The 2020 Presidential Election - Convention & General Election

[BigRedBuster]

On 2/8/2019 at 6:04 PM, Moiraine said:

I'm not saying she doesn't deserve any of it, but one factor in the level of hatred is her gender, imo.

This sentence is an example of what drives people nuts. 

 

Someone might deserve criticism....but, when they are criticized, it’s tirned around as being some type of descrimination. 

 

I remembercwhen obama was first elected, when I would criticize him, I was accused of being racist. 

 

Supposedly, if you’re a minority, you shouldn’t be criticized. 

[Danny Bateman]

56 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

This sentence is an example of what drives people nuts. 

 

Someone might deserve criticism....but, when they are criticized, it’s tirned around as being some type of descrimination. 

 

I remembercwhen obama was first elected, when I would criticize him, I was accused of being racist. 

 

Supposedly, if you’re a minority, you shouldn’t be criticized. 

 

It can be both. I don't get why that's so radical.

[Moiraine]

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

This sentence is an example of what drives people nuts. 

 

Someone might deserve criticism....but, when they are criticized, it’s tirned around as being some type of descrimination. 

 

I remembercwhen obama was first elected, when I would criticize him, I was accused of being racist. 

 

Supposedly, if you’re a minority, you shouldn’t be criticized. 

 

 

 

The truth drives people nuts sometimes. The level of vitriol towards female politicians makes it pretty clear to me that it (the level, not its existence) is due to their gender. Same goes with Obama. Disliking these people doesn't mean you're sexist or racist. But overall the level of negative attention and lack of negative attention for others makes it pretty obvious that gender and race are a factor.

 

There is a big difference between people who think everyone who disliked Obama disliked him because he was Black and people who think the level of hatred towards him was due in part to his race. You should be differentiating between the 2, even if the former annoys you, and not get annoyed when someone points out the latter. Do you really think they are treated equally by the media?

 

I agree completely with the people who said yes to the top question. Even a woman's clothing is scrutinized if she wants to run for office. And there is a tight rope they have to walk between being too serious and not being charismatic/friendly enough. I don't envy the ones that try.

 

[BigRedBuster]

I agree with Liz. 

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

16 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

 

The truth drives people nuts sometimes. The level of vitriol towards female politicians makes it pretty clear to me that it (the level, not its existence) is due to their gender. Same goes with Obama. Disliking these people doesn't mean you're sexist or racist. But overall the level of negative attention and lack of negative attention for others makes it pretty obvious that gender and race are a factor.

 

There is a big difference between people who think everyone who disliked Obama disliked him because he was Black and people who think the level of hatred towards him was due in part to his race. You should be differentiating between the 2, even if the former annoys you, and not get annoyed when someone points out the latter. Do you really think they are treated equally by the media?

 

I agree completely with the people who said yes to the top question. Even a woman's clothing is scrutinized if she wants to run for office. And there is a tight rope they have to walk between being too serious and not being charismatic/friendly enough. I don't envy the ones that try.

 

You yourself said she deserves criticism. But when it’s done, people cry sexism. 

[Moiraine]

2 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

You yourself said she deserves criticism. But when it’s done, people cry sexism. 

 

 

As they should, if they're talking about treatment of female candidates in general. It's not sexist to criticize a woman if she does something wrong. It is sexist to criticize women for the things men do while not criticizing men for it. I understand why it might not be on your radar but it's pretty obvious to me that they are treated differently (i.e. worse) than male candidates, regardless of behavior.

[BigRedBuster]

Just now, Moiraine said:

 

 

As they should. It's not sexist to criticize a woman if she does something wrong. It is sexist to criticize women for the things men do while not criticizing men for it. I understand why it might not be on your radar but it's pretty obvious to me that they are treated differently (i.e. worse) than male candidates, regardless of behavior.

People disagree with her and criticize her. That is not sexism. 

[Moiraine]

2 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

People disagree with her and criticize her. That is not sexism. 

 

 

The coverage of it is sexist if men who do the same thing aren't getting criticized for it. Female politicians tend to get criticized for trivialities that men don't. I thought my explanation you're quoting was pretty clear. I'm not sure what the confusion is about there being 2 things we're talking about.

 

It's like Blacks having a much higher arrest rate for the same incidence of marijuana usage. Except in this case marijuana usage is being mean to your employees, according to anonymous former employees.

[Danny Bateman]

7 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

I agree with Liz. 

 

 

 

I just listened to the full interview.

 

She refused to say ONE word about Trump's racist jokes about genocide because it would be bad for her team. Tapper asked her point blank multiple times.

 

Deeply disappointing. She's just as much of a partisan hack as anybody else. Complete fealty to Trump and refusing to hold her own accountable is an awful look.

[BigRedBuster]

1 minute ago, Clifford Franklin said:

 

I just listened to the full interview.

 

She refused to say ONE word about Trump's racist jokes about genocide because it would be bad for her team.

 

Deeply disappointing. She's just as much of a partisan hack as anybody else. Complete fealty to Trump and refusing to criticize her own is an awful look.

I can see that. But Elizabeth is being shown to pretty pathetic with how she tried using her Native American heritage. 

[Danny Bateman]

9 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

I can see that. But Elizabeth is being shown to pretty pathetic with how she tried using her Native American heritage. 

 

To the contrary, I think the entire debacle is an entirely idiotic self-blunder that could have been avoided entirely with better judgment.

 

But as of recently, I think she owned the issue about as well as she could - when she was last asked about it she simply apologized and said she shouldn't have tried to claim membership in any tribe:

 

Quote

"I'm not a tribal citizen," the Massachusetts Democrat told reporters. "My apology is an apology for not having been more sensitive about tribal citizenship and tribal sovereignty. I really want to underline the point, tribes and only tribes determine tribal citizenship."

 

It was at least the third time in a week that Warren – who is part of the large Democratic field running to unseat President Donald Trump in 2020 – has apologized for her past self-identification. 

 

"I can’t go back," Warren told the Post in response to the story about her Texas bar registration. "But I am sorry for furthering confusion on tribal sovereignty and tribal citizenship and harm that resulted."

 

So again, entirely idiotic situation that's entirely her fault, but I think that's pretty good. About as good as somebody could do in this jacked up of a situation. Just apologize, admit you were wrong, and move on.

 

I'm utterly disappointed Cheney went to bat for Trump and is choosing to continue to aid and abet him in his quest to make 2020 another campaign about race-baiting and continuing to devolve our politics into the gutter.

[Guy Chamberlin]

On 2/8/2019 at 1:52 PM, Moiraine said:

 

 

 

I would appreciate it if they interviewed all male senators’ aides and asked if the senators are mean to them.

 

There seems to be a subjective difference of opinion on what it's like to work for Amy, with many enthusiastic supporters, but the objective fact is that she had the single highest staff turnover rate in the Senate for several years. 

[BigRedBuster]

33 minutes ago, Clifford Franklin said:

 

To the contrary, I think the entire debacle is an entirely idiotic self-blunder that could have been avoided entirely with better judgment.

 

But as of recently, I think she owned the issue about as well as she could - when she was last asked about it she simply apologized and said she shouldn't have tried to claim membership in any tribe:

 

 

So again, entirely idiotic situation that's entirely her fault, but I think that's pretty good. About as good as somebody could do in this jacked up of a situation. Just apologize, admit you were wrong, and move on.

 

I'm utterly disappointed Cheney went to bat for Trump and is choosing to continue to aid and abet him in his quest to make 2020 another campaign about race-baiting and continuing to devolve our politics into the gutter.

 

So, pointing out how a Democrat exploited a minority for personal gain.....then it’s turned on as disappointment in the republican for pointing it out. 

[StPaulHusker]

42 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

There seems to be a subjective difference of opinion on what it's like to work for Amy, with many enthusiastic supporters, but the objective fact is that she had the single highest staff turnover rate in the Senate for several years. 

According to Legistorm, a website that tracks this sort of thing, Klobuchar was 3rd highest from 01-17 and 4th highest in 2018 in the Senate for turnover.

 

https://www.legistorm.com/turnover/worst_bosses.html

[Danny Bateman]

19 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

So, pointing out how a Democrat exploited a minority for personal gain.....then it’s turned on as disappointment in the republican for pointing it out.  

 

You're dang right I'm disappointed in Liz Cheney for not having the backbone to denounce her party's obvious racism.

 

That doesn't mean I'm not disappointed in Warren for lack of judgement. It's damn near disqualifying for me and as a result she's pretty far down on my 2020 wishlist.

 

Are you willing to agree both are wrong as well?