsidered position and never refer to your original position again. But until then, your position as expressed in the above-noted posts remains as that in which because America is a sexist, misogynistic place you'll be voting for a male candidate over a female candidate in the 2020 primaries if the two candidates are roughly equal.

And there's nothing unfair or misrepresentative about the above paragraph. You stated your position, and then stuck to it, repeating it and doubling down. Now you'll be wearing it, unless and until you decide that being cloaked in it makes you someone who is contributing to the problem of sexism.
   1221. Howie Menckel Posted: January 11, 2017 at 10:57 PM (#5382113)
That wouldn't explain why he put women in high positions in his private business, including at least as far back as the 80s

this is actually true.

somebody - maybe WaPo - did a good story on this a year ago.

gist of it was that Trump loves "killers" in business, male or female, so he promoted many women to very high slots compared to his male tycoon peers. the women quoted said he was pretty crude, but they cared more about getting an equal shot than being pandered to by other tycoons who were polite but had an all-boys network.

it's no home run for Trump - we can guess that the better-looking killers did better - but the telling part was that the women (no shrinking violets need apply) were willing to roll their eyes at a lame joke in exchange for a real opportunity at power. they didn't wish for a world where they were ignored in every way.

neither option above was fair to those women, but clearly many preferred the higher-achievement routes.

dividing line is if you had to sleep with him or if you just had to smile at a crude joke. both are clearly unprofessional, but the magnitude is massive.

people are complicated, as that article illustrated.
   1222. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 11, 2017 at 11:06 PM (#5382114)
And there's nothing unfair or misrepresentative about the above paragraph. You stated your position, and then stuck to it, repeating it and doubling down.


Well you got part of one sentence right, so that is a marked improvement for you. I never said "because America is a sexist, misogynistic place", but hey the second half is spot on.

If there are two equal candidates (I like them roughly equally) and the fact that right now I think males are more electable than females (for President at least) means I would vote in the Democratic Primary for the male. And the entire reason is I want a Democratic President.

If a Female candidate gives me a 50% chance of that and a male candidate gives me a 55% chance (and as stated I like them equally) of course I would vote for the candidate most likely to win in the general. If it was reversed and the women had a better chance to win I would vote for her. If a transgender candidate gave me the best chance to win (and again was roughly equal) I would give them my vote. Likewise with a neuter or hermaphroditic candidate.

None of that has - as is obvious to everyone with even half a clue - has anything to do with me being sexist or it being poorly thought out* (as you weirdly claim), it has to do with wanting a Democratic president. I am focused on wanting to win, not on the specific gender of the president we end up with.

And yes you may consider this tripling down if you want. You seem to think my willingness to vote tactically, wanting to win, and observing the distinct lack of women presidents in our past to be some some of "gotcha", hey whatever floats your boat. Think what you want. I would prefer fewer Bush and Trump presidencies and more CLinton and Obama ones and am willing to vote tactically to help make that happen.

* Of course I could be wrong about females being at a disadvantage**. I make no specific claims as to why(thoguh you seem desperate to want me to claim wide spread misogyny for whatever reason), but I have observed there have never been any female presidents and only one legitimate candidate in US history - and she was the favorite and lost, despite much polling that suggested she would win.

** I have noticed, despite the many claims Clinton was unique (um, yeah, all candidates and all election are unique, so what?) no one has yet argued here (that I have seen) that women are at some sort of advantage generically in national elections or even that there is no impact at all, other than perhaps the occasional hand wave. But hey if you believe women have an advantage then act on that, fine with me.


EDIT: And of course, since you seemed to miss it the first time, the "funny stuff" comment was aimed specifically at what I quoted, which was Clapper pretending I was somehow "opposed" to Kamala Harris. Because that is pretty funny I must admit.
   1223. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 11, 2017 at 11:25 PM (#5382117)
I don't know what could be more sexist than preferring a male candidate over a female candidate because of gender. That Bitter Mouse takes that stance while denying he is being sexist may be his greatest Obtuse Mouse moment.
   1224. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 11, 2017 at 11:39 PM (#5382119)
no one has yet argued here (that I have seen) that women are at some sort of advantage generically in national elections
Look, you can be a bit tedious sometimes, but I would still think you'd read your own posts. You, and Gonfalon, and a couple of others just spent two years telling us that demographics give Democratic women some sort of advantage generically in national elections.
   1225. Lassus Posted: January 12, 2017 at 06:57 AM (#5382138)
And there's nothing unfair or misrepresentative about the above paragraph.

And you can trust that judgment from the person who wrote it. ####### Christ.

BM's questionable strategy hasn't been well-expressed, but the fainting-couch crowing of you two is sad(!) in its pure insincerity. Equating sexism of not voting for a woman because she's a woman to the strategic response to sexism of not voting for a woman because she won't win is simple-minded. And here's the thing: you have an argument that's not invalid, but you seem wholly interested in that.
   1226. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: January 12, 2017 at 07:30 AM (#5382140)
#1224:
Look, you can be a bit tedious sometimes, but I would still think you'd read your own posts. You, and Gonfalon, and a couple of others just spent two years telling us that demographics give Democratic women some sort of advantage generically in national elections.


No, Gonfalon says that demographics give the Democratic candidate some sort of advantage generically in national elections. The 2016 vote count indicates that this is correct. The national votes had to be distributed just so, to produce the winner they did. One election doesn't erase the arc of the census and actuarial tables, most particularly not an election where the Democrat got the largest-ever vote margin for an EC-losing candidate. Or is 2016's outcome a sustainable strategy?

Some people here were skeptical that women voters would support Hillary Clinton as much as they had supported Barack Obama in the previous election. I said several times that due to her being the first female candidate, women voters were likely to do so and then some. But because the Democrats were already winning women so handily, I guessed that there wasn't much room for improvement. I said that just a 0.5% or 0.75% bump in the margin among women voters would be a success and have an impact.

In 2012, according to exit polling, Obama won women by an 11% margin. In 2016, Clinton won women by a 12% margin. When you account for rounding, and Johnson and Stein getting about 4% of female votes, it's probably a push. It's definitely some sort of advantage generically in national elections.

Demographics showed up to vote in 2016. For various reasons any of us could list, turnout did not. That being the case, how would Clinton's numbers column look if the woman vote didn't give the Democrat a baked-in advantage?

What if we assume, against logic and data shifting, that demographics have hit a plateau in 2012-16, and will never have any more effect than they do or don't right now? Assuming that, which party do you expect to win more of the next five presidential elections?

I guessed several times on this board that the GOP would win the presidency in 2020, so the idea that demographics are all, and nothing can ever overcome them, is not an idea I hold. But they're sure nice to have.
   1227. PreservedFish Posted: January 12, 2017 at 07:51 AM (#5382143)
It seems to me that roughly 100% of the time that a candidate emerges from the primary primarily because he or she is more "electable" than his competitors, he or she then loses in the general election.
   1228. Morty Causa Posted: January 12, 2017 at 08:04 AM (#5382145)
1227:

I'm not sure I get this. Eisenhower wasn't more electable? JFK? LBJ? Richard Nixon (in '60 and '68)? Bush I, Clinton, Bush II? Isn't the whole point of the primary process to determine who is the most electable candidate?
   1229. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 12, 2017 at 08:04 AM (#5382146)
Look, you can be a bit tedious sometimes, but I would still think you'd read your own posts. You, and Gonfalon, and a couple of others just spent two years telling us that demographics give Democratic women some sort of advantage generically in national elections.


What Gonfalon said and of course many liberals (and even some of the smarter conservatives) learn from what happens. They look at the available data and alter their beliefs accordingly.

Previous to this election we had a grand total of zero general elections where there was a credible (major party) woman candidate for president. Now, here in 2017, we have an actual data point. Everything - of course - comes with the caveat that this is only one data point and untangling personal from gender is difficult (impossible) from a single data point.

We do know that the female candidate was strongly favored in the polls and that there was a systematic bias in them across states that resulted in the female candidate doing worse than predicted. We know that there wasn't a noticeable change in women's voting patterns to support the female candidate and there did not seem to be a bump in female turnout (contrast to what happened with the first African American candidate for example).

We (David excepted) know that sexism exists and is likely expressed in some numbers in voting preferences; no I don't know if it is one person, thousands or millions, but given how close the election was we know it would not take much to alter the outcome (the same could be said about many different factors, of course).

We know that in our history there has been one and only one credible female candidate for president and in two national elections she - despite being favored both times - lost twice (one primary, one general). We know that women are underrepresented at all levels of government in the US, nearly the entire the world, and through the majority of history.

So given all that I feel comfortable saying that there is a strong chance (not a certainty, but a chance) that women are at a disadvantage - everything else held equal - relative to men at least in national elections. This makes female candidates less electable.

Seeing as how I just got done supporting a female candidate for President the cries of sexist - from the same people semi-constantly crying crocodile tears about how mean liberals are and how they call conservatives racist and sexist constantly, using it as a bludgeon (exhibit A for why liberals are EVIL!) - is really amusing and I thank you for not disappointing me.

Here in reality land there are - I think - two rational places to attack my stance. First declare that tactical voting is wrong and that one should not consider electability, but rather one should only consider policy, ideology and such. The second place to attack it is to argue that women are not at a disadvantage in national elections.

Obviously this second avenue is more productive, but so far what I have heard has not convinced me:

1) You can't be sure women are at a disadvantage. A: Correct, I am not sure. But it looks that way to me, and since I can't run multiple trials I have to go with the data I have until proven otherwise.

2) Hillary Clinton was uniquely terrible. A: Maybe. So is Trump. However every candidate and every election is unique (obviously). You do the best you can with the data you have. I have put out the data I have (including data not Clinton specific) and am waiting for new data or a new argument and have not seen anything.

3) You posted women were at an advantage, look at your own arguments. A: As it turns out I was wrong about the election, so clearly I could have been wrong about that as well. In fact all evidence suggests I was wrong and have - in light of that - changed my opinion. I know it is radical to admit being wrong and then using data to change an opinion (especially here), but I thought I would give it a try.
   1230. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 12, 2017 at 08:05 AM (#5382147)
I'm not sure I get this. Eisenhower wasn't more electable? JFK? LBJ? Richard Nixon (in '60 and '68)? Bush I, Clinton, Bush II? Isn't the whole point of the primary process to determine who is the most electable candidate?


I believe he is suggesting that when electability is the PRIMARY reason a candidate wins the primary (see what I did there?) then that candidate goes on to lose. I may be wrong though.
   1231. PreservedFish Posted: January 12, 2017 at 08:10 AM (#5382148)
1227:

I'm not sure I get this. Eisenhower wasn't more electable? JFK? LBJ? Richard Nixon (in '60 and '68)? Bush I, Clinton, Bush II? Isn't the whole point of the primary process to determine who is the most electable candidate?


I was thinking of Clinton vs Sanders, Romney vs everyone else, years in which proponents' best arguments were not "he should be president" but "this candidate gives us the best chance to win." And the counterexample of Trump, of course.

PRIMARY reason a candidate wins the primary (see what I did there?)

But you just stole that from me.
   1232. Renegade (((JE))) Posted: January 12, 2017 at 08:12 AM (#5382149)
Vox stumbles on one of the reasons why Trump is PEOTUS:
We asked Nancy Pelosi what part of Obamacare had underperformed. "I can’t think of anything," she said.
   1233. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 12, 2017 at 08:21 AM (#5382150)
Jason - Obama recently gave an interview where he stated that one of the biggest disappointments he had - areas that turned out much harder than he thought, where less was accomplished than he hoped - was making health data digital and portable. He said many other interesting things about ACA. But yeah I am sure it was Nancy Pelosi and her opinions that tipped a small number of Midwestern states Trumps way.
   1234. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 12, 2017 at 08:22 AM (#5382151)
But you just stole that from me.


And? I only steal from the best. :)
   1235. Morty Causa Posted: January 12, 2017 at 08:23 AM (#5382152)
Would we still be having these same qualms about Hillary if she spread her strong voting superiority just a little more so as to win the electoral college vote? There's too much confirming of biases here in the post-election analysis.

I think that voting based strictly on sex has peaked--for female as well as male candidates. This happens all the time. A Catholic used to not be electable. Now, it doesn't matter. This is happening with females. Sure, there are some of each sex for whom the sex of a candidate is a huge consideration, but in general that's more yesterday than tomorrow. At least as younger women apply it to the "old" women candidates who sanctimoniously lecture them on loyalty to women candidates qua women candidates. It will be interesting to see how this manifests itself when these young women start running for office.

   1236. Renegade (((JE))) Posted: January 12, 2017 at 08:27 AM (#5382153)
Jason - Obama recently gave an interview where he stated that one of the biggest disappointments he had - areas that turned out much harder than he though, where less was accomplished than he hoped - was making health data digital and portable. He said many other interesting things about ACA. But yeah I am sure it was Nancy Pelosi and her opinions that tipped a small number of Midwestern states Trumps way.
Was that supposed to be a serious gut check about Obamacare's shortcomings? As always, Obama's responses boil down to mocking his critics with "tell me what you would have done," as if they never offered substantive concerns and possible solutions.
   1237. Morty Causa Posted: January 12, 2017 at 08:31 AM (#5382155)
   1238. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 12, 2017 at 08:31 AM (#5382156)
Was that supposed to be a serious gut check about Obamacare's shortcomings?


What a weird and ever moving goal post you have. Nancy Pelosi being happy didn't satisfy you. Obama expressing specific problems didn't satisfy you. I bet if someone agreed with you completely, in every particular, that would do it. You might be waiting a while though.

As always, Obama's responses...


Obama does mock plenty, but his opponents are so often mockable I find it hard to blame him for it. But of course he does much more than mock. He, unlike the upcoming GOP president, can in fact speak and write in complete sentences and express complex and nuanced ideas.
   1239. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 12, 2017 at 08:35 AM (#5382157)
Would we still be having these same qualms about Hillary if she spread her strong voting superiority just a little more so as to win the electoral college vote? There's too much confirming of biases here in the post-election analysis.


Had she won then I think the next female president would have been largely free of speculation such as I have made. But she didn't. Maybe that is not fair, but life is not fair sometimes. Her loss set back the chances of other women winning the presidency in the near future IMO.

That seems obvious to me, but maybe others see it differently.

I think that voting based strictly on sex has peaked--for female as well as male candidates.


Completely irrelevant. No one is talking about "voting based strictly on sex", or at least I am not.
   1240. Morty Causa Posted: January 12, 2017 at 08:39 AM (#5382158)
Where the sex of the candidate is a deciding factor?
   1241. Covfefe Posted: January 12, 2017 at 08:39 AM (#5382159)
He didn't run, but if Colin Powell had the "fire in the belly" for elective office, and been willing to adopt conventional GOP positions on domestic issues, he would have been a strong Republican contender in 1996 or 2000. He wasn't really interested in being a politician, so it never happened.


Or - since he seems to have supported Democrats the last three cycles, maybe he didn't have the "fire in the belly" for "conventional GOP positions on domestic issues" and is, in fact, more of a Democrat than even he understands...
   1242. Renegade (((JE))) Posted: January 12, 2017 at 08:42 AM (#5382161)
Another silver lining from the election:
Billionaire hedge-fund manager George Soros lost nearly $1 billion as a result of the stock-market rally spurred by Donald Trump’s surprise presidential election.

But Stanley Druckenmiller, Mr. Soros’s former deputy who helped Mr. Soros score $1 billion of profits betting against the British pound in 1992, anticipated the market’s recent climb and racked up sizable gains, according to people close to the matter.

The divergent bets of the two traders are a stark reminder of the challenges even acclaimed investors have faced following Mr. Trump’s unexpected victory. Many experts had predicted a tumble for stocks in the wake of the election, but instead the Dow Jones Industrial Average has climbed 9.3%.

Last year, Mr. Soros returned to trading at Soros Fund Management LLC, which manages about $30 billion for Mr. Soros and his family. Mr. Soros was lured back by the opportunities to profit from what he saw as coming economic troubles.

Mr. Soros was cautious about the market going into November and became more bearish immediately after Mr. Trump’s election, according to people close to the matter. The stance proved a mistake—the stock market has rallied on expectations that Mr. Trump’s policies will boost corporate earnings and the overall economy.
Too bad it wasn't closer to $10B. Or $20B. Or $30B.
   1243. Covfefe Posted: January 12, 2017 at 08:45 AM (#5382164)
Was that supposed to be a serious gut check about Obamacare's shortcomings? As always, Obama's responses boil down to mocking his critics with "tell me what you would have done," as if they never offered substantive concerns and possible solutions.


OK, can you say precisely exactly what those are?

And while you're at it, perhaps you should share those possible solutions with your GOPe friends that still dominate the House/Senate... because, um -- I see they're still having problems - 5+ years later - formulating the replacement.

I do very much appreciate many of them going on record saying "No one will lose their coverage" though, no matter, the solution.

Governing and actually doing stuff rather than being rote obstructionists is a #####, ain't it?

We're new to this rote obstructionist and peanut gallery tomato tossing stuff, but I must admit that it is sure is fun!
   1244. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 12, 2017 at 08:45 AM (#5382165)
I'm not sure I get this. Eisenhower wasn't more electable? JFK? LBJ? Richard Nixon (in '60 and '68)? Bush I, Clinton, Bush II? Isn't the whole point of the primary process to determine who is the most electable candidate?
No, it isn't. The whole point of the primaries is to select someone electable, who you like the most -- not the "most electable." So voters generally winnow the pool by eliminating the ones they think are unelectable, and then of the remaining ones, they vote for the one they like most. What he's saying is that in some primary campaigns, people prioritize these factors differently, and vote for someone they don't really like at all because they think this person has the best shot at winning. People liked JFK, so that's not an instance of this phenomenon. Ditto for Eisenhower. Someone like Dukakis or Kerry or McCain 2008 or Kasich would fit that model.
   1245. Lassus Posted: January 12, 2017 at 08:46 AM (#5382166)
Mr. Soros was lured back by the opportunities to profit from what he saw as coming economic troubles.
'
Heh. At least we can trust the objectivity of the Wall Street Journal.
   1246. Renegade (((JE))) Posted: January 12, 2017 at 08:48 AM (#5382167)
What a weird and ever moving goal post you have. Nancy Pelosi being happy didn't satisfy you. Obama expressing specific problems didn't satisfy you. I bet if someone agreed with you completely, in every particular, that would do it. You might be waiting a while though.
"Nancy Pelosi being happy?" Huh?!?

What "specific problems" did Obama describe that he forgot to mention at any time before the election?
Obama does mock plenty, but his opponents are so often mockable I find it hard to blame him for it. But of course he does much more than mock. He, unlike the upcoming GOP president, can in fact speak and write in complete sentences and express complex and nuanced ideas.
LOL. Trump is the logical extension of Obama. After we endured eight years of gaslighting, soon it will be your turn. Cheers!
Or - since he seems to have supported Democrats the last three cycles, maybe he didn't have the "fire in the belly" for "conventional GOP positions on domestic issues" and is, in fact, more of a Democrat than even he understands...
Hang on, are we discussing Colin Powell ... or Donald Trump?
   1247. Renegade (((JE))) Posted: January 12, 2017 at 08:50 AM (#5382168)
Heh. At least we can trust the objectivity of the Wall Street Journal.
Got a better description handy? Heh.
   1248. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 12, 2017 at 08:51 AM (#5382169)
Trump is the logical extension of Obama.


This is one of the oddest things you have ever written.
   1249. Lassus Posted: January 12, 2017 at 08:52 AM (#5382170)
Got a better description handy? Heh.

Not one with the super-psychic powers of the Wall Street Journal, no.
   1250. Covfefe Posted: January 12, 2017 at 08:53 AM (#5382171)
Or - since he seems to have supported Democrats the last three cycles, maybe he didn't have the "fire in the belly" for "conventional GOP positions on domestic issues" and is, in fact, more of a Democrat than even he understands...
Hang on, are we discussing Colin Powell ... or Donald Trump?


My memory might be hazy, but I have this vague recollection of something about birtherism and one genteel, polite rich white guy meeting with a crude, jackass of a rich white guy to receive his endorsement in 2012.
   1251. Lassus Posted: January 12, 2017 at 08:55 AM (#5382173)
Trump is the logical extension of Obama.

We would have also accepted "Satan", Jason.
   1252. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 12, 2017 at 09:08 AM (#5382174)
And while you're at it, perhaps you should share those possible solutions with your GOPe friends that still dominate the House/Senate... because, um -- I see they're still having problems - 5+ years later - formulating the replacement.


No worries man. Senate Approves First Step Toward Repealing Obamacare in Late-Night Session

He said that his administration would release a plan to repeal and replace the health care law "almost simultaneously." He is hanging the timeline on the confirmation of Rep. Tom Price, his nominee for secretary of the Health and Human Services Department.

"The easiest thing would be to let [Obamacare] implode in 2017, and believe me, we'd get pretty much whatever we wanted, but it'd take a long time. We are going to be submitting, as soon as our secretary is approved, almost simultaneously, shortly thereafter, a plan," Trump said. "It will be repeal and replace. It will be essentially simultaneously. It will be various segments, you understand, but will most likely be on the same day or the same week, but probably the same day, could be the same hour."

"Very complicated stuff," he added.


Another GOP intellectual giant, but hey more power to him if he accomplishes his "very complicated stuff" as promised.
   1253. Renegade (((JE))) Posted: January 12, 2017 at 09:09 AM (#5382176)
This is one of the oddest things you have ever written.
Never mind all of the gaslighting, executive action is going to be a #####.
   1254. Blanks for Nothing, Larvell Posted: January 12, 2017 at 09:10 AM (#5382177)
BM's questionable strategy hasn't been well-expressed, but the fainting-couch crowing of you two is sad(!) in its pure insincerity. Equating sexism of not voting for a woman because she's a woman to the strategic response to sexism of not voting for a woman because she won't win is simple-minded. And here's the thing: you have an argument that's not invalid, but you seem wholly interested in that.

Never in the history of BTF -- even Nieporent at Peak Libertarian -- has the southern cracker restaurant owner, ca. 1965, been channeled with such exactitude and purity.
   1255. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: January 12, 2017 at 09:11 AM (#5382178)
Or - since he seems to have supported Democrats the last three cycles, maybe he didn't have the "fire in the belly" for "conventional GOP positions on domestic issues" and is, in fact, more of a Democrat than even he understands...


Hang on, are we discussing Colin Powell ... or Donald Trump?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't Colin Powell who was demanding to see Obama's birth certificate.
   1256. Lassus Posted: January 12, 2017 at 09:12 AM (#5382179)
Never in the history of BTF -- even Nieporent at Peak Libertarian -- has the southern cracker restaurant owner, ca. 1965, been channeled with such exactitude and purity.

Oh yay, the quack is back.
   1257. Renegade (((JE))) Posted: January 12, 2017 at 09:13 AM (#5382180)
As so many great entrepreneurial success stories do, the tale of Mike Lindell begins in a crack house. It was the fall of 2008, and the then 47-year-old divorced father of four from the Minneapolis suburbs had run out of crack, again. He had been up for either 14 or 19 days—he swears it was 19 but says 14 because “19 just sounds like I’ve embellished”—trying to save his struggling startup and making regular trips into the city to visit his dealer, Ty. This time, Lindell arrived at Ty’s apartment expecting the typical A-plus service and received a shock instead: The dealer refused his business. Ty wasn’t going to sell him any more crack until he ended his binge. He’d also called the two other dealers Lindell used and ordered them to do the same. “I don’t want any of your people selling him anything until he goes to bed,” Ty told the dealers. When Lindell protested, he cut him off: “Go to bed, Mike.”
Incredibly, this Mike Lindell is now *this* Mike Lindell.

Here's the rest of his story.
   1258. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: January 12, 2017 at 09:17 AM (#5382184)
Too bad it wasn't closer to $10B. Or $20B. Or $30B.


If he was smart he'd file for bankruptcy.

(((Soros))) BOOGA BOOGA
   1259. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: January 12, 2017 at 09:19 AM (#5382186)
Heh. At least we can trust the objectivity of the Wall Street Journal.


Just don't ask Morty for an alternate reference.
   1260. Blanks for Nothing, Larvell Posted: January 12, 2017 at 09:21 AM (#5382187)
Oh yay, the quack is back.

Very sporadically, but the "I'm not a sexist; my decision to not vote for a woman based on her sex is merely a strategic response to other people's sexism" is quite the howler. The cracker not wanting to serve blacks in 1965 Alabama was in exactly the same way a "strategic response" to other people's racism.

   1261. Renegade (((JE))) Posted: January 12, 2017 at 09:30 AM (#5382190)
(((Soros))) BOOGA BOOGA
Enough, YR. We get the (((joke))). Soros helped the Nazis confiscate Jewish property, is ashamed of his faith, bankrolls anti-Israel causes, and is a convicted felon.
   1262. Morty Causa Posted: January 12, 2017 at 09:33 AM (#5382193)
Just don't ask Morty for an alternate reference.

oink oink
   1263. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: January 12, 2017 at 09:35 AM (#5382196)
Enough, YR. We get the joke.


Get it or are it?

Soros helped the Nazis confiscate Jewish property


HE'S A JEWISH NAZI! BOOGA BOOGA BOOGA!

Actually I think heh could only have been a member of Hitler Youth at best. Not everyone was as prepared to stand up to tyranny during their pubescent years as you will undoubtedly claim to have been. What would the 1930s equivalent of a stretchy band have been?

   1264. Greg K Posted: January 12, 2017 at 09:36 AM (#5382197)
I'm assuming it's well-traveled territory and I suppose I could easily google it, but what is the story with Soros and the Nazis? I'd have figured that he'd be too young to up to much in the early 40s, or am I under-estimating his age?
   1265. Theo^J Posted: January 12, 2017 at 09:39 AM (#5382198)
I'd suggest the go-getter women Trump has hired for business are likely not the women he'd like to ####.

And that he's not atypical in that regard.
   1266. Theo^J Posted: January 12, 2017 at 09:40 AM (#5382200)
HE'S A JEWISH NAZI! BOOGA BOOGA BOOGA!



Your schtick is getting old.
   1267. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 12, 2017 at 09:40 AM (#5382201)
my decision to not vote for a woman based on her sex is merely a strategic response to other people's sexism


Someone (unsurprisingly) is having difficulty following along. This entire conversation is hypothetical, which is clear to most people since we are talking about the 2020 primary. No one that I know of has made a decision on who exactly they are voting for in the 2020 primary.
   1268. Lassus Posted: January 12, 2017 at 09:40 AM (#5382202)
The cracker not wanting to serve blacks in 1965 Alabama was in exactly the same way a "strategic response" to other people's racism.

Oh, fine, I'll play, god help me.

I said the strategy was questionable. I said BM was doing a bad job with it. I said Ray and Clapper's position had validity but they were unwilling to make any decent arguments, which, despite yourself, you have at least attempted to do. If I decide to vote for Jack in the Primary because Jill won't be elected in the general because 15 out of 16 people I spoke to in Wisconsin and Indiana and Michigan said they wouldn't vote for a woman for President, it's three steps backwards in order to go five steps forward. You can in your quacky way find this the EXACT EQUAL of some guy being to scared to let blacks eat in his diner because no one else will, I'm not seeing the equalization. Even if you find the "eventual good" theory incorrect, what on earth is the cracker's theory? Where's the corresponding plan of enacting a probably good as opposed to a definite defeat?

The situation BM describes is also a weird perfect storm, a situation written about in theory that has so little probably of being required for a strategy that I can't see the horror there in addition.

   1269. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: January 12, 2017 at 09:40 AM (#5382203)
I'm assuming it's well-traveled territory and I suppose I could easily google it, but what is the story with Soros and the Nazis? I'd have figured that he'd be too young to up to much in the early 40s, or am I under-estimating his age?


Like many Jews he engages in vampirism when it is expedient.
   1270. Lassus Posted: January 12, 2017 at 09:42 AM (#5382204)
Actually I think he could only have been a member of Hitler Youth at best.

I was a Young Republican. Met Jack Kemp and everything. I eventually turned 16.
   1271. Ishmael Posted: January 12, 2017 at 09:43 AM (#5382205)
Reference the discussion of determinism from a little while ago, here’s a question for anyone who is interested.

Consider the following three entities:

A Golem – Someone who behaves in every way exactly as a human, but has no mind, and no interior life. Their brain is otherwise identical to yours, but they have no phenomenological experience, no experience of choice, interior narrative, emotion or any other experience contingent upon a mind. None of these things are discernible from without, however. A conversation with a Golem is not distinguishable from a conversation with a Human, and they give all the appearance of suffering, love, happiness, individual free will etc. Naturally, all of their actions are entirely determined by environmental and genetic factors.

A Human – Someone with the experience of an inner life exactly as you have, including the experience of free will, moral choice and rich moral experience. They have all the phenomenological experiences contingent upon a mind. A conversation with a Human is not distinguishable from a conversation with a God, and they give all the appearance of experiencing free will in the popularly held sense. However, like the Golem, all of their actions (including the nature of their experience of mental life) are entirely determined by environmental and genetic factors.

A God – Like the Human, the God has a mind with all of the phenomenological experiences, moral sensitivity etc. that that entails. A conversation with a God is not distinguishable from a conversation with a Human, or Golem. However, a God’s actions are not determined by environmental and genetic factors. They not only experience, but really do have free will in the popularly held sense.

What are the differences (other than the ones stated) between the three entities? Is it immoral, for example, to kill a Golem? More or less so than to kill a Human, or a God? Should we even consider the expressed preferences of the Golem? Is a God different from a human in any way that has moral significance?

Do we live in a world of Golems, Humans, Gods, or all three? What are the differences between the Golem, Human, and God universes?
   1272. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 12, 2017 at 09:44 AM (#5382206)
I said the strategy was questionable. I said BM was doing a bad job with it.


Since you are not on board and yet rational I would like to hear which part is questionable. Do you think strategic voting for more electable candidates is the problem or the thought that perhaps women (everything else held equal) are less electable nationally?
   1273. Renegade (((JE))) Posted: January 12, 2017 at 09:44 AM (#5382207)
I'm assuming it's well-traveled territory and I suppose I could easily google it, but what is the story with Soros and the Nazis? I'd have figured that he'd be too young to up to much in the early 40s, or am I under-estimating his age?
Here's Soros in his own words. FF to 6:44.

KROFT: "No feeling of guilt?"
SOROS: "No."
   1274. Renegade (((JE))) Posted: January 12, 2017 at 09:46 AM (#5382208)
Your schtick is getting old.
True today. True in 2010.
   1275. Juilin Sandar to Conkling Speedwell (Arjun) Posted: January 12, 2017 at 09:47 AM (#5382209)
You're wrong, BM.

Now this post is addressed to you - it comes from our shared ideology, beliefs, and value systems. It isn't for someone like the not-actually-kinder Ray or TGF or someone like that who will likely cherry-pick a portion of this and quote it for the rest of eternity. Please don't do that. I'm not speaking to you. I'm not speaking towards you. I'm not speaking with you (right now, anyway). This isn't part of a conversation that involves you and, consequently, I'm trying to speak the language of the left-wing of American politics, not the language I normally speak.

This is to you, BM. We've disagreed on a few things in the past, but we have a based of shared beliefs and so, calling upon those beliefs, I'm going to say this simply: irrespective of the truth of your argument, your argument is morally wrong. Just wrong. It's the same argument that passive racists and sexists use to justify never pushing the envelope, the same argument that corporations present as a means of not promoting women to senior positions, that organizations use as a means of not putting forward minorities to lead. It's the flip of "no one will see an Asian as a good leader" or "women aren't seen as tough enough by everyone else."

People love placing the blame on a nebulous collective "Other" because it absolves them of any blame themselves. The end effect, however, is exactly the same: women and minorities are not given the reigns of power. Fundamentally (that is, in the realm of action), it is the same as never considering them at all - your intentions may be pure, but your outcomes are the same were you the type of never even consider a woman. If that is the end result, than the position itself is questionable on face.

This doesn't even consider that racism and sexism are, in the context of structure, notions of the collective. That is, repeatedly considering the views of people who are wrong empowers said people, and provides cover for them, because it justifies to them that their wrong beliefs are correct. The next time a woman steps up and your voice is that she is not as electable (without intended sexism!) and someone else steps up and argues that she isn't electable (and does so for sexist reasons), how can we differentiate the two? At some level, why do we even want to differentiate the two as, as I said above, the end result is the same? And, for the person who is in the latter group, how can they even tell that you disagree with them on intent? And, again, why does it even matter?

The opinions of the world, even assuming you're correct (and you may well be)!, do not matter. It is our responsibility to do what is right, regardless of the consequences, regardless of how everyone else reacts. This is one thing people of our ideology continually strive for - we want to do better than we have done, better than we collectively, as a nation, have done in the past. If a woman is, for you, the best candidate for office (as Clinton was for me), then it is our responsibility to not empower the sexists or people who would disregard her, and vote our conscience. I honestly can't fathom why that wouldn't be the first step.

That is, in no way, to say that *not* voting for a woman is sexist - there are a number of reasons to vote and it doesn't have to be about gender alone. But it does mean that the minute gender is your decider, and it is a negative decider, then you're no better than the people who would do it negatively. I like to think we try to be better than we have been in the past. I like to try to think we better ourselves. I don't know if we succeed, but we sure as hell try.

Ehh, that came out very garbled. I hope my point came through, but it might not have.
   1276. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 12, 2017 at 09:50 AM (#5382211)
What are the differences (other than the ones stated) between the three entities? Is it immoral, for example, to kill a Golem? More or less so than to kill a Human, or a God? Should we even consider the expressed preferences of the Golem? Is a God different from a human in any way that has moral significance?

Do we live in a world of Golems, Humans, Gods, or all three? What are the differences between the Golem, Human, and God universes?


If it acts like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then we should treat it as a duck. In fact it is for all practical purposes a duck. Since I don't believe in an externally based or justified moral system and internally (with the systems's frame of reference) all three are the same they should be treated the same morally and otherwise.
   1277. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 12, 2017 at 09:51 AM (#5382212)
Do we live in a world of Golems, Humans, Gods, or all three? What are the differences between the Golem, Human, and God universes?

All "gods". Though I reject the term obviously.

Your instincts and temptations are influenced by genetic and environmental factors, but at the end of the day, everyone chooses their actions.

The simple evidence of the huge diversity of human behavior, even among people from the same families and backgrounds, shows plainly that nothing is pre-determined.
   1278. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: January 12, 2017 at 09:52 AM (#5382213)
Your schtick is getting old.

True today. True in 2010.


Blaming Soros - cool and edgy!

Mocking blaming Soros - old!

Sad!
   1279. Lassus Posted: January 12, 2017 at 09:52 AM (#5382214)
See, #1275, now THAT's a good argument that I can mostly agree with. Thank you.


Since you are not on board and yet rational I would like to hear which part is questionable. Do you think strategic voting for more electable candidates is the problem or the thought that perhaps women (everything else held equal) are less electable nationally?

In the spirit of true modern liberalism, I have let someone else do the work.

Again, I'm not 100% in line with Arjun, but he seems to get it to about 75% of where I'd be, to and I'd want to alter to fit my own opinions. (If I had time right now, which I don't.)
   1280. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: January 12, 2017 at 09:55 AM (#5382215)
As always, Obama's responses boil down to mocking his critics with "tell me what you would have done," as if they never offered substantive concerns and possible solutions.


And I thought Jason didn't have a sense of humor

oh wait, he's not being sarcastic he's actually serious?
   1281. Theo^J Posted: January 12, 2017 at 10:07 AM (#5382221)
Ex_Machina goes straight to your question, Ishmael, with each of the three represented. From a higher vantage point, those below appear more determined. Thus you have the professor arguing that the lower classes have determined behavior yet WE get to choose how to respond. That there is someone to feel superior to is a basic balm of the human condition. The question is how far we should extend empathy towards sentient beings beneath us. If it's even a choice.
   1282. Renegade (((JE))) Posted: January 12, 2017 at 10:07 AM (#5382222)
Mocking blaming Soros - old!
Don't sell yourself short. Your entire repertoire is old.
   1283. Ron J Posted: January 12, 2017 at 10:15 AM (#5382224)
#1224 Yeah. He did think that (and you didn't).

My own position was that there was nothing observable. The arguments Andy ( I think he was the person who believed most strongly in the gender argument ) made sense to me but was not backed up by polling. At no point in the campaign was she polling better among women than you'd expect of a generic male Democrat.

Mouse (like me) believed that demographic trends would likely be more important than all of the other factors (these pointed to a small advantage for Generic Republican over generic Democrat -- and of course neither side ran a generic candidate) and I believe that it's a logic fail on your part to link the demographic argument to the gender argument.

And yeah, you can argue that the demographics argument goes a long way to explaining the results in 2016. Clinton does seem to have run up the score in most of the states where the demographic changes were most pronounced.
   1284. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 12, 2017 at 10:15 AM (#5382225)
Ehh, that came out very garbled. I hope my point came through, but it might not have.


No I understand what you are saying. I - unsurprisingly - disagree. You have (thanks! well done) added a third possible attack on my argument though. If I could paraphrase - even if strategic voting is OK and there is an existent bias against a class it would be morally wrong to take that existent bias into account in voting because by doing so it reinforces it.

That is a perfectly rational argument I just happen to think it flawed on two levels, both the pragmatic and the theoretical. However I admit it is far and away the most compelling argument presented.

The pragmatic problem is as follows. Sexism (and other biases) do not exist in a vacuum. They are not only discredited or reinforced by the results of elections, but also by the actions taken by those elected. Electing a token female who then acts against equal rights for women doesn't help the cause of equal rights for women even though their election does in part. Their actions can more than offset the beneficial effect of that election.

My assumption (feel free to disagree, but we are talking about my vote, so my assumption is valid to take into account) is that the equal Democratic candidates (one male, one female) both have policies and plans far more favorable to women and in reducing sexism than their GOP opponent. The election of either will result in a relative gain versus the election of the GOP candidate. Therefore even if my vote for the male candidate in the primary might "harm the cause" by accepting the anti-women bias as real that harm is outweighed by the difference in electability and difference between both their positions and the GOP candidates positions.

Put more simply do I risk doing damage by voting for the male (and reinforcing sexism) or by voting the female (and losing to the much worse GOP candidate). Both possible paths cause damage. There is no pure path, but I have to vote for one of them. In that case the overriding factor is all the other things where I find the GOP positions to be loathsome.

---

The theoretical problem goes as follows. I have two otherwise similar candidates, one male and one female. You would suggest I cannot choose the male because it would be morally wrong to choose based on their gender. So instead I must choose the female (based on their gender). You seem to be suggesting I have to choose the less electable candidate because there exists sexism and the noble (correct) choice is to discard the male because of a gender preference of the electorate.

No matter which way I go - since the candidates are in this hypothetical similar - is to choose based on gender, and for me anyway the only relevant gender characteristic is electability. In other words no matter which I choose, male or female, it will be based on how the rest of the electorate feels about voting for women. I can't escape using gender and sexism to drive my choice by automatically choosing the female, any more than I can escape it choosing the male.

I know the gender of the candidates and have an opinion on the electability of males and females. Since gender is the only real deciding factor, unless I flip a coin, gender will factor into the decision. And since my vote is anonymous (for all practical purposes) it is not like my vote is some giant symbol.

Voting is not a symbolic act in my opinion, it is a practical expression of power. That is why I think protest votes and other such things are silly. Elections are about winning, and since gender figures into my vote (no I am not going to flip a coin) I might as well go for the candidate more likely (IMO) to win.

Note: By the way thank you very much for your thoughtful reply. It is worth a thousand of the nonsense posts we all wade through.
   1285. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 12, 2017 at 10:24 AM (#5382230)
My own position was that there was nothing observable. The arguments Andy ( I think he was the person who believed most strongly in the gender argument ) made sense to me but was not backed up by polling. At no point in the campaign was she polling better among women than you'd expect of a generic male Democrat.


I thought (and was wrong) that it would show up in turn out. It did not show up in turn out. Obama drove huge turn out in the AA community relative to a generic Democrat, but Clinton was unable to drive even a modest turn out bump among women (AFAICT). Had there been even a modest bump among women voters turn out we would be talking about President Elect Clinton.
   1286. The Good Face Posted: January 12, 2017 at 10:28 AM (#5382234)
Trump talked about jobs. Like, a lot. He was going to create jobs, he was going to bring jobs back, he was going to prevent jobs from leaving

That's why his statements about the states voting for him being the ones that will get the jobs are sheer brilliance. All he needs to do to coast in 2020 is protect Wisconsin/Michigan/Ohio/Pennsylvania and the Dems are better off not bothering with a nominee.


"We're going to reward our friends and punish our enemies."
   1287. Rickey! the first of his name Posted: January 12, 2017 at 10:32 AM (#5382237)
"We're going to reward our friends and punish our enemies."


Except Russia. Then we're going to cower in the corner and drink our piss like good little #######.
   1288. Rickey! the first of his name Posted: January 12, 2017 at 10:33 AM (#5382239)
oh wait, he's not being sarcastic he's actually serious?


You can sort of see him building his internal rationalization defenses for why he sold out to Trump in real time.
   1289. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 12, 2017 at 10:36 AM (#5382241)
"We're going to reward our friends and punish our enemies."


Somehow I doubt the millions of supporters of Trump that happen to live in states Trump lost realize they are now Trump's enemies. Perhaps TGF should start an educational campaign to inform them of this vital fact*.

Conversely I think millions of Clinton supporters in states Trump won will soon (when his educational campaign gets underway) get the benefit of magically being transformed into Trump friends.

* Amusingly I am pretty sure this makes TGF one of Trump's enemies that are soon to be punished. Perhaps he and I will end up in adjoining cells. That would suck.
   1290. Greg K Posted: January 12, 2017 at 10:37 AM (#5382243)
Here's Soros in his own words. FF to 6:44.

KROFT: "No feeling of guilt?"
SOROS: "No."

Thanks, interesting stuff!

He certainly doesn't go for the expected answer there. The passage just before that is also worth tying in...Soros says the experience, more than anything else in his life, shaped his character. The interviewer seems to expect he means through guilt, but he actually describes the influence as one that taught him to prioritize preparation and anticipation of future events.
   1291. Ron J Posted: January 12, 2017 at 10:38 AM (#5382245)
Had there been even a modest bump we would be talking about President Elect Clinton.


Had she even held serve on the turnout score we'd be talking about President Elect Clinton.

There was an article by political scientists on what they'd missed this cycle. Someone (I think it was John Sides but I'm not sure) pointed out that what "always" happens over the course of a campaign is that partisans talk themselves into falling in love with their candidate. Never really happened with Clinton and in retrospect it seemed to him that this should have been a strong hint that the polling was unreliable (that and the unusually high undecided count. What seems to have happened is that lean Republican undecided showed up in normal numbers while lean Democrat did not)
   1292. The Good Face Posted: January 12, 2017 at 10:43 AM (#5382249)
Somehow I doubt the millions of supporters of Trump that happen to live in states Trump lost realize they are now Trump's enemies. Perhaps TGF should start an educational campaign to inform them of this vital fact*.

Conversely I think millions of Clinton supporters in states Trump won will soon (when his educational campaign gets underway) get the benefit of magically being transformed into Trump friends.

* Amusingly I am pretty sure this makes TGF one of Trump's enemies that are soon to be punished. Perhaps he and I will end up in adjoining cells. That would suck.


Strange, you guys got all moist in the panties when Obama said it. Oh well, you'll have years to learn to deal with it.
   1293. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 12, 2017 at 10:48 AM (#5382254)
Strange, you guys got all moist in the panties when Obama said it.


When he said he was not President of Blue America or Red America, but rather President of all of America? Or is there something else he said you would like to link to to show your point?
   1294. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 12, 2017 at 10:58 AM (#5382259)
And there's nothing unfair or misrepresentative about the above paragraph.

And you can trust that judgment from the person who wrote it. ####### Christ.

BM's questionable strategy hasn't been well-expressed, but the fainting-couch crowing of you two is sad(!) in its pure insincerity. Equating sexism of not voting for a woman because she's a woman to the strategic response to sexism of not voting for a woman because she won't win is simple-minded. And here's the thing: you have an argument that's not invalid, but you seem wholly interested in that.


I'm not understanding your rebuttal. BM said he will vote for a man over a woman in the 2020 primaries all else being equal. However pure as the driven snow his motives may be, he's just as responsible for furthering sexism as the sexist is -- if not moreso. At least we didn't expect anything from the sexist. But we expect something from those who purport NOT to be sexist. It's a hell of a way to fight sexism.

At that, it's condescending, or at least clueless, to not be able to see that the main reason Hillary lost is because she was a terrible candidate with baggage who campaigned badly not only strategy wise (which states to target) but also with regard to having a message that simply didn't respond to the message her Hitleresque opponent was making. BM looked at all of that and had so little respect for the accomplishments women make every day in the country that what he took away was "she lost because she is a woman." That's condescending to women, who have made their mark on the modern world many times over, and people who respect women shouldn't have trouble seeing it.

I also would question whether BM actually is interested in combatting sexism if the end result of his actions are indistinguishable from it. But I'm sure combatting sexism is of paramount importance to him. Paramount.
   1295. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 12, 2017 at 11:01 AM (#5382262)
No, Gonfalon says that demographics give the Democratic candidate some sort of advantage generically in national elections.
No; that's revisionism through omission. You didn't just argue that; you argued that Hillary would do even better than the baseline Democratic advantage because she herself is a woman.

Some people here were skeptical that women voters would support Hillary Clinton as much as they had supported Barack Obama in the previous election.
And we were right!
I said several times that due to her being the first female candidate, women voters were likely to do so and then some. But because the Democrats were already winning women so handily, I guessed that there wasn't much room for improvement. I said that just a 0.5% or 0.75% bump in the margin among women voters would be a success and have an impact.

In 2012, according to exit polling, Obama won women by an 11% margin. In 2016, Clinton won women by a 12% margin. When you account for rounding, and Johnson and Stein getting about 4% of female votes, it's probably a push.
You don't get to "account for" Johnson and Stein; that's cheating. Hillary did slightly worse among women than Obama did; Obama got 56/55% of the women's vote in his runs, while Hillary got 54%. Which is what I was saying all along: that Hillary was less popular than Obama, so she'd do worse generally.

Demographics showed up to vote in 2016. For various reasons any of us could list, turnout did not.
Not sure I'm understanding what you're saying here. Turnout was up a tiny bit in 2016 vs. 2012.
   1296. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 12, 2017 at 11:01 AM (#5382263)
he's just as responsible for furthering sexism as the sexist is


For myself I am just pleased Ray acknowledges the existence of sexism and seemingly he has a desire to fight said sexism. Color me surprised.
   1297. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 12, 2017 at 11:03 AM (#5382264)
BM's questionable strategy hasn't been well-expressed, but the fainting-couch crowing of you two is sad(!) in its pure insincerity. Equating sexism of not voting for a woman because she's a woman to the strategic response to sexism of not voting for a woman because she won't win is simple-minded.
As I pointed out before, in other contexts those are equated. A company that doesn't hire a female job applicant is legally the same whether the motive is "I don't like women" or "I don't think our customers will like women." One would be direct sexism and one would be indirect, but both would involve sexism.

ETA: Or, what 1275 says.
   1298. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 12, 2017 at 11:03 AM (#5382266)
Had she won then I think the next female president would have been largely free of speculation such as I have made. But she didn't. Maybe that is not fair, but life is not fair sometimes. Her loss set back the chances of other women winning the presidency in the near future IMO.

That seems obvious to me, but maybe others see it differently.


See? She was the nominee of a major party and you think it was a "setback."
   1299. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 12, 2017 at 11:05 AM (#5382268)
I think that voting based strictly on sex has peaked--for female as well as male candidates.


Completely irrelevant. No one is talking about "voting based strictly on sex", or at least I am not.


You're settling a tie based strictly on sex. That's sex discrimination.
   1300. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 12, 2017 at 11:06 AM (#5382269)
in other contexts those are equated


So in a different context things are different? Excellent. Thanks!

See? She was the nominee of a major party and you think it was a "setback."


Had she won it would have been a breakthrough, her losing was a setback.
Page 13 of 20 pages ‹ First  < 11 12 13 14 15 >  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
aleskel
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOTP 16 October 2017: Sorry, Yankee fans: Trump’s claim that he can ensure victory simply isn’t true
(458 - 12:55pm, Oct 17)
Last: Lassus

NewsblogNick Cafardo: Brian Cashman and the Yankees followed the Red Sox’ blueprint — and may have done it better
(58 - 12:52pm, Oct 17)
Last: snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster)

NewsblogOT: New Season August 2017 Soccer Thread
(1112 - 12:50pm, Oct 17)
Last: Jefferson Manship (Dan Lee)

NewsblogEXPANSION COULD TRIGGER REALIGNMENT, LONGER POSTSEASON
(87 - 12:48pm, Oct 17)
Last: BDC

NewsblogThe Cubs could really use 2016 Javier Baez right about now - Chicago Cubs Blog- ESPN
(24 - 12:48pm, Oct 17)
Last: Covfefe

NewsblogAstros' Lance McCullers will start Game 4 of ALCS - Houston Chronicle
(18 - 12:45pm, Oct 17)
Last: Nasty Nate

NewsblogOT - 2017 NFL thread
(136 - 12:42pm, Oct 17)
Last: Ray (RDP)

NewsblogfrJohn Manuel - Leaves BA and Joins the Twins Organization
(9 - 12:32pm, Oct 17)
Last: fra paolo

NewsblogOT - NBA 2017-2018 Tip-off Thread
(201 - 12:31pm, Oct 17)
Last: Booey

NewsblogPerrotto: Managerial Rumors and Rumblings
(11 - 11:53am, Oct 17)
Last: Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant

NewsblogScandal surrounding the Atlanta Braves is creating more questions | The Telegraph
(23 - 11:49am, Oct 17)
Last: Rickey! the first of his name

NewsblogFrazier's three-run homer | MLB.com (video)
(3 - 11:42am, Oct 17)
Last: catomi01

NewsblogALCS Game 3: The mistake pitch that led to the Aaron Judge of old for one at-bat
(4 - 11:37am, Oct 17)
Last: ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 10-17-2017
(2 - 11:04am, Oct 17)
Last: There are no words... (Met Fan Charlie)

Gonfalon CubsFive minute Los Angeles Dodgers Preview
(46 - 8:57am, Oct 17)
Last: Andere Richtingen

Page rendered in 0.7646 seconds
47 querie(s) executed