In a few days the people of Alabama
will go to the polls to select a new senator to represent their
state. To vote is probably the highest civic responsibility in our
country. It is not something to be taken lightly, especially in
today's era of politics. Our current president has come out in
support of Roy Moore, the Republican candidate, which in the normal
course of events would be understandable. But there have been some
questions raised as to Moore's past behavior with regard to sexual
conduct towards minors.
At some point in time we are all faced
with choices that will test our ethics, our core beliefs, our values.
The test now is being posed to the people of Alabama who have the
duty to try to pick the best candidate to maintain our democracy and
uphold this country's core values. It is a test of what those
values really are.
Maybe a voice of experience could
remind us. Yes, I know, but Alabama is a Republican state, so the
voice should be Republican. :) And it was a good speech, so I had
to resurrect him.
And maybe I'll give a plug for his
book, as the proceeds are going to a good cause. At least he is
doing something with his free time to help others. It was also a rather amusing interview. Something we could all use right about now.
Update:
Doug Jones, the Democratic candidate for senator of Alabama, has been projected the winner of the special election.
Doug Jones, the Democratic candidate for senator of Alabama, has been projected the winner of the special election.
113 comments:
The conventional wisdom is that Roy Moore is going to win in Alabama on Tuesday. The polling certainly seems to be favorable to him. Caveats to the polling include:
1. There is no history of credible polling in Alabama. Alabama always votes Republican, so the pollsters don't bother to do any significant work here establishing a base line. The Republicans gonna win; go with that and you're always right. Except, maybe not this time. There's no public pollsters been working polls down here to establish any history understanding the place.
2. The Bradley effect is possible here; people may feel compelled by tribal pressures to vote for Bradley when they'd really rather not, so they maybe tell the pollsters they'll vote for Moore, but then they don't show up to vote.
Caveats aside, I'm thinking the conventional wisdom is probably right on this one; Alabama votes for the child molester, favoring a child molester over a Democrat.
But, I ain't givin’ odds.
I thought for sure that Marcus would have jumped all over this post because I highlighted George W. Maybe he hasn't seen it yet. lol!
Caveats aside, I'm thinking the conventional wisdom is probably right on this one; Alabama votes for the child molester, favoring a child molester over a Democrat.
But, I ain't givin’ odds.
Didn't I read somewhere that Alabama has wanted to attract business? Foreign businesses included? I have to wonder if they don't realize that Moore is probably not an attraction. I'm not sure if a business friendly Trump would counteract that or not. I'm not sure anymore if a Trump endorsement is even a plus. But I would guess Alabama is part of his base, so perhaps it is.
Iraq has declared itself fully liberated from Daesh.
The Iraqi military has "fully liberated" all of Iraq's territory of "ISIS terrorist gangs" and retaken full control of the Iraqi-Syrian border, it said Saturday in a statement.
"Our heroic armed forces have now secured the entire length of the Iraq-Syria border," Prime Minister Haider Al-Abadi said on his Twitter account. "We defeated Daesh (ISIS) through our unity and sacrifice for the nation. Long live Iraq and its people."
I am happy for them. I hope that the situation continues to improve.
Strange to say I am kind of envious, they have made progress in regaining their country from their version of extremists. We, on he other hand, are still sliding down the rabbit hole into Trumplandia.
Well, back to chipping at my driveway. Snow fell right after the extreme warm weather we had, melting as it hit the ground, and forming a nice coating of ice on driveways and sidewalks. So as it warms up again I diligently go out and chip away, in hopes of having a nice, safe, skid free space to walk and drive on. I'm glad I'm not down south, though, they seem to be getting hammered with winter weather. Strange.
Lynnette: "I thought for sure that Marcus would have jumped all over this post because I highlighted George W. Maybe he hasn't seen it yet. lol!"
Didn't watch that clip yet. I might, if I find the ime for it. Might comment then.
About this #metoo, yes there is Moore and I'm not even convinced yet he did anything wrong. Then theres Trump with his locker room talk - prolly just banter.
The rest, the really vile stuff, it's mostly from so called "liberals" and self-professed feminism males.
You see Lynnette, those are the wolves in sheep clothing you really need to be careful with. They say all the right things, they support the right causes, and still, in their freezer: a half eaten penis from a Canadian hitch-hiker.
But there are double standards I guess. When Clinton had sat in the oval office smoking cigars he had soaked in Monicas the interns' pussy ya'll gave him a second term.
But Moore hittin' on late teens when he was in his thirties 40 years ago, that seems like it's a big deal. R U fur realz?
I hit on late teens when I was about 30. Didn't have much luck with 'em but I tried my best. Every one of my still not attached friends did the same.
Plus, if a 10-5 year age difference is suddenly OUTRAGEOS, well then I 'xpect we'll find a LOOOONG list of perverts we can name.
"I hit on late teens when I was about 30."
Not to pass that off as normal behavior, but…
There's a difference in ‛hitting on’ late teenagers when you're not yet 30 (which is what I take ‘about 30’ to mean) and prowling the native teen habitats for prey young enough that you need to check with their mother so's you don't get arrested for it when you're over 30.
Other than that one observation, I'll leave you to deal with Lynnette on this one.
Shorthands has gone all out for outrage once again. It seems that a WaPo reporter posted a picture of Trump walking into a half empty arena along along with his tweet on the subject (personal twitter account, not WaPo twitter account). Apparently the arena filled up before Shorthands took to the podium to speak. He somehow found out about the reporter's personal tweets and found out that there had originally been a photo of him walking in to a half empty arena (the photo had been replaced in the meantime with subsequent photos). Trump demanded an apology nevertheless. Got an apology even though he'd never been confronted by the photo to which he was objecting.
Not good enough for Shorthands. Now he wants the guy fired for stuff that was on his personal twitter account and was already ‛corrected’ (if that be the proper term) before Shorthands even noticed it.
Apparently this is all very much worse than sexually assaulting women, at least in Trumpland. ‛Cause Shorthands ain't gettin’ fired.
"Other than that one observation…"
Make that two observations. Bill Clinton was reelected to his second term in November 1996. The Lewinsky relationship didn't come to light until 1998. Clinton had already gotten his second chance by then.
But Moore hittin' on late teens when he was in his thirties 40 years ago, that seems like it's a big deal. R U fur realz?
I think the accusation was a little more than just hitting on late teens.
I hit on late teens when I was about 30. Didn't have much luck with 'em but I tried my best.
Weell, I'll tell you that when I was in my late teens the idea of being romantically involved with someone 30 years old had a certain eeeewww factor to it. Of course, there was always that saying, never trust someone over 30. It was only later that age differences started to melt away a little more. However, I have known exceptions to that. In once case the girl actually married her coach after she became of legal age. I won't speculate on any physical relationship prior to that.
Trump demanded an apology nevertheless. Got an apology even though he'd never been confronted by the photo to which he was objecting.
Not good enough for Shorthands. Now he wants the guy fired for stuff that was on his personal twitter account and was already ‛corrected’ (if that be the proper term) before Shorthands even noticed it.
I can see that Trump obviously has too much time on his hands. Perhaps he needs to get a job?
(BTW, in the interview of W. that I posted he was asked if he watched a lot of television when he was president. The answer was "no", he was too busy.)
Lynnette: "Weell, I'll tell you that when I was in my late teens the idea of being romantically involved with someone 30 years old had a certain eeeewww factor to it. "
Different strokes for different folks I guess. I remember my first really serious GF. We got together when we were both 19 and stayed together for 'bout 3 years or so. Her previous was 36. I found that kinda repulsive, she thought of it as an adventure she had had.
My point is, if it isn't illegal there's really no point in bringing it up. IF Moore did have sexual relations with a 14 YO when he was a grown man that's damning, and I would of course say so. But I see little proof.
If he was say 29-30 and trolled for 18-19 YO women that's no issue at all. I could have done that myself. I didn't actively do so, but given the opportunity I'd have gone for it for sure.
And what about the sex-crime-victim now ruling France? He obviously got raped by that 'ol granny he later married and noone says fuckall 'bout it. He was even on the cover of Times and noone asked him 'bout the sexual abuse he had endured by his teacher back in the day. Funny, no?
I mean she's obviously about a hundred years old and the poor boy is still what fags would call a "twinkie" and still she walks around free. What's up with that?
"I could have done that myself."
He did troll for girls 14, 15, 16 (the 16 year old claims he attempted to force her to perform a blowjob, but she successfully resisted and got away). You claim you did not actively troll for teens; he did troll for teens.
Other girls reported what would be considered lesser degrees of overt sexual abuse. You should probably look further afield for data than just hitting Breitbart or FoxNews.
And, by the way, he was over 30 not coming up on 30.
"What's up with that?"
She stands virtually zero chance of ever being nominated for United States Senator by either major party.
Lee: "He did troll for girls 14, 15, 16 (the 16 year old claims he attempted to force her to perform a blowjob, but she successfully resisted and got away). "
OK, so he's a bastard then, now there's only the little issue of proof. You wanna believe Gloria Allard, who tried to force meme Trump as a sexual predator? OK, I don't. I think she's a lying bitch.
Fact is, the VAST majority of the men caught up in #meetoo are not conservative men, but coat-turning, slithery, loudmouthed LIBERALS who preach feminism for the masses and sado-rape little girls, or boys, in private.
Best example from here in sweden: Kapten Klänning (translates to Captain Sundress) a high level police officer who got his nickname because he was ALL into this feminism agenda and hunted down police officers who were seen as part of a male collective, shaming and demoting them.
Turns out Kapten Klänning was busted with a bag filled with oversized dildos and handcuffs on his way to gangrape and abuse some 12 YO slavic girl he and his companions had bought.
There are many other examples, and you can just look to #metoo in the US to see that the vast majority of actual culprits named and shamed are NOT normal conservative white men.
Homophila = leftism
Transgenderism = leftism
Pedrasty = lefism (here we stand today)
Pedofilia = leftism
Necrofilia = leftism (here is where we're headed)
It's indeed a slippery slope...
And I don't even wanna try and envison the next steps on this ladder of debachery they have in store for us.
Funny, though, how PeteS as a self described Christian is A-OK with all of this, all that his God forbids. What does he say when he prays? I really wonder.
"You wanna believe Gloria Allard…"
I believe it's Allred. Not that she matters here. She came late to this party.
He was even on the cover of Times and noone asked him 'bout the sexual abuse he had endured by his teacher back in the day. Funny, no?
I guess you would have to ask the people of France about that. I have noticed, though, that for some reason there can be a different standard in people's thinking when the abuser is a woman and the victim a boy. Although, there have been a number of high profile cases here in the States where the woman has been convicted. Hmm...I was going to cite one, but I couldn't remember the teacher's name, so I googled around and found quite a few, actually. In the case I am thinking of the woman got pregnant and married the boy after she got out of prison, and he was then of age. They stayed married for quite a while, but ended up getting divorced just recently. The boy was just 13 when they started having sex.
Anyway, I don't think, for the most part, that this is ignored as you might think. A minor is a minor.
Fact is, the VAST majority of the men caught up in #meetoo are not conservative men, but coat-turning, slithery, loudmouthed LIBERALS who preach feminism for the masses and sado-rape little girls, or boys, in private.
There is probably an argument that both sides abuse at a similar rate. But, like the black vs white murder rates, I don't think I will take the bait and go down that rabbit hole.
It seems that a road is being considered for construction through a rather prominent wild life refuge in Alaska. It is ostensibly being planned for the benefit of around 980 people in a small town so that they can have, supposedly, quicker access to a regional airport for medical evacuation. But, coincidentally, there is a Japanese salmon canning operation in the town that would also benefit, monetarily, from the road. Go figure...
"I don't think I will take the bait…"
I'm perhaps less cautious; I'll come right out with the opinion that Marcus very likely has absolutely zero evidence for that claim, and is mostly just trolling us there. Very likely he doesn't believe that either.
Alabama--Roy Moore
"While the race remains virtually deadlocked, white women support
the Republican candidate by a nearly 20 point margin. And Moore
holds an incredible 35-point lead among white women without a
college degree."
NBCNews
I'm not sure I'm all in with the explanation they offer, but I did find the numbers remarkable.
Quickly changing subjects:
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Trump/Russia
"The constant revelations create such a blur that context sometimes is
overlooked. Trump and his operatives have lied repeatedly, denying
that they had any contacts with Russians. Now we now know of at least
19 meetings among 31 interactions."
Bloomberg
The Jerusalem Post is alleging anti-semitic violence breaking out in Malmö, Sweden and a general press silence on the subject. Marcus hasn't had much to say about it either.
[Marcus]: "Funny, though, how PeteS as a self described Christian is A-OK with all of this..."
You on a weekend bender again?
FoxNews poll is bucking the trend and showing Doug Jones (Democrat) 10 points ahead of Roy Moore.
Nah, Pete, just tryin' do drag you into the discussion. I did a halfassed job of doing that I see. You DID respond, but never really got into the debate.
Lee: "The Jerusalem Post is alleging anti-semitic violence breaking out in Malmö, Sweden and a general press silence on the subject. Marcus hasn't had much to say about it either."
Hey, give me some time for it to be reported before you accuse me of being silent, whydontcha? Yep, "firebombings" (we're talking teens with petrol bottles here) were aimed at Jewish places in both Gothenburg (3 arabs arrested) and Malmö (no arabs arrested - yet).
So? What's that got to do with me? It was pretty clear that arabs would get panty-hurt over Trump's latest decision. And we've got lots of arabs here. Some of 'em reacted by inflammatory speeches, some kids took to throwing petrol-filled bottles at Jewish spots. How is any of that even remotely my fault or my responsibility?
And no, the Swedish media has NOT been silent on the matter. It gets pretty much coverage actually.
Here are articles from out two biggest tabloids:
https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/krim/a/e18nVQ/misstankta-for-attack-mot-synagogan-kom-nyligen-till-sverige
https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/vmQBll/trump-ar-bara-en-anledning-till-att-fa-judehata
https://www.expressen.se/kvallsposten/just-nu-brandbomber-hittades-vid-judiska-kapellet/
https://www.expressen.se/gt/de-misstanks-ligga-bakom-attacken-mot-synagogan/
https://www.expressen.se/ledare/naomi-abramowicz/jag-tvivlar-pa-att-judehatet-kan-stoppas/
Lynnette: "There is probably an argument that both sides abuse at a similar rate. But, like the black vs white murder rates, I don't think I will take the bait and go down that rabbit hole."
Why don't you just tally up the #metoo accused and then put them in either the left of politics column or the right of politics column? You'd soon get my point.
Sexual predators are by and large psycopaths. They have to be because to be ignorant of the life you destroy by sexually assaulting them you need to be detached of human emotions - a psychopath. And a psycopath is NOT one who stands against the wind, goes against the grain, it's one who rides the easiest wave and says all the right things. That's why you'll find your gropers and kiddie fiddlers in the most respectable circles of society. Currently the leftie-liberal circles.
I'm not sure I'm all in with the explanation they offer, but I did find the numbers remarkable.
It's an interesting theory they present. All through history, except recently, women have had to rely on men for their survival and social status. I can see where they may have learned to overlook the behavior of men to maintain their standing. However, now women who have the ability to support themselves are free to go their own way. That is probably one reason we are seeing more women feel free to step up and out the men in their pasts who have committed some kind of sexual misconduct. In a lower income state like Alabama women who are less financially able are still sticking to the men who have supported them. Roy Moore just embodies that kind of person.
Why don't you just tally up the #metoo accused and then put them in either the left of politics column or the right of politics column? You'd soon get my point.
No, actually, if the theory presented in Lee's article is valid I would expect not to see as many conservative women come forward to accuse anyone. Many are from lower income states. That doesn't necessarily mean that abuse has not occurred. It just means that the women are not willing to talk about it.
Sexual predators are by and large psycopaths.
I think I would use the term sociopath instead. At least for some. Others are the product of poor upbringings, peer pressure, or a culture of abuse that has gone unchecked for too long. The Trump tape with his "locker room" talk would be an example of that kind of culture. Brushing off the offensive behavior as boys will be boys, and because he was a rich boy, it was just fine and dandy to assault women.
"…I would expect not to see as many conservative women come
forward…"
He was focusing on the men getting hit with abuse charges; he was looking at it from that perspective, not so much interested in the women's perspective. (I had to read it twice before I picked up on that, after the second read I had to delete the post I'd put in reply.)
Yes, he was suggesting that more left-wing men are accused of sexual misconduct than are right-wing. With my comment I made two assumptions, the first being that it would be the women in their milieu who would be more likely to accuse them. That is, left-wing women would accuse left-wing men and right-wing women accuse right-wing men. This may or may not be a valid assumption. The second assumption is that right-wing women (or conservative women) are more likely to need a man for financial support or social status. This also may or may not be true. Therefore, if the theory is correct that women tend to basically protect the men in their lives who are their financial support and/or instrumental in their social standing right-wing women would be less likely to come forward.
But this argument may be moot anyway as no one has really calculated the political leanings of all of those accused. Using only the list of high profile cases which have come to light recently would not be a complete picture of the depth of the problem.
"Yes, he was suggesting that more left-wing men are accused
of sexual misconduct than are right-wing."
I think a simple head count of recent charges would dispel that notion.
It's rather pathetic when left and right accuse each other of having the greatest number of sexual predators. Especially when the two sides simply take their ideological presuppositions and fashion them into reasons why they lead to predation. Some hard evidence would be nice.
[Lynnette]: "All through history, except recently, women have had to rely on men for their survival and social status."
A classic leftist trope. Human bonds through history have been based on cooperation. If that were not the case things would be much bleaker for women as, if it were to come down a basic physical contest, they don't stand a chance (you just have to Google "weaker sex" to see how desperate the modern world is to forget that biological truism). Meanwhile, the left in particular seems determined to undermine one of the greatest civilising influences on men -- marriage. Both men and women have lost out as a result, but by far the biggest financial losers are women and children who are overwhelmingly more likely to end up in poverty as a result of familial breakdown.
"I can see where they may have learned to overlook the behavior of men to maintain their standing. However, now women who have the ability to support themselves are free to go their own way. That is probably one reason we are seeing more women feel free to step up and out the men in their pasts who have committed some kind of sexual misconduct. In a lower income state like Alabama women who are less financially able are still sticking to the men who have supported them."
This doesn't make sense in the context of sexual predators who prey on multiple people. You could perhaps argue your point for women who stick with an abusive partner. But it can hardly explain a reluctance to out a serial predator who by definition is not their current supporter.
P.S. One of the high profile Weinstein types in the UK, publicist Max Clifford died in prison yesterday. He was about three quarters of the way through an eight year sentence for preying on young models that he promoted. Totally off topic, but I was embarrassed to learn he was the originator of the "Freddie Starr ate my hamster" headline ;-/
[Marcus]: "Nah, Pete, just tryin' do drag you into the discussion. I did a halfassed job of doing that I see. You DID respond, but never really got into the debate."
Sorry Marcus, a bit busy at the mo. However, regarding some of the leftist lunacy, have you been following any of the furore over the Canadian bill C-16, which "adds gender identity and gender expression to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination". Effectively it makes it illegal for you not to use a person's "preferred pronouns" -- if you referred to a bearded trannie as "he" you could be done for hate speech. Jordan Peterson, a professor of psychology at U.Toronto has been in the headlights for dissenting.
But it has taken on a whole new dimension when a young (left-leaning, feminist) teaching assistant at Wilfrid Laurier University in Ontario was hauled up in front of an inquisition for daring to show a three minute clip of Peterson from a debate aired on a public news channel. She had the good sense to record it, and the crazy leftist bile is simply breathtaking. Look it up on youtube, it's all quite entertaining (in a "holy shit, can this be real?" kind of way).
(Sorry, should have mentioned, Lindsay Shepherd is the young lady's name. And for a modern kid in her early twenties she has a lot common sense compared to some of her peers).
"It's rather pathetic when left and right accuse each other of having
the greatest number of sexual predators."
So far as I can tell her left position came down to, and still is that:
"There is probably an argument that both sides abuse at a similar rate."
Lynnette @ Mon Dec 11, 12:19:00 am ↑↑
Perhaps you should wait until she actually makes the argument you wish to denounce before you begin to denounce her for it. Ya reckon?
Pete: "Meanwhile, the left in particular seems determined to undermine one of the greatest civilising influences on men -- marriage. Both men and women have lost out as a result, but by far the biggest financial losers are women and children who are overwhelmingly more likely to end up in poverty as a result of familial breakdown."
AMEN! Amen to that.
Also, I'd like to point out that among "strong men" even criminal strong men they detest rapists and especially kiddy-fiddlers who are seen as the WORST scum. Even in our jails we have to (not have to, but we do) keep rapists in "sex-bunkers" or the other men incarcerated would just beat them to death.
At least in Sweden this is the case. We have the Kumla "sex-bunker" where we place those deviants for the sole reason of them being beaten to death if they were put in the slammer with robbers and murderers and the like.
And in thie whole #meetoo hurricane there's been ONE (1) mentioned self proclaimed rightist who got into the spotlight over here (and you can bet that coverage was diligent). He got off off the charges and it's pretty plain to see what sort of bunny-boiler it was tried to frame him. Zero credibility.
The rest have been self proclaimed feinists males. Quite a bunch now have had to resign and go into hiding. All leftists.
Pete: "However, regarding some of the leftist lunacy, have you been following any of the furore over the Canadian bill C-16, which "adds gender identity and gender expression to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination". Effectively it makes it illegal for you not to use a person's "preferred pronouns" -- if you referred to a bearded trannie as "he" you could be done for hate speech. Jordan Peterson, a professor of psychology at U.Toronto has been in the headlights for dissenting."
I hadn't heard of that but I am not surprised. Not in the least.
After all, once you've decided race is not a factor, and that cultures are equal, why not say gender is a social construct too? You seem to be on board with at least the first and prolly the second there, so why not the third?
See where that leads you? You who shame me speaking honest about race as being "racist" and that I am an "unashamed racist" for bringing it up? Can you not see that disregarding science and obvious observations in one area leads to us doing the same in another?
Either we stick to truth, the facts, or we don't.
[Lynnette]: "All through history, except recently, women have had to rely on men for their survival and social status."
[Petes]: "Both men and women have lost out as a result, but by far the biggest financial losers are women and children who are overwhelmingly more likely to end up in poverty as a result of familial breakdown."
Actually, that really was what I was referring to. For years women did not have the financial wherewithal to survive on their own. Their need for a man, whether it was a father, brother, or husband, forced them to remain in possibly abusive relationships. Couple that with some beliefs that place women as second class citizens and women had little recourse. This kind of environment makes it very difficult to grow and form one's own opinion as well. Perhaps leading to a less informed electorate in some places.
[Lynnette]: "In a lower income state like Alabama women who are less financially able are still sticking to the men who have supported them.
[Petes]: "This doesn't make sense in the context of sexual predators who prey on multiple people."
Who do sexual predators prey on? Isn't it usually those who are the most vulnerable, such as children who are less able to judge, or women who have been taught to believe that men are their sole source of support? Or perhaps women who have been taught to believe that they are second class citizens because of archaic laws? My guess is that, like serial killers, sexual predators have a "type" that they prey on. They don't have to be married to them.
[Petes}: "Totally off topic, but I was embarrassed to learn he was the originator of the "Freddie Starr ate my hamster" headline ;-/"
Don't be, you didn't know. In fact they were just talking about that on a radio call in show the other day. In the case of famous people who have produced works that we have enjoyed, such as a movie or TV show, is it still okay to watch them? I loved the Bill Cosby show, but is it still okay to watch it after all of the allegations made by so many women that he drugged and raped them? Bill Cosby was also famous for standing up and calling on black men to shoulder their familial responsibilities. Is it okay to listen to him? Can we weed out the bad to still appreciate the good?
[Petes]: "It's rather pathetic when left and right accuse each other of having the greatest number of sexual predators. Especially when the two sides simply take their ideological presuppositions and fashion them into reasons why they lead to predation."
I should address this as well. I have no idea if there is any evidence that political affiliation has a bearing on whether or not someone is more likely to be an abuser or not. That was Marcus who suggested that. My question was is there a correlation between economic status, social status, archaic laws or environment to cause women to basically stick their heads in the sand?
"While the race remains virtually deadlocked, white women support
the Republican candidate by a nearly 20 point margin. And Moore
holds an incredible 35-point lead among white women without a
college degree."
These numbers are rather staggering. Yet I can't believe that it is just education, or lack thereof, that is causing this kind of polling. There are other factors at work. Why do these women not even want to entertain the idea that Roy Moore is guilty?
For that matter, why did so many well educated women vote for Trump?
"…the biggest financial losers are women and children…"
It almost seems like he's arguing that it's a bad thing that women don't have to stay with abusive husbands just to survive (and can now live independently, albeit often near or below poverty level). I'm sure he'd deny that being his point, but that argument is made by some men I know (often these are men who've discovered their wives can flee now instead of just absorbing the blows so the kids don't starve) and it usually sounds a lot like the argument Petes is makin’.
"Why do these women not even want to entertain the idea
that Roy Moore is guilty?"
Because they want to vote for him anyway, and they don't want to have to admit to that. So, they pretend to not believe it.
(Same thing as grandma's conviction that Obama was a secret Muslim; admitting that her objection was to his color got her looked at askance by the grandkids. Claiming to believe he was secretly a Muslim got eyes rolled, but that was preferable to the looks she got when she admitted that her object was to his skin color--black bastard in her White House; just ain't right. That last one was harder to get by the PC police.)
[Marcus]: "After all, once you've decided race is not a factor, and that cultures are equal, why not say gender is a social construct too? You seem to be on board with at least the first and prolly the second there, so why not the third?"
"See where that leads you? You who shame me speaking honest about race as being "racist" and that I am an "unashamed racist" for bringing it up? Can you not see that disregarding science and obvious observations in one area leads to us doing the same in another?"
"Either we stick to truth, the facts, or we don't."
That's some pretty confused logic. I expect it suits you to be confused, in order to justify your racism. Don't bother trying to co-opt me into it, just 'cos you think I might be on your side of the fence on some issues.
Sure, I think people with gender dysphoria are mentally disordered. They claim that gender is not biologically determined, and that a person is male or female solely on their own say so. This earns them the ire of a lot of gays and lesbians who have been arguing for years that homosexuality is biologically determined, as a counter to those who claim it is a matter of environment and choice.
Just because I think they have some mental issues, and can even be quite a pain in the ass about it, doesn't mean I don't think they are people. They have the same right to exist as you or me. So do people of all races. It doesn't matter if they have the IQ of a turnip (or a swede, as we call it here). That doesn't make them less valuable, or justify despising them as you seem to.
Because they want to vote for him anyway...
Why?
Because he is the Republican candidate? The other Alabama senator made it clear he did not vote for Moore, but wrote in a candidate instead.
Because they support his policies? Does it really come down to this:
A strong family based on marriage between one man and one woman is and should remain our only guide and model. I oppose abortion, same-sex marriage, civil unions, and all other threats to the traditional family order.
Federal funding for Planned Parenthood or any form of abortion should be stopped. Roy Moore website
How does sexually molesting minors square with traditional family values?
"Because he is the Republican candidate?"
Yep. And, just as important he's not the Democrat.
NASA will be streaming the Geminid Meteor Shower tomorrow night on this channel.
It's supposed to be too cloudy in my location for any viewing.
At this time the results in the Alabama election are Doug Jones 49.9 vs Roy Moore 48.4. Very close, and once the tally is complete I will add a heartfelt congratulations to the people of Alabama.
(I am trying hard not to stand up and cheer until it is actually final.)
Yup, just as I suspected, the campaign chair for Moore is urging a recount.
They won't get the recount unless they're willing to pay for it (not close enough to qualify for an automatic recount). They're not going to be willing to pay for it.
Now we'll get to see just how fast Mitch McConnell can slam through the Republican tax cuts.
In a perverse way, this may make it even more likely that the tax cuts pass. The Republicans will be eager, eager to the point of near hysteria, to get those tax cuts passed right away, and they may entirely quit trying to worry ‘bout the glitches in the system.
‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾
We might also discover in the coming days that white women in Alabama continued to vote for Roy Moore, even with the charges of child molestation hanging out there. In fact, I think that's probably likely, considering how close the vote is; white women voted for Roy Moore is my guess.
I was kind of wondering if it wasn't the men of the state who actually stood up and tipped the balance. That, and I was wondering if it wasn't Trump's endorsement that helped.
"I was wondering if it wasn't Trump's endorsement that helped."
Trump's endorsement seems to have helped Roy Moore a little, but not much; obviously, not enough. This has got to worry those Republicans who've banked on Trump's popularity to help them get through 2018, and that would include all House members from swingable districts (not so many of those left, but those folks still have to worry). Plus, it could include as many as five or six Republican Senators (at the outside).
The AssociatedPress is reporting that the Republican Conference Committee has reached a deal and will report out a compromise version of the Republican tax cuts for the rich tax plan as soon as it's written up, maybe even by this afternoon.
[Lynnette]: "I was wondering if it wasn't Trump's endorsement that helped."
[Lee]: "Trump's endorsement seems to have helped Roy Moore a little, but not much; obviously, not enough."
No, I meant that Trump's endorsement of Moore helped elect Jones. If that is the case then perhaps the tipping point has come. The point of disenchantment with Trump by some of his base. Or perhaps he has angered so many who don't normally vote. I hear that the black turnout was higher than normal.
But I will not get my hopes up. Not until we see what happens in 2018.
The AssociatedPress is reporting that the Republican Conference Committee has reached a deal and will report out a compromise version of the Republican tax cuts for the rich tax plan as soon as it's written up, maybe even by this afternoon.
I saw that. They can still manage to screw up things, even if they lose control of Congress in 2018. I see that the compromise bill removes the individual ACA mandate. Makes me wonder what else is tucked among its many pages.
"I meant that Trump's endorsement of Moore helped elect Jones."
I don't think so. This is Alabama we're discussing here.
There'll be more in depth analysis of the data out of Alambama in a week or so, and we'll find out eventually.
"Makes me wonder what else is tucked among its many pages."
Yeah, as I mentioned before, the Republican leadership is likely to just forget ‛bout any worries over glitches in the system--just get something, anything, across the finish line.
However, I've always believed that this is where they'll run into the most trouble, final passage will be the hardest lift for them.
We'll soon see if I was correct in that belief.
[Lynnettel: " "I meant that Trump's endorsement of Moore helped elect Jones."
[Lee]: "I don't think so. This is Alabama we're discussing here.
There'll be more in depth analysis of the data out of Alabama in a week or so, and we'll find out eventually."
Look again...
Alabama numbers
Yeah, as I mentioned before, the Republican leadership is likely to just forget ‛bout any worries over glitches in the system--just get something, anything, across the finish line.
It's not good to rush things, especially with so many people opposed. But I don't think they care.
"Look again..."
There'll be more detailed data coming out later; education levels, income levels, voter frequency analyses, things like that.
"I don't think they care."
They have other cares. Republican primary voters, i.e. ‛the base’, and the Republican donor class come in first and second on the list of their cares (not necessarily in the order I've arranged them here).
It may bear noting that, while most political junkies are still fixated today on Roy Moore losing Alabama, the Republicans did not get their agreed upon final tax cuts drawn up for submission yesterday. It is not inconceivable that, when they went to write it all down, they may have discovered that they've promised different Republican supplicants inconsistent results. They may not have a deal after all.
That's probably not it, but I'm keeping a weather eye on the horizon for that those tax cuts. They've not made it out of the mists yet.
By the way…
There's a self-delusion developing amongst Republican pundits, bloggers, and talking heads to the effect that the Republican ‛base’ is engaged in ‛triggering the libs’¹. This is bullshit.
It very well may be that the actual fascists do that for fun. But the Republican voter ‘base’ actually believes in what they're doing. They intend to turn back the clock to a time they found more comfortable, a time when the niggers kept on their own side of town and knew their place in society, and when the women knew their place too. Failing that, they intend to burn the whole damn political system to the ground. The Republican pundits, bloggers, and talking heads don't really want to believe this (well, ‛cept some of the true fascists among them). They'd rather believe they can still control ‘the base’ whose votes they're gonna need to govern. They're wrong. "Triggering the libs" isn't the primary point for most of the ‛base’; most of them actually want what they say they want. (Doesn't mean a little ‛triggering’ along the way can't be fun, but that ain't the point for most of them.) Most of ‛the base’ has come to actually believe the faerie tales that make up Republican histories and economics. They believe in trickle down economics and that the liberals gave away a won war in Vietnam (and Iraq), and most of that whole line that dominates FoxNews and Radio-Right-Wing all day long, five days a week (seven days a week in the case of FoxNews). They expect their politicians to restore ‘the good old days’ and to make it true this time.²
‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾
¹ Perhaps the term ‘shared-delusion’ would be more applicable here. Regardless… "Triggering the libs" is described as "…a phrase used by some conservatives and the Alt-right with regards to actions taken specifically to upset, or trigger, liberals.".
In the real world it most often takes the less highminded approach of trolling or being vicious and/or stupid just for the fun of it.
² Ain't gonna happen.
As of now, the final version of the Republicans' tax cuts for the rich bill is due out tomorrow, finally. I think I'd bet against that happenin’. Probably wouldn't offer odds though.
I talked to someone today who went to a tax seminar that did an overview of the various tax bills, both Senate and House, comparing them and the current tax law. He was pleasantly surprised that there were actually some reasonable actions that cleaned up some things. However, while he agreed that the corporate tax rate was too high, they have cut that a little too much. The purpose was supposedly to encourage companies to bring back money they have been sending overseas to avoid taxes. If that were to work as designed that would perhaps affect countries where that money is currently hiding.
Last I heard there was still opposition from various people in Congress. Whether there will be enough to torpedo the bill remains to be seen.
"He was pleasantly surprised that there were actually some
reasonable actions that cleaned up some things."
Our tax code is such a mess that it would be difficult to do any kind of drastic revision that won't ‘clean up some things’.
I've long advocated for a rewrite of our tax code, top to bottom, start from scratch. But not the mess they're proposing. That's just gonna make the problems worse.
"The purpose was supposedly to encourage companies to bring
back money they have been sending overseas to avoid taxes."
I gotta wonder who was behind that seminar. That's a totally bogus argument. (And Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell, and any of the rest of the Republicans who're less than completely clueless on the subject, know it's a totally bogus argument.)
I've been saying right along that Trump is probably safe from impeachment so long as he stays above the 33-35% range in favorability ratings (and I've been generally checking the RCP averages, where he's currently at 37%).
Eleanor Cliff at the DailyBeast thinks I'm being optimistic. She writes that the danger zone kicks in at 30% or lower. (Of course, she's also using her favorite polls which show Trump already in the 33% range, so both of us think he's still in safe territory.)
I gotta wonder who was behind that seminar.
You're right. That isn't the analysis that these people came up with.
Tax exemption
I will have to email him on Monday and ask him. I know it's not his bias talking, he is not a Trump or GOP controlled Congress, backer at all.
I missed the asteroid show. *sigh*
It seems that Trump is busy slamming the FBI in an apparent attempt to taint whatever results that Mueller comes up with. Yet he is very quiet about the IRS, though.
Who on earth is the idiot who doesn't even know law that Trump has nominated to be a Federal judge?
"…the idiot who doesn't even know law that Trump has
nominated to be a Federal judge?"
I'm taking that as a rhetorical question; obviously you've run across the name of Matthew Petersen. Yeah, that's one of the long-term damages that Trump is doing. So far four of his appointees have been deemed ‘not qualified’ by the American Bar Association. It's astounding.
The Republicans have picked up endorsements for their tax cuts for the rich from Senator Bob Corker (who was negative earlier) and from Marco Rubio (who was threatening this time). It's looking like they've got the votes in the Senate (although nobody's telling me what Susan Collins has decided, and, near as I can tell, they've not actually written up the proposal that got the sign-on from Corker and Rubio). So, why are Rubio and Corker going for ‛yes’ now, even before the written version comes down out of the mists?
I'm wondering if they're not trying to toss this back to the House, trying to put the House members on the spot and hope they kill it in the House and then the Senators won't be on the hook for this either way. (They'll get pummeled by their ‛base’ if it doesn't pass; they'll get pummeled in the general elections if it does; pretty much a no-win situtation for them.)
The Republicans did finally get a written tax cuts for the rich proposal issued late today. It will, no doubt, be examined over the weekend.
If our iffy Republican Senators wanted to toss the tax cuts package back to the House, it seems to have worked. Paul Ryan has announced that the House will vote on the plan on Tuesday.
(Still have no indication of how Senator Susan Collins will vote; probably won't know until Monday at the earliest.) And Senator Mike Lee of Utah hasn't weighed in, but I'm having a hard time seeing him as a hold-out when it comes time to vote. Assuming they've got John McCain's vote (and he was a ‛yea’ vote earlier) then Susan Collins won't be able to stop it. If McCain doesn't get out of the hospital in time to vote, it'll come down to a probable 50-49 for passage, and Mike Pence won't even have to break the tie.
So, they pass this thing and we end up increasing the deficit. Eight years down the road the lower tax provisions for the lower income tier of Americans "sunset", but we have in the meantime increased our debt, so whoever is in government is stuck trying to find the money to pay for it (maybe). If the Republicans haven't already taken an ax to Social Security or Medicare/Medicaid those programs will certainly be looked at as an "easy" fix for the debt we have accumulated by this piece of legislation. So those in the lower income levels, and the middle class, are going to be hurt twice, once with the tax rates going up and again with benefits that are critical to their future, being impacted. What are the odds?
"What are the odds?"
I actually think the odds are that the Republicans pay a heavy price for these tax cuts. I think they lose the House, and could possibly lose the Senate, as early as 2018. I don't understand how, but the Republicans have convinced themselves that their electoral salvation from Trump is to pass a hugely unpopular tax heist. It makes no sense, but they're goin’ ahead with it.
(Remember, if you will, that Reagan had to go along with a partial reversal of his hugely unpopular tax cuts within one year of their implementation. Partial reversal only, they damn near tripled the national debt on Reagan's watch, so a lot of his tax cuts also went into starting the United States on this road to high government debt loads.)
(Oh, and I backed off my ‛no better than 50/50 odds’ estimate the minute they converted Bob Corker.)
I actually think the odds are that the Republicans pay a heavy price for these tax cuts. I think they lose the House, and could possibly lose the Senate, as early as 2018.
Sad to say but I hope that to be the case. It is the only way I can think of that might check Trump. Because most of the Republicans in office now seem to have no inclination to do so as long as he can help push through their agenda. An agenda that seems to benefit the wealthy despite the fact that it is
detrimental to the country.
But even if control of the House and Senate were to flip to the Democrats it still may not help to reverse this legislation. So we may have it for at least three years.
Remember, if you will, that Reagan had to go along with a partial reversal of his hugely unpopular tax cuts within one year of their implementation.
Yes, but I think at heart Reagan was actually interested in trying to do what was best for the country. He just had his calculations wrong. Trump doesn't give a damn about anyone except Trump and his ego.
"He just had his calculations wrong."
He had his theories wrong as well. ‘Trickle down’ economics comes from Reagan's own reimagining of the Heritage Foundation's supply-side economic models. Reagan's contribution was to imagine that the money that piled up in ever more concentrated piles would somehow magically redistribute itself out of the hands of the very wealthy who accumulated it, back to the working stiffs. (Why this should work other than as a gimmick to make supply-side economics politically palatable Reagan never explained--probably he never knew why it might happen other than it had to happen to make his preferred political/economic model salable to the masses. Also he didn't call it ‘trickle down’ ecomomics; that name was coined elsewhere.)
And, yes, we may be stuck with the increased debt loads so long as Trump (or Pence) holds executive office.
Racism as an innate human characteristic (primate characteristic actually). Nautilus Also, a theory on how to overcome it; retrain your brain.
Pete: "Just because I think they have some mental issues, and can even be quite a pain in the ass about it, doesn't mean I don't think they are people. They have the same right to exist as you or me. So do people of all races."
I have never said anything else. Never. And I challence you to dispute that by bringing forth quotes of me saying otherwise.
But just because every person has a right to exist, it doesn't follow they have a right to come to my country. Rather they have the right to exist and make a go of it where they were born primarilly.
And if that place sucks there's still no inherent right to come leech off of a society where the people managed to make things work, and bring along the problems that made the birthplace suck to begin with. Which is what I'm seeing more and more of over here.
Just because the beggar on the streets of Dublin has a right to exist it doesn't give him a right to sleep in your bedroom Pete. Or does it? You want a junkie shootin up heroin in your bedroom and sellin off your TV-set just 'cause he's a human too and has a right to exist?
Lee: "Racism as an innate human characteristic (primate characteristic actually). Nautilus Also, a theory on how to overcome it; retrain your brain."
TL;DR
But looked up some snippets, such as:
"The brain’s fault lines dividing Us from Them are also shown with the hormone oxytocin. It’s famed for its pro-social effects—oxytocin prompts people to be more trusting, cooperative, and generous. But, crucially, this is how oxytocin influences behavior toward members of your own group. When it comes to outgroup members, it does the opposite."
If we evolved this was, and in-group/out-group thinking is part of our genome, is that not something we sould rather roll with than try to combat?
And also, can we ever successfully combat our genetic programming in other ways that restricting ourselves with regulation that punishes (legally and socially) us from being ourselves?
Lee:
"There's a self-delusion developing amongst Republican pundits, bloggers, and talking heads to the effect that the Republican ‛base’ is engaged in ‛triggering the libs’¹. This is bullshit.
It very well may be that the actual fascists do that for fun. But the Republican voter ‘base’ actually believes in what they're doing. They intend to turn back the clock to a time they found more comfortable, a time when the niggers kept on their own side of town and knew their place in society, and when the women knew their place too. Failing that, they intend to burn the whole damn political system to the ground. The Republican pundits, bloggers, and talking heads don't really want to believe this (well, ‛cept some of the true fascists among them). They'd rather believe they can still control ‘the base’ whose votes they're gonna need to govern. They're wrong. "Triggering the libs" isn't the primary point for most of the ‛base’; most of them actually want what they say they want."
I believe you're almost completely correct there. Very well put as it were. And I agree that those who come up with alternative fabricated explanations are deluded.
"…is that not something we sould rather roll with than try to combat?"
An attraction to and preference for high calorie foods is likewise innate. It served a purpose for primitive man. Nowadays it causes morbid obesity among all groups with convenient access to energy dense foods. I would recommend that we do not ‛roll with’ morbid obesity.
Similarly, racism is not particularly useful to modern man. (Except for the field of politics.) So, the answer to your question would be ‛NO’.
Lee: "Similarly, racism is not particularly useful to modern man. (Except for the field of politics.) So, the answer to your question would be ‛NO’."
Race awarity then. And acting upon it. Say a young white woman walking home from a night out. She see's a group of men. They are:
1. White
2. Black
3. Arab
Are you suggesting her walking on instead of turning back and going for a cab are not at all in her mind dependent on 1, 2 or 3? And would she be wrong thinking like she thinks?
Race-awarity, so called "racism", is indeed VERY useful to the modern man - in reality, if not in ya'lls circle-jerk thinktanks.
Your chosen example indicates that you don't really understand racism (probably the result of you having been successfully conned by the political practitioners I mentioned earlier).
I would therefore suggest you find the time this weekend to maybe read that article I flagged for you. Maybe then we'll talk.
Mayhaps I'll read it 'n mayhaps we'll then talk. Over and out from Sweden for the time being. Ciao - as yerownself is fond of a'sayin'.
I remember a way back Lee saying that an influx in rapes meant little but that if there were an influx in murders it might prove my point.
Turns out shootings and shootings with a deadly outcome are through the roof:
https://mitti.se/nyheter/brott/bekraftade-skjutningar-stockholm/?omrade=botkyrkasalem
That'd be Stockholm. Closer to home police are now recommending women in central Malmö not to walk the streets alone at night, after several gruesome gang-rapes the last few months. The latest a 17 yo where even police officers were shook by the brutality against her, she remains hospitalized:
http://www.friatider.se/malm-polisens-r-d-till-kvinnor-g-inte-ut-ensamma-0
Wanna place bets if the perps are Omar, Abdul and Abdulkarim or wether they are Nils, Sven and Niklas?
Let's place bets! OOOHH I love betting, so let's do this. I bet on that it's the former. Your bets?
BTW, unconfirmed sources claim the 17 YO was gangraped in the middle of night at a playground in central Malmö. The rapers then finished by pouring a flammable liquid on her genitals and setting her on fire. Hence the police's reaction where seasoned officers were shocked, and hence the hospitalization.
Prolly Nils, Sven and Niklas, no?
"Turns out shootings and shootings with a deadly outcome
are through the roof:"
Google Translations gives me a different version of your story. To wit:
"A few years ago, the criminals shot each other in the leg
as a warning. Now they shoot to kill."
This doesn't indicate that shootings are up in general, merely that Swedish gangsters are becoming more lethal.
More lethal yes. But numbers are up too. And they're not really "swedish" gangsters FYI.
BTW, where's your bet Lee? I presented a betting situation and It's free to participate, so where's your bet?
My bet is that you know the park in question well enough to at least know where it is, and you wouldn't be waving this one on the basis of ‘unconfirmed sources’ unless it were in a Muslim ‛ghetto’ area of the city.
"But numbers are up too."
I looked for such information. The translation indicates only that the number of fatal shootings is up.
"And they're not really 'swedish' gangsters FYI."
I suspected as much. If you don't start integrating your immigrant population you're just going to get more and more of this as the years go by, and that's on the heads of the ‛Christian’ majority as much if not more than on the heads of the Muslim immigrants.
I keep tellin’ ya, you guys are doin’ it wrong.
John McCain's family has let out word that McCain is going home to Arizona to recover from chemotherapy and will not make an appearance for voting again this year. (He's scheduled to come back in January after he gets a little distance from this last round of chemo.)
Assuming Susan Collins votes against the Republicans' tax cut bill, that'd make it 50-49 in favor of, and Veep Mike Pense won't have to cast a tiebreaker. If the Democrats can peel of one more Republican Senator it'll be 50-49 against, and having Pense on hand to play tie-breaker won't matter, it'll go down to defeat.
If it goes down; they'll just try again next year.
Unfortunately, it appears that the bill will pass, unless there is an upset.
I don't see another likely "no" vote other than maybe Susan Collins. So, yeah, odds on it'll pass, but we only need to peel off one more Republican in addition to Susan Collins. It's still not a done deal.
Big Amtrak derailment in Washington. Perhaps we need to start spending some money on infrastructure repair?
Lee: "My bet is that you know the park in question well enough to at least know where it is, and you wouldn't be waving this one on the basis of ‘unconfirmed sources’ unless it were in a Muslim ‛ghetto’ area of the city."
No, this is close to the center of the city actually. I'd say those that live in the immediate area are still at least 75% swedish. Maybe more. I can walk there from my home in about 6-8 minutes.
And the ‘unconfirmed sources’ was regarding wether or not they set the girl on fire after the gangrape. The gangrape itself is an established fact, reported by the police in all our MSM. The police asked directly about the rumor say they will neither confirm nor deny - so it looks like it's probably true.
Who lives in the immediate area is not important. The relevant question is who inhabits the park after dark. And, genital mutilation of the victim suggests the victim was probably from a Muslim immigrant background and maybe was caught dating blond Swedish boys, or some such thing along those lines.
Veep Mike Pence was scheduled to travel to Israel late this week (it had been announced as scheduled for ‛this week’, no more definite schedule admitted so far as I can tell). Pence was supposedly going to make himself available for a possible tie-breaker vote in the Senate for the Republicans' tax cuts for the rich, then travel to the Middle East.
Now that trip has been put off until January sometime. Maybe we're getting lucky; maybe there's trouble brewing in Republican tax cutting Paradise.
Maybe we're getting lucky; maybe there's trouble brewing in Republican tax cutting Paradise.
Oh, you dreamer, you.
Not dreaming anymore. Susan Collins and Mike Lee, two of the final three uncommitted Republican Senators, announced yesterday afternoon that they are going to vote in favor of the tax cuts (in my own defense, this news came after I speculated on Mike Pence's delay of his Israel trip). FoxNews Looks like a done deal. Sen. Jeff Flake still has not announced a position so far as I know, but even if Flake bolts, that'll make it 50-49 in favor of, and it'll pass.
I can't see the House members taking the rap for killing this now.
Lee: "Who lives in the immediate area is not important. The relevant question is who inhabits the park after dark. And, genital mutilation of the victim suggests the victim was probably from a Muslim immigrant background and maybe was caught dating blond Swedish boys, or some such thing along those lines."
I don't know who inhabits that spot at 3AM as I'm too old to be more than maybe once a year even out at that time of day, and it's in the opposite direction of where I would go if I went out late.
And your theory that muslims "genitally mutilated" one of their own for dating swedes... far fetched I would say. I'd give that a less than 1% probability.
My best guess would be so called Afghan "child refugees" (because as for gang rapists no group seems to outdo Afghans lately - they'll gangrape boys too and arabs or africans at least don't seem to do that - Afghans'll rape anying, it seems), and a close second arab youths. The reason I ommitt african youths here is Malmö was already full when they started to arrive so they're not so much of a problem here as they are in Gothenburg and Stockholm.
Also I'd guess that the victim was a swedish girl on her way home from a party. And they raped her cause they felt like it and set her genitalia on fire cause they wanted to punish and degrade her more, or PERHAPS (although I'm not sure they have that level of foresight) to try and burn up DNA evidence.
Apparently the police have DNA samples and they ARE taking this real serious so I expect they will make arrests. And once there is is a court case it'll become a public document. So I expect I might have a definitive answer but not for at least a month or so, if the polic make those arrests.
Post a Comment