|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.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. |
United States42701 Posts
On June 10 2016 23:03 DickMcFanny wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2016 22:24 biology]major wrote:On June 10 2016 22:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 10 2016 21:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Elizabeth Warren just endorsed Hillary Clinton. That's a HUGE step towards unifying the Democratic party, considering Liz Warren is basically the female version of Bernie Sanders. I think a ticket Clinton Warren would be a really good plan to win Sanders supporters. And Warren is a great, great woman. Country is not ready for a double woman ticket, it's barely ready for one woman. It would be a horrible move politically to take warren as her vp. Just like in tv shows there's always one token Asian guy and it's all good, but as soon as you get more than one? You've crossed the threshold. Maybe in a few decades but not now I'm not an expert in American history, but I think there is plenty of precedent of single-gender tickets. My only regret is that I have but no upvotes to give for this post.
|
I think having both be female is really stupid, from an electability standpoint. But then I also wonder if having both be female would ensure Trump says something horrible. There's a ton of sympathy/compassion for women in American society and I think a Clinton/Warren ticket would have a certain amount of immunity to attacks. It kinda makes it unfair, but they are obviously as a disadvantage for knee-jerk, instinctual reasons.
|
On June 10 2016 23:11 Velr wrote: Yes, but compromising ideologues are actually the people that can push a country towards a certain direction. Maybe Clinton just totally sucks at selling her ideology, being "pragmatic" is a nice attribute, but its not a description of what you actually would want to do and should not be your main selling point. I doubt anyone is questioning that she is pragmatic. But she runs basically on "being pragmatic and like Obama but even more/better"...
Well luckily for her neither the Dems nor Reps could push a truely good candidate, so it should be enough... quite true certainly. As a general trend of course, ideologues are less prone to compromising than pragmatists. Certainly compromising ideologues would be best. Clinton is definitely not as good as many at selling her ideology. Her policy command is excellent, but as "cheerleader-in-chief" which is one of the president's functions, she's quite poor.
|
On June 10 2016 23:29 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2016 23:03 DickMcFanny wrote:On June 10 2016 22:24 biology]major wrote:On June 10 2016 22:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 10 2016 21:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Elizabeth Warren just endorsed Hillary Clinton. That's a HUGE step towards unifying the Democratic party, considering Liz Warren is basically the female version of Bernie Sanders. I think a ticket Clinton Warren would be a really good plan to win Sanders supporters. And Warren is a great, great woman. Country is not ready for a double woman ticket, it's barely ready for one woman. It would be a horrible move politically to take warren as her vp. Just like in tv shows there's always one token Asian guy and it's all good, but as soon as you get more than one? You've crossed the threshold. Maybe in a few decades but not now I'm not an expert in American history, but I think there is plenty of precedent of single-gender tickets. My only regret is that I have but no upvotes to give for this post. Agreed. But I show my support through this post.
Also folks, can we use “women” when appropriate over “females”? I really don’t like thinking of you all as Ferengi. Just read your post out loud and if you sound like you would have the lobes for business, use woman instead.
|
On June 10 2016 23:41 Plansix wrote: Also folks, can we use “women” when appropriate over “females”?
omg so much this! + Show Spoiler +
This series of comments brought to you by Jezebel
|
On June 10 2016 23:41 Plansix wrote:
Also folks, can we use “women” when appropriate over “females”? I really don’t like thinking of you all as Ferengi. Just read your post out loud and if you sound like you would have the lobes for business, use woman instead.
Never even thought of that lol. Makes sense though, thanks. However, I am compelled to remind you of the 94th rule of acquisition.
|
I was snapped at once because I said "of either gender". I thought I was being liberal, but apparently I was implying that genders are binary, which made me transphobic. So yeah, difficult to judge what lingo to use these days.
|
On June 10 2016 23:03 Velr wrote: Well, by that logic, Angela Merkel is the best cancellor/president ever... Merkel is a complete ideologue. Her treatment of Greece is and has always been completely irrational. She expects the Greek to get out of the crisis by tightening their budget and then pay to the last euro their debt, which every economist says is not only stupid, but also completely unfeasible.
I don't think we have one more dogmatic leader in Europe.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On June 10 2016 23:41 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2016 23:29 KwarK wrote:On June 10 2016 23:03 DickMcFanny wrote:On June 10 2016 22:24 biology]major wrote:On June 10 2016 22:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 10 2016 21:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Elizabeth Warren just endorsed Hillary Clinton. That's a HUGE step towards unifying the Democratic party, considering Liz Warren is basically the female version of Bernie Sanders. I think a ticket Clinton Warren would be a really good plan to win Sanders supporters. And Warren is a great, great woman. Country is not ready for a double woman ticket, it's barely ready for one woman. It would be a horrible move politically to take warren as her vp. Just like in tv shows there's always one token Asian guy and it's all good, but as soon as you get more than one? You've crossed the threshold. Maybe in a few decades but not now I'm not an expert in American history, but I think there is plenty of precedent of single-gender tickets. My only regret is that I have but no upvotes to give for this post. Agreed. But I show my support through this post. Also folks, can we use “women” when appropriate over “females”? I really don’t like thinking of you all as Ferengi. Just read your post out loud and if you sound like you would have the lobes for business, use woman instead. We've got whole binders full of females.
|
what if trump took a female as his vp? Any good female candidates for the job?
|
United States42701 Posts
He needs a VP who has no political aspirations beyond the current year, ever. I'm not sure a good candidate exists. It'll have to be the right combination of cynicism and lack of ambition. There won't be any coming back from the stain of Trump. Maybe his daughter?
|
Sarah Palin, because at this point why the hell not.
|
She has to run the Trumpire. And I don't think she'd be remotely ready for any VP debate against anyone Hillary throws her way.
|
On June 10 2016 23:58 DickMcFanny wrote: I was snapped at once because I said "of either gender". I thought I was being liberal, but apparently I was implying that genders are binary, which made me transphobic. So yeah, difficult to judge what lingo to use these days. LMAO. I thought the whole point is that they want to be considered 100% female o.0
|
|
On June 11 2016 00:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/OxlsZ1X.png) Top comment (2nd one is roughly the same)
|
United States42701 Posts
On June 11 2016 00:23 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2016 23:58 DickMcFanny wrote: I was snapped at once because I said "of either gender". I thought I was being liberal, but apparently I was implying that genders are binary, which made me transphobic. So yeah, difficult to judge what lingo to use these days. LMAO. I thought the whole point is that they want to be considered 100% female o.0 Trans women do, transgenders fit in the binary, they just don't fit in the one they were born in. But then you get into queer and genderfluid and all that stuff and it becomes far more complicated. Transgender are the tip of the iceberg. But for trans people, there are two genders. The person was too interested in checking privilege to check facts.
|
If Bill Maher decided to become a hermit and never use any form of communication ever again, I’m pretty sure it would be a net gain for humanity.
|
On June 11 2016 00:30 Plansix wrote: If Bill Maher decided to become a hermit and never use any form of communication ever again, I’m pretty sure it would be a net gain for humanity. I dont like how you take the moral highground in every zopic here.
|
On June 11 2016 00:30 Plansix wrote: If Bill Maher decided to become a hermit and never use any form of communication ever again, I’m pretty sure it would be a net gain for humanity.
Isn't his point that we are insanely diverse and that's awesome?
|
|
|
|