The Goat Pen

you might be hearing more about Eric Braverman in the future

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... man-115598

Bklyn wrote:

eCat wrote:
are you saying that Asian , Black and Latino women do value equal pay (as opposed to white women)?

I'm saying that the basic principles of "Feminism" (which are inclusive of, but not restricted to, equal pay) appeared to not matter to white women in this election (at least not at the level of women of color). Say what you will about what you think Donald WILL DO, there is plenty of data and public records showing what he HAS DONE and said with respect to issues central to "Feminism." It's a very clear picture, in my opinion.

meanwhile, Hillary chose to stay with a habitual cheating husband who was with at least 3 women prior to his run with the white house as well as stuck a cigar into the vagina of an young intern while President of the United States - in an obvious effort for her to maintain power, money and a legacy. She didn't stay for the Chelsea, she didn't stay for the good of the country, she stayed because it was in her long term financial and political interest to stay. Yet you expect largely christian white women that don't live on the coasts to align with her over issues of pay equality (along with other feminist platform planks) and reject Trump. Whether you think it or not, they see Hillary for what she is - and that means something to them.

Your view is warped as are your sensibilities on this topic.

So, the vote against Hillary was because of her marital decisions...so they vote Trump? OK. My views and sensibilities are warped. Heh.

Also, I'm sure there is data on why non-white women voted for Hillary. I doubt it was as simple as just immigration for 2/3 and ACA for 1/3. I do give them more credit than that.

Again I ask if any of you read Hillbilly Elegy? Quick easy read.

Bklyn wrote:So, the vote against Hillary was because of her marital decisions...so they vote Trump? OK. My views and sensibilities are warped. Heh.

Also, I'm sure there is data on why non-white women voted for Hillary. I doubt it was as simple as just immigration for 2/3 and ACA for 1/3. I do give them more credit than that.

but your premise is white women all thought like Madeline Albright and then moved away from Hillary for Trump. Their starting base is conservative. This idea they have to vote for Hillary because she is like them or will do more for them is not founded on any facts. Its just the assumption someone from the coasts would make - similar to the media for the past 16 months. Hillary had to give them a reason to vote for her other than they shared the same anatomy. Now if we were talking about Carly Fiorina, you might have a point. Those women are not going to accept an east or west coast definition of Feminism that is in conflict with their values. Matter of fact, they'll rebel against it, which does explain the vote for Trump .

I also have views on that whole "grab her in the pussy" stuff - how that actually worked in favor of Trump in an era of Social Justice Warriors, Safe Spaces and media bias. Trump created a belief in what a leader is versus a politician in this election cycle and people locked in what the differences were every time a politician tried to cater to some special interest or lectured the American public on what they should believe or support. This election was a repudiation of Obama. This election was a backlash against elected politicians that refused to acknowledge what their voting base was telling them. This election was a condemnation of the media that ignored anyone east of California and west of Maryland. Hillary would have had to have been a Reaganesque communicator to overcome that - while expecting the nation to forget she represented the second act of a corrupt political dynasty.

I don't know about by demographic, but, overall, women's issues barely register as a top issue.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.usnews.c ... ent=safari

https://www.google.com/amp/www.forbes.c ... ent=safari

60 minutes tonight

Chicago 2015
Cops stop 49,257 people for arrest and interrogation

Chicago 2016
Cops stop 8, 859

Down 80%

Arrests down by 1/3

So 60 minutes is correlating this to the increase in homicides- Chicago has more than New York and Los Angeles combined

And it all started with Mequan McDonald who was shot 16 times as he was moving away from a white officer.

The Police Commissioner, McCarthy gave the case to the independent agency that reviews these kinds of shootings, paid the family $5m and the cop that shot him is on trial for murder.

Rahm Immanuel fires McCarthy after he was accused by the public of being protected during his re-election.

Violence surged immediately after these steps were taken along with orders to be more selective in who they stopped and for every stop they made, fill out a detailed two page report under threat of ACLU litigation.

McCarthy now says that Chicago is descending into a state of lawlessness.

Bklyn wrote:So, the vote against Hillary was because of her marital decisions...so they vote Trump? OK. My views and sensibilities are warped. Heh.

Also, I'm sure there is data on why non-white women voted for Hillary. I doubt it was as simple as just immigration for 2/3 and ACA for 1/3. I do give them more credit than that.

Real simple test to Hillary voters: Go ask them if their husband cheated on them 3 times over a 10 year period BUT he made a significant paycheck and was a powerful community leader, would they leave their husband? I will bet you 3/4 of them would say they would leave without hesitation. Now tell them you were talking about Hillary and Bill and see if they backtrack or not.

Everybody knew Trump was a dirtbag but didn't try to hide it or put himself on some moral high ground like she did.

I have no idea what motivations lie in Hillary's decision to stay with her husband. I don't have any idea why some of you guys' wives stayed with you although you fuck around...or why you stay with your wives after you found out she fucked around on you (taking license with these statements, obviously. I don't know what you all do in your personal lives. Just playing the percentages). I won't be so presumptuous or arrogant to say why a person or a couple do what they do. Everybody makes their personal decisions based on an array of factors.

Sardis' point is where I was going on all of this anyway. "Women's issues" (Feminist issues) don't have a large say in the decisions people make. I don't believe it really exists in a major way as a result.

On the repudiation of Obama...meh. I know it is impossible and impractical to argue a hypothetical but Obama would have beat Trump. Obama is better than Hillary. Axelrod is better than Podesta. So, the "repudiation of Obama" is a bit of a convenient narrative that fell flat in 2012. I think Biden would have won the election if he was the DEM nom (Bernie is an interesting one...I can't say one way or another on him). I'm increasingly in the space of viewing things through the prism of good politicians and bad politicians. Hillary is just a horrible politician but a hard worker and a "doer" (as evidenced by the respect she had from both sides of the aisle when she was in the Senate). She is not suited to run for national office. It was clear in 2008...and obvious this year.

Bklyn wrote:I have no idea what motivations lie in Hillary's decision to stay with her husband. I don't have any idea why some of you guys' wives stayed with you although you fuck around...or why you stay with your wives after you found out she fucked around on you (taking license with these statements, obviously. I don't know what you all do in your personal lives. Just playing the percentages). I won't be so presumptuous or arrogant to say why a person or a couple do what they do. Everybody makes their personal decisions based on an array of factors.

Sardis' point is where I was going on all of this anyway. "Women's issues" (Feminist issues) don't have a large say in the decisions people make. I don't believe it really exists in a major way as a result.

On the repudiation of Obama...meh. I know it is impossible and impractical to argue a hypothetical but Obama would have beat Trump. Obama is better than Hillary. Axelrod is better than Podesta. So, the "repudiation of Obama" is a bit of a convenient narrative that fell flat in 2012. I think Biden would have won the election if he was the DEM nom (Bernie is an interesting one...I can't say one way or another on him). I'm increasingly in the space of viewing things through the prism of good politicians and bad politicians. Hillary is just a horrible politician but a hard worker and a "doer" (as evidenced by the respect she had from both sides of the aisle when she was in the Senate). She is not suited to run for national office. It was clear in 2008...and obvious this year.

Obama may have beat Trump, but who cares - If the financial crisis hadn't blown up before the election in 2008, its hard to say if Obama would have ever been elected to begin with. If we never went into Iraq, Hillary would have beat Obama in the primaries. So just like Trump has to thank Obama for his part in opening the door for him, Obama's presidency is based largely on the voter repudiation of Bush

I hope Trump uses twitter to speak out against this

--------------------

House Republicans voted 119-74 Monday night in favor of a proposal that would gut Congress' outside ethics watchdog and remove its independence.

Republican Virginia Rep. Bob Goodlatte's proposal would place the independent Office of Congressional Ethics -- an initial watchdog for House members but without power to punish members -- under oversight of those very lawmakers.

House Speaker Paul Ryan and other top GOP leaders opposed the change to ethics rules, but rank-and-file members disregarded their views and voted to approve the new structure for ethics reviews going forward, according to a senior House GOP leadership source familiar with the closed door discussion.

The proposal would bar the panel from reviewing any violation of criminal law by members of Congress, requiring that it turn over any complaint to the House Ethics Committee or refer the matter to an appropriate federal law enforcement agency.

The House Ethics Committee would also have the power to stop an investigation at any point and bars the ethics office from making any public statements about any matters or hiring any communications staff.

And the ethics office would no longer be able to accept or investigate any anonymous reports of alleged wrongdoing by members of Congress.

The full House of Representatives will now vote on it as part of a larger rules package up for consideration on Tuesday.
Goodlatte argued that changing the ethics review process "strengthens the mission" of the office and it will remain the panel to review potential rules violations.

"It also improves upon due process rights for individuals under investigation, as well as witnesses called to testify. The (ethics office) has a serious and important role in the House, and this amendment does nothing to impede their work," Goodlatte said in a written statement Monday evening................


Members of both parties complain that panel often takes up matters based on partisan accusations from outside groups with political motivations, and once they launch a probe members have to mount expensive defense campaigns.

But outside ethics group point to the ethics panel as the only real entity policing members and argue its independent status and bipartisan board are an appropriate way to oversee investigations.

"This election was a repudiation of Obama. This election was a backlash against elected politicians that refused to acknowledge what their voting base was telling them."

In fairness, most presidential elections are a repudiation of and backlash against whoever was in office previously, esp. if they're a two term president. The public is fickle. That's the essential characteristic of the non-hardcore electorate...

I read an interesting little book about the Clintons (mostly Bill, but Hillary got plenty of ink, too) over the holiday, "No One Left to Lie To" by Christopher Hitchens. I've always liked him and was well familiar with his disdain for the Clintons, but had never read this book. His main beef is that Clinton totally betrayed the liberals and pushed a more conservative agenda than Ronald Reagan would've ever dared to attempt. But he also gave plenty of attention to Clinton's precisely timed bombings of various sites in the middle east when he was embroiled in the impeachment hearings, as well as his transformation of the Oval Office into a blatant fundraising vehicle. He concurred and amplified eCat's complaint that they would do anything to consolidate their political and financial power in the most callous and venal way imaginable. I can't imagine him supporting Hillary under any circumstance (I'm sure he would've been a Bernie Sanders supporter), but at the same time, I can't imagine that he would've thought much of Trump, either. It would've been interesting to hear his take on this election and the parties and issues involved...

Why don't you join him and find out.

"Goodlatte argued that changing the ethics review process "strengthens the mission" of the office"

Heh, I'm glad we're now in a new era of politics...

"Members of both parties complain that panel often takes up matters based on partisan accusations from outside groups with political motivations"

I thought that's the way politics was supposed to work...

hedge wrote:"Goodlatte argued that changing the ethics review process "strengthens the mission" of the office"

Heh, I'm glad we're now in a new era of politics...

Trump has an opportunity to put a heated spotlight on congress to stop this

Last I heard he was playing golf with David Koch

a friend of mine is a huge Hitchens fan, even has a bumper sticker of him. She was one of the people that would continually lose their shit over Trump on social media.

You should read that book I was talking about...

Ford is canceling plans to build a new plant in Mexico. It will invest $700 million in Michigan instead, creating 700 new U.S. jobs.

Ford (F) CEO Mark Fields said the investment is a "vote of confidence" in the pro-business environment being created by Donald Trump. However, he stressed Ford did not do any sort of special deal with the president-elect.

"We didn't cut a deal with Trump. We did it for our business," Fields told CNN's Poppy Harlow in an exclusive interview Tuesday.

The $700 million investment will go to the Flat Rock, Michigan plant to produce more electric and self-driving cars. Ford believes electric vehicles will outsell gas-powered vehicles within the next 15 years.

Ford is planning to roll out seven new electric vehicles in the next five years, including a Mustang Hybrid.

The news is a major U-turn for Ford. Trump repeatedly slammed Ford on the campaign trail for shipping U.S. jobs to Mexico (a claim the company said was wrong).

All of the big car manufacturers currently have some production in Mexico. Just hours before the Ford announcement, Trump criticized GM (GM) for producing cars in Mexico.

" It will invest $700 million in Michigan instead, creating 700 new U.S. jobs."

They could've created 70,000 jobs in Mexico for that kind of money...