Neo

Of course we are interested in the Middle East because of oil. James Earl Carter. I supported that, too. I did respond. May 4, this thread.

There's a difference between being wrong and lying. You either know that or you don't. I think you do. I'll say "lie" when I have evidence. Ok, you've explained me. Explain 68 nations, the UN, Clinton, Kerry and Biden, among a thousand others. Did he fool the world? I thought he was dumb! Link on the most plugged in in history. I use lie very cautiously ... If you don't, it has no meaning.

Correct. That was the analysis of our intelligence community, the UN inspection teams, 68 nations, Clinton, Kerry, and Biden.

I have mixed feelings on President Bush, bit I think the whole "Bush lied" is the shallowest, most insincere, uninformed political analysis of my adult lifetime. "You can keep your doctor" when your advisors have told you you can't, and when those advisors subsequently say "we had to deceive or it wouldn't have passed" is an example of a lie. Bush got it wrong. He didn't lie.

I really don't remember many protesting the drum beats. Kennedy, I've mentioned. Barbara Boxer. Clinton, Kerry and Biden all voted yes. The majority of Dems voted yes. The strategic importance of the Persian Gulf, because of its oil, and the US's claim to the legitimate use of force to secure the flow of oil is, essentially, the Carter Doctrine. Going in wasn't unanimous, but it was overwhelmingly bipartisan and had UN support. I supported it. BAD decision, but I own it. Cheney's a boogeyman. Everyone owns it or is guilty of being hoodwinked by a Vice President in the opposition party. Can you imagine a Republican who voted for the ACA saying, ten years from now, that Joe Biden fooled him? It's silly. Bad decision. Both parties, the UN, and 68 nations own it. Dick Cheney fooled no one. If YOU forsaw the consequences at the time, and I take you at your word, you're more prescient than me. You're more prescient than almost all.

Maybe wrong about a detail, but your larger point was dead on. It would've been interesting to see him vote, though. "No" would've taken great courage when the country wanted "yes". I've said it before - Ted Kennedy was a "no". Most were not.

Insight

Are you fooling around about the sixties and seventies? I recall (as a very young boy) The summer of Love, Woodstock and Studio 54. My grandparents were right about Elvis Presley's hips!

Agree regarding the ground game. I don't think President Obama was in the Senate at the time of the vote on Iraq, however. Gave him the best of all primary positions against Hillary: "I would have voted "no"". Historians, keep me honest!

If more shared NS's mindset toward any issue he's commented on, the world would be much better off. Excellent observation, Bio. Also, excellent signature with props to you and LGR4GM.

I think you may be on to something. Perhaps there's not really a lot to think about beyond the Sturm und Drang (awesome, btw). I'll stop short of your final word (ignorant) - I usually do! However, to your point, Trump has a very large (awful term alert) of low information voter support.

You are more succinct than me. I like it.

I don't think it's a "far right thing". He's not the farthest right, by a long shot. In fact, other candidates differentiate themselves from him by saying, generally, that he's not (a true) conservative. He's been a Democrat more often than a Republican, at least over the last decade plus. He may be the most "left" of Republican candidates. Something I've heard several times on the news, but haven't been able to find - Trump polls highest with Democratic voters among the Republican candidates. Granted, it's not very high! It's part message, part style, and part anti-establishment. Don't discount the message (crossover polling, above). I think it explains more of his numbers than the other two factors, which can be positive and negative. Interesting - the richest candidate resonating as a populist in the party less inclined toward populists. I'll not vote for Trump. Presidents can't shoot from the hip, especially when they switch hips daily. That said, when he's listing challenges and their root causes, and when he's broadly outlining policy in response, I agree more often than not. That can be said, by me, about almost all of the GOP candidates. I have my biases. My point is that Trump's colorful approach and flamboyance haven't prevented me from being interest in the issues he prioritizes. Simply so that it's addressed, his whole birth certificate take several years ago was flapdoodle and pandering of the lowest kind. Here's what I like about him. When confronted with "but your solution will be hard on .... or unpopular with ....", he replies "yeah, so what, you have a better idea?". That resonates with me - kicking cans down roads in order to promise more or avoid tough calls is my LEAST favorite government activity. That activity's evil twin is "we need to take more of your resources away from you" to help us promise, kick, or avoid the difficult. Further, he's an American optimist. End of the longest post I've ever made about someone I'm not considering for my vote!

Thank you .... I added a post script, in fairness to the women I quoted.

Mr. Hoss: somewhere between nowhere and everywhere are places like rarely, common and pervasive. I have no clue as to the extent the concept appears in curricula. My experience tells me it's at least common, if not pervasive. It's certainly not rare. Now, I don't necessarily mind if the concept is discussed, in class, for open minds to consider. Same goes for any concept. I'd raise my hand and say "you're nuts, and here's why ...". My argument would carry the day, or not. My concern is doctrine and professors who indoctrinate. A topic for another day. Your opinion would interest me. You say it's not common. Are you challenging the frequency or the idea? In other words, is your thought "I agree with the poster that it's insane, but it's not common" or "it's an idea with little support, and therefore not common"? No assignment - that question occurred to me. I believe you're younger than me, and closer to university aged people. I have primarily my kids, their friends, and what they've shared with me. Google Mackinnon and Dworkin. They're pre-eminent and I've seen them both described as radical feminists. No disrespect. I have no clue what lies in their hearts and minds, but they've each discussed "all sex is rape" earnestly. That's a great exercise for a civilization. Their final conclusion is unfamiliar to me. I think it's safe to say they're at least sympathetic to the idea and I think it's fair to say it's a common dialog. Post script: A brief search (inter webs, baby) has both Mackinnon and Dworkin denying the "all sex is rape" statement. I note this in fairness to them. Dworkin said " .... penetrative intercourse is, by its nature, violent ... but not all sex is rape". Still in the same ballpark as the original quote, at least for conversation. Still nuts, too, in my view. Mackinnon writes "It seems to me we have here a convergence between the rapist's view of what he has done and the victim's perspective on what was done to her. That is, for both, their ordinary experiences of heterosexual intercourse and the act of rape have something in common". I self correct to be fair. I think nfreeman's observation is fundamentally sound. The dialogue takes place. I also think it's common. I worry it's doctrine in some classes.

Hoss, as always. You're willingness to plow into data is much appreciated. Eleven, interesting concept and topic.

AGREEMENT ... Neo and LGR .... have you seen the NFL version? I'm sure you have ... SPND .... grateful ...

Grateful all ... Insight on morality and economics.

I became aware of the "all sex is rape" concept years ago. "Aware" is the correct word. I'm no scholar. Mackinnon, Dworkin, and pop culture came together in many discussions. Their views aren't, in fairness, represented In totality by the "all sex is rape" statement. I try to see it from as many points of view as possible. I can get only to "I'm nuts, or they're nuts" when hearing all sex is rape. Interesting side note: Radical/extreme anything loses me when it's pronouncements become slogans and dogma.

Well, I took him seriously throughout, but I'll look at his crime rate claim. I believe he has a bias, but that wasn't my primary source of interest. In short, the piece isn't interesting to me because of his view with regard to any particular path. I, too, don't "feel" a rise in crime. Instead, I'm interested in how he characterizes groups of voters and what they're looking for, statistics be damned. Without agreeing or disagreeing with him, his philosopher, or any statistic, I found his characterization of the three political offerings and their constituencies very interesting. This is born in my curiosity around Trump's appeal, not my belief that the author demonstrates one or the other points of view to be best. I have those thoughts, too. Quite separate!

I spend time thinking about Donald Trump. I'm not interested in him as a candidate as much as I'm interested in the mind set of those who support him. My interest is more "what does his popularity say about us" than "what is he saying about himself". I found the following interesting, party affiliation notwithstanding. Read the following thinking of the voter, not the candidate. Alert: Ayn Rand is referenced extensively. Many of you know I'm sympathetic to her analysis. I'll give similar advice. Read the following thinking of the voter, not the philosopher. In short, I find the characterization of the electorate interesting. http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/08/trumps_appeal_a_new_beginning_or_the_last_gasp_of_america.html PS: DRK4 - this is in some ways structured like Ian Bremmer's analysis about our role in the world, but with a domestic, self governing, slant. If I remember correctly, you read Bremmer's book. I read only Noonan's excerpts.

I've been following. Musing ... as we move toward society recognizing affirmative consent, what becomes of the intoxicated? Can a drunk person consent in any meaningful way? A minor lacks capacity. One side of the coin: you need affirmative consent from your partner to proceed. The other side of the coin: you proceed joyfully until your partner objects. A coin standing on edge: "You never said "no"". "I never said "yes"". Both hung-over the following morning. Rape? I've attended four college orientation days with my kids. Good people have wildly different points of view.

My free market views are well known. I hope my human being affinity is, as well. I came of age when Gordon Gekko was explaining "Greed ... is good". I understood the math and the market's craving for efficiency. I also worked for a large firm rationalizing (love that term) its workforce. While I understand the inevitability of equilibrium, I will never forget my bosses and the personal consequences to them They were twenty five and thirty years older than me. Changing the rules on human beings at that stage of their careers was unpleasant. I'll not forget the humanity. I wore a yellow tie, slicked back my hair, but learned great lessons in compassion. I learned employers were counterparties, not benevolent providers. Stay relevant is the recommendation I make to the young today. I admire your positive attitude.