Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

 
Advanced search

1086936 Posts in 71957 Topics- by 19229 Members - Latest Member: Alfred
Jump to:  
The Trombone ForumPractice BreakChit-ChatPurely Politics(Moderators: bhcordova, RedHotMama, BFW) Student and Feminist reaction to the election
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5  All   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Student and Feminist reaction to the election  (Read 4354 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5661

View Profile
« Reply #60 on: Nov 17, 2016, 01:28PM »

And I'm slightly puzzled why several here think Ronald Reagan's tax policies were more destructive than two wars with around 200 000 American deaths. Can someone explain?

Well, for starters, more Americans died to and from wherever in their cars than we killed in the wars, and those war deaths were from a volunteer force that signed up to be there. So no, those haven't registered very much in society, for better or worse, and mostly worse.
Logged
Radar

*
Offline Offline

Location: Rochester NY
Joined: Feb 23, 2012
Posts: 702

View Profile
« Reply #61 on: Nov 17, 2016, 01:46PM »

for the 33,000th time, which presidential candidate said anything about grabbing women by their anatomy? Answer: none.

If we're going to claim that all past statements are current positions of candidates then Hillary has a lot to atone for even while she was a public servant...
I think Hillary very much was held accountable for everything she did or said prior to running for president and it did cost her the election.  I certainly do hold Trump accountable for what he has said in the past also.  You can weight what they said based on how long ago it was, and what he has said or done since, but I don't think it should be totally ignored, Character typically doesn't change that much over time, people just get better at keeping things to themselves.  Donald Trump did say he grabbed women by their anatomy and got away with it because he was rich and famous.  We all heard it because it was recorded, and then he tried to brush it off as locker room talk.  With 6 years on active duty in the Navy, and over 14 years in the Army Reserve I've engaged in a lot of locker room talk, although I'm not proud of it I've done my share of rating women on a scale of 1 to 10 in the past, or expressed admiration for their physical attributes, etc.  Never once did I say I wanted to force myself on a women by grabbing her genitals. 
 
Logged
bhcordova
Wielder of the Cat Litter Scoop

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Nacogdoches, TX, USA
Joined: May 18, 2000
Posts: 7136
"Carpe Felix"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #62 on: Nov 17, 2016, 01:48PM »

And I'm slightly puzzled why several here think Ronald Reagan's tax policies were more destructive than two wars with around 200 000 American deaths. Can someone explain?

His tax policies were more destructive to the economy and the size of the middle class than the wars. 
Logged

Billy Cordova, MBA
Forum Administrator
bcordova@tromboneforum.org

Beware the Jabberwock, my son! - Lewis Carroll

Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup - Anon.

St. Cecilia, pray for us.
Russ White

*
Offline Offline

Location: Orange City, Fl
Joined: Feb 27, 2007
Posts: 5180

View Profile
« Reply #63 on: Nov 17, 2016, 02:22PM »


I'd just like to remind you all that, while Donald Trump merely blusters about groping women, Bill Clinton actually got sucked off in the White House. 


So, you consider consensual sex between adults, however tawdry and unethical, and sexual assault to be equivalent?
Logged

Better than yesterday, better yet tomorrow.
badger

*
Offline Offline

Location: Permian Basin
Joined: Sep 27, 2010
Posts: 1288

View Profile
« Reply #64 on: Nov 17, 2016, 04:24PM »

And I'm slightly puzzled why several here think Ronald Reagan's tax policies were more destructive than two wars with around 200 000 American deaths. Can someone explain?

Your numbers are low on the Wars.

Research deaths by Marxist Ideologues ( and it's variants ) over the past 100+ years also.



 
Logged
Russ White

*
Offline Offline

Location: Orange City, Fl
Joined: Feb 27, 2007
Posts: 5180

View Profile
« Reply #65 on: Nov 18, 2016, 04:48AM »


Research deaths by Marxist Ideologues ( and it's variants ) over the past 100+ years also.
 

Boy, talk about apples to sofas and jello to the wall........ Yeah, research that. You might find as many as 3 or 4 here in the United States if you are amazingly diligent and good at research at Mariannas Trench depth.
Logged

Better than yesterday, better yet tomorrow.
sonicsilver
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Apr 11, 2016
Posts: 509

View Profile
« Reply #66 on: Nov 18, 2016, 05:49AM »

So, you consider consensual sex between adults, however tawdry and unethical, and sexual assault to be equivalent?

My answer has several angles. Simply, no they are not morally or legally equivalent. However, let's note that some religious believers consider adulterous sexual relations to be a crime equivalent in gravity to sexual assault.

In terms of how they affect a President's competence in his job, leaving aside morality and law, the difference is slight. The "sin" for want of a better word, is doing non-work during work time. I would like the President to do President work, not sex, sexual assault, sleeping (apparently Reagan did that a lot) or playing Pokemon.

Lastly, Donald Trump only talked about groping women. He hasn't been convicted of any sexual assaults, I believe. It's interesting that your constitution doesn't clearly state a presumption of innocence, although the 5th and 6th Amendments come close. I also wonder whether his comment wasn't literally referring to manually grasping someone's vagina. Like the expression to grab someone by the balls doesn't literally mean to take a grip of a man's testicles. Rather, Trump's comment was metaphorically describing how masculine charisma can command the attention of the opposite sex. Of course, it's Donald Trump's 1st Amendment entitlement to speak like an uncouth, ill-mannered a-hole. And that leads me on to one more thing.

Surely I'm not the only person to wonder whether Donald Trump was running for President as a self-promotion exercise and didn't ever expect to win. All his outrageous, media attention seeking comments were intended to raise his brand profile, rather then accurately reflect any serious policies. No such thing as bad publicity, as the saying goes. But as we've already discussed, this is a very effective way of getting people to vote for you in the US Presidential elections. I get a sense that he's thinking, "Oh crap, wasn't expecting that. Now I actually have to be President..."
Logged
Russ White

*
Offline Offline

Location: Orange City, Fl
Joined: Feb 27, 2007
Posts: 5180

View Profile
« Reply #67 on: Nov 18, 2016, 06:09AM »

I suspect there is a whole lot of truth to that.
Logged

Better than yesterday, better yet tomorrow.
timothy42b
*
Online Online

Location: Colonial Heights, Virginia, US
Joined: Dec 7, 2000
Posts: 12298

View Profile
« Reply #68 on: Nov 18, 2016, 06:18AM »



In terms of how they affect a President's competence in his job, leaving aside morality and law, the difference is slight. The "sin" for want of a better word, is doing non-work during work time. I would like the President to do President work, not sex, sexual assault, sleeping (apparently Reagan did that a lot) or playing Pokemon.


Ah, the utilitarian argument.  "It's not so much about character as competence."

And yet the Evangelical Christians voted against Clinton largely on one issue (abortion) which has nothing to do with competence, and for Trump who would certainly seem to be the most immoral candidate ever, based on religious standards. 

Seems like a double standard, maybe?  On a head to head competence basis, she wins hands down.  The vote against her was about character, which you are arguing doesn't matter. 
Logged

Tim Richardson
sonicsilver
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Apr 11, 2016
Posts: 509

View Profile
« Reply #69 on: Nov 18, 2016, 06:25AM »


Clinton...

she...

Ohhhh, that Clinton. I was thinking Bill for a moment.
Logged
Radar

*
Offline Offline

Location: Rochester NY
Joined: Feb 23, 2012
Posts: 702

View Profile
« Reply #70 on: Nov 18, 2016, 06:31AM »

Ah, the utilitarian argument.  "It's not so much about character as competence."

And yet the Evangelical Christians voted against Clinton largely on one issue (abortion) which has nothing to do with competence, and for Trump who would certainly seem to be the most immoral candidate ever, based on religious standards. 

Seems like a double standard, maybe?  On a head to head competence basis, she wins hands down.  The vote against her was about character, which you are arguing doesn't matter. 
Very much agree!! Hillary from a government experience standpoint was by far the more qualified candidate.  Her Character was constantly attacked by her detractors while the same people overlooked his obvious character flaws.  Quite a double standard if you ask me.
Logged
Molefsky

*
Offline Offline

Location: Ohio
Joined: Aug 18, 2005
Posts: 1151
"Very old photo..."


View Profile
« Reply #71 on: Nov 28, 2016, 06:57AM »

I think Hillary very much was held accountable for everything she did or said prior to running for president and it did cost her the election.  I certainly do hold Trump accountable for what he has said in the past also.  You can weight what they said based on how long ago it was, and what he has said or done since, but I don't think it should be totally ignored, Character typically doesn't change that much over time, people just get better at keeping things to themselves.  Donald Trump did say he grabbed women by their anatomy and got away with it because he was rich and famous.  We all heard it because it was recorded, and then he tried to brush it off as locker room talk.  With 6 years on active duty in the Navy, and over 14 years in the Army Reserve I've engaged in a lot of locker room talk, although I'm not proud of it I've done my share of rating women on a scale of 1 to 10 in the past, or expressed admiration for their physical attributes, etc.  Never once did I say I wanted to force myself on a women by grabbing her genitals. 
 
The point is, he wasn't a candidate when he said it. Hillary had plenty of arguably more scandalous positions and statements in her past than this and it's arguable on the topic of consent. They were both held somewhat accountable for these statements and Hillary is still accounting given the multiple active federal investigations to which she is currently subject. I don't really care if a president has shameful sexual proclivities. Is he/she planning to rape congress? I care more about their hawkishness or how entrenched they are etc. and that's a strike against Hillary.

The reaction to the election results from my liberal friends has been nothing short of disgusting. I don't care if you protest or demonstrate etc but when you start bullying other people or harassing/assaulting them and encouraging that behaviour in others then we've got a problem.
Logged

Molefsky
freelance trombonist
Full-time Environmental Engineering Consultant
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 51133
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #72 on: Nov 28, 2016, 07:57AM »

I'm not bullying, I'm lamenting.  Much like our friend Dickerson lamented about how bad that Black Activist from Chicago was 8 years ago.
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch. President 2017-2018
Molefsky

*
Offline Offline

Location: Ohio
Joined: Aug 18, 2005
Posts: 1151
"Very old photo..."


View Profile
« Reply #73 on: Nov 28, 2016, 08:12AM »

I'm not bullying, I'm lamenting.  Much like our friend Dickerson lamented about how bad that Black Activist from Chicago was 8 years ago.
I'm not necessarily talking about you Bruce. I'm talking about the people who encouraged physical violence after the election. The people claiming that anyone who voted third party or even for trump are racist misogynists etc. The people who use "trump supporter" the way that fox news pundits liked to use "liberal". Even worse, when they use it as some kind of smear against anyone that happens to disagree with them or interrupt their circle jerk, double whammy. I watched a music professor call two of his former students "evil little cocksuckers" for defending a post that pointed out that some of the post election "hate crimes" were staged or unsupported and that perhaps we should take a breath before declaring that a national resurgence of the KKK had taken place.
Logged

Molefsky
freelance trombonist
Full-time Environmental Engineering Consultant
bhcordova
Wielder of the Cat Litter Scoop

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Nacogdoches, TX, USA
Joined: May 18, 2000
Posts: 7136
"Carpe Felix"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #74 on: Nov 28, 2016, 12:19PM »

You mean that Twitter feed that was proved to be false? 
Logged

Billy Cordova, MBA
Forum Administrator
bcordova@tromboneforum.org

Beware the Jabberwock, my son! - Lewis Carroll

Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup - Anon.

St. Cecilia, pray for us.
Molefsky

*
Offline Offline

Location: Ohio
Joined: Aug 18, 2005
Posts: 1151
"Very old photo..."


View Profile
« Reply #75 on: Nov 28, 2016, 12:22PM »

You mean that Twitter feed that was proved to be false? 
I don't use or browse twitter.
Logged

Molefsky
freelance trombonist
Full-time Environmental Engineering Consultant
Piano man
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 10, 2006
Posts: 9956

View Profile
« Reply #76 on: Nov 28, 2016, 03:17PM »

The point is, he wasn't a candidate when he said it.

I don't see you holding to this position with any consistency. When DDickerson repeatedly draws conclusions about Hillary based on things she said when she was in college, that was long before any candidacy, and I haven't heard a peep out of you for it.

Some of the worst things Trump has said and done, on the other hand, date to when he was a middle-aged man, a public figure, and commonly toying with entering politics. Of course he should be accountable for things he said as a fully-formed adult. A 59-year-old man has a lot less expectation of evolving personally and intellectually than does a twenty-something grad student.

I don't expect you to be consistent, but you might try to come a wee bit closer.
Logged

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so." --Mark Twain
Molefsky

*
Offline Offline

Location: Ohio
Joined: Aug 18, 2005
Posts: 1151
"Very old photo..."


View Profile
« Reply #77 on: Mar 06, 2017, 07:01PM »

I don't see you holding to this position with any consistency. When DDickerson repeatedly draws conclusions about Hillary based on things she said when she was in college, that was long before any candidacy, and I haven't heard a peep out of you for it.

Some of the worst things Trump has said and done, on the other hand, date to when he was a middle-aged man, a public figure, and commonly toying with entering politics. Of course he should be accountable for things he said as a fully-formed adult. A 59-year-old man has a lot less expectation of evolving personally and intellectually than does a twenty-something grad student.

I don't expect you to be consistent, but you might try to come a wee bit closer.

The point stands. He wasn't a candidate when he said it. Did you have an argument for that?
Logged

Molefsky
freelance trombonist
Full-time Environmental Engineering Consultant
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5661

View Profile
« Reply #78 on: Mar 06, 2017, 07:07PM »

The point stands. He wasn't a candidate when he said it. Did you have an argument for that?
Pretty simple actually.

No one, at any time, has ever been limited in consideration of their actions and comments... starting only AFTER they have formally announced their candidacy.

Even regular job searches include a thing called a background check that checks your history before you even applied for the position and weighs it against your offer.

I just went through one and I'm a nobody in a normal nobody position.

I know the president thinks that he and his staff should be held to a lower ethical and moral standard than even a standard federal employee... (his lawyer just said so in defense of conway)

But really?
Logged
Molefsky

*
Offline Offline

Location: Ohio
Joined: Aug 18, 2005
Posts: 1151
"Very old photo..."


View Profile
« Reply #79 on: Mar 06, 2017, 07:08PM »

Pretty simple actually.

No one, at any time, has ever been limited in consideration of their actions and comments... starting only AFTER they have formally announced their candidacy.

Even regular job searches include a thing called a background check that checks your history before you even applied for the position and weighs it against your offer.

Which changes nothing.
Logged

Molefsky
freelance trombonist
Full-time Environmental Engineering Consultant
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5  All   Go Up
Print
Jump to: