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

[onejayhawk]

I don't think it has been mentioned yet and it should be. Cory Booker attacked Jeff Sessions in his confirmation hearings. Since both Sessions and Booker are sitting Senators, this is break with usual practices.

Booker is one of the names that is tossed about for the Democratic nomination in 2020. This may be his first trial balloon.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/11/politics/cory-booker-testify-against-jeff-sessions/

He's not the only one"
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...ings_as_springboard_for_2018_2020_132767.html

J

 

[Sommerswerd]

But how do you really know that? Some politicians fake it because they realize that the country isn't ready to accept a leader who doesn't believe in the supernatural. That's true here in Canada as well, btw. While there are quite a few openly gay/lesbian politicians here now, I know of no openly atheist politicians. That doesn't mean there aren't some who have kept quiet so far.

You're missing the point. The fact that everyone must act like they are Christian, whether they are or not is the entire point. Also...what happens in Canada isn't really relevant to this topic... afterall, as you say, Canada is much more "mature" than the US.

And that's your "evidence" - because of men complaining and writing songs? Newsflash: women complain about men, write songs about how untruthful and untrustworthy men are, they write poetry... and sometimes they're not even adult women. Marie Osmond was only 14 when she recorded "Paper Roses".

Now you're just picking fights... I know this, because I gave more examples, which you are apparently ignoring, (despite the fact that I'm almost certain you agree with some of them) because you are specifically trying to pick a fight.

Also, here's a "newsflash" for you: the fact that women write songs complaining about men is totally irrelevant, because it doesn't change or address the argument that men don't trust women. You don't see that, because you saw "duplicitous nature of women" and immediately saw red... now you're trying to argue that "men are just as bad" or "women don't trust men too!"...Irrelevant... Your argument is a total red herring. We are talking about why the US has never elected a woman POTUS. One argument is "its just about Hillary", my argument is "no its something deeper towards women in general" I said, "for one thing Americans, men in particular, don't trust women"... and your response is "Marie Osmond wrote Paper roses when she was 14! That proves that women don't trust men!" What?? What the heck are you talking about??

Funny... other countries manage it. Canada had our first female Prime Minister over 23 years ago. The Conservative Party of Canada is having a leadership race right now, and several candidates are women. That said, the only highly-placed female member of that party that people might generally consider as a real contender for Prime Minister is one who isn't running... because she's the interim leader and the rules forbid her to run for the official leadership. I think if Rona Ambrose were able to run for leader, she'd win in a cakewalk, and right-wing voters wouldn't have a problem with her if she were to become Prime Minister.* *Note that I'm saying what it's logical to assume the Conservatives would think and do. Personally I can't stand her. Fine, here it goes:
Dear U.S.A.:
Grow up.
Signed,
Canada

Here it goes... Dear Valka, Nobody cares about Canada. Canada is irrelevant to this topic, sorry. Signed Sommers.

EDIT: Hmmm, I think I get what is going on. I went back and looked again... You (Valka) think that I (Sommers) personally believe that women are untrustworthy, duplicitous, etc. That's what this is about. So no, I don't believe that. The argument I am making is that distrust towards women, particularly as POTUS, is a general sentiment in the US electorate (that I do not share). It is ingrained in our culture, and religion and I think it is effecting our POTUS elections historically and presently.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

You're missing the point. The fact that everyone must act like they are Christian, whether they are or not is the entire point. Also...what happens in Canada isn't really relevant to this topic... afterall, as you say, Canada is much more "mature" than the US.
Now you're just picking fights... I know this, because I gave more examples, which you are apparently ignoring, (despite the fact that I'm almost certain you agree with some of them) because you are specifically trying to pick a fight.

Also, here's a "newsflash" for you: the fact that women write songs complaining about men is totally irrelevant, because it doesn't change or address the argument that men don't trust women. You don't see that, because you saw "duplicitous nature of women" and immediately saw red... now you're trying to argue that "men are just as bad" or "women don't trust men too!"...Irrelevant... Your argument is a total red herring. We are talking about why the US has never elected a woman POTUS. One argument is "its just about Hillary", my argument is "no its something deeper towards women in general" I said, "for one thing Americans, men in particular, don't trust women"... and your response is "Marie Osmond wrote Paper roses when she was 14! That proves that women don't trust men!" What?? What the heck are you talking about?? Here it goes... Dear Valka, Nobody cares about Canada. Canada is irrelevant to this topic, sorry. Signed Sommers.

EDIT: Hmmm, I think I get what is going on. I went back and looked again... You (Valka) think that I (Sommers) personally believe that women are untrustworthy, duplicitous, etc. That's what this is about. So no, I don't believe that. The argument I am making is that distrust towards women, particularly as POTUS, is a general sentiment in the US electorate (that I do not share). It is ingrained in our culture, and religion and I think it is effecting our POTUS elections historically and presently.

You didn't post as though you understood that politicians have to act as though they're Christians. You made it sound as though there just aren't any non-religious politicians, period. So it turns out that we're really not disagreeing on that point.

And yes, Canada does matter to the U.S. After all, we've got oil here (yes, not as much as the Middle East does and you've got some too, but still...), and lots of lovely fresh water that some of your states would just love to have, and to hell with Canadians needing it ourselves.

My point about Marie Osmond is that it's in response to your "men write songs, blah-blah-blah...". You act as though the reverse isn't true.

Yes, I get that many people didn't like Hillary Clinton, specifically. But what on Earth is preventing you people from even considering a woman at all? This "songs and poetry" excuse is just pathetic.

Sommerswerd, Canada is laughing at the U.S. because of this "oh noes, we can't have a WOMAN in charge!!! " attitude.

 

[Sommerswerd]

You didn't post as though you understood that politicians have to act as though they're Christians. You made it sound as though there just aren't any non-religious politicians, period. So it turns out that we're really not disagreeing on that point. And yes, Canada does matter to the U.S. After all, we've got oil here (yes, not as much as the Middle East does and you've got some too, but still...), and lots of lovely fresh water that some of your states would just love to have, and to hell with Canadians needing it ourselves. My point about Marie Osmond is that it's in response to your "men write songs, blah-blah-blah...". You act as though the reverse isn't true. Yes, I get that many people didn't like Hillary Clinton, specifically. But what on Earth is preventing you people from even considering a woman at all? This "songs and poetry" excuse is just pathetic. Sommerswerd, Canada is laughing at the U.S. because of this "oh noes, we can't have a WOMAN in charge!!! " attitude.

I think I have enough posts for folks (including you) to know that I believe that many politicians are closet Atheists, Agnostics, (or as J says "Apathetics"). I have said as much explicitly multiple times so I'm thinking you should know this about me as well by now... but whateves, yes we agree, fine.
And yes US luvs Canada. Canadian Lives Matter! I agree that Canada matters Valka, just not on this topic... again, as I clearly stated.

I completely understood your Marie Osmond point. It was irrelevant. It still is. It is of course, obviously correct. Again, you are 100% correct Valka, that women write just as many songs bashing men as men write bashing women, maybe more. Your point wasn't wrong, it was right. It was just irrelevant. And it's not an "excuse", its just an example.... of one, just one of the many ways the distrust of women is ingrained in American culture. I gave other examples. To repeat... I am not saying that distrusting women is justified just because some guy wrote a song about it... I am saying that not trusting (not respecting) women is something you learn in America culture, pop, religious, etc. You still seem to not be grasping that.

And yes, not just Canada, the world is laughing at America. I am embarrassed frankly at the result of this election, and I am trying to learn from it, by discussing it with you fine folks. One of the things I am trying to learn is why the heck we can't elect a woman POTUS. Your answer seemed to be something along the lines of "cause you're a bunch of children that need to grow up." That's fine, but I'd like to hear some other ideas too.

 

[Mouthwash]

Yes, I get that many people didn't like Hillary Clinton, specifically. But what on Earth is preventing you people from even considering a woman at all? This "songs and poetry" excuse is just pathetic.

Sommerswerd, Canada is laughing at the U.S. because of this "oh noes, we can't have a WOMAN in charge!!! " attitude.

I've never encountered any such attitude in my life. Not in the media, not in religion, and not in my many interactions with (extremely conservative) Christians and Jews.

"One thing I notice about Israelis is that they're laughing at Canada's annual mass virgin sacrifices to Lucifer. They just think it's so backwards!"

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I've never encountered any such attitude in my life. Not in the media, not in religion, and not in my many interactions with (extremely conservative) Christians and Jews.

"One thing I notice about Israelis is that they're laughing at Canada's annual mass virgin sacrifices to Lucifer. They just think it's so backwards!"

What does this even mean?

 

[Lexicus]

What does this even mean?

He is saying that because he has never seen that attitude it can't exist and making fun of your argument with this joke about Israelis laughing at Canadians for doing something they don't, in fact, do.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

It's a fact that there has never been a female U.S. president. Many Canadians are baffled as to why, when there are obviously some very well-qualified women who could do the job.

The "men distrust women in authority" seems a really weak excuse, considering all the countries in the world that have had female leaders. Obviously enough men voted for these women to allow them to be elected. So why can't the U.S. manage that?

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

I mean, men in the US got all riled up about women in combat, much less being the commander of all of those who do so.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Not just men, women... but more importantly, we're talking about American men and American women not just men or women in general.

And it makes perfect sense to me that this would be baffling to Canadians and other countries, because as I keep saying, I suspect this phenomenon is specifically related to characteristics of American culture.

@GEFM - Yes thank you, exactly... another great example...

 

[danjuno]

Booker is anathema to Bernie supporters and other populist and liberal types for defending Bain Capital in 2012. He compared the attacks on Romney's association with Bain to the attacks on Obama's association with Jeremiah Wright. His primary opponents, not to mention Donnie Boy, would have a field day.

 

[Mouthwash]

What does this even mean?

I mean that the American distaste for women being in charge is about as real as Canada's virgin sacrifices to the Prince of Darkness.

He is saying that because he has never seen that attitude it can't exist

I have a pretty good statistical sampling of attitudes among the religious right. I've also read through plenty of hardcore conservative articles, books and websites. If this exists, and is pervasive enough to prevent a woman from being elected president, surely I would have seen something over the course of my entire life.

It's a fact that there has never been a female U.S. president. Many Canadians are baffled as to why, when there are obviously some very well-qualified women who could do the job.

Presidents are not selected by being "the most qualified." I'm not talking about 2016 here. The key to being President is grabbing publicity and financial backing quickly enough that voters take note of you. Having a parliament, I can understand why you don't get that- but please don't form sweeping psychological analyses of the American public because no woman has yet managed to do it (ONLY managed to get a majority of votes in the general, what a sexist country!).

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Presidents are not selected by being "the most qualified." I'm not talking about 2016 here. The key to being President is grabbing publicity and financial backing quickly enough that voters take note of you. Having a parliament, I can understand why you don't get that- but please don't form sweeping psychological analyses of the American public because no woman has yet managed to do it (ONLY managed to get a majority of votes in the general, what a sexist country!).

You don't think that fundraising matters here? I finally unsubscribed from the Liberal email list because all they sent was some fluff content and the rest was basically "Please give us money." That said, I'm not convinced that being a skilled fundraiser is any good indicator that the candidate will be a good fit for whatever position they're running for.

And I'm quite aware that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. Yay for her. Boo for the Electoral College, which is something that I really do find baffling.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I have a pretty good statistical sampling of attitudes among the religious right. I've also read through plenty of hardcore conservative articles, books and websites. If this exists, and is pervasive enough to prevent a woman from being elected president, surely I would have seen something over the course of my entire life.

This comment is essentially a really wordy confirmation/repetition of this one:

He is saying that because he has never seen that attitude it can't exist and making fun of your argument with this joke about Israelis laughing at Canadians for doing something they don't, in fact, do.

So, well spotted Lex... I was actually a little skeptical that you were right on this point until I read the above comment. Now I see that you were, in-fact exactly right

 

[Mouthwash]

You don't think that fundraising matters here?

What in the world are you trying to say here? Is it that women get less fundraising than men? Because this election wasn't a very good demonstration of that.

And I'm quite aware that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. Yay for her. Boo for the Electoral College, which is something that I really do find baffling.

The country that purportedly has a problem with women didn't elect a female head of government solely because of the Electoral College. So is it also designed to keep women out of office?

This comment is essentially a really wordy confirmation/repetition of this one:
So, well spotted Lex... I was actually a little skeptical that you were right on this point until I read the above comment. Now I see that you were, in-fact exactly right

No, it actually isn't. Examine those 'words' more closely next time.

 

[Sommerswerd]

No, it actually isn't.

Yes, it actually is. 35 left to 10,000, thanks for the help.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I said, "for one thing Americans, men in particular, don't trust women"...

Didn't you actually say "and frankly, women are even more suspicious of other women than men"? That's kind of the complete opposite. It doesn't negate the point you were making of course.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Yes, it actually is. 35 left to 10,000, thanks for the help.

Oh and no, it's not actually. Would you consider these two statements to be equivalent in meaning, just with one a bit more wordy than the other?

1) I have read through a large number of death certificates, noting the cause of death in each case, and have concluded as a result of this that "accidentally strangled self with a kettle cord" is not a significant cause of death and therefore can't offer an explanation of any large-scale trend in mortality rates.

2) I personally have never seen anyone strangle themselves with a kettle cord, therefore it can't happen.

Now obviously, you're free to question exactly how many death certificates person 1 has looked through, the quality of their statistical analysis, and the validity of their conclusion, but you'd be incorrect in saying they are making the same claim as person 2.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Didn't you actually say "and frankly, women are even more suspicious of other women than men"? That's kind of the complete opposite. It doesn't negate the point you were making of course.

I agree partially, good catch. I should have said something like "I am particularly focusing on men in my argument", but I didn't, so again good on you.

Oh and no, it's not actually. Would you consider these two statements to be equivalent in meaning, just with one a bit more wordy than the other?

No, but its a red herring because that's not the two statements I'm comparing. I understand you are analogizing... I just don't think your analogy is on-point. I think that this:

I've never encountered any such attitude in my life.

plus this

If this exists ... surely I would have seen something over the course of my entire life.

is substantially similar to this:

because he has never seen that attitude it can't exist

The latter is just more concise, with far less setup. Another way of putting it (I always condemn doing what I'm about to do, but I'm feeling hypocritical today so whatevs) The former is an Anecdotal fallacy followed by an Appeal to Authority fallacy followed by another anecdotal fallacy. The latter is simply calling out the anecdotal fallacy, and leaving the appeal to authority fallacy alone.

I know you probably disagree. You and I agree to disagree all the time. That's fine.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Meh. I kind of see your point, but I can also see that you've replaced an incredibly pertinent part of the second quote with "...", significantly altering the meaning. Admittedly the first quote does tally with the third, but since the second quote supercedes that one I don't think it's fair to hinge any argument on it.