[US Election 2016] Democratic Primary Megathread III

[Ostroeuropa]

Both trump and sanders have written editorials for other news sites during this particular cycle, so it's not too out of the ordinary, whether Clintons choice of site says anything is probably not knowable either way, though I have suspicions.

What does this even mean

What even is this thread right now.

Ostro needed another platform to rant about MRA crap, as far as I can tell.

I'm not the one who brought gender politics into this primary election. If you don't like people discussing politics, should you even be here?

Or I guess we're only going to allow people to agree with the various candidates positions then, right? At least i'm discussing politics instead of being personal.

I found it way at the bottom in the politics section. I avoid CNN because their layout is horrible and their site tends to auto-play video. If you disable the scripts allowing videos to play the website doesn't load correctly and occasionally doesn't load at all. Awful really.

*eyes khadgar suspiciously*

what were you doing at the bottom of the politics section then?

I would have expected it to be on politico or huffington post. cnn.com seems a bad choice.

Donors though, probably. Also, keeping good with CNN might help with television appearances, which huffpost can't do.

[Khadgar]

I found it way at the bottom in the politics section. I avoid CNN because their layout is horrible and their site tends to auto-play video. If you disable the scripts allowing videos to play the website doesn't load correctly and occasionally doesn't load at all. Awful really.

*eyes khadgar suspiciously*

what were you doing at the bottom of the politics section then?

I would have expected it to be on politico or huffington post. cnn.com seems a bad choice.

I went digging when I saw your post. I usually avoid CNN like the plague.

[Ashmoria]

*eyes khadgar suspiciously*

what were you doing at the bottom of the politics section then?

I would have expected it to be on politico or huffington post. cnn.com seems a bad choice.

I went digging when I saw your post. I usually avoid CNN like the plague.

oh ok.

I do too. only when I cant find an easier, reputable source in my google results.

[Valaran]

What even is this thread right now.

Ostro needed another platform to rant about MRA crap, as far as I can tell.

I guess, but this whole tangent has sort of lost me.

[Galloism]

Ostro needed another platform to rant about MRA crap, as far as I can tell.

I guess, but this whole tangent has sort of lost me.

Basically, Hillary was being a little tone deaf. We were talking about it.

[Senkaku]

I guess, but this whole tangent has sort of lost me.

Basically, Hillary was being a little tone deaf. We were talking about it.

Hillary is almost never not being a little tone deaf, tbh. She just seems to struggle not to say awkward things. She's like a flamboyant cuttlefish trying to swim. Just awkward and a little bit funny, yet somehow also sad.

[that was a terrible comparison but whatever ]

[Guy]

Except that there are ways to justify lower sentences for women, as well as distinguish particular issues that only affect women in sentencing (such as caring for family, etc). This is nothing like complaining white people get harsh sentences.

Actually it is, unless you ALSO sexistly believe that mothers are more important to families than fathers.

Yeah no. I hope your other 34512 posts are better than this.

[Also, re: your sig, it's apt to mislead. Aside from being factually wrong in Victoria's context ("In Victoria three-quarters of victims in family violence incidents attended by police are female and 77 per cent of perpetrators recorded by police are male"), statistics for intimate partner violence are even more lopsided than that.]

[Galloism]

Actually it is, unless you ALSO sexistly believe that mothers are more important to families than fathers.

Yeah no. I hope your other 34512 posts are better than this.

Perhaps you don't understand my post if you think it's bad.

[Also, re: your sig, it's apt to mislead. Aside from being factually wrong in Victoria's context ("In Victoria three-quarters of victims in family violence incidents attended by police are female and 77 per cent of perpetrators recorded by police are male"), statistics for intimate partner violence are even more lopsided than that.]

Yes, police tend to be sexist in enforcement. In addition, statistics for intimate partner violence are not especially lopsided if you look at surveys instead of arrest data.

This is not new.

In any case, there's an MRA thread somewhere where I'll be happy to correct you at length. Go find it.

[The Wastelands of Earth]

Too bad all of your candidates are jokes

[Ostroeuropa]

Actually it is, unless you ALSO sexistly believe that mothers are more important to families than fathers.

Yeah no. I hope your other 34512 posts are better than this.

[Also, re: your sig, it's apt to mislead. Aside from being factually wrong in Victoria's context ("In Victoria three-quarters of victims in family violence incidents attended by police are female and 77 per cent of perpetrators recorded by police are male"), statistics for intimate partner violence are even more lopsided than that.]

"Yeah no." Cool argument.
Also, re: You provide no sources for your claim, but yes, the police tend to be sexist on this issue. It doesn't mean the ratio of victims is proportional to the perpetrator recordings.

There is a thread specifically for gender issues not related to the primaries. Two in fact.

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=357514&hilit=feminism+thread

Feminist flavor.

viewtopic.php?p=25649080#p25649080

MRM flavor.

[Galloism]

Basically, Hillary was being a little tone deaf. We were talking about it.

Hillary is almost never not being a little tone deaf, tbh. She just seems to struggle not to say awkward things. She's like a flamboyant cuttlefish trying to swim. Just awkward and a little bit funny, yet somehow also sad.

[that was a terrible comparison but whatever ]

Yeah, hopefully The Donald wins the republican nod. If it's Cruz, I fear Hillary's in trouble. If it's Kasich... jesus, we got problems.

[Guy]

Donald can pivot to the centre, Cruz can't because he actually believes the shit he says.

[Galloism]

Donald can pivot to the centre, Cruz can't because he actually believes the shit he says.

That may be true, but I think Hillary will be excellent at beating trump down to gnome size using words out of his own mouth.

[Ostroeuropa]

Hillary is almost never not being a little tone deaf, tbh. She just seems to struggle not to say awkward things. She's like a flamboyant cuttlefish trying to swim. Just awkward and a little bit funny, yet somehow also sad.

[that was a terrible comparison but whatever ]

Yeah, hopefully The Donald wins the republican nod. If it's Cruz, I fear Hillary's in trouble. If it's Kasich... jesus, we got problems.

I rank those in reverse actually.
Kasich is relatively unknown and just as theocratic as Cruz. While he is viewed favorably, that will only decline if he is given more time in the spotlight, he also seems less media disciplined than Cruz.

Cruz isn't losing any more friends than he's already lost. He's a radical teapartying theocrat, sure, but everyone knows it. Everyone also knows he's sleazy.

Trump however has shown he's a good campaigner in terms of building on an advantage. He's also got the right mix of policies to unite a new coalition in the country. As this article points out:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/yes-trump-c ... y-clinton/
He's also the only candidate who would dare dredge up the past in such a hostile manner.

Clinton has shown herself to be a weak campaigner.

What happens when Trump, after Hillary inevitably accuses him of sexism, says that Bill is a rapist, a serial assaulter of women, and that she is his enabler? What happens when he incorporates this into his stump speech? The upside, if you can call it that, to Trump's refusal to act "presidential" is that he is the only candidate who will go that far. Trump, and Trump alone, is the only candidate who would not only resurrect all the Clinton sex scandals, but make them a centerpiece of his campaign.

It could backfire, sure. But the fact is we have no idea how Trump dredging up all this will play, particularly among the younger voters Hillary will be somewhat dependent on. We don't know how Americans who've grown up marinating in discussions of rape culture, who watched the Cosby and Catholic and Dr. Luke scandals unfold, would respond to the renewed visibility of someone like Juanita Broaddrick.

And that's just the sex stuff. The Clintons are no strangers to scandals financial and otherwise, and while bringing up all that baggage, in some cases discredited, would seem too-low for a normal candidate, Trump will almost certainly embrace all of it.

Like the article points out, Trump is also a "Moderate." which will help him when he pivots. But since he's picked two issues (Islam and Immigration) to be hardcore reactionary on, he can keep his base united.
ESPECIALLY against Hillary, who the base loathes with a passion.

[Khadgar]

Donald can pivot to the centre, Cruz can't because he actually believes the shit he says.

I'm not sure it's possible to pivot anymore. Everything the candidates say and do is recorded and will be replayed for the general.

[Corrian]

I actually am bewildered by how many posters agreed with him.

Have you even read peoples responses? People gave legitimate responses about it being an odd thing to focus on.

sure

whatever

Good to know you can give an in depth reply to something that actually seems legitimate.

Your responses practically sound like "Lalalala don't want to hear it" to me.

Look, I'm all about women's issues, men's, yadda yadda, the whole thing. That doesn't mean I agree with everything being said on said supposed "issues". I don't care if I'm more liberal leaning and argue against these things, it doesn't matter.

no no no, Trump is just telling it like it is because men in this country are facing discrimination and rampant sexism.

I would actually argue that both genders do face sexism in their own ways, just obviously it is a bigger issue for women.

personally I avoid cnn.com because it loads slowly.

You should start avoiding it because it is a piece of shit, just like MSNBC and Fox News.

What even is this thread right now.

Ostro needed another platform to rant about MRA crap, as far as I can tell.

Except it seems like a legitimate discussion to me, but okay.

Too bad all of your candidates are jokes

Too bad 90% of the candidates this time are a joke.

Yeah, hopefully The Donald wins the republican nod. If it's Cruz, I fear Hillary's in trouble. If it's Kasich... jesus, we got problems.

I actually fear a bit that Donald Trump will not actually have a filter on himself and tear into her for being "Establishment". I just hope it doesn't do enough damage, but we all know he will keep himself unfiltered when attacking her. I have a feeling it will get ugly.

Of course she also has plenty of stupid material from Trump to attack him with, and I expect her to.

[Senkaku]

Hillary is almost never not being a little tone deaf, tbh. She just seems to struggle not to say awkward things. She's like a flamboyant cuttlefish trying to swim. Just awkward and a little bit funny, yet somehow also sad.

[that was a terrible comparison but whatever ]

Yeah, hopefully The Donald wins the republican nod. If it's Cruz, I fear Hillary's in trouble. If it's Kasich... jesus, we got problems.

Cruz is a rabid theocrat who is way too far right for the majority of the electorate, and Kasich is running for VP or a cabinet position. He simply doesn't have enough delegates. Awkward she may be, but Khaleesi, barring an indictment or an assassination, probably has things wrapped up in terms of the GOP. I'm sure she'll make it harder for herself, but I think she can beat any of the GOP candidates.

[The Romulan Republic]

Yeah, hopefully The Donald wins the republican nod. If it's Cruz, I fear Hillary's in trouble. If it's Kasich... jesus, we got problems.

Cruz is a rabid theocrat who is way too far right for the majority of the electorate, and Kasich is running for VP or a cabinet position. He simply doesn't have enough delegates. Awkward she may be, but Khaleesi, barring an indictment or an assassination, probably has things wrapped up in terms of the GOP. I'm sure she'll make it harder for herself, but I think she can beat any of the GOP candidates.

I'd hope so, because not only would the current Republican Party taking power be a global disaster, but losing to that pack of nuts would be just embarrassing. It should be an easy win.

But between the recent nastiness of the primary, the Bernie or Bust types, Clinton's perpetual cloud of scandal (some of it baseless and some not), and the stubborn refusal of some on Clinton's side to try to reach out to Sanders supporters, I worry that the Democrats are going to throw away what should by all rights be a landslide win.

Still, we've got a long way to go until election day. We don't know what will happen, but hopefully there's enough time to build an unbeatable campaign.

[USS Monitor]

Not sure why she felt the need to make that so very gender-specific... It talks about a lot of things that also apply to men in prison.

Well according to her website, the US has 5% of the world's women, but 30% of the female prisoners.

That doesn't make it a gender specific issue. We also have a disproportionate number of male prisoners.

[Kelinfort]

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/04/27/opini ... on-crisis/

The most stunning thing about her argument is that she lists off how most of the women in prison:

Are non-violent offenders
come from poor backgrounds
have drug problems

As arguments why women specifically should have different treatment.

At one point she also brings up how women are more likely to have custody of their children and so should get lesser sentences.

The entire speech is one long list of reasons why no man should vote for Clinton, and no woman should if she wants to consider herself in favor of equality of the sexes.

Not sure why she felt the need to make that so very gender-specific... It talks about a lot of things that also apply to men in prison.

Why focus on child hunger? Why does it have to be age specific?

[Conserative Morality]

Why focus on child hunger? Why does it have to be age specific?

Unless you consider men and women to be as unequal as adults and children, that doesn't work.

Oh yes, and something about development and growth.

[Kelinfort]

Why focus on child hunger? Why does it have to be age specific?

Unless you consider men and women to be as unequal as adults and children, that doesn't work.

It's analogous, right? The problems adults face with hunger are largely, if not completely the same as problems children face with hunger.

We are talking about a minor opinion piece. Really it doesn'f matter all that much.

[USS Monitor]

Then again, the US has 20% of the world's total prison population (roughly) and 4.4% of its total population, so the disparity is reflected regardless of gender.

True but if we have 20% of the world's prison population and 30% of the world's prison population that is women, that's a gender issue.

It's really not. What would make it a women's rights issue is if the US was punishing women more harshly or more often than men -- but we're not doing that.

[Conserative Morality]

It's analogous, right? The problems adults face with hunger are largely, if not completely the same as problems children face with hunger.

Not really. An adult can starve for a while and mostly recover. A child who starves is likely to face developmental retardation that will affect the rest of their lives in a dramatic way.

[Ashmoria]

Not sure why she felt the need to make that so very gender-specific... It talks about a lot of things that also apply to men in prison.

Why focus on child hunger? Why does it have to be age specific?

it really is like that

no one gives a fuck about adult hunger so if you want to DO something about hunger you have to go after something people do care about (at least a little) --child hunger

the average American gives less than a fuck about criminals and tends to think that it would be for the best to keep them in prison forever no matter how minor the offence. men in prison? depraved animals that must be kept caged for the public good. so starting with serious but non-violent offenses by the only kind of women we REALLY care about--mothers of young children--can get people thinking about how crazy our mass incarceration system is.