Thursday, March 9, 2017

Friend's Facebook Thread Triggered By Online Rage At Internional Day For Women

Image result for interNATIONAL DAY FOR WOMEN
AS: National Day for Women began on February 8, 1909 and became International Day for Women in 1910. It did not start when Donald Trump was elected. He was not born and none of you who are complaining about the International Day of women were born either. I would venture a guess that the majority of the objectors did not even know that this day existed until the recent presidential election. Did you know that there is also an International Day for Men? It began on February 7, 1992. These respective days celebrate the accomplishments and contributions of woman and men to society and to also commemorate the fight for equal rights for both women and men. Why anyone would be outraged over the PERSONAL choice to participate in the observance of these days is beyond my comprehension but I have seen a lot of posts and read some articles where women/men are just brutal in their condemnation of those who participated in yesterday's events at all. A lot of good things happened yesterday. A LOT of good social service took place. I am beginning to think it is more popular to be negative than to be positive. Sad.
CL: I was very surprised at how much press yesterday got... a little confusing as it was in no way a "new" day. Lol.
CV: They were saying on NPR that it actually originated in Russia, though I'm not sure of their sources on that.
JP:The media tends to blow things way out of proportion. I was only annoyed a little by the women who participated in the day by calling in sick to work to take part in the events.

THC:  The true meaning of a day of celebration gets cheapened when an activist gives 245 million dollars to groups to march. This turns it political which it was not meant to be.
Alan Archibald I have long thought that humankind's foremost pleasures are griping, food and sex... in that order... with "griping" the runaway favorite "on the right side of the aisle." For example... After six years of relentless conservative complaint about Obamac...See More

CL; I always wonder who was polled for these things...... how large and diverse the sample size was....
LikeReply9 hrs

JR: Probably the same polling that said Hillary Clinton would win by a landslide. These pollsters either don't know what they are doing or are purposefully hiding the truth.

AS to JR. This is a chance for a good conversation and Hilary has nothing to do with it.

JR to AS I was only pointing out that you can't trust the polls. They are hardly ever accurate.

Alan Archibald It is a straight-up fact -- not an "alternative fact" -- that polls accurately predict electoral outcomes far more often than not. Statistician Nate Silver's presidential predictions in 2008 and 2012 were strikingly accurate, right down to naming which...See More

Nathaniel Read "Nate" Silver (born January 13, 1978) is an American statistician and writer who…
CL: More accurately, sure. 100% accurate? No.

Alan Archibald I have no expectation that "anything" will be 100%. In my view, "100% Perfectionism" is a debilitating, if not crippling, disease - both individually and politically. On the eve of last November's election, many pollsters - including Nate Silver - gave...See More
LikeReplyRemove Preview7 hrs

CLI: remember seeing something about cali voter fraud on the news yesterday while at the gym but cant remember the source or what they I'm not helpful. I do know that there IS voter fraud.... my identity theft voted in my place in the 2012 election in FL.....
AS: Alan Archibald, I just lost a comment you had regarding the voting process in Cali. Can you post it again? I don't know where it went.
LikeReply3 hrs
Alan Archibald What is the process (for automatic voter registration in California)?

"When people go to the DMV to obtain or renew a driver's license, or to get a state identification card, they’ll be asked for the usual information in such transactions, such as their name, date of birth and address. They’ll also be asked to affirm their eligibility to vote and will be given the choice of opting out of registering at that time. Information about anyone who does not decline registration will be electronically transmitted from the DMV to the secretary of state’s office, where citizenship will be verified and names will be added to the voter rolls." 

The key line in this passage says "Citizenship will be verified" after information is automaticallly forwarded from the DMV. 


In 2012, 48% of Hispanics who were eligible to vote actually voted, and a lower percentage of eligible latinos planned to vote in 2016. 

I happen to be a bilingual native-born American (of Irish stock) and, for decades, have been deeply immersed in the Hispanic community of central North Carolina. And I can tell you that illegal latinos are far less interested in American politics than "vote-certified" latinos. 

It is a fact that not one illegal latino resident has ever spoken to me about American politics. It would be much easier to motivate the 50+ percent of already-eligible latino voters who currently don't vote than to motivate illegals who don't give squat. 

In my experienced view, I would be astonished if ANY illegal latino were 1.) to be interested enough to vote, and 2.) actually chose to run the risk of jail time and deportation in order to cast his (or her) lone ballot. Would you? 

Sure, like a lot of speculation among conservatives, "the illegal latino vote" makes a good story. But the corresponding reality -- like many political realities -- just doesn't "line up" with right-wing yarn-spinning.

Massive latino voter fraud in California just doesn't "line up" any more than Trump's unhinged allegation that Obama wiretapped Trump Tower "lines up" with Donald's non-existent evidence. 

Just because it's possible to concoct a theoretical rationalization has nothing to do with the evidentiary process of proving it so. 

Remember Trump's suggestion-allegation that Ted Cruz' father was hanging out with Lee Harvey Oswald the morning President Kennedy was assassinated? 

Well... It's a damn good story! 

But I've yet to find an American conservative who is impressed by the much better story -- a story that aligns with provable facts -- that Trump and his team have had an unusual number of contacts with Russian officials. 

By comparison, the interminable Benghazi investigation was small change. And although no "actionable" evidence came out of Trey Gowdy's Republican-dominated commission, Benghazi remains a "minor deity" in the conservative pantheon... while Trump and "pal Putin" "walk." 

It's not about creating possible fictions. 

It's about proving probable cause. 

Surely there is a conservative Think Tank or a wealthy Republican activist made in the mold of the Koch brothers who could investigate supposed voter fraud in California. 

Just offer a reward for information leading to the conviction of an illegal voter and if such people are "out there," they will be denounced hand-over-fist. 

I suspect that large numbers of illegal voters simply don't exist, that Republican officials know they don't exist, and therefore no effort will be made to prove that they do. 

What's to be gained? Especially when it's exceedingly unlikely that widespread voter fraud took place. 

Why jeopardize "a story" that is already exceptionally motivational for conservative "true believers?"

From the GOP point of view, what Republican leader in his right mind would imperil the narrative of "widespread voter fraud" which is already as successful as any other conservative narrative based on unproven hypotheses, alternative "facts," innuendo and provably bogus stories originating with The Liar In Chief.

Here's just one doozy.

(I can produce 83 others... not just garden variety falsehoods, deceptions and misrepresentations, but true doozies.)

No comments:

Post a Comment