|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On February 23 2019 22:17 Amphimachus wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2019 15:32 On_Slaught wrote:
New NYT article on Klobachar isnt flattering. While she is certainly smart, driven, and effective, she also comes off as vindictive, petty, and cruel. She strikes me as a narcissistic bully who likes to shift the blame to her subordinates (sound familiar?). That shit will only get worse if she is in the WH given the media scruity[sic] and the fact she will try her damndest[sic] to not come off as the "weak female."
That's a no from me dog. Not even for VP. Plenty of other less volatile choices available. This is exactly the double standard female politicians face. AOC gets a lot of scrutiny the other way, but she found a way to make it work. But only because she is being the youngest congresswomen ever, not a candidate for POTUS. We love narcissistic bullies when they are male politicians. But when they are female, they have to be feminine. But not too feminine, or we don't have any way to respect them as politicians. This is exactly why in the US no female will get elected in 2020. They will always put off the wrong vibe. And it isn't just males thinking that. Females probably judge female politicians with the same unfair standard. User was banned for this post.
I agree that this is the unfortunate reality in most cases: Women are stereotypically viewed by many people to be too weak or unable to handle a job like the presidency, yet when they show strength it's received as "she doesn't know how to act/ how to be a lady/ it's unbecoming of her". It's lose-lose, sadly. Fortunately, with a more progressive voting base, there's less of this sexism with Democratic constituents and so women still have a fighting chance in that primary regardless of their sex (just like Hillary did). I'd be shocked if a woman won the Republican primary any time in the next 20 years.
|
On February 24 2019 02:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2019 22:17 Amphimachus wrote:On February 23 2019 15:32 On_Slaught wrote:
New NYT article on Klobachar isnt flattering. While she is certainly smart, driven, and effective, she also comes off as vindictive, petty, and cruel. She strikes me as a narcissistic bully who likes to shift the blame to her subordinates (sound familiar?). That shit will only get worse if she is in the WH given the media scruity[sic] and the fact she will try her damndest[sic] to not come off as the "weak female."
That's a no from me dog. Not even for VP. Plenty of other less volatile choices available. This is exactly the double standard female politicians face. AOC gets a lot of scrutiny the other way, but she found a way to make it work. But only because she is being the youngest congresswomen ever, not a candidate for POTUS. We love narcissistic bullies when they are male politicians. But when they are female, they have to be feminine. But not too feminine, or we don't have any way to respect them as politicians. This is exactly why in the US no female will get elected in 2020. They will always put off the wrong vibe. And it isn't just males thinking that. Females probably judge female politicians with the same unfair standard. User was banned for this post. I agree that this is the unfortunate reality in most cases: Women are stereotypically viewed by many people to be too weak or unable to handle a job like the presidency, yet when they show strength it's received as "she doesn't know how to act/ how to be a lady/ it's unbecoming of her". It's lose-lose, sadly. Fortunately, with a more progressive voting base, there's less of this sexism with Democratic constituents and so women still have a fighting chance in that primary regardless of their sex (just like Hillary did). I'd be shocked if a woman won the Republican primary any time in the next 20 years.
This might be true for the US, but recent history is full of women who have succeeded in this, think Thatcher and Märkel. Both the current Norwegian prime minister and the "country mother" Gro Harlem Brundtland, who proceded to become a very influential WHO boss who enforced a lot of no-smoking laws, are also solid women who embody more authorthy than most men.
Common for them is that they have a similar attitude to appearence as their male counterparts: Dress well and respectable, but don't bother trying to be eye candy. Some men and women do indeed play the sexy card, but it is far from the only way to go about it!
![[image loading]](https://ndla.no/sites/default/files/images/ny_sp27e6de.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/P7gyfx6.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://secure.i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03150/thatcher-bbc_3150455b.jpg)
|
On February 24 2019 02:20 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2019 02:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 23 2019 22:17 Amphimachus wrote:On February 23 2019 15:32 On_Slaught wrote:
New NYT article on Klobachar isnt flattering. While she is certainly smart, driven, and effective, she also comes off as vindictive, petty, and cruel. She strikes me as a narcissistic bully who likes to shift the blame to her subordinates (sound familiar?). That shit will only get worse if she is in the WH given the media scruity[sic] and the fact she will try her damndest[sic] to not come off as the "weak female."
That's a no from me dog. Not even for VP. Plenty of other less volatile choices available. This is exactly the double standard female politicians face. AOC gets a lot of scrutiny the other way, but she found a way to make it work. But only because she is being the youngest congresswomen ever, not a candidate for POTUS. We love narcissistic bullies when they are male politicians. But when they are female, they have to be feminine. But not too feminine, or we don't have any way to respect them as politicians. This is exactly why in the US no female will get elected in 2020. They will always put off the wrong vibe. And it isn't just males thinking that. Females probably judge female politicians with the same unfair standard. User was banned for this post. I agree that this is the unfortunate reality in most cases: Women are stereotypically viewed by many people to be too weak or unable to handle a job like the presidency, yet when they show strength it's received as "she doesn't know how to act/ how to be a lady/ it's unbecoming of her". It's lose-lose, sadly. Fortunately, with a more progressive voting base, there's less of this sexism with Democratic constituents and so women still have a fighting chance in that primary regardless of their sex (just like Hillary did). I'd be shocked if a woman won the Republican primary any time in the next 20 years. This might be true for the US, but recent history is full of women who have succeeded in this, think Thatcher and Märkel. Both the current Norwegian prime minister and the "country mother" Gro Harlem Brundtland, who proceded to become a very influential WHO boss who enforced a lot of no-smoking laws, are also solid women who embody more authorthy than most men. Common for them is that they have a similar attitude to appearence as their male counterparts: Dress well and respectable, but don't bother trying to be eye candy. Some men and women do indeed play the sexy card, but it is far from the only way to go about it!
I totally agree. Given recent role models, I think there's definitely more reason to think that women are capable of being in positions of power and world leaders than reason to believe that they innately can't handle it because of their sex/ because they're too emotional/ whatever.
|
United States41989 Posts
I don't think anyone was arguing that women aren't capable, they were arguing that voters hold women to unreasonable standards. Obviously there have been plenty of great (if not always good) female leaders but that doesn't mean that the prejudice cannot still be a factor. Prejudice isn't based in reason, pointing out that the existence of the prejudice is irrational doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
|
On February 24 2019 02:26 KwarK wrote:
I don't think anyone was arguing that women aren't capable, they were arguing that voters hold women to unreasonable standards. Obviously there have been plenty of great (if not always good) female leaders but that doesn't mean that the prejudice cannot still be a factor. Prejudice isn't based in reason, pointing out that the existence of the prejudice is irrational doesn't mean it doesn't exist. or, OR ... there was nothing about unreasonable standards nor prejudice.
the way i saw it, was about guilt-tripping people who voted for Trump into voting for the woman in question; if you voted for a male a.hole you should have no problem in voting for a woman a.hole. hmm, no ... ?.
where's the virtue in changing one a.hole for another?.
|
United States41989 Posts
On February 24 2019 03:12 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2019 02:26 KwarK wrote:
I don't think anyone was arguing that women aren't capable, they were arguing that voters hold women to unreasonable standards. Obviously there have been plenty of great (if not always good) female leaders but that doesn't mean that the prejudice cannot still be a factor. Prejudice isn't based in reason, pointing out that the existence of the prejudice is irrational doesn't mean it doesn't exist. or, OR ... there was nothing about unreasonable standards nor prejudice. the way i saw it, was about guilt-tripping people who voted for Trump into voting for the woman in question; if you voted for a male a.hole you should have no problem in voting for a woman a.hole. hmm, no ... ?. where's the virtue in changing one a.hole for another?.
No, there was definitely a conversation about unreasonable double standards. See here.
On February 23 2019 22:17 Amphimachus wrote:
This is exactly the double standard female politicians face.
|
|
|
On February 24 2019 03:17 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2019 03:12 xM(Z wrote:On February 24 2019 02:26 KwarK wrote:
I don't think anyone was arguing that women aren't capable, they were arguing that voters hold women to unreasonable standards. Obviously there have been plenty of great (if not always good) female leaders but that doesn't mean that the prejudice cannot still be a factor. Prejudice isn't based in reason, pointing out that the existence of the prejudice is irrational doesn't mean it doesn't exist. or, OR ... there was nothing about unreasonable standards nor prejudice. the way i saw it, was about guilt-tripping people who voted for Trump into voting for the woman in question; if you voted for a male a.hole you should have no problem in voting for a woman a.hole. hmm, no ... ?. where's the virtue in changing one a.hole for another?. No, there was definitely a conversation about unreasonable double standards. See here. Show nested quote +On February 23 2019 22:17 Amphimachus wrote:
This is exactly the double standard female politicians face. that was an assumption of the aforementioned and the initial poster didn't even acknowledge it, ergo, it was a baseless misrepresentation of his position.
|
United States41989 Posts
On February 24 2019 03:31 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2019 01:41 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
The hell is happening in this thread? Some edgelord is throwing a tantrum.
In the nuked posts he was quoting lyrics from his favourite songs like its 2002 and we're on msn.
|
United States41989 Posts
On February 24 2019 03:50 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2019 03:17 KwarK wrote:On February 24 2019 03:12 xM(Z wrote:On February 24 2019 02:26 KwarK wrote:
I don't think anyone was arguing that women aren't capable, they were arguing that voters hold women to unreasonable standards. Obviously there have been plenty of great (if not always good) female leaders but that doesn't mean that the prejudice cannot still be a factor. Prejudice isn't based in reason, pointing out that the existence of the prejudice is irrational doesn't mean it doesn't exist. or, OR ... there was nothing about unreasonable standards nor prejudice. the way i saw it, was about guilt-tripping people who voted for Trump into voting for the woman in question; if you voted for a male a.hole you should have no problem in voting for a woman a.hole. hmm, no ... ?. where's the virtue in changing one a.hole for another?. No, there was definitely a conversation about unreasonable double standards. See here. On February 23 2019 22:17 Amphimachus wrote:
This is exactly the double standard female politicians face. that was an assumption of the aforementioned and the initial poster didn't even acknowledge it, ergo, it was a baseless misrepresentation of his position.
That's still what we were talking about.
|
On February 24 2019 03:54 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2019 03:50 xM(Z wrote:On February 24 2019 03:17 KwarK wrote:On February 24 2019 03:12 xM(Z wrote:On February 24 2019 02:26 KwarK wrote:
I don't think anyone was arguing that women aren't capable, they were arguing that voters hold women to unreasonable standards. Obviously there have been plenty of great (if not always good) female leaders but that doesn't mean that the prejudice cannot still be a factor. Prejudice isn't based in reason, pointing out that the existence of the prejudice is irrational doesn't mean it doesn't exist. or, OR ... there was nothing about unreasonable standards nor prejudice. the way i saw it, was about guilt-tripping people who voted for Trump into voting for the woman in question; if you voted for a male a.hole you should have no problem in voting for a woman a.hole. hmm, no ... ?. where's the virtue in changing one a.hole for another?. No, there was definitely a conversation about unreasonable double standards. See here. On February 23 2019 22:17 Amphimachus wrote:
This is exactly the double standard female politicians face. that was an assumption of the aforementioned and the initial poster didn't even acknowledge it, ergo, it was a baseless misrepresentation of his position. That's still what we were talking about. come on, when the conversation starter excuses himself, the conversation stops 'cause you know, there's no one to talk to ...
but sure, talk among yourselves at ... assumptions. gl
|
I should have known the sexist issue would come up over Klobuchar since that seems to be the primary liberal response online. Disappointing response in my view.
For me this has nothing to do with sex and everything to do with character and temperament. If I told you the sort of petty, rash, and vindictive shit she has been doing for years (she isn't changing) was done by Trump noone would be surprised. Same with the idea that she likes to shift failure to her subordinates, as if she wasn't their leader (this will be Trumps defense to the Mueller report). If we try to hold him accountable for his poor temperament and leadership then the same should be done for Dems, woman or not.
On top of that, at least Trump is pretty transparent in his shittiness, calling out people for the world to see. There is something slimey about how she trys to portray this kind Midwestern image while behind the curtain being so shitty to people who cant talk back for fear she will ruin their careers.
|
As of now, Klobuchar's pros do not outweigh her cons, and no amount of sexism allegations will change that. Her "haha, I'm not pro free stuff like some of the other candidates" tack is what killed it for me, any candidate willing to parrot opposition lines in service of gaining a primary advantage needs to go.
|
Yes, the only double standard here is working in her favor. Throwing things at people is bad. Trying to sabotage your people's future job prospects is not ok. That story with the comb is just...
|
|
|
|
|
I'm from Minnesota and I just don't see why she even decided to enter the race.
I'm not feeling any enthusiasm whatsoever for her from anyone here. Not only is she another uninspiring centrist like Clinton, but she clearly has a number of skeletons in her closet that just don't make her look good.
She's the type of politician that is a good senator to support but shouldn't push her reach too far. She is going to bomb this primary hard and it will only hurt her image.
|
On February 24 2019 11:44 Stratos_speAr wrote:
I'm from Minnesota and I just don't see why she even decided to enter the race.
I'm not feeling any enthusiasm whatsoever for her from anyone here. Not only is she another uninspiring centrist like Clinton, but she clearly has a number of skeletons in her closet that just don't make her look good.
She's the type of politician that is a good senator to support but shouldn't push her reach too far. She is going to bomb this primary hard and it will only hurt her image.
You're wondering why a bunch of Scandinavians aren't publicly enthusiastic about something?
But for real I agree although I think its more of a self-defeating prophecy of not believing she has much of a chance on the national stage despite all the obvious things she should have going for her. She has quite of a bit of image to burn while still keeping her seat.
|
On February 24 2019 13:28 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2019 11:44 Stratos_speAr wrote:
I'm from Minnesota and I just don't see why she even decided to enter the race.
I'm not feeling any enthusiasm whatsoever for her from anyone here. Not only is she another uninspiring centrist like Clinton, but she clearly has a number of skeletons in her closet that just don't make her look good.
She's the type of politician that is a good senator to support but shouldn't push her reach too far. She is going to bomb this primary hard and it will only hurt her image. You're wondering why a bunch of Scandinavians aren't publicly enthusiastic about something? But for real I agree although I think its more of a self-defeating prophecy of not believing she has much of a chance on the national stage despite all the obvious things she should have going for her. She has quite of a bit of image to burn while still keeping her seat.
I don't think it'll hurt her image to the point of hurting her as a senator for MN. However, I just don't see how she could be a good candidate at this point, especially because she's trying to take the moderate route instead of swinging left. In what world does any candidate think going the centrist route is the way to win the Democratic nomination or the presidency this cycle? That failed spectacularly with Clinton. Democrats need motivation and zeal like Republicans had last cycle.
|
On February 24 2019 23:48 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2019 13:28 Sermokala wrote:On February 24 2019 11:44 Stratos_speAr wrote:
I'm from Minnesota and I just don't see why she even decided to enter the race.
I'm not feeling any enthusiasm whatsoever for her from anyone here. Not only is she another uninspiring centrist like Clinton, but she clearly has a number of skeletons in her closet that just don't make her look good.
She's the type of politician that is a good senator to support but shouldn't push her reach too far. She is going to bomb this primary hard and it will only hurt her image. You're wondering why a bunch of Scandinavians aren't publicly enthusiastic about something? But for real I agree although I think its more of a self-defeating prophecy of not believing she has much of a chance on the national stage despite all the obvious things she should have going for her. She has quite of a bit of image to burn while still keeping her seat. I don't think it'll hurt her image to the point of hurting her as a senator for MN. However, I just don't see how she could be a good candidate at this point, especially because she's trying to take the moderate route instead of swinging left. In what world does any candidate think going the centrist route is the way to win the Democratic nomination or the presidency this cycle? That failed spectacularly with Clinton. Democrats need motivation and zeal like Republicans had last cycle.
She'd be a moderate that would win all the midwestern states? The dems don't need to win california or new york any harder they need to win in Michigan and wisconsion. Those arn't socialist friendly states and any AOC-lite canidate is just going to alienate the people they're trying to pry from Trump.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
