The October 17, 2016 Thread
PRESIDENT
NATIONAL–NBC News/Wall Street Journal–CLINTON 51, Trump 41
Key finding: “While Mr. Trump’s core supporters haven’t abandoned him and not defected to the Democratic side, Mrs. Clinton’s gains stem from a widening advantage among women and the support of voters who had been undecided or planning to vote for third-party candidates.”
NATIONAL–Washington Post/ABC News–CLINTON 50, Trump 46
Key findings: “Nearly 7 in 10 respondents believe Trump probably made unwanted sexual advances, and a majority say his apology for boasts about forcing himself on women on a hot-mic videotape was insincere. Nonetheless, the controversy appeared to have had only a minimal impact on his overall support.”
FLORIDA–Gravis–CLINTON 46, Trump 42
NEVADA–CBS News/YouGov–CLINTON 46, Trump 40
COLORADO–Gravis–CLINTON 44, Trump 39
VIRGINIA–Christopher Newport Univ.–CLINTON 44, Trump 29
UTAH–CBS News/YouGov–TRUMP 37, Clinton 20, McMullin 20
“Donald Trump isn’t really running a campaign for president anymore. Instead, he’s involved in an extended revenge plot or is simply following the politics of grievance to its natural, unseemly end,” Chris Cillizza writes.
“It appears as though Trump’s minders have effectively given up, allowing the candidate to pursue his own score-settling and airing of grievances in these final weeks of the campaign. Taking that road may bring some satisfaction to Trump. But it has the potential to do catastrophic damage to the party he ostensibly leads as the GOP tries to hold its Senate and House majorities amid declining enthusiasm within its own ranks for its presidential nominee.”
“To care about that effect would mean that Trump was running a real campaign that grasped the idea that it’s about more than just the whims of a single candidate. He simply isn’t doing that.”
Read the threats this newspaper got after endorsing Clinton. But more importantly, read how the paper responded. https://t.co/NzxVp2R7vT
— Josh Stearns (@jcstearns) October 16, 2016
New York Times: “Mrs. Clinton’s campaign declined to release transcripts of her speeches to Wall Street firms during the Democratic primary contests, when her rival, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, intensely criticized her for accepting roughly $225,000 per speech.”
“But on Saturday, transcripts of three appearances at Goldman Sachs events were released by WikiLeaks, part of a trove of thousands of emails obtained by hackers who illegally breached the email account of one of Mrs. Clinton’s top aides.”
“The genial relationship she appeared to have with Mr. Blankfein and other Wall Street executives at the events would not have served Mrs. Clinton well in the Democratic primary contests… But for Mrs. Clinton, who is often criticized as overly scripted, her relaxed, off-the-cuff exchanges at these private events also revealed a side that she has struggled to show voters under the intense glare of a presidential race.”
The Hill reports Trump called the skit a “hit job,” adding that the show is “boring and unfunny.”
“Donald Trump entered the homestretch of the campaign at a pronounced financial disadvantage to Hillary Clinton, according to figures Mr. Trump’s team released on Saturday, and far below the self-funding goal he set for himself earlier in the race,” the New York Times reports.
“After raising $100 million in partnership with Republican Party organizations in September, Mr. Trump and committees linked to his campaign began October with $75 million in cash on hand. Mrs. Clinton raised $154 million in September and began October with roughly $150 million in the bank, her campaign said, twice as much as Mr. Trump.”
Donald Trump's biggest lie is about the election itself. Here's what I said on @ReliableSources https://t.co/Wt2dlOdczw
— Brian Stelter (@brianstelter) October 16, 2016
“Donald Trump keeps peddling the notion the vote may be rigged. It’s not clear if he does not understand the potential damage of his words — or he simply does not care,” the AP reports.
“Trump’s claim — made without evidence — undercuts the essence of American democracy, the idea that U.S. elections are both free and fair, with the vanquished peacefully stepping aside for the victor. His repeated assertions are sowing suspicion among his most ardent supporters, raising the possibility that millions of people may not accept the results on Nov. 8 if Trump does not win.”
Politico: “Donald Trump is laying the groundwork to lose on Nov. 8, refuse to concede the election, and teeter the country into an unprecedented crisis of faith in government. Republicans and Democrats, in Washington and beyond, fear that the aftermath of the 2016 election will create a festering infection in the already deep and lasting wound that the campaign is leaving on America.”
Trump’s supporters talk rebellion, assassination at his rallieshttps://t.co/HK6n6DTIfo #TrumpsBrownshirts #Sedition #ClintonKaine
— Thomas Reich (@gollum1419_g) October 15, 2016
“Donald Trump’s rallies have never been the friendliest places for reporters. But lately, as Trump has come under increasing fire, an unwelcoming atmosphere for the press has turned into outright hostility,” the Washington Post reports.
“Reporters who cover Trump on the campaign trail say his supporters have become more surly and abusive in the past week, egged on by a candidate who has made demonizing journalists part of his stump speech.”
Amazing that Trump never complained about the media rigging the election when they gave him more coverage than everyone else combined. pic.twitter.com/1GWIhDO19U
— Josh Jordan (@NumbersMuncher) October 16, 2016
Boston Globe: “At a time when trust in government is at a low point, Trump is actively stoking fears that a core tenet of American democracy is also in peril: that you can trust what happens at the ballot box.”
“His supporters here said they plan to go to their local precincts to look for illegal immigrants who may attempt to vote. They are worried that Democrats will load up buses of minorities and take them to vote several times in different areas of the city. They’ve heard rumors that boxes of Clinton votes are already waiting somewhere.”
“And if Trump doesn’t win, some are even openly talking about violent rebellion and assassination, as fantastical and unhinged as that may seem.”
Michael Cohenbegs for an end to the madness.
This take is five days late, but after watching Hillary Clinton at the second presidential debate last Sunday — I am in awe of her. …
Trump called Clinton a liar. He said she had hate in her heart. He told her that if he were president he’d throw her in jail. He talked about the philandering of her husband Bill Clinton and even brought to the debate hall women who’ve accused him of sexual assault. He lied incessantly, about both his own plans and those of Clinton. He sought to intimidate her by looming over her and standing directly behind her as she answered questions. …
And yet, somehow, Hillary Clinton maintained her composure. She didn’t get angry; she didn’t get petulant; she didn’t give Trump a richly deserved slap in the face.
It’s all the more reason to scrap next week’s third and final presidential debate. No person should have to be subjected to what Clinton dealt with on Sunday and, more important, no great democratic nation should be subjected to it either.
The Fix: “Forget Virginia. Or Colorado. Or lots of other traditional swing states. Right now, Donald Trump’s campaign is in such bad free fall, states that haven’t voted for a Democrat in generations are suddenly coming into play as the Republican nominee’s path to 270 electoral votes collapses all around him.”
“Over the past 72 hours, polls have come out in Alaska, Texas and Utah that show Trump narrowly ahead of Hillary Clinton. That comes on top of data that suggests Republican-friendly states likes Arizona and Georgia are already a jump ball between Clinton and Trump.”
“That’s absolutely remarkable when you consider the historic trends in those states. The last time a Democrat won Alaska was 1964, when Lyndon Johnson carried it over Barry Goldwater. Texas hasn’t voted for a Democrat for president since Jimmy Carter eked out the state in 1976. In Utah, like Alaska, LBJ is the last Democrat to win.”
The Upshot puts Clinton’s odds of winning at 89%, FiveThirtyEight has her at 84% and Sam Wang has her at 97%.
Frank Bruni’s ode to Michelle Obama.
… isn’t it interesting that after so many years of keeping a studied distance from the ugliness of the political arena, the first lady is throwing herself with such passion into this grotesque campaign?
That says everything about the singular threat that Trump poses, and she’s emerging as the fiercest counter to it: Michelle Obama, octopus slayer. She’s effective because she has never gone looking for a fight — we know that about her. She acts when she has something to defend, and as she made clear in a stirring, searing speech late last week, that’s more than her husband’s legacy, which a Trump victory would decimate. It’s her dignity as a woman. It’s the dignity of all women.
I don’t mean to overstate her impact: Trump was going down before she joined the chorus of condemnation. But her eloquence is sealing the deal. First at the Democratic convention in late July and then in New Hampshire on Thursday, she embodied the nation’s conscience and staked her claim as the most earnest guardian of our most important values.
Ramesh Ponnuru: “Their majority is protected by gerrymandering, the geographic distribution of Republican voters, the power of incumbency and its own sheer size. Republicans have 247 seats in the House, the most since 1931. Democrats would have to win 30 to take back the chamber. And that includes many seats in districts that usually go Republican in presidential contests. That sets the House apart from the Senate, where to keep their majority Republicans will have to hold seats in states that usually vote for Democratic presidential candidates.”
“But Clinton’s lead in the polls is widening to the point that Republicans need to set aside their complacency. Split-ticket voting has declined over the last generation. If Clinton wins big — because Republican voters stay home, or swing voters choose her party, or both — House Republicans will struggle to win re-election. Henry Olsen, the co-author of a recent book about the Republican party, tells me that an eight-point win would put Republicans in the danger zone.”
Rick Hasen: “So if the Russians are not actually changing our election results, what might they be doing? The hacks and probing of election systems generate headlines which can undermine the public’s trust in the electoral process. As CNN noted, the hacks have already caused people to be suspicious about the election. And this feeds exactly into Donald Trump’s irresponsible statements that the vote will be rigged or stolen. In a close race, it is possible that Trump won’t concede and will instead create turmoil and threaten what we take for granted: the peaceful transition of political power between presidencies.”
“In short, the Russian hacking of our elections should be seen for what it is: an attempt to manipulate and destabilize the U.S., with an unwitting assist from an irresponsible presidential candidate spewing unsupported claims about rigged elections.”
David Wasserman: “Paul Ryan’s decision to throw Trump under the bus to save his majority, and Trump’s decision to lash out at Ryan as ‘weak and ineffective,’ could have even greater ramifications in January than November. That’s because if Democrats cut Ryan’s majority in half, the GOP’s losses are much likelier to come from the ranks of Ryan loyalists than Trump loyalists or the Freedom Caucus.”
“Such an outcome could make Ryan’s job miserable in 2017. If Clinton wins, would Ryan even want to run for speaker when the job would probably entail breaking the ‘Hastert Rule’ just to keep the government open or avoid debt default – incurring the wrath of his own party? And if Trump blames Ryan’s stiff-arm for his loss, could Ryan even muster enough Republicans to win the race for speaker without resorting to pursuing Democratic votes?”
“Donald Trump is laying the groundwork to lose on Nov. 8, refuse to concede the election, and teeter the country into an unprecedented crisis of faith in government. ”
“Concession” isn’t in the Constitution. The losing candidate isn’t required to concede; that’s just a matter of ettiquette, and we already know Trump sucks at ettiquette.
Faith in government will be just fine when the country ignores the loser Trump and gets on with business under President Hillary. Then we will have enough problems without dithering about Trump’s sulking.
The GOP has called the last two Democratic presidents illegitimate, so we already know they will do that to Hillary with or without Trump. I don’t see Congressional Republicans rallying behind Trump as a reason for being extra obstructive to Hillary.
I think the only “business” Trump will be getting on with is bleeding dry the bank accounts of the morons who follow him. Want to hear from the “real” President? get yourself a subscription to TrumpTV! Need that endorsement to lock up the Nationalist vote? buy ads on Trump TV! From there, he can dictate party policy and collect a paycheck. He isnt moving on, Breitbart isnt moving on, Pepe and the Trolls arent moving on. We might be able to isolate the cancer after this election, but it’s sticking around.
Newt Gingrich was on some Sunday show talking about the “rigged election” and I was praying for the moderator to ask, “If that’s true, what’s your remedy? United Nations elections monitors, maybe? “
“Such an outcome could make Ryan’s job miserable in 2017.” Ryan needs to bury the Hassters rule once and fo all and begin treating the Freedom caucus like the deranged lunatics that they are. Of course, he should pursue Dem votes if he wants to remain speaker. Either that or resign prior to the polling.
And here’s Trump’s latest tweet:
Why isn’t anyone in the Delaware media getting any DEGOP leadership on the record? Copeland, Simpler, Burris? Where are these guys on all this election fraud/armed revolution talk?
I am hopeful Michelle Obama will some day broaden her message and bring her amazing powerful influence to bear on the defining challenge of our time.
Signs that the landslide is near: new polls are being released today showing Hillary only down by 1 in ALASKA! and winning GEORGIA 47-44.
My deplorable neighbors don’t have the usual Republican yard signs and bumper stickers this year.
I attend a church that’s about evenly split between Rs and Ds. The Ds are the ones who ask each other, “Can you believe this? What are we coming to?” The Rs are the ones who shake their heads and mutter in distress at any mention of the campaign.
This is a very interesting story about the son of the founder of Stormfront.
I’m not sure that I have fully identified the moral of the story. Is it that there are no irredeemable people? Is it that each of us should do what we can to reach out to jerks? Is it that the white nationalists are wise to separate themselves from the rest of us because we will break them with sunshine?
Maybe it’s all of these things, maybe none. But it is thought-provoking.
Dylan Matthews at Vox with an excellent observation:
“Donald Trump’s supporters deserve to have their concerns taken seriously.
If the media and commentators in 2016 can agree on nothing else, it’s this. It’s a bit of an odd meme. I can remember literally no one in 2012 dwelling on the importance of taking the concerns of Mitt Romney voters seriously, even though they made up a considerably larger share of the population than Trump supporters. No one talks about taking the interests of Hillary Clinton supporters, a still larger group, seriously.
“But Trump supporters, a smaller group backing a considerably more loathsome agenda, have received an unprecedented outpouring of sympathy, undertaken as a sort of passive-aggressive snipe at unnamed other commentators and politicians perceived to not be taking their concerns seriously.”
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/15/13286498/donald-trump-voters-race-economic-anxiety
The story reiterates reality — Trump supporters are NOT more economically impacted than other GOP primary voters; they are in fact better off. The only thing that truly correlates are attitudes about foreigners and minorities — the less you like either, the more likely you are to back Trump.
Yet scores, if not hundreds, of lazy pundits keep pretending their anger is economically based, rather than based in their own fearful psyches.
When Joe Biden is all over TV pretending Trump supporters anger is economically based, it is hard to blame pundits for doing it.
BTW – Pundit is one of a handful of words to enter English directly from Sanskrit. paṇḍita ‘learned.’ #mediaconspiracy
The conclusion of the article I linked:
“Any solution has to begin with a correct diagnosis of the problem. If Trump’s supporters are not, in fact, motivated by economic marginalization, then even full Bernie Sanders–style social democracy is not going to prevent a Trump recurrence. Nor are GOP-style tax cuts, and liberal pundits aggressively signaling virtue to each other by writing ad nauseam about the need to empathize with the Trump Voter aren’t doing anyone any good.
“What’s needed is an honest reckoning with what it means that a large segment of the US population, large enough to capture one of the two major political parties, is motivated primarily by white nationalism and an anxiety over the fast-changing demographics of the country.”
For all those who wonder why on earth Puck keeps talking about women who lie about assault, there’s this:
http://www.tmz.com/2016/10/16/azelia-banks-russell-crowe-hotel-fight/#disqus_thread
Not every piece of human garbage has a penis.
One rich, privileged lady acts like a jerk at a party = all women are evil. got it. 😉
Y’know, when people make dickish comments like that, it just reveals that they’re dicks.
She’s not a “rich, privileged lady.” She’s a black woman pretending to be a victim. They’re out there. And it doesn’t take many such instances for some people to reach the conclusion that yes, it means you can’t trust women who make these claims.
But by all means, keep pretending this is about your moral preening.
Oh don’t be so surprised that someone sneers back at your lame attempt to go all #notallmen. Now you’d have us worried about unruly black women out to make fine, upstanding (and a bad singer with a short temper in Russel Crowe’s case) MEN look bad.
You brought this story up, slugger.
This is the internet. what did you expect? “oh well, if SHE is like this, half of all rapes are clearly lies”
“And it doesn’t take many such instances for some people to reach the conclusion that yes, it means you can’t trust women who make these claims.”
Well, those people would be wrong and should be told they are wrong and those views of their should not be allowed to influence society or public life.
In that story, why is it interesting that she is black or a woman, but that her socio-economic status is inadmissible? She is lots of things, one of which (and predominantly in this case) is a a jerk. She acted like a jerk at some sort of dinner party and was removed from the room. She said one thing and the rest of the party said another (there were witnesses).
I guess you are trying to suggest that there are women that lie about being assaulted, but singling out that she is “a black woman” is pretty selective of the facts.
I’m not even sure why Banks’ misbehavior is even an example.
No one here claims that women don’t occasionally lie about being assaulted. I think that we are all clear that the occasional liar isn’t an excuse for not believing that rape culture exists or even that the system shouldn’t work on behalf of all women to — you know — really sort out the claims and deliver some justice.
Are you really saying that this woman’s behavior is justification for not believing all women’s claims? How does that make sense? I have never said “all men do this” or “all women always tell the truth” but this is a really weak example you’ve provided. And if we take it to its obvious conclusion then it’s easy to jump to things like: You can’t trust Muslims who say they aren’t terrorists, you can’t trust black/brown people who say they’ve been profiled/harassed by police, etc. I mean if one, or several, of this group lies, then it’s justification for not believing the entire group?
This sounds like a one bad apple approach. It sounds like, “See! This woman did a horrible thing so, therefore, it’s understandable why some men think women lie and play the victim card.” That’s quite a leap.
@LG: I cited her race because the n-word was a large part of her claims — and the others interviewed said she, not Crowe, was the one who used it. She’s also an asshole about a white woman who dares to rap in a Southern black accent. Indeed, having followed her outbursts over the past couple of years, she, like Trump, seems to be composed entirely of whatever type of tissue forms the human sphincter.
And my point is that while this case is not typical, it’s a case of the media giving a platform to the liars. And because this is a high-profile (most likely) liar, that’s who the Pucks are going to cite.
The idea, as I understand it, is that we must take ALL claims of harassment and molestation seriously. But here we have a case of she said/lots of other people said, just as in the Trump situation. Any individual woman may be lying, but the odds of seven, or nine, or however many Cosby has molested all are lying makes it pretty obvious who’s telling the truth. And while all the others at this party might be lying to protect Russell Crowe, I doubt they all decided to lie to the police together.
I don’t agree with Puck on this issue. I am pointing out where the Pucks get their ammunition. But, as is usually the case with self-styled liberals, you don’t want to hear it.
Some minds (not you, Cassandra) are no more open than those of the people you criticize. Being unfair to one side because we used to be unfair to the other comes, as best I can tell, under the rubric of “two wrongs don’t make a right.”
@Ben: I sneer at you because you’re a kneejerk asshole, not because you, as usual, misunderstood the point.
I’m trying to follow you. Are you saying that examples like Banks’ become the norm in people like puck’s view? That this isolated bad behavior is the reason certain men assume… women behave this way?
Every victim is not perfect. Every situation has people who lie. Every gender has jerks and liars. But these standards you’re attributing to puck’s views (which I don’t think are accurate, but he can speak for himself) are 100% unattainable. I’d never say Trump and co. represent all men.
(cont.) Which means the defect is in the person who takes isolated incidents and extrapolates them out to include all women.
Even after my last comments I think I’m missing your point, anonymous.
I would argue there’s also a defect in pretending that “all” of any group is anything. Not all Trump supporters are racists; that doesn’t mean that none of them are. Not all Hillary-haters are conservative; that doesn’t mean that none of them are.
No contributor to this blog is more frequent in transgressing this truth than DelDem. I don’t raise this to pick on him; it’s just something we’ve all noticed. According to him, all who vote for Trump are on board with whatever misogyny, or racism, or xenophobia, when in my experience most of them are on board despite those things because they believe scary stories about Hillary.
Yet how often do the usual suspects take him to task for that? Just slightly more often than never.
The women who lie about incidents like this one have an outsized influence. If we make the standard that all women must be believed, we have to believe Ms. Banks as well. Just as their claims must be heard, they must be evaluated BEFORE we decide whom to “believe.” Because in general, people believe what they want to believe, not what the evidence shows them.
“Are you saying that examples like Banks’ become the norm in people like puck’s view? That this isolated bad behavior is the reason certain men assume… women behave this way?”
Yes. Exactly. Just as many liberals (not you) assume that one example means all [blank] are [blank].
I’m trying to explain where Puck gets his ammunition, because a lot of people here seem to think he makes it up out of thin air.
Most victims are not perfect, and even those who are get smeared. But not all victims are really victims, either. The liars are as deserving of scorn and criticism as the misogynists are, because they are the ones feeding them their ammunition.
my foul-mouth friend,
You used that article to justify a point that many here find wrong.
I would also point out that Ms Banks (who is SUCH an influential person, i had to google her after you used her as an example for all black, female accusers) is not accusing Russel Crowe of sexual assault. SO again, your point seems weak to me. Why was it relevant to share this article?
And finally, after all Trump has said, you have to AT LEAST BE OK with sexual assault, racism, and fascism to vote for him. These arent partisan things like minimum wage level or health care systems. These are basic tenants of a civil society.
“Which means the defect is in the person who takes isolated incidents and extrapolates them out to include all women.”
yes.
And I would say that we are arguing that a claim be proven false before being dismissed; to start out the way we start out with every crime/allegation – by believing the person enough to seriously investigate the claim. The problem is that so many of these cases never make it to this point.
If a kid says they are being bullied, we believe them, look into it and then decide if their claims are true. If a person says they were punched while leaving a bar we don’t immediately say, “They’re probably lying.”
We are not saying that all women must be believed to the extent that nothing more has to be proven. The problem lies with the default position that women lying about these incidents is the real problem – and one that is usually put forth to derail the conversation. Admitting there’s a problem with rape and sexual assault/harassment means we need to change our behavior, and that can be hard, especially when certain people benefit from the behavior.
OK, I get you.
I think that the “believe all women” thing is mostly about making sure that they have a safe and productive way to deal with the justice system. It’s about not just dismissing claims out of hand or pretending that she somehow deserved it, but also about a legal system that is oriented to deal with the facts at hand, rather than what she was wearing or show she was sleeping with or what she was drinking. Oriented to issues of consent. A fairer justice system and a culture that doesn’t look at the abuse of its women as normal would make it clearer that asshole behavior from any gender isn’t tolerated.
It’s a big emerging pitfall of liberalism. Everyone should be treated equally right? of COURSE right! but……. what about all the people who have been treated unequally for so long, that equal treatment now would not allow them social/economic mobility? The same rules and standards being applied to everyone is a nice goal, but we are still so unequal, all it would do it create a new Jim Crow. anonymous, why are you not as dedicated to helping “real” victims overcome intimidation and fear of not being believed, and report their attackers? I would argue that more “real” victims decide not to report than “fake” victims make up a story.
I think someone said my name three times.
For the record, I don’t say “women lie about assault.” If you think so, that is a false memory implanted by the local PC posse. If you remember me saying “women lie about assault,” that was most likely said by somebody else about me. Check it out for yourself here. Or just see this current thread.
Lying about what I said just provides a stool to climb up on your high horses.
I’m not on any high horse. I pointed out that incidents like this — sorry, Ben, I don’t give a fuck whether it’s a lie about racism or sexism, they’re pretty much equal as far as lies are concerned, though I would point out that only a lie about rape can put the victim of your lie away for 25 years — fuel the idea that women lie about assault.
And failing to say the exact words “women lie about assault” isn’t necessary for it to be crucial to your point. For if SOME women did not lie about assault, Vance Phillips would automatically be guilty.
“anonymous, why are you not as dedicated to helping “real” victims overcome intimidation and fear of not being believed, and report their attackers? ”
First of all, because I’m not a psychological professional.
Second, I hope you are not suggesting that a woman should be encouraged to report her attacker despite knowing she will be raked over the coals in court. Many women don’t take this course because they are aware that our legal system will probably cause them as much or almost as much trauma as the original attack. I’m not such a slave to principle that I would subject a woman to trauma in the name of justice. It’s up to the victim herself to decide if she wants to go through that.
Third, because I don’t see any value in being “dedicated” to it. We live in a society in which we don’t even test the DNA in rape kits. I believe the police and prosecutors should do their jobs; the Central Park 5 never would have been indicted if the rape kit’s DNA had been tested against the alleged perpetrators.
My goal is to get you, and others, to explore their own prejudices. Your reaction has been to minimize the fact that some people lie about being victimized, question my motives in pointing out that some people lie about being victimized, and then to claim that I should spend my time in a pursuit of your choice rather than my own.
Those are the positions of a person who has not really thought about the he said/she said problem at all. OF COURSE the default position should not be that the woman is lying. But every time there’s a Duke lacrosse team case, it cements the narrative of the lying gold-digger in millions of minds.
Remember, our system is predicated upon Blackstone’s formulation, that it’s better for 10 guilty people to go free than for 1 innocent person to be convicted. Granted, the ratio in sexual assaults is more like 100 to 1, and it would be tremendous progress to get it down to 10 to 1. Are you arguing that this bedrock legal principle should be thrown down?
Ultimately what will help far more women than reporting assaults is changing male attitudes to make such assaults far less likely in the first place. Rush Limbaugh made this argument overtly last week: liberals, he said, don’t care what you do as long as you have consent. I’m sure he’s used the phrase “consenting adults” before, but he clearly has no understanding of the underlying moral principle.
Those are the stakes in this election, as Michelle Obama articulated.
“Why was it relevant to share this article?”
Your own reaction provides the answer.
If you go back to notorious cases like Duke lacrosse or Tawana Brawley or the Central Park Five or the Rolling Stone article, it’s not about women lying, it’s about MEN lying, and they were held accountable in court for their lies.
Huh? Please explain, I’m not getting it. What man lied in the Rolling Stone case? What part of that story ever got to court?
News alert on CNN. There is video footage that will soon be released of Donald Trump cutting the tag off his mattress. Stay tuned for more details.
“Huh? Please explain, I’m not getting it. What man lied in the Rolling Stone case? ”
Let me help you with your befuddlement.
OK, I bent that one a bit, because the author of the RS story was in fact female. But the pattern for all the cases I mentioned is MEN whose BS detectors were broken to the point of lying. And these were men who were trained to be professional BS detectors. Here’s a story about the male managing editor at Rolling Stone being held accountable for exactly that:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/30/business/media/will-dana-rolling-stones-managing-editor-to-depart.html
“What part of that story ever got to court?”
The part where Rolling Stone was named in a defamation suit by students featured in the article. That case was in fact dismissed. But as we know from other sex cases, sometimes the only recourse to obtain justice is to publicize your story through an unsuccessful civil suit, right?
From that RS defamation suit, we learned that the author of the RS article, Sabrina Erdely, was a major force behind the media-created “rape culture” trending meme:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/local/eramo-vs-rolling-stone-complaint/1692/
I cant get my head around being resistant to vilifying rape.
puck is too much fun to parody–
He admits that the story in Rolling Stone was written by a woman, and not by a man as his original statement suggested, and that the court case was dismissed rather than ever being heard…
… and somehow (“I bent that one a bit”) it all still makes his point even though he got caught with all the facts being wrong …
“I cant get my head around being resistant to vilifying rape.”
Who doesn’t vilify rape?
“He admits that the story in Rolling Stone was written by a woman, and not by a man as his original statement suggested, and that the court case was dismissed rather than ever being heard…”
Like Andre Henry’s case?
“… and somehow (“I bent that one a bit”) it all still makes his point even though he got caught with all the facts being wrong …”
Once again, Steve leaps over my actual comment and its links to reach a predetermined conclusion. Just like he does when he serves on Kollege Kourt.
“From that RS defamation suit, we learned that the author of the RS article, Sabrina Erdely, was a major force behind the media-created “rape culture” trending meme”
It’s mostly that. Puck. When I, as a man of questionable attractiveness who has never dealt with sexual harassment, heard the term “rape culture”, it put words to what I had been seeing happen (mostly to women, but some men) and uncomfortable with for a long time. It isnt a made-up notion by a, i thin we can agree, bad journalist. See, calling in to question the concept just puts another hurdle in front of those trying to fight it. First, they have to convince everyone the problem is “real” THEN have to start the fight to end it… kinda like climate change.
” it put words to what I had been seeing happen (mostly to women, but some men)”
Where exactly have you been seeing this happen? In the media, duh. And on DL.
What’s most depressing is how any discussion on rape/sexual assault and harassment always turns to men’s concerns. (#notallmen) This is why we’ll never solve this problem. We aren’t allowed to discuss it – unlike every other topic.
I’ve gone back and reread all the threads dealing with this issue – Consent, #yesallwomen, the Steubenville posts, Brock Turner, Yes means Yes, and there’s more – and it’s really depressing how far certain people will go to always (and I mean always) cast doubt on what women say.
Pop culture, sports culture, glorification of things like pirates and vikings (we teach little kids that tossing a woman over your shoulders and running off with her is fun! Happy halloween!!!! )… shit dude… the seemingly innocent song “Baby it’s cold outside” is an example of sex-pestering.
It’s all so ingrained in our culture that men should keep perusing sex and women “play hard to get”, we barely notice how that basically teaches boys that “no means keep trying”.
Pandora admits that after an exhaustive search she was unable to find quotes from me that claim women lie about sexual assault.
And,
“We aren’t allowed to discuss it – unlike every other topic.”
LOL… these topics are some of our longest threads.
To go all heteromormative on this (since not all rapists are men and not all victims are women… i understand the term “man”, for these purposes is used to mean aggressor and pursuer) , “men’s” concerns are at least a little valid.
Most men who have a difficult time understand where consent boundaries are, were made that was as boys by TV, or their parents, or wherever. Maybe they see a problem but have no idea how to change other than asking ignorant questions (that is, a question from a person who is actually ignorant of the situation and not TRYING to be insulting or dismissive)
This man’s “concern” is “what can I do? where can I fix MY behavior? how can I address the behavior of other men? Dismissing “men’s concerns”…. or rather, appearing to say they are less valid, only creates adversaries.
I don’t comment about #notallmen or “men’s rignts activists” (whatever that is). If you think so, that is also a false implanted memory. Let the search for quotes begin!
Wasn’t it you who claimed that rape accusations are like UFO sightings – that when one person says they’ve seen a UFO (rape) others claim the same thing. I’ll look for that comment because it was stunning.
Puck, whatever you think you’re saying… it comes across that you don’t think rape and sexual assault are that much of a problem. If that isn’t true, maybe there is a better argument you could make to demonstrate it. No, I don’t have any quotes to back that up, nor do I have the desire to go looking for them.
Since Pandora brought it up… Don’t bother looking it up; I’ll do it for you. And I will even provide the full context, I’m not going to let you get away with an allusive insinuation without providing the full text:
http://delawareliberal.net//2014/08/29/californias-yes-means-yes-bill/
and
and
It’s a bad analogy. People who see ufos aren’t violated the way someone who was raped is. If a person “feels” like they were sexually assaulted, you cant explain them into deciding otherwise. It still looks like you don’t think it’s that much of a problem… Your ufo argument, while explained, sounds like the Skittels one.
For those of you that would like to read puck’s comments in context:
Start here
Ben, I wrote this in Sept. 2014:
Two months after I wrote that, Rolling Stone published its graphic, detailed, emotional, and fake “rape culture” story. Which is just one data point statistically, but in terms of media creating a public belief in “rape culture” it was very powerful. The RS article is the story of popular hunger for titillating stories that confirm their biases or fears.
Rape culture is like systemic racism: It’s everywhere, so many people don’t see it as anything but part of the scenery. I suspect Puck is one of them.
I take your point as one that you believe in. I believe that YOU believe it.
It still sounds like “well, one skittle might be a terrorist”
Last week Rush Limbaugh, the voice of the GOP, called in to question the very idea that rape is a problem. He is the embodiment of rape culture. If you want to trust that Donald Trump is “just joking” in those tapes… that he hasn’t actually committed sexual assault (he has) JOKING about it is still awful…. no to mention the creepy, conspiratorial way he and Bushie acted toward that woman when they got off the bus…. strategically putting her between them…. made me want to vomit.
So fine. RS did a bad thing by making that up. What makes it so bad, is it gives people a tiny, tiny foothold to disqualify the whole argument they were making. This is ONE instance of a lie….. compared to millions of actual assaults, actual examples of pop culture pushing the idea that men are entitled to sex.
“I suspect Puck is one of them.”
Another insinuation. If you go by what other people say, Hillary and I should both be in jail. Fortunately we can both speak for ourselves.
On the Consent post puck said this:
See? Good thing that plane was full of eyewitnesses or else that woman would have lied.
* BTW, when I wrote about Steubenville I never accused anyone of rape. You’d be forgiven, given puck’s comments, for thinking I had.
“BTW, when I wrote about Steubenville I never accused anyone of rape. You’d be forgiven, given puck’s comments, for thinking I had.”
Sucks to be misquoted to support an agenda, doesn’t it.
The discussion, as I’m reading it, shows that you think it’s like UFOs. It’s not an insinuation, it’s an accusation. You’re gaslighting us now. As I pointed out, you don’t have to say those precise words for that to be the unmistakable meaning of them — if some men are wrongly accused, then some women must be lying.
It’s hard to tell who is actually participating in a discussion, and who is sport-arguing.
Oh, and the “should be in jail” line? Don’t flatter yourself.
Yeah, I didn’t misquote you – I quoted you.
Comparing rape/sexual assault accusations to UFO sightings is the same as saying mass hysteria. Unless you fully believe in UFO sightings.
And your quote above about the airplane groper is you saying that woman would have lied about what happened.
@Ben: I’m pretty sure you have it figured out. A dick is a dick is a dick.
“Yeah, I didn’t misquote you – I quoted you.”
Cherry-picking is misquoting.
I did not cherry-pick. Reread your comment. You start off by addressing Cassandra, but in the second paragraph you laid out your views quite clearly.
What’s the problem, Puck? The word “rape” in “rape culture”? Do you deny that our culture — not just American, but Western — fails to take seriously the daily, mundane objectification of women? In other words, is your problem with the term or the condition? Or both?
Rolling Stone published its graphic, detailed, emotional, and fake “rape culture” story. Which is just one data point statistically, but in terms of media creating a public belief in “rape culture” it was very powerful. The RS article is the story of popular hunger for titillating stories that confirm their biases or fears.
The Rolling Stone article was made up, but Rape Culture is not. This has been a thing discussed in literature since the 60’s or so. You can see some of the original definitions plus examples of the existence of Rape Culture.
So while this may be new to puck, it hasn’t been new to women, ever. This is a media thing because not only are more women talking about it and writing about it, we are specifically shining a light on it and pushing back against it . Even against men who think that they are allies. And at the end of the day, that is the problem for puck. Having to defend (or at least make light of)this awful bit of entrenched chauvanism messes with his “progressive” cred.
You know you are in a rape culture when it is more important to tell women to not get raped (and provide a respectability checklist to go with it), than it is to teach men to not rape. Because right now, the thing that is normalized is men abusing women at will and shrugging it off as boys will be boys.
I’m persuaded by that.
“Having to defend (or at least make light of)this awful bit of entrenched chauvanism messes with his “progressive” cred.”
LOL… you work yourself into a frenzy reading misogynistic crap written by giggling fifteen year-old boys posing in online chatrooms. Then you come to DL and take it out on the mild-mannered middle-aged happily married dads who are your DL audience, and tell them to teach their sons better. It’s a riot.
Yes, I know the term rape culture is prior art from narrow academic circles. RS and other recent media didn’t invent it; they popularized it.
I have wondered whether the umbrella meme/term/concept “rape culture” diminishes the actual act of rape by conflating it with every crass, classless, and intimidating behavior of men towards women. Specifically, if catcalling is part of the rape culture, because it either is sexualizing women or because its acceptance by women leads to increasing intimidating behavior and sometimes ultimately to rape, do we promote the concept that catcalling is effectively the equal of rape? Or more to the point, that rape is no worse than catcalling?
I recognize that movements need memes and memes need names, but I view umbrella memes with trepidation, because the devil is in the details and understanding the behaviors requires that we pay attention to the details. If there is a need for taxonomic structure for information purposes, I get that, but this one seems to be more geared towards a campaign, with slogans and sound bites.
The act of rape is a horrific violation of a person. I wonder if turning it into meme diminishes the horror by immunizing society in regards to the word “rape?”
I have the much the same questions regarding all movement memes, like “illegal immigration”, “income inequality,” “Vote!”, etc. etc.
@Dave: As you ably note, the naming contest goes a long way to establishing how something is viewed. That’s why the Republicans never call it an “estate” tax.
That’s why I asked if the name was Puck’s bone of contention. I agree that lumping all misogynistic behavior under the “rape” rubric makes it easier for the recalcitrant to dismiss the complaints. But it also cuts through the din and makes the complaint at least heard.
I learned a lot from #yesallwomen, because I had never stopped to consider that all the “isolated incidents” added up to a steady flow of abusive behavior, in various forms. I think that’s the same goal here — to get men to consider women as human beings instead of sex objects.
Now that I think of it, “men” might be the wrong word. What is the Playboy magazine philosophy but a Neverland where males never have to grow up?
“you work yourself into a frenzy reading misogynistic crap written by giggling fifteen year-old boys posing in online chatrooms.”
Unless you’re talking about their mental ages, you’re way off there. Most 15-year-olds are playing video games, not trolling the internet. The trolls on the internet are guys who refuse to grow up, but they’re all ages.
LOL… you work yourself into a frenzy reading misogynistic crap written by giggling fifteen year-old boys posing in online chatrooms. Then you come to DL and take it out on the mild-mannered middle-aged happily married dads who are your DL audience, and tell them to teach their sons better. It’s a riot.
Dismissive. As usual. You probably know more about these chat rooms than I do, but misogynistic crap written by self-proclaimed happily married men is the fare du jour right here on my blog. Typically led and defended by you, puck.
Now we’re right back to where we started.
It is dismissive. We’re being played by giggling 15 year old boys? Yep, way dismissive.
And I can’t help but wonder why this issue is treated so differently from others. For instance, when we discuss guns everyone seems to agree that we see people open carrying as a potential threat and intimidating. We’ve said countless times that we’d call the police because we can’t tell the difference between a “good guy with a gun” and a “bad guy with a gun.” We discuss gun culture often and seem to have no trouble defining it. We don’t spend time debating the term. Not. One. Bit. We know not all gun owners are dangerous. We accept that premise – so why don’t we accept it when it comes to race and gender issues? Why are we constantly wasting time on terminology?
Women live this scenario every day. We know that the simple act of smiling can be viewed as an invitation, while not smiling can bring forth accusations of being a bitch, or frigid, etc.. We know that some men won’t take “no” for an answer – whether that no is for a drink, a date, a dance, sex or catcalling. What we don’t know – just like the guy with a gun – is which man is the good guy or the bad guy.
We know that even with witnesses and the police called that Brock Turner only served 3 months – we also know that had those men not seen what Brock was doing that he would have gotten away with it, since then it would be the he said/she said scenario.
We know that judges have openly shamed women seeking justice – that they’ve painted young girls as Lolita’s (the judge said the victim looked older than her years and was “probably as much in control of the situation as was the defendant,” who was in his 50s and her teacher) as an excuse for a grown man’s crime.
We constantly hear about a young man’s promising future while we talk about the young girl’s past. We know that her being drunk is irresponsible and leads to what happened to her, while his being drunk is an excuse for his behavior. We are so use to sexualizing women that it becomes almost normal to make them somehow responsible for crimes against them – that’s if we even believe them. And given comments about the airplane groper and UFOs it’s obvious that believing women is not in the cards for many people.
And can we please stop blaming boys for men’s behavior? (OMG! #notallmen)
“Why are we constantly wasting time on terminology?”
Because it’s at least half the battle. Very few cared about the estate tax. A solid majority is against the “death” tax.
Your giggling 15 year old boy argument MIGHT have a shred of merit if it werent for old men, one of whom is possibly going to be president, saying the exact same thing…. and his army of betas clambering to back him up. It is the official position of a majot political party that groping is harmless flirting, and what victims call rape, is just good ol boy-fun.
The Rush Limbaugh comments last week couldn’t have thrown more light into this dark sub-basement.
ICYMI: “You can do anything, the left will promote and understand and tolerate anything, as long as there is one element. Do you know what it is? Consent. If there is consent on both or all three or all four, however many are involved in the sex act, it’s perfectly fine, whatever it is. But if the left ever senses and smells that there’s no consent in part of the equation then here come the rape police. But consent is the magic key to the left.”
Yes, he really thinks consent is not the key to anything. That’s not an opinion many 15-year-old boys have formed. It’s one men have formed because they have a very, very hard time finding someone who will consent.
but young men hear that and assume it is acceptable to act that way. Something made Brock Turner think silence was consent. Probably his father. Probably his coaches, telling him he’s a star………. it could have been sports culture which tells you that if you’re a champion, you can have whatever you want.
I get that terminology plays a part, but we (general “we”) never seem to move past it. If people want to make a point about terminology, that’s fine, but only focusing on terminology stops the broader conversation.
Okay, let’s discuss terminology. Rape culture, imo, is an appropriate term. So many things led up to what happened at Stanford, Vanderbuilt, Baylor, the military, in neighborhoods and office buildings, etc.. There is a culture that lets these guys think it’s okay for them to do what they did to another human being. There was a culture that told them they could risk the consequences of their actions – because they probably wouldn’t suffer any consequences.
“There is a culture…”
Yes there is, but it is on the wane in the US. Every conviction spreads the word and reduces it even more, and the arc is bending rapidly toward justice. We have come a long way.
The way to fight rape is with law, not by berating the innocent.
Know why it’s changing (altho it has a hell of a loooong way to go)? Because we named the culture and identified its components. Because people started studying it and writing books on their findings. Because we pointed out how pervasive this behavior towards women is in real life, as well as in commercials, books, music, movies. Because women started sharing their stories – and, lo and behold, we had all experienced most of the same things. (Women always knew we shared these experiences, but things like #Yesallwomen were vital in bringing them into the mainstream)
Donald Trump’s behavior might be a blessing in disguise, because liberal/progressive men, who were resistant to these discussions of rape, sexual assault/harassment, don’t want anything in common with Trump. See? An effing silver lining. But studies have already shown us that rapists and sexual assaulters self-report if you use different words. The world saw this in action when Trump reported himself.
Actual bodily rape is the most acute part of the rape culture. It is made possible by all of the antecedent behaviors that dehumanize women. Once a person thinks that a woman is a hunk of meat in a dress, the hard part of becoming a rapist is done.
That’s why it is important to identify all the parts that make it possible.
How did I miss this part of your comment, puck?
“The way to fight rape is with law, not by berating the innocent.”
Talk about assumptions. You have a massive blind spot on this issue.
LG, perfectly said and 100% true – also, more to the point than my ramblings.
Just mansplainin’ I guess.
LOL!
Michelle Alexander’s work on The New Jim Crow contains possibly the best structural analogy to rape culture. In it, Alexander chillingly demonstrates how a criminal justice system controlling the lives of minorities (particularly Black men) through mass incarceration is maintained on structural grounds without even needing the people who are doing the maintaining to be consciously, individually racist. There is both individual and structural racism, and most white tend to reject the existence of structural racism because to do so would be to recognize the comparative advantages that the system has given them just for existing and not being Black or Brown.
Likewise, there is individual misogyny and a structural rape culture, with the damnable part being that all individual males (who don’t have to be misogynists) have to do to help perpetuate it is to deny its existence. These structural aspects include the legal and psychological barriers to women being able to get a day in court, much less a conviction for rape/sexual assault; mass resistance to the idea that consent must be actively and unambiguously given or else no consent exists; the wide variety of stereotypes and accepted social norms designed to (a) signal ownership of all women; (b) parcel women out into body parts (which is to say, less than human); (c) to create the meme that women in fact benefit from special treatment in our society and are continually ungrateful to men for have given them that special treatment; which (d) leads them to try to take advantage of men emotionally, financially, and legally (not the least of which is the widespread belief that rape/sexual assault is over reported and (very) often falsely reported.
Objectors to Michelle Alexander’s work like to demur, “I’m not a racist, I never owned slaves, and I don’t sell drugs” and “but Black people do commit more crimes” in order to slant the discussion away from structural racism.
Individuals intent on reversing what they see as the feminization of our culture (which would be one possible consequence of moving away from a “rape” culture) throw up a wide variety of stalling defensive tactics to obfuscate what’s really happening–that societal change, either ethnic or gender-related makes them afraid.
The number of Americans identifying as white Christians has now dropped to 45%, below a majority for the first time in an election year (although it was really close to happening in 2012), and that’s really scary to a lot of people, including a lot of people who think Trump is a nutcase and would never vote for him.
I don’t feel personally guilty about racist things I didn’t do, or sexual assaults I didn’t commit, but I do feel a personal responsibility to acknowledge the structural nature of these systems, to speak honestly about them, and to work toward dismantling them while helping out whomever I can along the way who has become their victim.
“That’s why it is important to identify all the parts that make it possible.”
Sure you bet. But when you start applying words like “rape” to things that are not rape, then the definition starts evolving as language has since there was written language.
I have no problem with describing the culture. What I would be concerned about is the evolution of language.
“Actual bodily rape is the most acute part of the rape culture.”
Yes and shortly we’ll need a new term by which to refer to it. Which is why you had characterize “rape” as “actual bodily rape” because the language has already changed and now includes the entire taxonomy.
Remember Todd Akin and his reference to “legitimate rape”? “Actual bodily rape” seems eerily similar.
“The way to fight rape is with law, not by berating the innocent.”
I believe you are off by 180 degrees there. Though I wouldn’t use “berating” or “innocent” as the verb and noun — perhaps “preaching to the choir” would be closer to my metaphor. If you don’t have the choir on board, you have to preach to them first. Consider yourself first baritone.
I did wrestle with the wordsmithing.
I mean, it wasn’t as difficult as a woman having to choose a dress that makes her look great, but not too “rape me”.
I guess I’ll suffer the indignity of having to be more specific in my words.
@Steve: Well put, even compared to your usual high standard.
“That’s why it is important to identify all the parts that make it possible.”
Preaching only makes the preacher feel better, but law produces actual change in behavior. Take greed for example. We have been preaching against stealing the widow’s mite for 2000 years, but it still happens. Nothing works like sending a few bankers to jail.
“nothing works like sending a few bankers to jail.”
Really? When has that worked? I am unaware of any cases in which bank practices were curbed by jailing the banker.
Besides, you’re falling into the trap Pandora pointed out — you aren’t saying the law works, you’re saying punishment works. As the Brock Turner case shows, the law does not always produce a punishment, even after conviction. I’m pretty sure the only real punishment for Wells Fargo is a loss of customer confidence.
“preaching makes only the preacher feel better”
You need some exposure to better preachers then. If you poll church-goers I think you’ll get a different answer.
BTW, some religions have figured out how to curb greed — they insist members tithe.
US politicians are wholly owned, but jailing bankers works in Iceland. They jailed bankers for their part in the crash, and they haven’t had a Wells Fargo type crisis yet:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-03-31/welcome-to-iceland-where-bad-bankers-go-to-prison
“BTW, some religions have figured out how to curb greed — they insist members tithe.”
How does that work for sex? 🙂
Wait… did you just pronounce bankers guilty without a trial and call for them to be sent to jail?
pandora … quit putting Puck’s words in his own mouth.
Citing Iceland as an example for liberal purposes is about as valid as citing Singapore as a place where all conservatism’s ideas work. Iceland’s population is one-third Delaware’s.