I give very little credence to stories that "pop up" 30 years after the fact, when there is zero contemporaneous proof or evidence except recollections that someone told their friends or family.  There were recourses back then, including lawsuits.  None of these people chose that path, even though a millionaire is alleged to have done this.

I call bullshit.

The fact that it was a millionaire actually makes it harder since the defender has deeper pockets than the plaintiff. It also devolves into "he said, she said" counterclaims and unlike rape there generally isn't physical evidence. In college I was a close friend (not her boyfriend, though) of a woman who told me about a similar groping attack (he had "more hands than an octopus" was the way she put it - I see by the news reports a similar phrase used!)  So I get the reluctance by these women to not try to do anything about it at the time. It isn't worth the hassle relative to the gain.

That it comes up now is obviously a mix of personal and political attacks on Trump. Personal motivations by the women (at least) and political by the Times. Trump supplied them with the ammunition, though, so he has no one to blame but himself.

Interesting results, so far. Figured a skew away from the left, but more so than I expected. The down side of that kind of skew is that it may support self-confirmation bias.

I'm assuming that the three who so far said their choice isn't listed probably lean to the left, but would be curious to know who their choices are (assuming they've decided yet.)

Alarming.


http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/10/the-gathering-storm-2.php

Yemen missiles a practice run?
Russia advising its foreign officials to send their children home?
A Russian inflatable decoy ship?
White House rushing missile defense to S Korea?

Could find no credible confirmation that Russia advised its foreign officials to send their relatives home. Mostly just British tabloids; the powerline blog story cites a daily Mail article as its source, which in turn cites its source as znak.com. Found this counter-story on the Russia Today web site that also cites znak.com as the origin (obvious bias, but always worth seeing what the other side is claiming):

https://www.rt.com/news/362511-russian-officials-tabloids-war/

The Yemen missile attack story (an obvious on-going war zone and anyone who is surprised by the attack probably isn't paying attention) has nothing to do with the deployment of THAAD in Korea (which has been proposed for a while now - even someone like myself who doesn't pay close attention to these things remembers seeing it in the news.) As to inflatable decoys - like, yeah, that ties in with everything else to show how close we are to nuclear Armageddon!

The question appears to be how many of our sailors would have to be killed before we do something?

Are rhetorical questions allowed here?

I have vague recollections of a US vessel being captured by North Korea many moons ago. And another case of one being attacked by the Israelis; 34 killed. Another case was a US vessel attacked  by an Iraqi aircraft; 37 killed. So the threshold seems to be above 37 for an immediate retaliation. Unles the question is rhetorical, in which case I think it depends on circumstances.

(Edited: changed Iranian to Iraqi.)

I have always been a huge Scot Adams fan.  When I was working in the corporate world, I felt like he must have worked at my company.  The kinds of things he wrote about are what caused me to take the leap and go into business for myself.

But lately, he is looking like the confused management he always writes about.

His "endorsements" seem to be filled with the same "wry" social criticisms and satire that appear in his comic strip.

I actually worked in the same building as Scott Adams while he still worked at Pac Bell - but it was a big building on a corporate campus called Bishop Ranch and I never actually met him. I'm pretty sure his car was in front of mine a couple times (how many people had "dogbert1" as license plates?) when I lived in San Francisco east bay area of San Ramon and Pleasanton.

Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams endorses Clinton!:

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/145456082991/my-endorsement-for-president-of-the-united-states

No, wait, he meant Trump!:

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/150919416661/why-i-switched-my-endorsement-from-clinton-to

Cancel all that, this week's endorsement is Gary Johnson!:

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/151552548531/why-i-endorse-gary-johnson-this-week