|
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. |
Norway28923 Posts
On December 26 2016 04:03 LegalLord wrote:
A woman should be elected when a female candidate happens to be the best candidate for president. I see no virtue in choosing a woman for being a woman.
She was with a significant margin the best candidate this time around.. Not that I care about electing females for being females either, but what you describe as the criteria was most certainly the case this time around.
|
On December 26 2016 07:25 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2016 04:03 LegalLord wrote:
A woman should be elected when a female candidate happens to be the best candidate for president. I see no virtue in choosing a woman for being a woman. She was with a significant margin the best candidate this time around.. Not that I care about electing females for being females either, but what you describe as the criteria was most certainly the case this time around.
Not a significant enough margin to convince more than half the country of being more worthy! In fact, probably the most obviously corrupt candidate at election time in American history. Not that I consider it worthwhile to rehash all the arguments taken up by people that think sexism denied the best candidate the White House, as opposed to the fact that the better of the two by a wide margin won a narrow victory.
|
Norway28923 Posts
I get that you prefer Trump by far on policy, and I think that's entirely legitimate. I'm not vocalizing any criticism towards anyone who voted for Trump, I'm certain it seemed the rational thing to do for everyone who did so. But despite winning, he's still a fucking joke of a candidate. It's just not very funny. I don't really care about having the discussion (the only interesting tangent to go off on is whether winning validates a candidacy or not - I think it doesn't, but I can see how the american fetishising of 'competition' makes some of you disagree), but it was my impression that LegalLord, despite all his disdain for Hillary, actually agrees that Trump is even worse.
|
|
|
On December 26 2016 06:27 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2016 04:03 LegalLord wrote:
A woman should be elected when a female candidate happens to be the best candidate for president. I see no virtue in choosing a woman for being a woman. Woooossshhhhh That's the sound of the point going over your head. Its not about 'not electing a women' Its about electing someone who thinks 'Grab em by the pussy' is acceptable.
Quoting from the article he was responding to:
One man wrote a check for $10,000 to an organization that helps women get elected to office
I think the wooshing noise applies more to your comment  . Unless of course, the organization specifically helps women get elected to office to counteract the singular comments Trump made on a bus in Hollywood...I don't know about you but I'm skeptical that their focus is so narrow, or that their organization came into being immediately after Trump made his comments.
Merry Christmas!! Reflecting on this year, I'm amazed at how easy it was for the left's identity politics to polarize me towards actually rooting for Trump, in spite of the fact that I think he's a threat to Earth's future (climate change). Then again there's always geoengineering to save us.
|
On December 26 2016 08:14 Liquid`Drone wrote:
(the only interesting tangent to go off on is whether winning validates a candidacy or not - I think it doesn't, but I can see how the american fetishising of 'competition' makes some of you disagree)
Watching this effect in action ('he won, therefore he was right all along') has been one of the really interesting things about this thread post-election. The speed with which some people changed course is quite amazing.
General sentiment from a regular lurker: Thanks for posting guys, I appreciate all the effort. This thread allows me glimpses into the minds of people I would never get close to otherwise.
|
On December 26 2016 08:50 radscorpion9 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2016 06:27 Gorsameth wrote:On December 26 2016 04:03 LegalLord wrote:
A woman should be elected when a female candidate happens to be the best candidate for president. I see no virtue in choosing a woman for being a woman. Woooossshhhhh That's the sound of the point going over your head. Its not about 'not electing a women' Its about electing someone who thinks 'Grab em by the pussy' is acceptable. Quoting from the article he was responding to: Show nested quote +One man wrote a check for $10,000 to an organization that helps women get elected to office I think the wooshing noise applies more to your comment . Unless of course, the organization specifically helps women get elected to office to counteract the singular comments Trump made on a bus in Hollywood...I don't know about you but I'm skeptical that their focus is so narrow, or that their organization came into being immediately after Trump made his comments. Merry Christmas!! Reflecting on this year, I'm amazed at how easy it was for the left's identity politics to polarize me towards actually rooting for Trump, in spite of the fact that I think he's a threat to Earth's future (climate change). Then again there's always geoengineering to save us.
Sorry but is actually exactly what I was talking about. Why does he have to give money to them because a women was not elected? Why can we not assume a more reasonable 'because we elected a misogynist'?
A lot of the work on the subject of women hiring is not about hiring a women despite her lack of qualifications but to get people to hire a women if her qualifications are equal or better then the man they normally go for instead.
|
On December 26 2016 08:14 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I get that you prefer Trump by far on policy, and I think that's entirely legitimate. I'm not vocalizing any criticism towards anyone who voted for Trump, I'm certain it seemed the rational thing to do for everyone who did so. But despite winning, he's still a fucking joke of a candidate. It's just not very funny. I don't really care about having the discussion (the only interesting tangent to go off on is whether winning validates a candidacy or not - I think it doesn't, but I can see how the american fetishising of 'competition' makes some of you disagree), but it was my impression that LegalLord, despite all his disdain for Hillary, actually agrees that Trump is even worse.
He might even be personally repulsive in his personality and how he treats women. I just voted for, as I saw it, might support causes I agree with ... chief among them the nomination of another originalist to the court, repeal of Obamacare, strengthening of the border ... vs a candidate that would support policies I oppose pretty reliably.
I disliked the choices in front of me. Trump was in the bottom half of primary candidates I liked and thought could win. So I'm that sense, I can entirely agree that he was something of a joke by comparison to a theoretical race of all primary candidates.
But I don't know where you're going by validation (not to go all zlefin on you) ... he stands remarkably well as an advocate for a change from the status quo in which Hillary was the status quo. In essence that was validated in the broad sense since that was a heavy message in a narrowly won election. Not that a vote for Trump validates his perspective on polite conversations about women or his entire foreign policy vision and stuff of that nature (which might be your point).
|
On December 26 2016 09:29 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2016 08:14 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I get that you prefer Trump by far on policy, and I think that's entirely legitimate. I'm not vocalizing any criticism towards anyone who voted for Trump, I'm certain it seemed the rational thing to do for everyone who did so. But despite winning, he's still a fucking joke of a candidate. It's just not very funny. I don't really care about having the discussion (the only interesting tangent to go off on is whether winning validates a candidacy or not - I think it doesn't, but I can see how the american fetishising of 'competition' makes some of you disagree), but it was my impression that LegalLord, despite all his disdain for Hillary, actually agrees that Trump is even worse.
He might even be personally repulsive in his personality and how he treats women. I just voted for, as I saw it, might support causes I agree with ... chief among them the nomination of another originalist to the court, repeal of Obamacare, strengthening of the border ... vs a candidate that would support policies I oppose pretty reliably. I disliked the choices in front of me. Trump was in the bottom half of primary candidates I liked and thought could win. So I'm that sense, I can entirely agree that he was something of a joke by comparison to a theoretical race of all primary candidates. But I don't know where you're going by validation (not to go all zlefin on you) ... he stands remarkably well as an advocate for a change from the status quo in which Hillary was the status quo. In essence that was validated in the broad sense since that was a heavy message in a narrowly won election. Not that a vote for Trump validates his perspective on polite conversations about women or his entire foreign policy vision and stuff of that nature (which might be your point).
Curious on your thoughts about Trump supporters who thought part of the status quo he was going to upend was the government being billionaires' puppets part?
|
On December 26 2016 08:00 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2016 07:25 Liquid`Drone wrote:On December 26 2016 04:03 LegalLord wrote:
A woman should be elected when a female candidate happens to be the best candidate for president. I see no virtue in choosing a woman for being a woman. She was with a significant margin the best candidate this time around.. Not that I care about electing females for being females either, but what you describe as the criteria was most certainly the case this time around. Not a significant enough margin to convince more than half the country of being more worthy! In fact, probably the most obviously corrupt candidate at election time in American history. Not that I consider it worthwhile to rehash all the arguments taken up by people that think sexism denied the best candidate the White House, as opposed to the fact that the better of the two by a wide margin won a narrow victory.
that doesn't sound right.
I'm pretty sure we've had some more obviously corrupt candidates.
Especially seeing as a fair reading of the evidence doesn't point to hillary being that corrupt at all.
and even with a less fair reading hillary it seems likely that some of the candidates, winning or losing, have been quite clearly more corrupt, as we've had a lot of elections, and standards tended to be lower in the past.
and technically it did convince more than half the country, just not the half that counts more
the notion that trump is better by a wide margin is just asinine though. better by a small margin, maybe could be justified. a much closer fit to your views? sure that's easy to justify. but better in general by a wide margin? no, that's just not remotely true or reasonable.
|
On December 26 2016 07:25 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2016 04:03 LegalLord wrote:
A woman should be elected when a female candidate happens to be the best candidate for president. I see no virtue in choosing a woman for being a woman. She was with a significant margin the best candidate this time around.. Not that I care about electing females for being females either, but what you describe as the criteria was most certainly the case this time around.
Well regardless of what any of us think, the voters (by electoral delineation) decided that they would rather have Trump than Hillary. Whether or not you think it's "about time" to have a female president, as it turned out the female candidate didn't win and there is no good reason to say, "well we need to make sure a woman wins the next time around." Whoever is the best candidate should win and that's the end of that.
|
Of course no person should be elected based on their gender but their is of course an argument to be made that the US is somewhat overdue to have a female leader for statistical reasons alone, after all every second American happens to be a woman. Only 20% of members of congress are women which is half of what you have in most comparable nations and puts the US on one level with Tajikistan and Zambia. (http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/classif.htm)
I don't think anybody can deny that there are some very real institutional problems, because women in the US aren't significantly less educated than anywhere else.
|
On December 26 2016 09:58 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2016 08:00 Danglars wrote:On December 26 2016 07:25 Liquid`Drone wrote:On December 26 2016 04:03 LegalLord wrote:
A woman should be elected when a female candidate happens to be the best candidate for president. I see no virtue in choosing a woman for being a woman. She was with a significant margin the best candidate this time around.. Not that I care about electing females for being females either, but what you describe as the criteria was most certainly the case this time around. Not a significant enough margin to convince more than half the country of being more worthy! In fact, probably the most obviously corrupt candidate at election time in American history. Not that I consider it worthwhile to rehash all the arguments taken up by people that think sexism denied the best candidate the White House, as opposed to the fact that the better of the two by a wide margin won a narrow victory. that doesn't sound right. I'm pretty sure we've had some more obviously corrupt candidates. Especially seeing as a fair reading of the evidence doesn't point to hillary being that corrupt at all. and even with a less fair reading hillary it seems likely that some of the candidates, winning or losing, have been quite clearly more corrupt, as we've had a lot of elections, and standards tended to be lower in the past. and technically it did convince more than half the country, just not the half that counts more the notion that trump is better by a wide margin is just asinine though. better by a small margin, maybe could be justified. a much closer fit to your views? sure that's easy to justify. but better in general by a wide margin? no, that's just not remotely true or reasonable.
If the metric is winning than I think it's a fair reading. Trump certainly had to fight a hell of a lot harder (than her) for his nomination, and had to fight a lot harder in the general. Ability to do the job is certainly an apparent weakness for Trump, but that's a President's job, not a candidate's. As a candidate (as in the job of getting elected) it's a no contest, Trump's a much better a candidate, by far.
|
On December 26 2016 10:43 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2016 09:58 zlefin wrote:On December 26 2016 08:00 Danglars wrote:On December 26 2016 07:25 Liquid`Drone wrote:On December 26 2016 04:03 LegalLord wrote:
A woman should be elected when a female candidate happens to be the best candidate for president. I see no virtue in choosing a woman for being a woman. She was with a significant margin the best candidate this time around.. Not that I care about electing females for being females either, but what you describe as the criteria was most certainly the case this time around. Not a significant enough margin to convince more than half the country of being more worthy! In fact, probably the most obviously corrupt candidate at election time in American history. Not that I consider it worthwhile to rehash all the arguments taken up by people that think sexism denied the best candidate the White House, as opposed to the fact that the better of the two by a wide margin won a narrow victory. that doesn't sound right. I'm pretty sure we've had some more obviously corrupt candidates. Especially seeing as a fair reading of the evidence doesn't point to hillary being that corrupt at all. and even with a less fair reading hillary it seems likely that some of the candidates, winning or losing, have been quite clearly more corrupt, as we've had a lot of elections, and standards tended to be lower in the past. and technically it did convince more than half the country, just not the half that counts more the notion that trump is better by a wide margin is just asinine though. better by a small margin, maybe could be justified. a much closer fit to your views? sure that's easy to justify. but better in general by a wide margin? no, that's just not remotely true or reasonable. If the metric is winning than I think it's a fair reading. Trump certainly had to fight a hell of a lot harder (than her) for his nomination, and had to fight a lot harder in the general. Ability to do the job is certainly an apparent weakness for Trump, but that's a President's job, not a candidate's. As a candidate (as in the job of getting elected) it's a no contest, Trump's a much better a candidate, by far.
in context, I'm pretty sure it refers to the ability of a candidate to do the job, not their ability to be a candidate.
As for Trump being better purely in the position of candidate, that does seem quite likely, not absolutely clear though.
it's not clear he's much better at being a candidate, there's multiple viewpoints which favor different interpretations. i.e. if the election would have, generally speaking, heavily favored generic republican over generic democrat, than trump would've been facing an easier situation, and any apparent harder fighting would be only a result of his own actions rather than truly being in a more difficult situation.
if that's not sufficiently clear I have another way of making the point.
|
On December 26 2016 10:12 Nyxisto wrote:
Of course no person should be elected based on their gender but their is of course an argument to be made that the US is somewhat overdue to have a female leader for statistical reasons alone, after all every second American happens to be a woman. Only 20% of members of congress are women which is half of what you have in most comparable nations and puts the US on one level with Tajikistan and Zambia. (http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/classif.htm)
I don't think anybody can deny that there are some very real institutional problems, because women in the US aren't significantly less educated than anywhere else.
Institutional problems? No, not even close. Women have universal suffrage, women are free to run as candidates, and women can vote for anyone they want on the ballot (we can talk about ballot access being an institutional problem if you want, because that actually does exist). This is why I can't stand the ideological Marxist-egalitarians. Just because demographics don't match 1:1 to XYZ doesn't mean there is a problem. People and genders have different goals in life, different preferences, and enjoy different hobbies and activities. Politics is combative, competitive, and many times zero-sum. Those are not generally qualities that attract females. Do sports have an institutional problem? Do careers in the trades have institutional problems? What about vice versa? Does the healthcare field have institutional problems (where women far outnumber men)? There is only a problem it seems when women are the subject of not matching 1:1 (or more) with demographics.
Also, I can't stand this subject either when it comes to politics. THe "left" will cry and shout about women and misogyny when a man on the right doesn't support their lefty candidates, but then they turn around and absolutely pillory people like Sarah Palin, Margaret Thatcher, and Michelle Bachmann (or their favorite woman to hate - Ayn Rand). Please, stop acting like you're the paragon of women lmao.
|
since when am I a Marxist, a leftist or a paragon for women, did you have this rant prepared for somebody else?
Of course all those institutions have problems, and depending on the nation you're talking about they have very different problems, that's why the participation of women varies so drastically. A few generations ago we had virtually no women in any academic field, do you think women magically evolved into completely different beings over the course of a hundred years? Of course it's institutional.
Women only have acquired legal equality, the traditional family, pretty much all religions, most companies and so on are still pushing hundreds of years old ideologies.
|
Maybe we should implement quotas by race, gender, and religion to ensure that the government demography properly reflects the population demography.
|
On December 26 2016 12:54 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2016 10:12 Nyxisto wrote:
Of course no person should be elected based on their gender but their is of course an argument to be made that the US is somewhat overdue to have a female leader for statistical reasons alone, after all every second American happens to be a woman. Only 20% of members of congress are women which is half of what you have in most comparable nations and puts the US on one level with Tajikistan and Zambia. (http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/classif.htm)
I don't think anybody can deny that there are some very real institutional problems, because women in the US aren't significantly less educated than anywhere else. Institutional problems? No, not even close. Women have universal suffrage, women are free to run as candidates, and women can vote for anyone they want on the ballot (we can talk about ballot access being an institutional problem if you want, because that actually does exist). This is why I can't stand the ideological Marxist-egalitarians. Just because demographics don't match 1:1 to XYZ doesn't mean there is a problem. People and genders have different goals in life, different preferences, and enjoy different hobbies and activities. Politics is combative, competitive, and many times zero-sum. Those are not generally qualities that attract females. Do sports have an institutional problem? Do careers in the trades have institutional problems? What about vice versa? Does the healthcare field have institutional problems (where women far outnumber men)? There is only a problem it seems when women are the subject of not matching 1:1 (or more) with demographics. Also, I can't stand this subject either when it comes to politics. THe "left" will cry and shout about women and misogyny when a man on the right doesn't support their lefty candidates, but then they turn around and absolutely pillory people like Sarah Palin, Margaret Thatcher, and Michelle Bachmann (or their favorite woman to hate - Ayn Rand). Please, stop acting like you're the paragon of women lmao.
A lot of those things you listed are cultural problems. People for a long time had a rather narrow idea of what men and woman "should be like" and what they "should do" with their lives. These very much influence people and is a prime reason why demographics get skewed so heavily. Then when there is pushes for minorities to enter a field there will always be push back because of per-concieved notions of how things should be. Woman doing math/science? That is for men so why are you here? Your weird etc. Its mostly a generation thing. Two examples just from my own family: My aunt who is in her 60s got a lot of shit for taking advanced math courses while she was in college and was alienated (went on to become a math teacher) and a more recent example my cousin who is a chemical engineer working for a big company doing great and my grand mother doesn't like it and only asks when is she getting a man.
Its these types of cultural notions that create the gender disparity in a lot of industries because they push people toward and away from things.
No one actually is in favor of gender quotas, stop straw manning by using the logical extreme. Just a little more awareness about how people think of other people and why they do, along with how they act towards them because of those assumptions made. People in many sectors think women just aren't as good as men in certain fields IE the sciences/business/politics. I even posted a very long list of studies/articles about the barriers women in science/technology have compared to men a while back. There is a bias there, the ratios don't need to be 1:1, just not as heavily skewed as they are. This will gradually get better over time as boomers die but I don't see why people have to get triggered by efforts to accelerate it.
|
On December 26 2016 09:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2016 09:29 Danglars wrote:On December 26 2016 08:14 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I get that you prefer Trump by far on policy, and I think that's entirely legitimate. I'm not vocalizing any criticism towards anyone who voted for Trump, I'm certain it seemed the rational thing to do for everyone who did so. But despite winning, he's still a fucking joke of a candidate. It's just not very funny. I don't really care about having the discussion (the only interesting tangent to go off on is whether winning validates a candidacy or not - I think it doesn't, but I can see how the american fetishising of 'competition' makes some of you disagree), but it was my impression that LegalLord, despite all his disdain for Hillary, actually agrees that Trump is even worse.
He might even be personally repulsive in his personality and how he treats women. I just voted for, as I saw it, might support causes I agree with ... chief among them the nomination of another originalist to the court, repeal of Obamacare, strengthening of the border ... vs a candidate that would support policies I oppose pretty reliably. I disliked the choices in front of me. Trump was in the bottom half of primary candidates I liked and thought could win. So I'm that sense, I can entirely agree that he was something of a joke by comparison to a theoretical race of all primary candidates. But I don't know where you're going by validation (not to go all zlefin on you) ... he stands remarkably well as an advocate for a change from the status quo in which Hillary was the status quo. In essence that was validated in the broad sense since that was a heavy message in a narrowly won election. Not that a vote for Trump validates his perspective on polite conversations about women or his entire foreign policy vision and stuff of that nature (which might be your point). Curious on your thoughts about Trump supporters who thought part of the status quo he was going to upend was the government being billionaires' puppets part?
I personally didn't think he had the wherewithal to truly drain the swamp of lobbyists and power brokers. Reince and Commerce/Treasury/SoS point towards a weak showing on the issue. I don't know how much faith others had in a radical change from DC norms. 'Puppets' is just the other kind of populist pablum.
On December 26 2016 09:58 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2016 08:00 Danglars wrote:On December 26 2016 07:25 Liquid`Drone wrote:On December 26 2016 04:03 LegalLord wrote:
A woman should be elected when a female candidate happens to be the best candidate for president. I see no virtue in choosing a woman for being a woman. She was with a significant margin the best candidate this time around.. Not that I care about electing females for being females either, but what you describe as the criteria was most certainly the case this time around. Not a significant enough margin to convince more than half the country of being more worthy! In fact, probably the most obviously corrupt candidate at election time in American history. Not that I consider it worthwhile to rehash all the arguments taken up by people that think sexism denied the best candidate the White House, as opposed to the fact that the better of the two by a wide margin won a narrow victory. that doesn't sound right. I'm pretty sure we've had some more obviously corrupt candidates. Especially seeing as a fair reading of the evidence doesn't point to hillary being that corrupt at all. and even with a less fair reading hillary it seems likely that some of the candidates, winning or losing, have been quite clearly more corrupt, as we've had a lot of elections, and standards tended to be lower in the past. and technically it did convince more than half the country, just not the half that counts more the notion that trump is better by a wide margin is just asinine though. better by a small margin, maybe could be justified. a much closer fit to your views? sure that's easy to justify. but better in general by a wide margin? no, that's just not remotely true or reasonable.
Your predilections are uninteresting. "I'm pretty sure this," "a fair reading doesn't point to that," "a less fair reading," "technically it's not a half" is just sputtering nonsense. I'm well aware you are predisposed to think charitably of Clinton in the face-up matchup, and this is just repeating where your sympathies lie by other language. If you want to take a side on who was the best of the worst and if it was close, don't retreat to your dismissive "not remotely true or reasonable." I don't give much credit to what you think is and isn't reasonable based on your history of non-positions and non-involvement.
|
Trump may very well just be pushed back into "Republican status quo" territory, yes. I don't see a closet genius in him, but I could see him as a useful means to the creation of a more effective system of governance. I would be quite surprised if he turns out to be a competent administrator.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
