2016 Election Thread

[TheLeviathan]

 

Well, I posted this one a while ago and it was dismissed as being wrong, because, well, we are not dealing with any sexism or misogyny.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/6/11/1537582/-The-most-thorough-profound-and-moving-defense-of-Hillary-Clinton-I-have-ever-seen

 

I have no doubt some of the flak she gets is misogynistic and sexist.  If it's going to be the rallying cry against every criticism....you've lost me.  

[TheLeviathan]

 

Again, and what is the difference between Hillary and Obama?

 

Obama doesn't do carelessly stupid **** when he knows people are out to get him?

 

Seems like a good place to start.

[formerly33]

 

I have no doubt some of the flak she gets is misogynistic and sexist.  If it's going to be the rallying cry against every criticism....you've lost me.  

No, I'm pretty sure ChiTown lost you when she dared to disagree with you. I'm not sure what's up, but it seems like that's pretty much what you do these days. Maybe you've always done that and I just overlooked it before. I don't know.

 

Obviously every presidential nominee is going to get flak, but the flak this woman gets ... unbelievable. But you're ready to ignore the misogynistic aspect of this situation because you decided too many people blame it all on misogyny. That makes sense. It really does.

[TheLeviathan]

 

You can argue that until you're blue in the face, it doesn't make it true.  I know of no legal standard (beyond strict liability crimes like statutory rape) that makes carelessness, stupidity or arrogance not rising to recklessness a crime.   And thank god.    

 

There are entire sections of the law related to criminal negligence.  What are you talking about?

 

Negligence (Lat. negligentia, from neglegere, to neglect, literally "not to pick up something") is a failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in like circumstances. The area of tort law known as negligence involves harm caused by carelessness, not intentional harm.

 

And look - I didn't even have to argue until I'm blue in the face!  And it's not just tort law, things like manslaughter, reckless driving, etc. are also in the same category.  So my statement is absolutely true.

[TheLeviathan]

 

No, I'm pretty sure ChiTown lost you when she dared to disagree with you. I'm not sure what's up, but it seems like that's pretty much what you do these days. Maybe you've always done that and I just overlooked it before. I don't know.

 

Obviously every presidential nominee is going to get flak, but the flak this woman gets ... unbelievable. But you're ready to ignore the misogynistic aspect of this situation because you decided too many people blame it all on misogyny. That makes sense. It really does.

 

I agree, she gets too much flak.  Has for a long time.  I think a sizable portion of that is misogyny, but to run behind that for every criticism weakens it.  In fact, i'd argue it's a kind of soft sexism in and of itself.  As if Clinton can't be criticized because she's a woman because criticism is always because she's a woman and not because she's, I don't know, worthy of criticism.

 

I mean, if I criticize Obama for his drone policies, am I doing it because he's black?  Or can I criticize him independently of his race?  If I criticize Cruz for his vile beliefs about homosexuality, am I doing that because he's Canadian/hispanic?    Or can I criticize him independently?

 

And here's the thing, again, not everything has to be mutually exclusive: I can criticize her for getting off easy because of her privilege and still agree the right is ridiculous in their criticism, often doing so in a misogynistic way.  Again, not mutually exclusive.

[PseudoSABR]

 

There are entire sections of the law related to criminal negligence.  What are you talking about?

 

Negligence (Lat. negligentia, from neglegere, to neglect, literally "not to pick up something") is a failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in like circumstances. The area of tort law known as negligence involves harm caused by carelessness, not intentional harm.

 

And look - I didn't even have to argue until I'm blue in the face!  And it's not just tort law, things like manslaughter, reckless driving, etc. are also in the same category.  So my statement is absolutely true.

Criminal negligence is above and beyond carelessness. No your original statement is not true. The negligence standard you cite is for CIVIL NEGLIGENCE (or tort law, as you point out).  Tort law, manslaughter and reckless driving are not at all in the same category, bub (civil, traffic and criminal all operate independent of one another; only the latter always requires proof of a specific mind set).   (Civil negligence also requires the proof of harm; in the email scandal there is no alleged harm, only speculation).

 

Here's the definition for Criminal Negligence form the Model Penal Code. 

(d) Negligently.

A person acts negligently with respect to a material element of an offense when he should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the actor's failure to perceive it, considering the nature and purpose of his conduct and the circumstances known to him, involves a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor's situation.

 

 

The difference between recklessness and criminal negligence is recklessness involves a conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk.  The significant distinction between civil and criminal negligence/recklessness is not only must a person deviate or disregard what one should do, they must also be aware (or substantially should be aware) that the risk exists.  If there's no alleged harm, that makes such proof of risk, well difficult.  In any case, criminal statutes that invoke criminal negligence are rare.   

 

There are no criminal laws where mere carelessness, arrogance or stupidity would satisfy the state-of-mind requirement, beyond criminal strict liability.

 

---

 

And really, what the heck is wrong with you believing that we can (or should!?), put people in jail for carelessness, arrogance or stupidity.

[TheLeviathan]

 

 

Criminal negligence is above and beyond carelessness. No your original statement is not true. The negligence standard you cite is for CIVIL NEGLIGENCE (or tort law, as you point out).  Tort law, manslaughter and reckless driving are not at all in the same category, bub.   (Civil negligence also requires the proof of harm; in the email scandal there is no alleged harm, only speculation).

 

I believe you may have taken my comment as an insinuation that Hillary was guilty of rising to that level.  I didn't intend that.  My original statement was that carelessness, arrogance, and stupidity can rise to criminal charges.  So....yes that can happen.  As with any case of carelessness there are a myriad of other factors that will help determine the degree of criminality, but that is still very much something that can and does get charged.  Negligence, which is what carelessness/stupidity/arrogance is, can and does rise to criminality.

 

Did it happen in this case?  Well, that's a different question isn't it?  I tend to agree that it didn't.  I also tend to think that if this was a lower ranking person there would be less muddling of "intent".  (Though it is important and why I believe she shouldn't be charged)

 

The plain truth, hard as it may be, is that when things like this happen it's rarely the top of the food chain that takes the blame.  That's where the privilege comes in.  Hillary is no different than many before her in that regard.  And many after her either.  

[TheLeviathan]

 

And really, what the heck is wrong with you believing that we can (or should!?), put people in jail for carelessness, arrogance or stupidity.

 

Oh, I absolutely think there are times for that.  If someone carelessly leaves their child locked in a hot car, I have no problem putting them in jail if their child dies.  

 

Again, part of the problem here may be splitting hairs over what the word "careless" means.  Negligent homicide would be an example as well.  

[PseudoSABR]

 

The plain truth, hard as it may be, is that when things like this happen it's rarely the top of the food chain that takes the blame.  That's where the privilege comes in.  Hillary is no different than many before her in that regard.  And many after her either.  

We all know that Levi.  But your foray into this conversation was in reply to my response to someone else, who expressed bewilderment that Clinton wasn't charged.   You basically picked a fight without putting what was said into that context.   That's how you build your straw man.   If I counter someone who says Clinton is criminally liable, it's a straw man to suggest that the counter is premised on the notion that Clinton is perfect or that the people at the top don't have an easier time evading criminal liability. 

 

In general, when we choose to respond to a reply to third-party poster, we risk mis-framing that person's argument, because the statements said are couched in that response, and not necessarily offered as some truth to all the world which would survive without your rebuttal. 

[PseudoSABR]

 

Oh, I absolutely think there are times for that.  If someone carelessly leaves their child locked in a hot car, I have no problem putting them in jail if their child dies.  

 

Again, part of the problem here may be splitting hairs over what the word "careless" means.  Negligent homicide would be an example as well.  

Well right, it is semantic, but there's very precise legal definitions for what we mean by negligence, criminal negligence, and recklessness.   When you put your kid in the car, you are being more than careless (i.e. not thinking about the risks), you ignore the risks that a person substantially should know in a way that's likely to cause harm.   

 

When the FBI director called Clinton's actions careless, he used that word conscientiously as a prosecutor, indicating that we don't punish such behavior with criminal liability.   

 

For some this might be splitting hairs, but the law takes such distinctions very seriously.

[formerly33]

I agree, she gets too much flak.  Has for a long time.  I think a sizable portion of that is misogyny, but to run behind that for every criticism weakens it.  In fact, i'd argue it's a kind of soft sexism in and of itself.  As if Clinton can't be criticized because she's a woman because criticism is always because she's a woman and not because she's, I don't know, worthy of criticism.

 

I mean, if I criticize Obama for his drone policies, am I doing it because he's black?  Or can I criticize him independently of his race?  If I criticize Cruz for his vile beliefs about homosexuality, am I doing that because he's Canadian/hispanic?    Or can I criticize him independently?

 

And here's the thing, again, not everything has to be mutually exclusive: I can criticize her for getting off easy because of her privilege and still agree the right is ridiculous in their criticism, often doing so in a misogynistic way.  Again, not mutually exclusive.

 

Um, wait a minute. Because we've acknowledged that much of the criticism she comes under is due to misogyny, we no longer believe people can criticize her without being misogynistic? Cripes. Stop overgeneralizing.

 

You know, I don't even try to twist everything back to sexism. Nor does ChiTown. But since you really seem to want me to, by all means, I can do that. I really can.

 

What if the Clintons in general came under undeserved criticism because Hillary didn't fulfill a traditional first lady's role (or, since the criticism started before then, a potential first lady's role)? Wouldn't that kind of make null the argument that because Bill came under criticism, too, then obviously it's not sexist to criticize Hillary?

 

Or how about this: what the hell does Bill's competency have to do with Hillary's, and vice versa? Do you really think that a woman is incapable of doing anything without the levelheaded input from her male counterpart?

 

Oh, or this (taken from the article that sums up your views exactly):

 

Reporters who’ve spent time with Hillary Clinton find that she’s absorbed this view, that she and Bill feel they can’t catch a break with the press, and so she isn't too concerned about taking actions that could exacerbate the problem.

 

Yeah, and even though it's not morally wrong for a woman to wear a miniskirt, eyeliner, or drink, if she gets raped, it's her own fault because she reached a point where she felt like she couldn't catch a break from men, so she decided to do whatever the hell she felt like doing. Now I know the rape was horrible and she didn't deserve it, but c'mon, if she'd only shown a little concern over taking actions which could exacerbate the problem, it wouldn't have happened. She asked for a preventable situation. Hopefully she learned her lesson.

 

You do realize that's what you sound like, right?

[TheLeviathan]

 

We all know that Levi.  But your foray into this conversation was in reply to my response to someone else, who expressed bewilderment that Clinton wasn't charged.  

 

Sure, but my point was that you were being too dismissive of her actions even if it didn't rise to criminality.  There is, at least weakly, a case for negligence on her part.  And when you're dealing with classified information and all that jazz, negligence is potentially criminal or, at least, punished with (as I put it) "far worse consequences".  

 

I don't think we should dismiss what she did too easily.  I think it can, and should, be taken into consideration in deciding whether or not she'd be a good President.  

 

As for the legal definitions, I agree that what you were referring to as "carelessness" was probably not intended to rise to a criminal level.  But really, when we are deciding criminal negligence we're basically arguing "was the person SO careless it's a crime"?   Hence what I was saying about the fact that it can rise to criminality.  So, yeah, we're probably not disagreeing, just not being precise enough.

[TheLeviathan]

 

\What if the Clintons in general came under undeserved criticism because Hillary didn't fulfill a traditional first lady's role (or, since the criticism started before then, a potential first lady's role)? Wouldn't that kind of make null the argument that because Bill came under criticism, too, then obviously it's not sexist to criticize Hillary?

 

Or how about this: what the hell does Bill's competency have to do with Hillary's, and vice versa? Do you really think that a woman is incapable of doing anything without the levelheaded input from her male counterpart?

 

I think the first criticism is true.  I think a great deal of the push back she gets is because she's asserting herself into a role that many feel a woman shouldn't have.  

 

And I don't think Hillary should ever answer any question about Bill with any response other than (to this effect) "I'm running for President, not my husband"  Anyone who insinuates this is Bill going for a third term or anything of that ilk is absolutely misogynistic.  Ditto anything said about her appearance.  

Yeah, and even though it's not morally wrong for a woman to wear a miniskirt, eyeliner, or drink, if she gets raped, it's her own fault because she reached a point where she felt like she couldn't catch a break from men, so she decided to do whatever the hell she felt like doing. Now I know the rape was horrible and she didn't deserve it, but c'mon, if she'd only shown a little concern over taking actions which could exacerbate the problem, it wouldn't have happened. She asked for a preventable situation. Hopefully she learned her lesson.

You do realize that's what you sound like, right?

 

 

That's a really tortured analogy.  I honestly have no idea how you got to that point to twist the quote that way.   A woman choosing to drink or wear whatever she wants is not the same as blatantly disregarding laws/codes of conduct about national security.  No reasonable person would say a woman choosing to drink is careless, stupid or arrogant.  But Clinton's actions with the server were stupid, arrogant, and careless.  Honestly, trying to make that analogy is really misguided and out of context.

[Badsmerf]

You guys are becoming redundant.

 

Here is the reason Clinton and Powell didn't get in trouble: there isn't a policy in place for it. Plus, Clinton used a private server after Powell did, and used the same server Bill Clinton used. This issue is stupid.

[TheLeviathan]

Here is something interesting.

 

O'Reilly's already wacky antics look like they are taking a full turn down the "holy crap that's crazy" path.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Sure, but my point was that you were being too dismissive of her actions even if it didn't rise to criminality.  

Here it is again, that straw man.  Just because I deny her behavior doesn't rise to criminality, doesn't mean I'm being too dismissive of her actions.   They aren't mutually exclusive (as you are fond of saying).  In fact, at the end of my post I said that her actions were stupid, careless, and arrogant.  That's not being dismissive.   

 

I think you just used my post as a jumping off point to speak to generally about a phenomenon that bothers you, which is fine if you're sure to couch it in those terms, and not level the criticism at the undeserving, particular person.

[formerly33]

That's a really tortured analogy.  I honestly have no idea how you got to that point to twist the quote that way.   A woman choosing to drink or wear whatever she wants is not the same as blatantly disregarding laws/codes of conduct about national security.  No reasonable person would say a woman choosing to drink is careless, stupid or arrogant.  But Clinton's actions with the server were stupid, arrogant, and careless.  Honestly, trying to make that analogy is really misguided and out of context.

Glad you edited that last bit because the differences between the original and the second version seem to imply that maybe you do get the analogy after all. But nope, I don't think it was misguided and out of context. I won't argue with you on it because, to be honest, any analogy could be easily chalked up to misguided and out of context. If you want to take it that way ... whatever.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Here it is again, that straw man.  Just because I deny her behavior doesn't rise to criminality, doesn't mean I'm being too dismissive of her actions.   They aren't mutually exclusive (as you are fond of saying).  In fact, at the end of my post I said that her actions were stupid, careless, and arrogant.  That's not being dismissive.   

 

I think you just used my post as a jumping off point to speak to generally about a phenomenon that bothers you, which is fine if you're sure to couch it in those terms, and not level the criticism at the undeserving, particular person.

 

Fair enough, I apologize.  I took your aggressive stance on it as dismissive, but if you were just being that aggressive about the criminal angle I can see that.  Certainly the "lock her up" stuff is ridiculous.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Glad you edited that last bit because the differences between the original and the second version seem to imply that maybe you do get the analogy after all. But nope, I don't think it was misguided and out of context. I won't argue with you on it because, to be honest, any analogy could be easily chalked up to misguided and out of context. If you want to take it that way ... whatever.

 

I edited it because I felt like you'd get distracted by it rather than seeing why that analogy doesn't fit.  And it doesn't fit.  I mean, if we can just ignore the actual merits of anyone's decisions and concentrate only on the negative consequence and blame them for it, we're going to make all sorts of tortured analogies that don't fit.  

 

As an example, I could turn a perfectly fair criticism of Debby Wasserman-Schultz into the same analogy you did.  I doubt you'd agree that it fits for the same reasons I'm suggesting your analogy doesn't fit.  Because Wasserman-Schultz's actions, like Hillary's, are ones that reasonable people can actually condemn in and of themselves unlike a choice to drink or wear certain clothing.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Here is something interesting.

 

O'Reilly's already wacky antics look like they are taking a full turn down the "holy crap that's crazy" path.

Sure Bill, it's a simple historical fact (and just thorough journalism) to point out that slaves who built the Whitehouse were "well-fed and housed at the government expense" ...  

[TheLeviathan]

 

Sure Bill, it's a simple historical fact (and just thorough journalism) to point out that slaves who built the Whitehouse were "well-fed and housed at the government expense" ...  

 

Pfft, that makes it all ok.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Fair enough, I apologize.  I took your aggressive stance on it as dismissive, but if you were just being that aggressive about the criminal angle I can see that.  Certainly the "lock her up" stuff is ridiculous.

Hey, I appreciate the apology, even on the internet they are difficult to hand out.  

And I probably open myself up to a variety of criticism with such assertiveness/aggressiveness. 

[TheLeviathan]

I chalk it up to these conventions, it's really easy to get riled up and annoyed.  I know for me personally, I've come to start to really believe Trump is going to win.  That probably puts me more on edge than I'd like to be and is unfair to anyone I try and talk to about politics.

[DaveW]

 

 

What it comes down to for me:

 

Hillary isn't perfect, but she is by far the best option we all have. (No, Gary Johnson or Jill Stein aren't legitimate options)

 

People can pine for Warren (who didn't run), Biden (who didn't run) and sanders (who lost by 3 million votes) all they want.

 

I for one have been team Hilldawg for quite sometime and think she will make an excellent Comander in Chief. It's really way past overdue for people to drop the email "scandal!!11!!!!1"

[PseudoSABR]

 

 But really, when we are deciding criminal negligence we're basically arguing "was the person SO careless it's a crime"?   

I don't want to belabor this.  But we're not asking about the degree of the carelessness rather we are putting that carelessness in context of what the person knew (or should have known) about the risk and their response to that risk as compared to what they "should" do.  To me it's a difference in type and not degree.  

 

The guy who waves his gun around firing haphazardly in a crowd of people is different from the guy who shoots at targets on his farm.  Both guys might end up hurting people through carelessness, but one of them is a lot more culpable than the other.

[TheLeviathan]

To Dave's point:  Someone will have to help me with who was making this point, but one speaker was really emphasizing Hillary's ability to work across the aisle.  I think that is a very, very smart strategy.  The right is so obsessed with NOT doing that, that emphasizing that angle is really going to work in her favor for the middle of the country.  

 

I tend to think a lot of people are annoyed with the obstructionism of the right and those in favor of it were never going to vote for her anyway.  Plus, I think it's actually something to her credit.  She's an actual, effective politician.  You may not always love the results, but sometimes that's the price of compromise.  The hope is that over time you pull things in the right direction and I'd say she's been successful at that.

[PseudoSABR]

 

To Dave's point:  Someone will have to help me with who was making this point, but one speaker was really emphasizing Hillary's ability to work across the aisle.  I think that is a very, very smart strategy.  The right is so obsessed with NOT doing that, that emphasizing that angle is really going to work in her favor for the middle of the country.  

 

I tend to think a lot of people are annoyed with the obstructionism of the right and those in favor of it were never going to vote for her anyway.  Plus, I think it's actually something to her credit.  She's an actual, effective politician.  You may not always love the results, but sometimes that's the price of compromise.  The hope is that over time you pull things in the right direction and I'd say she's been successful at that.

I thought Obama made a strong about point about how Trump (and really the Tea Party) is outside of the typical conservative and liberal divide, a divide that historically has been able to govern, sometimes very effectively. 

 

On Obama's speech, that line: "We do not look to be ruled," was so deft and exact in its criticism, though in text (and without context) it loses much of its import. 

[BeenHazy]

Obama's speech shows the Dems that it's a good idea to attack not only Trump the self-centered sexist braggart, but the pessemistic, angry, bigoted movement of Trumpism as a whole.   That's how to win the center without abandoning the left.

 

Trumpism also lets the left define itself as patriotic in a way that it never quite could versus old-school right-wing jingoism.  

 

If the undecideds eventually feel just a little bit better about Hillary, she'll win in a landslide.  If they don't, attacking Trump and Trumpism is still very likely to be enough.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Trumpism also lets the left define itself as patriotic in a way that it never quite could versus old-school right-wing jingoism.  

I noticed that too.  Suddenly, the left is decrying (and not without good reason), "This is already a Great country!"  Though when I heard similar phrasing more than once it felt oddly disingenuous, ignoring the very real perceived disenfranchisement of both the right and the left working class.   I wondered if that would actually play well.

 

In any case, thanks for articulating your thoughts. I hope you keep it up. 

[Badsmerf]

So what, exactly was orielly trying to prove with the first clip? If he was defending slavery, or trying to point out that not only slaves built the white house.... what the **** was he talking about? I get that the headlines inaccurately described what he said, but come on man. Was it a history lesson? Why doesn't he fact check trump like that? Sooner he is done the better.