Bill Clinton is a rapist or this woman is an amazing liar. Pick one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQwVYi9hyAA

This is relevant because I don't think the nation as a whole would be comfortable with a rapist as First Lady.

Comments?

"Comments?"

Yes.

No one--no one--is ahead of me in the line of those who despise the Clintons.

This story, while completely credible and, I believe, probably true, is far from the best reasons why the Clintons should never be returned to the White House.

There are numerous far more generally serious reasons not to elect Hillary Clinton and this is a distraction from them--a weaker and less compelling distraction.

Take your own favorite example of a murderous tyrant and suppose he was also a rapist. Really, after all the other allegations, is that going to change the weight of the charge-sheet significantly?

If this woman wants to and still can press charges after all the time elapsed, that's her business and I wouldn't blame her; but as a case for national time and attention, we don't need this case. There's already a solid case against Mrs. Clinton. We'd do much better to focus on it.

I don't care for the Clinton's but I think we're at the point where we're just picking scabs. She's the Democratic nominee and there's not a thing that I can see that's going to change it and the healthiest thing for anyone who doesn't like her to do at this point in time is to make peace with that. If you really don't like her--don't vote for her. I do hope if she does become POTUS she stays towards some of the left positions where the Sanders campaign kind of moved her. I don't have a lot of hope that will happen but we'll see. If she were to do things like ban fracking---stay out of Syria--bring at least some of our troops home, relieve college debt (at least to some degree), help to get the minimum wage up to something resembling a living wage, end our idiotic drug war and bring our incarceration rate down that would be something and I think though not all that is likely----maybe at least some of it could happen. So..........

I don't trust her or Bill and I'm voting for Stein---even so I'll watch with interest and if she does something creditable give her credit for it. If/when she passes TPP I'm going to shit all over her. Well I'd shit all over any other POTUS who would do the same and Obama I must say has been something of a turkey as a POTUS and TPP is part of it.

> 2, 3

1. Everything you two say is pretty much true, in my opinion.
2. You both WOULD HAVE very good points and I would be put in my place right now IF I had been making some serious argument or was suffering from some confusion/delusion about the hierarchy of objections to the Clintons and how low-ranked this particular "alleged" rape charge regarding Bill Clinton is.
3. The thing is - I am more so just killing time here until the election because
4. I will concede that, short of some unforeseen miracle (of the evil sort), HRC will be our next POTUS because
5. Not only the "lesser of evils" argument will win out in the end (I think) but also most people who will vote for HRC are simply not aware of just how evil the Clintons are - and there is no way to get this point across to them because they are and will be immediately ready with the refutation that the Clintons have never been convicted in a court of law of anything bad, thus ends the argument for them.
6. If I thought that telling the truth about the Clintons would somehow make it more likely trump would triumph in the end then I would S.T.F.U. right now. But I don't think I have that kind of influence. And I am convinced no one on Librarything forums has such influence. So this is all just part of the general game of life.
7. If someone cannot enjoy the game then that is sad but attempts to rain on my parade are doomed to failure. DOOMED, I tells ya.
8. I'm just saying.

Namaste, mothergrabbers.

>4 JGL53:

Lol! Thank you for using a word I had to look up : I return it with palms pressed and a tiny bow.

Of course there's a place for humor, for blowing off steam, releasing tension and pressure.

But your retort isn't only this. It's an avowed (minor) work of resignation.

If we were in power, were rich, if we bore the actual burdens of responsibility for running things politically in the nation, we'd be not only entitled to such humor, we'd be used to justifiably indulging in it--because ours was the work, ours were the decisions which determined whether it's to be fewer homeless and hungry people or more tax cuts for the .01% .

But not only are we not rich, powerful or in charge, we lack the focus, concentration and staying-power needed just to develop into well-informed worthy opponents of those who are all those things.

Our danger is certainly not in spending an inordinate amount of our time and energy being resolute and serious about our political lives and the challenges to our having any respectable part at all in them.

#4---it seems to me that a lot of people are for Hillary Clinton simply because they think she's the best candidate. Issues like whether she's pro-fracking or anti-fracking--for or against TPP or the war on drugs or whether or not she puts more troops on the ground in the middle east and we can go down the line--don't matter so much because they think whatever decision she does make will be the best decision and for the right reasons. Generally they believe that government will always do well in the right hands---and an established democrat by definition is someone who has the right hands.

If we're going to analyze it this way. Hillary better than Trump?---Yeah. But good?---not really.

If one doesn't vote, somebody else decides for you or in your absence if you prefer. It's "permitted" in the United States and in "western democracies" NOT to participate. (Not voting in SOME countries is not an option -- at least not a "healthy" one.)

One can always "retreat" to one's own "world" and you can of course vote for those who will NEVER disappoint you because they won't ever be elected.

Life is not "easy" and decisions are not without consequences. "Nobody's perfeck" and no candidate is either.

If you're too depressed to vote maybe you should just watch "Game of Thrones" and "Star Wars" and pretend that's the "real world" and let "them" write the scripts for you. You can live as a voyeur of the imaginary...

If people like you, it doesn't matter what you've done. Or maybe even what you are going to do.

>7 Michael_Welch:

https://youtu.be/rAT_BuJAI70

#NeverKang
#NeverKodos

#7--people look at things differently. My philosophy about voting is to begin by finding someone you actually like--I don't think polling numbers are a good enough reason for me to narrow my options into voting for someone I don't like. Others I suspect think differently. For those who vote for someone they don't like so as to not vote for someone they consider even worse---well that's up to them though it could be argued that a major reason why politicians seem less and less responsive to the voting public is that they know that the only standard they need to reach is only to be less worse than than their opponent. Nothing like setting the bar low.

This shit can be argued around in circles to judgement day. There really is no resolving the myriad paths people are going to take in deciding what they finally decide this November and in future Novembers as well.

>11 RickHarsch: I rather resent being included in someone's we as in >5 proximity1:, which is already awful in that the post shut off the tap of laughter in order to talk about humor and to determine, quite arrogantly, the tenor of the post he pretends to appreciate. I cannot judge jgl's level of resignation, but there is a great deal more life and energy in his posts than in the posts of the false appreciator, proximity1's, which lack humor entirely and tend to the tendentious. There is enormous resignation implicit in determining that one (proximity1) must talk down to all others.

>7 Michael_Welch: I rather resent being told that I should vote when I have what I consider a very fine reason for not doing so. I disagree with you more and more lately, but I certainly respect your choice to believe in a system I do not and your active political engagement, and neither respect or disrespect your choice to vote. But if I took the liberties of thought you do I actually would have to condemn you for voting. I don't presume to take such liberties and think you're just fine as you are.

>10 lriley: Others I suspect think differently.

You suspect. Perhaps if you didn't just go "blah blah blah" (that was his literal response), you would know and understand my reasoning. As I said, voting should be treated as a mathematical game; you are going to make a simultaneous move with all the rest of the potential voters, and are trying to optimize your personal calculation of what is best. Because that function is personal, there's a lot of possible choices, but if one puts heavy weight on the future of the nation, and one believes the outcome of the nation will be different between Trump and Clinton, then if your vote is likely to change the ultimate victor, you need to vote for your preference of Trump or Clinton.

#12--a mathematical game? Okay......that's your idea. So great--I'm happy for you.

>13 lriley: So how do you view it? Do you not view your choices by which one will have the best outcome? Do you not think that thinking about the consequences of your actions is important?

>14 prosfilaes: Why can't some of you people get that in a democracy people find it repulsive to be told how to vote, to have their well thought out decision embedded in their own world-views respected. Sure, if the level of discourse were high enough it might be interesting, but 'Do you not think that thinking about the consequences of your actions is important?' Your writing is like a child's directed at an adult's. It's not fair to you and you should simply stop embarrassing yourself.

ETA--please direct me to that literal 'blah blah blah'

>1 JGL53:
I'll just risk repeating sentiments expressed above by saying that however grounded or ungrounded it may be in fact, this channel of attack against the Clintons has long since silted in.

> 7 "....If one doesn't vote, somebody else decides for you or in your absence if you prefer."

Well, unless a person's individual vote actually determines the outcome of the race, no, that is not true.

Others in the aggregate are going to determine who the next POTUS is and there is nothing you or I as individuals can do to effect a different outcome. Or, I suppose much more accurately we have a much, much better change of winning a hundred million dollar lottery than having a deciding effect on the Presidential race. If you disagree then show me the math.

> 16

Yes, I know. I just like it to be known that my distaste for the Clintons is based on some rational reasons and not on some made up shite I saw on Faux Noise.

Even though it is not Hillary who is the rapist I find her more repulsive than Bill. A woman covering up the rapes of her husband for purposes of achieving and maintaining political power and access to money - that is fucking sick.

Like lriley I certainly realize that the odds are greatly in favor of HRC becoming the next POTUS - but I'll be fucking fucked if I have to like it, nor will I sieg heil the god damned democratic party or HRC, like a good little nazi, just because the alternative is worse by orders of magnitude.

>15 RickHarsch: http://www.librarything.com/topic/224471#5665035 is the literal "blah, blah, blah". Why can't some of you people get that having a discussion where someone says "Others I suspect think differently." after those others have explained that they do think differently is insulting? Why can't some of you people understand that arguing your point and everytime someone disagrees, whining about people disagreeing with you in a conversation is childish?

'Do you not think that thinking about the consequences of your actions is important?' Your writing is like a child's directed at an adult's.

If you think that Socratic argument is like a child's, I think that says more about you then me.

>18 prosfilaes: Yes, I remember that. You used the word simpleton. He was apparently put out. I don't like 'blah, blah, blah', but you are lately having a very difficult time seeing yourself: you use the word whining a lot. I have been reading lriley's posts for years and he is one of the few people here who NEVER whines. I would not say the same about myself. I am sure I have whined. Not lately, though, and not with you, yet you have used that term in error.

Socratic argument is far more sophisticated than your 'Do you not think that thinking about the consequences of your actions is important?', which is paradoxically, something I have one way or another taught my son to avoid ever having to be asked. I think we can assume that the sane people who write here--including you and Iriley and myself and most people I have argued with--ALL have thought a great deal about the consequences of their actions. Among sane people that is practically a moral given. In the context in which you ask it, it is as insulting as using the word simpleton. It is definitively NOT Socratic. Learn to give others the benefit of the doubt. You wrote to an adult who has been involved in the voting process at least twice as long as you have 'Again, masochism is a Trump presidency because you voted irrationally.' That's a bit much, wouldn't you say? Remember Gary Larsen? When Trump is elected will we crowd together carrying 'Down with Iriley' signs? He can explain for himself (again and again and again) why he chooses to vote as he does, but I can explain myself: I have not voted since 1980 because I reject the entire system and refuse to participate other than as a critic who occasionally lends support to progressive or leftist activists. I played no part in constructing the society into which I was born and, finding it repulsive, I do my best to live as I believe I should. At the same time, I have a great deal of sympathy for sane people in the US, even people like Tim Spalding who I disagree with fundamentally on virtually everything--I trust he has a genuine desire to make the world better. More importantly, I do not despise those who would vote for Clinton and sometimes support them in argument. But I would never criticize someone who cannot bring him or herself to vote for one of the two true candidates, and those who do condemn them, like you do, are exaggerating wildly (probably out of the very legitimate fear of suffering a Trump presidency). This issue of who a non-Republican should vote for has led to some normally even-keeled people here going off the deep end, losing their self-awareness, violating their own apparent codes of conduct. I say have a little respect for the ideas of others where they are not repugnant and try not to start counting votes too early. Hell, I'm sure my parents and two of three brothers will vote for Trump, meaning by my family count Clinton is already down 4 to 1. But she'll win. And lriley won't feel responsible for her war crimes and nor will I. Probably those who voted for her need not either, given their choice.

#14--I think I stated pretty clearly in #10 that I start by trying to find someone I actually like--is that that hard for you? You can go with your mathematical approach--if that's what works for you I encourage you to do so. In 2008 I liked Obama--proof by the way that if the Democratic party puts up somebody I think will be good I will vote for them. Unfortunately for Barack my opinion about his first term wasn't so very positive so that in 2012 I voted for Stein--she enunciated policy proposals on a multiplicity of issues that for the most part I found easy to get in line with. This time around there have been two candidates that I like--Sanders and Stein. Again one of them happened to be running as a democrat so..........I was very willing to go down that road but as we all well know that road has come to a complete and total dead end. What to do? Well luckily for me this election cycle I already had a fallback candidate. I know Stein's not going to win. I know the apparatus that the Green Party has been able to build is flimsy. Though like any other political party--it has to start somewhere and with baby steps and I should say that the way the two major parties manipulate the electoral system it ain't easy to grow---but you could give people credit for trying. I know the apocalypse (Trump) could be at the door but OTOH I don't think Hillary is a good solution---so there. That's my methodology.

Anyway the idea that our vote is something sacrosanct is a fallacy. It's not. My vote is important to me but I hardly see it as something sacred. First off I don't even consider myself a capitalist--so the marriage between the govt. and our capitalist economic system well.....but American presidential election history has had instances where very arguably the election was manipulated---what should that tell anybody? In any case your life isn't even sacred in a country that has a death penalty or that might send you off to a war to take a hill that might have no strategic value at all apart from maybe the 'enemy' being on top of it--so life hardly being sacred why should your vote be?

But to return to this year's primaries again---when the discrepancy between exit polling and the final results are way off that is supposed to automatically trigger an investigation. Exit polling is a device used all around the world to verify that elections are fair and on the up and up. When the numbers are skewed investigations are supposed to happen. In the primaries there were numerous times when exit polling numbers and the final verified results didn't add up for the democrats and no real instances for the republicans and keeping in mind that the bulk of the primaries/caucuses were much more often than not the same day in states for both parties one should IMO wonder what exactly was going on? Just saying. Maybe it's all bullshit. Though---over 100,000 voters purged from the democratic party rolls just in Brooklyn? Lots of voter purging in California as well? Maybe that's all bullshit too. In any case this late in the day there is no recourse at least until the election is over but it doesn't smell very good to me---and whatever recourse if there is ever any recourse is going to be a bandaid at best.

FWIW I have never once cast a ballot for a republican at the local, state or federal levels. I take pride in that. IMO a republican disqualifies him/herself and in the case of Donald Trump--itself--from being qualified for political office just by the fact that they're republicans but if we're going to go on about the democratic party's views/actions on the subject of the sacredness and sanctity of the vote just from this primary season it appears to me that any insistence on their their part that they do is a load of horseshit. The way it does appear to me is they really don't give a fuck just so long as they get the result they want.

>10 lriley: My philosophy about voting is to begin by finding someone you actually like--I don't think polling numbers are a good enough reason for me to narrow my options into voting for someone I don't like.

"Like" might be too strong a word. Most of us are just reaching for "can live with." :-)

>22 RickHarsch: Right, he makes it sound too easy, even possible. But I guess it is...outside the 'winning system'.

This is relevant because I don't think the nation as a whole would be comfortable with a rapist as First Lady.

As noted elsethread, you seem to think asking a potential president to keep it in his pants a step to far.

So noted...

First ladies that rape are bad.
Presidents that rape are just boys being boys.

> 23

Would you mind translating the above into English for me and others who only speak English? If you would be so kind? Gracias.

>14 prosfilaes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatism#Criticisms

#21--I liked Obama in 2008. I had hope. All in all the last 8 years have been a major letdown. I don't know--I wouldn't say it was all his fault but when he named his economic team I had a sinking feeling. Maybe that had partially to do with that asshole before him tanking the economy. The Iraq and Afghanistan shit---we're still there. Barack needed to get us out. That shit and now with ISIS could go on for the next hundred years. There is no way to win this with any definitiveness. We might be able to knock them out of their strongholds in Syria and Iraq and scatter them all over the desert but their idea is going to live on for a long time in the minds of many I'm afraid. We haven't handled this at all well. Again GWB, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bremer and company should be sitting in a prison for the rest of their lives.

Anyway Sanders came along this year and I liked him too and had hope again and now that his campaign is done---that's just the way it is. Peace to all.

>19 RickHarsch: I think we can assume that the sane people who write here--including you and Iriley and myself and most people I have argued with--ALL have thought a great deal about the consequences of their actions.

Right, and if he wants to reply, he can explain how his actions are consistent with that value, or he can reject that value.

>20 lriley: I think I stated pretty clearly in #10 that I start by trying to find someone I actually like

And in fact, he does reject that as an important value.

>19 RickHarsch: You wrote to an adult who has been involved in the voting process at least twice as long as you have 'Again, masochism is a Trump presidency because you voted irrationally.' That's a bit much, wouldn't you say?

So you condescend to me based on my age. And you condescend to me, not the person who wrote "Even when a voter opts in his/her mind for a lesser evil---they are choosing evil. That's fine if you're a masochist.", because I replied in kind.

>25 cpg: Um, that says:

Arthur Oncken Lovejoy criticized pragmatism in his 1908 essay "The Thirteen Pragmatisms",63 where he identifies thirteen different philosophical positions that were each labeled pragmatism. Lovejoy argues that there is significant ambiguity in the notion of the consequences of the truth of a proposition and those of belief in a proposition in order to highlight that many pragmatists had failed to recognize that distinction.

Neopragmatism as represented by Richard Rorty has been criticized as relativistic both by neoclassical pragmatists such as Susan Haack (Haack 1997) and by many analytic philosophers (Dennett 1998). Rorty's early analytical work, however, differs notably from his later work which some, including Rorty, consider to be closer to literary criticism than to philosophy, and which, attracts the brunt of criticism from his detractors.

I don't see any of that as relevant.

>27 prosfilaes: It seems your conversation with that particular voter reached its apotheosis before it began. I take his side primarily because I'm tired of Clinton voters telling non-Clinton voters how wrong they are not to vote for Clinton. That side, yours, has appeared to me the aggressor. Your argument is weak because you try to corner him. There isn't space here for a nuanced enough discussion, nor does there appear to be respect enough. And when you are writing to a thoughtful politically engaged person to tell him that his vote is the wrong one, you need to be far more nuanced, build a stronger argument. I don't think I was condescending in that post, particularly where you chose to respond. I would feel better about the whole discussion if you bandaged your wounds and discussed my main points rather than stick with this argument with another poster.
On another thread I may have been condescending, but if so I did not enjoy that aspect of it--it's just that you were flinging wild thoughts about that in my mind have no bearing on the main issues and struck me as having very limited historical knowledge of some regions you discussed.

As for the lesser evil thing in particular, I agree in a detached manner with Iriley (though not the masochist part, which doesn't make sense because the masochist would choose the greater evil, presumably), but as you can see from what I wrote in >19 RickHarsch: I can't bring myself to criticize anyone who votes for Clinton, especially if the reason is to defeat Trump.

Also lriley wrote: 'Again GWB, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bremer and company should be sitting in a prison for the rest of their lives.' And all I can say is that the list is way too short. What's next after company? Battalion?

#27-LOL--like wanting to vote for someone you actually fucking like is some crazy kind of virtue. Oh but if they're not going to fucking win.........oh my fucking god!--you've wasted your fucking vote! Don't worry about me I'll be fucking a-okay--I'll have a couple beers afterwards and I'll be right as rain. So how about you stick to your own methodology and I'll stick to mine?

>30 lriley: like wanting to vote for someone you actually fucking like is some crazy kind of virtue.

We all want to do that. But the question is what we do do when we enter the voting booth. And that is putting personal likes above any other method of choosing who to vote for, which is not something I would consider a virtue.

Oh but if they're not going to fucking win.........oh my fucking god!--you've wasted your fucking vote!

There is a finite probability that your vote for the Green party may change the election away from who you would have voted for of the big two. There's a much larger probability that you and people like you making that choice may change the election away from who you would have voted for of the big two. If you live in Nevada, that's a scarily large chance. If you live in DC or California, then for you a vote for the Green Party is worth far more than a vote for one of the two main parties.

So how about you stick to your own methodology and I'll stick to mine?

When you call my methodology "masochism", it doesn't inspire such a compromise.

Given that you don't know with any certainty how anyone else will vote I don't see as it makes any sense but to vote for whoever you think will be the best. If most people think like you then that person will get elected. If everyone plays the game of trying to determine beforehand who has a chance then the best people will never win.

>32 jjwilson61: good lord--is that a vote for freedom of choice? here on LT? I must go on a binge drunk, dry out, have a big shot to kill the shakes, come back and read it again.

>28 prosfilaes:

The philosophy you seem to be espousing in #14 is pragmatism. Pragmatism is not without its critics. If the few references on the Wikipedia page aren't enough to convince you that it is not a slam-dunk that a pragmatic philosophy of voting is the best, you might consider examining the hits after Googling against a pragmatic philosophy of voting. To me, as a non-philosopher but a mathematician, it is not obvious that I am faced with an unconstrained optimization problem in which the utility of the winning presidential candidate is the objective function. I don't think that my participation in the political process can be reduced to that.

ETA: You might want to examine the literature on expressive voting versus instrumental voting.

I think one big consideration, mentioned before but apparently ignored by those more intellectually-inclined than I am, is that it matters somewhat what state one lives/votes in - whether it be very red, very blue, or purplish.

Those in red or blue states are free to vote their conscience, it seems to me. E.g., trump will win my state by hundreds of thousands of votes. What matters it whether I vote for HRC, the pragmatic vote, or whether I vote Stein, my preferred candidate of those on offer? Tell me that, geniuses. (I may even accidently push the wrong square and vote for trump. How's that going to make a difference in the real world?

In a purple state, sure, there is something like one in a trillion chance your vote could be the vote that puts HRC over the top for your state's electoral votes, which again she would have to need for election for your vote to ever count for something then - so multiply the trillion by another million or so.

People who argue as if their individual vote held some candidate hostage or something are perhaps as narcissistic as d. trump.

Those who have the ability to think - think about this.

Namaste, monkey-spankers.

>38 RickHarsch: It is not https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatism ; the top of that article says "The word "pragmatism" as a piece of technical terminology in philosophy refers to a specific set of associated philosophical views originating in the late nineteenth-century. However, the phrase is often confused with "pragmatism" in the context of politics (which refers to politics or diplomacy based primarily on practical considerations, rather than ideological notions)".

You can respond to about any post on any discussion board with "not everyone agrees with that", but it doesn't seem to advance the discussion much.

it is not obvious that I am faced with an unconstrained optimization problem in which the utility of the winning presidential candidate is the objective function.

Of course not. Certainly if you want the Green Party to win in the future, part of your objective function is going to include that. If you live in Nevada, then the likelihood that your vote will swing the election should put a lot of weight on the winning candidate; if you live in California or West Virginia, then that function should probably put minimal weight on winning candidate, because your vote doesn't really affect that.

#35---that's true and it's a consideration for some people. NYS I would expect is going to be solidly in HRC's column and so voting Green should have no real effect on the outcome. Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, Michigan people voting Green might make the difference--though it might be kept in mind that Garry Johnson probably is going to pull at least as many if not more voters away from Trump.

Honestly even if New York was up for grabs I would still be voting for Stein and if Clinton lost the state by one vote I'm sure that people would be saying that Trump won because of Stein and even if Johnson drew more away from Trump than Stein from Clinton. There are counter arguments against that--for instance that Stein didn't win because of Clinton--most people would think that absurd because they've bought into which parties have clout and which don't. Even so. Another counter argument is that Clinton and her campaign had not actually done enough to bring those Stein supporters on board and a third argument that Stein brings up all the time about choice rank voting--which the democratic party dependent on its politics of fear to win has shown no inclination to pass into law.

>37 lriley: And if Clinton lost by one, would it be your vote that did it, or some guy in Binghampton, my friend's mom in Kingston, my friend's uncle in Buffalo, some prankster who picks his feet in Poughkeepsie? What I find unseemly in these arguments is the judgmental attitude towards people who are voting for their favorite candidate. Naturally, I see the argument for voting against Trump and therefore Clinton. But if I was inclined for Stein I would expect anyone who wanted to change my mind to begin by respecting my opinion, world-view, integrity and so on. Then some tender words and ten bucks and maybe I would vote as they wished.

eta an article

#38--yeah I'm not really into the guilt trip. Really your candidate should inspire you to vote---that's their job and not yours.

The rank choice voting thing would allow you to vote for Stein as your first choice and allow you a 2nd or 3rd choice if you're candidate wasn't among the top two choices of voters. To me it's kind of a no brainer but neither the democrats nor the republicans have shown the least inclination anywhere to pass such legislation. So people won't vote for a candidate they actually like but they don't think has a chance of winning--they end up voting for someone they might not like or don't like at all only because they're less worse option in their eyes than the worst of all candidate.

And as Jill Stein is no Ross Perot, supporters of Clinton have little to be concerned about far as I can see.

>38 RickHarsch: And if Clinton lost by one, would it be your vote that did it, or some guy in Binghampton, my friend's mom in Kingston, my friend's uncle in Buffalo, some prankster who picks his feet in Poughkeepsie?

And if Kitty Genovese* died, is it your responsibility for not calling police, or perhaps one of the other 37 people who watched and didn't call police? You can blow off just about any responsibility in real life that affects someone else by blaming someone else. If something hung on one person's action, and you did not act, it's your fault, because otherwise everyone can find someone else to blame.

* Okay, so the myth here differs some from reality. I'm going with the mythic version.

>39 lriley: Really your candidate should inspire you to vote---that's their job and not yours.

Clinton's skills, as generally touted, are as a policy wonk and negotiator. You telling me that someone with those skills should be excluded from political office if they're not good enough at inspiring? You're saying that it's not the voter's job to find the best person, but instead the politician's job to throw a good enough spectacle? That would make Ronald Reagan probably the best president ever.

>41 prosfilaes: Really, you are embarrassing yourself. Trying to libel Iriley for not voting your way by--your most bizarre move yet--comparing him to a witness to Kitty Genovese's death. Leave it, kid. Let adults vote as they choose to vote.

#41--about 2 or 3 times a year I actually make a 9-11 call. That's because I live up a steep and winding road and oftentimes people are driving too fast down the road or too fast for the conditions or if it's after a rain--the road is slick from the oil that's saturated into the macadam and if it snows or ices well...... Over the years I think I've replaced 7 or 8 mailboxes which is a real pain in the ass because then the rural carrier will be about (and I know them all) to complain about it being too high or too low blah, blah, blah and I'll be fucking and fucking about with it until they're happy. Lots of times these accidents are rollovers into the ditch or onto my yard or into the forest below my yard. Believe it or not---and this has been going on for decades no one has been seriously hurt or killed--concussions, a gashed forehead, a broken nose, a broken leg---shit like that. If it looks at all bad I don't go out to the wreck first I just make the call and by the way I'm not a big fan of police of any kind. There have been times when a vehicle has been full of shit of one kind or another and it's all over the road for hundreds of yards. They've destroyed a lot of flowers that my wife has planted--killed two trees and then there's all those mailboxes most of which we've had to replace with our own money and all of which we've had to replace with our own effort.

So not to worry if Kitty Genovese or anyone else gets popped in front of my house. I won't have an issue calling the cops. By the way the cops have always seemed very selective about who they ticket or even once in a while arrest. Darker skinned people usually get a ticket. The 30 year old 5'1'' out of town lesbian without a drivers license and driving this huge truck (that didn't belong to her) after midnight and having no clue even where she was--after she was pulled out of the woods was let go with a warning. The Native American kid driving from the top of the hill down the road skidding on black ice---his sister along with him--she wound up with a broken leg and he got arrested and he didn't appear to be intoxicated. The judge's wife who ran off the road and through a stop sign down below on a clear blue sky summer afternoon---nothing but tons of sympathy from the cops and the local paper even had a sympathetic article---none of the others ever got anything approaching the level of friendliness that she got.

By the way I hate being called in to jury duty. I don't want to be bothered to make a judgement that sends someone to prison just on the off chance that judgement will be wrong.....and there are too many times that I think the law is too strict or that I don't agree with it at all. I also don't altogether trust lawyers, judges or cops just on face value. Luckily I've never made the cut.