ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags 2020 elections , democratic party , presidential candidates

Closed Thread
Old 8th July 2019, 09:58 AM   #3721
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 19,925
Also is the simple suggestion that a lot of modern life saving and life improving drugs got invented precisely because some pharmaceutical company smelled a massive payday... like that crazy of an idea?

I mean we I suppose we could just hope that the same number of drugs are going to be invented under a "Oh just do what's good for mankind and don't worry about the money."

Alls I'm saying is if you take two groups of 100 pharmaceutical scientists and tell one group "Okay if you cure cancer... you're gonna make an obscene crapton of money" and the other group "Okay if you cure cancer.... you're gonna get to feel really good about what you've done for mankind".... the first group is probably gonna cure cancer first. Call me cynical.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 8th July 2019 at 10:02 AM.
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th July 2019, 10:05 AM   #3722
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 50,786
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Also is the simple suggestion that a lot of modern life saving and life improving drugs got invented precisely because some pharmaceutical company smelled a massive payday... like that crazy of an idea?

I mean we I suppose we could just hope that the same number of drugs are going to be invented under a "Oh just do what's good for mankind and don't worry about the money."

Alls I'm saying is if you take two groups of 100 pharmaceutical scientists and tell one group "Okay if you cure cancer... you're gonna make an obscene crapton of money" and the other group "Okay if you cure cancer.... you're gonna get to feel really good about what you've done for mankind".... the first group is probably gonna cure cancer first. Call me cynical.
You left out the actual situation: "if you cure cancer the shareholders of the company that employs you will make an obscene crapton of money". The actual scientists get their salaries, an NDA, and a noncompete clause.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th July 2019, 10:06 AM   #3723
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 75,558
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Also is the simple suggestion that a lot of modern life saving and life improving drugs got invented precisely because some pharmaceutical company smelled a massive payday... like that crazy of an idea?

I mean we I suppose we could just hope that the same number of drugs are going to be invented under a "Oh just do what's good for mankind and don't worry about the money."

Alls I'm saying is if you take two groups of 100 pharmaceutical scientists and tell one group "Okay if you cure cancer... you're gonna make an obscene crapton of money" and the other group "Okay if you cure cancer.... you're gonna get to feel really good about what you've done for mankind".... the first group is probably gonna cure cancer first. Call me cynical.
These drug companies are not operating on slim margins. They aren't going to give up research because they can only make a couple billion instead of a hundred billion.
__________________
That new avatar is cuteness overload.
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th July 2019, 10:12 AM   #3724
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,727
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
OK, all you people nervous about a female candidate, keep in mind Clinton, with all her baggage, won by 3 million votes. Her campaign strategy decisions and Russian interference are some of the reasons Trump is in the White House. She didn't lose because voters wouldn't accept a female POTUS.
Trump's margin of victory was extremely narrow, and came down to a few thousand votes in 3 states.

There were a lot of things going on in the election, and Hillary did have several factors going against her. Sadly, one of those may have been the fact that she was a woman. (Something like 6% of the population said they would not want a woman president. And those are the ones who openly admit it... I figure other people will say "I'm OK with a woman", but still dismiss any female candidate because... reasons.)

Now, the fact that she was a woman may not have caused her to lose the campaign by itself, but it may have been the "straw that broke the camel's back.... when the loss was so slim, its possible that a male candidate in the same circumstances might have been able to eek out a victory.

(Not that I'm saying I'm against the idea of a woman president... I just recognize that, at this point in history, women are still at an unfair political disadvantage.)

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...ver-70-really/
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot

Last edited by Segnosaur; 8th July 2019 at 10:13 AM.
Segnosaur is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th July 2019, 10:16 AM   #3725
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 19,925
I've said this before but if you had put me on the spot in... 2000 or so and asked me which was gonna happen first; a female President or an African American one, I would have said female without much hesitation. I can't put my finger on why.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th July 2019, 10:39 AM   #3726
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,727
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
I've said this before but if you had put me on the spot in... 2000 or so and asked me which was gonna happen first; a female President or an African American one, I would have said female without much hesitation. I can't put my finger on why.
Well, if nothing else, half the population of the U.S. is female, and less than 13% is African American. So, it would be a good guess for no other reason than "there are more women around/more potential candidates".

That the U.S. had an African-American president first probably has to do with just a case of right-time/right-place. Elections only happen every 4 years, so they don't happen that frequently to begin with. Obama was a decent politician with little political baggage who happened to come along at the time when the republicans were coming off 2 terms with a very unpopular president.

(I think he did a good job, but sadly that doesn't always matter when dealing with politics.)
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th July 2019, 10:48 AM   #3727
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 19,925
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Well, if nothing else, half the population of the U.S. is female, and less than 13% is African American. So, it would be a good guess for no other reason than "there are more women around/more potential candidates".
Yeah but...

Okay 95% of African Americans voted for Obama as opposed to McCain in 2008. In 2012 that was 93% voting for Obama over Romney.

But in 2018 Hillary only got 54% of the female vote, Trump got 41. I mean that's still lopsided but it's not the "Obama/McCain with African Americans" divide or even close.

Obama did better with women then Hillary did. Obama took 55% of the female vote.

"Women" speaking of them as a voting demographic only are... weird. They don't seem to particularly like female candidates all that much more then the general populace.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 8th July 2019 at 10:49 AM.
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th July 2019, 10:53 AM   #3728
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,727
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Quote:
Well, if nothing else, half the population of the U.S. is female, and less than 13% is African American. So, it would be a good guess for no other reason than "there are more women around/more potential candidates".
Yeah but...

Okay 95% of African Americans voted for Obama as opposed to McCain in 2008. In 2012 that was 93% voting for Obama over Romney.
But in 2018 Hillary only got 54% of the female vote, Trump got 41. I mean that's still lopsided but it's not the "Obama/McCain with African Americans" divide or even close.
...
"Women" speaking of them as a voting demographic only are... weird. They don't seem to particularly like female candidates all that much more then the general populace.
I'm not denying that that's true.

But the issue I was a addressing wasn't a comparison between voting patterns... I was only addressing the issue about why a guess that a woman would be a president before an african American might seem logical a few decades ago.... more potential women candidates.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th July 2019, 10:55 AM   #3729
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 75,558
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Trump's margin of victory was extremely narrow, and came down to a few thousand votes in 3 states.

There were a lot of things going on in the election, and Hillary did have several factors going against her. Sadly, one of those may have been the fact that she was a woman. (Something like 6% of the population said they would not want a woman president. And those are the ones who openly admit it... I figure other people will say "I'm OK with a woman", but still dismiss any female candidate because... reasons.)

Now, the fact that she was a woman may not have caused her to lose the campaign by itself, but it may have been the "straw that broke the camel's back.... when the loss was so slim, its possible that a male candidate in the same circumstances might have been able to eek out a victory.

(Not that I'm saying I'm against the idea of a woman president... I just recognize that, at this point in history, women are still at an unfair political disadvantage.)

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...ver-70-really/
Of course. Some won't vote for a black or Hispanic either. Or a homosexual. Or an atheist.

So only white males under age 70 should get the nom?

If the person is dynamic and rises to the top of this pack, that is who we should vote for. There is no more reason to worry about people who won't vote for a woman than there is to worry about people that won't vote for a black.

Given women are mobilized, a female candidate may very well have an advantage not a disadvantage this go round.
__________________
That new avatar is cuteness overload.
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 8th July 2019 at 10:57 AM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th July 2019, 10:59 AM   #3730
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 75,558
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
I've said this before but if you had put me on the spot in... 2000 or so and asked me which was gonna happen first; a female President or an African American one, I would have said female without much hesitation. I can't put my finger on why.
My guess on why is that you were not considering the influence the individuals contribute to the equation.
__________________
That new avatar is cuteness overload.
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th July 2019, 11:03 AM   #3731
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 19,925
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
So only white males under age 70 should get the nom?
Depends on what is more important to you at the particular moment; a political victory or a moral/social one.

Please note I'm not saying either one of those are better. Neither am I saying a female/young/colored/gay/atheist/puts the toilet paper under handed candidate has no chance, just simply that factoring in it as to the political viability of a candidate is not always evil.

Do we want to win or do we want to send a message? Both of those are good, noble things that we have to do at least some of the time.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 8th July 2019 at 11:04 AM.
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th July 2019, 11:12 AM   #3732
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,727
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Quote:
There were a lot of things going on in the election, and Hillary did have several factors going against her. Sadly, one of those may have been the fact that she was a woman. (Something like 6% of the population said they would not want a woman president.
Of course. Some won't vote for a black or Hispanic either. Or a homosexual. Or an atheist.
Which is all true. But given the fact that Clinton was none of those things, then its irrelevant.

She WAS a woman however (as are several of the current Democratic candidates).
Quote:
So only white males under age 70 should get the nom?
I never said that. But I think its a bit silly to ignore the possibility that a candidate may be at a disadvantage for reasons unrelated to their abilities.

As I pointed out, 6% of the population does not want a woman president. Trump's margin of victory in the 3 swing states that the Democrats lost was far less than 6%. Were it not for sexism, you may have had a democrat sitting in the white house rather than Stubby McBonespurs.

Quote:
If the person is dynamic and rises to the top of this pack, that is who we should vote for.
That's who the population SHOULD vote for. But sadly things don't always work out the way they should.
Quote:
Given women are mobilized, a female candidate may very well have an advantage not a disadvantage this go round.
I certainly hope that that is the case. And I certainly prefer any of the candidates (women, minorities, and straight white males) over what the Republicans have to offer.)
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th July 2019, 11:23 AM   #3733
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 5,351
Originally Posted by Venom View Post
I thought it was interesting the article calls Need To Impeach a "progressive movement", whatever that means.
One of the major pillars of Progressivism was and fairly certainly still is anti-corruption, so perhaps that?
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th July 2019, 11:25 AM   #3734
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 75,558
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Depends on what is more important to you at the particular moment; a political victory or a moral/social one.

Please note I'm not saying either one of those are better. Neither am I saying a female/young/colored/gay/atheist/puts the toilet paper under handed candidate has no chance, just simply that factoring in it as to the political viability of a candidate is not always evil.

Do we want to win or do we want to send a message? Both of those are good, noble things that we have to do at least some of the time.
This after you said you got it wrong before?
__________________
That new avatar is cuteness overload.
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th July 2019, 11:28 AM   #3735
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 75,558
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Which is all true. But given the fact that Clinton was none of those things, then its irrelevant.

She WAS a woman however (as are several of the current Democratic candidates).

I never said that. But I think its a bit silly to ignore the possibility that a candidate may be at a disadvantage for reasons unrelated to their abilities.

As I pointed out, 6% of the population does not want a woman president. Trump's margin of victory in the 3 swing states that the Democrats lost was far less than 6%. Were it not for sexism, you may have had a democrat sitting in the white house rather than Stubby McBonespurs.


That's who the population SHOULD vote for. But sadly things don't always work out the way they should.

I certainly hope that that is the case. And I certainly prefer any of the candidates (women, minorities, and straight white males) over what the Republicans have to offer.)
It's a small disadvantage. The other candidates have their own disadvantages. Why are you elevating this disadvantage over the others?

Being a woman didn't stop a significant number of people voting for Clinton.

It's an old fashioned concept that people won't vote for a female POTUS.

Being a woman will likely be an advantage. Consider the women who marched all over the world the day after Trump was inaugurated.
__________________
That new avatar is cuteness overload.
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 8th July 2019 at 11:30 AM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th July 2019, 12:24 PM   #3736
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,727
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Quote:
I never said that. But I think its a bit silly to ignore the possibility that a candidate may be at a disadvantage for reasons unrelated to their abilities.

As I pointed out, 6% of the population does not want a woman president. Trump's margin of victory in the 3 swing states that the Democrats lost was far less than 6%. Were it not for sexism, you may have had a democrat sitting in the white house rather than Stubby McBonespurs.
It's a small disadvantage. The other candidates have their own disadvantages. Why are you elevating this disadvantage over the others?
I'm not.

I'm pointing out sexism as an problem because the subject of Hillary Clinton came up. If someone was discussing Buttigieg or Sanders, I might be discussing how homophobia or anti-jewish attitudes would similarly put a candidate at a disadvantage.

There are over 20 candidates in the current Democratic primaries, involving a wide combination of genders, ages, races, religions, and sexual orientations. Every candidate will have disadvantages, some unique to the individual (e.g. Biden's background), some that are based on bigotry (sexism, racism, homophobia). If you want to compare the risks of selecting particular candidates, you'd need to give 2 different ones so an appropriate side-by-side comparison can be made.
Quote:
Being a woman didn't stop a significant number of people voting for Clinton.
You're right, it didn't stop many people from voting for her. She even won the popular vote. Yet she failed to win the presidency, and her loss was due to a smaller percentage of people who said "I won't vote for a woman president" in a few key states.

Which is more important to you, an actual political win, or a "moral" victory (which might see a republican win, even if you can pat yourself on the back and say "we picked the best person... even though they lost".)
Quote:
It's an old fashioned concept that people won't vote for a female POTUS.
The United States currently has a president who has expressed obvious signs of racism and sexism, yet still commands >40% popular support (and managed to win the election in 2016, even though those tendencies were already well known.)

Remember, its not jut a case of getting 'millions of votes' from supporters... the candidate may have to fight for the votes of people who may not normally be inclined to vote Democrat.
Quote:
Being a woman will likely be an advantage. Consider the women who marched all over the world the day after Trump was inaugurated.
Maybe it will be this time. Maybe Trump's victory might have cut back on some of the complatency that some voters may have had. But there is no guarantee of that.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th July 2019, 01:00 PM   #3737
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,988
It's Liz Warren's time.

She's striking a perfect balance between all the factions and must be the candidate.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/eliza...b01b83473a454e
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th July 2019, 01:00 PM   #3738
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 75,558
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
I'm not.

.... Yet she failed to win the presidency, and her loss was due to a smaller percentage of people who said "I won't vote for a woman president" in a few key states....
Where do you get this crap from?

Clinton: made some campaign mistakes
Comey: delivered an unethical Nov surprise
Cambridge Analytica: micro-targeted those key states, discouraging black voters coming to the polls

Do you have any evidence Cambridge Analytica even amplified the 'women can't be POTUS' theme?

Any evidence it was particularly problematic in those key states?

I think you are claiming something you personally believe is intuitive actually was the 2016 issue. Where's your evidence gender was a key deciding issue?

Quote:
The United States currently has a president who has expressed obvious signs of racism and sexism, yet still commands >40% popular support (and managed to win the election in 2016, even though those tendencies were already well known.)
That doesn't mean they voted for him because he was sexist. They didn't vote against him because of it.
__________________
That new avatar is cuteness overload.
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 8th July 2019 at 01:02 PM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th July 2019, 01:23 PM   #3739
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,727
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Quote:
I'm not.

.... Yet she failed to win the presidency, and her loss was due to a smaller percentage of people who said "I won't vote for a woman president" in a few key states....
Where do you get this crap from?
I posted a reference to an opinion poll earlier that showed ~6% of people stating they would not vote for a woman. That's where I get this from.

You on the other hand just use a lot of hand-waving "Oh, I'm sure women will rise up and take over".
Quote:
Clinton: made some campaign mistakes
Comey: delivered an unethical Nov surprise
Cambridge Analytica: micro-targeted those key states, discouraging black voters coming to the polls

I think you are claiming something you personally believe is intuitive actually was the 2016 issue. Where's your evidence gender was a key deciding issue?
Here's a suggestion... why don't you go back and read what I posted earlier?

I specifically pointed out that there were a lot of problems/issues in the 2016 election for Clinton and the democrats. Had there been any difference (no russian interference, no FBI October surprise), she might have one. But the fact that there was sexism may have been the straw that broke the camel's back. I.e. just that one little issue that was enough to tip the scales from victory to defeat. It by itself might not have caused her loss, but it was

Do you not understand what the phrase "straw that broke the camel's back" actually means?
Quote:
Do you have any evidence Cambridge Analytica even amplified the 'women can't be POTUS' theme?
No, but I never claimed that they did.

The whole sexist "I won't vote for a woman" thing is not something that was created by Trump, the republicans, or the Russian-financed electoral interference. Its just a long-running bigotry in society. Pick any woman and a portion of the electorate will automatically say "Nope, don't want no women being president."

Now, I believe that type of sexism is gradually disappearing from society (as is similar "I will not vote for a gay/muslim/etc." candidate). But it still exists.
Quote:
Any evidence it was particularly problematic in those key states?
No, but that was never my claim that it was particularly problematic in those key states.

I'm sure there were people in all 50 states who thought "I don't want no woman president". Those key states are significant because: 1) Clinton lost them, and 2) the margin of loss was very small (less than the number of people who said "No women president".) In other words, it illustrated the problem of sexism in the electorate fairly clearly.

She also lost Texas by 9%. If the anti-woman bias didn't exist, she still would have lost Texas, but by a smaller margin. But it wouldn't have made a difference in the final election, so there's not much point talking about it.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th July 2019, 03:20 PM   #3740
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 75,558
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
I posted a reference to an opinion poll earlier that showed ~6% of people stating they would not vote for a woman. That's where I get this from.
IOW you don't get what I said, at all.

Quote:
You on the other hand just use a lot of hand-waving "Oh, I'm sure women will rise up and take over".
Not what I said, but I'm sure straw is easier to argue with.

Quote:
Here's a suggestion... why don't you go back and read what I posted earlier?
I did read it. How about you try again:

What evidence do you have that people not voting for a female POTUS was the deal breaker? You have no such evidence.

None of what you are saying is relevant because it drifted off the point.

If you are going to discount the women in the running because a small percentage of voters still believe women can't be a POTUS, that's absurd
__________________
That new avatar is cuteness overload.
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th July 2019, 04:27 PM   #3741
Marcus
Illuminator
 
Marcus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,061
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Of course. Some won't vote for a black or Hispanic either. Or a homosexual. Or an atheist.

So only white males under age 70 should get the nom?

If the person is dynamic and rises to the top of this pack, that is who we should vote for. There is no more reason to worry about people who won't vote for a woman than there is to worry about people that won't vote for a black.

Given women are mobilized, a female candidate may very well have an advantage not a disadvantage this go round.
Black AND Female seems unlikely for 2020. Atheist or gay seems impossible.
Marcus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th July 2019, 06:59 PM   #3742
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 75,558
Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
Black AND Female seems unlikely for 2020. Atheist or gay seems impossible.
Current polls show both Buttigieg and Harris beating Trump.
__________________
That new avatar is cuteness overload.
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th July 2019, 07:29 PM   #3743
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 50,786
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Current polls show both Buttigieg and Harris beating Trump.
For a wild moment I thought you meant the two of them were literally giving Trump a beating, and was hoping there's film footage.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th July 2019, 07:36 PM   #3744
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 37,235
Well, we've already had a black president and a woman president. A gay president could be next, but Mayor Pete is probably a little too on the nose. Maybe Beto?

Or I guess Harris could go for the Hispanic president tag.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th July 2019, 07:40 PM   #3745
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 50,786
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Well, we've already had a black president and a woman president.
Who was the woman president? Did I miss one? I haven't been paying attention so hot the last hundred years.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th July 2019, 08:02 PM   #3746
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 37,235
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Who was the woman president? Did I miss one? I haven't been paying attention so hot the last hundred years.
I'm glad you asked! Normally I don't like to explain a joke, but for this one I'm always happy to make an exception.

Bill Clinton was our first black president. Doubt me? Just Google it.

That makes Obama our first woman president. On account of the mom jeans. And Hillary would have been our first gay president, for no particular reason. Donald Trump, of course, is our first human president.

There's a withering indictment of American identity politics buried somewhere in all of this, but I can't be bothered to dig it up. Maybe you'll have better luck.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th July 2019, 08:07 PM   #3747
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 24,466
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I'm glad you asked! Normally I don't like to explain a joke, but for this one I'm always happy to make an exception.

Bill Clinton was our first black president. Doubt me? Just Google it.

That makes Obama our first woman president. On account of the mom jeans. And Hillary would have been our first gay president, for no particular reason. Donald Trump, of course, is our first human president.

There's a withering indictment of American identity politics buried somewhere in all of this, but I can't be bothered to dig it up. Maybe you'll have better luck.
I think it withered on the vine.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th July 2019, 08:15 PM   #3748
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 37,235
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
I think it withered on the vine.
You have no idea how much pleasure I get from inflicting a bad joke on a deserving audience. I missed my calling. I should have been a dad.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th July 2019, 08:25 PM   #3749
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 50,786
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I'm glad you asked! Normally I don't like to explain a joke, but for this one I'm always happy to make an exception.

Bill Clinton was our first black president. Doubt me? Just Google it.

That makes Obama our first woman president. On account of the mom jeans. And Hillary would have been our first gay president, for no particular reason. Donald Trump, of course, is our first human president.

There's a withering indictment of American identity politics buried somewhere in all of this, but I can't be bothered to dig it up. Maybe you'll have better luck.
I think this is more of a "withering indictment" against you.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th July 2019, 08:30 PM   #3750
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 37,235
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
I think this is more of a "withering indictment" against you.
You didn't Google the Bill Clinton black president thing, did you? Just had to get all personal, instead.

Indictment? On what charges?
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th July 2019, 03:28 AM   #3751
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 41,268
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
You didn't Google the Bill Clinton black president thing, did you? Just had to get all personal, instead.

Indictment? On what charges?
The charge of telling, not just once, an unfunny joke that zero persons are familiar with, and then having to explain it and top it off by claiming TBD style "high ground" when it's obviously fallen completely flat.

That's like the spring season in Tom Sawyer country if you get my drift, wink wink, nudge nudge. Covfefe.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th July 2019, 03:55 AM   #3752
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 50,786
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
The charge of telling, not just once, an unfunny joke that zero persons are familiar with, and then having to explain it and top it off by claiming TBD style "high ground" when it's obviously fallen completely flat.

That's like the spring season in Tom Sawyer country if you get my drift, wink wink, nudge nudge. Covfefe.
I suspect the "joke" was offered as a clumsy excuse to avoid admitting he briefly forgot that Hillary Clinton hadn't been president. He spends so much time defending Trump that he's come to absorb Trump's own errors. And like Trump would rather look juvenile and spiteful than own up to making a mistake.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th July 2019, 05:21 AM   #3753
Regnad Kcin
Philosopher
 
Regnad Kcin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 9,420
I once shot an elephant in my wife, please.
__________________
My heros are Alex Zanardi and Evelyn Glennie.
Regnad Kcin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th July 2019, 05:47 AM   #3754
Doubt
Philosopher
 
Doubt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 7,037
Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin View Post
I once shot an elephant in my wife, please.
What was your wife doing in my pajamas?
__________________
45 es un titere
Doubt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th July 2019, 09:35 AM   #3755
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 16,752
Steyer makes it official:

Quote:
He has endorsed a progressive policy platform in line with Sanders’s and Warren’s agendas. As Sanders has unveiled an “economic bill of rights,” calling for a living wage, quality health care, complete education, affordable housing, clean environment, and secure retirement, Steyer has his own “5 rights” campaign. It includes the rights to an equal vote, clean air and water, education, living wage, and health care.
That "equal vote" thing will probably send thrills up the legs of the 25 or so people for whom the Electoral College is the #1 issue.

Steyer may seem like a joke candidate and he is, but he's got oodles of money and isn't afraid to spend it. He can easily buy himself the polling he needs to get on the debate stage. The odd thing is the timing. The article notes that one reason he decided not to get in was that he was impressed with Warren's campaign messaging. So why jump in just as Warren seems to be gathering momentum?
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th July 2019, 09:54 AM   #3756
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 37,235
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
I suspect the "joke" was offered as a clumsy excuse to avoid admitting he briefly forgot that Hillary Clinton hadn't been president. He spends so much time defending Trump that he's come to absorb Trump's own errors. And like Trump would rather look juvenile and spiteful than own up to making a mistake.
Excuse me.

Where did I briefly forget that Hillary Clinton will never be president?
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th July 2019, 10:03 AM   #3757
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 50,786
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Excuse me.

Where did I briefly forget that Hillary Clinton will never be president?
You referred to there having already been a woman president. Then when called upon it you said it was (an extremely lame) joke. I charitably inclined to the hypothesis that you simply forgot Hillary Clinton hadn't been president (a mistake Trump himself made at least once). If you wish to insist that no, it wasn't a simple mistake in the heat of the moment, you really were setting up such a crashingly unfunny joke then I fear you will lose quite a lot of respect. If my theory is correct it means you choose pride over humor. If my theory is incorrect then you're simply not very funny. Neither way covers you in glory.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th July 2019, 10:33 AM   #3758
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 37,235
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
You referred to there having already been a woman president. Then when called upon it you said it was (an extremely lame) joke. I charitably inclined to the hypothesis that you simply forgot Hillary Clinton hadn't been president (a mistake Trump himself made at least once). If you wish to insist that no, it wasn't a simple mistake in the heat of the moment, you really were setting up such a crashingly unfunny joke then I fear you will lose quite a lot of respect. If my theory is correct it means you choose pride over humor. If my theory is incorrect then you're simply not very funny. Neither way covers you in glory.
I've been telling this joke, such as it is, since before the 2016 election. You must not have had much respect for me to begin with, if you thought I might be referring to President Hillary Clinton. So nothing of value is lost to me, either way.

Besides, the structure of the joke depends on the claim that Bill Clinton was our first black president. He wasn't, and that informs all the other examples: Obama was our first woman president (he wasn't). Etc. It's this play on the contradiction of reality that makes it funny. Or not, according to taste.

The other part of the joke depends on the premise that each identity-politics label is a single-use item. Once Bill Clinton got the "first black president" label, Obama had to find another one. Presumably we'll have to wait until the entire roster of political identities has been used, before we can circle back to having another "black" president. But even I don't plan on running the joke that long!
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th July 2019, 07:12 PM   #3759
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 41,268
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I've been telling this joke, such as it is, since before the 2016 election. You must not have had much respect for me to begin with, if you thought I might be referring to President Hillary Clinton. So nothing of value is lost to me, either way.

Besides, the structure of the joke depends on the claim that Bill Clinton was our first black president. He wasn't, and that informs all the other examples: Obama was our first woman president (he wasn't). Etc. It's this play on the contradiction of reality that makes it funny. Or not, according to taste.

The other part of the joke depends on the premise that each identity-politics label is a single-use item. Once Bill Clinton got the "first black president" label, Obama had to find another one. Presumably we'll have to wait until the entire roster of political identities has been used, before we can circle back to having another "black" president. But even I don't plan on running the joke that long!
As Carrot Top explained to Lenny Bruce, "Now here's how to be funny!"
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th July 2019, 08:13 PM   #3760
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 75,558
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Steyer makes it official:...

Steyer may seem like a joke candidate ...
Who suggested he's a joke candidate?

His involvement in the Impeach Trump movement he started gives him cred as a serious candidate.
__________________
That new avatar is cuteness overload.
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:57 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.