In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
In the annals of history, nothing said this weekend about the duties, obligations or habits of young women and politics will rank among the most egregious public comments made about women during the 2016 race. But they do merit mention.
Just in case you missed these not-at-all-auspicious weekend moments, what we are referring to here is the decision of feminist activist and cultural icon Gloria Steinem and former secretary of state Madeleine Albright — a woman regarded as the embodiment of female ability, know-how and grit — to essentially reprimand and ridicule women who do not plan to vote for Hillary Clinton.
Their logic differs slightly and yet seem to grow from the same diseased tree. But take just a few steps back here, and there is almost no one involved in this story — not those who made the comments, not those who have expressed outrage, not those who insist that their Democratic presidential candidate is better for women than the other — who really has much room to brag, boast or lambaste.
Steinem essentially told HBO host Bill Maher that young women are throwing their support behind Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) because this is where politically active, progressive young men can be found in a social life-enhancing cluster. Steinem's comments were, to say the least, just a bit dismissive about the sound political reasons that some young women — and to be clear here, the numbers indicate that we are talking about young, white women here — prefer Sanders over Clinton.
There is also little evidence that this strategy has been employed and/or works. Frankly, if winning young women's votes was really as simple as finding an attractive group of young men to staff a campaign, it's pretty clear that just about every campaign would do just that.
What we do have, though, is evidence that married women — particularly women who do not work outside the home — are more likely to vote in ways that mirror their husbands. There are lots of data to show married women — particularly stay-at-home moms — vote more conservatively than single women. And this offers a pretty strong counter to Steinem's attempted young woman dis. Married women, who are also more likely to be white women and, in this country, in their mid-20s or or older, are not exactly a reliable part of the Democratic coalition at all. In 2012, a majority of white women and white married women, in particular, voted for Romney.
Now, back to this weekend's list of interesting ideas expressed about young women.
At a Clinton campaign event in New Hampshire, Albright was actually repeating something she has said so often that it once appeared as a pre-printed statement on Starbucks coffee cups. Albright said there was a "special place in Hell" for women who do not support other women or, worse, stand in their way or feel some duty to make other women's lives hard to test and season them. That's a set of ideas that may be almost always applicable in the office, or worth considering in the conduct of other portions of one's life.
But when it comes to politics, Albright and anyone else who agrees with this idea may need to remember that young female voters are like all others: Their votes must be earned. And that's done by understanding their political needs, embedding policy proposals and ideas that address and prioritize those concerns at the center of a candidate's platform, and being mindful of not just what is said in the course of a campaign, but how it is said. One needs to actually listen to the groups of voters with which a candidate is doing well and those which a candidate is not. And a campaign that wants to move people out of the latter group and into the former can't be dismissive about what those people who aren't backing their candidate has to say. All of that is so very basic to the idea of campaigning and democracy that it's actually rather sad that it must be said.
But it boils down to this: Votes have to be earned. And any sort of entitled claim that certain votes belong to certain candidates are inherently disrespectful and open the people and campaigns that lean upon them to reasonable ridicule. It's also a tactic that Clinton and her supporters already tried in 2008 when Clinton was trying to defeat Barack Obama. It did not work well then, either. This lesson really ought to have been learned.
Keane Schwarz is certain he knows the outcome of the vote in his precinct: He was the lone caucusgoer in Woodbury County No. 43.
But the Iowa Democratic Party's final results state that Hillary Clinton won one county delegate and Bernie Sanders received zero.
"I voted for Bernie," Schwarz, 36, of Oto, told The Des Moines Register. “It was really suspicious … I’m actually pretty irate about it.”
Some complaints that Iowa Democrats have shared with the Register about discrepancies in caucus results appear to be valid. Others stem from confusion over how the math-heavy delegate-awarding system works in the Democrats' caucus process.
Party officials on Friday night were still reviewing reports and correcting errors and hadn’t yet shared candidates' updated totals of state delegate equivalents, which determine the winner of the caucuses.
Sanders’ backers are more likely than Clinton’s to think the political system is rigged, polling has found. So it might not come as a surprise, especially since he lost by a hairsbreadth, that some think the Democratic caucus system is rigged. It also doesn't help the optics that the state party chairwoman drove around for years in a car with “HRC2016” license plates.
Several caucusgoers told the Register they thought Sanders had been shorted county delegates, including in Knoxville No. 3.
Keane Schwarz is certain he knows the outcome of the vote in his precinct: He was the lone caucusgoer in Woodbury County No. 43.
But the Iowa Democratic Party's final results state that Hillary Clinton won one county delegate and Bernie Sanders received zero.
"I voted for Bernie," Schwarz, 36, of Oto, told The Des Moines Register. “It was really suspicious … I’m actually pretty irate about it.”
Some complaints that Iowa Democrats have shared with the Register about discrepancies in caucus results appear to be valid. Others stem from confusion over how the math-heavy delegate-awarding system works in the Democrats' caucus process.
Party officials on Friday night were still reviewing reports and correcting errors and hadn’t yet shared candidates' updated totals of state delegate equivalents, which determine the winner of the caucuses.
Sanders’ backers are more likely than Clinton’s to think the political system is rigged, polling has found. So it might not come as a surprise, especially since he lost by a hairsbreadth, that some think the Democratic caucus system is rigged. It also doesn't help the optics that the state party chairwoman drove around for years in a car with “HRC2016” license plates.
Several caucusgoers told the Register they thought Sanders had been shorted county delegates, including in Knoxville No. 3.
lol how the fk is he certain of that. only need two guys voting hillary to overturn his vote
The point is there weren't two other people. He was the only person in his caucus, therefore the only vote, therefore it doesn't make any sense for his caucus' delegate to be given to Hillary when he (the only vote) voted for Sanders.
On February 09 2016 05:18 KwarK wrote: I practice a similar system with the stock market. It's about as effective but a little more faith based than this investing in God thing you describe.
Keane Schwarz is certain he knows the outcome of the vote in his precinct: He was the lone caucusgoer in Woodbury County No. 43.
But the Iowa Democratic Party's final results state that Hillary Clinton won one county delegate and Bernie Sanders received zero.
"I voted for Bernie," Schwarz, 36, of Oto, told The Des Moines Register. “It was really suspicious … I’m actually pretty irate about it.”
Some complaints that Iowa Democrats have shared with the Register about discrepancies in caucus results appear to be valid. Others stem from confusion over how the math-heavy delegate-awarding system works in the Democrats' caucus process.
Party officials on Friday night were still reviewing reports and correcting errors and hadn’t yet shared candidates' updated totals of state delegate equivalents, which determine the winner of the caucuses.
Sanders’ backers are more likely than Clinton’s to think the political system is rigged, polling has found. So it might not come as a surprise, especially since he lost by a hairsbreadth, that some think the Democratic caucus system is rigged. It also doesn't help the optics that the state party chairwoman drove around for years in a car with “HRC2016” license plates.
Several caucusgoers told the Register they thought Sanders had been shorted county delegates, including in Knoxville No. 3.
lol how the fk is he certain of that. only need two guys voting hillary to overturn his vote
The point is there weren't two other people. He was the only person in his caucus, therefore the only vote, therefore it doesn't make any sense for his caucus' delegate to be given to Hillary when he (the only vote) voted for Sanders.
You can blame Iowa for being weird.
Doesn't that mean his vote counts for like 20x as much as some people in more populated areas?
That is good though, because otherwise he would feel disenfranchised because in that case he as a rural person could not overrule the more populated areas and would get everything dictated by the urban liberals.
Keane Schwarz is certain he knows the outcome of the vote in his precinct: He was the lone caucusgoer in Woodbury County No. 43.
But the Iowa Democratic Party's final results state that Hillary Clinton won one county delegate and Bernie Sanders received zero.
"I voted for Bernie," Schwarz, 36, of Oto, told The Des Moines Register. “It was really suspicious … I’m actually pretty irate about it.”
Some complaints that Iowa Democrats have shared with the Register about discrepancies in caucus results appear to be valid. Others stem from confusion over how the math-heavy delegate-awarding system works in the Democrats' caucus process.
Party officials on Friday night were still reviewing reports and correcting errors and hadn’t yet shared candidates' updated totals of state delegate equivalents, which determine the winner of the caucuses.
Sanders’ backers are more likely than Clinton’s to think the political system is rigged, polling has found. So it might not come as a surprise, especially since he lost by a hairsbreadth, that some think the Democratic caucus system is rigged. It also doesn't help the optics that the state party chairwoman drove around for years in a car with “HRC2016” license plates.
Several caucusgoers told the Register they thought Sanders had been shorted county delegates, including in Knoxville No. 3.
lol how the fk is he certain of that. only need two guys voting hillary to overturn his vote
The point is there weren't two other people. He was the only person in his caucus, therefore the only vote, therefore it doesn't make any sense for his caucus' delegate to be given to Hillary when he (the only vote) voted for Sanders.
You can blame Iowa for being weird.
Doesn't that mean his vote counts for like 20x as much as some people in more populated areas?
Blame his neighbors for not showing up (and Iowa for their weird as hell system).
Regardless a democratically designated delegate for one candidate should not magically morph into a delegate for another candidate.
Keane Schwarz is certain he knows the outcome of the vote in his precinct: He was the lone caucusgoer in Woodbury County No. 43.
But the Iowa Democratic Party's final results state that Hillary Clinton won one county delegate and Bernie Sanders received zero.
"I voted for Bernie," Schwarz, 36, of Oto, told The Des Moines Register. “It was really suspicious … I’m actually pretty irate about it.”
Some complaints that Iowa Democrats have shared with the Register about discrepancies in caucus results appear to be valid. Others stem from confusion over how the math-heavy delegate-awarding system works in the Democrats' caucus process.
Party officials on Friday night were still reviewing reports and correcting errors and hadn’t yet shared candidates' updated totals of state delegate equivalents, which determine the winner of the caucuses.
Sanders’ backers are more likely than Clinton’s to think the political system is rigged, polling has found. So it might not come as a surprise, especially since he lost by a hairsbreadth, that some think the Democratic caucus system is rigged. It also doesn't help the optics that the state party chairwoman drove around for years in a car with “HRC2016” license plates.
Several caucusgoers told the Register they thought Sanders had been shorted county delegates, including in Knoxville No. 3.
lol how the fk is he certain of that. only need two guys voting hillary to overturn his vote
The point is there weren't two other people. He was the only person in his caucus, therefore the only vote, therefore it doesn't make any sense for his caucus' delegate to be given to Hillary when he (the only vote) voted for Sanders.
You can blame Iowa for being weird.
Doesn't that mean his vote counts for like 20x as much as some people in more populated areas?
Blame his neighbors for not showing up (and Iowa for their weird as hell system).
Regardless a democratically designated delegate for one candidate should not magically morph into a delegate for another candidate.
Yeah, that sounds really fishy. As far as i see it, there are exactly two possibilities here:
Either he wasn't the only one there (I have no idea how a caucus works and if he could simply not notice that) Or there is foul play at work. (Or possibly the rules for the democratic caucus are really arcane)
On February 09 2016 06:05 oneofthem wrote: so him being the only caucus voter is not a personal judgement?
I think you'd find relatively few people who would defend the caucus system as it currently stands. But that's not the point - the point is that the delegate he caucused for (yes, even though he was the only one there) was given to the candidate he did not caucus for.
Keane Schwarz is certain he knows the outcome of the vote in his precinct: He was the lone caucusgoer in Woodbury County No. 43.
But the Iowa Democratic Party's final results state that Hillary Clinton won one county delegate and Bernie Sanders received zero.
"I voted for Bernie," Schwarz, 36, of Oto, told The Des Moines Register. “It was really suspicious … I’m actually pretty irate about it.”
Some complaints that Iowa Democrats have shared with the Register about discrepancies in caucus results appear to be valid. Others stem from confusion over how the math-heavy delegate-awarding system works in the Democrats' caucus process.
Party officials on Friday night were still reviewing reports and correcting errors and hadn’t yet shared candidates' updated totals of state delegate equivalents, which determine the winner of the caucuses.
Sanders’ backers are more likely than Clinton’s to think the political system is rigged, polling has found. So it might not come as a surprise, especially since he lost by a hairsbreadth, that some think the Democratic caucus system is rigged. It also doesn't help the optics that the state party chairwoman drove around for years in a car with “HRC2016” license plates.
Several caucusgoers told the Register they thought Sanders had been shorted county delegates, including in Knoxville No. 3.
lol how the fk is he certain of that. only need two guys voting hillary to overturn his vote
The point is there weren't two other people. He was the only person in his caucus, therefore the only vote, therefore it doesn't make any sense for his caucus' delegate to be given to Hillary when he (the only vote) voted for Sanders.
You can blame Iowa for being weird.
Doesn't that mean his vote counts for like 20x as much as some people in more populated areas?
Blame his neighbors for not showing up (and Iowa for their weird as hell system).
Regardless a democratically designated delegate for one candidate should not magically morph into a delegate for another candidate.
Yeah, that sounds really fishy. As far as i see it, there are exactly two possibilities here:
Either he wasn't the only one there (I have no idea how a caucus works and if he could simply not notice that) Or there is foul play at work. (Or possibly the rules for the democratic caucus are really arcane)
Well, if he wasn't the only one there, that's a counterclaim we'd have to wait for or search out. But that seems like an incredibly odd thing to lie about due to how simple it would be to refute.
On February 09 2016 06:23 oneofthem wrote: i mean surely the guys manning the stations there might caucus
That's fair - I'm not sure on the rules or how that works.
i mean surely the guys manning the stations there might caucus. could just be an error of the caucus counter that counts everyone that does not count self
The US Forest Service has warned it is at the “tipping point” of a crisis in dealing with escalating wildfires and diseases that are ravaging America’s increasingly fragile forest ecosystems.
The federal agency, which manages 193m acres (78m hectares) of forest, will plead once again for more funding from Congress, in the wake of a devastating 2015 that saw record swaths of forest engulfed in flames.
A total of 10.1m acres were burned last year, a figure that is double the typical losses seen 30 years ago. During this time, the average fire season in the US has lengthened by 78 days, with scientists predicting that the amount of forest razed by fire will double by 2050.
Climate change-driven drought, wildfire and invasive diseases are stretching the US Forest Service to breaking point, the agency has warned. It spent about 65% of its $5bn budget dealing with wildfires last year and is requesting that fire be treated like other natural disasters so that it is able to access more money to keep pace.
“We are seeing real challenges on the ground – climate change is real and it is with us,” Robert Bonnie, under secretary for natural resources and environment at the US Department of Agriculture, told the Guardian. “The whole US Forest Service is shifting to becoming an agency dominated by wildfires. We really are at a tipping point. The current situation is not sustainable.”
Bonnie said the growing conflagration of America’s forests means the US Forest Service has had to divert resources from other areas, such as the kind of forest restoration that helps prevent future wildfires. Attempts to remedy this situation with a new disaster fund were dashed when it was not included in the federal budget in December.
The US Forest Service has warned it is at the “tipping point” of a crisis in dealing with escalating wildfires and diseases that are ravaging America’s increasingly fragile forest ecosystems.
The federal agency, which manages 193m acres (78m hectares) of forest, will plead once again for more funding from Congress, in the wake of a devastating 2015 that saw record swaths of forest engulfed in flames.
A total of 10.1m acres were burned last year, a figure that is double the typical losses seen 30 years ago. During this time, the average fire season in the US has lengthened by 78 days, with scientists predicting that the amount of forest razed by fire will double by 2050.
Climate change-driven drought, wildfire and invasive diseases are stretching the US Forest Service to breaking point, the agency has warned. It spent about 65% of its $5bn budget dealing with wildfires last year and is requesting that fire be treated like other natural disasters so that it is able to access more money to keep pace.
“We are seeing real challenges on the ground – climate change is real and it is with us,” Robert Bonnie, under secretary for natural resources and environment at the US Department of Agriculture, told the Guardian. “The whole US Forest Service is shifting to becoming an agency dominated by wildfires. We really are at a tipping point. The current situation is not sustainable.”
Bonnie said the growing conflagration of America’s forests means the US Forest Service has had to divert resources from other areas, such as the kind of forest restoration that helps prevent future wildfires. Attempts to remedy this situation with a new disaster fund were dashed when it was not included in the federal budget in December.
Yes, blame AGW, not the throw away the keys approach of land management. When you don't proactively burn you end up where we are now. Apparently, letting forest undergrowth get to appreciably large levels is not a factor - hmmm.
Either way isn't the answer to give them the money they need to address it? They're not asking for money to tackle global warming, they're asking for money to better manage the land they have. That's an easy decision.
On February 09 2016 11:08 KwarK wrote: Either way isn't the answer to give them the money they need to address it? They're not asking for money to tackle global warming, they're asking for money to better manage the land they have. That's an easy decision.
well we need to make sure there going to spend the money in a way that makes sense and is sutainable. If someones house is flooding its probably better for him to fix the leak then to merely keep pumping water out everytime it happens. {erspma;;y I think we can do both, give them more money and try to find a better way to do it.
With Trump suggesting Ted Cruz is a "pussy" for being hesitant about waterboarding (not even against it), has anyone who's been waterboarded suggested it wasn't torture?
On February 09 2016 05:52 Simberto wrote: That is good though, because otherwise he would feel disenfranchised because in that case he as a rural person could not overrule the more populated areas and would get everything dictated by the urban liberals.
On February 09 2016 11:51 GreenHorizons wrote: With Trump suggesting Ted Cruz is a "pussy" for being hesitant about waterboarding (not even against it), has anyone who's been waterboarded suggested it wasn't torture?
The late great Bush advisor Hitchins said it was not torture. And as a passionate rationalist he was so convinced of that opinion that when he was challenged to undergo waterboarding he stood by his stance and agreed to be waterboarded. From then on he stated unequivocally that it was torture and spoke about how the experience impacted his mental state for a long time after the event. He was waterboarded once for about 3 seconds.
EPT
