Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 71
Thanks Tree52Thanks

Thread: Bill Clinton: "Norms of what you can do to someone against their will have changed"

  1. #51
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    64,915
    Thanks
    36470

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by Miller47 View Post
    You are right.

    And we heard the "3 million" lie time after time after time on this forum.

    For more than a year!

    Finally, the lie is slowly fading away...
    It's not a lie. It's about three million.

  2. #52
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    49,333
    Thanks
    9924

    From
    United States
    And means squat.

  3. #53
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    64,915
    Thanks
    36470

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by Goofball View Post
    And means squat.
    It doesn't mean Clinton wins the election, but it certainly matters. Every new president wants to claim a mandate. Some...like Reagan...actually can claim such a thing, as he did in 1984 after a landslide victory. How much of a mandate can someone claim when they didn't even win a plurality of votes, and they lost the popular vote by such a large margin?
    Thanks from Arkady and Panzareta

  4. #54
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,452
    Thanks
    1984

    From
    Massachusetts
    Quote Originally Posted by Miller47 View Post
    Election rules are hell, aren't they?
    Ours are. The problem the slave states faced was that they wouldn't be able to punch their weight in presidential elections if there were direct elections -- since they didn't dare let their slaves vote, and a huge portion of their populations were slaves, they'd wind up factoring into national elections as if they were much smaller states than their population would indicate. The electoral college changed that, since it didn't matter how small the percentage of their residents they allowed to vote. That became even more important after slavery ended, since they got to count 100% of their African American population for purposes of apportioning electors, even as they used savage voter suppression methods (see the last scene in "Birth of a Nation") to make sure they didn't actually vote. And it helps them even today. The same states that used to disenfranchise their residents by way of KKK intimidation schemes, poll taxes, and literacy tests now can do so by way of throwing a large share of the population behind bars or disenfranchising ex-cons, such that those residents still get accounted for apportionment purposes, but can be shut out from voting. It's a really horrible rule, and for that reason it's defended vigorously by really horrible people.

    And, it was a little less than 2.9 million.
    Yes -- which is about three million. It's interesting to think about what it would have been if we had direct elections. As polls showed, Hillary Clinton had better popularity with the population in general than with voters. It seems reasonable to expect that part of that has to do with the way our ridiculous voting system effectively disenfranchises a third of our population, in terms of your vote not really mattering unless you happen to be in a swing state. There are some huge states that went heavily for Clinton, like California and New York, where voter turnout is pretty lousy relative to what it is in the swing states. If all states were effectively swing states, because every vote mattered, we'd expect the non-swing states to have turnout closer to the swing states, which would result in big vote pickups in the states that currently have lower voting because they are treated as foregone conclusions. That would boost vote totals of both candidates, but would be expected to be a bigger boost for the candidate who is more popular in most of the large non-swing states.
    Thanks from StanStill

  5. #55
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    49,333
    Thanks
    9924

    From
    United States
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    It doesn't mean Clinton wins the election, but it certainly matters. Every new president wants to claim a mandate. Some...like Reagan...actually can claim such a thing, as he did in 1984 after a landslide victory. How much of a mandate can someone claim when they didn't even win a plurality of votes, and they lost the popular vote by such a large margin?
    By the actual measure we use.

    304-232

    Mandate.

  6. #56
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    26,632
    Thanks
    6761

    From
    midwest
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    It's not a lie. It's about three million.
    Glad you agree with me.

    It's not 3 million, it's ABOUT 3 million.

    Or ALMOST 3 million.

    Or NEARLY 3 million.

    But, definitely not 3 million.

    It took a long time to kill that lie.
    Last edited by Miller47; 13th June 2018 at 11:45 AM.

  7. #57
    Human Bean KnotaFrayed's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    14,842
    Thanks
    12343

    From
    Here
    Quote Originally Posted by Goofball View Post
    At least the sexual predator is admitting he is guilty of forcing women to do things against their will.

    He is basically saying, "Gee, I was lucky to do my crimes when you could intimidate women into being quiet".


    https://ntknetwork.com/bill-clinton-...l-has-changed/
    In the sense that Bill Clinton was impeached for trying to dodge what he did and people like Al Franken forced to resign from his office for what he did, I’m not sure what Bill Clinton is trying to say.

    If we look at it from the perspective of all the people that have resigned or been forced from their positions for what they did and at the same time, we have a man elected to be the President of the United States after he spoke of how women let “stars” “do anything they like”, including, "grab them by the pussy"....... A man who is known to have cheated on at least one wife and seems unsure of what a payment of $130,000 (a payment he first denied knowing anything about) to an adult movie star was about, if not what the woman who received it, said it was about…….(these things among others), something seems very far amiss.

    How does one President get deposed and then impeached for perjury regarding that deposition and a its use to point to the perjury, yet some 20 years later, we elect a man to be President, who is already known to be at least as bad, by his own words and actions as the one impeached 20 years ago, if not worse?

    How is it the Me Too movement can have such an effect across the nation, yet the Oval Office still seems to get some sort of special immunity from it?

    Perhaps as anyone puts pressure on anyone else for such deeds, they should, at the same time, remind Americans that potentially one of the worst offenders, was not only elected to office, in spite of knowing this, but still sits in the Oval Office.

    I think what perhaps Clinton might have been trying to say (and this is not to defend what he did to his wife and child with regard to humiliating them and his wife's defending him before he was elected, before he proved her wrong, after being elected) was the relationship of 20 years ago, even if it was as wrong then as it is now, it was tolerated by the same people who are not tolerating it, any longer, but ironically, tolerating it in the highest political office in the nation, after having impeached him for what might be fewer examples, of the same, even if one was only considering any evidence that points to sexual misconduct and forgetting the lying and denials about it.

    I still think there needs to be a comprehensive definition of all levels of sexual misconduct so there is some equitable application of penalties for such. Accusations of harassment because someone put a hand on a woman's shoulder without her express permission should NOT be lumped in with offenses on the level of someone demanding a woman subjugate to sexual intercourse or lose their job. I also think there has to be a discussion about who would chose sexual assault over losing their job? Without some definitions and other discussions for clarification, the "Me Too" movement risks defeating itself and returning to a he said, she said or he said, he said, she said she said.......level of trust, distrust and attempts to discredit, based on the powers of accusation and denial, when no one, but the accuser and denier are the one's present, with no witnesses or where context is everything at the same time it is nothing.


    If only we could remove partisanships from the discussion, be they politics and gender. It's not a matter of one's political party, it's not a matter of one's gender, its a matter of abuse of power. A Democrat/lib can just as easily abuse power as a republican/conservative and either can be a male or a female. It remains important to note that in weighing of incidences of both female being bosses and in positions of power against males, that males hold greater numbers of those positions. it is also important to note that while there might be what some call a means to "rape" a male, even if there might be any way to consider it equivalent in purely physical penetration of a body penetration, males do NOT face the risk of pregnancy. There is no reason a female in a position of power cannot give a male a similar choice..... have sex with me and/or accept my sexual advances or find another place to work or industry to work in.......thus it is not strictly a male vs. female thing, but more of an abuse of power and an invasion of privacy, space and physical body issue and generally an issue of respecting bounds and the responsibility of power, not only to offend, but to accuse.........


    A truly interesting study on all of this would be, assuming the respondents would be 100% honest, finding out how many people who defended Clinton 20 years ago might be among the same recalling and now wanting to hold people responsible for sexual misconduct that took place 20 or more years ago. Not that time makes the crime any less of a crime, but that perhaps, times have indeed changed and even more weird is to have the "Me Too" movement going on and people being held accountable, while one of the worst potential offenders still roams freely as the head of the nation.
    Last edited by KnotaFrayed; 13th June 2018 at 12:23 PM.

  8. #58
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,452
    Thanks
    1984

    From
    Massachusetts
    Quote Originally Posted by Goofball View Post
    By the actual measure we use.

    304-232

    Mandate.
    Even by the electoral college count, that's one of the smallest margins on record. Some right-wingers never got that message, because they watch Fox News, which dutifully reported Trump's lie, in which he claimed it was the biggest Electoral College margin since Reagan, without telling their viewers that, in fact, it was the third-smallest in that time. If by "mandate" one means something other than "technical victory," the Trump win in 2016 was certainly not a mandate. He squeaked in with a narrow electoral college victory despite a clear majority of Americans preferring his opponent.
    Last edited by Arkady; 13th June 2018 at 11:58 AM.

  9. #59
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    26,632
    Thanks
    6761

    From
    midwest
    Quote Originally Posted by Arkady View Post
    Ours are. The problem the slave states faced was that they wouldn't be able to punch their weight in presidential elections if there were direct elections -- since they didn't dare let their slaves vote, and a huge portion of their populations were slaves, they'd wind up factoring into national elections as if they were much smaller states than their population would indicate. The electoral college changed that, since it didn't matter how small the percentage of their residents they allowed to vote. That became even more important after slavery ended, since they got to count 100% of their African American population for purposes of apportioning electors, even as they used savage voter suppression methods (see the last scene in "Birth of a Nation") to make sure they didn't actually vote. And it helps them even today. The same states that used to disenfranchise their residents by way of KKK intimidation schemes, poll taxes, and literacy tests now can do so by way of throwing a large share of the population behind bars or disenfranchising ex-cons, such that those residents still get accounted for apportionment purposes, but can be shut out from voting. It's a really horrible rule, and for that reason it's defended vigorously by really horrible people.



    Yes -- which is about three million. It's interesting to think about what it would have been if we had direct elections. As polls showed, Hillary Clinton had better popularity with the population in general than with voters. It seems reasonable to expect that part of that has to do with the way our ridiculous voting system effectively disenfranchises a third of our population, in terms of your vote not really mattering unless you happen to be in a swing state. There are some huge states that went heavily for Clinton, like California and New York, where voter turnout is pretty lousy relative to what it is in the swing states. If all states were effectively swing states, because every vote mattered, we'd expect the non-swing states to have turnout closer to the swing states, which would result in big vote pickups in the states that currently have lower voting because they are treated as foregone conclusions. That would boost vote totals of both candidates, but would be expected to be a bigger boost for the candidate who is more popular in most of the large non-swing states.
    And Hillary was favored to win, right up until election day.

    How did she manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory?

    It's one of the biggest upsets in election history.

    But, Nate Silver is NEVER wrong!

    She was going to "crush his nuts"!

    How many times did we hear those?

  10. #60
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,452
    Thanks
    1984

    From
    Massachusetts
    Quote Originally Posted by Miller47 View Post
    Glad you agree with me.

    It's not 3 million, it's ABOUT 3 million.

    Or ALMOST 3 million.

    Or NEARLY 3 million.

    But, definitely not 3 million.

    It took a long tome to kill that lie.
    It's not a lie -- it's just imprecise language. It's like if someone asks you how old your kid is and you say 3 years old, when in fact the kid is 3 years and nine weeks old, that's not a lie... it's simply an answer rounded to the nearest year. We do this all the time. If I were asked how long my commute is, I might say 20 miles, instead of "about 20 miles," even if it's actually 19.8 miles, because that's how people talk, not because I'm a liar. I think you've allowed a game of political "gotcha" to get the better of you here.
    Thanks from KnotaFrayed

Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 92
    Last Post: 5th December 2017, 07:38 AM
  2. Replies: 34
    Last Post: 11th April 2016, 07:30 PM
  3. Replies: 178
    Last Post: 4th January 2016, 04:10 AM
  4. Bill Clinton on aliens visiting Earth: "Wouldn't be surprised"
    By meridian5455 in forum Current Events
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 6th April 2014, 06:12 AM
  5. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 8th May 2013, 05:37 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed