Bill Burr said it best, I think.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

2 hours ago, BIGUN said:

You can disagree with the comments about her performance and campaign (I was trying to keep a short list and forgot the etc., etc.). But, I still stand by my statement of:

The country will be ready for a woman president when she presents herself as someone with sound policy and a vision for the future of our country, not because it’s time to elect a woman as president.

 

2 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

Which would imply you believe Trump was/is someone with sound policy.

 

2 hours ago, BIGUN said:

No, it doesn't... I don't usually imply anything. I'm usually pretty explicit with this crowd. 

 

2 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

Then the only other option is that you meant a woman should have sound policy to be elected, but a man does not need that.

You seemed to imply that you see male and female candidates as equals. But if you don't think trump had sound policy, but you list that as a requirement for a female candidate.....well then you are treating them differently.

 

1 hour ago, BIGUN said:

Nice try at twisting shit around to create yet another fantastic circular argument. 

How is that 'twisting shit around'?

You clearly stated that a woman needs to have sound policy. 
Trump had none. I believe you are or have been a Trump supporter.

How is that not a double standard? 

 

The funny part about this is that HRC DID HAVE sound policy and a pretty clear vision for the country. Not everyone agreed with that vision, but it was pretty clearly stated (and then totally twisted and misrepresented).

I agree that, to a large degree, being a woman wasn't the main factor in HRC's defeat. 

One thing I found really ironic was that, back in the beginning of the Lewinski scandal, HRC went on national morning news (Today? GMA?) and claimed that the whole thing was a 'vast right wing conspiracy'. When it wasn't.

Yet one of the bigger reasons for her defeat was the character assassination campaign waged for several years by...
The right wing. 

[gowlerk 1,911]

59 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Then be clear. You said:

"The country will be ready for a woman president when she presents herself as someone with sound policy and a vision for the future of our country, not because it’s time to elect a woman as president ."

Do you think the standard for male candidates is the same? How do you reconcile that with your implication that Trump did not have sound policy? Just trying to make sense of your statement.

Enough Americans felt that a trade war, a wall, and packing the courts with conservatives were all sound policy positions. Not a majority, but enough. Trump was elected because his supporters wanted his policies enacted. Sometimes populists are popular.

Edited October 25, 2019 by gowlerk

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

17 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Enough Americans felt that a trade war, a wall, and packing the courts with conservatives were all sound policy positions. Not a majority, but enough. Trump was elected because his supporters wanted his policies enacted. Sometimes populists are popular.

Meh. They thought those things would restore their 'lost rights' and stop the 'brown people' from coming in. That the long lost (and permanently gone) manufacturing jobs would come back.

Trump made ridiculous promises (that he had no intention of keeping) to white people who felt their power slipping away. 
They were dumb enough to fall for it.

 

Nothing 'sound' about those policies.

 

Stupid policies are still stupid, even if they are popular.

[gowlerk 1,911]

6 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Meh. They thought those things would restore their 'lost rights' and stop the 'brown people' from coming in. That the long lost (and permanently gone) manufacturing jobs would come back.

Trump made ridiculous promises (that he had no intention of keeping) to white people who felt their power slipping away. 
They were dumb enough to fall for it.

 

Nothing 'sound' about those policies.

 

Stupid policies are still stupid, even if they are popular.

Well, yes to all of that. And yet here you are.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

1 hour ago, gowlerk said:

Enough Americans felt that a trade war, a wall, and packing the courts with conservatives were all sound policy positions. Not a majority, but enough. Trump was elected because his supporters wanted his policies enacted. Sometimes populists are popular.

Sure, that's why I said that BIGUN must have thought Trump's policies were sound. He said that was not a fair inference.

So then he must believe the US has different standards for male and female candidates. Something I personally believe. But he dismissed that idea too. Not sure what other option there is. Hence, I have asked him to clarify his statement. People get upset when others infer something, but then are not willing to explain their positions/statements.

Edited October 25, 2019 by SkyDekker

[gowlerk 1,911]

7 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Sure, that's why I said that BIGUN must have thought Trump's policies were sound. He said that was not a fair implication.

So then he must believe the US has different standards for male and female candidates. Something I personally believe. But he dismissed that idea too. Not sure what other option there is. Hence, I have asked him to clarify his statement. People get upset when others infer something, but then are not willing to explain their positions/statements.

It's nearly impossible to know what effect being female had on Hillary's candidacy. What is known is that she is not particularly likeable in a group like a politician needs to be. Competence is not enough, apparently it is not even required.

Edited October 25, 2019 by gowlerk

[SkyDekker 1,121]

4 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

It's nearly impossible to know what effect being female had on Hillary's candidacy. What is known is that she is not particularly likeable in a group like a politician needs to be. Competency is not enough, apparently it is not even required.

Considering she got more people to vote for her as opposed to her opponent, that doesn't appear to be true either.

Edited October 25, 2019 by SkyDekker

[gowlerk 1,911]

1 minute ago, SkyDekker said:

Considering she got more people to vote for her as opposed to her opponent, that doesn't appear to be true either.

I do feel that the years and years of bashing and hate building done to her by right wing media personalities were effective on her in a way that would not have worked as well against a man. She was basically given an image as a harridan that she could not shake. So many otherwise reasonable men who post here have stated that they didn't like her so much that they would not vote for her, even against Trump.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

2 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

Sure, that's why I said that BIGUN must have thought Trump's policies were sound. He said that was not a fair inference.

So then he must believe the US has different standards for male and female candidates. Something I personally believe. But he dismissed that idea too. Not sure what other option there is. Hence, I have asked him to clarify his statement. People get upset when others infer something, but then are not willing to explain their positions/statements.

I have an idea:  Kieth Brother, who did you vote for or against and why? 

[normiss 622]

10 hours ago, Rick said:

In some parts of the country and with a certain demographic. I think she lost because she came off as arrogant and was seen as part of the political elites and people wanted a change form that. 

Her reported disdain for the members of the military and secret service made some believe she thought herself better than the average Joe.

The BS totally fabricated lies about her didn't help either.

 

[JoeWeber 2,299]

10 hours ago, Rick said:

Her reported disdain for the members of the military and secret service made some believe she thought herself better than the average Joe.

Rick, help me out on this "reported disdain for members of the military" and  " secret service". I'm open to being schooled but that shit smacks of a purposeful type of character assassination that resonates with a certain segment of the electorate. 

[yoink 321]

7 hours ago, kallend said:

Reality is also that more Americans voted for her than for Trump.

But it doesn't matter, does it?? This retort that Dems have been making is so much self-pitying wankery... 

As long as the electoral college exists the 'more people voted for' argument is useless. So WHAT if 'more people' voted for Clinton? That's not the way the system works. Get over it or change it.

 

More people in the states that historically MATTER voted for Trump. And personally, I believe that in those particular states, part of the reason Trump won was that Clinton was a woman. It's not all of the reason, but I think it's a part of it so unfortunately in the current world we live in a woman candidate is going to have to more 'excellent' than a male one.

It's not right. It's not fair. But play the game as it exists, not as you wish it did.

 

I have stated before that I would stand for basically ANY candidate that ran on a policy of abolishing the Electoral College for exactly this reason.

Edited October 26, 2019 by yoink

[yoink 321]

6 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Trump made ridiculous promises (that he had no intention of keeping) to white people who felt their power slipping away. 
They were dumb enough to fall for it.

 

Trump made unrealistic promises because he's a con man (and good at it), but I suspect a lot of Trump voters voted the way they did because they were fed up of being called stupid, ignorant, dumb, deplorable or whatever else the left called them, because, well, just fuck you*. If you're going to call me stuff like that I'll vote against you just to piss you off.

 

*'you' being used in the broader sense, not specifically against the poster

 

[kallend 1,623]

4 hours ago, yoink said:

Trump made unrealistic promises because he's a con man (and good at it), but I suspect a lot of Trump voters voted the way they did because they were fed up of being called stupid, ignorant, dumb, deplorable or whatever else the left called them, because, well, just fuck you*. If you're going to call me stuff like that I'll vote against you just to piss you off.

 

*'you' being used in the broader sense, not specifically against the poster

 

Voting for a lying con-man sexual predatory arrogant narcissistic draft-dodger to be President of the USA, CinC of the most powerful military in history, and leader of the free world just to piss off people suggests that maybe they ARE stupid, ignorant, etc.

[turtlespeed 212]

10 hours ago, yoink said:

 

I have stated before that I would stand for basically ANY candidate that ran on a policy of abolishing the Electoral College for exactly this reason.

I don't disagree that a better system is warranted, (and I haven't thought about how or what - so don't ask)

But Any system that allows 4 or 5 major cities to decide the fate of the entire nation is not acceptable.

[kallend 1,623]

56 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

I don't disagree that a better system is warranted, (and I haven't thought about how or what - so don't ask)

But Any system that allows 4 or 5 major cities to decide the fate of the entire nation is not acceptable.

Cities don't vote.

Fields of corn don't vote.

Cattle don't vote.

Deserts don't vote.

Mountains don't vote.

PEOPLE VOTE.

"Government of the people, by the people, for the people."

[ryoder 1,382]

50 minutes ago, kallend said:

Cities don't vote.

Fields of corn don't vote.

Cattle don't vote.

Deserts don't vote.

Mountains don't vote.

PEOPLE VOTE.

"Government of the people, by the people, for the people."

One acre, one vote!

[JoeWeber 2,299]

6 minutes ago, ryoder said:

One acre, one vote!

Viva La Corn!

[yoink 321]

4 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

I don't disagree that a better system is warranted, (and I haven't thought about how or what - so don't ask)

But Any system that allows 4 or 5 major cities to decide the fate of the entire nation is not acceptable.

As opposed to 3 or 4 states that have fewer actual people which is what we have now??

 

and here’s a video explaining why the ‘few big cities decide everything’ argument is simply wrong. The math doesn’t add up.

 

And a good qualifying follow-up video:

 

[billvon 2,396]

7 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

I don't disagree that a better system is warranted, (and I haven't thought about how or what - so don't ask)

But Any system that allows 4 or 5 major cities to decide the fate of the entire nation is not acceptable.

?? What's wrong with people voting their conscience, and basing it on that?

[turtlespeed 212]

On 10/26/2019 at 5:56 PM, billvon said:

?? What's wrong with people voting their conscience, and basing it on that?

So you just want a straight up and down vote now?

[billvon 2,396]

3 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

So you just want a straight up and down vote now?

I like democratic votes, generally.  Plurality for most things.  Supermajority for very critical things, like Constitutional changes.

[turtlespeed 212]

10 minutes ago, billvon said:

I like democratic votes, generally.  Plurality for most things.  Supermajority for very critical things, like Constitutional changes.

I didn't realize the electoral college was involved in constitutional changes.

[jakee 1,254]

1 hour ago, turtlespeed said:

I didn't realize the electoral college was involved in constitutional changes.

Do you realise what the word ‘generally’ means?

[billvon 2,396]

3 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

I didn't realize the electoral college was involved in constitutional changes.

You didn't get it.