Sex assault tsunami

Politics, Religion, Salsa Recipes, etc. Everything you shouldn't bring up at your Uncle's house.

Re: Sex assault tsunami

Postby idhawkman » Tue Dec 19, 2017 10:03 am

RiverDog wrote:
Hillary Clinton.

That's a big reason but I believe he would have beaten anyone the Dems put up. After 8 years of being under the thumb of Obama and his keeping the "New Norm" economic situation where it never crossed over 1.5% growth, it was bound to happen for the republicans. That's why the republican establishment and never trumpers are so ticked off - especially the Bush's who thought it was their birth right to have Jeb elected.

Many core Dems supporters sat this one out because of her. Sanders supporters felt that Hillary had rigged their party in favor her. In two critical states in the general election, Wisconsin and Michigan, Sanders had beaten Clinton in the primaries. That indicates to me that it was more about Trump not being Hillary than an indorsement of Trump.

You might be right but the numbers of voters don't show this. More people voted than in the Romney election. I think Trump's "What do you have to lose?" question helped get him more of the African American vote than what you've seen reported. Additionally, Hispanic voters are traditionally more conservative than liberal. This whole open borders thing is about to blow up in the liberals face especially if the Hispanics start to benefit from the economic environment that Trump is creating. Don't be surprised if you see GDP at 6+% by the end of 2018. That will lock Trump in for another 4 years, too.

There's not a lot of factual information out there to back up my claim, but it's my sincere feeling that had the Dems put up a more palatable candidate, such as Joe Biden, that Trump would have lost the election. I know I would have voted for the Dem candidate had it not been HRC.


Goofy Joe would have suffered a worse defeat than HRC. The spotlight had not been put on Joe so many people think he would have won, but that's just not the case. He would have had all of his goofs publicized and he would have been attached to Obama as continuing the previous 4 years of economic malaise. He would have crashed and burned badly.

And as far as your claim that the media is biased, I don't think it's nearly the factor you claim it is. Sure, there are news organizations out there that hold a political bias. It's entertaining for me to switch between the conservative Fox and the liberal MSNBC and hear their takes on the same subject, like a SCOTUS nominee. Personally, I don't get my news from those types of sources, I browse my MSN start page, which gets their articles from a variety of sources, on my tablet and select the articles I want to read. It may not be the most objective way to get my news, but it's better than getting it from TV.


These statements just confound me. Just like twitter, facebook and all the other online sources, they filter what is published and what is not. Its all filtered. Going through training the US Gov. gave me, the first thing you do to start a revolution within a country is control what the people hear and see. If you say something long enough and often enough, people will believe anything.

Prior to the mid 80's, we could get our national TV news through just 3 network stations and PBS. And talk radio, which has always been decidedly conservative, didn't hit it's stride until about then, when AM radio had lost it's music listening audience to FM, and of course, the internet did not exist. With such few sources, it didn't take much of a bias to tilt the field.
NPR has been around for quite some time and is one of the most liberal news outlets there are.

Ever wonder why no other liberal radio show has survived while many conservative shows are thriving? I think there are more people in the U.S. that are conservative than Liberal.
User avatar
idhawkman
Legacy
 
Posts: 616
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2017 7:00 am

Re: Sex assault tsunami

Postby Aseahawkfan » Tue Dec 19, 2017 6:46 pm

RiverDog wrote:Hillary Clinton.

Many core Dems supporters sat this one out because of her. Sanders supporters felt that Hillary had rigged their party in favor her. In two critical states in the general election, Wisconsin and Michigan, Sanders had beaten Clinton in the primaries. That indicates to me that it was more about Trump not being Hillary than an indorsement of Trump.

There's not a lot of factual information out there to back up my claim, but it's my sincere feeling that had the Dems put up a more palatable candidate, such as Joe Biden, that Trump would have lost the election. I know I would have voted for the Dem candidate had it not been HRC.

And as far as your claim that the media is biased, I don't think it's nearly the factor you claim it is. Sure, there are news organizations out there that hold a political bias. It's entertaining for me to switch between the conservative Fox and the liberal MSNBC and hear their takes on the same subject, like a SCOTUS nominee. Personally, I don't get my news from those types of sources, I browse my MSN start page, which gets their articles from a variety of sources, on my tablet and select the articles I want to read. It may not be the most objective way to get my news, but it's better than getting it from TV.

Prior to the mid 80's, we could get our national TV news through just 3 network stations and PBS. And talk radio, which has always been decidedly conservative, didn't hit it's stride until about then, when AM radio had lost it's music listening audience to FM, and of course, the internet did not exist. With such few sources, it didn't take much of a bias to tilt the field.


I wish we could redo it with Sanders or Biden. I still think religion matters in this nation. You haven't acknowledged that Sanders Jewish background would have impacted him in the election or Biden's Catholic beliefs. Biden likely would have had a better chance, but Sanders wouldn't have. His Jewish faith would have hit him by enough points to lose to Trump. Until you acknowledge the effect religion plays on an election, it's hard to take the discussion seriously. I don't know if it is your Washingtonian and American sensibilities that want to disregard religion, but I guarantee American voters as a whole do not. The Democratic Party was smart not to put Sanders out there. Republicans and conservatives would have had a field day with his Jewish background and association with Israel. Biden is a dolt. He's as boring as they come. You think boring-ass Biden would have been competitive against salesman Trump? I doubt it. Hilary Clinton had the female vote going for her. That was huge.

When Trump won the Republican nomination, it showed America was clearly listening to his message. He ran against a lot of strong contenders and beat them all. Right wing was tired of Obama, so were a lot of middle-of-the-road voters.

The fact that Trump won given the media bias against Trump was the worst I've ever seen. What I could not foresee was how Trump used the media bias to his advantage. I can't believe after all your years of watching news, you can't see how much they tried to hammer Trump and how effective Trump was at using their attacks to energize his voters. I've never seen such effective use of anti-media rhetoric. I saw constant stories about Twitter garbage, Ivanka's comments or how she dresses, how Melania dresses, Paper Towels Trump handed out, any little thing out of his mouth gets turned into some stupid story attacking him. Yet somehow he took all that and created the idea of Fake News and put it in the minds of the nation.

For all the parts of Trump I don't like, I can't overlook how effective an orator and salesman he is. I doubt Biden or Sanders beat him. I don't think anyone was going to beat him save for maybe Obama himself since the incumbent advantage is often huge and people don't like change. I wish we could redo the election with each candidate just to test. I think Trump finds new ways to attack each of them. I don't see Biden or Sanders taking as much of the female vote as Hilary did or being out to out-talk or out-sell Trump.
Aseahawkfan
Legacy
 
Posts: 598
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 12:38 am

Re: Sex assault tsunami

Postby RiverDog » Tue Dec 19, 2017 7:38 pm

Aseahawkfan wrote:I wish we could redo it with Sanders or Biden. I still think religion matters in this nation. You haven't acknowledged that Sanders Jewish background would have impacted him in the election or Biden's Catholic beliefs. Biden likely would have had a better chance, but Sanders wouldn't have. His Jewish faith would have hit him by enough points to lose to Trump. Until you acknowledge the effect religion plays on an election, it's hard to take the discussion seriously. I don't know if it is your Washingtonian and American sensibilities that want to disregard religion, but I guarantee American voters as a whole do not. The Democratic Party was smart not to put Sanders out there. Republicans and conservatives would have had a field day with his Jewish background and association with Israel. Biden is a dolt. He's as boring as they come. You think boring-ass Biden would have been competitive against salesman Trump? I doubt it. Hilary Clinton had the female vote going for her. That was huge.

When Trump won the Republican nomination, it showed America was clearly listening to his message. He ran against a lot of strong contenders and beat them all. Right wing was tired of Obama, so were a lot of middle-of-the-road voters.

The fact that Trump won given the media bias against Trump was the worst I've ever seen. What I could not foresee was how Trump used the media bias to his advantage. I can't believe after all your years of watching news, you can't see how much they tried to hammer Trump and how effective Trump was at using their attacks to energize his voters. I've never seen such effective use of anti-media rhetoric. I saw constant stories about Twitter garbage, Ivanka's comments or how she dresses, how Melania dresses, Paper Towels Trump handed out, any little thing out of his mouth gets turned into some stupid story attacking him. Yet somehow he took all that and created the idea of Fake News and put it in the minds of the nation.

For all the parts of Trump I don't like, I can't overlook how effective an orator and salesman he is. I doubt Biden or Sanders beat him. I don't think anyone was going to beat him save for maybe Obama himself since the incumbent advantage is often huge and people don't like change. I wish we could redo the election with each candidate just to test. I think Trump finds new ways to attack each of them. I don't see Biden or Sanders taking as much of the female vote as Hilary did or being out to out-talk or out-sell Trump.


I haven't seen any legitimate polls matching Trump vs. Biden or Trump vs. Sanders. Additionally, Hillary won the popular vote, so the real question is how would have Biden or Sanders done against Trump in the rust belt states of MI, PA, and WI where the election was decided.

Hillary had every advantage in the book: She ran as a Dem, of whom twice as many voters identify themselves as D's than R's. She had a nation wide organization, with experience in two POTUS campaigns as well as her Senate run. There was no reason for her making the mistakes she made in her campaign. Wisconsin hadn't gone to the R's since 1984, when Reagan won 49 states, yet she lost it, never even sat foot in it during the campaign. They were overconfident, did not detect the gradual swing to Trump in the waning weeks of the campaign and thus did nothing to counter. Trump beat her up badly with his "America First" theme that played especially well in the battleground states she had to win. She ran a horrible campaign. IMO a simple change of campaign strategy would have made the difference in this election.

I don't think religion has much impact anymore, at least not Catholics and probably not Jews. I would guess that a Muslim would have difficulty winning a national election. But that's just an opinion.

There are two big changes I'd like to see in American politics. The first is a viable 3rd party, and the second would be to do away with the winner-take-all aspect of the electoral college.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 7933
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Sex assault tsunami

Postby Aseahawkfan » Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:23 pm

RiverDog wrote:I haven't seen any legitimate polls matching Trump vs. Biden or Trump vs. Sanders. Additionally, Hillary won the popular vote, so the real question is how would have Biden or Sanders done against Trump in the rust belt states of MI, PA, and WI where the election was decided.

Hillary had every advantage in the book: She ran as a Dem, of whom twice as many voters identify themselves as D's than R's. She had a nation wide organization, with experience in two POTUS campaigns as well as her Senate run. There was no reason for her making the mistakes she made in her campaign. Wisconsin hadn't gone to the R's since 1984, when Reagan won 49 states, yet she lost it, never even sat foot in it during the campaign. They were overconfident, did not detect the gradual swing to Trump in the waning weeks of the campaign and thus did nothing to counter. Trump beat her up badly with his "America First" theme that played especially well in the battleground states she had to win. She ran a horrible campaign. IMO a simple change of campaign strategy would have made the difference in this election.


Exactly. And she still lost to Trump. You could say the same thing of many of the Republican candidates that ran against Trump as well. They were better financed, more well known with their base, better supported by their powerful party members, and still he stood at the end. Sanders didn't even have enough power in the Democratic Party to ensure his own party didn't screw him, much less stand up to Trump and his cronies looking to crush him.

I don't think religion has much impact anymore, at least not Catholics and probably not Jews. I would guess that a Muslim would have difficulty winning a national election. But that's just an opinion.


That's what I used to think. You're being from Washington has made your view of religion as unimportant. We don't care about it here. I imagine you don't associate with many religious conservatives. Like I mentioned previously, I learned this lesson during Romney's run. I was surprised when talking with some religious conservatives how concerned they were with Romney's Mormon background. They did not trust Mormons. I'm not sure how closely they tracked it, but I wouldn't be surprised if Romney's Mormon background didn't cost him quite a few votes from his own party and undecided voters.

We did see the first black or mixed-race president as I prefer to see Obama. The first Jewish president might be in the cards at some point. You of the many on this forum given your knowledge of presidents should know religion matters. One Catholic president in history is no accident. And no Jewish presidents or close to it. Even Barry Goldwater was raised Episcopalian, though his father was Jewish.

Parties vet for religion. They won't talk about it in public, but they do it behind closed doors. I'd be very surprised if one of the reasons Sanders was tanked by the Democrats was because he was Jewish. When you want to win the White House, you go for as sure a thing as possible.

There are two big changes I'd like to see in American politics. The first is a viable 3rd party, and the second would be to do away with the winner-take-all aspect of the electoral college.


Electoral college is better than going by the popular vote. Not sure how you change it to make it more fair. I certainly don't want a cesspool like California deciding every election with their huge welfare state population.
Aseahawkfan
Legacy
 
Posts: 598
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 12:38 am

Re: Sex assault tsunami

Postby burrrton » Wed Dec 20, 2017 8:37 pm

You could say the same thing of many of the Republican candidates that ran against Trump as well. They were better financed, more well known with their base, better supported by their powerful party members, and still he stood at the end.


I don't know if this contradicts anybody's argument, but this was due to the stupidity (disorganization?) of the Republican party- Trump won the nomination by (as far as I recall) never getting a majority of the votes. His message resonated with a plurality, but the R majority never supported him in the primaries. They were just too stupid to coalesce around a single candidate, and I think it's going to cost them *big time* in 2018. Congrats, everyone.

Electoral college is better than going by the popular vote. Not sure how you change it to make it more fair.


Agreed, but making it proportional as RD described would make it more fair. Ds won't write off Texas et al, and Rs won't write off California and New York et al. Seems like a good outcome to me.
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 3145
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

Re: Sex assault tsunami

Postby RiverDog » Thu Dec 21, 2017 5:14 am

Aseahawkfan wrote:Electoral college is better than going by the popular vote. Not sure how you change it to make it more fair. I certainly don't want a cesspool like California deciding every election with their huge welfare state population.


The problem now, as burrton said, is that candidates write off entire sections of the country. R's don't bother with going to the entire west coast and D's won't go into Texas because it's winner-take-all. Why should Trump waste a dime of his campaign money or a minute of his time going into California when Hillary is going to win it by a landslide? Since most states fall into one column or another weeks before an election, the candidates tend to focus almost all of their time and energy...and make promises to certain regional interests...in an effort to win the handful of states that polls show are inside a 2.5% margin, ie up for grabs.

But if each Congressional district got to cast their electoral vote for the winner in their district vs. the state wide winner, then suddenly dozens of electoral votes along the west coast, New York, and in Texas would come into play.

I calculated how my proposal would have affected the 2016 election, and the electoral college tightened up some, but Trump still would have won. But that's judging the election by the results gained under winner-take-all-rules. Who knows how many Americans would have voted had the candidates been forced out of PA and MI.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 7933
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Sex assault tsunami

Postby Largent80 » Thu Dec 21, 2017 10:43 am

This is so incredibly disgusting......https://www.yahoo.com/sports/case-repor ... 33574.html
User avatar
Largent80
Legacy
 
Posts: 1472
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 1:38 pm
Location: Magnolia, Texas

Re: Sex assault tsunami

Postby RiverDog » Thu Dec 21, 2017 11:24 am

Largent80 wrote:This is so incredibly disgusting......https://www.yahoo.com/sports/case-repor ... 33574.html


Agreed, it's disgusting, every bit as much as the Sandusky-Penn State scandal, perhaps more.

But do you have a point to make?
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 7933
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Sex assault tsunami

Postby c_hawkbob » Thu Dec 21, 2017 11:54 am

The title of the thread is "Sex assault tsunami", this is part of that is it not?

I think this is worse than the Sandusky thing because of the sheer scale of it; the amount of blind eyes turned and the cover up ... It involves a lot more than just one institution, it involves the Olympics and the entire women's gymnastics community.
User avatar
c_hawkbob
Legacy
 
Posts: 3272
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 3:34 pm
Location: K-evil Kentucky, 42053

Re: Sex assault tsunami

Postby RiverDog » Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:01 pm

c_hawkbob wrote:The title of the thread is "Sex assault tsunami", this is part of that is it not?

I think this is worse than the Sandusky thing because of the sheer scale of it; the amount of blind eyes turned and the cover up ... It involves a lot more than just one institution, the Olympics and the entire women's gymnastics community.


It is, indeed, and I agree with you, this does seem worse than the Sandusky-Penn State scandal.

But I was very sincerely asking if there was a point to be made. Was L80 advocating that someone or some institution is to blame, that someone other than the convicted needs to go to jail, or that certain courses of action are needed to prevent this from happening? All he did was post a link with no comment other than it's sickening.

I'd be interested in hearing your comments as well.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 7933
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Sex assault tsunami

Postby Largent80 » Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:29 pm

What C_Bob said, this is a thread titled "sexual assault tsunami". This is bigger than a tsunami.

What else needs to be said, I said it's disgusting and the fact that they paid money to hush her up makes it even worse.

Compared to a blowjob in the oval office, this is on another level.
User avatar
Largent80
Legacy
 
Posts: 1472
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 1:38 pm
Location: Magnolia, Texas

Re: Sex assault tsunami

Postby RiverDog » Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:50 pm

OK, then I'll go first:

In the very first sentence of the article, the author says that a "single, powerful law enforcement agency to fully investigate all aspects of Larry Nassar’s reign of terror should be commissioned, and takes a few shots at the state of PA, indicates that he thinks that the FBI should take over the investigation.

So what is it that you're sick about, the scandal, the way it's being investigated, or both? Are you agreeing or disagreeing with the author?

I'm not trying to pick a fight or start an argument, but the article you posted seemed pretty provocative, was more about the way the investigation was being handled than the scandal itself.

And to be honest, this is the first I've heard about the scandal, and like you, I'm sickened by it.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 7933
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Sex assault tsunami

Postby Largent80 » Fri Dec 22, 2017 6:38 am

The reason I posted it is because I was unaware of the payoff and the fact it had been hushed. Everyone knew about the "doctor" already but all of this was never even mentioned in this thread. This is real sexual deviancy and human rights deviancy at it's zenith. And also shows how money is used to keep people quiet. It's great that it is exposed because people are not getting away with things they used to.

I'm not nitpicking any of what is in that article as I just stumbled upon it on Yahoo's front page.
User avatar
Largent80
Legacy
 
Posts: 1472
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 1:38 pm
Location: Magnolia, Texas

Re: Sex assault tsunami

Postby RiverDog » Fri Dec 22, 2017 11:21 am

Largent80 wrote:The reason I posted it is because I was unaware of the payoff and the fact it had been hushed. Everyone knew about the "doctor" already but all of this was never even mentioned in this thread. This is real sexual deviancy and human rights deviancy at it's zenith. And also shows how money is used to keep people quiet. It's great that it is exposed because people are not getting away with things they used to.

I'm not nitpicking any of what is in that article as I just stumbled upon it on Yahoo's front page.


Fair enough. I'm glad you posted it as I wasn't aware of the scandal.

This scandal stinks to high heaven. If they can prove that hush money was paid, then there needs to be some people going to jail besides the assailant. Penn State's scandal never involved the payment of hush money, only people that failed to properly report the crime.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 7933
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Sex assault tsunami

Postby Aseahawkfan » Fri Dec 22, 2017 6:46 pm

Yeah. The gymnastics scandal is sick. Those poor girls. Giving their all for their country to have this happen. Whoever agreed to that payout needs the hammer to fall on them hard. How could have have lasted that long doing this I do not know. It's like a Catholic priest cover up.
Aseahawkfan
Legacy
 
Posts: 598
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 12:38 am

Previous

Return to Off Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron