2020 Election Thread!!!!!!!!!

[Mouthwash]

A few years ago I read about a few American women - one was a politician, and another was Ann Coulter (I think) who said women shouldn't get to vote. As for Canada, there was a "Nice women don't want the vote" speech made in Parliament (obviously a very long time ago, before we did get the vote).

Ann Coulter has also said, "If you pass amnesty [for illegal immigrants], that's it. It's over. Then we organize the death squads for the people who wrecked America." I think she just might have an inclination for facetiousness.

As for the rest, I'm unwilling to invest energy into finding them. You're making the claim; you have the burden of proof here.

Clinton won the popular vote, yes, I don't dispute that. I have never disputed that.

But you haven't acknowledged (or refuted) the contradiction between it and your own argument, which is that America's failure to elect a woman as president reflects an anti-female bias.

If I criticize you or seriously disagree with you, on the other hand, don't expect a friendly smiley to be included. You've been moving goalposts in this particular conversation and it's annoying.

It's hard to move goalposts if you don't know what they are. For the third time, kindly explain to me what fundraising has to do with your assertion that American presidential elections are gender-biased.

Why would you equate any political party that advocates women's rights to be a "feminist party"? Can't it just be a party that advocates women's rights - along with rights for LGBT, disabled, seniors, disabled, and so on?

I'm using 'feminist party' as a shorthand for parties which advocate feminism. Not something I care to quibble over.

Honestly, you're sounding a bit like some of the right-wing posters on CBC who complain that the women in the federal cabinet only got their jobs because Trudeau promised a gender-balanced cabinet. They keep ranting that cabinet posts should be given on merit, not gender. My standard answer to that is to ask them if they're upset that the men in cabinet only got their jobs because they're men... because after all, Trudeau needed 15 men as well as 15 women.

The expectation was that the men would have gotten a larger share of the cabinet otherwise (not because they were more competent, but because more men were available for those jobs in the first place). My opinion: if there's anything sadder than demanding a profession have exactly the same proportion of genders, it's forcing it to by diktat. And it's an insult to women who've succeeded in politics on their own merit.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Ann Coulter has also said, "If you pass amnesty [for illegal immigrants], that's it. It's over. Then we organize the death squads for the people who wrecked America." I think she just might have an inclination for facetiousness.

By Canadian standards, her greatest inclination is for hate speech.

As for the rest, I'm unwilling to invest energy into finding them. You're making the claim; you have the burden of proof here.

Did I tell you to find them? Mind you, the Heritage Minutes video I had in mind isn't hard to find. It's not like I'm making up Canadian history here.

But you haven't acknowledged (or refuted) the contradiction between it and your own argument, which is that America's failure to elect a woman as president reflects an anti-female bias.



It's hard to move goalposts if you don't know what they are. For the third time, kindly explain to me what fundraising has to do with your assertion that American presidential elections are gender-biased.

You're the one who kept bringing up fundraising.

I'm using 'feminist party' as a shorthand for parties which advocate feminism. Not something I care to quibble over.

So stop ascribing qualities and traits to Canadian political parties if you're not going to listen to a Canadian explain why you're misunderstanding that part of the issue.

The expectation was that the men would have gotten a larger share of the cabinet otherwise (not because they were more competent, but because more men were available for those jobs in the first place). My opinion: if there's anything sadder than demanding a profession have exactly the same proportion of genders, it's forcing it to by diktat. And it's an insult to women who've succeeded in politics on their own merit.

You're essentially assuming that none of the 15 women in the cabinet were qualified, and only got those jobs because they were female. I'm turning it around and asking if you think the same about the men - because after all, Trudeau wanted 15 women and 15 men. He could have had all 30 positions filled by women if he'd wanted to.

But there's this thing about cabinets: They get shuffled periodically, and ministers sometimes get promoted, demoted, shuffled to a different portfolio, or dropped entirely. Some MPs do get promoted from the backbenches to cabinet. That's what happened with the recent shuffle last week, and holy crap, the Reformacons are screeching about it. How dare Trudeau promote a man born in Somalia, who came to Canada at age 16, and worked hard to put himself through school and university and get a job with relevant work experience for his new portfolio to the position of immigration minister? The way they carry on, Canada will soon be overrun with Somali immigrants, and then they say they're "afraid." They're afraid of people with different religions, different skin color, different modes of dress, different this-that-and-the-other... sheesh.

 

[Mouthwash]

By Canadian standards, her greatest inclination is for hate speech.

But still, it's hardly plausible to me that Coulter's threat to kill political opponents should be taken at face value. Therefore, neither should her claim that women shouldn't vote.

Did I tell you to find them?

If you aren't expecting me to find them, why bring them up? What value could the possibly have for the discussion?

Mind you, the Heritage Minutes video I had in mind isn't hard to find. It's not like I'm making up Canadian history here.

I don't really see what a political opinion made in Canada over a century has to do with the modern American attitude towards women.

You're the one who kept bringing up fundraising.

I did not mention fundraising whatsoever until you did... I'm not sure what you're smoking, but pass some of that #@*% over here.

So stop ascribing qualities and traits to Canadian political parties if you're not going to listen to a Canadian explain why you're misunderstanding that part of the issue.

But my point about parliaments being more likely to produce female premiers stands unrefuted, and that's the only thing I care to argue here. Sorry.

You're essentially assuming that none of the 15 women in the cabinet were qualified, and only got those jobs because they were female.

Uh, no. I'm sure they were qualified, but the fact remains that some of them wouldn't have their jobs if not for gender-based discrimination (yes, denying men jobs because you don't have enough women to your liking is discrimination).

I'm turning it around and asking if you think the same about the men - because after all, Trudeau wanted 15 women and 15 men. He could have had all 30 positions filled by women if he'd wanted to.

Not if he wanted to stay in power. This was a political maneuver, y'know?

But there's this thing about cabinets: They get shuffled periodically, and ministers sometimes get promoted, demoted, shuffled to a different portfolio, or dropped entirely. Some MPs do get promoted from the backbenches to cabinet. That's what happened with the recent shuffle last week, and holy crap, the Reformacons are screeching about it. How dare Trudeau promote a man born in Somalia, who came to Canada at age 16, and worked hard to put himself through school and university and get a job with relevant work experience for his new portfolio to the position of immigration minister?

I don't have a problem with that. Likewise, I don't have a problem with stopping men from occupying roles that deal specifically with women's issues. I do have a problem with a woman becoming minister of foreign affairs solely because of her gender.

 

[JollyRoger]

I confess that I am gender specific in choosing who to bed down with, but I guess others feel that such as selection bias is a problem.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Well, I get what you're saying but its not exactly on point... I mean you did say something like "feel free to argue with his statistical analysis" but my point is there was no "statistical analysis" despite him using the word "statistical" in his post. There was nothing but self-serving anecdotes...

Well I'm sure I said something about questioning the validity of the statistical analysis as well, which I think is the same thing. If I could go back I would alter my analogy so that the cause of death was not "strangled by a kettle cord" but was instead something like "cancer" or "heart disease". That would mean that the conclusions of that "statistical analysis" would be complete poppycock, but it would still be a different statement to "I've never seen it so it never happens".

Again, I know you dont feel like going back to read what he actually posted so unfortunately you're just going to have to take my word for it. His post has no "statistical analysis" or anything like it.

It wasn't that, I was just on my phone at the time and jumping about between pages is not that much fun on there. I can remember well enough what he said though, and I'm not arguing that it was a robust statistical analysis (again that falls under my "question the validity of his analysis" statement), just that he made the claim that it was. That's not the same as claiming "I've never seen it so it doesn't happen", so just telling him that it is isn't going to achieve anything. Whereas if you point out what's actually wrong with what he said then he may concede it, or at least agree to disagree.

 

[Sommerswerd]

If that's a joke, it's in poor taste. The word mainstream was used to exclude such idiots. The left has its fair share.

Why do you think this is tangent? It was central to the recent election.

The words "mainstream" and "semi-mainstream" are subjective and just as I anticipated, are being interpreted (by you in this instance) in a self-serving way. That is precisely the reason that I tried to lay down some parameters of what kinds of people we are including. I was fairly certain (and you have verified my suspicions) that anyone I named who fit the bill would be arbitrarily dismissed as "non-mainstream". In other words, you ask me to name an "mainstream or semi-mainstream, openly bigoted, Republican", I name one, and you immediately fall back on "Oh well he doesn't count, cause he's obviously not 'mainstream' (whatever that means)." Essentially, you are once again claiming that there has been a "false accusation of racism" against Republicans by naming Duke as one.

To put an even finer point on it... you, like Mouthwash, are ideologically and emotionally committed to the position that Republicans/conservatives aren't sexist/racist/bigoted etc. Therefore its impossible for there to be any Republican that fits into those parameters. Therefore, anyone who fits into those parameters cannot possibly be a "real" or "mainstream" or "semi-mainstream" Republican/conservative, and naming one of those people as Republicans amounts to a "false accusation of racism" against Republicans... please... I'm not riding that cognitive dissonance merry-go-round with you...David Duke has been elected to and held National office as a Republican and still identifies as Republican. He got national media attention for endorsing the President elect, so much so in fact that the way the President elect dealt with the endorsement was national news for months. The fact that you consider it inconvenient that Duke is a famous, easily recognized Republican is your own personal issue that you have to work out in your own way.

And this is a tangent because the real topic here is sexism/misogyny and how it might impact the 2020 election, specifically whether the Democrats should be taking that into account in deciding whether to nominate a woman or not. "False accusations of racism/bigotry against Republicans" is not the topic... and your attempt to steer the discussion into that topic (like you always do) is a tangent.

 

[sophie]

What about Mike Huckabee?

Pat McCrory?

Todd Akin?

Rick Santorum?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

But still, it's hardly plausible to me that Coulter's threat to kill political opponents should be taken at face value. Therefore, neither should her claim that women shouldn't vote.

Oh, please. Are you going to tell me that the agencies responsible for the applicable politician's safety aren't going to investigate people when they start making threats of assassination, or inciting others to commit an assassination?

There is no way to brush off that awful woman's hate speech as "Oh, that's just Ann, isn't she cute?". There was considerable opposition to her making a public speech at a university in Canada some years ago, precisely because some of what she planned to say would have contravened our hate laws.

As for her "women shouldn't vote" nonsense... is she saying she never votes? If she does vote, is she willing to give that up? Or is it only Democratic/Other women voters she wants to disenfranchise? She's not the only Republican woman I ever heard say that.

If you aren't expecting me to find them, why bring them up? What value could the possibly have for the discussion?

I don't really see what a political opinion made in Canada over a century has to do with the modern American attitude towards women.

Oh, do excuse me for bringing Canada into this. It happens to be the country I live in, it's where I vote, and there are considerable economic and social ties between our respective countries. What happens in yours can often affect ours in profound ways, such as all the hateful crap your soon-to-be president Trump has been spewing for the past year and more. The fact that nobody dares tell him that this sort of thing is inappropriate for a presidential candidate - and particularly for one that did get elected - is, as Meryl Streep said in her speech, a way of giving permission for everyone else to be just as hateful, unreasonable, and downright childishly petulant.

The gist of what I was talking about is "Nice women don't want the vote." The attitude of the men who sought to deny them the vote was that it would lead to trouble in the home, women being distracted by politics when they should be home cooking, cleaning, and having babies, and there would be an increase in divorces. Oddly enough, I've seen and heard similar sentiments from some of your modern American politicians, within the past 5 years.

I did not mention fundraising whatsoever until you did... I'm not sure what you're smoking, but pass some of that #@*% over here.

Please stop with the insults. They're not going to convince me you're right.

And re-read the post of yours that I quoted. You're the one who mentioned "financial backing." To me, that means fundraising.

But my point about parliaments being more likely to produce female premiers stands unrefuted, and that's the only thing I care to argue here. Sorry.

In other words, "I'm more qualified to discuss Canadian political parties than you are, even though you're Canadian and have been voting for 35+ years and I'm not, and you've already explained to me why I'm wrong but I won't accept it just because."

Okay, got it.

Uh, no. I'm sure they were qualified, but the fact remains that some of them wouldn't have their jobs if not for gender-based discrimination (yes, denying men jobs because you don't have enough women to your liking is discrimination).

And you know this... how? I'm not privy as to why Trudeau chose all the people he chose; I hadn't heard of most of them, and still can't name most of his cabinet. I happen to agree with the Reformacons that there's one female cabinet minister who should have been demoted to the backbenches for ineptness on the democratic reform portfolio, but he's giving her another chance in another portfolio. If she screws that one up as well, I can't see anyone wanting her to remain in cabinet.

As I mentioned: CABINET SHUFFLE. I don't know how it's done in American politics, but in Canadian politics, at both provincial and federal levels, they're common and happen once a year, on average. Some ministers either underperform or get into hot water and get demoted to a lesser portfolio or to the backbenches and out of cabinet entirely. Others show that they're capable of more responsibility, so they get promoted. Some have expertise that may be needed in another portfolio so they get moved sideways. Sometimes it's a backbencher who gets promoted to cabinet. It's a normal thing, and those poor, pitiful male MPs who you're essentially saying were screwed out of a chance at cabinet because some WOMAN ( ) was in the way actually have an excellent chance at serving in cabinet.

The three who were shuffled out of cabinet last week were one woman and two men. The men were offered ambassadorships to the EU and China, while the woman was demoted to the backbenches. The men were replaced by other men - one from within cabinet and the other from the backbenches. The woman was replaced by another woman already in cabinet, and there was a bit of sideways shuffling going on there. The cabinet remains gender-balanced, with the new ministers hopefully able to do a better job than their predecessors.

Not if he wanted to stay in power. This was a political maneuver, y'know?

Yes, I'm aware of that. Thank you. It was probably the easiest of his campaign promises to keep, and if he had bailed on it, he'd have been called a liar from the get-go.

I don't have a problem with that. Likewise, I don't have a problem with stopping men from occupying roles that deal specifically with women's issues. I do have a problem with a woman becoming minister of foreign affairs solely because of her gender.

Who said it was because of her gender? There are many ways to shuffle a cabinet. But someone who is multilingual (fluent in more than English and French) is a bonus for such a position.

 

[Mouthwash]

To put an even finer point on it... you, like Mouthwash, are ideologically and emotionally committed to the position that Republicans/conservatives aren't sexist/racist/bigoted etc. Therefore its impossible for there to be any Republican that fits into those parameters. Therefore, anyone who fits into those parameters cannot possibly be a "real" or "mainstream" or "semi-mainstream" Republican/conservative, and naming one of those people as Republicans amounts to a "false accusation of racism" against Republicans... please... I'm not riding that cognitive dissonance merry-go-round with you...

I asked you to provide examples of Republicans who think women are better off cooking and cleaning than running for office, and your response is "well you're just so biased you could never admit this is true?" Yeah, I will not be responding to any more of your posts.

He got national media attention for endorsing the President elect, so much so in fact that the way the President elect dealt with the endorsement was national news for months.

Because the left-wing media made it national news. Did you see Fox or Breitbart babbling endlessly about the Trump-Duke connection?

What about Mike Huckabee?

Pat McCrory?

Todd Akin?

Rick Santorum?

What about them?

Oh, please. Are you going to tell me that the agencies responsible for the applicable politician's safety aren't going to investigate people when they start making threats of assassination, or inciting others to commit an assassination?

Sure, but it's their job to be super paranoid. I'm surely not the only one who remembers Eminem being investigated for threatening to kill George Dubya.

There is no way to brush off that awful woman's hate speech as "Oh, that's just Ann, isn't she cute?". There was considerable opposition to her making a public speech at a university in Canada some years ago, precisely because some of what she planned to say would have contravened our hate laws.

I didn't say it was 'cute.' It's designed to shock and outrage liberals who are only too eager to believe that this is how the other side really thinks.

As for her "women shouldn't vote" nonsense... is she saying she never votes? If she does vote, is she willing to give that up? Or is it only Democratic/Other women voters she wants to disenfranchise?

Funny, it's almost as if she.. wasn't being serious when she said it.

Oh, do excuse me for bringing Canada into this. It happens to be the country I live in, it's where I vote, and there are considerable economic and social ties between our respective countries. What happens in yours can often affect ours in profound ways, such as all the hateful crap your soon-to-be president Trump has been spewing for the past year and more. The fact that nobody dares tell him that this sort of thing is inappropriate for a presidential candidate

No one except for literally the entire left for the past year or so?

The gist of what I was talking about is "Nice women don't want the vote." The attitude of the men who sought to deny them the vote was that it would lead to trouble in the home, women being distracted by politics when they should be home cooking, cleaning, and having babies, and there would be an increase in divorces. Oddly enough, I've seen and heard similar sentiments from some of your modern American politicians, within the past 5 years.

Since we're having an argument here it would be nice if you could actually name those politicians and link to their quotes, but I'm thinking that's not going to happen.

Please stop with the insults. They're not going to convince me you're right.

If only my arguments would.

And re-read the post of yours that I quoted. You're the one who mentioned "financial backing." To me, that means fundraising.

Yes, you're right, but I still don't see what fundraising has to do with sexism in politics. Clearly, you don't either.

In other words, "I'm more qualified to discuss Canadian political parties than you are, even though you're Canadian and have been voting for 35+ years and I'm not, and you've already explained to me why I'm wrong but I won't accept it just because."

It's a logical assumption based on how parliaments work. If your response to that is "you think you know my country's politics better than me!?" than you are simply incapable of engaging in rational discussion.

And you know this... how?

Because Trudeau explicitly said he would have a gender-balanced cabinet. I suppose it's theoretically possible that he just happened to think, by coincidence, that the most qualified people were evenly split across gender (or that more of them were women) but it doesn't seem likely.

I'm not privy as to why Trudeau chose all the people he chose; I hadn't heard of most of them, and still can't name most of his cabinet. I happen to agree with the Reformacons that there's one female cabinet minister who should have been demoted to the backbenches for ineptness on the democratic reform portfolio, but he's giving her another chance in another portfolio. If she screws that one up as well, I can't see anyone wanting her to remain in cabinet.

And if she gets fired, she will be replaced by another woman, because anything else would be sexist.

 

[sophie]

What about them?

Mainstream Republican bigots.

 

[Mouthwash]

And, I assume, opponents of females being in politics? Because I'm not really seeing your point otherwise.

 

[astrallite]

A few years ago I read about a few American women - one was a politician, and another was Ann Coulter (I think) who said women shouldn't get to vote. As for Canada, there was a "Nice women don't want the vote" speech made in Parliament (obviously a very long time ago, before we did get the vote).

Ann Coulter did clarify what she meant was any individuals receiving net benefits from government shouldn't vote, so it sounds more like the old conservative argument against women voting, which is if single women get to vote, then the government just becomes a substitute for a husband/breadwinner. Presumably this is a demographic argument, which is if the system disincentivizes marriage, the basis of the welfare pyramid (you can't balance the budget of any modern welfare state without a ponzi scheme of population growth), then the system will eventually collapse.

Of course this is why every Western nation is importing 3rd world workers at an accelerating rate, when government creates one hole on the ship it patches it up while making another one bigger.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Sure, but it's their job to be super paranoid. I'm surely not the only one who remembers Eminem being investigated for threatening to kill George Dubya.

Yes, there are times when overreactions happen. Thank goodness we got rid of the PM who was too scared to get anywhere near any common citizen who wasn't thoroughly vetted as a Conservative Party of Canada member and wearing a bracelet to say so (no, I am not exaggerating). Harper sicced the cops on people from This Hour Has 22 Minutes - a political satire show that often does spontaneous mock interviews with politicians, or asks them questions. Pretty much all the federal politicians go along with them and are good sports about it (it's publicity they'd have to pay good money for otherwise, but are getting it free during these segments), but not Stephen Harper...

But Ann Coulter is not saying these things in good fun or sportsmanship, and she threw a fit when told that no, she couldn't incite hatred toward minorities in her speech at the Canadian university, and that we have laws against that sort of thing. Anyone doing it "in fun" would just have said, "Okay, I'll change my speech" and been done with it.

I didn't say it was 'cute.' It's designed to shock and outrage liberals who are only too eager to believe that this is how the other side really thinks.

Since I've read about and heard other Republican politicians and "news" anchors say very similar things, you're never going to convince me that she's the only one who says these things.

We get saturated with American news here. And much of it is just tabloid crap, and an absolute hate-fest. I honestly worry about what's in the drinking water down there sometimes.

Not that it's all roses and sunshine here; I haven't visited CBC.ca yet today, but I know the comments will be full of "Trudeau is destroying this country, he put a Somali man in cabinet, be afraid!!!!!" and "Stephen Harper was a saint" and "Kellie Leitch is right!" and I'll be disgusted all over again.

Funny, it's almost as if she.. wasn't being serious when she said it.

Fine. Link me to where she said it was a joke. She sounded serious to me, and so did the others who said similar things. It's like the Tea Party down there is using The Handmaid's Tale as a how-to book on setting up a fascist country (not accusing them of planning to name it the Republic of Gilead).

No one except for literally the entire left for the past year or so?

As if he's going to listen to them. Why hasn't the right said anything?

Oh, of course. They're expecting cushy jobs, so naturally they won't remind him that he's behaving like a spoiled 5-year-old and he needs to grow the hell up and behave like an adult with a tiny bit of dignity. At least have some respect for the job he applied for.

If only my arguments would.

Since you're either genuinely or deliberately misunderstanding me on a consistent basis, I doubt they will.

Yes, you're right, but I still don't see what fundraising has to do with sexism in politics. Clearly, you don't either.

What is so hard about the concept of "I'm not gonna give a donation to a woman candidate!"?

It's a logical assumption based on how parliaments work. If your response to that is "you think you know my country's politics better than me!?" than you are simply incapable of engaging in rational discussion.

Considering that this has been your attitude during this conversation, it's a perfectly reasonable conclusion to reach.

I've been following politics since before I was a teenager. I felt ready to vote at age 16, but the laws don't allow that. So I looked forward to my 18th birthday, not because I'd be allowed into a bar or liquor store, but because I'd be able to vote. I've exercised that right, and have sometimes had to get very firm with various Returning Officers in order to exercise my rights that I'm allowed as a physically disabled voter (I wasn't always in this situation; just in the last 20 years). I've been an election worker at the municipal and federal levels, and have supported several parties during this time (never financially).

So of course, you're going to post stuff here that is... I dunno... "Americanmansplaining" to me how things are here? That's what it looks like to me, at this point.

Because Trudeau explicitly said he would have a gender-balanced cabinet. I suppose it's theoretically possible that he just happened to think, by coincidence, that the most qualified people were evenly split across gender (or that more of them were women) but it doesn't seem likely.

Why don't you try to accept that due to cabinet shuffles, the people who haven't yet been in cabinet will still have the opportunity to be considered? ALL cabinets in Canadian politics have to take into account gender, ethnicity, and which region the potential ministers are from. That's why Rona Ambrose (currently the interim leader of the Conservative Party until they choose the official leader later this year) ended up as the Minister of the Environment at one point during Stephen Harper's first term. She didn't know a damn thing about science, but her promotion fulfilled two boxes Harper had to tick off: Albertan and female. Never mind that another Albertan MP was available who happened to have a degree in biology and other sciences related to the environment. But he was male, so he was passed over. He never did get into cabinet. Years later, Harper had a Science Minister who believed that Earth is only 6000 years old.

The difference with Trudeau's cabinet choices is that the people chosen actually have some relevant education, job, or life experience related to the positions they're appointed to.

And if she gets fired, she will be replaced by another woman, because anything else would be sexist.

She could always be replaced by a man, and an outgoing male cabinet minister could be replaced by a woman. We'll have to wait and see if Trudeau manages to keep cabinet balanced throughout his mandate.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I asked you to provide examples of Republicans who think women are better off cooking and cleaning than running for office, and your response is "well you're just so biased you could never admit this is true?" Yeah, I will not be responding to any more of your posts.

What?? This comment is surreal... almost like I'm talking to two different people... You specifically said the opposite of this. You specifically said that you would ABSOLUTELY NOT accept a example of a Republican saying women are "better off cooking" as an example of sexism/misogyny and then went on to try and justify that position. Here are your own words:

Absolutely not. Even saying something something like "Hillary is better off cooking for the president instead of being one" isn't evidence that someone doesn't think women are fit to run (it usually just means that they already hate that person and will use whatever kind of abuse they can). I want a quote of someone actually saying that women don't belong in public office, or arguing that female politicians are less competent.

So first you say "I won't accept examples of people saying 'Hillary is better off cooking' as evidence of sexism/misogyny"... then you say "I told you I wanted an example of someone saying 'women are better off cooking' and you refused to give it so no more talking to you" I just honestly don't believe I can penetrate that level of doublespeak/doublethink and I said as much. If that means you give up talking to me, then fine, I accept your surrender, I guess?

 

[Mouthwash]

But Ann Coulter is not saying these things in good fun or sportsmanship, and she threw a fit when told that no, she couldn't incite hatred toward minorities in her speech at the Canadian university, and that we have laws against that sort of thing. Anyone doing it "in fun" would just have said, "Okay, I'll change my speech" and been done with it.

I didn't say that Ann Coulter's entire platform was a satire, I said that some specific comments about organizing death squads for liberals or stopping women from voting probably aren't indicative of what she and her followers actually believe.

What is so hard about the concept of "I'm not gonna give a donation to a woman candidate!"?

I asked you this two pages ago: "What in the world are you trying to say here? Is it that women get less fundraising than men?"

You've managed to avoid making any kind of argument whatsoever in the interim. This will be my last response to you on this thread unless you make one.

So of course, you're going to post stuff here that is... I dunno... "Americanmansplaining" to me how things are here? That's what it looks like to me, at this point.

Nothing like a gender-based putdown to show how very nonsexist you are.

What?? This comment is surreal... almost like I'm talking to two different people... You specifically said the opposite of this. You specifically said that you would ABSOLUTELY NOT accept a example of a Republican saying women are "better off cooking" as an example of sexism/misogyny and then went on to try and justify that position.

No, I said I wouldn't accept any examples of Republicans saying Hillary was better off cooking and cleaning. Meaning an insult directed at a specific person.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I didn't say that Ann Coulter's entire platform was a satire, I said that some specific comments about organizing death squads for liberals or stopping women from voting probably aren't indicative of what she and her followers actually believe.

"Probably."

One thing I've learned is that you can't assume the most outrageous things aren't the ones that end up being true. I should think you might have learned that as well. After all, look at the loudmouthed, misogynistic, bigoted, overgrown narcissistic brat you're going to have as your president in a few days.

I asked you this two pages ago: "What in the world are you trying to say here? Is it that women get less fundraising than men?"

You have managed to avoid making any kind of argument whatsoever in all of your posts. This will be my last response to you on this thread unless you make one.

I thought my last answer was plain enough. And yes, let's do stop this ridiculous back-and-forth in this thread, since you keep choosing to misunderstand me and move goalposts.

Nothing like a gender-based putdown to show how very nonsexist you are.

If you don't want the label, stop doing the behavior that merits it. I don't tell you that I know more about your politics than you do, right? So stop with your "feminist parties" nonsense. If there are any such thing, they would so fringe that I wouldn't have heard of them.

Considering the gender-based crap that's going on now in my province's politics - some people referring to our premier as "Blondie" instead of her name (Rachel Notley), and harassing the two female candidates for leader of the provincial Conservative Party to the point where they both dropped out (one crossed the floor to join the NDP) - "feminist parties" as you described them seems to be the last thing that's going on here these days.

 

[onejayhawk]

The words "mainstream" and "semi-mainstream" are subjective and just as I anticipated, are being interpreted (by you in this instance) in a self-serving way.

This is not just BS, it seems to be intentionally insulting BS. Show me any following of Duke's that would allow you to characterize him as even marginally mainstream. He is a pet of the left, not the right.

I am not committed to the position that Republicans and the right are not bigots, whatever the flavor. I am committed to the position that their offal smells no worse than the Democrats and the left. This constant barrage of accusations that the Republicans stink worse is off base.

J

 

[Sommerswerd]

This is not just BS, it seems to be intentionally insulting BS. Show me any following of Duke's that would allow you to characterize him as even marginally mainstream.

"intentionally insulting" to who? You're not a Republican, you've made that repeatedly clear... so you can't start claiming offense on behalf of them now. As for your invitation for me to start looking up David Duke followers... I'll pass. There's no need. They're Republicans... he is a Republican.

I am committed to the position that their offal smells no worse than the Democrats and the left. This constant barrage of accusations that the Republicans stink worse is off base.

What "constant barrage"? In the current conversation about the current topic? Or is this you once again trying to make this conversation about something else, ie your "false accusations against Republicans" topic? Windmills J... windmills...

The Democrats failed to elect Hillary, not the Republicans. The Republicans have a straightforward excuse for voting for Trump... he was the Republican nominee. Hilary wasn't their problem. Trump will presumably be the next Republican nominee and even if by some bizarre circumstance he isn't, it will be Pence. The question of nominating a woman in 2020 is solely an issue for the Democrats to consider. "False accusations against the Republicans" isn't remotely relevant to this issue, no matter how badly you want it to be. The issue is whether the Democrats will/should nominate a woman.

 

[onejayhawk]

"intentionally insulting" to who? You're not a Republican, you've made that repeatedly clear... so you can't start claiming offense on behalf of them now. As for your invitation for me to start looking up David Duke followers... I'll pass. There's no need. They're Republicans... he is a Republican. What "constant barrage"? In the current conversation about the current topic? Or is this you once again trying to make this conversation about something else, ie your "false accusations against Republicans" topic? Windmills J... windmills...

The Democrats failed to elect Hillary, not the Republicans. The Republicans have a straightforward excuse for voting for Trump... he was the Republican nominee. Hilary wasn't their problem. Trump will presumably be the next Republican nominee and even if by some bizarre circumstance he isn't, it will be Pence. The question of nominating a woman in 2020 is solely an issue for the Democrats to consider. "False accusations against the Republicans" isn't remotely relevant to this issue, no matter how badly you want it to be. The issue is whether the Democrats will/should nominate a woman.

To me personally. I was the person you made the accusation against.

J

 

[Sommerswerd]

To me personally. I was the person you made the accusation against.

What accusation? That you chose an interpretation of "semi-mainstream" that best served the point you were trying to make? If that is what you found insulting... I don't know what to tell you... On the other hand if what you're really insulted about is you saw my comment as a "false accusation of racism against J" (which it was not, as demonstrated below)... I will again refer you to the famous Don and his famous windmills...

To summarize... Mouthwash says "Name me a semi-mainstream Republican who does X." I say "define semi-mainstream." You say "I agree with Mouthwash. Hillary is Y, name a semi-mainstream Republican who is Y" I say "Fine, David Duke is a famous Republican who is Y." You say "David Duke is an idiot so he doesn't count, I define mainstream as excluding him." I say "I don't, he's a high profile Republican. You're only excluding him because it destroys your argument, which is a self-serving tactic." You say "I'm offended by your false accusation of racism."

Again I say... windmills.