Electoral-Vote dot com Peanut Gallery

[laughing dog]

The series on “why trans hate” has been very interesting. This week included letters from people who are trans.

Why the Trans Hate?, Part IV: Trans Readers Weigh In

Click on the map for the article

www.electoral-vote.com

I was particularly interested in the stories of those who transitioned, or came out late in life. One thing I hear from liberals who feel they occupy a woke lane but can’t seem to wrap their head around trans is that it’s about “confused teenagers, who are confused by media”. But reading he stories of the people who are 40 or 50yo and finally expressing something that they’ve lived with throughout their lives is valuable context.

I had a male colleague who became a woman in his late 50s. Before his transition, he was unhappy and grumpy. Apparently he had always felt off and "wrong" (his words). When he announced that he was transitioning to a woman, he was the so happy all the time. That continued through his transition. She was literally like a different person.

All I could think about was how hard and sad her life had been up to that point.

 

[Rhea]

Is it just me or is the 3/21 post not up and it’s mid morning already?

 

[Rhea]

From Saturday Q&A:

L.B. in Savannah, GA, asks: If Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is unable to return to the Senate, who do you think will be his successor? As minority whip, Sen. John Thune (R-SD) is technically next in line, but the minority leader could very well be the majority leader in 2024, and I don't know if Thune has the confidence of his fellow Republicans for that position. Can you make any predictions? All I know is that it won't be Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX) or Tommy Tuberville (R-AL).

(V) & (Z) answer: The first thing to keep in mind is that while the Speaker of the House needs a majority of the entire House (which means that, under current circumstances, they need pretty much their entire party), the party leaders of the Senate only need a majority of their own caucus/conference. In other words, the person who replaces McConnell, whenever that happens, will need roughly 26 Republican votes, not 50. So, it's not possible for a small handful of nutters to throw a wrench in the process all by themselves.

We suspect that when McConnell steps down, the Senate Republican Conference will want someone with some leadership experience, but maybe not someone who is as close to McConnell as Thune or Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX). The Party is also mindful of the need to show the world that it's not just the party of old, white men. So, if we had to place a bet, we'd probably bet on Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA), who is currently Republican Policy Committee Chairman. And yes, that is her proper title;

It’s an interesting question about who is doing McConnell’s job now as well as who would take over if he needs to resign.

 

[Rhea]

Some great points in this reader letter. If you don’t think Trump should face indictment and trial for these things, then repeal the laws for the rest of us.

Politics: The People vs. Donald Trump​

A.R. in Los Angeles, CA, writes: In ruminating on the indictment, my primary feeling is one of relief that at least one of these cases has culminated in a decision—I'm tired of hearing the word "imminent".
And I actually think the order of things is either inconsequential or is appropriate in that it seems to be building up to the larger potential crimes.
As (Z) pointed out, we should not adopt the narrative that the New York crimes are no big deal or happen all the time. Neither is true and where they do happen, they should be prosecuted. Michael Cohen served significant prison time for this same activity, while "Individual one" skated at the time because he happened to be president. To those people who say charges like these should not be brought, I say, then repeal the laws that make this activity a crime. As a public attorney, I have an obligation to enforce the law if the evidence supports it. If you don't want me doing my job, then pass different laws.
Trump's response is entirely predictable and reprehensible. But what is more dangerous, in my view, is other elected officials parroting his response. They operate under the same system—which, as we've seen, requires faith that our judges, prosecutors, and juries do their jobs independently and competently, without fear or favor. Do they really want to kick out the legs of that three-legged stool on which they themselves sit? Do they have such cowardice and fear of the mob they think keeps them in their jobs? They are the true enemies of democracy and they need to be rooted out.
As for Fulton County DA Fani Willis, she'll bring her case when it's ready, no less than special counsel Jack Smith and AG Merrick Garland. She's been operating in hostile territory for some time now. This indictment may cause her to delay a little, in order for Trump to be arraigned in New York, but she's no stranger to prosecuting criminals who are wanted in multiple jurisdictions—there's a playbook for that. My guess is that in her eyes, Trump is a mob boss (and there's a playbook for that, too). The judge in the E. Jean Carroll civil case has already taken the unusual step of ordering the jury to remain anonymous out of fear for their safety. That step is normally reserved for criminal trials in mafia cases. (Why this hasn't gotten more media coverage is baffling.) I wouldn't be surprised if the same order is given in Trump's criminal cases.
Can you imagine? A former president, not only charged with crimes in multiple jurisdictions, but who is considered such a threat and who is so venal as to encourage violence against everyone who crosses him or tries to hold him accountable, that the juries can't show their faces. Do the Republicans really want to be on the side of that?
To save our democracy, Trump needs to be charged with every crime that the evidence supports. And I'm grateful that our country has dedicated and courageous prosecutors who are willing to do just that

 

[Rhea]

This reader’s letter from April 8 made me shake my head…

D.D. in Portland, OR, asks: I suspect we agree on over 90% of the political issues of the day, so with that in mind, I ask if the talk about Mike Pence's woman phobia is overblown. OK, so he won't dine alone with a woman who's not his wife. Honestly I've been married over 20 years and I can't remember the last time I did the same. Lunch for two? Sure, several times. Dinner and/or drinks with several people? You bet. But, dinner alone with a woman who is not family? As a politician would answer, "Not that I recall."

So, my question is two-parts: (1) Is this Pence dining with women thing overblown? and (2) Do you think Pence has a similar, yet unspoken, rule against dining alone with gay men?

An inquiring mind wants to know!

Never has dinner with a woman? I do all the time. This seems so strange to me and I was wondering why. Maybe it’s because as a woman in a male-dominated profession, I am more aware of how many work-related dinners occur, and I am the woman at them. Maybe DD needs to consider whether he is keeping women out of his network sub-consciously?

But yeah, I had drinks with a guy from work recently because he had just transferred to our division and wanted to catch up on division culture and and networks. So we went out for drinks to discuss. Both of us are married, neither of our spouses thought there was any odd about it.

And I travel for work and frequently meet up with someone for dinner.


How does this ring for others? Do you have dinners for two with opposite gender people?
And how about that second question - does it carry over to same-gender homosexuals?

 

[Elixir]

How does this ring for others? Do you have dinners for two with opposite gender people?

When I was working - yes. Ritually in some cases, under obligation in others and spontaneously in still others. If there's anything weird about that, it's in the eye of the beholder who thinks it's weird.

 

[Toni]

I’d be uncomfortable if my husband was uncomfortable having dinner or drinks with another woman and I’d be uncomfortable and angry if my husband was upset at me having dinner or drinks with a man. A couple of years ago, I visited my old home town and met up with friends from high school. Included in the small group was a guy I dated…..decades ago. We ended up talking for a couple of hours after everyone else left and I couldn’t think of anything that any one would have seen as inappropriate about that. We also sometimes exchange emails, etc. and have for some years. Emotionally, it’s not much different than when I meet up with or e-mail or text with female friends—ok, I do talk about different things with women than I do with men to some degree. With other women I tend to talk about relationships, women’s stuff and so on. With male friends, it’s more about events and sometimes talking about nostalgic topics.

I hate the implication that men and women cannot work together or socialize together or be friends, even close friends, without there being some air of impropriety.

Re: Mike Pence. I suppose they know Mike Pence’s character and their marriage better than we do. I honestly always thought that Mother should be more concerned about dinners with attractive young men.

 

[crazyfingers]

It was rare for me to have dinner with anyone, just me and someone else male or female. In the early years of my career I had to travel a lot. The days before internet web presentations. 9/11 killed most of my business travel thank goodness. It coincided with the rise of web presentations. I was really tired of all the travel.

But other than having dinner with my boss while traveling I don't recall having dinner with any one person other than what were my annual Japan trips. Typically I'd go from the US and someone from our team in Europe would go at the same time. The two in Europe switched off each year but both were women. So we'd have dinner when not required to be out with a group.

I've always hated the after-hours business dinner so when I traveled alone, say to a trade show, I'd always avoid going out with anyone.

At this juncture, I really can't think of any circumstance when it would make any sense for me to go out to dinner with anyone but my wife. Not that it would be a bad thing. I just can't imagine why. As it is my wife and I are still avoiding restaurants doe to covid.

 

[bilby]

D.D. in Portland, OR, asks: I suspect we agree on over 90% of the political issues of the day, so with that in mind, I ask if the talk about Mike Pence's woman phobia is overblown. OK, so he won't dine alone with a woman who's not his wife. Honestly I've been married over 20 years and I can't remember the last time I did the same. Lunch for two? Sure, several times. Dinner and/or drinks with several people? You bet. But, dinner alone with a woman who is not family? As a politician would answer, "Not that I recall."

So, my question is two-parts: (1) Is this Pence dining with women thing overblown? and (2) Do you think Pence has a similar, yet unspoken, rule against dining alone with gay men?

An inquiring mind wants to know!

Never has dinner with a woman?

Wait, does "dine" exclude "eat lunch"?

That's nonsensical. "Dine" in this context surely means "eat a meal". It doesn't necessarily imply that that meal is "dinner", and that's a good thing, because "dinner" is very poorly defined in English - it strictly means "The main meal of the day", but which meal that is is contextual, and (certainly in England) varies in expectation by region. In the South of England, the three major meals are (in chronological order) Breakfast, Lunch, and Dinner. But in the North of England, they are Breakfast, Dinner, and Tea (aka Supper).

This largely reflects the historical differences between the largely white collar workers of the South, who eat a lavish evening meal, and the largely blue collar workers of the North who eat a substantial mid-day meal to replenish the energy they need for the afternoon's labours. A trend which was reinforced by widespread provision of works canteens beginning in the late nineteenth and continuing up to the late twentieth centuries, that provided subsidised food for workers in the middle of the day.

To use the word "dine" in its specific sense of "eat dinner", rather than its general sense of "eat", in the context of a rule about not dining in the company of a defined class of persons, would be perverse - what possible use could such a rule have?

"Oh, yes, I had a lovely meal with Sharon from accounts yesterday evening, but don't worry, we ate in Grimsby, so it wasn't dinner, just supper".

Surely Mr Pence's personal rule applies to the consumption of any meal in company only of a woman to whom he is not married. Even (perhaps particularly) breakfast.

I suspect that Oregonians, Portlandites, or perhaps just D.D. themselves, is using a foolishly local understanding of the word "dine", and leaping to the unjustified conclusion that Mr Pence is far more reasonable than his actual behaviour supports. They might reconsider their defence of him if they took the (to me obvious) inference that Mr Pence also refuses to eat lunch alone with a woman to whom he is not married.

Or is the error mine? Is Mr Pence to be regularly found in the middle of his workdays at various Washington DC restaurants, eating a fine lunch in company with a lone female coworker, smug in his belief that this loophole permits him to do so without testing his personal prohibitions regarding dining?

 

[Elixir]

Even (perhaps particularly) breakfast.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

How does this ring for others? Do you have dinners for two with opposite gender people?
And how about that second question - does it carry over to same-gender homosexuals?

I can't recall it ever coming up but I have very little reason for such things in my life. I know my wife has gone out to eat with former colleagues to catch up--both male and female. It doesn't bother me at all, although there have been issues with spouses of said colleagues being upset--something we both find stupid.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Perhaps Pence is virtue signalling. More Christian than thou. Aimed at the large right winged evangelical voting community.

 

[crazyfingers]

Billy!

 

[Rhea]

Ugh - disappointed in the “anti-abortion” posts on April 20th.

Three people saying that they have declared a definition of “life” and everyone is therefore required to be bound by it because they believe it.

So much wrong with their ideas.
Especially the wrongness of this one:

So, the idea that a doctor would have to sit by while a mother died of a complication in her pregnancy is not correct.

Someone has the precious privilege to not know the news on this topic.

 

[thebeave]

How does this ring for others? Do you have dinners for two with opposite gender people?
And how about that second question - does it carry over to same-gender homosexuals?

It's pretty clear to me its a personal choice. People should do what's appropriate for their own situation. Many years ago, I would ocassionally meet a very attractive woman in my building at work for happy hour at local pubs, etc (99% of the time at her invitation). Both when she was single (well, technically divorced) and later when she had a boyfriend. She even came to my house a few times. Nothing untoward ever happened between us during this time (I had a personal rule against getting romantically/sexually involved with co-workers or even others in the building, though that was not her rule). She confided in me once that rumors were going around the building about us carrying on a secret affair (which was not true) as we were spotted around town. That kind of gossip bothered me, and made me realize how risky it could be if you were married or involved with someone. About 10+ years ago, I had a girlfriend who was a very jealous (even by her own admission). If I was even talking to another female at a party, she would step in between and "drag" me away, discreetly, then read me the riot act after we left. Had I made a decision to commit to her longterm, there is no way in hell I would take a chance getting spotted having a private dinner with another woman, even if it was totally innocent. The hell to pay afterwards would not be worth it.

So as far as Mike Pence, given my experience, I can see his point. He is a well known public figure. Given the propensity for people to gossip (and in some cases, wanting to destroy him), I think he made the right choice for himself. I really don't understand how he got so much flak for his decision. There are plenty of other things to beat on him about.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

About 10+ years ago, I had a girlfriend who was a very jealous (even by her own admission). If I was even talking to another female at a party, she would step in between and "drag" me away, discreetly, then read me the riot act after we left. Had I made a decision to commit to her longterm, there is no way in hell I would take a chance getting spotted having a private dinner with another woman, even if it was totally innocent. The hell to pay afterwards would not be worth it.

So as far as Mike Pence, given my experience, I can see his point. He is a well known public figure. Given the propensity for people to gossip (and in some cases, wanting to destroy him), I think he made the right choice for himself. I really don't understand how he got so much flak for his decision. There are plenty of other things to beat on him about.

That degree of jealousy would be an absolute deal-breaker for me.

 

[thebeave]

About 10+ years ago, I had a girlfriend who was a very jealous (even by her own admission). If I was even talking to another female at a party, she would step in between and "drag" me away, discreetly, then read me the riot act after we left. Had I made a decision to commit to her longterm, there is no way in hell I would take a chance getting spotted having a private dinner with another woman, even if it was totally innocent. The hell to pay afterwards would not be worth it.

So as far as Mike Pence, given my experience, I can see his point. He is a well known public figure. Given the propensity for people to gossip (and in some cases, wanting to destroy him), I think he made the right choice for himself. I really don't understand how he got so much flak for his decision. There are plenty of other things to beat on him about.

That degree of jealousy would be an absolute deal-breaker for me.

Yeah, it was for me too, but apparently not for her first two husbands. She was actually a good companion (smart, cute, fun, affectionate, etc) for 95% of the time. It was the 5% crazy (jealous, hot tempered and/or feminist nutter) that drove me (and presumably many other boyfriends) away. I would tell my friends that ""Scary Mary" showed up today".

 

[Rhea]

Interesting and useful background. We hear so much of the first clause and so little of the second. This context adds a lot of meat to the amendment.

Saturday 4/29 Q&A

B.H. in Greenbelt, MD, asks:

Why did the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment feel the need to assure the validity of the public debt? What did they think might happen without that language?

(V) & (Z) answer: To start, it helps to read the complete text of that clause:

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

During the Civil War, the U.S. government covered much of its expenditures by issuing war bonds, including some that did not reach full maturity for 20 years. The Confederacy also issued many bonds during the war. After the war, the U.S. government granted generous pensions to Union veterans, such that by the 1880s, fully one-quarter of the federal budget was being paid to Civil War veterans.

The fellows who wrote the Fourteenth Amendment feared that Southerners might one day regain control of the Congress and the White House, and might do any of the following things: (1) invalidate Union bonds, (2) cancel pensions for Union veterans, (3) start paying off Confederate bonds, and/or (4) award pensions to Confederate veterans.

 

[Rhea]

This is an interesting take. I could indeed imagine FOX being savvy enough to think of it.

Sunday Mailbag

Click on the map for the article

www.electoral-vote.com

Sunday Mailbag 4/30

S.V. in London, England, UK, writes: You wrote: "For the smaller networks, Newsmax and OAN, payouts of a billion dollars, give or take, are not possible. They are marginally profitable, if at all, and don't have that kind of money in the bank. An adverse ruling in the Dominion case would bankrupt them."

It struck me: Could this have been the rationale for settling in the first place? The reason that Fox hosts continued to broadcast the lies, even though they themselves didn't believe them, was the fear that being honest would cause their more rabid viewers to switch to the competition and therefore adversely affect the share price. By settling for $787 million and effectively admitting that "Stop the Steal" was a big lie they've strengthened Dominion's case against the competition. Not only that, but if Dominion wins against Rudy Giuliani and Mike Lindell it gives Fox an excuse for not having to invite them on to their shows anymore.

While I'd personally love for Smartmatic to drag the Fox hosts into open court and force a multi-billion dollar pay-out, it's going to be difficult for a relatively small company not to settle for a similar amount as Dominion. Perhaps Fox considered it worthwhile to pay in order to effectively kneecap the competition. They still have other topics beyond "Stop the Steal" to keep their rabid fan base coming back for their Daily Hate.

Emphasis mine

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I doubt that. Fox News was able to not admit wrong doing, so that helped them with the "news" part of the business.