I'm say that once you have a significant sample size, it's fair game to look at that sample and determine if there are outside biases on it. In this case, the utter lack of women candidates shows a clear societal bias against voting for women to higher office.
No it doesn't. It only shows a perception of such. There is more to women not running or being elected for political office than societal gender roles, especially in today's society.
I'll bring up these questions once again: Should Sanders have conceded to Elizabeth Warren because she was female and their policies were aligned? Should people have voted for her over Sanders because of her gender? Or were there other reasons to choose Sanders over Warren? I do not think for a second the reason why Warren did so poorly was due to her gender.
No. Absolutely not - but then this is a weird question and no one is arguing that on a micro level that we should defer to women. I think that's the argument you want to be arguing against, but it's not the argument anyone is putting forward.
And it obviously does. I dont know how else to explain a systemic bias in a system to someone. In the event that you expect something to happen approximately x number of times, and it doesnt happen anywhere near as many times over a sufficiently large number of cases, there is an influence acting upon your system. In this case, we would expect to see more than 7% of women representing conservative districts in the US house based on demography as well as based on the fact that they can and are elected both in other regions and other countries. Even looking at the shoddy polling in which conservatives claim to be equally predisposed to electing men and women, you'd think there would be more than 7%.
Because we do not see this, we can infer there is an influence. It's not perception - it's reality. Is it the only bias? Almost certainly not - but the argument that there is no bias is ludicrous.
For the record, I absolutely do believe Warren being a woman played into her not getting elected. There's a long history of studies that find that Women are treated very differently than men who are running - such as seeing ambition in a man as a positive thing and a negative thing in a woman (See: Clinton) or how women on average have to be far more qualified to get a look than men typically do.
Or maybe a lot of them try so hard to not be 'feminine' that they come across as fake. Just an impression I get from a lot of the more prominent female politicians. The answer for female representation isn't trying to be more 'manly' it's embracing their feminineness. Honestly that's a lot of what I hated about Hillary. It was almost like she was deliberately trying to not be female. I'll admit that I'm probably more turned off by hypocrisy than most but I think I'm not the only one who can sense a fake...
Again, I think this is indicative of a personality-based approach to politics that is mistaken. As opposed to a policy-based approach. Continuing to to emphasize things that don't truly matter, and that you cannot truly know, is a recipe for continuing to worsen our politics and therefore governance. I really think people need to try and consciously turn away from this kind of thinking, or emphasis.
Why?
Are your assumptions somehow more valid than mine? Yours are unprovable as well. I said a few comments ago that I couldn't care less what gender a candidate is. My problem was Biden stating he'd only pick a female for his VP without saying who that female is. I think that was a bad approach and that he should have already made his pick before saying that. Sorry, but I just think it's bad optics and diminishes his pick in my mind.
A policy-based approach to politics is not at all unprovable. As I've demonstrated above in comparing health outcomes in countries with greater government run healthcare than the USA.
It's important to be precise here. I'm not talking about dishonesty generally. You said "maybe a lot them try so hard to not be 'feminine' that they come across as fake." This is a focus on a politician lying or misrepresenting their personality. Something that is unknowable for you and for almost all voters. If instead you were objecting that maybe some politicians aren't forthcoming about their views on an issue or a factual accounting of their past that would be different. But you're arguing about personality here. This is an extremely wrongheaded approach to improving politics, and a significant bloc of voters taking this approach is a contributing factor to why we don't have a meritocratic political system.
To state in more simple fashion. You can never know if a politician is more authentically feminine or whatever than what they are presenting as. So why focus on it?
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the vast majority of voters vote on their gut instincts, not logic. That's why how a politician is perceived is at least as important as what they say. Look, I'm not making my views known so you all can try to talk me out of them. I'm just letting you know how I see things. For the record, the other candidate I think tries too hard to seem more masculine is Elizabeth Warren.
Touché!
That's pretty funny. You can put Sarah Palin on my hate list as well so it's not just Democrats. There are even more male politicians I can't stand incidentally, but that's probably just because there are more of them to choose from. As a matter of fact, I can count on one hand how many politicians I've actually liked over the years. Two of them are Dingells, Ronald Reagan (although I was too young to vote back then) and the other is Bernie Sanders. Mostly Democrats believe it or not. I also don't hate Kamala Harris, I don't like her but I don't hate her. I would have probably voted for Klobuchar for President and if Biden makes her his VP I'd probably vote for him. I don't dislike Gretchen Whitmer either but I'm kind of ambivalent about her. She started out handling the Covid-19 situation pretty well but has been a bit ham-fisted the last couple of weeks. She needs better advisors I think...
So according to the GOP, the Coronavirus is so weak and also a hoax that we need to open up the country so people can get haircuts but it's so dangerous that we need to restrict all immigration right??
So according to the GOP, the Coronavirus is so weak and also a hoax that we need to open up the country so people can get haircuts but it's so dangerous that we need to restrict all immigration right??
Hmm...
Well, they've kind of abandoned the 'hoax' theme and substituted 'the cure is worse than the disease' now. It remains to be seen if they're actually correct in this thinking. Believe it or not, if people are dying because of depression/suicide, or suffering from other health effects due to the mental anguish from being unemployed or having their lives turned upside-down, that needs to be included in the equation used to assess the toll of this disease. The future is not as easy to determine as the media on either side would have us believe.
The polling numbers in swing states continue to look pretty horrendous for Trump, and in the cross-tabs, even BOOMERS are flocking to Biden in massive numbers, and it looks like Florida is even in play, which I would have given to Trump sight unseen. But frankly, I can't buy into or take solace in any of this until I see someone else put their hand on the Bible on January 20, 2021. Even if we assume they aren't able to pull some complete fuckery in the months leading up to November in regards to voting, I still don't believe he will accept a loss lying down.
The polling numbers in swing states continue to look pretty horrendous for Trump, and in the cross-tabs, even BOOMERS are flocking to Biden in massive numbers, and it looks like Florida is even in play, which I would have given to Trump sight unseen. But frankly, I can't buy into or take solace in any of this until I see someone else put their hand on the Bible on January 20, 2021. Even if we assume they aren't able to pull some complete fuckery in the months leading up to November in regards to voting, I still don't believe he will accept a loss lying down.
Rumour I've heard in the ether is that Trump will become a talk-show host if he loses the election. I could totally see this happening either on Fox News, Newsmax or AM radio.
Speaking of Newsmax, I heard ads for it on WJR and totally dismissed it as just another Fox News-like propaganda venue. However, after just mentioning it I decided to check it out and see for myself. I found this article that surprisingly does a pretty good job explaining how I perceive the Fed and the stock market.
Towards the end of the article it veers off into apocalypse land though so be wary of that. I didn't take the click-bait that will probably tell you to sell everything and buy gold, but other than that it's a pretty good article. https://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/964313?section=patrickwatson&keywords=markets-fed-treasury-coronavirus&year=2020&month=04&date=23&id=964313
It's about time at least one Democrat started talking like this out loud, and apparently Mitch McConnell's suggestion states should go into bankruptcy (which he wants to have happen so pensions can default) is what sent Cuomo over the edge. I've been playing this tune for years:
It's about time at least one Democrat started talking like this out loud, and apparently Mitch McConnell's suggestion states should go into bankruptcy (which he wants to have happen so pensions can default) is what set Cuomo over the edge. I've been playing this tune for years:
That isn't the case at the moment though. Kentucky has been pretty safe from Coronavirus so far.
It's all moot though since the Fed can pretty much conjure up money from nothing anyway. @Mathsorcerer and I have been saying this for years but it's only now becoming apparent to more people. Taxes are not how the Federal Government makes money. Hasn't been for a very long time. Newsflash, that's why I started supporting Bernie Sanders. He gets it. National healthcare wouldn't cost nearly as much as we're led to believe by both sides.
It's all moot though since the Fed can pretty much conjure up money from nothing anyway. @Mathsorcerer and I have been saying this for years but it's only now becoming apparent to more people. Taxes are not how the Federal Government makes money. Hasn't been for a very long time.
This is factually untrue. In 2019, one of the highest deficit years in history, by the way, the government spent $4.4 trillion, while collecting $3.5 trillion, meaning that 79% of spending was covered by taxes or fees.
It's also important to note that the Federal Reserve "printing money" and the federal government borrowing to pay expenses are not the same things. But that's a complicated subject.
10 minutes ago I was about to say Trump's press conferences have become pointless and no one is really paying attention anymore. But then he decided to suggest that "injecting" a disinfectant into the body might stop it, and then went on to talk about the potential of "bringing light inside the body". And.......yeah, we're fucked. So since hydroxychloroquine didn't pan out, we seem to have moved on to Clorox and UV lights. At a minimum, 40% of voters are going to pull the lever for this shit. Joffrey Baratheon would be a better leader at this point. At least he was accidentally right about the threat of the dragons.
That tweet is pretty ignorant, imo. I think people should not rely on social media for getting their information. It's a good supplement, but it shouldn't be your main source. The people named who didn't get "endorsements" are running either unchallenged or in non-competitive races. The people endorsed in the news story are, generally, running in much more competitive races. I.E. Endorsing actually matters.
And importantly, Warren is not endorsing anyone running against those people. Nor is she done making endorsements.
10 minutes ago I was about to say Trump's press conferences have become pointless and no one is really paying attention anymore. But then he decided to suggest that "injecting" a disinfectant into the body might stop it, and then went on to talk about the potential of "bringing light inside the body". And.......yeah, we're fucked. So since hydroxychloroquine didn't pan out, we seem to have moved on to Clorox and UV lights. At a minimum, 40% of voters are going to pull the lever for this shit. Joffrey Baratheon would be a better leader at this point. At least he was accidentally right about the threat of the dragons.
I think the question that needs to be asked is who would actually be worse than Trump right now?
10 minutes ago I was about to say Trump's press conferences have become pointless and no one is really paying attention anymore. But then he decided to suggest that "injecting" a disinfectant into the body might stop it, and then went on to talk about the potential of "bringing light inside the body". And.......yeah, we're fucked. So since hydroxychloroquine didn't pan out, we seem to have moved on to Clorox and UV lights. At a minimum, 40% of voters are going to pull the lever for this shit. Joffrey Baratheon would be a better leader at this point. At least he was accidentally right about the threat of the dragons.
I think the question that needs to be asked is who would actually be worse than Trump right now?
Nobody. In the words of a not great man:"what do you have to lose?". Dump Trump.
Rick Bright will file a whistleblower complaint alleging he was removed from his role due to opposing the unrestricted use of hydroxychloroquine against Covid-19. Whatever the actual rights or wrongs of that complaint, his chances of success won't be harmed by the President discussing on live TV how injecting yourself with disinfectant would be a good idea - I'm quite sure it also won't be harmed by the story that will certainly break within the next few hours about how the President's remarks have been misinterpreted ...
That tweet is pretty ignorant, imo. I think people should not rely on social media for getting their information. It's a good supplement, but it shouldn't be your main source. The people named who didn't get "endorsements" are running either unchallenged or in non-competitive races. The people endorsed in the news story are, generally, running in much more competitive races. I.E. Endorsing actually matters.
And importantly, Warren is not endorsing anyone running against those people. Nor is she done making endorsements.
Shh. Dont lets facts get in the way of a good story.
Warren's not allowed to be a good progressive anymore.
Rick Bright will file a whistleblower complaint alleging he was removed from his role due to opposing the unrestricted use of hydroxychloroquine against Covid-19. Whatever the actual rights or wrongs of that complaint, his chances of success won't be harmed by the President discussing on live TV how injecting yourself with disinfectant would be a good idea - I'm quite sure it also won't be harmed by the story that will certainly break within the next few hours about how the President's remarks have been misinterpreted ...
Here's how this will go: Trump says something on camera, his defenders immediately say he was misinterpreted (when has he ever NOT been misinterpreted). Eventually, they can't handle the mental gymnastics anymore, so they move onto "he just said it to trigger the libs, and look at how well it worked".
Now, let's CHARITABLY say that where they always land, which is on the last part, is what was actually going on here. If that's the case, are we then just supposed to accept the fact that a man in his 70s and his grown-ass adult followers place serious value in acting less mature than a 5-year old child while 2000 people are dying a day??
Who the fuck knows what he was saying?? He doesn't even know. But I'm certain of this. Anyone spending any time talking to the American people about disinfectants and "light" getting inside the body to fight the virus is round the bend. What are we doing here?? Why is anyone airing this shit live?? This isn't news. If your relative started talking like this, you'd seek to have them committed. How is a country supposed to confront a once in a century crisis with an insane person at the helm of the ship??
He thinks all publicity is good publicity, and that may USUALLY be the case. But people are home now. They don't have anywhere to go. And even people who pay no attention to politics are watching this guy ramble for hours upon hours every week and it's pretty much impossible for all but the most devoted at this point to not be muttering out loud to themselves "what the fuck is this maniac talking about"??
I've been catching up on the last few series of Dr Who during the lockdown period. There was one storyline I saw a couple of days ago about a space station which was made economic by charging you for oxygen - and reacted violently if you tried to use your own supplies rather than paying .
I was reminded of that by this story. Disconnecting water at any time for non-payment seems questionable to me - after all the ultimate sanction for non-payment would be jail, where at least water is provided. Disconnecting water during an epidemic seems more akin to shooting yourself in the foot ...
It's now pretty clear to me what happened with Trump yesterday. He saw some bullet-points about how quickly the virus can be killed on surfaces. Trump is thinking to himself "you know what, it kills it on surfaces I bet no one has ever thought of whether it can kill it in the body. I'm brilliant." Of course, there is a reason no one has ever thought of this. This is not an isolated incident. He opined about nuking hurricanes, windmills causing cancer, and raking forests to prevent wildfires. But the fact is, he was just riffing it, and this article reveals why. He isn't even taking part in the task force meetings:
Well, consider me unshocked . A White House spokesman earlier today complained that Trump's comments about use of disinfectants and light were misinterpreted and I've just seen that Trump is now saying his comments were sarcastic in order to trigger reporters. Give it a bit of time and he will claim he never said anything at all and the entire story was made up by the mainstream media ...
Another interesting bit of news is that the WHO is setting up a new initiative for Covid-19 with the aim of fairly sharing according to need any treatment or vaccine developed for the disease through this initiative.
In past epidemics, for instance with HIV and H1N1, treatments have not been shared equally but bought up in bulk by richer nations - resulting in long delays in many parts of the world to access these. I suspect this initiative is one result of the US distancing itself from the WHO - the US does not support this and would probably have blocked it if it was still listened to by the WHO.
Well, consider me unshocked . A White House spokesman earlier today complained that Trump's comments about use of disinfectants and light were misinterpreted and I've just seen that Trump is now saying his comments were sarcastic in order to trigger reporters. Give it a bit of time and he will claim he never said anything at all and the entire story was made up by the mainstream media ...
Again, let's CHARITABLY say that was true. Best case scenario. He is still acting like a petulant child while thousands die a day of the very subject he is "triggering" reporters about. This may fly as a reason on 4chan, but not in the real world. No one worthy of the office would even contemplate doing such a thing.
It may seem ridiculous to use them as a source, but I can't remember a single time they have been wrong about a "celebrity death" and TMZ is now saying Kim Jong Un is either dead or incapacitated with no hope of recovery.
It may seem ridiculous to use them as a source, but I can't remember a single time they have been wrong about a "celebrity death" and TMZ is now saying Kim Jong Un is either dead or incapacitated with no hope of recovery.
Here are two other sources with more context. Looks like botched heart surgery and his sister might be taking over:
If she does end up replacing him entirely as the leader of DPRK - I'll be very curious to see how the world and the media here in the US treat it. I recall the media being VERY excited about her during the Olympics.
Comments
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the vast majority of voters vote on their gut instincts, not logic. That's why how a politician is perceived is at least as important as what they say. Look, I'm not making my views known so you all can try to talk me out of them. I'm just letting you know how I see things. For the record, the other candidate I think tries too hard to seem more masculine is Elizabeth Warren.
https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/i-dont-hate-women-candidates-i-just-hated-hillary-and-coincidentally-im-starting-to-hate-elizabeth-warren
Touché!
That's pretty funny. You can put Sarah Palin on my hate list as well so it's not just Democrats. There are even more male politicians I can't stand incidentally, but that's probably just because there are more of them to choose from. As a matter of fact, I can count on one hand how many politicians I've actually liked over the years. Two of them are Dingells, Ronald Reagan (although I was too young to vote back then) and the other is Bernie Sanders. Mostly Democrats believe it or not. I also don't hate Kamala Harris, I don't like her but I don't hate her. I would have probably voted for Klobuchar for President and if Biden makes her his VP I'd probably vote for him. I don't dislike Gretchen Whitmer either but I'm kind of ambivalent about her. She started out handling the Covid-19 situation pretty well but has been a bit ham-fisted the last couple of weeks. She needs better advisors I think...
Hmm...
Well, they've kind of abandoned the 'hoax' theme and substituted 'the cure is worse than the disease' now. It remains to be seen if they're actually correct in this thinking. Believe it or not, if people are dying because of depression/suicide, or suffering from other health effects due to the mental anguish from being unemployed or having their lives turned upside-down, that needs to be included in the equation used to assess the toll of this disease. The future is not as easy to determine as the media on either side would have us believe.
Rumour I've heard in the ether is that Trump will become a talk-show host if he loses the election. I could totally see this happening either on Fox News, Newsmax or AM radio.
Towards the end of the article it veers off into apocalypse land though so be wary of that. I didn't take the click-bait that will probably tell you to sell everything and buy gold, but other than that it's a pretty good article.
https://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/964313?section=patrickwatson&keywords=markets-fed-treasury-coronavirus&year=2020&month=04&date=23&id=964313
That isn't the case at the moment though. Kentucky has been pretty safe from Coronavirus so far.
It's all moot though since the Fed can pretty much conjure up money from nothing anyway. @Mathsorcerer and I have been saying this for years but it's only now becoming apparent to more people. Taxes are not how the Federal Government makes money. Hasn't been for a very long time. Newsflash, that's why I started supporting Bernie Sanders. He gets it. National healthcare wouldn't cost nearly as much as we're led to believe by both sides.
This is factually untrue. In 2019, one of the highest deficit years in history, by the way, the government spent $4.4 trillion, while collecting $3.5 trillion, meaning that 79% of spending was covered by taxes or fees.
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/56324
It's also important to note that the Federal Reserve "printing money" and the federal government borrowing to pay expenses are not the same things. But that's a complicated subject.
Snake_emoji.jpg
That tweet is pretty ignorant, imo. I think people should not rely on social media for getting their information. It's a good supplement, but it shouldn't be your main source. The people named who didn't get "endorsements" are running either unchallenged or in non-competitive races. The people endorsed in the news story are, generally, running in much more competitive races. I.E. Endorsing actually matters.
And importantly, Warren is not endorsing anyone running against those people. Nor is she done making endorsements.
I think the question that needs to be asked is who would actually be worse than Trump right now?
Nobody. In the words of a not great man:"what do you have to lose?". Dump Trump.
Shh. Dont lets facts get in the way of a good story.
Warren's not allowed to be a good progressive anymore.
Here's how this will go: Trump says something on camera, his defenders immediately say he was misinterpreted (when has he ever NOT been misinterpreted). Eventually, they can't handle the mental gymnastics anymore, so they move onto "he just said it to trigger the libs, and look at how well it worked".
Now, let's CHARITABLY say that where they always land, which is on the last part, is what was actually going on here. If that's the case, are we then just supposed to accept the fact that a man in his 70s and his grown-ass adult followers place serious value in acting less mature than a 5-year old child while 2000 people are dying a day??
Who the fuck knows what he was saying?? He doesn't even know. But I'm certain of this. Anyone spending any time talking to the American people about disinfectants and "light" getting inside the body to fight the virus is round the bend. What are we doing here?? Why is anyone airing this shit live?? This isn't news. If your relative started talking like this, you'd seek to have them committed. How is a country supposed to confront a once in a century crisis with an insane person at the helm of the ship??
He thinks all publicity is good publicity, and that may USUALLY be the case. But people are home now. They don't have anywhere to go. And even people who pay no attention to politics are watching this guy ramble for hours upon hours every week and it's pretty much impossible for all but the most devoted at this point to not be muttering out loud to themselves "what the fuck is this maniac talking about"??
I was reminded of that by this story. Disconnecting water at any time for non-payment seems questionable to me - after all the ultimate sanction for non-payment would be jail, where at least water is provided. Disconnecting water during an epidemic seems more akin to shooting yourself in the foot ...
In past epidemics, for instance with HIV and H1N1, treatments have not been shared equally but bought up in bulk by richer nations - resulting in long delays in many parts of the world to access these. I suspect this initiative is one result of the US distancing itself from the WHO - the US does not support this and would probably have blocked it if it was still listened to by the WHO.
Again, let's CHARITABLY say that was true. Best case scenario. He is still acting like a petulant child while thousands die a day of the very subject he is "triggering" reporters about. This may fly as a reason on 4chan, but not in the real world. No one worthy of the office would even contemplate doing such a thing.
The first is about the pressure Ontario is receiving from the states to reopen its plants the same time Michigan does (believing to be on May 4th). It vaguely talks about how the auto industry is working together and sharing ideas about the safety of the plants but more about how Michigan really can't get up to full speed without it's cross border partners. https://windsorstar.com/news/local-news/ontario-could-face-pressure-from-u-s-midwest-to-reopen-economy-early/wcm/41bb519b-b787-4cf6-baa5-ddf11c5d8ea7/
The second one talks about these automotive making machines never being down for more than 3 days since the 1960s and they have now been off for over a month, so a team at two automotive plants are going back to work early to make sure there isn't any issues with getting their side of supply chain up and running. https://windsorstar.com/news/local-news/workers-to-begin-readying-ford-engine-plants-next-week-for-restarts/wcm/c3b9c688-b494-4cfc-b54d-510e906fccd8/
Here are two other sources with more context. Looks like botched heart surgery and his sister might be taking over:
https://www.businessinsider.com/kim-jong-un-death-rumors-health-condition-what-we-know-2020-4
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1273869/kim-jong-un-dead-north-korea-kim-jong-un-health-latest-kim-jong-un-dead-reports