Jump to content
DMC

US Politics: Out in the Cold

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Week said:

If you need polls to convince you that sexism had a noticeable impact, then you are pretty far behind the eight-ball amigo. Look at the "justifications" that you've provided (elite, corrupt, war-mongering) juxtaposed against Trump. 

Please cite polls that gender and sexism played no part in the previous election. The burden of proof to buck conventional wisdom is on you.

I've called Trump a fascist, repeatedly in this very thread. I called Hillary an elitist, war-mongering and corrupt. One can hold negative views of both and expressing a negative opinion of one is not in it of itself showing favor to the other. Your implication of me giving reasons for why she lost other than bigotry as proof of sexism is absurd And yeah I'll need actual solid evidence before I cry out a large reason Clinton lost is sexism.   So far I've found nothing  that much more substantive than guys like you declaring it totes did with no actual citations. I can not prove the claim you've actually me to prove. Because I didn't really make it. Saying sexism played no part would be erroneous because undoubtedly somewhere someone didn't vote for Clinton because they hate women. I erroneously claimed sexism played no big part  in her defeat. I haven't found evidence to actually say either statements with earned confidence. Please give evidence for claim rather than simply saying its conventional wisedom(its not). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I've called Trump a fascist, repeatedly in this very thread. I called Hillary an elitist, war-mongering and corrupt. One can hold negative views of both and expressing a negative opinion of one is not in it of itself showing favor to the other. Your implication of me giving reasons for why she lost other than bigotry as proof of sexism is absurd And yeah I'll need actual solid evidence before I cry out a large reason Clinton lost is sexism.   So far I've found nothing  that much more substantive than guys like you declaring it totes did with no actual citations. I can not prove the claim you've actually me to prove. Because I didn't really make it. Saying sexism played no part would be erroneous because undoubtedly somewhere someone didn't vote for Clinton because they hate women. I erroneously claimed sexism played no big part  in her defeat. I haven't found evidence to actually say either statements with earned confidence. Please give evidence for claim rather than simply saying its conventional wisedom(its not). 

Just thinking that sexism is defined only as 'hatred' of women shows you know nothing about what the systematic system of sexism is.

Sexism, bigotry, racism all contributed hugely to her defeat.  She also contributed greatly to her defeat, but to say none of these played a significant role is just wrong.  Why do you think we're even having this conversation, or any of the conversations and discussions that have been increasingly frequent since the campaign?

Edited by Zorral

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I've called Trump a fascist, repeatedly in this very thread. I called Hillary an elitist, war-mongering and corrupt. One can hold negative views of both and expressing a negative opinion of one is not in it of itself showing favor to the other. Your implication of me giving reasons for why she lost other than bigotry as proof of sexism is absurd And yeah I'll need actual solid evidence before I cry out a large reason Clinton lost is sexism.  

How about the fact that media spent more time on Hillary's frickin' email habits than on substantial policy issues, which is pretty well documented?

I don't know if that is exactly a smoking gun in so far  as sexism is concerned. But , one does wonder whether if she had been male, if the media would have so obsessed with that issue, which was pretty much baseless.

Also, I don't know if your saying this, maybe you're not, but I just want to be clear that saying that Hillary and Trump were basically the same is horseshit. Hillary to be sure has her faults. But, that said, she is miles apart from the Orange Clown. Implying they are the same is basically hipster garbage.

Oh I forgot:

There is some statistical evidence, by way of studies, out there that does show that sexism played a pretty dominant role in whether one voted for Trump or not. I'll try to find it for you.

Edited by OldGimletEye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

There is some statistical evidence, by way of studies, out there that does show that sexism played a pretty dominant role in whether one voted for Trump or not. I'll try to find it for you.

Honestly, just tell him to google scholar "sexism 2016 elections."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

Within one week, the Supreme Court will decide whether to block a Louisiana law designed to shutter the state’s abortion clinics through draconian regulations. If the court refuses to halt the law’s implementation, it will effectively overrule its 2016 decision in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt. By doing so, the new conservative majority would set in motion the imminent reversal of Roe v. Wade itself. It is no overstatement to say that the Supreme Court will determine the future of Roe in a matter of days.

The Louisiana law at issue, Act 620, was modeled after the Texas statute that the court struck down in Whole Woman’s Health. Like that measure, Act 620 requires abortion providers to obtain admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of their clinic. As one judge on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals wrote, the Texas and Louisiana laws are “almost identical.” And because the Supreme Court invalidated the Texas statute as an “undue burden” on the constitutional right to abortion access, you might expect the 5th Circuit to strike down the Louisiana measure on the same grounds.


It did not, for one very obvious reason: By the time the 5th Circuit heard a constitutional challenge to Act 620, Justice Anthony Kennedy—who cast the fifth vote to strike down the Texas statute—had retired. He was poised to be replaced by Brett Kavanaugh, a hard-line abortion opponent eager to overturn Roe. And so, in clear anticipation of a shift away from abortion rights, a panel of judges for the 5th Circuit upheld the Louisiana law in June Medical Services v. Gee. The full 5th Circuit then declined to reverse the panel’s decision, with Trump’s four appointees voting to let the ruling stand.

 

Roe v. Wade Is Under Immediate Threat
If the Supreme Court doesn’t stay a Louisiana law next week, states will have a clear path to nullify the constitutional right to choose.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/01/june-medical-services-abortion-end-of-roe.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DMC said:

Honestly, just tell him to google scholar "sexism 2016 elections."

I just assumed, he was as lazy as I am, and that would be too much work. LOL.

Anyway, here is one paper, I know about. 

http://people.umass.edu/schaffne/schaffner_et_al_IDC_conference.pdf

I know there is other stuff out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DMC said:

Right, cuz the state-by-state numbers are going to be that fundamentally different.  :rolleyes:

Well let’s say In Louisiana, Perot siphoned ten percent from bush and four percent from Clinton but in Massachusetts Perot siphoned ten percent from Clinton and only four percent from bush. The result is Clinton flips Louisiana but doesn’t lose Massachusetts and if you look at the average of the two, Perot had no effect affecting both candidate equally, even though a state was flipped because of the way the regions differed in Perot support just happened to benefit Clinton more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

16 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

Roe v. Wade Is Under Immediate Threat
If the Supreme Court doesn’t stay a Louisiana law next week, states will have a clear path to nullify the constitutional right to choose.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/01/june-medical-services-abortion-end-of-roe.html

 I feel sick. :stillsick:. I knew this would happen if Trump got elected but damn I don't know I just kept quietly  hoping it'd be delayed until after 2020.   I've a little sister in Florida that I love. The thought of her being denied her reproductive rights is.... I don't have words. I'm horrified.  God I pray democrats win this election. I pray that they will nominate someone who can actually win. But I cant say I find it likely. Dammit, God Hate all the left-wingers who smugly threw their vote away just to piss off the establishment

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

Well let’s say In Louisiana [...]

A lot of the advanced analysis has to do with dispensing with this state-by-state whataboutism.  It's all bullshit.  There's been 26 years to try to come up with a way to justify the Perot myth.  None exists.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

Roe v. Wade Is Under Immediate Threat
If the Supreme Court doesn’t stay a Louisiana law next week, states will have a clear path to nullify the constitutional right to choose.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/01/june-medical-services-abortion-end-of-roe.html

That can’t be! Democrats just had a massive victory that every democrat in the country chose to ignore happened (the RHA passed in NY, not that anyone here bothered to notice nor post about it), but which every republican in the country is totally aware of and has been Having Facebook meltdowns over to an unprecedented to my feed degree.

You’re saying that republicans are about to score a gargantuan victory on a signature issue while democrats ignore the very existence of their own victory on the same issue And also allow uncontested nonstop attacks on that single victory they apparently don’t care about and that all of this disproportionate interest is about to result in total victory for republicans? Well I’m shocked, shocked to find that out :-/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lindsey Graham has apparently decided the stakes in the Washington game of chicken weren’t high enough, and is urging Trump to tie in debt limit increase with the border wall dispute. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Lindsey Graham has apparently decided the stakes in the Washington game of chicken weren’t high enough, and is urging Trump to tie in debt limit increase with the border wall dispute. 

Saw this.  It's one of the most ludicrously stupid "stances" I've ever come across.  What happens if we don't raise the debt limit?  The economy goes to shit.  Who gets blamed if the economy goes to shit?  The president and his party.  That's the exact reason the GOP used it as a weapon against Obama.  So fucking stupid, can't stop laughing...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DMC said:

Thinking about it, I think this is not only the best presidential primary field since I've started voting, I think it's my favorite of my lifetime.  The only competition is 2008.  And, yeah, I'd take Obama before any of the current candidates.  But after that?  I always had a distaste for Hillary.  John Edwards always struck me as a sleazy car-salesman (nice way of saying sociopath).  Richardson, Biden, and Dodd were all actually very solid candidates on paper, but never had that umph (and Richardson had other problems).  Now, the list of candidates I'd be perfectly satisfied winning goes Harris, Gillibrand, Beto, Booker, Biden, Castro.  Don't think that list has ever been that long.  And, for comparison's sake, I'd take all six of those over Hillary in 2008.  For the omissions, I'd be very worried about electability if Sanders or Warren got the nomination, which is very unlikely.

I'm of the opinion that among all of the tier one candidates, Warren is the most likely to lose to Trump. She matches up terribly with him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I just assumed, he was as lazy as I am, and that would be too much work. LOL.

Anyway, here is one paper, I know about. 

http://people.umass.edu/schaffne/schaffner_et_al_IDC_conference.pdf

I know there is other stuff out there.

Dude the paper uses an online survey to prove it's point.  One administered by Yougov which actually just surveys its members who are  bribed  to vote  in their surveys. Like literally flat-out bribed "Earn money for answering questions and surveys
Express your opinion about interesting topics
Get your opinion featured in the news" survey.https://today.yougov.com/join-community/   Honestly I dont see how those who think Clinton lost largely because she was a woman see her as being a particularity strong candidate to put forth to face Trump.  

 

1 hour ago, Zorral said:

Just thinking that sexism is defined only as 'hatred' of women shows you know nothing about what the systematic system of sexism is.

Sexism, bigotry, racism all contributed hugely to her defeat.  She also contributed greatly to her defeat, but to say none of these played a significant role is just wrong.  Why do you think we're even having this conversation, or any of the conversations and discussions that have been increasingly frequent since the campaign?Didn't mean to imply hating women is the only type of sexism. Of course you can be sexist without hating one for their sex. The idea of keeping woman women from voting was often pushed out of people simply thinking women weren't equipped to handle such difficult tasks such as voting.   Bigotry played a hand in her defeat. Republicans have been working for years to suppress black and Latino votes  for years. I just have yet to see strong evidence sexism played a huge part in her defeat.

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

Roe v. Wade Is Under Immediate Threat
If the Supreme Court doesn’t stay a Louisiana law next week, states will have a clear path to nullify the constitutional right to choose.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/01/june-medical-services-abortion-end-of-roe.html

I think it's quite possible that Roberts switches his vote. He has some respect for precedent and it's widely known that he doesn't want his court to be remembered for massively overturning ingrained laws (although there are obvious counter-examples to this argument).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Dude the paper uses an online survey to prove it's point.  One administered by Yougov which actually just surveys its members who are  bribed  to vote  in their surveys. Like literally flat-out bribed "Earn money for answering questions and surveys
Express your opinion about interesting topics
Get your opinion featured in the news" survey.https://today.yougov.com/join-community/   Honestly I dont see how those who think Clinton lost largely because she was a woman see her as being a particularity strong candidate to put forth to face Trump.  

 

Here is the data set analyzed by the researchers. It's on page 8:

Quote

To test whether economic dissatisfaction or racist/sexist attitudes explain the education gap among whites, we analyze a nationally representative survey of American adults administered online by YouGov, from October 25th – October 31st, 2016. YouGov uses a
matched sampling approach, which begins with a randomly selected target sample taken from the 2010 American Community Survey. YouGov then matched respondents from their volunteer panel on a variety of characteristics including gender, age, race, education, party identification, deology, and political interest. The survey included interviews with 2,000 American adults, with an oversample of African Americans and Latinos to ensure at least 400 respondents in each of those groups. Propensity score weights accounted for the minority oversamples and were also designed to ensure that the sample was representative of the adult population on age, gender, race/ethnicity, education, ideology, and region.

In short, your objection is pretty much horseshit.

Edited by OldGimletEye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Dude the paper uses an online survey to prove it's point.

A lot of studies do these days.  What's your objection?  Do you dispute the statistical correlations between MTurk surveys and most generally randomized 1,000 samples?  Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

7 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

One administered by Yougov which actually just surveys its members who are  bribed  to vote  in their surveys.

This is a lie.  OMFG.  Your link is to a solicitation for survey takers.

7 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Honestly I dont see how those who think Clinton lost largely because she was a woman see her as being a particularity strong candidate to put forth to face Trump. 

That's because of you.  Which is all about you, and nothing about the fact that sexism had an identifiable impact on the 2016 election.

Edited by DMC
Which not What

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, DMC said:

Saw this.  It's one of the most ludicrously stupid "stances" I've ever come across.  What happens if we don't raise the debt limit?  The economy goes to shit.  Who gets blamed if the economy goes to shit?  The president and his party.  That's the exact reason the GOP used it as a weapon against Obama.  So fucking stupid, can't stop laughing...

Graham’s behaviour has become so increasingly reckless and irrational that I’m actually wondering if something’s wrong with him. But the bad news is Trump hearing he can essentially threaten everything seems like one of those natural fits. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, James Arryn said:

But the bad news is Trump hearing he can essentially threaten everything seems like one of those natural fits.

Yah that's true.  Not sure how much influence Graham actually has though.  This is the guy that Trump gave out his phone number during the primaries.  I don't think Trump respects him.  Nor should he, at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×