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

[Mouthwash]

Yes, it actually is.

No, it most certainly isn't, and your explanation is egregious quote-mining.

35 left to 10,000, thanks for the help.

Have anything planned for the big occasion?

 

[Sommerswerd]

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.

That's fair. Let me offer you a different perspective to consider. The third quote, Lex's quote... is responding to the first one. So based on your observation that "Admittedly the first quote does tally with the third", at a minimum we agree that Lexicus was on point when he made the statement. So even if you think my conclusion about the second quote was unfair, Lexicus was still right. And since part of my post was explicitly stating Lexicus was right, I'd suggest that I'm on point about that part at least.

Now as far as me "..."'ing the as you say "incredibly pertinent" part... there is a specific reason I did that, and its not "quote mining". Take another look at the whole post in the context of the others. Although it starts with the admittedly impressive sounding math'ish phrase "statistical sampling" what he is really saying is, and I'm sure you'll feel free to challenge my paraphrasing... "I'm conservative, I know a lot of conservatives, including right wing evangelicals, I talk to them all the time, and I consume a ton of right wing media, so if conservatives were sexist I'd know about it. They aren't, at least not to any degree that would impact the election."

Now let me suggest to you that the position is essentially self-serving propaganda. The fancy sounding "statistical sampling" phrase when examined, is little more than saying he's friends with conservatives and immersed in conservatism. It's anecdotal. Furthermore, as a proud conservative, he is decidedly self-interested in the position that conservatives aren't sexist. Fine, makes sense, may even be accurate, but its advocacy, not data. Its just a conservative asserting that he and his fellow conservatives aren't sexist, ostensibly because... "I talk to them on the internets all the time and at the bar and church too and I would've noticed." No, you wouldn't have necessarily, because it is more difficult for you to look at the issue objectively. If you are inside the bubble, its harder to appreciate what it looks like from the outside. I want to suggest to you that this is possibly what is going on here, in fact, I'm counting on it, which is why I disregard the rest of the post. I'm not trying to hide it, I just regard it as anecdotal, self-serving rhetoric that did not speak to the heart of the issue.

An analogy I will offer is that smokers are often oblivious to how much they smell like smoke. When they come back into the party, you can say "Dude, you guys smell like smoke" and one of them might sniff his sleeve, then lean over and sniff each one of his compatriots and say "No we don't, I've been hanging out with these guys all day and if they reeked of smoke I would have noticed..."

No. You wouldn't have.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

That's fair. Let me offer you a different perspective to consider. The third quote, Lex's quote... is responding to the first one. So based on your observation that "Admittedly the first quote does tally with the third", at a minimum we agree that Lexicus was on point when he made the statement. So even if you think my conclusion about the second quote was unfair, Lexicus was still right. And since part of my post was explicitly stating Lexicus was right, I'd suggest that I'm on point about that part at least.

I'm too lazy to go back and read everything in the order it cropped up, but I have no reason to doubt what you say here so fair enough, no contest there.

...
Now let me suggest to you that the position is essentially self-serving propaganda. The fancy sounding "statistical sampling" phrase when examined, is little more than saying he's friends with conservatives and immersed in conservatism. It's anecdotal. Furthermore, as a proud conservative, he is decidedly self-interested in the position that conservatives aren't sexist. Fine, makes sense, may even be accurate, but its advocacy, not data.
...

But I already said all that didn't I? I'm too lazy to go back and re-read even what I wrote at the moment, but to paraphrase I definitely said something along the lines of "feel free to argue with the extent of his statistical analysis, or the conclusions he draws from it". And that's what you're doing there. I don't remember at any point saying that I was putting any faith in the validity of his statement, just that it wasn't the same thing as the other statement. What you've just said agrees with what I said.

 

[Mouthwash]

The fancy sounding "statistical sampling" phrase when examined, is little more than saying he's friends with conservatives and immersed in conservatism. It's anecdotal. Furthermore, as a proud conservative, he is decidedly self-interested in the position that conservatives aren't sexist. Fine, makes sense, may even be accurate, but its advocacy, not data. Its just a conservative asserting that he and his fellow conservatives aren't sexist, ostensibly because... "I talk to them on the internets all the time and at the bar and church too and I would've noticed." No, you wouldn't have necessarily, because it is more difficult for you to look at the issue objectively. If you are inside the bubble, its harder to appreciate what it looks like from the outside. I want to suggest to you that this is possibly what is going on here, in fact, I'm counting on it, which is why I disregard the rest of the post. I'm not trying to hide it, I just regard it as anecdotal, self-serving rhetoric that did not speak to the heart of the issue.

I identified as a leftist and socialist until quite recently (and before that a libertarian), but my parents are religious-conservative and their friends even more so. I've also seen plenty of what the conservative intelligentsia (a term I use loosely) thinks. It's fair to say that, were such attitudes widespread, I would have detected something of it- but no, absolutely no one thinks that men are preferable to women in politics. I actually see the opposite trend, likely due to a desire to show leftists they don't speak for all women.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

Clearly the people at Trump rallies who were interviewed and stated that Hillary is unstable, as a women (one said she might start a war because of how ladies work monthly), or wore "Trump That *****!" clothing, says nothing about men being preferable to women.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

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.

No, that is not what I said.

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?

Since the people who designed it were all men, and women didn't have the vote at that time, your guess is as good as mine.

I am perfectly aware that the reason some people didn't vote for Hillary Clinton was because she was Hillary Clinton and not just because she's a woman. If some other woman was running instead who had less political baggage and ill will attached to her, I would hope that people would have voted for her and not just muttered, "a woman can't lead this country" and opted for the male candidate - no matter how childish and narcissistic he is.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

how ladies work monthly

Hillary Clinton is 69 or 70, I think. Honestly, she's well past the "how ladies work monthly" problem!

 

[Sommerswerd]

But I already said all that didn't I? I'm too lazy to go back and re-read even what I wrote at the moment, but to paraphrase I definitely said something along the lines of "feel free to argue with the extent of his statistical analysis, or the conclusions he draws from it". And that's what you're doing there. I don't remember at any point saying that I was putting any faith in the validity of his statement, just that it wasn't the same thing as the other statement. What you've just said agrees with what I said.

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... and even then it was coming from a very difficult perspective in terms of self-serving bias. That's not anything remotely approaching "statistical analysis". Saying "me and my friends aren't sexist, cause I talk to them, I can tell, and the websites I visit aren't sexist, cause I say so" just can't be described as "statistical analysis" by any stretch of the imagination. 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. All he did was toss in the word "statistical", which is meaningless... there just isn't any "statistical analysis" to "argue with."

But as a larger matter, I think you and I agree with the overall point. I actually feel pretty good about being able to find some agreement with you since we usually disagree about everything. No sarcasm, I feel a genuine sense of accomplishment.

 

[Mouthwash]

Clearly the people at Trump rallies who were interviewed and stated that Hillary is unstable, as a women (one said she might start a war because of how ladies work monthly),

Clearly the people at Trump rallies are a proper sampling of the attitudes of the average Trump voter.

or wore "Trump That *****!" clothing,

Are they supposed to call her a bastard?

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... and even then it was coming from a very difficult perspective in terms of self-serving bias. That's not anything remotely approaching "statistical analysis". Saying "me and my friends aren't sexist, cause I talk to them, I can tell, and the websites I visit aren't sexist, cause I say so" just can't be described as "statistical analysis" by any stretch of the imagination. 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. All he did was toss in the word "statistical", which is meaningless... there just isn't any "statistical analysis" to "argue with."

No, statistical analysis would have been needed if I were talking about 'proportions,' i.e. if I had seen any anti-female sentiment whatsoever. I'm saying that my sampling of American conservative thought is good enough that a pervasive belief against female politicians or presidents cannot have been hidden from me completely.

It's also falsifiable. Please find a mainstream, or even half-way mainstream conservative who thinks this way.

No, that is not what I said.

It's not what you said, yes, but it was implicit. I said that a woman got the popular vote to be president, you mentioned fundraising as a counterpoint.

I am perfectly aware that the reason some people didn't vote for Hillary Clinton was because she was Hillary Clinton and not just because she's a woman.

I'm also perfectly aware that some Canadians don't feel real loyalty to their lord Lucifer, they just want to eat poutine (which, as you know, can only be made with the blood of virgins).

 

[Sommerswerd]

It's also falsifiable. Please find a mainstream, or even half-way mainstream conservative who thinks this way.

First, just so I understand what you're asking of me... you're challenging me to find and quote/link to one example of a mainstream (or halfway mainstream) conservative saying or doing something obviously sexist/misogynistic. Is that right? Now by "mainstream conservative" I am assuming you mean, Republican, pundits, journalists, talk-radio personalities, national office holders, famous governors and mayors, former Presidential and VP candidates, celebrities... that kind of thing, right?

Second, there is the obvious problem that I alluded to earlier, which is that smokers can't smell the smoke on themselves and other smokers. In other words, if I am supposed to find something that is sexist in your subjective opinion, it will be impossible. Because you are emotionally and ideologically committed to the position that there is not such thing. Therefore anything I find with just send you into an endless feedback loop of denial and apologism. So you can't possibly be the arbiter of what is sexist/misogynistic, right?

If we agree to the above parameters, then your challenge is accepted. If you insist that I have to find something that you will agree is sexist, I concede that this would probably be impossible, so its not worth the bother.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

It's not what you said, yes, but it was implicit. I said that a woman got the popular vote to be president, you mentioned fundraising as a counterpoint.

You mentioned fundraising as though that's a problem American female politicians have to contend with but Canadian female politicians don't. I assure you, they do.

I'm also perfectly aware that some Canadians don't feel real loyalty to their lord Lucifer, they just want to eat poutine (which, as you know, can only be made with the blood of virgins).

Please stop this childishness. It's not only silly, but you're throwing around some pretty ridiculous cultural stereotypes that have no truth to them. It's getting to the point that I'm starting to look around for your boat and fishing line.

 

[onejayhawk]

First, just so I understand what you're asking of me... you're challenging me to find and quote/link to one example of a mainstream (or halfway mainstream) conservative saying or doing something obviously sexist/misogynistic. Is that right? Now by "mainstream conservative" I am assuming you mean, Republican, pundits, journalists, talk-radio personalities, national office holders, famous governors and mayors, former Presidential and VP candidates, celebrities... that kind of thing, right?

Second, there is the obvious problem that I alluded to earlier, which is that smokers can't smell the smoke on themselves and other smokers. In other words, if I am supposed to find something that is sexist in your subjective opinion, it will be impossible. Because you are emotionally and ideologically committed to the position that there is not such thing. Therefore anything I find with just send you into an endless feedback loop of denial and apologism. So you can't possibly be the arbiter of what is sexist/misogynistic, right?

If we agree to the above parameters, then your challenge is accepted. If you insist that I have to find something that you will agree is sexist, I concede that this would probably be impossible, so its not worth the bother.

He has a point. He can throw Hillary Clinton out as a mainstream or semi-mainstream liberal that is openly bigoted. Trump isn't that close and he's the obvious name. Find another.

J

 

[Sommerswerd]

He has a point. He can throw Hillary Clinton out as a mainstream or semi-mainstream liberal that is openly bigoted. Trump isn't that close and he's the obvious name. Find another.

Find another "openly bigoted" Republican? OK how about David Duke? If you concede that, then please get off this tangent and go back to the actual topic.

 

[Mouthwash]

First, just so I understand what you're asking of me... you're challenging me to find and quote/link to one example of a mainstream (or halfway mainstream) conservative saying or doing something obviously sexist/misogynistic. Is that right?

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.

You mentioned fundraising as though that's a problem American female politicians have to contend with but Canadian female politicians don't. I assure you, they do.

I honestly don't understand how this ties into your point that female politicians are disadvantaged. Men also have to get fundraising, y'know?

I think that a major reason parliamentary democracies can get female premiers more easily is because feminists parties can deliberately select a woman for leadership as a political statement. I don't actually have evidence for this, but it makes sense.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

Clearly the people at Trump rallies are a proper sampling of the attitudes of the average Trump voter.

It is every bit as statistically significant as your "sampling" and probably counter-acts your claim of "none."

 

[danjuno]

I also discovered that Cory Booker supports private school vouchers. As someone who went to a private "special education" school for several years and saw the oh-so-wonderful invisible hand in action, this has pretty much guaranteed I will never entertain the idea of voting for him.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

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.

Will it do if we find you evidence of people thinking women aren't fit to vote? After all, it's a step up from voting to running.

I honestly don't understand how this ties into your point that female politicians are disadvantaged. Men also have to get fundraising, y'know?

Okay, this conversation passed ridiculous awhile ago. I'm trying to find out why Americans have such a hard time wrapping their minds around the idea of a woman President. You've already had women serving in other high offices, so fine. But there seems to be some mental block that a woman can't be president, and while many men voted for Hillary Clinton (I assume), some people who didn't vote for her based their vote on the idea of "better an incompetent male buffoon than a woman who has many years of political experience."

So what is this obsession with fundraising? Yes, women in the U.S. have to fundraise. So do Canadian women. Now you're upping it to the men have to as well? Of course they do.

I think that a major reason parliamentary democracies can get female premiers more easily is because feminists parties can deliberately select a woman for leadership as a political statement. I don't actually have evidence for this, but it makes sense.

I have no idea what you're talking about with "feminist parties." Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has said often that he is a feminist, but that doesn't make the entire Liberal Party of Canada a "feminist" party. They've got their share of chauvinists. There are some policies that one could consider feminist... before the election of 2015, Trudeau informed his caucus that if/when any legislation was brought before the House that impacted women's reproductive health, every Liberal MP was expected to vote on whichever side would most respect a woman's right to choose, and access to the appropriate health services. Anyone who couldn't live with that was free to cross the floor or resign and sit as an independent MP.

The major federal parties don't have a problem (generally) with female leaders, although the Liberals have never had a woman as leader. There have been women leading the NDP and Progressive Conservatives (the PC leader was our first and so far only female Prime Minister), and the current leader of the Green Party is a woman.

At the provincial level, three provinces have a female Premier, and the criticism that gets levied at them has far less to do with them being women than it does with their policies and legislation.

None of these women are from "feminist parties." I'm not sure such a thing exists, unless it's an extremely fringe one.

 

[onejayhawk]

Find another "openly bigoted" Republican? OK how about David Duke? If you concede that, then please get off this tangent and go back to the actual topic.

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.

J

 

[Mouthwash]

Will it do if we find you evidence of people thinking women aren't fit to vote? After all, it's a step up from voting to running.

Sure, but it can't be obviously facetious. I expect there are people who are angry at the perceived feminist support of Hillary on the grounds of her gender.

Okay, this conversation passed ridiculous awhile ago. I'm trying to find out why Americans have such a hard time wrapping their minds around the idea of a woman President. You've already had women serving in other high offices, so fine. But there seems to be some mental block that a woman can't be president, and while many men voted for Hillary Clinton (I assume), some people who didn't vote for her based their vote on the idea of "better an incompetent male buffoon than a woman who has many years of political experience."

You've been asserting that there is a sufficiently large group of misogynistic voters to block females from becoming president. You've totally failed to back that assertion up, and have also failed to respond to any counterarguments (such as a woman just now winning the majority vote for it).

So what is this obsession with fundraising? Yes, women in the U.S. have to fundraise. So do Canadian women. Now you're upping it to the men have to as well? Of course they do.

I'm going to assume you're poking fun at me here...?

I have no idea what you're talking about with "feminist parties."

Well, any party that advocates women's rights or has a large female voting base might find it to their advantage.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Sure, but it can't be obviously facetious. I expect there are people who are angry at the perceived feminist support of Hillary on the grounds of her gender.

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).

You've been asserting that there is a sufficiently large group of misogynistic voters to block females from becoming president. You've totally failed to back that assertion up, and have also failed to respond to any counterarguments (such as a woman just now winning the majority vote for it).

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

I'm going to assume you're poking fun at me here...?

You're incorrect. If I ever poke fun at you, it will be in good-natured fun, possibly accompanied by a friendly smiley.

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.

Well, any party that advocates women's rights or has a large female voting base might find it to their advantage.

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?

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.