Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Did you miss the language that pertained to the individual's right to keep and bear arms and the language that pertained to the state's right to maintain an organized militia as Constitutional rights that cannot be infringed upon by the Federal government? The obvious intent of the founding fathers was to legally allow and maintain a relatively large armed population for the specific need and use of self/state/national defense.

Do you have a point here? There are any number of references in the Constitution that apply to conditions that no longer exist. Do we still have post roads? I don't think so. How about letters of marque and reprisal? No, not those either. We also avoid quartering soldiers in people's homes.

So even your pointed choice of "state" as meaning each of the several states doesn't mean that the right to keep and bear arms is unlimited and personal. It's not. It's intended to support the militia, and that's a military function. So buy as many guns as you want, but be prepared to present them to you commanding officer when you attend militia drills.

Originally Posted by B Butler

No. For most of your life and a long time before that, the Jim Crow Collective Rights interpretation was held to be correct. It sunk deep into the culture and the values of many. That sort of thing isn't changed by mere scholarship. I can quote the text, reference the intent of the authors, cite legal papers covering the issue, point out the Supreme Court precedents, and you and many others remain immune to the obvious. I know. I have done all of the above repeatedly to no effect.

That a new interpretation was advanced and upheld by a highly biased court doesn't' t make it sacrosanct. I know you would like everyone to agree to that, but we don't and won't. It's particularly galling that the strict constructionists were the ones to deconstruct the amendment's very few words, put some of them aside as, somehow, superfluous, and then rule on the ones they left behind. That seems incredibly weak on the basic merits. That this the product of the same cabal that gave us Citizens United as the new benchmark of private civil action makes their 2nd amendment ruling even more suspect.

Originally Posted by B Butler ...

The belief of the authors was that a well armed and trained population was necessary to the security of a free nation. One can well argue that their belief is now incorrect. One can easily argue that changes in weapons, communications, and transportation technology coupled with very different population density might cause one to reevaluate the merit of the justification clause of the 2nd. One cannot reasonably claim their intent was anything other than a well armed and trained populace. One should not interpret the 2nd in a way that conflicts with their firm belief in an armed trained populace.

Agreed in full. So when do you guys start drilling?

Originally Posted by B Butler ...

But I hold this to be an example of how humans think. It's not unique to a particular issue, age group, gender, race or political affiliation. It's human. It's no different from fundamentalists rejecting evolution or conservatives rejecting global warming. Humans can just lock into a perspective and become immune to fact.

No one rejects the military intent of the 2nd, as unnecessary as that is today. It is what it is ... a militia supporting amendment. So get started!

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

If someone burned my business to the ground, it would be a big deal at first but I'd work through it and over come it like most people are able to do. If someone lynched a family member and was caught, convicted and executed by the state, I would be satisfied and move on with my life. If someone lynched a family member and was caught, convicted and received a rather light sentence because he was black, I wouldn't be satisfied and consider it as a big deal that would require a future act of justice to morally resolve.

How about the more likely case of someone getting light punishment because he's white? At least that squares with reality.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

I do not agree. Political correctness is a pejorative term.

It's a pejorative because it is indeed often enforced. Only stupid folks agree to be bound by said enforcement. It's not only a favorite of the Left, but the Right has its own variant, "Red Baiting".

I am a liberal and I dislike "political correctness".

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

I have seen the breakup of the US as a distinct possibility for some years now. The more because unlike 1860, there isn't the militarised population or the will to keep states in the Union by force. Or the danger from outside ( the breakaway of Central America from Mexico left both wide open to economic penetration, first from the UK and then from the US). The US could split into one conservative and two liberal countries and all three nations would be viable. Or if Canada was agreeable, incorporation of liberal states into Canada, making Canada a rival liberal power to the more conservative rump USA.

The scenario most likely to lead to such a breakup would be a Congressional impasse that leads to the constitutionally mandated calling of a Constitutional Convention--and insurmountable disagreements there. It is at that point that Americans might entertain the idea that the Union is a marriage that cannot be saved and must be ended peacefully; that the nation is two or three countries not one.

We are a long way from that, and frankly, the Sanders Revolution, if it succeeds may avert such a scenario. But at this point, we are on a trajectory in which business and financial institutions and corporations become the only glue holding the nation together, just as is the case in Europe. And that is not enough.

If we split, how does the divorce divide the goods and the debts? Most of the "goods" are located in Red areas (the two major Naval bases being major exceptions) and most of the debt was amassed to offset spending in Red states that was underfunded by the nation as a whole. With the notable exception of WWII, most Blue states have been self funded for a century or more.

I don't see that being resolved equitably. For one thing, the Red states will be livid at the idea that have to assume any of the debt at all, to say nothing of the lion's share.

Originally Posted by Seattleblue

In any system where rationing is the goal, you will have some means of deciding who gets something and who does not. It is delusional to pretend that a system of health care rationing would not result in deaths.

If there is enough "health care" to go around, then no rationing is necessary. The questions are then:

1) Why is there not enough medical treatment for everyone?

2) Why is the solution pushed for this mismatch always rationing?

Given that 90% of the population is engaged in unproductive pursuits, there are obviously enough extra people to fill any need that arises. The main problem is that outmoded beliefs about scarcity, and the system that arises from them, have not been displaced yet. In other words the human world is in the process of evolving past the problems of bygone eras.

We are living in post-scarcity times. There is no reason for anyone to starve to death, go homeless, or even go without medical treatment. And the answer is not more authoritarianism.

This is absurd. Obviously, meeting all medical needs, to say nothing of desires, implies heroic care for the terminally ill, and a bottomless money pot to fund research on incurable diseases. Those are highly desirable pursuits, but astronomically expensive. And don't forget, we are mortal. We all die eventually.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

That a new interpretation was advanced and upheld by a highly biased court doesn't' t make it sacrosanct.

Except the supposedly 'new' interpretation is clearly the original intent. There is only one supposed collective right, and that was invented out of thin air by a Jim Crow supreme court that was no friend of human rights. The justification - implementation expression of a Right, whenever it is used, will state a reason why a narrow group requires a privilege, then grant a Right to The People. The founding fathers were not interested in creating elite groups with special privileges. If a special group needed a privilege, the entire population was given a Right. Thus, 'the Right of the People' language.

Make your case based on history, new technology, and whatever practical arguments you might have. Do not delude yourself that you are in any way speaking for the founding fathers. Note also that your case isn't convincing those who believe people have to be able to defend themselves. The practical and statistical arguments are going nowhere, on this board, and in general. Achieving the supermajority required to overthrow the founding father's intent is unlikely.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

How about the more likely case of someone getting light punishment because he's white? At least that squares with reality.

Are you white? Who's judging you now, a white or a black citizen? Do you believe that I would not vote to convict you and sentence you to death for hanging a black man? Wise up.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

I have seen the breakup of the US as a distinct possibility for some years now. The more because unlike 1860, there isn't the militarised population or the will to keep states in the Union by force. Or the danger from outside ( the breakaway of Central America from Mexico left both wide open to economic penetration, first from the UK and then from the US). The US could split into one conservative and two liberal countries and all three nations would be viable. Or if Canada was agreeable, incorporation of liberal states into Canada, making Canada a rival liberal power to the more conservative rump USA.
The scenario most likely to lead to such a breakup would be a Congressional impasse that leads to the constitutionally mandated calling of a Constitutional Convention--and insurmountable disagreements there. It is at that point that Americans might entertain the idea that the Union is a marriage that cannot be saved and must be ended peacefully; that the nation is two or three countries not one.
We are a long way from that, and frankly, the Sanders Revolution, if it succeeds may avert such a scenario. But at this point, we are on a trajectory in which business and financial institutions and corporations become the only glue holding the nation together, just as is the case in Europe. And that is not enough.

I would not like to the the USA breakup and there is no way to know what a Constitutional Convention would produce. It is possible that this could be peaceful, but I don't see much basis in history for optimism for a positive outcome.

It seems to me that we are very gradually moving in direction of Europe and as religious influence wanes, the secular majority will just take control. This is not what I would choose, but the force of this change will have to run its course in the next hundred years.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

If we split, how does the divorce divide the goods and the debts? Most of the "goods" are located in Red areas (the two major Naval bases being major exceptions) and most of the debt was amassed to offset spending in Red states that was underfunded by the nation as a whole. With the notable exception of WWII, most Blue states have been self funded for a century or more.

I don't see that being resolved equitably. For one thing, the Red states will be livid at the idea that have to assume any of the debt at all, to say nothing of the lion's share.

I think you have a good point that, given the angry division between red and blue states, that it's very doubtful they could sit at the table and negotiate a split with equanimity. If they could settle those disagreements, why not just keep the union together? So, if it happens it will be messier than that. It's possible to avoid something as violent as the civil war, but I suspect not altogether. More likely what will happen is that states, either red or blue depending on who wins in 2024, will just secede regardless of any consequences or arrangements about goods and debts. Hot heads will not care about such details. The new nations will just have to pick up the pieces with what's left, and there may be fights. Or else, probably more likely, is that some red state militias will rebel and maybe a few states will secede from a newly liberal-dominated USA, but after a couple of years of relatively-limited fighting, they will be disarmed and forced to submit.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I think you have a good point that, given the angry division between red and blue states, that it's very doubtful they could sit at the table and negotiate a split with equanimity. If they could settle those disagreements, why not just keep the union together? So, if it happens it will be messier than that. It's possible to avoid something as violent as the civil war, but I suspect not altogether. More likely what will happen is that states, either red or blue depending on who wins in 2024, will just secede regardless of any consequences or arrangements about goods and debts. Hot heads will not care about such details. The new nations will just have to pick up the pieces with what's left, and there may be fights. Or else, probably more likely, is that some red state militias will rebel and maybe a few states will secede from a newly liberal-dominated USA, but after a couple of years of relatively-limited fighting, they will be disarmed and forced to submit.

I don't see much chance of an armed rebellion. That would be an absolute disaster. There has been talk, at times, in Texas about the possibility of breaking Texas into several states, but I don't rank that as very likely either. Do you really think that some state militias would rebel?

Originally Posted by B Butler

Except the supposedly 'new' interpretation is clearly the original intent. There is only one supposed collective right, and that was invented out of thin air by a Jim Crow supreme court that was no friend of human rights. The justification - implementation expression of a Right, whenever it is used, will state a reason why a narrow group requires a privilege, then grant a Right to The People. The founding fathers were not interested in creating elite groups with special privileges. If a special group needed a privilege, the entire population was given a Right. Thus, 'the Right of the People' language.

Make your case based on history, new technology, and whatever practical arguments you might have. Do not delude yourself that you are in any way speaking for the founding fathers. Note also that your case isn't convincing those who believe people have to be able to defend themselves. The practical and statistical arguments are going nowhere, on this board, and in general. Achieving the supermajority required to overthrow the founding father's intent is unlikely.

OK, I'll let Paul Cornell speak for the founders then. He disagrees with your take on this 150%. Here's a short piece by Cornell that covers enough to make the point.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Are you white? Who's judging you now, a white or a black citizen? Do you believe that I would not vote to convict you and sentence you to death for hanging a black man? Wise up.

Look at the record. White defendants get the benefit of the doubt, and greater leniency if actually convicted, than blacks, Latinos or Asians. American Indians probably do even worse than blacks, if that's a comfort to you.

Originally Posted by radind

I don't see much chance of an armed rebellion. That would be an absolute disaster. There has been talk, at times, in Texas about the possibility of breaking Texas into several states, but I don't rank that as very likely either. Do you really think that some state militias would rebel?

California has more cause to split than any other state, but it can't. Neither can Texas or another state, because Article IV Section 3 prohibits it ... unless everyone aggress.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

OK, I'll let Paul Cornell speak for the founders then. He disagrees with your take on this 150%. Here's a short piece by Cornell that covers enough to make the point.

He's done some homework. I agree with his individual historical points, but I see the modern political implications very differently.

Yes, in colonial days the fit adult males were essentially under military discipline. Adult males of military age were expected to purchase a state of the art military grade weapon, maintain it, and train with it regularly. It was a duty as well as a right. One brought one's weapon to church because militia drill was right after the service. That's when everyone was available. The men would march around while the women reheated casseroles. One could be called to defend the community at any time. There were no police. The standing army was far away, out of communications, and absolutely no help. Militia duty was initially taken seriously as they had to.

The laws to do that again are still on the books in some states, could be restored or reactivated if there was a will to do so, but I don't know of anyone who is seriously proposing invoking them. As such Cornell is blowing a lot of hot air. Other than reinforcing the right to keep and bear military grade weapons, he isn't saying anything relevant. A lot of folk are looking to find a way to prohibit military weapons and thus try to weasel around the reality he is making plain. As such, his style of argument is unusually truthful coming from the prohibitionist side.

Would the NRA reject a return to a militia culture? Hmm... Interesting question. I think they would be more inclined to accept it than the typical ammophobic progressive who wants nothing to do with guns. The NRA supports solid training for anyone who owns a gun. They are more interested in the right to own and carry weapons than the old duty to use them under disciplined government command in the common defense. If there is no clear and present danger that the militia is being called upon to suppress -- an insurrection, an invasion, or lawlessness -- I don't know that they would advocate a return regular militia training. Still, they would be much less upset than the progressive ammophobics who would squawk to high heaven. I think opposition to an active training program equivalent to the colonial era programs could well be one item of gun policy that would unite the NRA and the gun prohibition crowd. If it could be kept to a practical minimum, making sure all those who owned guns knew how to use, maintain and store them properly, that might work though. Is there a snowball's chance that such laws be passed and enforced? Color me dubious. Go for it. I'd half like to see it work.

Cornell makes a point that only cavalry were required to carry pistols as traditionally only dragoons were so armed at that time. There is a big difference between being required to carry for militia purposes and having a right to carry as a private citizen. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It is not dependent on being a dragoon.

You are still embracing the collective rights interpretation. This, again, was an invention of Jim Crow. In the colonial era the adult fit males had a duty to own, train, and use military weapons in the common defense. As Paul Cornell suggests, it was not a light thing. It was taken seriously. It was a significant burden. However, only the adult fit males (who were not merchant marine, postal workers, shipyard workers or otherwise required to stay on the job in a crisis) bore the burden, fulfilled the duty. The militia bore the Duty, but the Right belonged to the People. They did not take away guns from mailmen, merchant marines, shipyard workers or women. As such, Cornell is blowing a lot of emotional but irrelevant smoke.

Originally Posted by radind

I don't see much chance of an armed rebellion. That would be an absolute disaster.

Nor do I at this time. The spiral of rhetoric and violence is currently cold.

Originally Posted by radind

There has been talk, at times, in Texas about the possibility of breaking Texas into several states, but I don't rank that as very likely either.

When Texas joined the Union, there was a special clause inserted that would allow them to break into several states, and thus increase their representation in the Senate. There was a time limit on this option that elapsed not so long ago. Just before it elapsed there was one last burst of talk about whether to exercise the option. Didn't happen then. Unlikely to happen now.

Originally Posted by radind

Do you really think that some state militias would rebel?

The US Constitution reserves to the states the right to appoint officers over the militia. The various states constitutions lay out how this is done. So far as I know, no states actually appoint officers over the militia these days. The various groups calling themselves militias are generally not acting under state sanction.

I've daydreamed at times about some governor appointing a militia officer group and sending them around to issue orders to any group that calls their meetings a militia meeting. Mind you, the members of these militias are generally adult fit males and mostly not postal workers, shipyard workers or merchant marines. Thus, they are members of The Militia. But calling them state militia would be questionable.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

That a new interpretation was advanced and upheld by a highly biased court doesn't' t make it sacrosanct. I know you would like everyone to agree to that, but we don't and won't. It's particularly galling that the strict constructionists were the ones to deconstruct the amendment's very few words, put some of them aside as, somehow, superfluous, and then rule on the ones they left behind. That seems incredibly weak on the basic merits. That this the product of the same cabal that gave us Citizens United as the new benchmark of private civil action makes their 2nd amendment ruling even more suspect.

Yes indeed, and Bob also forgets that there was no Supreme Court ruling that established a "Jim Crow collective rights interpretation." It's just what some people thought. What some people think is not the same as the actual 2nd amendment. The recent ruling by the right-wing court was the first time any Supreme Court gave any interpretation of the 2nd Amendment other than what's written in the constitution. Jim Crow is completely irrelevant.

Originally Posted by B Butler

He's done some homework. I agree with his individual historical points, but I see the modern political implications very differently.

Yes, in colonial days the fit adult males were essentially under military discipline. Adult males of military age were expected to purchase a state of the art military grade weapon, maintain it, and train with it regularly. It was a duty as well as a right. One brought one's weapon to church because militia drill was right after the service. That's when everyone was available. The men would march around while the women reheated casseroles. One could be called to defend the community at any time. There were no police. The standing army was far away, out of communications, and absolutely no help. Militia duty was initially taken seriously as they had to.

The laws to do that again are still on the books in some states, could be restored or reactivated if there was a will to do so, but I don't know of anyone who is seriously proposing invoking them. As such Cornell is blowing a lot of hot air. Other than reinforcing the right to keep and bear military grade weapons, he isn't saying anything relevant. A lot of folk are looking to find a way to prohibit military weapons and thus try to weasel around the reality he is making plain. As such, his style of argument is unusually truthful coming from the prohibitionist side.

Would the NRA reject a return to a militia culture? Hmm... Interesting question. I think they would be more inclined to accept it than the typical ammophobic progressive who wants nothing to do with guns. The NRA supports solid training for anyone who owns a gun. They are more interested in the right to own and carry weapons than the old duty to use them under disciplined government command in the common defense. If there is no clear and present danger that the militia is being called upon to suppress -- an insurrection, an invasion, or lawlessness -- I don't know that they would advocate a return regular militia training. Still, they would be much less upset than the progressive ammophobics who would squawk to high heaven. I think opposition to an active training program equivalent to the colonial era programs could well be one item of gun policy that would unite the NRA and the gun prohibition crowd. If it could be kept to a practical minimum, making sure all those who owned guns knew how to use, maintain and store them properly, that might work though. Is there a snowball's chance that such laws be passed and enforced? Color me dubious. Go for it. I'd half like to see it work.

Cornell makes a point that only cavalry were required to carry pistols as traditionally only dragoons were so armed at that time. There is a big difference between being required to carry for militia purposes and having a right to carry as a private citizen. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It is not dependent on being a dragoon.

You are still embracing the collective rights interpretation. This, again, was an invention of Jim Crow. In the colonial era the adult fit males had a duty to own, train, and use military weapons in the common defense. As Paul Cornell suggests, it was not a light thing. It was taken seriously. It was a significant burden. However, only the adult fit males (who were not merchant marine, postal workers, shipyard workers or otherwise required to stay on the job in a crisis) bore the burden, fulfilled the duty. The militia bore the Duty, but the Right belonged to the People. They did not take away guns from mailmen, merchant marines, shipyard workers or women. As such, Cornell is blowing a lot of emotional but irrelevant smoke.

You miss the point entirely. Forced to drill, drill hard and drill regularly, the 2nd would become an albatross to most of the very people using it as a shield. They like the idea of being able to play SpecOps or Frontier Sheriff, as long as they get to do it when they wish and only if they wish. I suspect the enthusiasm of regular drill would dull that enthusiasm ... kill it for most. Add to that, the not insignificant issue of why, where and what. We aren't authorizing concealed carry. We mandating open carry of military weapons by members of organized militias. The added plus: they have to get their military weapons cleared by the militia authorities. I'm sure they'll love that.

I suspect that no one will want to maintain a militia in the official sense. In other than the official sense, the 2nd doesn't apply. So I'm back to the point I made originally: either the original intent guys like Scalia are honest and accept the intent of having militia in lieu of an army, or they aren't. If they aren't, then they just proved how political they really are, making judicial activism the standard model.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

California has more cause to split than any other state, but it can't. Neither can Texas or another state, because Article IV Section 3 prohibits it ... unless everyone aggress.

I guess, unless the state has severed its relationship with the constitution by seceding. I expect that if California secedes, then eastern counties could split off and rejoin the union. The Canadian part of California would be a fairly narrow strip along the coast. That's OK; the interior already seems like another state.

It's fun trying to get used to the idea that I am in the same country as Edmonton Alberta and Winnipeg Manitoba, but not Reno or Salt Lake City. To travel through my own country, I'll have to take a trip way up north! And then I'd avoid having to go through all those dangerous gun totin' redneck hillbilly flyover states with all those right-wing racist yahoos in them

Of course, Salt Lake City is some place I'd like to go to see the Tabernacle and its organ and go to the genealogy library. Not to mention Monument Valley. I guess I'd need a passport. $hundreds of dollars

But if it's the red states that secede, and California does not, then no; parts of California could not (legally at least) join the red states who have seceded.

Originally Posted by B Butler

... The US Constitution reserves to the states the right to appoint officers over the militia. The various states constitutions lay out how this is done. So far as I know, no states actually appoint officers over the militia these days. The various groups calling themselves militias are generally not acting under state sanction.

I've daydreamed at times about some governor appointing a militia officer group and sending them around to issue orders to any group that calls their meetings a militia meeting. Mind you, the members of these militias are generally adult fit males and mostly not postal workers, shipyard workers or merchant marines. Thus, they are members of The Militia. But calling them state militia would be questionable.

Virginia has an authorized and fully staffed State Militia ... really! They are the faculty and staff of the Virginia Military Institute. Nominally, the students constitute the rank-and-file, though I'm less certain that this is true in the technical sense. The last person to muster the school was Stonewall Jackson. I suspect he will also be the last.

Originally Posted by radind

I don't see much chance of an armed rebellion. That would be an absolute disaster. There has been talk, at times, in Texas about the possibility of breaking Texas into several states, but I don't rank that as very likely either. Do you really think that some state militias would rebel?

Some private militia groups might, if gun control and higher taxes are imposed. Possibly some states might secede. The Texas talk has been about the whole state seceding; Gov. Perry suggested it.

The question is, how long can the stalemate go on. We need to decide.

Shall we become a banana republic in which a few rich people have all the wealth and power? Shall we plunge the world into a millennium of climate chaos? Shall we invade other countries with impunity? Shall we impose Christian values as interpreted by fundamentalist churches upon the people? Shall everyone be allowed to own and carry any kind of gun? That's the Republican Choice.

Or shall we break the log jam and raise some taxes and increase social spending, to offset free trade and the lower demand for labor, and thus provide a socially mobile society again? Shall we make public investments? Shall we concede to not being the number 1 military power forever with the right and duty to police the world, and work with other countries to keep the peace instead? Shall we stop and reverse global warming, and thus save our cities and endangered nations and stop killing off the planet's life? Shall we return to the ideal of freedom of religion, or of no religion, and not allow religious beliefs to justify discrimination against people? Shall we "well regulate" the citizen's militia with gun control? That's the Democratic Choice.

I don't think there's a middle ground. Either one side wins, or we break apart.

Reeling this thread back in ....

Granted, we're only talking a single digit percentage of two counties up in The Whites ... nonetheless, looks like Trump may not have quite the blow out polls suggested. Cruz may do better than I had imagined. Danged quirky Granite Staters! .....

http://www.nytimes.com/live/new-hamp...2016-election/

Days after two of Hillary Clinton’s most prominent female surrogates, Madeleine K. Albright and Gloria Steinem, drew fire for their comments about young women supporting Senator Bernie Sanders, another Clinton surrogate proposed that the two women be pulled from campaigning for Mrs. Clinton.

On a conference call with elected officials supporting Mrs. Clinton on Tuesday, Deb Goldberg, the Massachusetts state treasurer, suggested that Ms. Albright and Ms. Steinem be “kept away” from Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, according to a person briefed on the call who could only discuss the private conversations without attribution.

Christina Reynolds, a spokeswoman for the Clinton campaign who was on the call, replied that she appreciated the feedback but did not elaborate on how the campaign would handle the two high-profile supporters, who in recent days called for young women to basically grow up and support Mrs. Clinton.

The dust-up began on Saturday when Ms. Albright, 78, the first female secretary of state, criticized Mr. Sanders’s “revolution” and said electing the first woman as president would be the real revolution. She then repeated one of her best-known phrases, telling the crowd, “There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other!”

Ms. Steinem, 81, and an iconic spokeswoman of the feminist movement, told the talk-show host Bill Maher that young women supported Mr. Sanders to attract the attention of boys.

“When you’re young, you’re thinking: ‘Where are the boys? The boys are with Bernie,” Ms. Steinem said.

After the comments provoked a firestorm, Ms. Steinem apologized. “I misspoke on the Bill Maher show recently,” she wrote on Facebook. “Whether they gravitate to Bernie or Hillary, young women are activist and feminist in greater numbers than ever before.”

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

http://www.nytimes.com/live/new-hamp...2016-election/

Days after two of Hillary Clinton’s most prominent female surrogates, Madeleine K. Albright and Gloria Steinem, drew fire for their comments about young women supporting Senator Bernie Sanders, another Clinton surrogate proposed that the two women be pulled from campaigning for Mrs. Clinton.

On a conference call with elected officials supporting Mrs. Clinton on Tuesday, Deb Goldberg, the Massachusetts state treasurer, suggested that Ms. Albright and Ms. Steinem be “kept away” from Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, according to a person briefed on the call who could only discuss the private conversations without attribution.

Christina Reynolds, a spokeswoman for the Clinton campaign who was on the call, replied that she appreciated the feedback but did not elaborate on how the campaign would handle the two high-profile supporters, who in recent days called for young women to basically grow up and support Mrs. Clinton.

The dust-up began on Saturday when Ms. Albright, 78, the first female secretary of state, criticized Mr. Sanders’s “revolution” and said electing the first woman as president would be the real revolution. She then repeated one of her best-known phrases, telling the crowd, “There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other!”

Ms. Steinem, 81, and an iconic spokeswoman of the feminist movement, told the talk-show host Bill Maher that young women supported Mr. Sanders to attract the attention of boys.

“When you’re young, you’re thinking: ‘Where are the boys? The boys are with Bernie,” Ms. Steinem said.

After the comments provoked a firestorm, Ms. Steinem apologized. “I misspoke on the Bill Maher show recently,” she wrote on Facebook. “Whether they gravitate to Bernie or Hillary, young women are activist and feminist in greater numbers than ever before.”

Steinem doesn't get Millies. She's clueless.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

Reeling this thread back in ....

Granted, we're only talking a single digit percentage of two counties up in The Whites ... nonetheless, looks like Trump may not have quite the blow out polls suggested. Cruz may do better than I had imagined. Danged quirky Granite Staters! .....

I'm not sure what you are looking at. So far we only have returns from Dixville Notch:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/10/us...olls.html?_r=0
The Waiting

Polling stations typically close at 7 p.m., though it can vary; in Nashua, for instance, voting goes on until 8. And in the tiny towns of Dixville Notch, Hart’s Location and Millsfield, voting began at 12 a.m. Tuesday and was over in minutes. (Mr. Sanders got a total of 17 votes, to Mrs. Clinton’s nine; Mr. Trump, Mr. Kasich and Senator Ted Cruz led the Republican field with nine votes each.)

In 2012, the Republican primary here was called for Mr. Romney almost immediately after polls closed. But a closer contest could take much longer: In 2008, when Mrs. Clinton defeated Mr. Obama here, The Associated Press did not declare her the winner until around 10:30 p.m.