|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Bisutopia19368 Posts
On February 28 2021 10:11 StalkerTL wrote:
I can't believe people STILL don't get Manchin. He is exactly the same as Susan Collins and why she completely curbstomped Gideon despite Gideon putting forward much better policies that would help Maine. It wasn't even close, Collins rolled her HARD despite being a huge piece of garbage. The split voting was insane in that senate race and the argument that Gideon was a bad candidate doesn't explain how much split voting occurred, something that doesn't really occur in huge numbers anymore.
The reason people vote for either is the same. They're both representing tiny ultimately insignificant states. But what these two senators do is give their states incredible power by showing some willingness to break the party line at times to vote for things that would benefit their state and therefore force people to negotiate with them.
Getting rid of either would mean putting someone who does nothing but add one extra Republican or Democratic vote. People from either state are never going to willingly give up that power. The party choosing to remove either of these senators is probably going to find themselves facing a whole lot of backlash. Small states want to feel important and these senators make them feel that way.
Not to mention both parties deal with both of their bullshit because they do vote party line a lot of the time and getting rid of them is incredibly dangerous even if you ignore the potential backlash risk. You're rolling the dice and trying to see if the state is as left or right wing as you think it is. Dunno about Maine, since New England is strange, but West Virginia would go for some random Republican without a doubt. Doesn't matter if you put in the ghost of George Meany as a candidate, the state isn't voting left wing or anyone pro-collective action.
The guy sucks but he's doing his job as a senator representing the state of West Virginia and the state seems to like him for it.
Edit: Ron DeSantis' environmental record isn't good...? What on earth are you talking about. Florida's education handling during the pandemic peak was woeful as well. Miami is still going to sink into the ocean in the far future, the meager things DeSantis claims to have done (and has done in favour of financial interests) has been a tiny drop in the pond...merely done so he get people off his backs and say "I added a few pennies to conservation funds! What more do you want me to do! Fake news!". It seems to be effective, judging by your response.
Education:
DeSantis just raised the starting salary significantly for Florida teachers
Environment:
* DeSantis has the largest funding for Everglades projects ever. For the first time in decades we are finishing key environment projects that will significantly reduce pollution in the Everglades and have a major positive impact in our most significant fresh drinking water resource for Floridians. See Texas for how to fuck that up.
Look, hate on him all you want, but I follow Floridian issues very closely and if you really want to go toe to toe on the state and federal funding + infrastructure projects he has incorporated to improve the environmental state of Florida, I’d be happy to have that discussion.
|
Recent polling shows 63% of West Virginians support a $15 minimum wage www.wdtv.com
Not the most reliable poll, but it coincides with the recent morning consult poll showing ~60% support from Republicans for the package including $15 min wage (*I read the actual question and they didn't ask about the package passed by the House which includes $15/hr min).
People can make all the excuses they want for Manchin and Democrats but they're straight up failing their constituents on this from where I sit.
|
|
|
Manchin, like all politicians in this country, is capable of letting his constituents down while still being reelected.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/328958/congress-job-approval-rating-improved-points.aspx
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/02/23/poll-congressional-approval-rating-12-year-high-gallup-shows/4558198001/
America does not like Congress, they have a twelve year high approval rating and its still well below 50%, and yet if we assumed that Americans voted purely based on how their elected officials represented them surely Americans would like Congress? They don't though, because Congress doesn't do a tolerable job of representing the American people.
Polling what people actually support is 100% the better method than whether or not they voted for someone because in the US you don't vote for policies you vote for one of two candidates. Isolating the confounding variables that suffocate American politics is absolutely a better way to figure out what Americans want to see happen in America.
If 63% of West Virginians support a 15 dollar minimum wage, but Joe Manchin doesn't and neither does his Republican opponent, then electorally it means noone in West Virginia supports it because noone voted for a candidate that supported a 15 dollar minimum wage.
Competing priorities is definitely a thing when voting for someone, but you can't ignore that the US gives you two real options, in the US so much of voting is "lesser of two evils" that drawing conclusions about what people support based on who they elect just isn't reliable.
Like, if I voted for Biden would you say that it means I didnt support a 15 dollar minimum wage enough to not vote for him? Even with the hordes of people with their inane, "If YoU DoNt VoTe FoR bIdEn YoU vOtE fOr TrUmP!" and other game theory stuff? Politics in the US gets game theoried because frankly it is a game, except the prizes are shit because the prizes offered often aren't anything people really want, like Biden's continued bombing of the middle east.
I cant reiterate how important money is in US politics, Joe Manchin has a shit ton of advantages like being an incumbent, being funded by the DNC, etc. He isn't inherently super popular, if you ran his clone against a Republican and wiped out the incumbent advantage and funded him like the DNC funds long shot campaigns he'd get annihilated. But when everyone knows who you are, you get to run all sorts of ads and spend a ton of money telling people what you "believe" then you're at a massive advantage compared to someone who is unknown and doesnt have millions of dollars to blow on campaigning.
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/538518-majority-of-kentuckians-disapprove-of-mcconnells-job-in-senate
Mitch McConnell had a 41% approval rating, and a 53% disapproval rating, Kentucky doesn't like him very much and with numbers like these its fair to assume that they probably don't love all of his policies. However, Kentuckians probably think better him than a Democrat like Amy McGrath, so despite potentially not agreeing with him on literally anything they're forced to vote against McGrath and vote for McConnell.
Peoples votes in this country aren't just driven by being educated on their politicians and making an analysis about which policies they agree or disagree with, a lot of the time its "I dont like politicians period, but whatever Ive always voted R and I hate the Democrats a lot so I guess I'm voting R," or something like that that makes it extremely hard to divine people's wants based on who they vote for.
|
On February 28 2021 16:15 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2021 10:43 GreenHorizons wrote:Recent polling shows 63% of West Virginians support a $15 minimum wage www.wdtv.comNot the most reliable poll, but it coincides with the recent morning consult poll showing ~60% support from Republicans for the package including $15 min wage (*I read the actual question and they didn't ask about the package passed by the House which includes $15/hr min). People can make all the excuses they want for Manchin and Democrats but they're straight up failing their constituents on this from where I sit. Biden who wants 15 minimum wage lost WV by 39 points!!!! Manchin who does not won his state by 3 points. Those 63% clearly do not support it enough to have it effect their votes. Likely meaning other issues are more important to them. Polls like "do you support x or y" are pretty meaningless. If someone asked me if I supported chicken fingers for lunch I would say yes. If someone said do you want chicken fingers or steak I would pick steak. So if candidate A offers everyone chicken fingers for lunch and B offers steak, I'm picking B and that person is not letting me down for not offering chicken fingers, which I support. Or another one. Do you support steak, yes I do. Candidate A offers chicken fingers for free and B offers steak for 20 bucks. I'd go with A because while I like steak more, I don't like 20 buck steak more than free chicken fingers. And this is all before we even start talking dipping sauces!! If Manchin was letting people down he wouldn't keep crushing in the primary and doing 42 points better than the president, who won the American election, and is in the same party. It is bonkers that a Trump Rep can lose to a Dem in WV given how many people stick to party lines.
Yeah. Main provisions of Obamacare were always popular. It's still one of the most politically costing bill in the last half century.
The fact that something is popular in a vacuum does not mean at all that it will be easy to pass unfortunately.
|
On February 28 2021 16:52 Zambrah wrote:Manchin, like all politicians in this country, is capable of letting his constituents down while still being reelected. + Show Spoiler +https://news.gallup.com/poll/328958/congress-job-approval-rating-improved-points.aspx https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/02/23/poll-congressional-approval-rating-12-year-high-gallup-shows/4558198001/America does not like Congress, they have a twelve year high approval rating and its still well below 50%, and yet if we assumed that Americans voted purely based on how their elected officials represented them surely Americans would like Congress? They don't though, because Congress doesn't do a tolerable job of representing the American people. Polling what people actually support is 100% the better method than whether or not they voted for someone because in the US you don't vote for policies you vote for one of two candidates. Isolating the confounding variables that suffocate American politics is absolutely a better way to figure out what Americans want to see happen in America. If 63% of West Virginians support a 15 dollar minimum wage, but Joe Manchin doesn't and neither does his Republican opponent, then electorally it means noone in West Virginia supports it because noone voted for a candidate that supported a 15 dollar minimum wage. Competing priorities is definitely a thing when voting for someone, but you can't ignore that the US gives you two real options, in the US so much of voting is "lesser of two evils" that drawing conclusions about what people support based on who they elect just isn't reliable. Like, if I voted for Biden would you say that it means I didnt support a 15 dollar minimum wage enough to not vote for him? Even with the hordes of people with their inane, "If YoU DoNt VoTe FoR bIdEn YoU vOtE fOr TrUmP!" and other game theory stuff? Politics in the US gets game theoried because frankly it is a game, except the prizes are shit because the prizes offered often aren't anything people really want, like Biden's continued bombing of the middle east. I cant reiterate how important money is in US politics, Joe Manchin has a shit ton of advantages like being an incumbent, being funded by the DNC, etc. He isn't inherently super popular, if you ran his clone against a Republican and wiped out the incumbent advantage and funded him like the DNC funds long shot campaigns he'd get annihilated. But when everyone knows who you are, you get to run all sorts of ads and spend a ton of money telling people what you "believe" then you're at a massive advantage compared to someone who is unknown and doesnt have millions of dollars to blow on campaigning. https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/538518-majority-of-kentuckians-disapprove-of-mcconnells-job-in-senateMitch McConnell had a 41% approval rating, and a 53% disapproval rating, Kentucky doesn't like him very much and with numbers like these its fair to assume that they probably don't love all of his policies. However, Kentuckians probably think better him than a Democrat like Amy McGrath, so despite potentially not agreeing with him on literally anything they're forced to vote against McGrath and vote for McConnell. Peoples votes in this country aren't just driven by being educated on their politicians and making an analysis about which policies they agree or disagree with, a lot of the time its "I dont like politicians period, but whatever Ive always voted R and I hate the Democrats a lot so I guess I'm voting R," or something like that that makes it extremely hard to divine people's wants based on who they vote for.
Well said. Considering the last presidential election, this shouldn't even be in contention imo. EDIT: For example a near majority of Biden's "support" was actually opposition to Trump.
...polling data from Morning Consult suggests 44% of Biden voters cast their votes for the Democratic nominee as a vote “against” Trump, rather than in support of the former vice president.
...
Only 22% of Trump’s supporters say their vote was mostly against Biden, the data suggests.
www.masslive.com
EDIT2: Rough math tells us that the data suggests more Americans actually voted in support of Trump than in support of Biden.
|
On February 28 2021 16:52 Zambrah wrote:
Peoples votes in this country aren't just driven by being educated on their politicians and making an analysis about which policies they agree or disagree with, a lot of the time its "I dont like politicians period, but whatever Ive always voted R and I hate the Democrats a lot so I guess I'm voting R," or something like that that makes it extremely hard to divine people's wants based on who they vote for.
I mean, I agree with this assessment, but surely you see that it's problematic for your major point here. Manchin is one of the few politicians able to change the mind of the imaginary voter you're quoting. He is a Democrat with very high approval in an electorate that would otherwise vote R. His voters are literally going "I hate the Democrats and generally vote R but I like this particular politician". That's why he has leverage and why it's a losing play for the DNC to just push him out.
Nevuk has made this point multiple times; if you are progressive, Manchin is one of the highest-value dems in congress, measured by how often he votes to the left of his electorate.
If you want to primary people, look for representatives voting to the right of the median voter, like sinema and feinstein. There are plenty of races where the DNC is backing a candidate to the right of the electorate, but WV is not one of them.
If you believe this is a specific issue where even Manchin could be pushed left by his voters, great. Run a buttload of ads in WV telling people that he's standing between them and a payrise. Get them to pressure him. That's way more likely to change his mind than threatening to primary him when everyone knows that would turn WV red for the next decade.
While you're at it, do the same thing everywhere else, too. You could flip a couple of seats entirely with the effort you would need to push Manchin's already-high delta higher.
|
When it comes to Manchin's supposed value, none of his votes made a material difference in favor of Democrats agenda (he did save a Republican a trip by confirming Kavanaugh) until this session when he helped make Schumer majority leader. Whether that provides any significant material benefit compared to having McConnell there is yet to be seen.
EDIT: Worth remembering Manchin also opposed the $1400 checks, but the progressive wing of Democrats effectively pressured him off that position like I think they should/are (ostensibly) trying on $15 min wage.
|
On February 28 2021 19:56 Belisarius wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2021 16:52 Zambrah wrote:
Peoples votes in this country aren't just driven by being educated on their politicians and making an analysis about which policies they agree or disagree with, a lot of the time its "I dont like politicians period, but whatever Ive always voted R and I hate the Democrats a lot so I guess I'm voting R," or something like that that makes it extremely hard to divine people's wants based on who they vote for. I mean, I agree with this assessment, but surely you see that it's problematic for your major point here. Manchin is one of the few politicians able to change the mind of the imaginary voter you're quoting. He is a Democrat with very high approval in an electorate that would otherwise vote R. His voters are literally going "I hate the Democrats and generally vote R but I like this particular politician". That's why he has leverage and why it's a shitty play for the DNC to just push him out. If you want to primary people, do it to sinema and feinstein, all the people who are more conservative than their electorates. Those are the ones where you can actually get something done in the primaries. There are piles and piles of places where the DNC is supporting candidates way to the right of the local median, but WV is not one of them. If you believe this is an issue where he's out of step with his voters, get them to pressure him. Run a buttload of ads in WV telling his voters that he's standing between them and a payrise. Better yet, do it in all the places with inverse-manchins, ones with representatives voting to the right of the population.
I'm not fixated on Manchin any more than I am the rest of the conservative Democrats, hes just the figurehead for them so he gets the attention, just as Mitch McConnell is the Republican senatorial figurehead and Ted Cruz is the fascist senatorial figurehead and Marjorie Taylor Greene is the fascist house figurehead, they get the attention because theyre the shittiest and generally make the news despite having colleagues that are often at least as bad (like Matt Gaetz is to Marjorie Taylor Greene, or Josh Hawley is to Ted Cruz)
I disagree about Manchin being a mind changer, at least lately, being an incumbent means youre doing the opposite of changing people's minds, the incumbant advantage is the things-stay-the-same advantage. He came into his seat during a special election and was already WV's secretary of state and then the governor before he got to the Senate, so he was already ingrained and known in WV politics. Thats not to say that he didn't at some point have that kind of mind-change-affect to him, and I mean, he most probably did given he did keep his Senate seat post special election, but he's deep enough in his career that I think it's fair to say that hes the status quo atm, and the minds have been changed. At this point the Republicans vying for his seat are the mind changers.
But none of that really matters materially, and I completely agree with primarying Sinema and Feinstein, and I also would like to literally every single moderate or conservative Democrat, including Manchin, Id even say AOC and the Squad need to face the fear of primaries too, I advocate primarying everybody because politicians need to be kept on their toes, their comfort comes at the expense of the populace imo. Politicians that feel like theyre going to get elected forever without effort are just going to be incentivized to stop trying to appease their electorate.
Primarying aside, the DNC should also threaten to pull support from their members that won't vote for stuff like a 15 dollar minimum wage because frankly its just popular, and this sort of internal discord makes the Democrats look weak and incompetent and its going to negatively impact their elections in 2022 and most probably 2024 when the Republicans win in 2022 and create a proper Do Nothing Democrat situation for Biden. Manchin is a Democrat, if he doesnt like voting with them he is free to drop the blue and the D next to his name and run with his own money if he feels he's sufficiently popular, but so long as hes a Democrat getting Democrat election support he should have his vote whipped. Republicans are good at whipping their votes, Democrats need to step up because the Republicans are only getting deeper into their fascist hole and if the Democrats can't act as a proper oppositional party fascist Republicans will win.
EDIT: I should say, McConnell should also be counted as a new fascist figurehead in the Senate given his recent comments about supporting Trump when hes the nominee. 
|
|
|
who is ready for some cpac action with a failed insurrection leader as the main speaker?!
|
There's a third accusation against Cuomo, this time with a picture, witness accounts, and contemporary texts.
+ Show Spoiler +Anna Ruch had never met Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo before encountering him at a crowded New York City wedding reception in September 2019. Her first impression was positive enough.
The governor was working the room after toasting the newlyweds, and when he came upon Ms. Ruch, now 33, she thanked him for his kind words about her friends. But what happened next instantly unsettled her: Mr. Cuomo put his hand on Ms. Ruch’s bare lower back, she said in an interview on Monday.
When she removed his hand with her own, Ms. Ruch recalled, the governor remarked that she seemed “aggressive” and placed his hands on her cheeks. He asked if he could kiss her, loudly enough for a friend standing nearby to hear. Ms. Ruch was bewildered by the entreaty, she said, and pulled away as the governor drew closer.
“I was so confused and shocked and embarrassed,” said Ms. Ruch, whose recollection was corroborated by the friend, contemporaneous text messages and photographs from the event. “I turned my head away and didn’t have words in that moment.”
www.nytimes.com
I think he should resign, but the bare minimum will be for the party not to back his planned run for his 4th term as Governor (should he have the audacity to pursue it still).
|
The moment it became clear that he had withheld numbers from nursing homes in order to put himself in a better light, he should have resigned right away. Withholding information about an ongoing pandemic is a horrible thing to do.
|
Bisutopia19368 Posts
On March 02 2021 18:14 GreenHorizons wrote:There's a third accusation against Cuomo, this time with a picture, witness accounts, and contemporary texts. + Show Spoiler +Anna Ruch had never met Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo before encountering him at a crowded New York City wedding reception in September 2019. Her first impression was positive enough.
The governor was working the room after toasting the newlyweds, and when he came upon Ms. Ruch, now 33, she thanked him for his kind words about her friends. But what happened next instantly unsettled her: Mr. Cuomo put his hand on Ms. Ruch’s bare lower back, she said in an interview on Monday.
When she removed his hand with her own, Ms. Ruch recalled, the governor remarked that she seemed “aggressive” and placed his hands on her cheeks. He asked if he could kiss her, loudly enough for a friend standing nearby to hear. Ms. Ruch was bewildered by the entreaty, she said, and pulled away as the governor drew closer.
“I was so confused and shocked and embarrassed,” said Ms. Ruch, whose recollection was corroborated by the friend, contemporaneous text messages and photographs from the event. “I turned my head away and didn’t have words in that moment.” I think he should resign, but the bare minimum will be for the party not to back his planned run for his 4th term as Governor (should he have the audacity to pursue it still).
Reading what you have in the spoiler makes him either creepy or he was acting like an idiot cause he was drunk. Either way, if that’s a story about sexual assault then I could never run for office. Almost any man who has had a few drinks has taken things a little to far. I think it’s important that the woman involved has an opportunity to let him know what he did made her feel very uncomfortable, but it doesn’t mean he should be attacked for it and give up his livelihood.
What’s more frustrating is that the Democrats downplayed their reactions to the nursing home debacle, but suddenly pounce on him because of inappropriate behavior toward a few women. And I’m not suggesting his actions toward women should be ignored, but none of these women are lawyering up (my apologies if one has) and the woman who worked for him had an opportunity to go to HR and follow a legal route if she felt his actions exceeded playful or professional.
And to re-emphasize, she has every right to tell her story, but maybe we should have a communication with her as to wether she is speaking out because it helps her cope with a moment in her life or if she is speaking out because she needs him to pay for what he did to her.
|
You don't get to speak on behalf of "almost any man" and the notion that men who have a few drinks are bound to uncomfortably touch women and try to kiss them is shameful nonsense. Also, women can talk about bad things that happened to them without putting a lawyer on retainer or keeping the complaint in house, for Christ's sake.
|
Bisutopia19368 Posts
On March 02 2021 20:42 farvacola wrote:
You don't get to speak on behalf of "almost any man" and the notion that men who have a few drinks are bound to uncomfortably touch women and try to kiss them is shameful nonsense. Also, women can talk about bad things that happened to them without putting a lawyer on retainer or keeping the complaint in house, for Christ's sake.
You can have the same generic response if you want to instead of discussing my view point without getting angry. I don’t think less of women then you do. It’s very very hard to discuss an opinion in this particular thread that is anything other then, let’s attack the accused male and take away his job. I hate that I have to redundantly say we should take the women seriously several times, but also offer up something different to discuss. I am fine removing what I posted if the next page of replies is going to be like yours.
|
On March 02 2021 20:42 farvacola wrote:
You don't get to speak on behalf of "almost any man" and the notion that men who have a few drinks are bound to uncomfortably touch women and try to kiss them is shameful nonsense. Also, women can talk about bad things that happened to them without putting a lawyer on retainer or keeping the complaint in house, for Christ's sake.
I don't know.
I don't like Cuomo, but I also find that completely out of proportions. I am not overly interested, so I didn't go to the bottom of all the details, so I might of course miss something.
I personally am on the very considerate and extremely careful side with women, but ruining a guy's career because he made "creepy" comments or tried to kiss a woman is just more displaced puritanism imo. If it is nothing that a "no thanks, not interested" wouldn't stop, I just don't see how it's anyone business.
And I mean, every couple or every story started with someone making a move. It's just later that you can say "oh, that was creepy and inappropriate", because the other party wasn't interested.
Of course if it carries on after the woman makes it clear that it's not gonna happen, it's something else. That's becoming harassment. Is it what Cuomo is being accused of?
|
On March 02 2021 21:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2021 20:42 farvacola wrote:
You don't get to speak on behalf of "almost any man" and the notion that men who have a few drinks are bound to uncomfortably touch women and try to kiss them is shameful nonsense. Also, women can talk about bad things that happened to them without putting a lawyer on retainer or keeping the complaint in house, for Christ's sake. I don't know. I don't like Cuomo, but I also find that completely out of proportions. I am not overly interested, so I didn't go to the bottom of all the details, so I might of course miss something. I personally am on the very considerate and extremely careful side with women, but ruining a guy's career because he made "creepy" comments or tried to kiss a woman is just more displaced puritanism imo. If it is nothing that a "no thanks, not interested" wouldn't stop, I just don't see how it's anyone business. And I mean, every couple or every story started with someone making a move. It's just later that you can say "oh, that was creepy and inappropriate", because the other party wasn't interested. Of course if it carries on after the woman makes it clear that it's not gonna happen, it's something else. That's becoming harassment. Is it what Cuomo is being accused of? I would imagine her removing his hand from her back was the time to stop and a clear signal she wasn't interested.
|
On March 02 2021 21:07 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2021 20:42 farvacola wrote:
You don't get to speak on behalf of "almost any man" and the notion that men who have a few drinks are bound to uncomfortably touch women and try to kiss them is shameful nonsense. Also, women can talk about bad things that happened to them without putting a lawyer on retainer or keeping the complaint in house, for Christ's sake. You can have the same generic response if you want to instead of discussing my view point without getting angry. I don’t think less of women then you do. It’s very very hard to discuss an opinion in this particular thread that is anything other then, let’s attack the accused male and take away his job. I hate that I have to redundantly say we should take the women seriously several times, but also offer up something different to discuss. I am fine removing what I posted if the next page of replies is going to be like yours.
My post doesn't say what you claim it does, and the accusations against Cuomo can be addressed without resorting to awful excuses for bad behavior and broad generalizations about what men are like.
On March 02 2021 21:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2021 20:42 farvacola wrote:
You don't get to speak on behalf of "almost any man" and the notion that men who have a few drinks are bound to uncomfortably touch women and try to kiss them is shameful nonsense. Also, women can talk about bad things that happened to them without putting a lawyer on retainer or keeping the complaint in house, for Christ's sake. I don't know. I don't like Cuomo, but I also find that completely out of proportions. I am not overly interested, so I didn't go to the bottom of all the details, so I might of course miss something. I personally am on the very considerate and extremely careful side with women, but ruining a guy's career because he made "creepy" comments or tried to kiss a woman is just more displaced puritanism imo. If it is nothing that a "no thanks, not interested" wouldn't stop, I just don't see how it's anyone business. And I mean, every couple or every story started with someone making a move. It's just later that you can say "oh, that was creepy and inappropriate", because the other party wasn't interested. Of course if it carries on after the woman makes it clear that it's not gonna happen, it's something else. That's becoming harassment. Is it what Cuomo is being accused of?
I am making no claims with respect to what Cuomo should face repercussion wise, I am simply pointing out that men should hold themselves to a higher standard and that generalized "men are belligerent creatures when they drink" notions belong in the dumpster.
|
Bisutopia19368 Posts
On March 02 2021 21:12 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2021 21:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 02 2021 20:42 farvacola wrote:
You don't get to speak on behalf of "almost any man" and the notion that men who have a few drinks are bound to uncomfortably touch women and try to kiss them is shameful nonsense. Also, women can talk about bad things that happened to them without putting a lawyer on retainer or keeping the complaint in house, for Christ's sake. I don't know. I don't like Cuomo, but I also find that completely out of proportions. I am not overly interested, so I didn't go to the bottom of all the details, so I might of course miss something. I personally am on the very considerate and extremely careful side with women, but ruining a guy's career because he made "creepy" comments or tried to kiss a woman is just more displaced puritanism imo. If it is nothing that a "no thanks, not interested" wouldn't stop, I just don't see how it's anyone business. And I mean, every couple or every story started with someone making a move. It's just later that you can say "oh, that was creepy and inappropriate", because the other party wasn't interested. Of course if it carries on after the woman makes it clear that it's not gonna happen, it's something else. That's becoming harassment. Is it what Cuomo is being accused of? I would imagine her removing his hand from her back was the time to stop and a clear signal she wasn't interested.
Some women are too nice and smile and playfully brush it off. Men are sometimes idiots and don’t not realize she is nicely putting that guy down while in a public setting. However, as a married man, my hand would never go on another woman even if I was very close with her.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
