|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
United States42698 Posts
|
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On April 01 2017 04:57 KwarK wrote: He'll make it four. Eight if Clinton 2020 becomes a thing.
|
On April 01 2017 03:32 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2017 02:52 Acrofales wrote:On April 01 2017 00:58 Nevuk wrote:The Washington Post ran a profile of Karen Pence, the wife of Vice President Mike Pence, on Wednesday. The piece talks about the closeness of the Pences’ relationship, and cites something Pence told The Hill in 2002: Unless his wife is there, he never eats alone with another woman or attends an event where alcohol is being served. (It’s unclear whether, 15 years later, this remains Pence’s practice.) It’s not in the Post piece, but here’s the original quote from 2002: “‘If there's alcohol being served and people are being loose, I want to have the best-looking brunette in the room standing next to me,’ Pence said.”
Some folks—mostly journalists and entertainers on Twitter—have reacted with surprise, anger, and sarcasm to the Pence family rule. Socially liberal or non-religious people may see Pence’s practice as misogynistic or bizarre. For a lot of conservative religious people, though, this set-up probably sounds normal, or even wise. The dust-up shows how radically notions of gender divide American culture.
Pence is not the first contemporary public figure to set these kinds of boundaries around his marriage. He seems to be following a version of the so-called Billy Graham rule, named for the famous evangelist who established similar guidelines for the pastors working in his ministry. In his autobiography, Graham notes that he and his colleagues worried about the temptations of sexual immorality that come from long days on the road and a lot of time away from family. They resolved to “avoid any situation that would even have the appearance of compromise or suspicion.” From that day on, Graham said, he “did not travel, meet, or eat alone with a woman other than my wife.” It was a way of following Paul’s advice to Timothy in the Bible, Graham wrote: to “flee … youthful lusts.”
The Hill article gives more context on how the Pences were thinking about this, at least back in 2002. Pence told the paper he often refused dinner or cocktail invitations from male colleagues, too: “It’s about building a zone around your marriage,” he said. “I don’t think it’s a predatory town, but I think you can inadvertently send the wrong message by being in [certain] situations.”
The 2002 article notes that Pence arrived in Congress a half decade after the 1994 “Republican revolution,” when Newt Gingrich was the speaker of the House. Several congressional marriages, including Gingrich’s, encountered difficulty that year. Pence seemed wary of this. “I’ve lost more elections than I’ve won,” he said. “I’ve seen friends lose their families. I’d rather lose an election.” He even said he gets fingers wagged in his face by concerned Indianans. “Little old ladies come and say, ‘Honey, whatever you need to do, keep your family together,’” he told The Hill.
These comments show that the Pences have a distinctively conservative approach toward family, sex, and gender. This is by no means the way that all Christians, or even all evangelical Christians like the Pences, navigate married life. But traditional religious people from other backgrounds may practice something similar. Many Orthodox Jews follow the laws of yichud, which prohibit unmarried men and women from being alone in a closed room together. Some Muslim men and women also refuse to be together alone if they’re not married. These practices all have different histories and origins, but they’re rooted in the same belief: The sanctity of marriage should be protected, and sexual immorality should be guarded against at all costs.
That idea might seem disorienting to more socially progressive Americans. For one thing, it shows a deep awareness of gender and sexuality: The implication is that temptations to flirt or cheat are present in everyday interactions.
Some journalists on Twitter quickly pointed out that Pence’s rules may function, in practice, to perpetuate professional and political disadvantages against women. If men in power can meet alone with other men but not women, they’ll just keep doing the business of being powerful in an all-male world. And it parallels critiques of the Billy Graham Rule that’ve been leveled within the evangelical community, as well, where it’s also been blamed for subjecting professional relationships to the logic of a sexually permissive society.
Other critics connected these views to Pence’s stance on LGBT issues. When he was governor of Indiana, he presided over a controversial religious-freedom bill that, LGBT advocates claimed, would have allowed business owners to discriminate against them. Pence’s marriage rules implicitly suggest there’s a temptation in being alone with women, but not in being alone with men, which is not the experience of a lot of people, including LGBT Christians.
But it’s also true that these aren’t just rules by, for, and about Mike Pence. This is how he and his wife, together, have chosen to navigate their marriage. That some people are so quick to be angered—and others are totally unsurprised—shows how divided America has become about the fundamental claim embedded in the Pence family rule: that understandings of gender should guide the boundaries around people’s everyday interactions, and protecting a marriage should take precedence over all else, even if the way of doing it seems strange to some, and imposes costs on others.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/karen-pence-is-the-vice-presidents-prayer-warrior-gut-check-and-shield/2017/03/28/3d7a26ce-0a01-11e7-8884-96e6a6713f4b_story.html?utm_term=.ab1c54954ee5This is interesting. And I mean that in purely a neutral sense. I'm confused why anybody would be upset by that. I personally wouldn't lead my life that way. My fiancé trusts me and I trust her. But how the Pences arrange their marriage is entirely up to them and if you don't like it, get your nose out of their business... If you want to be entirely disgusted by media figures, go search "Pence wife filter:verified" of a time a day or two days past to see blue checks calling this unempowering and disgusting, practically misogyny. Show nested quote +Sincere question. How is this different from extreme repressive interpretations of Islam ("Sharia Law!") mocked by people like Mike Pence
@commiegirl1 who knew Mike Pence had uncontrollable sexual compulsions so serious he can't be alone w a woman who's not his wife? I feel like there are valid criticisms of Pence's practice... but a lot of the ones being leveled are patently absurd.
Also, I'm not entirely sure why people think it impossible for there to be some sort of scandal from a lone meeting with another guy either.
|
On April 01 2017 04:21 farvacola wrote: One way or another, when a woman cannot meet with the Vice President of the United States one-on-one because he either A) cannot control his sexual appetite or B) is observing his and his wife's religious/gender views, something should seem off. Add in the fact that many conservative male politicians adhere to this view and its suddenly not all that surprising that they'd come up with stuff like legitimate rape. If keeping to a rule like Pence's for temptation recala to your mind legitimate rape, you might be part of the reason why Trimp was elected. See, he even wears his seat belt for a short drive, does he not trust his driver?
The death of reason.
|
On April 01 2017 04:57 KwarK wrote: He'll make it four.
It's been less than 3 months so far. Four years is going to be an eternity. There are forces in both parties and on his own staff that would like to see him go and Pence take over, he's not going to be able to outmaneuver them.
My 2020 prediction, is that Republicans want Pence so they can both get rid of Trump and have a primary in 2020.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Trump might decline to run in 2020 but removing him would be tough.
As for Pence's religious antics... unfortunately not too far out of the norm for American churchgoing Christians. I know too many otherwise sane people who still stand by those customs in ways that the rest of us won't find reasonable.
|
On April 01 2017 05:12 LegalLord wrote: Trump might decline to run in 2020 but removing him would be tough.
As for Pence's religious antics... unfortunately not too far out of the norm for American churchgoing Christians. I know too many otherwise sane people who still stand by those customs in ways that the rest of us won't find reasonable.
I mean all they have to do is get him to testify under oath and getting him to perjure himself should be ezpz. He already picked a fight with the people who were least likely to support it and has put all his eggs in the "establishment" basket, apparently forgetting that they worked against him the entire campaign up until they thought they had no other choice.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On April 01 2017 05:15 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2017 05:12 LegalLord wrote: Trump might decline to run in 2020 but removing him would be tough.
As for Pence's religious antics... unfortunately not too far out of the norm for American churchgoing Christians. I know too many otherwise sane people who still stand by those customs in ways that the rest of us won't find reasonable. I mean all they have to do is get him to testify under oath and getting him to perjure himself should be ezpz. He already picked a fight with the people who were least likely to support it and has put all his eggs in the "establishment" basket, apparently forgetting that they worked against him the entire campaign up until they thought they had no other choice. He needs to convince enough Republicans that waiting out the storm is worse than impeachment. That will be very hard.
|
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/michael-flynn-immunity-turned-down-rejected-senate-intel-committee-trump-russia-a7660696.html
The Senate Intelligence Committee has reportedly turned down Michael Flynn's request for immunity from prosecution in exchange for being interviewed as part of their investigation into Russia's alleged hacking of the 2016 presidential election.
Mr Flynn's lawyer was told immunity was “wildly preliminary” and “not on the table” at this point, a senior congressional official told NBC. It does not necessarily rule out immunity at a later date, as the investigation is still being pursued.
President Donald Trump has supported the decision of his former national security adviser to seek immunity in exchange for his testimony in congressional probes of possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia.
|
On April 01 2017 05:15 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2017 05:12 LegalLord wrote: Trump might decline to run in 2020 but removing him would be tough.
As for Pence's religious antics... unfortunately not too far out of the norm for American churchgoing Christians. I know too many otherwise sane people who still stand by those customs in ways that the rest of us won't find reasonable. I mean all they have to do is get him to testify under oath and getting him to perjure himself should be ezpz. He already picked a fight with the people who were least likely to support it and has put all his eggs in the "establishment" basket, apparently forgetting that they worked against him the entire campaign up until they thought they had no other choice. avoiding perjury isn't that hard, and trump has had a lot of practice at it. Also, the real problem is getting enough public support that the republicans are willing to remove him (i.e. that it won't hurt them too much to do so), if the perjury is only over some pissant thing it's not likely to be enough. and if there is enough support to remove trump you can just amendment 25 and don't need a perjury case. so the limiting factor is really public perception of trump and how it will affect the republicans' reelections to go against him hard.
|
United States42698 Posts
On April 01 2017 05:08 GreenHorizons wrote:It's been less than 3 months so far. Four years is going to be an eternity. There are forces in both parties and on his own staff that would like to see him go and Pence take over, he's not going to be able to outmaneuver them. My 2020 prediction, is that Republicans want Pence so they can both get rid of Trump and have a primary in 2020. He also won't step aside. After all the politicians tactfully explained that he didn't have the votes and couldn't get the votes and that it'd be better to avoid the battle than lose it he still tried to railroad the Freedom Caucus on the Obamacare repeal. If in three years they say "we're beginning impeachment proceedings, we have the votes, we have the evidence, please resign for the good of the party" it'll go about as well as forcing through AHCA.
|
Canada11350 Posts
On April 01 2017 05:04 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2017 03:32 Danglars wrote:On April 01 2017 02:52 Acrofales wrote:On April 01 2017 00:58 Nevuk wrote:The Washington Post ran a profile of Karen Pence, the wife of Vice President Mike Pence, on Wednesday. The piece talks about the closeness of the Pences’ relationship, and cites something Pence told The Hill in 2002: Unless his wife is there, he never eats alone with another woman or attends an event where alcohol is being served. (It’s unclear whether, 15 years later, this remains Pence’s practice.) It’s not in the Post piece, but here’s the original quote from 2002: “‘If there's alcohol being served and people are being loose, I want to have the best-looking brunette in the room standing next to me,’ Pence said.”
Some folks—mostly journalists and entertainers on Twitter—have reacted with surprise, anger, and sarcasm to the Pence family rule. Socially liberal or non-religious people may see Pence’s practice as misogynistic or bizarre. For a lot of conservative religious people, though, this set-up probably sounds normal, or even wise. The dust-up shows how radically notions of gender divide American culture.
Pence is not the first contemporary public figure to set these kinds of boundaries around his marriage. He seems to be following a version of the so-called Billy Graham rule, named for the famous evangelist who established similar guidelines for the pastors working in his ministry. In his autobiography, Graham notes that he and his colleagues worried about the temptations of sexual immorality that come from long days on the road and a lot of time away from family. They resolved to “avoid any situation that would even have the appearance of compromise or suspicion.” From that day on, Graham said, he “did not travel, meet, or eat alone with a woman other than my wife.” It was a way of following Paul’s advice to Timothy in the Bible, Graham wrote: to “flee … youthful lusts.”
The Hill article gives more context on how the Pences were thinking about this, at least back in 2002. Pence told the paper he often refused dinner or cocktail invitations from male colleagues, too: “It’s about building a zone around your marriage,” he said. “I don’t think it’s a predatory town, but I think you can inadvertently send the wrong message by being in [certain] situations.”
The 2002 article notes that Pence arrived in Congress a half decade after the 1994 “Republican revolution,” when Newt Gingrich was the speaker of the House. Several congressional marriages, including Gingrich’s, encountered difficulty that year. Pence seemed wary of this. “I’ve lost more elections than I’ve won,” he said. “I’ve seen friends lose their families. I’d rather lose an election.” He even said he gets fingers wagged in his face by concerned Indianans. “Little old ladies come and say, ‘Honey, whatever you need to do, keep your family together,’” he told The Hill.
These comments show that the Pences have a distinctively conservative approach toward family, sex, and gender. This is by no means the way that all Christians, or even all evangelical Christians like the Pences, navigate married life. But traditional religious people from other backgrounds may practice something similar. Many Orthodox Jews follow the laws of yichud, which prohibit unmarried men and women from being alone in a closed room together. Some Muslim men and women also refuse to be together alone if they’re not married. These practices all have different histories and origins, but they’re rooted in the same belief: The sanctity of marriage should be protected, and sexual immorality should be guarded against at all costs.
That idea might seem disorienting to more socially progressive Americans. For one thing, it shows a deep awareness of gender and sexuality: The implication is that temptations to flirt or cheat are present in everyday interactions.
Some journalists on Twitter quickly pointed out that Pence’s rules may function, in practice, to perpetuate professional and political disadvantages against women. If men in power can meet alone with other men but not women, they’ll just keep doing the business of being powerful in an all-male world. And it parallels critiques of the Billy Graham Rule that’ve been leveled within the evangelical community, as well, where it’s also been blamed for subjecting professional relationships to the logic of a sexually permissive society.
Other critics connected these views to Pence’s stance on LGBT issues. When he was governor of Indiana, he presided over a controversial religious-freedom bill that, LGBT advocates claimed, would have allowed business owners to discriminate against them. Pence’s marriage rules implicitly suggest there’s a temptation in being alone with women, but not in being alone with men, which is not the experience of a lot of people, including LGBT Christians.
But it’s also true that these aren’t just rules by, for, and about Mike Pence. This is how he and his wife, together, have chosen to navigate their marriage. That some people are so quick to be angered—and others are totally unsurprised—shows how divided America has become about the fundamental claim embedded in the Pence family rule: that understandings of gender should guide the boundaries around people’s everyday interactions, and protecting a marriage should take precedence over all else, even if the way of doing it seems strange to some, and imposes costs on others.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/karen-pence-is-the-vice-presidents-prayer-warrior-gut-check-and-shield/2017/03/28/3d7a26ce-0a01-11e7-8884-96e6a6713f4b_story.html?utm_term=.ab1c54954ee5This is interesting. And I mean that in purely a neutral sense. I'm confused why anybody would be upset by that. I personally wouldn't lead my life that way. My fiancé trusts me and I trust her. But how the Pences arrange their marriage is entirely up to them and if you don't like it, get your nose out of their business... If you want to be entirely disgusted by media figures, go search "Pence wife filter:verified" of a time a day or two days past to see blue checks calling this unempowering and disgusting, practically misogyny. Sincere question. How is this different from extreme repressive interpretations of Islam ("Sharia Law!") mocked by people like Mike Pence
@commiegirl1 who knew Mike Pence had uncontrollable sexual compulsions so serious he can't be alone w a woman who's not his wife? I feel like there are valid criticisms of Pence's practice... but a lot of the ones being leveled are patently absurd. Also, I'm not entirely sure why people think it impossible for there to be some sort of scandal from a lone meeting with another guy either. Not impossible, just less probable. If 5% of the population is LGBT... etc. Then there would be a 0.25% chance that those two individuals of the same sex (keeping this simple) were both the interested in the same sex. The mutual compatability percentage would actually be considerably lower because the people represented in the entire list of the LGBTTQQIAAPP2s are not interchangeable, but I've tried to keep it simple.
Whereas if heterosexuality is 95% of the population, then given a pair that are the opposite sex there would be a 90.25% chance that both people are interested in the opposite sex. That says nothing about certain occupations self-selecting to skew demographics and just because you interested in the sex that you are sitting across from, doesn't mean you are attracted to that particular person. So no one should ever argue that it is impossible, but the probability is nowhere near the same. (Someone check my math, I'm a history major, not a math major.)
|
On April 01 2017 05:18 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2017 05:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 01 2017 05:12 LegalLord wrote: Trump might decline to run in 2020 but removing him would be tough.
As for Pence's religious antics... unfortunately not too far out of the norm for American churchgoing Christians. I know too many otherwise sane people who still stand by those customs in ways that the rest of us won't find reasonable. I mean all they have to do is get him to testify under oath and getting him to perjure himself should be ezpz. He already picked a fight with the people who were least likely to support it and has put all his eggs in the "establishment" basket, apparently forgetting that they worked against him the entire campaign up until they thought they had no other choice. He needs to convince enough Republicans that waiting out the storm is worse than impeachment. That will be very hard.
I mean many people think of Nixon as being impeached, but he wasn't, he resigned. He was going to be impeached if he didn't, but he resigned instead. It would be something similar for Trump. If Trump left peacefully I'm sure they would give him a cushy landing, which is what Trump was really after besides the "being president" achievement getting unlocked.
On April 01 2017 05:19 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2017 05:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 01 2017 05:12 LegalLord wrote: Trump might decline to run in 2020 but removing him would be tough.
As for Pence's religious antics... unfortunately not too far out of the norm for American churchgoing Christians. I know too many otherwise sane people who still stand by those customs in ways that the rest of us won't find reasonable. I mean all they have to do is get him to testify under oath and getting him to perjure himself should be ezpz. He already picked a fight with the people who were least likely to support it and has put all his eggs in the "establishment" basket, apparently forgetting that they worked against him the entire campaign up until they thought they had no other choice. avoiding perjury isn't that hard, and trump has had a lot of practice at it. Also, the real problem is getting enough public support that the republicans are willing to remove him (i.e. that it won't hurt them too much to do so), if the perjury is only over some pissant thing it's not likely to be enough. and if there is enough support to remove trump you can just amendment 25 and don't need a perjury case. so the limiting factor is really public perception of trump and how it will affect the republicans' reelections to go against him hard.
With record breaking low approval and picking fights with the wing of Republicans most likely to support him, he's well on his way.
|
well on his way, aye; but still quite aways to go before it'd be worth the risk for most republican politicians. trump still has a lot of very ardent supporters.
|
On April 01 2017 05:26 zlefin wrote: well on his way, aye; but still quite aways to go before it'd be worth the risk for most republican politicians. trump still has a lot of very ardent supporters.
Not for long, this isn't a haphazard thing, they are working hard to peel away support from Trump and it seems to be working.
EDIT: Also Michael Steele seems to agree.
|
|
On April 01 2017 05:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2017 05:18 LegalLord wrote:On April 01 2017 05:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 01 2017 05:12 LegalLord wrote: Trump might decline to run in 2020 but removing him would be tough.
As for Pence's religious antics... unfortunately not too far out of the norm for American churchgoing Christians. I know too many otherwise sane people who still stand by those customs in ways that the rest of us won't find reasonable. I mean all they have to do is get him to testify under oath and getting him to perjure himself should be ezpz. He already picked a fight with the people who were least likely to support it and has put all his eggs in the "establishment" basket, apparently forgetting that they worked against him the entire campaign up until they thought they had no other choice. He needs to convince enough Republicans that waiting out the storm is worse than impeachment. That will be very hard. I mean many people think of Nixon as being impeached, but he wasn't, he resigned. He was going to be impeached if he didn't, but he resigned instead. It would be something similar for Trump. If Trump left peacefully I'm sure they would give him a cushy landing, which is what Trump was really after besides the "being president" achievement getting unlocked. As far as I was aware, impeachment is the act of charging a high government official, not the act of removing them from their position.
And Nixon was investigated and charged, was he not?
|
I'm just reading that the US may support Assad. That might actually be a good idea. I enjoy democracy, but the Middle East is too wild for that. Religion shouldn't be so dominant there for democracy to work.
|
On April 01 2017 04:48 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2017 04:21 farvacola wrote: One way or another, when a woman cannot meet with the Vice President of the United States one-on-one because he either A) cannot control his sexual appetite or B) is observing his and his wife's religious/gender views, something should seem off. Add in the fact that many conservative male politicians adhere to this view and its suddenly not all that surprising that they'd come up with stuff like legitimate rape. How do you go from him not wanting to have dinner one on one with a woman other than his wife to him devaluing the word rape? That is such a jump. In what way is one on one meals required for advancement that could not happen within a small group context? The underlying idea isn't that you have one meal with a woman and you jump straight into bed. But rather while extra-marital relationships form when the two spend an unhealthy amount of time alone together, it starts somewhere and rather innocuously. This practice attempts to nip in the bud by denying opportunity from the beginning- and given some of the career politicians' histories (dear Billy Clinton or Newt Gingerich), perhaps there's something to it. It seems that he has counted the cost on this one: Show nested quote + The 2002 article notes that Pence arrived in Congress a half decade after the 1994 “Republican revolution,” when Newt Gingrich was the speaker of the House. Several congressional marriages, including Gingrich’s, encountered difficulty that year. Pence seemed wary of this. “I’ve lost more elections than I’ve won,” he said. “I’ve seen friends lose their families. I’d rather lose an election.” He even said he gets fingers wagged in his face by concerned Indianans. “Little old ladies come and say, ‘Honey, whatever you need to do, keep your family together,’” he told The Hill.
He was willing to lose elections over people getting outraged over his practice... for the sake of his marriage. I highly respect that because it corresponds to my own values. Way I see it, if that's the way he wants to conduct his personal life, fine. But when he does it at work and makes doing his job along with other people's jobs harder to do, then I think it's fair to be less than thrilled about it. People have shit to do outside of being Pence's hypothetical cock blocking +1.
On April 01 2017 04:58 LegalLord wrote:Eight if Clinton 2020 becomes a thing. Not gonna happen. Even if they pulled the colossally stupid idea of running her again and get away with it, people that stayed in or thought 2016 was going to be a slam dunk will hit the polls. People that protest voted will have incentive enough to not do it again.
|
|
|
|