Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Goliath wrote:
In what way is "a scantily clad stripper, consuming excessive alcohol at a fraternity house party" immoral?

Are people not allowed to drink? Is it the fact she's not wearing much? The interacting with people of the opposite sex outside of marriage? What is it?

Contrary to the general mindset of the modern liberal, I agree with Plato, Aristotle, St. Thomas Aquinas, etc. in thinking that temperance (i.e., that virtue whereby the desires for food, drink and sex are moderated by right reason) is a virtue, whereas the opposite is a vice. I further agree with these venerable men in asserting that any act which is opposed to a virtue is itself an act of vice (though not necessarily an act which proceeds from vice) and constitutes a moral offense.

Not to mention, of course, even leaving aside the moral question, how utterly stupid and imprudent such a course of action is on the part of any woman.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Goliath wrote:I know, it's almost as weird as the expectation of a presidential campaign manager actually having a responsibility to conduct himself in a respectable and reasonable way, without breaking the law. Inconceivable!

Oh, please, do quote the particular posting in which I disagreed with this.

I'll be waiting...

...

...

...though I won't hold my breath. I don't want to die from asphyxiation.

Do, please, quote the particular posting in which I accused you of agreeing with it.

 Goliath wrote:
Do, please, quote the particular posting in which I accused you of agreeing with it.

Here is what you wrote:

"I know, it's almost as weird as the expectation of a presidential campaign manager actually having a responsibility to conduct himself in a respectable and reasonable way, without breaking the law. Inconceivable!"

Are you implying that I disagreed with the assertion that a presidential campaign manager should so conduct himself?

Are you implying that I've said otherwise?

If you are, then I repeat my challenge: quote me.

If you aren't, then it doesn't really seem to add much to the conversation.

That said, I am deeply amused by the "inconceivable" bit.

Wow....just....wow....

I can't believe the thinly veiled misogny in your rhetoric.

He grabbed her
He injured her

Is she *not* supposed to be angry, upset, or otherwise concerned that some stranger intentionally laid hands on her and injured her?

Unintended injury or not....he did it and it is his fault.

I guess though, you'd be cool with someone coming over and grabbing you in the nose and unintentionally breaking it.

After all...they didn't *mean* to break it.

You'd certainly not be butt hurt, would you?

Actually, you know what? Yeah, I am going to call you on it.

It was meant as a means of allowing you to read and maybe compare your views on the two things, and see if there was maybe a teeny tiny bit of glaring inconsistency.

You state that a woman should have to act in a certain way so as to not be raped, and talk about it as if her fault for attending a party is non-trivial, but for some reason a presidential campaign manager grabbing someone's arm and pulling them with such force that their arm is bruised is somehow so trivial that they should not be charged for a clearly criminal act?

Really?

Traditio wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Traditio wrote:
His intent was to move the reporter. That's apparently it.

It's actually illegal to move someone that doesn't want to be moved in a situation like this. His intent was a crime to begin with, and he should have known that.

The legal, and smart, way to handle that would have been to ask her to move, and when she refuses then you have the police remove her for you. There is a reason you see police escorting protesters and the like from political events, and not campaign managers.

Again, I agree with everything you are saying. It doesn't contradict what I've said.

I haven't claimed that the charge is illegitimate. I've claimed that the charge is trivial.

It's not a trivial charge. If you agree that the actions committed by the campaign manager meet the criteria for a criminal charge of battery then it'snot trivial. Battery isn't a trivial offense. A person committing the crime of Battery deliberately in full view of thousands of people at a high profile event, especially given the physical disparity of force between the two parties involved, isn't trivial. If the DA fails to prosecute a clear open and shut case of battery committed in front of multiple eyewitnesses and caught on videotape then the DA subverts the rule of law. Subverting the rule of law by an elected official responsible for enforcing the rule of law is not trivial.

The victimized woman is not at fault for charges being filed. The campaign manager is at fault for committing a crime in such a blatant and forthright manner that the DA can't afford not to prosecute him for it.

In short, if you play stupid games you win stupid prizes. Laying your hands on another person to physically force them to comply with your wishes just because you deem that person to be in your path of travel is illegal and immoral behavior that deserves appropriate punishment.

KTG17 wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
I'm hoping that Trumps popularity in the US, however marginal it might be, serves as kind of a wake up call to our European allies. There's a growing sentiment that the US should no longer act as a shield against Eastern aggression, and quite frankly, I don't think Europe is institutionally capable of defending itself militarily. With Brussels, there's now a concern that Europe is institutionally incapable of even policing themselves, which is one of the most basic functions of government.

This is serious stuff people.

I agree with this, especially when they don't spend the required 2% of GDP on defense. Every time Putin says 'Boo!', we have to rush over 4 or so fighters to show solidarity with our European allies. Rather than the US sending fighters to Poland, why doesn't France and Germany?

Besides, we're going to have our hands full in the South China Sea soon. The Europeans are going to have to learn to fend for themselves.

Probably because France and Germany cannot muster an effective deterrent force. Those are the facts, whether we like them or not. I'd suggest to you for many reasons, a secure Europe is vital to US interests. Even if we want to modify the NATO arrangement , it is highly unwise to so openly telegraph this to Russia and the Middle East. It make the US look weak, and Europe look like more of a soft target than it already is.

Also, regarding the South China Sea, the US military is more than capable of conducting operations on multiple fronts.

 TheMeanDM wrote:
Wow....just....wow....

I can't believe the thinly veiled misogny in your rhetoric.

He grabbed her
He injured her

If you want to call minor bruising an injury.

Is she *not* supposed to be angry, upset, or otherwise concerned that some stranger intentionally laid hands on her and injured her?

Should she be angry, upset and otherwise concerned that some stranger grabbed her arm, tried to move her out of the way, and in the process of so doing, caused her minor bruising?

Sure.

I've never denied this.

I only wish to note that the most substantial "injury" she sustained in this case, however, is butt hurt. A very severe case of butt hurt.

I guess though, you'd be cool with someone coming over and grabbing you in the nose and unintentionally breaking it.

After all...they didn't *mean* to break it.

Completely different animal. It's one thing to grab somebody's face, another thing to grab somebody's arm.

Use common sense.

Traditio wrote:
Use common sense.

*reads posts*



Never let me down Political Junkie thread. Don't you ever let me down!

Prestor Jon wrote:It's not a trivial charge. If you agree that the actions committed by the campaign manager meet the criteria for a criminal charge of battery then it's not trivial.

I see no reason to accept the truth of the hypothetical proposition that you've just proposed.

Battery isn't a trivial offense.

It's a misdemeanor offense. Even the worst case of simple battery is still a misdemeanor offense. He could have beaten her up, and it would probably still just be a misdemeanor offense.

He didn't. He grabbed her arm and made her move.

A person committing the crime of Battery deliberately in full view of thousands of people at a high profile event, especially given the physical disparity of force between the two parties involved, isn't trivial.

Let's rephrase what you said so that we're not using loaded terminology:

"A person grabbing somebody's arm and forcing them to move out of the way in full view of thousands of people, especially when the person grabbing is a man and the person being grabbed is a woman, isn't trivial."

Really, the only thing that you're adding is "in full view of thousands of people" and "but she's a woman!" I fail to see how this aggravates the battery charge.

At worst, it gives the female reporter more cause to be butt hurt.

If the DA fails to prosecute a clear open and shut case of battery committed in front of multiple eyewitnesses and caught on videotape then the DA subverts the rule of law. Subverting the rule of law by an elected official responsible for enforcing the rule of law is not trivial.

That really depends on the laws of the jurisdiction in question.

The victimized woman is not at fault for charges being filed.

"At fault?" Let's start with "responsible for."

If she either called the cops, or else, said "Yes, I want to file charges," she is responsible for charges being filed.

Is she at fault for so doing? I'm not sure that I want to make such a strong claim.

The campaign manager is at fault for committing a crime in such a blatant and forthright manner that the DA can't afford not to prosecute him for it.

1. I haven't denied that he's at fault.
2. I'm not convinced that the DA "can't afford not to prosecute."

Again, who called the cops? Who pressed charges?

Laying your hands on another person to physically force them to comply with your wishes just because you deem that person to be in your path of travel is illegal and immoral behavior that deserves appropriate punishment.

He grabbed her by the arm and moved her out of the way. He didn't even knock her off of her feet.

The result was minor bruising and a severe case of butt hurt.

What's the appropriate punishment for that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Goliath wrote:
Actually, you know what? Yeah, I am going to call you on it.

It was meant as a means of allowing you to read and maybe compare your views on the two things, and see if there was maybe a teeny tiny bit of glaring inconsistency.

You state that a woman should have to act in a certain way so as to not be raped

I didn't say that. I didn't even mildly imply it.

and talk about it as if her fault for attending a party is non-trivial

Oversimplification of the scenario that I've presented.

And I didn't say anything about "non-trivial."

If you want a rephrase of what I've essentially said, I'd rephrase as follows:

"If you want to avoid getting raped, stripping at a fraternity house party and getting drunk at the same while being wholly unattended is a very ineffective means of so doing! If you don't want to get stuff in your car stolen, you keep your valuables out of sight and your doors locked. You don't want to get raped? Then don't strip and get drunk at frat parties while being unattended."

but for some reason a presidential campaign manager grabbing someone's arm and pulling them with such force that their arm is bruised is somehow so trivial that they should not be charged for a clearly criminal act?

It was bruised. How much force does it take for an average woman to bruise?

 LordofHats wrote:

Traditio wrote:
Use common sense.

*reads posts*

Never let me down Political Junkie thread. Don't you ever let me down!

They have really been coming out in force the last 10 pages. It isn't often that you get to see somebody complain excessively about liberals and then say a woman is at blame for being raped because she was exercising her right to be free and do what she wants.

o wait......

Can we get this sideshow non-political stuff into its own thread. I'm hear to talk about debate performance, poll numbers, the electoral college, and ongoing political races.

With that in mind, let's talk abotu VP candidates to the Dems. Here are some names I have heard floating about.....

1. Cory Booker
2. Julian Castro
3. Amy Klobuchar
4. Bernie Sanders
5. Elizabeth Warren

Has anyone else heard other names to add to the list, and what are the chances of any of these people getting the nod?

Edit: I would also like to hear a bit about VPs for Rs, but I haven't heard much on that front.

Dreadwinter wrote: and then say a woman is at blame for being raped because she was exercising her right to be free and do what she wants.

I didn't say that. Such a woman is as much to blame for being raped as a person who left his valuables on his front seat and his car doors unlocked is to blame for having his car burglarized.

I don't think Warren is interested in much beyond her current role.

Not sure why, exactly...but I just don't see her doing much beyond her station...ever.

*If* ot were Clinton as the nomination, she would be smart to offer the VP to Sanders but I don't think he would take it on account of principle/conscience. It could look bad....though...it could also be argued that being the VP is a great place to keep an eye on the P for untoward behavior (ha ha ha).

Has anyone done numbers on a Hillary/Sanders ticket? Not so much that I want to see that (nor think it would happen), but I am curious how that one polls.

Plus there are some great team names we can slap on it! Sandhill? Hillbern? Clintbern - no that ones terrible.

 Easy E wrote:
Can we get this sideshow non-political stuff into its own thread. I'm hear to talk about debate performance, poll numbers, the electoral college, and ongoing political races.

With that in mind, let's talk abotu VP candidates to the Dems. Here are some names I have heard floating about.....

1. Cory Booker
2. Julian Castro
3. Amy Klobuchar
4. Bernie Sanders
5. Elizabeth Warren

Has anyone else heard other names to add to the list, and what are the chances of any of these people getting the nod?

Edit: I would also like to hear a bit about VPs for Rs, but I haven't heard much on that front.

I think that this just "jumps the gun." Bernie Sanders isn't out of the race yet. Yes, Hilary has a massive lead over Sanders, but this is primarily in terms of superdelegates. Her lead, discounting super-delegates, is actually relatively small, and Sanders appears to have been picking up steam recently. There's still another 2000+ delegates up for grabs, no?

Here's a thought, is there any particular reason why Bill couldn't be Hillary's VP? Or does the limit on presidential terms prevent it?

Traditio wrote:

Dreadwinter wrote: and then say a woman is at blame for being raped because she was exercising her right to be free and do what she wants.

I didn't say that. Such a woman is as much to blame for being raped as a person who left his valuables on his front seat and his car doors unlocked is to blame for having his car burglarized.

Ok. That's clear.

They are asking to be burglarized.

Gotcha.

Never ever never expect to not be burglarized people.

Because if you do get burglarized by flaunting your goods on your front seat....you asked for it.

TheMeanDM wrote:Ok. That's clear.

They are asking to be burglarized.

As I've found myself saying dozens of times in this thread:

That's not what I said.

Liberals.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Here's a thought, is there any particular reason why Bill couldn't be Hillary's VP? Or does the limit on presidential terms prevent it?

I don't... think so? My guess is that no one would ever put a former two term president in the VP position, because if the president dies you have a succession crisis. The VP is supposed to be next in line, but someone can only be President twice. If you've already served two terms you can't be president again Constitutionally.

You could just say "we'll skip him" but the law as far as I know does not offer provisions for skipping someone in the line of succession.

Centrist
Independent
Bi-partisan

But if you care to try again, feel free.

Traditio wrote:
Liberals.

Maybe if you say the word enough times, it'll magically amount to whatever fairy fantasy you think it means?

There's no lifetime limit on presidential terms. There's only a two term limit on consecutive presidential terms, so far as I'm aware.

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice

First sentence of Amendment 22.

It is a hard limit. Consecutive, non-consecutive, concurrent (?) doesn't matter. You only get the Oval office twice. EDIT: Then again, it does specify elected.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Here's a thought, is there any particular reason why Bill couldn't be Hillary's VP? Or does the limit on presidential terms prevent it?

If you can't EVER be President (and Bill is now term-limited), you can't be VP.

In the same vein, Ahunold Swartzie can't be VP as he isn't a natural born citizen.

LordofHats wrote:

There's no lifetime limit on presidential terms. There's only a two term limit on consecutive presidential terms, so far as I'm aware.

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice

First sentence of Amendment 22.

It is a hard limit. Consecutive, non-consecutive, concurrent (?) doesn't matter. You only get the Oval office twice.

I was in error. Mea culpa.

 LordofHats wrote:

Traditio wrote:
Liberals.

Maybe if you say the word enough times, it'll magically amount to whatever fairy fantasy you think it means?

Maybe he needs to say it 3x in a row?

 Easy E wrote:
Can we get this sideshow non-political stuff into its own thread. I'm hear to talk about debate performance, poll numbers, the electoral college, and ongoing political races.

With that in mind, let's talk abotu VP candidates to the Dems. Here are some names I have heard floating about.....

1. Cory Booker
2. Julian Castro
3. Amy Klobuchar
4. Bernie Sanders
5. Elizabeth Warren

Has anyone else heard other names to add to the list, and what are the chances of any of these people getting the nod?

Edit: I would also like to hear a bit about VPs for Rs, but I haven't heard much on that front.

For a Clinton VP... I'd say it's between Julian Castro or Cory Booker.

For the Rs? feth if I know... let's wait who's on the top ticket first.

Cory Booker would be a slam dunk. Listen to the guy speak, if you haven't already. He's made for this stuff. He's an "It" guy.

Trump kisses Sessions' behind so frequently that I think of him as the most likely VP choice.

 jasper76 wrote:
Cory Booker would be a slam dunk. Listen to the guy speak, if you haven't already. He's made for this stuff. He's an "It" guy.

eh... he strikes me as a Democrat version of Chris Christie.

Whether that's a good thing or bad thing, I'll leave that up to you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:

Trump kisses Sessions' behind so frequently that I think of him as the most likely VP choice.

Actually... I think you're quite right about that.

Hopefully it would be a mentor type relationship... Trump sure as feth needs it.

LordofHats wrote:Maybe if you say the word enough times, it'll magically amount to whatever fairy fantasy you think it means?

If your mantra is "progress for the progress god and modernism for the modernism throne"...

If you are a moral relativist, a utilitarian or a moral subjectivist...

If you are so historically myopic that you can't see past the late 1800s...

If you are constantly blathering on about "science" and "evolution" in completely unrelated conversations...

If you are constantly spouting nonsense ("TRIGGER WARNINGS FOR COLLEGE STUDENTS!") so ridiculous that practically nobody outside of your own circles can keep a straight face when you talk (and if neither can you, when nobody is looking)...

...

...

...

Then you, my friend, might be a liberal.

jasper76 wrote:

Also, regarding the South China Sea, the US military is more than capable of conducting operations on multiple fronts.

Oh it most certainly is not. We will soon approach pre-WWII troop levels.

We (the US military) barely survived Iraq and Afghanistan. And we should have had a lot more troops in both places.