#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Hillary to run for president: What say you?
Yay!
Side Score: 54
|
We're all going to die.
Side Score: 62
|
|
Wasn't it inevitable...? Hillary has been President in waiting as a Democrat nominee for a long time standing on the side stage biding her time for the opportunity and she is not going to waste it. Does she have much opposition...? Will she get the nomination...? Is it a forgone conclusion....? Will she win the female vote across the US... Will she be the first female President ....? There is a lot riding on this for her and the Democrats and it will be interesting watching the games people will play to see who is on the way to the oval office. Side: Yay!
2
points
Wasn't it inevitable...? Well, very likely at least. If Elizabeth Warren ran this time, she very likely would have pushed Hillary out and after losing 2 primaries and getting 16 years older Hillary might not have run in the future. Hillary has been President in waiting as a Democrat nominee for a long time standing on the side stage biding her time for the opportunity and she is not going to waste it. Indeed Does she have much opposition...? Nope Will she get the nomination...? Yep Is it a forgone conclusion....? Not exactly, but close Will she win the female vote across the US... Highly likely Will she be the first female President ....? I actually give her slightly less than 50/50 chance at the moment. She just hasn't come across as charismatic in the past and it isn't something people get intrinsically much better at over time. Side: Yay!
Well, very likely at least. If Elizabeth Warren ran this time, she very likely would have pushed Hillary out and after losing 2 primaries and getting 16 years older Hillary might not have run in the future. There is no possible way for Warren to displace Hilary, short of murder. Even then, there are many Democrats ahead of her on the list. Hilary is one of the most well known politicians in the US, certainly more well known than any of the Republican candidates, and definitely more well known than Warren. People are habitual creatures. They will choose the familiar name over some ivy league professor with progressive ideas. Side: We're all going to die.
1
point
1
point
1
point
That was the basic mindset of the 2008 Democratic Primary. If you think he only won the Democratic primary because he was a black man instead of a white woman, you are deluding yourself. Obama was seen as more charismatic, more progressive, etc. Hillary had some campaign missteps, had voted for use of force in Iraq, people didn't like the idea of Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton and don't like inevitability. Hillary has been in public life for nearly 40 years which provides tons of fodder for her enemies. There are very many progressives that have been pleading with Warren to run. Side: Yay!
If you think he only won the Democratic primary because he was a black man instead of a white woman, you are deluding yourself. If you think people vote based on informed opinions, you are deluding yourself. It is about name recognition and public image. The main reason he won was because he was a black man running against a white woman. It might not have been the only one, but it was the main reason. Just like how some people will vote for a white man over a black man, so will some people vote for a black man over a white woman. Regardless of its fairness, it exists. Progressives are a minority. Progressive support for Warren amounts to nothing. Side: Yay!
1
point
The main reason he won was because he was a black man running against a white woman. Gonna have to call BS and ask for some evidence. some people vote for a black man over a white woman And "some" will, of course, do the opposite. You have a long way to go to establish that it was even a large factor, and even more to support the claim that it was "the main reason". Progressives are a minority. Progressives make a huge difference in the democratic primaries - especially in the caucus states. Side: Yay!
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/04/us/ Have fun. Even women were not skewed towards Hilary because the traditional role of the patriarch tends to go to an actual patriarch. Gender roles are ingrained. Side: Yay!
1
point
Of course not. There is no way to prove why people vote how they did. Even surveys relies on honest answers. Since you refuse to make the connection by yourself; here's a bunch of science stuff to show the reasoning behind it. We know that decision-making relies extensively on emotions. http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2010/ https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/ Side: Yay!
1
point
Black males are similarly less represented in leadership positions, etc - yet neither of those compare the effect of gender vs race. In the first caucus in Iowa, Obama beat Edwards who beat Hillary - so why was being black a positive in relation to the white male, but being a woman a negative? Also, here is the account by the people who were actually there. Note how it backs up everything I said. And that the Hillary campaign's own research showed that she scored higher on masculine traits than Obama or Edwards. Anyone who thinks Hillary is inevitable is guilty of the same hubris that people were guilty of when they made the same claims in 2007/2008. It is largely moot since I do believe Warren when she says she is not running for President (to the plethora of people who keep asking her to). Though I do presume Hillary will pick Warren for her VP as a way to fire up enthusiasm, etc. Side: Yay!
2
points
If she is smart, Hillary will pick Warren. An all female ticket would be quite the historic accomplishment even if they lost, and would really draw out the female vote. Combing Hillary and Warren would appeal to most of the Democratic Party, including the progressive wing that most likely wouldn't vote for Hillary alone, as well as the moderates who most likely wouldn't vote for Warren alone. Those two together could be quite a powerful political force in terms of election politics. Side: Yay!
Black males are similarly less represented in leadership positions, etc - yet neither of those compare the effect of gender vs race. Since you forced me to provide survey data on decision making in regards to gender roles, I am afraid you will need to substantiate your claim with the same. Be mindful that I was talking about the decision-making process while you seem to be talking about physical representations which is much harder to analyze since "leadership position" is arbitrary in many companies. Also, here is the account by the people who were actually there. “Ironically, our early research found the Hillary attributes that tested the highest were masculine,” a high-ranking Hillary staffer said. “The attributes were ‘tough, ready, strong.’” The highest attributes for Edwards and Obama, Hillary’s campaign found, were “empathetic, sympathetic, cares about me.” I think you should look at my scientific articles again before reviewing this non-scientific article. They were surveying data regarding specific gender roles, such as "leadership of a country". It happened to score the highest for men and the lowest for women out of all the categories. This is a large sample survey. The article quotes some anecdotal hearsay and you regard it as evidence that "backs up everything". Anyone who thinks Hillary is inevitable is guilty of the same hubris that people were guilty of when they made the same claims in 2007/2008. I thought it was obvious she would not beat a man. Gender roles are one of the most intrinsic attributes of modern society. If a semi-known male Democrat were to find a good campaign manager, Hilary will lose this time as well. While gender roles are one of the most important attributes of a community, xenophobia is still the single most important distinguishing tool. Exposure and familiarity affects everything else. The primaries are different from the general election. If Hilary can reach the general election, then she will win as long as more Democrats than Republicans vote in swing states since there will no longer be a decision-making element at this point (for a large majority). (Xenophobia: Democrats vs Republicans) Though I do presume Hillary will pick Warren for her VP as a way to fire up enthusiasm, etc. There is almost no chance of her picking Warren. She wants to win. I figure her for the cautious type. She will not risk 12 years of work on some show pony. Side: We're all going to die.
1
point
Since you forced me to provide survey data on decision making in regards to gender roles Actually I asked for data that supports your claim that people wanted to vote for a black male over a white female - and nothing you referenced does this. In fact you have said that "There is no way to prove why people vote how they did." - yet you believe you know why anyway. I am afraid you will need to substantiate your claim I did. I think you should look at my scientific articles again before reviewing this non-scientific article. You are trying to say that the general case must apply to the specific case (a fallacy of division). such as "leadership of a country" How many blacks have been leaders of non-African countries: one-half; how many women have been leaders of countries: many. The article quotes some anecdotal hearsay and you regard it as evidence that "backs up everything". Do you know how studies of opinion are conducted? People provide their opinion (anecdotal hearsay) and that is aggregated up to form results. Rather than the opinions on the general case - this is the actual opinions from the specific case and is much MORE relevant. I thought it was obvious she would not beat a man. and Xenophobia: Democrats vs Republicans Somehow Xenophobia didn't apply to Obama? This is an attempt to avoid the obvious follow-up of whether you believe that if the Republicans nominate any "semi-known male", he will win. And is again based on an assertion (party preference is weighted more heavily than gender bias) fabricated from whole cloth. some show pony You obviously have no idea what you are talking about here. Side: Yay!
Actually I asked for data that supports your claim that people wanted to vote for a black male over a white female - and nothing you referenced does this. In fact you have said that "There is no way to prove why people vote how they did." - yet you believe you know why anyway. Survey data shows general intention. There is no way to prove anything about how any individual makes his/her decisions. I am not claiming to know the individual reasons because that would be impossible. I am referring to social constructs like gender roles which skews the way a population makes its decisions. The data I provided shows why the US population would choose a man over a woman to be the head of state. Who knows why any of them think this way. It doesn't matter. All we need to understand is that there is an inherent bias applied towards the entire population. I am afraid you will need to substantiate your claim I did. I quoted the article you cited. It was anecdotal and vague. There was no evidence at all. You are trying to say that the general case must apply to the specific case (a fallacy of division). Since I am applying survey data onto a large group (2008 US democratic primary voters), I am not sure how that is a fallacy of division. If I was using data about white women and applied it to Hilary, then that would be a fallacy of division. How many blacks have been leaders of non-African countries: one-half; how many women have been leaders of countries: many. Your two statements should be analogous if you wish to make an equal comparison. You pick an ethnicity (more than two choices) and compare it to the world minus one continent and compare it to a gender (basically two choices) and compare it to the entire world. Does that not seem entirely arbitrary to you? You are also confusing the two social issues. People with black skin do not share the same basic roles in this world. It depends on where you are in the world. Almost every culture in the world shares similar gender roles. It would be like confusing xenophobia with gender discrimination just because both happen to be unfair. Do you know how studies of opinion are conducted? People provide their opinion (anecdotal hearsay) and that is aggregated up to form results. Rather than the opinions on the general case - this is the actual opinions from the specific case and is much MORE relevant. A survey which indicates a sample size and collection methods differs greatly from a survey some campaign aid cites in passing without providing any additional information other than the conclusion. I thought it was obvious she would not beat a man. and Xenophobia: Democrats vs Republicans Somehow Xenophobia didn't apply to Obama? What are you talking about? I already explained this in the previous comment. The primaries require some decision making which are skewed by social values, while the general election only requires basic xenophobic tendencies. You vote for your party. It does not matter who wins the primaries. The general election is votes based on party. The candidates rarely matter. Side: We're all going to die.
1
point
I am not claiming to know the individual reasons because that would be impossible. Except for: "The main reason he won was because he was a black man running against a white woman." The data I provided shows why the US population would choose a man over a woman to be the head of state. And says nothing of a black (or mixed race) man vs a white woman. Even the vast majority of both girls and boys in your Girl Scout Research Institute source said gender makes "No difference" when it comes to running a state or country. I quoted the article you cited. It was anecdotal and vague. When it comes to the topic of why Obama beat Hillary, is it more vague to use a poll about the general feeling of school children towards men and women, or a treatment by a journalist with 40 years experience interviewing several of the top campaign organizers for both Obama and Hillary - detailing the chain of events, inside research, strategy, etc. etc.? Again, to prefer the general is your folly. If I was using data about white women and applied it to Hilary, then that would be a fallacy of division. You are doing exactly that - (actually worse than that, you're using data about men vs women and applying it not just to white women vs black men, but then all the way to one specific white woman vs one specific black male in one particular race.) Does that not seem entirely arbitrary to you? No - it doesn't at all. It shows the propensity for countries where blacks are a minority towards voting for a woman over voting for a black person. For another comparison look to state governorships - there have only been 9 African-American governors in US History and there have been more than twice that many women governors just since 2000. People with black skin do not share the same basic roles in this world. It depends on where you are in the world. And in the US part of the world, women and African-Americans are similarly situated - a once oppressed group who is now legally not oppressed, but a residual imbalance endures. A survey which indicates a sample size and collection methods Maybe you should have checked those before you used the source since it may be relevant that the respondents were not even old enough to vote... "nationwide online survey was administered to a national stratified sample of 2,475 girls and 1,514 boys between the ages of 8 and 17 years." I already explained this in the previous comment. No - you definitely didn't. You completely ignored how Obama beat Edwards yet Edwards beat Hillary. And you've given no evidence (only the assertion) that people choose party over their gender preferences, but only in the general. The candidates rarely matter. More silliness. Tell that to Al Gore who "lost" by 537 votes. Enthusiasm for candidates is make or break with an electorate as closely divided as ours has been recently. Side: Yay!
Except for: "The main reason he won was because he was a black man running against a white woman." I think I have not been clear enough. I am talking about the rationale behind a group relative to their community. I am not claiming to understand each individual, just mob mentality. And says nothing of a black (or mixed race) man vs a white woman. Even the vast majority of both girls and boys in your Girl Scout Research Institute source said gender makes "No difference" when it comes to running a state or country. Whether or not gender actually affects leadership style is up for debate (the second study I cited indicates that genders do exhibit differing leadership styles, but that is up for debate). That is a separate issue. The issue here is the mindset of the community, not the actual qualifications of each gender. When it comes to the topic of why Obama beat Hillary, is it more vague to use a poll about the general feeling of school children towards men and women, or a treatment by a journalist with 40 years experience interviewing several of the top campaign organizers for both Obama and Hillary - detailing the chain of events, inside research, strategy, etc. etc.? Again, to prefer the general is your folly. It was not the analysis of the experienced journalist that you were quoting, it was the anecdote provided by one of the campaign aids he interviewed. You are doing exactly that - (actually worse than that, you're using data about men vs women and applying it not just to white women vs black men, but then all the way to one specific white woman vs one specific black male in one particular race.) You seem to be under the impression that I am asserting something about Obama or Clinton. I am asserting bias to the general population using data regarding the general population. Unless if you can show that Obama and Hilary are so special that they do not qualify as a black man and a white woman, the data for the population is relevant. No - it doesn't at all. It shows the propensity for countries where blacks are a minority towards voting for a woman over voting for a black person. So you are comparing countries with black people as a small minority with countries where women are the majority? Please tell me how this is not arbitrary. Find countries where the ratio of black:white is the same as the ratio of men:women. That would make a great comparison. And in the US part of the world, women and African-Americans are similarly situated - a once oppressed group who is now legally not oppressed, but a residual imbalance endures. The whole point was to compare the amount of bias regarding each group. Like I already noted this earlier: the fact that groups are oppressed does not make them the same. Maybe you should have checked those before you used the source since it may be relevant that the respondents were not even old enough to vote... "nationwide online survey was administered to a national stratified sample of 2,475 girls and 1,514 boys between the ages of 8 and 17 years." So boys and girls are not part of the same society as their parents? They do not exhibit the same bias as their parents? Are you saying that these bias arbitrarily enter the minds of men and women when they turn 18? No - you definitely didn't. You completely ignored how Obama beat Edwards yet Edwards beat Hillary. And you've given no evidence (only the assertion) that people choose party over their gender preferences, but only in the general. I already explained that gender roles are inherent to every society, whereas ethnic roles depend largely on population ratios and geography. More silliness. Tell that to Al Gore who "lost" by 537 votes. Enthusiasm for candidates is make or break with an electorate as closely divided as ours has been recently. Candidates do not matter in general elections. People rarely vote for the opposite party. Swing states are generally won by party turnout. Losing by however many votes is the result of voter turnout as I have already claimed. Are you saying the Democrat or Republican platform has changed drastically every 4 years to match each specific candidate? Or maybe, just maybe, the candidates adapt to the general platform after they win the Primaries? Side: Yay!
1
point
I am not claiming to understand each individual, just mob mentality. You are claiming to know one mob's opinion on Obama vs Hillary based on slight variations in opinion of men and women generally by another mob which overwhelming believed there was no difference. Whether or not gender actually affects leadership style is up for debate Not this debate. The issue here is the mindset of the community, not the actual qualifications of each gender. The only relevant reason for you to have used this poll was because of the opinion of boys and girls on the question of running a state or country - and in answering that question 65% of boys and 75% of girls said it made no difference. It was not the analysis of the experienced generalist that you were quoting I didn't quote from it at all, you did. After referencing it as a relevant account in full, I called attention to one section of it, which was not a signal that you should have ignored the rest. You seem to be under the impression that I am asserting something about Obama or Clinton. Yes, yes I am: "The main reason he won was because he was a black man running against a white woman." if you can show that Obama and Hilary are so special that they do not qualify as a black man and a white woman Apparently I have to remind you again that nothing you have offered compares even the general sentiment regarding a black man vs a white woman much less these two individuals. So you are comparing countries with black people as a small minority with countries where women are the majority? Please tell me how this is not arbitrary. In that it represents the exact situation in the US. Find countries where the ratio of black:white is the same as the ratio of men:women. That would make a great comparison. It would not match the American electorate well at all. The whole point was to compare the amount of bias regarding each group. Something you have not done. They do not exhibit the same bias as their parents? That study certainly would not be useful as evidence that they do. But, more directly - no, they don't. Young people have vastly different opinions, especially in regards to bias, than older people. I already explained that gender roles are inherent to every society, whereas ethnic roles depend largely on population ratios and geography. Which would not explain how countries with similar mix as the US have elected women, but not minority males. And, I'll call attention to the glaring omission of a response to the even more relevant governor data that I mentioned. Candidates do not matter in general elections. That campaign strategy, effectiveness, candidate enthusiasm, etc. doesn't matter is an argument that is a few sandwiches, a basket, and a blanket short of a picnic. Side: Yay!
You are claiming to know one mob's opinion on Obama vs Hillary based on slight variations in opinion of men and women generally by another mob which overwhelming believed there was no difference. I recognize the "no difference" answer in the data. If that answer was not the majority, then the skew in votes would be much greater than they were for the Primaries. I don't think you have connected the dots. A statistically significant bias means there will be a skew in general voting habits. The larger the bias, the larger the skew. You only need a majority to win the Primaries, not 100%; any statistically significant skew means an advantage. Not this debate. Of course not. That is why I just included a small explanation to signify the difference between the issues. I didn't quote from it at all, you did. After referencing it as a relevant account in full, I called attention to one section of it, which was not a signal that you should have ignored the rest. I quoted the section that you were referencing regarding the research on leadership and masculinity. You only used the article to prove your point on masculinity: "Note how it backs up everything I said. And that the Hillary campaign's own research showed that she scored higher on masculine traits than Obama or Edwards." You didn't cite any other part of the article to "back up everything". Your point about how masculinity is necessary for leadership is also up for debate. Masculinity is a male quality and attributed as a quality of a leader. What if this is because of the bias towards men as leaders and not a bias towards masculinity in leadership. The point of the girl scout research institute survey was to show that women have more leadership qualities than men, but when asked who would be a better leader, people choose the men. Qualities where women scored noticeably higher: "taking care of others, running a household, organizing an event, conflict resolution, crisis management, money management, collaborating with others". Apparently I have to remind you again that nothing you have offered compares even the general sentiment regarding a black man vs a white woman much less these two individuals. I already showed that people favor men over women as heads of state. If you want to claim that racial bias affects people more than socially ingrained gender roles, you are welcome to try and support it with some surveys/studies. Find countries where the ratio of black:white is the same as the ratio of men:women. That would make a great comparison. It would not match the American electorate well at all. And how does your original analogy How many blacks have been leaders of non-African countries: one-half; how many women have been leaders of countries: many. apply to the American electorate? None of the other countries in the world matches the American electorate either. The only country to fit your logic would be the US. Your analogy reduces to 1 black man vs 0 white woman. That study certainly would not be useful as evidence that they do. But, more directly - no, they don't. Young people have vastly different opinions, especially in regards to bias, than older people. Kids are reflections of their parents. Their opinions, especially on subjects not personally experienced by them, are learned from their parents. The difference in opinion you are referring to is regarding the differences between generations. Are you really claiming that adults would not vote similarly on "taking care of others, running a household, organizing an event, conflict resolution, crisis management, money management, collaborating with others"? F: I already explained that gender roles are inherent to every society, whereas ethnic roles depend largely on population ratios and geography. J: Which would not explain how countries with similar mix as the US have elected women, but not minority males. So you agree that ethnic bias depends on geography and population ratios but still believe other "non-African" (your analogy) countries share similar ethnic biases as the US? J: And, I'll call attention to the glaring omission of a response to the even more relevant governor data that I mentioned. F: Candidates do not matter in general elections. J: That campaign strategy, effectiveness, candidate enthusiasm, etc. doesn't matter is an argument that is a few sandwiches, a basket, and a blanket short of a picnic. J Omission: For another comparison look to state governorships - there have only been 9 African-American governors in US History and there have been more than twice that many women governors just since 2000. I already agreed that campaign strategy matters greatly as it accounts for exposure, public image, and party turnout (for primary and general). For the general election, the candidate does not matter because it is just the figurehead for the party. For the primaries, the candidates are actively trying to differentiate themselves from similar candidates. For the general election, the candidates are already differentiated by the party system. This applies to gubernatorial elections as well. Those are just smaller general elections. Party vs party. If you want to prove your point, make a list of female/black (ignoring black female for simplicity) governors that won from the addition of opposition party voter turnout rather than just party turnout. You should probably also account for what percentage of the votes for those the black/female governor was by a black/female voter and how that differed with the loser. As I have already stated, xenophobic tendencies overpower gender roles because of the role of society in all societies. If you feel there are other points i should address, feel free to list them. Side: We're all going to die.
1
point
The more you try to hold to your position the more absurd you prove yourself to be. You bordering on a Dana (DanaMusica/Sitara/LibProLifer)-level of tenacious adherence to platitudinous non-sense out of sheer myopia. (She won't understand that sentence enough to be offended by it - do you?) You initially claimed that familiarity would predominate, then when confronted with the results of Hillary's last attempt, you made the claim that gender-bias is always overriding - it isn't; you claim that Xenophobia applies to political party (and somehow not to race?) even though more people identify as independent than either Republican or Democrat (ref), repeatedly ignore the influence of race, ignore counter-examples, etc. For instance, most of those female governors I mentioned also had primaries against male candidates - so how did they fair: Nikki Haley (Indian-American woman) won 65% of the vote in her primary run-off race against Tim Scott (African-American male) in 2010 Mary Fallin (white woman) won over 54% of the primary vote in 2010 - more than the combined totals of 3 men. Beverly Perdue (white woman) won over 56% of primary vote in 2008 against 2 men. Sarah Palin (white woman) won a majority in the 2006 primary against multiple male challengers including the incumbent Governor Frank Murkowski. Christine Gregoire won over 65% in the 2004 Democratic primary - more than double her closest (male) challenger. Janet Napolitano won over 57% of the 2002 Democratic primary - more than her 3 male challengers combined. Linda Lingle won nearly 90% in the 2002 Republican primary against (white male) John Carroll Judy Martz won over 56% against her white male challenger in 2000 Jeanne Shaheen won over 85% of the Democratic primary in 1996 and on and on... These women and others have also won primary and general elections for Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, State Senate/House, Attorney General, etc. etc. etc. There are hundreds of additional examples in the US of women defeating men for leadership roles which shows your assertion is completely fallacious (to put it VERY nicely). I also must clarify and revise downward the number for African-American governors - 5 of the nine I mentioned were governors of the Virgin Islands - not a US state. Of the four remaining, only 2 were elected (Douglas Wilder in 1989 and David Paterson in 2006 - additional note: Wilder won with 50.14% in his primary and Paterson only won a plurality, not a majority, in his primary). So there is literally only 1 African-American state Governor in the entire history of the country who received a majority (50.14%) in a primary election. Your generality leaves you incapable of answering simple questions like: How do you explain that Edwards beat Clinton in Iowa, but Clinton beat Edwards in races after Iowa? If O'Malley, Webb, Cuomo, or Bernie Sanders enter the primary, would they all definitely beat Clinton?? If so, why are Hillary and Warren beating all of them in current polls? You only used the article to prove your point on masculinity: Are you serious?? Can you really write that and then have the very next thing you write be my quote saying "Note how it backs up everything I said." with no cognitive dissonance?? You didn't cite any other part of the article to "back up everything". I cited the entire article (and do so again now) - if you can't read 24 pages that's on you. There are scores of quotes that backup my assertions, and I really shouldn't have to extract them all and paste them here out of context because of your ineptitude. Your point about how masculinity is necessary for leadership Not what I said anywhere and not my point at all. You keep insisting that the public will always vote for a man rather than a woman (stupidity) - and I was just pointing out that she tested as more masculine ("tough", "strong", etc.) than both Obama and Edwards and yet lost Iowa to both of them. If you want to claim that racial bias affects people more than socially ingrained gender roles, you are welcome to try and support it with some surveys/studies. You are the one making the opposite claim - with, as yet, no evidence whatsoever. I have only claimed that there is also leadership racial bias (ref) and you have not taken that into account. Though here is a study of Millennials which shows "[t]here does not appear to be a specific preference or “norm” with respect to the gender" and that "a white supervisor positively and significantly affects employee job satisfaction". Also note: the survey uses a cohort that ranged in age from the early to mid 20's, so unlike the children in the Girl Scout survey these respondents were actually able to vote in 2008. I already showed that people favor men over women as heads of state. Your central flawed premise is thinking that the polls you have provided are relevantly dispositive, when better information shows that they aren't. Kids are reflections of their parents. Influenced by, not the same as. Your own source shows that the balance of racial and gender biases (AND OTHER FACTORS) changed how different age groups voted. Are you really claiming that adults would not vote similarly So did you - see above. None of the other countries in the world matches the American electorate either. There are many countries with electorates similar to ours. And, even if you exclude all of those, you have still left unaddressed the examples I have provided using electorates within the US. Along with the political examples already elucidated, you can also look to the business world - there are only 5 African Americans who are CEOs for Fortune 500 companies, and 25 women (with 1 person that falls into both categories.) For the general election, the candidate does not matter because it is just the figurehead for the party. You must have learned that at the IDaho Institute Of Technology... Eventually maybe you will vote and get some idea of how things actually work. If you feel there are other points i should address, feel free to list them. You haven't done so yet - why would I think you capable of doing so in the future? Before you go creating debates like this, you may want to take a few glimpses in the mirror. Side: Yay!
You initially claimed that familiarity would predominate, then when confronted with the results of Hillary's last attempt, you made the claim that gender-bias is always overriding - it isn't; you claim that Xenophobia applies to political party (and somehow not to race?) even though more people identify as independent than either Republican or Democrat (ref), repeatedly ignore the influence of race, ignore counter-examples, etc. I initially claimed Warren would never displace Hilary because she is not well known. I had already brought up exposure as the reason why Warren would lose to Hilary. I mention the importance of exposure/familiarity several times later. I have emphasized that several times throughout this tree. In fact, I have already agreed with you that campaign strategy which includes exposure and voter turnout is the most important factor of primary and general elections. Also, I guess you didn't know this, but many states do not allow Ind. to participate in primaries and most independents are "closet partisans". They still lean one way or another. Just because they do not identify with a major platform does not mean their ideologies shift from year to year. When you brought up Obama vs Hilary, I told you that the two cases are not equal because the white woman vs white woman is different from black man vs white woman. That does not mean gender bias overrides exposure. That only means your comparison is inadequate (much like the whole country vs world leaders thing). Xenophobia will almost always trump gender bias. I am not sure how to generalize the importance of exposure as that would also depend on how much exposure everyone else gets and how the state considers local results. In the end, without exposure, you wouldn't even know whether he/she was in-group or out-group so it could be considered the most important. What I mean by Xenophobia is the general definition of in-group vs out-group. Democrats vs Republicans is an example of two groups who consider each other out-groups. Men and women are also out-groups of one another. Nikki Haley (Indian-American woman) won 65% of the vote in her primary run-off race against Tim Scott (African-American male) in 2010 "In the 2010 South Carolina gubernatorial election, Haley was endorsed for the Republican nomination by former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, and the Tea Party movement." Party support, party leadership support. Xenophobia. Mary Fallin (white woman) won over 54% of the primary vote in 2010 - more than the combined totals of 3 men. Not only was Mary Fallin the previous Lt. Governor, she was also endorsed by Palin and the local caucus. Higher in-group position, much more exposure as Lt. Gov., endorsed by Party leadership. Exposure and Xenophobia. Beverly Perdue (white woman) won over 56% of primary vote in 2008 against 2 men. Lt. Gov and party support again. Exposure. Sarah Palin (white woman) won a majority in the 2006 primary against multiple male challengers including the incumbent Governor Frank Murkowski. What you failed to note was that the incumbent Governor got third in the primaries. Palin (mayor) - 50.59, Binkley (private businessman) - 29.84, Murkowski (inc. with 19% approval rating due to bad ethics) - 19.09. She ran with a policy directed specifically against Murkowski's unethical behavior. Her platform was based on a clean government. She was appointed by Murkowski to Chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission in 2003. She resigned as the Chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission after filing several complaints about unethical behavior. Basically, she received a lot of statewide exposure for going against the unethical incumbent who most people disliked. The 2nd place guy was a politician in the 80s. No exposure before the race vs a woman who received statewide exposure for her 2002 gubernatorial campaign and resignation after. She was far better known than Binkley in the local party. Christine Gregoire won over 65% in the 2004 Democratic primary - more than double her closest (male) challenger. "Gregoire received the endorsement of the Democratic Party, GLAAD, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, pro-choice organizations, and all the previous Democratic governors of the state." Janet Napolitano won over 57% of the 2002 Democratic primary - more than her 3 male challengers combined. Why do you keep listing well familiar politicians like Attorney Generals and Lt. Governors who defeat unknowns as if that is a surprise? That was literally my first statement. The 3 male challengers you listed only had 1 politician in between the 3. Guess which guy came in second place? The more familiar state senator or the two unknowns? Linda Lingle won nearly 90% in the 2002 Republican primary against (white male) John Carroll The Chair of the State Republican party. Overwhelming endorsements. Previous gubernatorial candidate. I am going to stop here, unless if you really think the next two examples will be different. There are hundreds of additional examples in the US of women defeating men for leadership roles which shows your assertion is completely fallacious (to put it VERY nicely). You are ignoring every other point I made about the elections. I never claimed only gender roles matter. I said they were very important when differentiation of candidates matters. I already addressed the importance of exposure and xenophobia. The above examples have all been party endorsed candidates who were already elected to Attorney General, Lt. Governor or similar stature positions. All the people they defeated were unknowns who did not receive the party support. Do you know how rare it is for a candidate to win a primary without party support? A interesting example is Lisa Murkowski, the daughter of the corrupt Frank Murkowski who Palin defeated. She got his Senate seat when he took office, but the party turned against her in 2010 and supported a local judge. Palin and the party's support won the judge the primaries, but she was able to win the Senate seat through a write-in campaign. I mean she was the incumbent, but it was still a miraculous win. Without more samples, it is impossible to say if this was an exception or an indication that familiarity through incumbency trumps even xenophobic tendencies. Would have to look at Republican votes for her in the Primaries vs the General and how much campaign funding she and the judge spent on exposure. She was able to get her name on the ballot, so that might have been why people voted for her due to her incumbency exposure. How do you explain that Edwards beat Clinton in Iowa, but Clinton beat Edwards in races after Iowa? Really? Asking me for the exact reasons for the only exception in the primaries? It was also a margin of less than 1%... Why are you still viewing this as absolutes. This is about a bias in voting that can be overcome by other factors as I have already pointed out. What is so hard to understand about a skew? If O'Malley, Webb, Cuomo, or Bernie Sanders enter the primary, would they all definitely beat Clinton?? If so, why are Hillary and Warren beating all of them in current polls? You just noted that my first claim was based off of the importance of familiarity or exposure. How has this changed? Clinton is still much more well known than any of the other people you just mentioned. Why would they win? Of course, they can try to get campaign donations and try to get enough exposure to catch up to her, but she has a 20+ year head start. What also hurts the men would be that she already has an established fundraising network, and it would be unlikely they could steal enough donors to make up for the difference. The same with Warren. She is a better candidate, but she just can't make up for lack of exposure. She would have a much better shot if this was still 2008. Obama had the highest spending for his win (set a record). Exposure takes money. Barack started off not well known. That is why all the early polls showed Hilary winning. Once the black man received more exposure, he kept closing the lead in polls. In fact, once he won Iowa, the first caucus, his popularity soared even more. Just look up 2007 vs 2008 polls. I cited the entire article (and do so again now) - if you can't read 24 pages that's on you. There are scores of quotes that backup my assertions, and I really shouldn't have to extract them all and paste them here out of context because of your ineptitude. Did you even read the entire article. It provided almost nothing of substance. No actual data. Just hyperbole and anecdotes along with several election cliches: "did not prepare just for its victories, but, just as importantly, it prepared for its defeats". Not what I said anywhere and not my point at all. You keep insisting that the public will always vote for a man rather than a woman (stupidity) You are still misinterpreting it. I have already corrected you several times. I am saying there is a skew because of gender role bias. That skew must be overcome if the woman wants to win. It is not impossible for the woman to win. Certain social factors like xenophobia easily overpowers the bias from gender roles as evidenced by the the examples you provided for me. When the state party and/or national party and/or party leadership endorses the candidate, that candidate almost always wins the primaries. Note how in the examples, you provided, the more party endorsements or higher party position, the larger the margin (Linda Lingle). Also how does this "Note how it backs up everything I said. And that the Hillary campaign's own research showed that she scored higher on masculine traits than Obama or Edwards." not suggest you believe masculine is a leadership trait. I even pointed out last time that this could be viewed as bias towards male leadership by thinking masculinity has anything to do with leadership. Even though objective leadership traits like problem solving, household management, money management, teamwork, etc. make more sense for a leader. Influenced by, not the same as. Your own source shows that the balance of racial and gender biases (AND OTHER FACTORS) changed how different age groups voted. I already said there are other factors. I just claimed gender roles were most of the important factors. I also claimed that xenophobia was the important factor in human decision making. I am not sure what your point is. I also acknowledged generational differences as shown by that graphic. You are the one making the opposite claim - with, as yet, no evidence whatsoever. I have only claimed that there is also leadership racial bias (ref) and you have not taken that into account. I already acknowledged that there is racial bias. When did I ever say there wasn't? I just said racial bias is not as pervasive because majority/minority matters far more than the actual race/ethnicity. Also geography. Though here is a study of Millennials which shows "[t]here does not appear to be a specific preference or “norm” with respect to the gender" and that "a white supervisor positively and significantly affects employee job satisfaction". We already did this dance earlier. I am talking about decision-making bias based on perceived gender roles. I even said that women tend to be better leaders in actuality based on one of my sources. The actual quality of leadership is separate from the perception bias. To continue your quote: "it appears these Millennials nonetheless prefer to be supervised by the same gender. With respect to the “gender difference” variable, having an immediate supervisor of a different gender significantly and negatively affects employee job satisfaction (b=-0.244; p<.10)." Oh look at that. Significantly and negatively affects employees when the supervisor is not from the same gender (group) as the employee. How come xenophobia still shows as the most significant statistical bias? Have you noticed how all your examples support my view that xenophobia is the most important? business world - there are only 5 African Americans who are CEOs for Fortune 500 companies, and 25 women That is a whole different can of worms. Unless if you actually think companies like GM choose Barra because of her qualifications. You must have learned that at the IDaho Institute Of Technology... Eventually maybe you will vote and get some idea of how things actually work. I am under the impression you believe the average US voter is educated and informed. They probably also research local issues a great deal before voting for them. I am sure all of them understand how the Electoral college works. And the voter turnout must be nearly 100%, like Kenya (I bet a lot of them know that Kenya is democratic and has a high turnout rate.), with so many civic-minded people. Maybe you will vote and get some idea of how things actually work. http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/ Side: We're all going to die.
1
point
At this point you've taken enough of my opinion that I'm tempted to just call it a win and move on. You claimed that gender bias would overcome the familiarity advantage that Hillary had over Obama and now you ask "Why do you keep listing well familiar politicians..." You now seem to be ok with the opposite - that familiarity will overcome gender bias even against a white male (while not accounting at all for Obama winning, even excelling, despite racial bias.) P.S. how did those women become so familiar in the first place, how did they get "party support" and all those "Overwhelming endorsements" if gender bias is so strong?? P.P.S - the parties almost never endorse a candidate in the primaries. I never claimed only gender roles matter You claimed that gender roles were an overriding factor: "A black man is still better than a white woman as the POTUS" "The main reason he won was because he was a black man running against a white woman" Asking me for the exact reasons for the only exception in the primaries? How did Barack win against Edwards despite racial bias? Why did Barack beat Hillary in enough states to win the whole thing and yet Hillary beat Edwards in all the primaries he was in except Iowa - see how there is quite a bit more than 1 exception there...? How does lesser-known black male beats well-known white woman who beats lesser-known white male comport with your version of reality? "Clinton is still much more well known than any of the other people you just mentioned. Why would they win?" Wow - just wow. Was she more well known than Barack Obama at the beginning of 2007? (Note: you say above "Barack started off not well known. That is why all the early polls showed Hilary winning.") See how you're talking in circles? 20+ year head start and an established fundraising network vs She is a better candidate, but she just can't make up for lack of exposure. Except Obama did exacly that - remember? Obama had the highest spending for his win (set a record). Exposure takes money. Um, where do you think he got that money? Why do you think those same people would not give similarly to Warren? Once the black man received more exposure, he kept closing the lead in polls. Are you deliberately saying that your own argument that Warren doesn't have exposure at the moment is stupid since she would, of course, similarly gain exposure during the race. Or, are you just doing it inadvertently? (Also, maybe during the campaign, Hillary might even get enough exposure for you to learn how to spell her name...) Did you even read the entire article. It provided almost nothing of substance. Except substantiation of my claims including direct admittance from the involved campaign staffers on both sides that Obama was seen as more progressive, had better strategy, etc. and that Hillary had campaign missteps, was perceived as masculine, had an air of inevitability, etc. etc. xenophobia easily overpowers the bias from gender roles I don't think that means what you think it means. You keep using xenophobia in ways which include party preference, yet exclude gender and racial bias. Maybe you should look again... you believe masculine is a leadership trait Um - no. You said gender roles trump, therefore the data was relevant, get it?? I just claimed gender roles were most of the important factors. With no evidence whatsoever. I just said racial bias is not as pervasive because majority/minority matters far more than the actual race/ethnicity. Uh, what?? I even said that women tend to be better leaders in actuality based on one of my sources. The actual quality of leadership is separate from the perception bias. And that study specifically talks to the perception bias - that even when leaders are the same quality, they are rated higher if they are white - not male. prefer to be supervised by the same gender. Which would mean that women would prefer to vote for women supervisors - understand?? Completely contrary to your claim. I am under the impression you believe the average US voter is educated and informed. etc. Only because you are fond to jumping to baseless conclusions. Can you point to where I said such things?? http://www.literacy.ie/tutors/top-tips/ Side: Yay!
You claimed that gender bias would overcome the familiarity advantage that Hillary had over Obama How did it not help? Once Obama got his fundraising behemoth going, he was catching up to Hilary in terms of exposure. If all other factors are equal, of course the gender bias would win out. I never claimed exposure always beats gender bias or vice versa. I just said without exposure, you can't have any of the other stuff. Just like without voter turnout, you won't win the election except for special circumstances. Those (exposure and voter turnout) are functional parameters while gender bias or xenophobia are social parameters. You now seem to be ok with the opposite - that familiarity will overcome gender bias even against a white male (while not accounting at all for Obama winning, even excelling, despite racial bias) I already told you why I was not accounting for racial bias. I claimed that gender roles are a higher priority in decision making than racial prejudice. P.S. how did those women become so familiar in the first place, how did they get "party support" and all those "Overwhelming endorsements" if gender bias is so strong?? I already covered this in the last comment. Read it again. They were almost all high ranking elected officials in the government already. Half of the people you used as examples were the Lt. Governor. Many of them also received the support of the incumbent governor. Many of them were in their second gubernatorial race. I am not sure why you think these women achieved anything on their own. They were just pegs in the political system just like their male counterparts. The Hawaiian governor was even the Chair of her state party and had unanimous support from her party. This is why she got 90% of the votes in the primary. P.P.S - the parties almost never endorse a candidate in the primaries. What are you talking about? "On May 14, 2009, Haley announced that she would be running for the Republican nomination for Governor of South Carolina in 2010.[7] Haley had been persuaded to run by incumbent Governor Mark Sanford.[41] On November 11, 2009, she was endorsed by former Massachusetts governor and GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney, as well as Jenny Sanford, the incumbent first lady of South Carolina.[8][9][42]" "Former Alaska governor and 2008 vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin endorsed Fallin in the primary." "While McCrory received the endorsement of most major newspapers in the state (which typically endorse Democrats)" "Gov. Gary Locke on today endorsed Christine Gregoire as his successor, praising her as a strong leader and a brilliant woman who has the right stuff to be governor. The Democratic chief executive, stepping down after eight years in the governor's mansion and 22 years in public life, made his unusual preprimary endorsement in an interview with The Associated Press." Just google for the candidate name and endorsement. Winners tend to be the most heavily endorsed by their party. I am not sure how you are making any of these claims. This is how it has worked for male candidates too. You claimed that gender roles were an overriding factor: "A black man is still better than a white woman as the POTUS" "The main reason he won was because he was a black man running against a white woman" I have not changed on my stance that gender overrides race. Your previous suggestions seems to imply that I was claiming gender as #1. That was the only point I was disputing. How did Barack win against Edwards despite racial bias? Why did Barack beat Hillary in enough states to win the whole thing and yet Hillary beat Edwards in all the primaries he was in except Iowa - see how there is quite a bit more than 1 exception there...? Wow. Read my previous comment I answered all of this already. If you don't accept the answer, then make a rebuttal. Stop asking the same questions. The one exception was Iowa where Edwards beating Hilary by less than 1 point. He lost everywhere else. I will say this again. Look at polling data early in their announcements and at the start of 2008. You can see the obvious trend of Hilary winning less and less polls as Barack gained more ground. His fundraising network was a monstrosity. He literally bought his way to the presidency. Without all that ad money, he would not have gotten enough exposure to knock Hilary out. Like I said before, it doesn't matter if he is a man and she is a woman, if everyone sees him as an unknown outsider. That is why I have said many times: xenophobia trumps gender roles. As to why I never consider the racial part, I will repeat myself again. Gender roles are more pervasive than racial bias. That is because, as you seem to have agreed with me, racial bias differs by population ratios and geography, at least more so than gender bias. How does lesser-known black male beats well-known white woman who beats lesser-known white male comport with your version of reality? It is about fundraising. Money is how you get exposure. Look at the polling trends as the money started getting spent. Barack spent 3 times more money than Edwards. Sort by date doesn't work that well. Have fun. Wow - just wow. Was she more well known than Barack Obama at the beginning of 2007? (Note: you say above "Barack started off not well known. That is why all the early polls showed Hilary winning.") See how you're talking in circles? You are missing the fact that Hilary has gained 8 more years of exposure since the 2008 campaigns. Except Obama did exacly that - remember? Yes, as a man. Hillary had 8 less years of exposure and no established presidential fundraising network. Why are you repeating the same questions. I answered all this already. I have answered almost every question in this new comment. Read my previous comments. Um, where do you think he got that money? Why do you think those same people would not give similarly to Warren? Because she is also a white woman. You are telling people to choose between two white woman rather than a black man and a white woman. Like I said, maybe if Warren ran in 2008 with her current track record instead of Obama, she might have taken down Hilary as well. Also Edward's campaign still needed to do the same terrible job they did then. Now, Hilary has a much bigger advantage than she did in 2008. It would take a miracle for Warren to overcome it all. Are you deliberately saying that your own argument that Warren doesn't have exposure at the moment is stupid since she would, of course, similarly gain exposure during the race. Or, are you just doing it inadvertently? I am saying you are not considering the differences between 2008 and this time. Hilary had a large advantage then, she has an enormous advantage now. It would take a lot more to overcome it. I am not saying it is 100% impossible, but there is almost no chance for Warren to catch up. Except substantiation of my claims including direct admittance from the involved campaign staffers on both sides that Obama was seen as more progressive, had better strategy, etc. and that Hillary had campaign missteps, was perceived as masculine, had an air of inevitability, etc. etc. I never disputed any of those points. I was saying your article provided nothing about gender bias in decision making. I don't think that means what you think it means. You keep using xenophobia in ways which include party preference, yet exclude gender and racial bias. Maybe you should look again... I already defined it for you. Since you don't believe me, look up xenophobia regarding in-group and out-groups. The core meaning is just a distrust of the unknown or more trust for the known. I did mention gender groups as distinct out groups as well. It is just a political party presents itself as a shared fundamental ideology, or identity, whereas a gender group only presents as shared gender roles and genitals. That is why I am claiming the party xenophobia is stronger than the gender association. Um - no. You said gender roles trump, therefore the data was relevant, get it?? Did you read the rest of the comment? And that study specifically talks to the perception bias - that even when leaders are the same quality, they are rated higher if they are white - not male. Look at their data. The head of state shows an 71.2% indifference rate over boys and girls, with 31% of the boys choosing men as better heads of state. Which would mean that women would prefer to vote for women supervisors - understand?? Completely contrary to your claim. Alright. Your study indeed shows that actual employees found working with the same gender better. This does not mean female employees believe women are better leaders, it just shows that interactions are better when the genders are the same. Like I said before, bias does not always reflect reality. If it did, then there would be no unjust discrimination. Only because you are fond to jumping to baseless conclusions. Can you point to where I said such things?? You have continually ignored how all the examples you used showed party endorsements guaranteeing primaries. You still stick to the idea that those people defeated the other candidates and not the political system. You bring up the importance of independent voters when many claim they are still "closet partisans". I suggested twice that the candidate does not matter in the general election and you refused to accept it. Without explicitly saying it, it seems like you believe people actually pick their votes based on careful analysis rather than partisanship and social bias. Nice link with the reading comprehension. You might want to visit it along with me considering you keep making the same interpretations even after I correct you. You have also been asking the same questions for a while now without even responding to the answers I give. Side: We're all going to die.
1
point
Once Obama got his fundraising behemoth going Yet how did that happen - welcome to catch-22 If all other factors are equal They aren't. (They never are.) I never claimed exposure always beats gender bias or vice versa. When popular white woman (Hillary) was beaten by Obama: "A black man is still better than a white woman as the POTUS." "The main reason he won was because he was a black man running against a white woman." When other popular white women beat their less popular male competitors: "Why do you keep listing well familiar politicians like Attorney Generals and Lt. Governors who defeat unknown[ male]s as if that is a surprise" I claimed that gender roles are a higher priority in decision making than racial prejudice. You have offered nothing to substantiate this. They were almost all high ranking elected officials in the government already. The question was - how did they get to be high ranking elected officials in the first place. endorsed I said the party almost never endorses, and you respond by saying other people and newspapers endorsed - do you not know what a political party is? I have not changed on my stance that gender overrides race. You mean you have not supported your stance. FTFY Your previous suggestions seems to imply that I was claiming gender as #1. That was the only point I was disputing. You do say that it was "The main reason..." Stop asking the same questions. I'll stop asking if you start answering. I will repeat myself again. Gender roles are more pervasive than racial bias You are a lot better at repeating yourself than supporting yourself in that regard. It is about fundraising. Where do you think that money came from? Why do you think those same people would not give money to someone running against Hillary in the same way they did last time? Yes, as a man. Hillary had 8 less years of exposure So, 40 years exposure make a huge difference over 30 years exposure? (Not to mention the positive and negative content of those interveening years.) no established presidential fundraising network Maybe I should just let you debate yourself for a while. Your previous post said: "she already has an established fundraising network" Read my previous comments. maybe you should Because she is also a white woman. You are telling people to choose between two white woman rather than a black man and a white woman. So the money went to Obama because he was running against a woman, but it did not go to Edwards, because...?? Now, Hilary has a much bigger advantage than she did in 2008. Not significantly, no. Guess no such luck on spelling her name right, either, eh? I am not saying it is 100% impossible Except: "There is no possible way for Warren to displace Hilary, short of murder." I never disputed any of those points You said: You didn't cite any other part of the article to "back up everything". xenophobia You've at times used it correctly (in its broadest sense), but have also used it thusly: "xenophobia easily overpowers the bias from gender roles" "While gender roles are one of the most important attributes of a community, xenophobia is still the single most important distinguishing tool" "If Hilary can reach the general election, then she will win as long as more Democrats than Republicans vote in swing states since there will no longer be a decision-making element at this point (for a large majority). (Xenophobia: Democrats vs Republicans)" "It would be like confusing xenophobia with gender discrimination just because both happen to be unfair." "xenophobic tendencies overpower gender roles because of the role of society in all societies" "Certain social factors like xenophobia easily overpowers the bias from gender roles" "That is why I have said many times: xenophobia trumps gender roles." Look at their data. Um, you looked at the WRONG study - my comment that the study "talks to the perception bias" was in regards to my study, not yours. My study supported that even when leaders are the same quality, they are rated higher if they are white - not male. Your study indeed shows that actual employees found working with the same gender better. This does not mean female employees believe women are better leaders The study is specifically related to supervisors. all the examples you used showed party endorsements guaranteeing primaries None of the endorsements you mentioned above were endorsements by the political party, they were individuals or newspapers. Moreover, how do you think those women got those endorsements when gender bias is so strong? I suggested twice that the candidate does not matter in the general election And the more you say it the stupider you look. Without explicitly saying it, it seems like you believe people actually pick their votes based on careful analysis rather than partisanship and social bias. And you think you know the relative weight of all biases based on your perception of one bias. Nice link with the reading comprehension You apparently haven't made much use of it yet. Side: Yay!
Yet how did that happen - welcome to catch-22 What catch? You seriously need to start reading my comments. I already said many times that you can't just assume the 2008 = 2016. Warren has a lot more to make up for than Obama. Seriously read my comments. You are just trolling now by asking the same questions for the fourth time. They aren't. (They never are.) That was a simplification in order to provide a probable conclusion. When popular white woman (Hillary) was beaten by Obama: "A black man is still better than a white woman as the POTUS." "The main reason he won was because he was a black man running against a white woman." When other popular white women beat their less popular male competitors: "Why do you keep listing well familiar politicians like Attorney Generals and Lt. Governors who defeat unknown[ male]s as if that is a surprise" Look at party support and funding. One of my main points has always been about the in-group vs out-group. If the party and the incumbent is supporting you, then you have a lot in-group bias in your favor. I listed all the examples of the big endorsements and exposures for your female governors. How does this not make sense? You have offered nothing to substantiate this. Other than the fact that racial prejudice depends heavily on geography and population ratios while every place on Earth has roughly 1:1 = male:female. Gender roles are similar in every society. Racial prejudices can differ wildly. You obviously recognized this fact or you would not have excluded African countries in your analogy while including the entire world for female leaders. Why are you still beating this dead horse? The question was - how did they get to be high ranking elected officials in the first place. Probably by being low ranking officials first? Like every other politician? Are you trying to explain things at the grassroots level where the candidates are actually known personally by some of the voters? I said the party almost never endorses, and you respond by saying other people and newspapers endorsed - do you not know what a political party is? What do you think it means when the local caucus endorses someone? That is the party. What do you think it means when a national party leader endorses someone? That is the party. What do you think it means when the incumbent endorses someone? That is the party. You think career politicians just run around making endorsements willy-nilly? You mean you have not supported your stance. FTFY Refer to your own analogy. You do say that it was "The main reason..." Yes. For the Obama vs Hillary case. Not for everything. I clearly stated that xenophobic tendencies overpowers gender roles from the very start. It was a Democratic primary with two Ivy League minorities who would both set historical records for winning the general election. One happened to be well known while the other was unknown. One happened to be a black man and one happened to be a white woman. Since Obama made up for his lack of exposure by breaking fundraising records, I just reduced the decision to black man vs white woman. Are there other factors? Sure. Are they as important? Nope. Could they have combined to outweigh the gender issue? Sure. Can't quantify bias accurately. Simplification is the answer. I'll stop asking if you start answering. I have answered. You just haven't been reading. Use your own reading comprehension site this time. Where do you think that money came from? Why do you think those same people would not give money to someone running against Hillary in the same way they did last time? Of course they could give money to Warren. They could also give it to Hilary. Do you really need to ask this? You already know my logic behind this. Black man vs white woman. White woman vs white woman + 8 years of additional preperation. Not the same. Barack won the endorsement war. Warren will not. So, 40 years exposure make a huge difference over 30 years exposure? (Not to mention the positive and negative content of those interveening years.) What are you talking about? Warren is completely new to the political scene. no established presidential fundraising network "Hillary had 8 less years of exposure and no established presidential fundraising network." Read the entire quote. Why would she have an established network on her first election? We are talking about the difference between 2008 and 2016. Reading comprehension. You are tunnel visioning completely. You can't even read a simple sentence anymore. So the money went to Obama because he was running against a woman, but it did not go to Edwards, because...?? Terrible campaign. No exposure. Known loser from 2004. He had almost no Democrat support. Look at the list of Obama endorsements versus Clinton endorsements as the campaign progressed. You can look up Edwards as well just for a laugh. I am not saying it is 100% impossible Except: "There is no possible way for Warren to displace Hilary, short of murder." Great job. You caught me using hyperbole. I never disputed any of those points You said: You didn't cite any other part of the article to "back up everything". You just claimed it backed up everything without actually saying what everything was. That is the point I was making. You've at times used it correctly (in its broadest sense), but have also used it thusly: Ok. Xenophobia is not the best word since the in-group/out-group definition is not commonly known, but I did not want to type in-group and out-group every time. Or worse. Democrats and Republicans. In the end, in-group/out-group is still part of the definition, so there is nothing technically wrong. Technically right is the best right. Guess no such luck on spelling her name right, either, eh? Does it matter? You and I both know who I am talking about. Um, you looked at the WRONG study - my comment that the study "talks to the perception bias" was in regards to my study, not yours. My study supported that even when leaders are the same quality, they are rated higher if they are white - not male. Your study talks about actual performance rather than perceived ability. Since no one knows a person's actual ability as POTUS until they are elected POTUS, the perceived ability (my study) is probably more important for our argument. We can use your study to analyze the different criticisms regarding Hillary (or Warren) and Obama's performance since that seems to favor race more than gender. And the more you say it the stupider you look. Candidates matter? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UnitedStatesmidtermelection#Historicalrecordofmidtermelections Historical trends show that people vote the same regardless of candidates, at least for Midterms. Mob mentality following a pattern. Two major exceptions were FDR + New Deal and Bush + 911. Possible third exception of Clinton + Lewinsky (which is just...). And you think you know the relative weight of all biases based on your perception of one bias. Yeah. It is based on my perception. I have explained the basic reasoning behind it. You have yet to comment on the reasoning behind it. Side: We're all going to die.
2
points
1
point
1
point
1
point
2
points
But if you do not look at the number of prime ministers it took, you are making a different unfair comparison. Our country is much younger than yours, and was steeped in far more conservative social norms at the time we split from you. This means the U.K. has had far longer to adopt progressive social norms than the U.S.. Without comparing the amount of time it took for the U.K. to get to the point it is at versus the United States, then you will have an unbalanced comparison. Side: We're all going to die.
1
point
I think you're being a bit fallacious here. A working-class family with a long genealogical history has 10 children, the youngest of whom doesn't fit in and is far more conservative than the other 9. As soon as he is able to take a job- far lower than the age of majority- he leaves the home, and as soon as he is able to acquire enough money, he leaves the country, changes his name, and starts his own family. He has his first child at the same time that his older sibling back home has her first child. The child back home becomes the first person in the families genealogy to get a college education and move up to a higher standard of living. The child of the wayward son, however, does not. A generation later, though, one of the grandchildren of the wayward son later achieves a college education. Your argument is basically saying that the wayward sons grandchild is more accomplished than his aunt, because 'his' family got out of the working class in two generations, when it took the family back home dozens of generations to do the same. But this ignores the fact that they're the same family (even if estranged and renamed), and that much of the social and genetic changes that led to these developments were in fact shared over history despite the rift. Side: Yay!
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
"Fair enough, but we still beat you to having an elected female head of state. You can think of these ulterior perspectives that make it a harder pill to swallow all you like." That completely ignores all previous points I have made. Of course you beat us, you have had far longer to progress socially than we have. When we split from you, we were steeped in far more conservative social traditions than Britain was at the time. Considering the amount of time it took you to democratically elect a female leader, compared to the amount of time it would take us to (if Hillary wins), then your claims really become FAR less impressive. You can ignore these perspectives that make it a harder pill to swallow all you like. Side: We're all going to die.
1
point
Except... up until the first settlers in the new world, the culture and society were shared. Our history, prior to those settlers, IS European history. It's only reasonable to consider differences that occurred since the revolution, when control and such was severed. From the point where the early US and Britain went their separate ways, the remaining British progressed sufficiently socially to elect a female leader before the US did. It's not like the US formed out of a vacuum with people coming into existence with no societal norm or culture, after all, so the years you're counting against Britain should be counted against both. Side: Yay!
1
point
1
point
"Except... up until the first settlers in the new world, the culture and society were shared." I agree, I referred to the point after the split. We shared a culture and society, but after the split from Britain, many of our social customs were indeed more conservative (not referring to the political term) than the U.K., including things such as approval of slavery. " It's only reasonable to consider differences that occurred since the revolution, when control and such was severed." That is the only period of time I was referring to. "From the point where the early US and Britain went their separate ways, the remaining British progressed sufficiently socially to elect a female leader before the US did. It's not like the US formed out of a vacuum with people coming into existence with no societal norm or culture, after all, so the years you're counting against Britain should be counted against both." I disagree. At the time of the split, Britain had a very solid economic and sociological infrastructure that the United States simply lacked. They had the privilege, via having such a stable society (relatively speaking of course) to undergo such progressive social changes at a faster rate than we did. The United States was far less likely to adopt such progressive social changes at a time when we did not have a uniform currency, were still fighting, or maintaining hostile relations with, one of the most powerful nations in the world, etc. We simply did not have the means to be "radical", sociologically speaking, even if we were in a very real way founded upon being "radical" politically speaking. Now I'm not necessarily saying that because of that, we are somehow doing better than them. I was simply pointing out that TheEccentric was making an unfair comparison by not including the historical context of the issue. Side: We're all going to die.
Still you argue a point of total irrelevance. Margret Thatcher was not elected because she was a woman, but because she was the right person, in the right place, at the right time to help strengthen the UK. Your imagined cultural superiority is then based, in at least this case, on a meaningless distinction. Soooooooo Side: Yay!
1
point
It showed that an individual woman could have the same qualities that we expect of men. That is true. That is a positive thing but it would be far more progressive if a there was a female prime minister that actually reflected female issues. She didn't do anything for the country that a male couldn't have. Her gender didn't come into it. Side: We're all going to die.
1
point
Bullshit. When Thatcher came to power at the end of the 1970s the previous labour government had left Britain. The economy was doing horrible, the morale of the country was very low, unions had way too much power and consequently there were loads strikes causing the Winter of Discontent. But she fixed it all. She got the economy going again, she thrashed the Argentine bastards, crushed the power hungry unions and restored British pride. If the job she did was terrible then how come the 1980s were so much more of a prosperous time for Britain then before she became elected? Furthermore she was right in taking us to war over the Falklands. Letting the Argentinians retake would have showed weakness and the islands are ours by right. It is only the Socialists who don't like Thatcher, but if they had been allowed to have it their way then the country would have gone to ruin. However a blunder of hers was the poll tax. However when she left office, the country was much more confident and strong then it was before. While I certainly was not alive then, I know many people who had to live in the Hell that was Britain in the 1970s who all say that we were in such a state before she came to power. Side: Yay!
But she fixed it all. She got the economy going again Considering her deregulation policies were not working, I am not sure how she fixed it all. It was the boost from the Falklands War that got her re-elected. She did fix corrupt unions, I'll give her that. She was forced to resign. That is usually not the case for someone who was fixing it all. Furthermore she was right in taking us to war over the Falklands. Letting the Argentinians retake would have showed weakness and the islands are ours by right. Note the similarities of righteousness between this justification for war and Bush's justification for Afghanistan. Both received boosts in support in spite of failing economic policies. Side: We're all going to die.
1
point
The fact is the British economy did improve during her time in office. Therefore she was a good Prime Minister. Fixing the unions was a massively important thing because until she came into power strikes were crippling the country. How can you compare the invasion of Afghanistan to the Falklands war? The difference is, it was Bush who invaded, whereas in the Falklands we were the ones being invaded. You cannot compare an aggressive act to one that was simply defensive. You are asking for a declaration of being my enemy, did you know that? Side: Yay!
The fact is the British economy did improve during her time in office. Her policies were detrimental to the recovery, unless if you believe Laissez-faire actually works. The economy recovered in spite of her policies. How can you compare the invasion of Afghanistan to the Falklands war? The difference is, it was Bush who invaded, whereas in the Falklands we were the ones being invaded. You cannot compare an aggressive act to one that was simply defensive. Taliban supported Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda attacked the US. The US defends itself from further acts like 9/11 by annihilating the supporters of Al Qaeda. Defensive. You are asking for a declaration of being my enemy, did you know that? I am new to this site. I have no idea what being an enemy actually does. I am glad the points I bring up stir up something inside you. I hope it is a thirst for the truth. Side: Yay!
0
points
It's still different. 9/11 was a one off terrorist attack, it was not like a whole army had invaded US territory and occupied it. I am new Well I hope you don't stick around. I have no idea what being an enemy actually does. An Enemy is an adversary that you have identified on CreateDebate. They are typically a user with whom you have different interests and opinions. Only one party has to declare another party an enemy, although you can reciprocate the animosity if you'd like. (From the sites FAQ) I hope it is a thirst for the truth. It is just a disgust towards your ignorance. Side: Yay!
It is just a disgust towards your ignorance. I present you with facts. Just because those facts oppose your current world views does not make them disgusting, disingenuous, or ignorant. It's still different. 9/11 was a one off terrorist attack, it was not like a whole army had invaded US territory and occupied it. It was not a one off terrorist attack. Al Qaeda declared it to be the first of many to come. Whether those threats are credible or not does not take away from the defensive nature of the War in Afghanistan. PS: I did not down-vote you. Side: Yay!
1
point
But did the invasion of Afghanistan solve the problem of Al Qaeda? The problem of Argentine aggression was solved by us going to war with them so therefore the end justified the means. I know it wasn't you, you can see if you click on the figure showing the person's points next to their username to see if where they have downvoted. I am aware of who it was and I have responded to it by attacking many of their arguments similarly. Side: Yay!
1
point
1
point
1
point
But did the invasion of Afghanistan solve the problem of Al Qaeda? The problem of Argentine aggression was solved by us going to war with them so therefore the end justified the means. That is a difficult question to answer. Al Qaeda still exists. Al Qaeda has not committed another act of terrorism against the US as it claimed it would. Argentina still exists. Argentina has not invaded a territory of the UK since the Falklands War. In fact, no foreign terrorist organization has committed a large scale terrorist attack against the US since the War in Afghanistan. PS: I noticed you did not respond to "I present you with facts. Just because those facts oppose your current world views does not make them disgusting, disingenuous, or ignorant." Side: Yay!
1
point
1
point
1
point
Why do you personally insult those who disagree with you? Because if someone says ignorant comments about something that means a lot to me I am entitled to express the fact that they are a pain and that I do not like them. He should know by now, as you probably do, this site is an aggressive place and if you can't stand the forum, get off it. And how have they indicated any sort of disliking or hatred towards all English people? He seems to be slagging us off a lot, and defending our enemies when there is no valid reason to defend them. Side: We're all going to die.
If you deny what a great leader she was then you are ignorant. Because if someone says ignorant comments about something that means a lot to me I am entitled to express the fact that they are a pain and that I do not like them. He should know by now, as you probably do, this site is an aggressive place and if you can't stand the forum, get off it. Provide some source that shows Thatcher as a competent leader. Show how her economic policies were beneficial rather than detrimental. The general consensus, from my understanding, is that staunch deregulation is bad for the economy. Unless if you can show how her policies benefited the UK directly rather than correlate the recovery to her time in office, there is nothing ignorant about my statements. I am critical of many governments, not just the UK's. There is nothing to suggest that I am Anglophobic. He seems to be slagging us off a lot, and defending our enemies when there is no valid reason to defend them. I presented the reason for my critique. If you believe it to be invalid, state the reason. All you have done is deny my arguments without providing logical or factual arguments to substantiate your opposition. Side: Yay!
1
point
She fixed the unions and put the Argentinians in their place. I already agreed with you on the unions part. It was one of my first comments. I brought up Argentina as the only reason for her re-election. This was my reason for juxtaposition with Bush. They were both (failed) economic conservatives who were lucky enough to have a popular war to boost their ratings. You still have not shown where I have been ignorant in this matter. Side: Yay!
1
point
Because if someone says ignorant comments about something that means a lot to me I am entitled to express the fact that they are a pain and that I do not like them. He should know by now, as you probably do, this site is an aggressive place and if you can't stand the forum, get off it. It is aggressive only when there are aggressive people, such as yourself. He seems to be slagging us off a lot, and defending our enemies when there is no valid reason to defend them. How so? It seems to me like he is just disagreeing with you, and that's about it. Side: Yay!
1
point
1
point
Oh good grief! You're absolutely ridiculous. That is a false analogy. We didn't invade the Falklands and conquer them by force. The Falklands were uninhabited and we colonized it. It has never even belonged to the Argentinians. We were there before Argentina even existed. It is not like we invaded and took it off the Argentinians. The people who were trying to conquer the Falklands by force where the Argentinians, so we were justified in defending the Islands. Furthermore the people there today are all British and always have been. There are no Argentinians there. The only claim the Argentinians have is that they are geographically closer. By that logic the Canary Islands should be taken from Spain and given to Morocco as it is closer, despite everyone there being Spanish. Side: Yay!
1
point
We didn't invade the Falklands and conquer them by force. The Falklands were uninhabited and we colonized it I was using the previous question to get you to say exactly this. So if we went along the coast of the U.K. and found uninhabited islands, and then placed United States citizens there, would those islands be ours? If not, why? It has never even belonged to the Argentinians. We were there before Argentina even existed. It is not like we invaded and took it off the Argentinians. That might be because "Argentinians" are a recently constructed group. People did exist in that part of the world previously. Side: We're all going to die.
1
point
That would be different because the United Kingdom exists now and therefore has claimed possession of all of the Islands off it's close, habited or not and at the time we colonized the Falklands Argentina did not exist. Therefore Argentina had never claimed the Islands as their own. That might be because "Argentinians" are a recently constructed group. People did exist in that part of the world previously. Yes but very few of the people who make up today's Argentine population are of the people who existed their previously. Most of the people there are of Spanish descent who only got there themselves through colonization and therefore have no more right over Argentina then we do over the Falklands. Furthermore none of the people who where there before even knew about the Island so they have no right to it. Side: Yay!
1
point
That would be different because the United Kingdom exists now and therefore has claimed possession of all of the Islands off it's close, habited or not and at the time we colonized the Falklands Argentina did not exist. Therefore Argentina had never claimed the Islands as their own. Argentina did not exist because that is a modern state. There were people inhabiting that area who had legitimate claim to the sphere of influence surrounding their land, which the U.K. summarily ignored. Yes but very few of the people who make up today's Argentine population are of the people who existed their previously. Most of the people there are of Spanish descent who only got there themselves through colonization and therefore have no more right over Argentina then we do over the Falklands. Furthermore none of the people who where there before even knew about the Island so they have no right to it. Interesting. So if (hypothetically) the United States detected a recently formed volcanic island off the coast of Scotland that, somehow, the U.K. did not know of yet, we would be able to come claim it as our own "rightfully"? Side: We're all going to die.
1
point
There were people inhabiting that area who had legitimate claim to the sphere of influence surrounding their land Yes but those people weren't Argentinians. They were the natives who would be abused by the people who are now called Argentinians. Therefore they do not give Argentina a legitimate claim over the Island. Would you also say that all people of European descent should leave the USA to be returned to the Natives as you only got there through invasion? Interesting. So if (hypothetically) the United States detected a recently formed volcanic island off the coast of Scotland that, somehow, the U.K. did not know of yet, we would be able to come claim it as our own "rightfully"? No one would care if you were to take some uninhabited Islands 300 miles (the distance of the Falklands from Argentina) away from us that we didn't even know about. The only reason the Argentine government made out it was so important was to distract from internal problems. Side: Yay!
1
point
No one would care if you were to take some uninhabited Islands 300 miles (the distance of the Falklands from Argentina) away from us that we didn't even know about. The only reason the Argentine government made out it was so important was to distract from internal problems. I disagree and think that if a foreign country was attempting to set up a claim on land within the U.K.'s sphere of influence they would indeed have an issue with that, but considering our disagreement on that I don't think we can continue much with the rest of the debate. That being said, I do agree with you on what led to the Falklands Conflict. Side: We're all going to die.
1
point
2
points
As an open minded person who believes in change I believe that a woman can and will be president. A persons gender won't tell you what kind of leader they will be. She has a good head on her shoulders it seems. I'm very much in favor positive change. Her win will inspire hope to women and help create equality. Side: Yay!
I think we'd sooner die with a radical right wing republican president... The majority of republican candidates don't even believe climate change is a real thing. They'd increase military spending, fight against LGBT equality, fight against gender issues, and set us backwards 20 years. Hillary might not be the best, but electing her doesn't make me fear for the proceeding 4 years. Side: Yay!
Hilary for president is great mostly because if your a african american you should be happy cause that's history again for the second time in a row first its the first african american president now its first african american female president think guys history again if were all gonna die list reasons why think guys history two times in a row Side: Yay!
Hilary for president is great mostly because if your a African American you should be happy cause that's history again for the second time in a row first its the first African American president now its first African American female president think guys history again if were all gonna die list reasons why think guys history two times in a row Side: Yay!
1
point
|
Hillary is a step down from even Obama. His blundering ineptness on the world stage only displays his amateur standing among world leaders. Hillary, on the other hand is as cunning as Putin. Equally willing to lie and practice deceit for her own personal gain. Her arrogance and since of entitlement does not go over well with the public. Voters look at her record and find good cause to not trust her to be open and honest. She wants to address income inequality (Code for wealth redistribution) revealing her liberal disdain for the fundamentals of capitalism. We already have a President that enjoys the prestige and not the job. IMO we don't need another. I want to be president because I'm a woman -or- I want to be president because its finally my turn, are her true feelings. Over the next weeks she will try to be seen as the tireless champion of the beleaguered middle class. However her inherent lust for the office she feels she deserves, will overshadow attempts to appear concerned for the average American. Side: We're all going to die.
2
points
I agree with you overall. I also feel that it is very likely that Hillary will be elected, and by no accident. I don't believe Obama was elected by accident either. I hate to post conspiracy theories, but I'm of the mind that a poorly-suited black man (Obama) was intentionally put forth as a candidate and intentionally bankrolled and marketed to success, and that the same will happen to Hillary as a poorly-suited white woman. Neither is poorly-suited due to their sex or race, they are poorly-suited due to their individual strengths and weaknesses as well as their personal characters. Unfortunately, in the eyes of many, Obama has effectively "proven" that black people make poor presidents, just as Hillary will effectively "prove" that women make poor presidents, despite the fact that these traits are ultimately irrelevant. Like I said- I hate to post conspiracy theories, and I have nothing in the way of proof, but I strongly feel that there is an intentional effort going on to reinforce the idea that the presidency is an office for white men, based on the proclivity of the general public to make unwarranted assumptions. As a disclaimer, the unwarranted assumption here may well be mine. Side: We're all going to die.
2
points
intentionally bankrolled and marketed to success All candidates are "bankrolled and marketed" - for whom and what purpose do you think Obama/Hillary are to serve? Obama has effectively "proven" that black people make poor presidents Not to anyone who wasn't already predisposed to the idea. The statement wouldn't even make sense to someone who isn't bigoted - was George W. "bankrolled and marketed to success" to prove that all white men make terrible presidents? If anything I see the opposite trend - many of the conservatives I talk to make sure to mention how much they would like to see Ben Carson, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, etc. (even Herman Cain) become President in order to insist that their preference is an ideological one. While money is becoming harder to track, I think there was still enough tracibility of Obama donor money in 2008 to be able to see if there was some large amounts given by conservatives to his campaign. Moreover, I can and will argue anywhere that he isn't a bad president though there are certainly people with interest in making it seem so. Side: Yay!
1
point
All candidates are "bankrolled and marketed" - for whom and what purpose do you think Obama/Hillary are to serve? Perhaps I was unnecessarily ambiguous re: bankrolling and marketing, but as to what purpose, I've already detailed it. Not to anyone who wasn't already predisposed to the idea. The statement wouldn't even make sense to someone who isn't bigoted - was George W. "bankrolled and marketed to success" to prove that all white men make terrible presidents? I would say this would serve to reinforce those already predisposed to the idea, but also those 'on the fence-' such as those who understand racism to be inherently fallacious on an intellectual level but have personal experience that suggests otherwise. Dubya isn't a good example, because Dubya was just the most recent of a long line of white male presidents; Obama's situation is unique in that he is the first example of his race, and for better or for worse every black person who runs for president will have future voters thinking of Obama, bigot or otherwise. Hillary, if elected, would be in a similar situation in respect to females. If anything I see the opposite trend - many of the conservatives I talk to make sure to mention how much they would like to see Ben Carson, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, etc. (even Herman Cain) become President in order to insist that their preference is an ideological one. I see this the other way- those conservatives are specifically noting non-white individuals, not by their personal merits, but because they are non-white. I see it as the political equivalent of saying "I'm not racist, look, I have a black friend!" While money is becoming harder to track, I think there was still enough tracibility of Obama donor money in 2008 to be able to see if there was some large amounts given by conservatives to his campaign. The marketing is really more key Moreover, I can and will argue anywhere that he isn't a bad president though there are certainly people with interest in making it seem so. And I'll argue anywhere that he is a bad president, though I wouldn't go so far as to say he's the worst or even counted amongst the worst. It's unfortunate, but given his status as the first black president, it was nearly vital in the interests of future potential black presidential candidates that he do an absolutely bang-up job. Whether you consider him a bad president or a passable one, he has failed to live up to that, and future black candidates will have a tough road ahead of them based on that. Sure, there are white presidents who did a worse job than Obama, but there are also white presidents who did a far better job- inherent biases being what they are, Obama has only hurt the chances of his successors in the long run, and I believe that he was intentionally selected because he had the charisma to get elected with the help of focused marketing campaigns, but did not have the ability to perform the job satisfactorily; I seriously believe those behind the scenes intended this from the start; like sandbagging, but with a different objective, and with the player unwitting all along. Side: Yay!
I think both Obama and Hillary are poorly suited to the toughest job in the world, but primarily because of their ideology. The one that allows any action necessary in pursuit of a socialist utopia. You have your concerns about a hidden wizard behind the curtain, pulling the strings to fundamentally transform our nation, and I wonder as well. Yes black, not black, woman, man are truly irrelevant factors. What Obama has shown is that advocates for fundamentally transforming America, come in all colors, and in the case of Hillary both sexes. I'm trying to be positive about the selection of our next leader, but as you say there seems a great design in the works that may well again pull us farther down the path to an imaginary socialist utopia, or what ever it is they call their dream today. I strongly feel that there is an intentional effort going on to reinforce the idea that the presidency is an office for white men Hmmm. I have a strong feeling that our enemies stand among us, and patiently drag down our constitution, one amendment at a time and one presidential memorandum at a time. But thats just my opinion. Here is the difference between Obama and Hillary. Obama was a masterful speaker and a great campaigner, while Hillary is not. Sooooo maybe we will take a turn for the better! Side: Yay!
1
point
" The one that allows any action necessary in pursuit of a socialist utopia." Now this will be a fun game: Where has Hillary indicated she adheres to socialist ideology? Let's leave behind these vague accusations of "fundamentally transforming", which as we have seen can be argued ad infinitum, and instead stick with solid examples and quotes. "Obama was a masterful speaker and a great campaigner, while Hillary is not." I am not a Hillary fan, and I strongly doubt I will vote for her, but her announcement was GREAT politics. Her political strategy of strongly appealing to minority groups, particularly Hispanic voters, is something that, if she continues to pull it off well, can definitely win her the election. With the Republican party being increasingly viewed as "anti-minority" (I am not saying that they actually are, but they have done very little in terms of their message to counter that concept), Hillary stands to gain the racial minority votes on top of the female vote, all in addition to the Democratic vote. If she continues to pull off that campaign strategy, the Republicans will be hard pressed to find someone who can beat her, whether they are the better candidate or not. Rand Paul only appeals to Caucasian male libertarians, Ted Cruz only appeals to...well..I will be kind and polite and simply say Republicans, Jeb Bush is scaring away the Christian Right so he likely wouldn't even be able to secure the nomination, etc. Side: Yay!
Where has Hillary indicated she adheres to socialist ideology? She has pushed socialized medicine for literally decades. She chose to campaign on "income inequality". Yeah that was fun --- any more easy questions? Did you see Marco Rubio's speech yesterday. Strong, forward looking and filled with love of country. This can beat Hillary's stale ideas and canned delivery. Her strategy is improved since last time, but she remains the same person who is not warm and compelling. Side: Yay!
1
point
She has pushed socialized medicine for literally decades. A) Many of the ideas Hillary supported were endorsed by conservatives and conservative think-tanks like the Heritage Foundation - e.g. insurance exchanges, the individual mandate, etc. B) Believing that there is a role for the government to play in situations of moral hazard (e.g. where a company's profit is at odds with people's lives), is different than believing everything should be socialized. She chose to campaign on "income inequality". So do republicans lately. Marco Rubio's The only issue with Rubio is that he won't be at the top of the ticket (since that would guarantee Hillary wins). He could probably be a decent VP pick, however the likely nominee (Bush) can't choose him for his VP. Therefore I think Bush might be more aggressive towards him than many other Republican hopefuls. Side: Yay!
1
point
She has pushed socialized medicine for literally decades. She chose to campaign on "income inequality". Yeah that was fun --- any more easy questions? We have been over this before. One can desire certain things that fall under "socialism" without adhering to socialist ideology. One can desire single-payer health care systems while believing that society should maintain a capitalist system. What you have said has not in any way proven she adheres to socialist ideology. Side: Yay!
1
point
They want to fundamentally transform this nation. What does that mean? First it means that they believe something is fundamentally wrong with this nation. A notion I totally reject. Their utopia is a nation who's all powerful and benevolent government is composed of the most elite thinkers, who must guide and direct our lives because we aren't smart enough to know what's best for ourselves. There will be no inequality, no social injustice and no place for non conformity. We the masses do not see the great future that they plan for us. Because of this, they are not constrained to always being honest and truthful, because the new Utopian America is worth the any tactic that is necessary. Side: Yay!
1
point
What does that mean? Um - going from Bush policies to Obama policies, duh. Just another example of people deliberately blowing things out of proportion (including people who said similar things in the past - e.g. Giuliani) Which to me shows just how little there must be to actually criticize. "After decades of broken politics in Washington, and eight years of failed policies from George W. Bush, and 21 months of a campaign that's taken us from the rocky coast of Maine to the sunshine of California, we are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America. In five days, you can turn the page on policies that put greed and irresponsibility on Wall Street before the hard work and sacrifice of folks on Main Street. In five days, you can choose policies that invest in our middle class, and create new jobs, and grow this economy, so that everyone has a chance to succeed, not just the CEO, but the secretary and janitor, not just the factory owner, but the men and women on the factory floor." A notion I totally reject. So, you agree with all current policies including Obamacare, etc. - correct? And no new policy must ever even be considered because America is already perfect...? Their utopia is a nation who's all powerful and benevolent government is composed of the most elite thinkers, who must guide and direct our lives because we aren't smart enough to know what's best for ourselves. There will be no inequality, no social injustice and no place for non conformity. Generic mumbo-jumbo bullshit based on nothing. all powerful and benevolent government is composed of the most elite thinkers If we are going to have a representative form of government - maybe it's a good idea to elect "elite thinkers" to that government (even though that might not be perfectly representative of the American electorate) - no? who must guide and direct our lives because we aren't smart enough to know what's best for ourselves. Or, who do what we elect them to do, until we elect someone else. This would only make sense as a statement if their proposal was to get rid of elections - closer to Republican policy these days. no inequality, no social injustice Equal treatment by the government and companies which seek government benefits - not by private persons and religions - they are perfectly free to remain bigots. no place for non conformity stupider than I would expect from you. Side: Yay!
It remains my concern that there is an element, or a segment, or a collection of people among us who believe this country's fundamental foundations are in need of change. Look behind his words: In five days, you can turn the page on policies that put greed and irresponsibility on Wall Street before the hard work and sacrifice of folks on Main Street We will pit the poor against the rich. We will make our brothers our enemies. We will regulate them and tax them and treat them as evil. IMO this divides us, when we so clearly need to work Together. In five days, you can choose policies that invest in our middle class, and create new jobs, and grow this economy, so that everyone has a chance to succeed, not just the CEO, but the secretary and janitor, not just the factory owner, but the men and women on the factory floor." Creating jobs has been the 800 billion dollar stimulus that was supposed to fill those "Shovel Ready" jobs that didn't exist. I have worked on the factory floor. My associates, like myself, provided for our families with these jobs. We owned cars, we owned homes, we went on vacations, we sent our kids to college with the earnings from these jobs. The nature of capitalism does not provide for material equality. It provides only opportunity. A government that seeks to alter this truth, by its nature, works against capitalism. Working against capitalism is working toward a fundamental change that I reject. So, you agree will all current policies including Obamacare, etc. - correct? And no new policy must ever even be considered because America is already perfect...? It has been my experience that a rebuttal which starts with So is most often an inaccurate restatement of the other opinion. You have done nothing to alter this perception. A system of government can be based on fundamentals of free enterprise and not be perfect. Clearly in the affairs of men, there exists imperfections. Free enterprise and individual freedom are fundamental to our constitution. These do not require fundamental change, but rather an honest effort to improve what is already there. IMO both Obama and Hillary know that "fundamental transformation" is not about tweaking policies as you suggest. Side: Yay!
3
points
Look behind his words: I looked behind his words and found his mouth - what did you find?? Your whole philosophy is one giant slippery slope fallacy: he says he wants responsible regulations on the industry that nearly collapsed the entire global economic system, and his actions, and policies fall inline with that, therefore he (and other Democrats) must actually want to make America communist - stupidity. Even though it requires effort on our part, we should evaluate each candidate/policy based on their own merits (and reality). We will pit the poor against the rich. Republicans do the same with words and the opposite with policy. They are naturally at odds to a degree since the more one pays the less the other must pay - it is better to recognize that fact and deliberately determine the right balance than to ignore it altogether. We will make our brothers our enemies. "Greed is good" makes your brothers your enemies We will regulate them and tax them and treat them as evil. Regulating and taxing is not treating them as "evil". IMO this divides us, we so clearly need to work Together. Obama's sentiments exactly. Saying that one has been too preferred over the other by the prior policies is not to say that we need to go overboard in the other direction - but may also mean we should find a better balance. see also Creating jobs has been the 800 billion dollar stimulus that was supposed to fill those "Shovel Ready" jobs that didn't exist. The economy has added private sector jobs for 61 consecutive months (the longest streak in history) - over 12 million jobs (ref) Yes, the stimulus worked. I have worked on the factory floor. And you did all of that under liberals and conservatives and under the same balancing of capitalism and socialism that both sides push on slightly at the margins. The nature of capitalism does not provide for material equality. The nature of capitalism says that anyone without economic value (disabled, etc.) has no intrinsic value. Which is why it is best when it is tempered with democracy so people can inject human worth and values where laissez faire capitalism would have none. Working against capitalism is working toward a fundamental change that I reject. You have said that unions achieved good reforms, that we should help the truly needy/disabled, that we should have a large military, etc. - are you working against capitalism?? Free enterprise and individual freedom are fundamental to our constitution. Actually the Constitution says nothing about free enterprise. Instead it specifically grants some powers over commerce to the government (e.g. government issued monopolies (patents, etc), explicit government regulation of interstate commerce, government control of currency, weights & measures, etc.) And grants of corporate charters were left up to the states. IMO both Obama and Hillary know that "fundamental transformation" is not about tweaking policies as you suggest. And your presumption is based on fallacious absurdity. Side: Yay!
1
point
1
point
You have not provided reasons as to why they want "equality of outcome", you have simply provided a few examples of institutions and policies that non-socialists are often in favor of, then extrapolated that to the nth degree. My opinion is that they are not socialists, and the reasoning is that there is not evidence that they are. My opinion is that they are not communists, and the reasoning is that there is not evidence that they are. Side: Yay!
They want to push for income equality for the same reason they push for free college, and for free food and for free healthcare and for free cell phones and on and on. The more people can vote for free stuff, the more we trade in our freedom. What freedoms? Do you remember when you could choose your doctor? Side: Yay!
2
points
They want to push for income equality for the same reason they push for free college, and for free food and for free healthcare and for free cell phones and on and on. The more people can vote for free stuff, the more we trade in our freedom. Or, and here's a radical thought, they might think they are actually good ideas. There are solid arguments to be made in favor of the things you have listed (or at least the real world versions of them that have actually been proposed). And I did choose my doctor, and very recently too after moving. Can you explain to me why you are not able to? Side: Yay!
Or, and here's a radical thought, they might think they are actually good ideas. The sheep in the democratic party are being led around by their noses. Those who subvert us come up with ever more ways to increase the governments influence and control. Here is the latest example of their "good ideas". Lets let everyone go to Jr collage for free. Then they'll go out and get good jobs and grow the economy. There are thousands of people with degrees out there today looking for jabs that aren't there. Why is it a good idea for our government to spend tax payer dollars for a free education system, to produce more people with degrees who can't find a job? Side: Yay!
1
point
More penny-wise, pound-foolish conservatism in action... free college Free community college - pays for itself and then some. ref free food the alternative being? free healthcare maybe they are more pro-life than they get credit for... maybe healthy workers are more productive, maybe people with healthcare unattached to their job have more job mobility, maybe preventive care costs less than the emergency care we were already mandating, maybe if your neighbors stay healthy you'll be less sick too, etc. etc. free cell phones and on and on. The more people can vote for free stuff, the more we trade in our freedom. Except the so-called Obamaphones existed before Obama took office, and don't cost tax-payer money, and only provide an hour a month usage, and are helpful for people trying to transition back into the workforce, and... ref Do you remember when you could choose your doctor? Yes - I just picked a new dentist yesterday and a new doctor at the end of last year. Remember when millions more people had no insurance at all - remember when there were yearly and lifetime caps, remember when people got kicked off their coverage when they got sick after paying premiums for years, remember when Medicare trust fund had 13 years less solvency than it does now ??? Side: Yay!
1
point
I fail to see how the situation you are describing is a conspiracy. It is simply a form of party politics. The people who run the Democratic Party knew that a well-spoken African American would lead to a strong voter turn out from the black community, and be viewed as a "historical" candidate, one very likely to develop a strong following, regardless of his actual merits. The same people see the same situation for Hillary, and in both cases, they are right. Both candidates are "historic" and in a very real sense unprecedented, and that has political value in and of itself. It is unfortunate, for the reasons that you stated, and could very well backfire, but not against the party itself, and so they would have very little reason to care. Yet another reason why we should do away with our two party system, but I suppose that is a different topic all together. Side: Yay!
1
point
The conspiracy is that they will pick someone unqualified. Pick any black guy, and any white woman because they know the person will get elected by strengthening the voter turnout, then make them fail so that everyone will chalk it up to them not being a white man. Side: We're all going to die.
1
point
The situation that I'm concerned about is that the democratic party seems to have been slowly infiltrated by people who are basically communist in their ideas about governance. The conspiracy is their plan to replace capitalism with communism. You may dismiss this as foolishness, but two facts are clear. Communist ideology exists in the world today. Communists are here in our country. Side: Yay!
1
point
Now it's communism? Before it was socialism. You know they aren't the same, right? We had enough trouble with you trying to prove that the Democratic party was taken over by socialists, but I suppose I will try again: Where is your evidence that it has been taken over by Communists, and what kind of communists are they? Side: Yay!
1
point
1
point
1
point
GW Bush was just the most recent of many white presidents; regardless of whether any of them should be considered to be doing such, GW Bush wasn't setting any kind of standard, unlike Obama, and unlike Hillary would be should she find herself to be the first female president.. Side: Yay!
1
point
2
points
"We're all going to die". I agree, though most of us will likely die of something other than Hillary becoming president. Hillary, Cruz, Paul, Warren... I don't think it matters as much as most. Half the electorate will be alienated by whoever gets elected, and we will continue to bicker and pick each other apart. In the meantime the middle class will become extinct. Side: We're all going to die.
1
point
I seriously doubt Hillary's ability ,though she has vast experience and has been quite trustworthy and efficient as per Obama's description but again I don't think she would be as good or even better as a president as Obama,by the way I'ld definitely want a republican candidate,probably the Hewlett-Packard CEO. Side: We're all going to die.
1
point
1
point
1
point
No, not really. Not any more (or less) than if it was a right wing conservative. Every president has been different, even when they have shared ideologies. There are far too many factors to be taken into account to pretend we can expect how an administration will do. Side: We're all going to die.
1
point
1
point
The Republicans flew off the handle and ceased their attempts to be a legitimate political party, but that is neither here nor there. I am not referring to what he accomplished, I am referring to his politics while in office and his goals while his office. He campaigned on being far more liberal than he was in office, regardless of any influence by the opposition party. Side: We're all going to die.
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
But it apparently does take one to point out which of the ideas that he campaigned on were not main stream. There are so many different reasons why ideas that a candidate campaigns on could not materialize while in office, so declaring them all "whack" or "far left" without being able to point to a single example is entirely unjustified, if not downright baseless. Side: We're all going to die.
1
point
That would be during the primary season, not the general election. Certainly Obama campaigned as being more liberal during the primary season, and few could expect him to hold to that, but even after it was toned down for the general election he maintained stances that were more liberal than he has been while in office. Side: Yay!
1
point
1
point
So ending income tax for seniors making under 50k a year is "whack" and "far left"? Ending no-bid federal contracts that are over 25k is "whack" and "far left"? Reducing the Veterans Benefits Administration's backlog is "whack" and "far left"? Establishing a definitive legal status for defense contractor personnel is "whack" and "far left"? Federally requiring companies that unlawfully disclose personal information to notify the involved party is "whack" and "far left"? I could go on, but my point is fairly clear: You have no idea what you are talking about. You are speaking in vague rhetoric, and that is all. Side: Yay!
1
point
1
point
The illusion of choice that keeps the masses restless but too comfortable to contest the state of political affairs. Another member of the wealthy ruling political oligopoly whose practices are relatively indistinguishable from the next self-interested partisan politician. I am sure we can expect great changes. Side: We're all going to die.
|