US Election 2016

[Hurlshort]

 

 

 

I assume you meant the 1920's for women's suffrage?

 

Hard to imagine we are less than a century removed from that.

Why?

 

 

Because a century is a relatively short amount of time in the grand scheme of things?

 

 

Indeed. Just imagine if Victoria Woodhull had won the presidency in 1872.  Or in 1884 or 1892.

 

 

Depending on how this whole FBI case goes, maybe Clinton will be in a prison cell on election day as well.  

[ShadySands]

The weird thing I've noticed about the email thing is that everyone I know who worked with me in military, or is still in the military, or gov't contractor all think it's a much bigger deal than those I know who don't work in IT(with clearances), security, and/or g14 classified super secret squirrel stuff. Most of these people are also left of center like myself so while I don't deny there is a lot of opposition frothing at the mouth I also don't think it's a Republican plot to make something out of nothing.

 

I still don't think anything at all will come out of it simply because of who it is... at most some underling may get thrown under the bus

[Bartimaeus]

Because a century is a relatively short amount of time in the grand scheme of things?

 

Isn't that rather KaineParker's point, though - that it's really not that hard to believe based on the current state of affairs?

 

Although his post is actually pretty ambiguous, but that's how I understood it...

Edited May 10, 2016 by Bartimaeus

[Raithe]

Maybe not the election per se...

 

[HoonDing]

HB2 is a haplogroup?

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Because a century is a relatively short amount of time in the grand scheme of things?

OK so it was a comment on the length rather than the circumstances that led to women's suffrage.

 

 

Because a century is a relatively short amount of time in the grand scheme of things?

 

 

Isn't that rather KaineParker's point, though - that it's really not that hard to believe based on the current state of affairs?

 

Although his post is actually pretty ambiguous, but that's how I understood it...

I'm very ambiguous.

 

But my point was it isn't that surprising that women received suffrage when they did given material conditions(the surge of women in the workforce around the US entry into WW1) of the time period.

[Raithe]

HB2 is a haplogroup?

 

It's that anti-LBGT bathroom law that got passed in North Carolina.

[Amentep]

 

 

 

 

I assume you meant the 1920's for women's suffrage?

 

Hard to imagine we are less than a century removed from that.

Why?

 

 

Because a century is a relatively short amount of time in the grand scheme of things?

 

 

Indeed. Just imagine if Victoria Woodhull had won the presidency in 1872.  Or in 1884 or 1892.

 

 

Depending on how this whole FBI case goes, maybe Clinton will be in a prison cell on election day as well.  

 

 

Just imagine Hillary Clinton publishing a newspaper exposing marital affairs amid the protestant clergy who spoke out against the evils of "Free Love" (which is what the US Marshalls used to demonstrate Woodhull was publishing an 'obscene' newspaper - hence why she was in jail at the time of the 1872 election)...

Edited May 10, 2016 by Amentep

[Hurlshort]

 

I'm very ambiguous.

 

But my point was it isn't that surprising that women received suffrage when they did given material conditions(the surge of women in the workforce around the US entry into WW1) of the time period.

 

 

I would think most people would say it was surprising it took that long for women to receive the right.  Land of the free, home of the brave and all that.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

I'm very ambiguous.

But my point was it isn't that surprising that women received suffrage when they did given material conditions(the surge of women in the workforce around the US entry into WW1) of the time period.

 

 

I would think most people would say it was surprising it took that long for women to receive the right.  Land of the free, home of the brave and all that.

Then I would think most people have a dubious grasp upon the history of the US or the connection between rights and material conditions. White men who didn't own property didn't have voting rights in every state until the 1850's and that was largely due to industrialization pushing more men into urban areas rather than farms. Non-whites, mostly blacks, received the right to vote after the end of slavery and they became paid workers rather than property. Women received the right to vote after they joined the work force in large numbers. What we can see from this pattern is that groups in the US historically only received voting rights when they were part of the workforce, as well as the US being not so great at universal suffrage historically.

[Valsuelm]

 

HB2 is a haplogroup?

 

It's that anti-LBGT bathroom law that got passed in North Carolina.

 

It's not 'anti-LBGT', it's 'anti-T' if anything. Ls, Bs, and Gs have nothing to do with it.

 

Also, it's 'LGBT', not 'LBGT'.

 

Edited May 10, 2016 by Valsuelm

[Bartimaeus]

Then I would think most people have a dubious grasp upon the history of the US or the connection between rights and material conditions. White men who didn't own property didn't have voting rights in every state until the 1850's and that was largely due to industrialization pushing more men into urban areas rather than farms. Non-whites, mostly blacks, received the right to vote after the end of slavery and they became paid workers rather than property. Women received the right to vote after they joined the work force in large numbers. What we can see from this pattern is that groups in the US historically only received voting rights when they were part of the workforce, as well as the US being not so great at universal suffrage historically.

 

 

When "being a part of the workforce" is defined as "being paid for your work", anyways. Which it is today still, but...

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

Then I would think most people have a dubious grasp upon the history of the US or the connection between rights and material conditions. White men who didn't own property didn't have voting rights in every state until the 1850's and that was largely due to industrialization pushing more men into urban areas rather than farms. Non-whites, mostly blacks, received the right to vote after the end of slavery and they became paid workers rather than property. Women received the right to vote after they joined the work force in large numbers. What we can see from this pattern is that groups in the US historically only received voting rights when they were part of the workforce, as well as the US being not so great at universal suffrage historically.

 

 

When "being a part of the workforce" is defined as "being paid for your work", anyways. Which it is today still, but...

Well yeah, a slave was something quite different from a wage worker in material terms. Even if the work itself and standard of living didn't change much the relationship to production did and as such we saw a change in rights.

[Bartimaeus]

I was also speaking of mothers and housewives, too - like I said, that definition is still used today, and it's probably for good reason(s), but...

 

On a different note, according to FOX News, "There’s a debate going on in the Kremlin between the Foreign Ministry and the Intelligence Services about whether they should release the 20,000 of Mrs. Clinton’s emails that they have hacked into." It'd be pretty hilarious if they actually did do that (and assuming the story is true and FOX isn't just making crap up).

Edited May 10, 2016 by Bartimaeus

[Hurlshort]

I enjoy a good historical discussion as much as the next guy, but I'm still not quite sure where KP is going with this.  Is this related to a previous discussion?  I went back a few pages and can't seem to find anything.  Something to do with Chomsky?

 

 

In regards to tying voting rights to industry, I'd caution us not to forget that while industry may be the leverage, there still needs to be people who march and protest and use that leverage to gain rights.

[Bartimaeus]

I think Kaine was merely making an observation on the history of U.S. voting rights (and why it makes a sort of sense women didn't have the right to vote in light of your comment about it) - nothing more, really.

Edited May 10, 2016 by Bartimaeus

[Elerond]

 

 

I'm very ambiguous.

 

But my point was it isn't that surprising that women received suffrage when they did given material conditions(the surge of women in the workforce around the US entry into WW1) of the time period.

 

 

I would think most people would say it was surprising it took that long for women to receive the right.  Land of the free, home of the brave and all that.

 

 

I have find it always bit funny that British Colony and Grand Principality in Russian Empire were first places in world to give suffrage to women and establish universal suffrage. And that Russia and Poland did same before most of countries that people now think when one speaks about countries with liberal principalities, values, equal rights, and examples of democracy.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I was also speaking of mothers and housewives, too - like I said, that definition is still used today, and it's probably for good reason(s), but...

Yeah, I was too but I ran out of time. Obviously taking care of kids is hard work, but "worker" usually means "wage worker" in most contexts.

 

I enjoy a good historical discussion as much as the next guy, but I'm still not quite sure where KP is going with this.  Is this related to a previous discussion?  I went back a few pages and can't seem to find anything.  Something to do with Chomsky?

 

 

In regards to tying voting rights to industry, I'd caution us not to forget that while industry may be the leverage, there still needs to be people who march and protest and use that leverage to gain rights.

I'm saying that voting rights in the US can be correlated with material conditions of voting groups and that it should be no surprise that women got the right to vote around the time they joined the work force en masse. The relative material independence from family allowed them to campaign for suffrage, as well as do other things that were common of single women in the 20's. It's an observation, not an argument.

[Elerond]

 

 

HB2 is a haplogroup?

 

It's that anti-LBGT bathroom law that got passed in North Carolina.

 

It's not 'anti-LBGT', it's 'anti-T' if anything. Ls, Bs, and Gs have nothing to do with it.

 

Also, it's 'LGBT', not 'LBGT'.

 

 

 

It works actually also against LGB part and lots of other people also

http://nclawyersweekly.com/2016/03/30/hb2-eliminates-cause-of-action-for-workplace-discrimination/

[Meshugger]

I'm going to play the devil's advocate and claim that women's suffrage was the natural conclusion of men making them equals among themselves and thus making marriage no longer a privilege for women to elevate their status or themselves. Ergo, joining the workforce and being able to vote were the only options left for such values.

 

It's your own fault, men

[HoonDing]

Except during industrialization era children were part of the workforce. Wymyn being able to vote was important for the socialists to gain political power.

[Guard Dog]

It seems Hillary Clinton has received nearly $75k in donations from employees of the DOJ. The Donald on the other hand has received just $381 from two employees. It seems to me the DOJ are the people who would accept or decline the FBI's recommendation to try and indict Hillary if she violated the law by transmitting classified material via unsecured means and then covered it up by destroying the evidence. http://freebeacon.com/issues/hillary-rakes-nearly-75000-justice-department-employees/

 

So the democrats in the DOJ are protecting the democrats nominee for President from criminal prosecution. And the requests for a special counsel have been repeatedly denied by the current President who is also a democrat. And yet it's the Republicans who are being partisan?

 

Once upon a time I'd laugh at the absurdity of this but who has the energy?

[Valsuelm]

 

 

 

HB2 is a haplogroup?

 

It's that anti-LBGT bathroom law that got passed in North Carolina.

 

It's not 'anti-LBGT', it's 'anti-T' if anything. Ls, Bs, and Gs have nothing to do with it.

 

Also, it's 'LGBT', not 'LBGT'.

 

 

 

It works actually also against LGB part and lots of other people also

http://nclawyersweekly.com/2016/03/30/hb2-eliminates-cause-of-action-for-workplace-discrimination/

 

 

See... I actually bothered to read the the Acts, rather than the inciteful BS that is most articles out there discussing the issue. It's not a long read: http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2015E2/Bills/House/PDF/H2v4.pdf

 

It doesn't change anything for Ls, Gs, Bs, Ss (straight folks), or As (asexuals) in regards to any such folk being affected based on the fact that they are Ls, Gs, Bs, Ss, or As. Might they be affected because of something else? Sure, but very probably not.

 

Overall it's a very innocuous piece of legislation without any real teeth. The only reason it's making the news is that it makes a point over biological sex.

 

The issue at the national level is a red herring.

[Wrath of Dagon]

It seems Hillary Clinton has received nearly $75k in donations from employees of the DOJ. The Donald on the other hand has received just $381 from two employees. It seems to me the DOJ are the people who would accept or decline the FBI's recommendation to try and indict Hillary if she violated the law by transmitting classified material via unsecured means and then covered it up by destroying the evidence. http://freebeacon.com/issues/hillary-rakes-nearly-75000-justice-department-employees/

 

So the democrats in the DOJ are protecting the democrats nominee for President from criminal prosecution. And the requests for a special counsel have been repeatedly denied by the current President who is also a democrat. And yet it's the Republicans who are being partisan?

 

Once upon a time I'd laugh at the absurdity of this but who has the energy?

This is a very clear cut case for a special counsel. The media would be howling like banshees if these were Republicans instead of Democrats.

[Calax]

 

Right, and you (to a lesser extent than others) are trying to have her prosecuted under a rule set that was devised and kept on the books when Stealing a Horse was a justifiably hangable offense. When women couldn't vote and renting a room at a hotel as a married couple (when you're not) meant you were married.

IIRC, legally the penalty for horse thievery was not death.  Hanging of horse thieves was done by vigilantes (even if some were "lawmen") not by the state.

 

And while universal voting for Women wasn't ratified until the 1920s, there are records of women voting in 1756 (Lydia Taft) and New Jersey law gave women property owners (of property above a certain size) the vote until 1807 when laws officially disenfranchised women. 

 

I'd be curious to know which states had laws about unmarried couples being married due to virtue of renting a room together.  Most of the common law marriage laws I've heard of have a cohabitation rule that would not be met by sleeping together in a hotel room (and would also result in a lot of John-Prostitute marriages).

 

*does some digging* so recently (2011) a woman was given 60 years in prison in Arkansas for horse theft (five horses).

 

As to the Marriage thing? I admit that was something I read on a "Dumb Laws" website. But along those lines the UCMJ says that you can have sex with a woman A)Only in the missionary position, B) if she's over the age of 12, and C)your wife.

 

And a Mississippi gem from 1964 states that if you have to illegitimate children, you can be jailed and fined.