The Democrats are for some Utopia where everybody is the same. People are different. Males and females are not exactly the same. Asians and Europeans are not exactly the same. Nor are Africans and MesoAmericans. Whether it's genetics or culture or whatever people are NOT the same.
I get so sick of hearing about we need 50/50 male/female in every job because 'fairness' when there may be valid reasons why there are less females in that profession. I don't hear the same complaining about how we need more male teachers or nurses. Why? I guess the answer is we need to force more females into engineering, science and business and force more males into teaching, nursing and veterinary jobs. Everyone will surely be happy then. Somehow I think the same people will be complaining but about some other 'unfairness'. I'm all for everybody having the opportunity to do whatever they want in Life as long as it's not hurting somebody, but this quest for 'fairness' is never-ending. Equal opportunity does not mean everything has to be equally distributed.
My dislike of liberal thinking in a nutshell. I'll get off of my soapbox now...
The Democrats are for some Utopia where everybody is the same. People are different. Males and females are not exactly the same. Asians and Europeans are not exactly the same. Nor are Africans and MesoAmericans. Whether it's genetics or culture or whatever people are NOT the same.
I get so sick of hearing about we need 50/50 male/female in every job because 'fairness' when there may be valid reasons why there are less females in that profession. I don't hear the same complaining about how we need more male teachers or nurses. Why? I guess the answer is we need to force more females into engineering, science and business and force more males into teaching, nursing and veterinary jobs. Everyone will surely be happy then. Somehow I think the same people will be complaining but about some other 'unfairness'. I'm all for everybody having the opportunity to do whatever they want in Life as long as it's not hurting somebody, but this quest for 'fairness' is never-ending. Equal opportunity does not mean everything has to be equally distributed.
My dislike of liberal thinking in a nutshell. I'll get off of my soapbox now...
I'd agree somewhat. I'm not for forced equality but equality of opportunity. It's a fine distinction that is easily twisted.
If certain groups are prevented from a field and they really want it (say Female Navy Seals) they should be given the opportunity to make. Most will probably fail but it's the same for men.
Affirmative action, which has been widely derided for years by the right I believe, has done a lot of good to the point where it is possible that some day it won't be needed. Unfortunately, it seems like that time is not any time close to 2018. We've really backslid on race relations very quickly. I'd say it's something that should be around for a while more.
The Democrats are for some Utopia where everybody is the same. People are different. Males and females are not exactly the same. Asians and Europeans are not exactly the same. Nor are Africans and MesoAmericans. Whether it's genetics or culture or whatever people are NOT the same.
I get so sick of hearing about we need 50/50 male/female in every job because 'fairness' when there may be valid reasons why there are less females in that profession. I don't hear the same complaining about how we need more male teachers or nurses. Why? I guess the answer is we need to force more females into engineering, science and business and force more males into teaching, nursing and veterinary jobs. Everyone will surely be happy then. Somehow I think the same people will be complaining but about some other 'unfairness'. I'm all for everybody having the opportunity to do whatever they want in Life as long as it's not hurting somebody, but this quest for 'fairness' is never-ending. Equal opportunity does not mean everything has to be equally distributed.
My dislike of liberal thinking in a nutshell. I'll get off of my soapbox now...
You've mostly misunderstood liberal ideology then. Liberalism isnt about forcing a woman who wants to be a nurse into being an engineer. I'm sure there's some small sect of people who think that way (just like saying every Conservative wants to take away equal representation for African Americans... a small sect might feel that way, but it's largely disingenuous).
However - liberal ideology does want to foster an environment that allows for there to be just as many woman lawyers/judges/politicians/engineers/etc as men If they want to be.
The root of that issue, though, is that we feel that the only way to achieve a society with that goal is via government regulation. This is borne mostly out of historical norms that have required it in the past. There's a reason why women were not allowed to vote when the nation was originally founded, and it mostly (not entirely, but mostly) deals with the fact that there were no women amongst the founders. A group of rich, white and influential men made decisions based on their worldview, and it doesnt comport with the modern American (liberal or conservative, we agree in principal that women should be able to vote) view. The only way to officially remedy it was through an amendment (Otherwise known as: Government sanctioned regulation).
Where all of this breaks down, and why there's such incredible strife (using women voting as an example): Women are currently more likely to vote for a liberal candidate. Since politics is inherently a zero-sum affair, it becomes advantageous for liberals to stoke that advantage, and for conservatives to operate in opposition to that norm, disenfranchising a group that they are already disadvantaged with. When you take this to its political zenith due to hyper-partisanship, you get an electorate defined by identity politics.
"Obama did win on hope and change. Then the GOP was out there in the streets (or on Fox News anyway) saying he was a Kenyan Muslim out to take away your guns. More fear mongering... "
This is my second favorite political smear in the history of the US. I was still a republican at the time, and I still thought it was ridiculous. Makes me laugh to this day.
What makes Hillary so unlikeable anyway? Just because you don’t want to have a beer with her? What’s wrong with having someone experienced and qualified, if a little chilly, in control?
People like to say Hillary was the only one that could lose to Trump. Maybe. To me, Trump was the only Republican that could beat Hillary. The Republicans are so fractured they needed a candidate whose only appeal was stimulating the electorate’s lizard brain. Only Trump could bring enough pissed bodies to the polls.
Face it, under Hillary the US would have continued its gradual recovery. No one would be freaked out wondering who would be her next twitter target. Would she make mistakes? Probably. Would the whole planet be on-edge? Not likely.
John Kasich was the only Republican who was projected to beat Clinton in a general election, but it's true that Sanders was expected to win a larger margin in a general election than Clinton.
I never saw much reason to dislike Clinton. Based on her speeches and her history, she was just a boring policy wonk more than anything else.
I get so sick of hearing about we need 50/50 male/female in every job because 'fairness' when there may be valid reasons why there are less females in that profession. I don't hear the same complaining about how we need more male teachers or nurses. Why?
I agree with most of this, but the "why" is that engineering jobs, dominated by men, are so much higher paying than teaching jobs, dominated by women.
@semiticgod Teachers wages are a whole nother can of worms. Its criminal how little they get paid.
A lot of the Hilary hate (from what I can tell at least) is based almost entirely on her personality, she is just not very charismatic at all. Her being female and tied to Bill is also pretty damning to the right. Her adherence to the status quo, at a time when change has been a VERY EFFECTIVE platform (see Obama) was another point against her. Her falling out with Mother Theresa also paints her as a target to the religious community. She doesn't have any one single huge fatal flaw, she just has a wide enough range of them that some aspect of her can turn off people across the whole political spectrum. Though I think her losing to Trump opens the door wider to future female candidates.
@semiticgod Teachers wages are a whole nother can of worms. Its criminal how little they get paid.
A lot of the Hilary hate (from what I can tell at least) is based almost entirely on her personality, she is just not very charismatic at all. Her being female and tied to Bill is also pretty damning to the right. Her adherence to the status quo, at a time when change has been a VERY EFFECTIVE platform (see Obama) was another point against her. Her falling out with Mother Theresa also paints her as a target to the religious community. She doesn't have any one single huge fatal flaw, she just has a wide enough range of them that some aspect of her can turn off people across the whole political spectrum. Though I think her losing to Trump opens the door wider to future female candidates.
Hillary was always more hated than Bill. Bill sold them as a team. There were bumper stickers in the '90s that said "Impeach the President (and her husband too)". She made it clear she wasn't some stay-at-home mom. Many feminists were VERY pissed at her for giving up her own ambitions to marry Bill and stand by him in his political career, because she was pegged by many people from as far back as her college days as the potential first female President. Love her or hate her, no woman in the last half-century (maybe American history) has been subject to as much public scrutiny and merciless attack for so long (25+ years). The fact that it hasn't ended (and has in fact gotten WORSE) a year after her political career ended is testament to the truth of that statement.
@semiticgod Teachers wages are a whole nother can of worms. Its criminal how little they get paid.
A lot of the Hilary hate (from what I can tell at least) is based almost entirely on her personality, she is just not very charismatic at all. Her being female and tied to Bill is also pretty damning to the right. Her adherence to the status quo, at a time when change has been a VERY EFFECTIVE platform (see Obama) was another point against her. Her falling out with Mother Theresa also paints her as a target to the religious community. She doesn't have any one single huge fatal flaw, she just has a wide enough range of them that some aspect of her can turn off people across the whole political spectrum. Though I think her losing to Trump opens the door wider to future female candidates.
I agree with everything there but the last bit, I think female candidates were viable but with the ascension of Trump and the rise of the alt-right and things like Gamergate they are less viable. If Trump doesn't destroy the Democracy and things go back to "normal" we will have a female President but I think we go through a couple more dudes first at this point. I could be wrong and you could be right though there. The Trump era has helped usher in the metoo thing so maybe that does help give women more of a voice and less of a silent victim.
I've read about destitution in Finland that brought tears to the eyes of the person wanting to push it above the media threshold, and afterwards, to me.
This woman said she had not previously grabbed a tag to fulfil a wish from a child from a financially insecure family, but it made her ache how "modest" some of the wishes were.
A pre-teen child had wished for underwear and socks. (!!)
I don't mind political debate at all - in which context it greatly bothers me how the current Finnish government does not mind increasing poverty - but in spirit of x-mast, do remember:
Lack of social mobility means accepting that a child of poor parents shall very likely be born unto a lifelong poverty. And how soon how modest their wishes become!
I hail from quite a destitute background, and I am debating here, but am wondering if we are quite proportional - and regardless bothers me to see this "debate" of US political financing millions - when a pre-teen child only asks for underwear and socks, and Finland could afford to make it not so.
@semiticgod Teachers wages are a whole nother can of worms. Its criminal how little they get paid.
A lot of the Hilary hate (from what I can tell at least) is based almost entirely on her personality, she is just not very charismatic at all. Her being female and tied to Bill is also pretty damning to the right. Her adherence to the status quo, at a time when change has been a VERY EFFECTIVE platform (see Obama) was another point against her. Her falling out with Mother Theresa also paints her as a target to the religious community. She doesn't have any one single huge fatal flaw, she just has a wide enough range of them that some aspect of her can turn off people across the whole political spectrum. Though I think her losing to Trump opens the door wider to future female candidates.
I agree with everything there but the last bit, I think female candidates were viable but with the ascension of Trump and the rise of the alt-right and things like Gamergate they are less viable. If Trump doesn't destroy the Democracy and things go back to "normal" we will have a female President but I think we go through a couple more dudes first at this point. I could be wrong and you could be right though there. The Trump era has helped usher in the metoo thing so maybe that does help give women more of a voice and less of a silent victim.
I think Democrats would be insane not to nominate a women in 2020 to go against Trump again. And one of the reasons is at this rate, there is a 50/50 chance a sexual harassment scandal could break at any minute on any male public figure in this country. The other one being that the two candidates I would most support, Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren, are both women. Personally I'd like Warren to stay in the Senate for another couple terms instead. I don't know who the males who would step forward would be at this point. Gavin Newsome possibly (though we'll have to hear that "San Francisco values" bullshit for a whole year if that happens). Corey Booker is talented, but way too close to Wall Street for most on the left. Martin O'Malley seems like he is animatronic (and I can't stand him, if you have seen "The Wire, the character Tommy Carcetti is based on him). Bernie is too old, we don't need 70 and 80 year people running the country anymore. I would really, really like Kamala Harris to be the nominee. She does things that make it seem like she might run, but I have no idea if she will.
@smeagolheart I'm not saying a female candidate wasn't viable before now, but look at the optics of the last election. There is so much video and audio of Trump making sexist comments and admitting to assault. Now look at his opponent, the first female candidate (to my knowledge) even being as disliked as her, is HUGE. Look at Trump's reaction to her and is constant barrage of attacks even after the election is over. Look at everything that has happened this year with countless women coming out against sexual harassment. Even if its unintentional, Trump is being seen as an attack on women. Hilary may have lost, but her fight has opened the door wider for pushback and future female candidates. Next election cycle is going to be huge in that regard, and the Democratic party (Republican too if they want ANY hope) would be straight up stupid to not put forward a (good) female candidate.
@TStael I should think the social mobility in our country is among the best in the world, given our free universities.
So glad you posted, Finneous - so I might wish you : mahtavaa joulua! I do hope you like it, and to snow shovel to the appropriate measure!
But let me ask: have you not wondered what happens to pupils whom are bullied at our schools? (The extent of which I think is intolerable, really!)
And have you pondered that bullying tends to compound, unfortunately, with social dispriviledge?
I have coped because as a female, I was programmed to perform. But I dreaded for the longest time any social encounter with unknown persons, because I was pretty cruelly bullied at school.
I think there are two strong non-merit based issues in Finland: not having parental network to put you to that first job thanks to relations; and school-bullying making it worse for less socially privileged even later in life.
Or will you tell me Harkimo Junior got to Finnish Parliament thanks to merit alone?
Gavin Newsome possibly (though we'll have to hear that "San Francisco values" bs for a whole year if that happens...
The GOP would find something about anyone, they will find something they don't like and push it. Then they pass around their talking points to all their outlets and they stay on message.
@semiticgod Teachers wages are a whole nother can of worms. Its criminal how little they get paid.
A lot of the Hilary hate (from what I can tell at least) is based almost entirely on her personality, she is just not very charismatic at all. Her being female and tied to Bill is also pretty damning to the right. Her adherence to the status quo, at a time when change has been a VERY EFFECTIVE platform (see Obama) was another point against her. Her falling out with Mother Theresa also paints her as a target to the religious community. She doesn't have any one single huge fatal flaw, she just has a wide enough range of them that some aspect of her can turn off people across the whole political spectrum. Though I think her losing to Trump opens the door wider to future female candidates.
As a side note - I personally think the major reason why Hillary Clinton was so unlikable can be boiled down into a few pieces.
First - she's been one of the preeminent female politicians/political voices in the US since 1992. That gave the right 25 years to demonize and smear her. She was a target as the first modern politically active first lady. She was a target as the senator from New York, and she was a target as Obama's Secretary of State.
Second - She essentially epitomized what a politician looked like. She seemed like the kind of person who was willing to move to the left or to the right as the political winds changed. This made her seem disingenuous.
Combine the two, and enough people started to say "Both options stink" and stayed home. Add in a few other pieces (You're right, she's not charismatic - especially compared with Obama. Sexism also played a role) - and she ended up in trouble when the electorate wasnt motivated to vote for her.
@semiticgod Teachers wages are a whole nother can of worms. Its criminal how little they get paid.
A lot of the Hilary hate (from what I can tell at least) is based almost entirely on her personality, she is just not very charismatic at all. Her being female and tied to Bill is also pretty damning to the right. Her adherence to the status quo, at a time when change has been a VERY EFFECTIVE platform (see Obama) was another point against her. Her falling out with Mother Theresa also paints her as a target to the religious community. She doesn't have any one single huge fatal flaw, she just has a wide enough range of them that some aspect of her can turn off people across the whole political spectrum. Though I think her losing to Trump opens the door wider to future female candidates.
As a side note - I personally think the major reason why Hillary Clinton was so unlikable can be boiled down into a few pieces.
First - she's been one of the preeminent female politicians/political voices in the US since 1992. That gave the right 25 years to demonize and smear her. She was a target as the first modern politically active first lady. She was a target as the senator from New York, and she was a target as Obama's Secretary of State.
Second - She essentially epitomized what a politician looked like. She seemed like the kind of person who was willing to move to the left or to the right as the political winds changed. This made her seem disingenuous.
Combine the two, and enough people started to say "Both options stink" and stayed home. Add in a few other pieces (You're right, she's not charismatic - especially compared with Obama. Sexism also played a role) - and she ended up in trouble when the electorate wasnt motivated to vote for her.
I'll add that when she was actually in office (as both Senator and Secretary of State), she was actually fairly popular. More than most politicians to be honest. She could have easily been dismissed as a carpetbagger in that first New York Senate race, and she somehow convinced most of New York that she wasn't by how hard she campaigned. And she also had to put aside what was undoubtedly bitter animosity after the 2008 primary to go work for Obama, and it was no small task to convince her to take the job. In the end, her and Obama actually became quite close. It was only when the GOP-machine went into full-gear that her numbers started to drop again. Republicans didn't care about what happened in Benghazi (as evidenced by the fact that there hasn't been a single hearing in regards to what happened to those soldiers in Niger earlier this year). It was the first step in beating her down for the 2016 campaign. It led to the email nonsense, which in the end led to the Comey letter a week before the election. You don't have to take my word for it. House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy admitted on national TV that Benghazi and the email scandal were nothing but a ruse to get her poll numbers down. As a candidate (or as a surrogate for a candidate, such as her husband) she has never been popular. As an actual legislator or diplomat, people generally gave her high marks.
Even her initial vote for the authorization of force in regards to Iraq (which cost her the the 2008 nomination) can PROBABLY be explained by the fact that Bush initially gave her and Schumer everything they asked for funding-wise in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. I still hate her vote on the authorization, but I doubt many of her constituents in New York did at the time. Because the Bush Administration lied about everything leading up to the war. Now, I do ask myself how I could have know the Bush Administration was lying and Democrats like John Kerry and Hillary Clinton didn't. It's possible that the mid-terms of 2002 told them that politically it would be suicide to not support it (it did turn out to be suicide for both of them, Kerry in the General in 2004, and Hillary in the primary in 2008). Nevertheless, I also tell myself most of the time that those votes were meaningless. Republicans could have passed the authorization without Democrats at all, and even if they HADN'T have received Congresstional authority (so to speak, because it still wasn't a declaration of war), the Bush Administration would have attacked regardless. Nothing would have stopped them.
As for the other point, about shifting positions, that is true, absolutely. It's the reason I felt so comfortable voting for her. Because her positions had changed based on what was popular in the country. She was uniquely susceptible to pressure from the left because of how close Bernie came in the primary. She had been pushed WAY to the left because she was such a political creature. She had been pushed all the way to a $12 minimum wage. She had been pushed in Bernie's direction on college. A MASSIVE part of the Democratic Platform last year was Bernie Sander's wet dream. They got massive concessions from Hillary, forced her far more to the left than she had ever been. And it was Bernie voters who wanted 100% purity who ended up costing her the election.
And it was Bernie voters who wanted 100% purity who ended up costing her the election.
I don't agree with this.
I'll rephrase. There was enough Bernie voters in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan who either stayed at home or voted for someone else that could have tipped the balance of the election, since it was only roughly 70,000 votes. It was as big a factor as any. And it also seems fairly apparent that most of the Russian propaganda was micro-targeted at her left-flank, not her right. No one on the right was going to vote for her anyway. Her turnout had to be depressed, which is exactly what took place in those states.
And it was Bernie voters who wanted 100% purity who ended up costing her the election.
I don't agree with this.
“Bernie or bust!” was definitely a thing. Jill Stein was a thing, too.
I still believe that sexism played a huge role in it. So many people out there (men and women) couldn’t stand that Hillary was smarter than them. Hated that she didn’t stay home and bake cookies. It’s sickening. I was so looking forward to my daughter waking up the day after the Election and telling her how we had our First Madam President. Someday, sweetheart.
No one thinks Joe Biden is viable for 2020? Too old? He definitely appeals to blue collar folks.
And it was Bernie voters who wanted 100% purity who ended up costing her the election.
I don't agree with this.
“Bernie or bust!” was definitely a thing. Jill Stein was a thing, too.
I still believe that sexism played a huge role in it. So many people out there (men and women) couldn’t stand that Hillary was smarter than them. Hated that she didn’t stay home and bake cookies. It’s sickening. I was so looking forward to my daughter waking up the day after the Election and telling her how we had our First Madam President. Someday, sweetheart.
No one thinks Joe Biden is viable for 2020? Too old? He definitely appeals to blue collar folks.
You hit the nail on the head with "too old". I just don't think the rigors of the job are suitable for anyone over 70, and I highly doubt I'll support anyone in the primary who fits that bill (the general would be different if push came to shove). Loss of physical and mental capacity as one ages is inevitable. It's not something I believe we need to be contending with in a President.
And it was Bernie voters who wanted 100% purity who ended up costing her the election.
I don't agree with this.
“Bernie or bust!” was definitely a thing. Jill Stein was a thing, too.
I still believe that sexism played a huge role in it. So many people out there (men and women) couldn’t stand that Hillary was smarter than them. Hated that she didn’t stay home and bake cookies. It’s sickening. I was so looking forward to my daughter waking up the day after the Election and telling her how we had our First Madam President. Someday, sweetheart.
No one thinks Joe Biden is viable for 2020? Too old? He definitely appeals to blue collar folks.
Rather than gathering a bunch of quotes. I'll say I largely agree with @jjstraka34 - although I dont know that I think her "changeableness" was necessarily a good thing. I can see how in some circumstances it's a positive (she came around on issues I deem pretty important) - but I also it leads to a feeling of that person being somewhat inauthentic. I think that hurt her. I also think a *lot* of things hurt her. It essentially took a confluence of a dozen issues that ate away at the margins to take her down.
I also agree one of those factors was sexism. It wasnt the only one, and I dont want to overstate that I think simply because people thought she was smarter they didnt vote for her... but I do think there's an not insignificant group of people who were pushed in one direction or another because of her gender.
I'm skeptical that Joe Biden's sexual harassment history is spotless enough for the present moment. This:
...is not a man who is batting 1.000 vis-à-vis boundaries. And any hint of a personal record, when combined with his Anita Hill stuff, could make him toxic to the party's left wing right now.
I'm skeptical that Joe Biden's sexual harassment history is spotless enough for the present moment. This:
...is not a man who is batting 1.000 vis-à-vis boundaries. And any hint of a personal record, when combined with his Anita Hill stuff, could make him toxic to the party's left wing right now.
Ew. Yeah, he is an inappropriate hugger (nuzzler?). I still remember his endless hug with Hillary where she taps out several times but he never releases the hold...
I would pay money to watch an Elizabeth Warren/Donald Trump debate. Especially since Trump is practically shuttering the consumer protection bureau Warren helped create.
I'm skeptical that Joe Biden's sexual harassment history is spotless enough for the present moment. This:
...is not a man who is batting 1.000 vis-à-vis boundaries. And any hint of a personal record, when combined with his Anita Hill stuff, could make him toxic to the party's left wing right now.
Ew. Yeah, he is an inappropriate hugger (nuzzler?). I still remember his endless hug with Hillary where she taps out several times but he never releases the hold...
I would pay money to watch an Elizabeth Warren/Donald Trump debate. Especially since Trump is practically shuttering the consumer protection bureau Warren helped create.
Warren would attack him on facts and Donald would attack back with alternative facts. It would not be pretty. It would be unwinnable for Warren because he'd just lie and make personal attacks. The average voter would somehow think he made done good points somehow even though he would just be making stuff up and hurling insults.
And it was Bernie voters who wanted 100% purity who ended up costing her the election.
I don't agree with this.
“Bernie or bust!” was definitely a thing. Jill Stein was a thing, too.
I still believe that sexism played a huge role in it. So many people out there (men and women) couldn’t stand that Hillary was smarter than them. Hated that she didn’t stay home and bake cookies. It’s sickening. I was so looking forward to my daughter waking up the day after the Election and telling her how we had our First Madam President. Someday, sweetheart.
No one thinks Joe Biden is viable for 2020? Too old? He definitely appeals to blue collar folks.
I have kids as well and it was sickening as well. How do you explain to your kids that grown ups picked this repulsive human troll of a person as the President.
@TStael I should think the social mobility in our country is among the best in the world, given our free universities.
So glad you posted, Finneous - so I might wish you : mahtavaa joulua! I do hope you like it, and to snow shovel to the appropriate measure!
But let me ask: have you not wondered what happens to pupils whom are bullied at our schools? (The extent of which I think is intolerable, really!)
And have you pondered that bullying tends to compound, unfortunately, with social dispriviledge?
I have coped because as a female, I was programmed to perform. But I dreaded for the longest time any social encounter with unknown persons, because I was pretty cruelly bullied at school.
I think there are two strong non-merit based issues in Finland: not having parental network to put you to that first job thanks to relations; and school-bullying making it worse for less socially privileged even later in life.
Or will you tell me Harkimo Junior got to Finnish Parliament thanks to merit alone?
@TStael Hm, where are you that there is snow to shovel. There wasn't any at my place in Espoo and there is very little here at my parent's place near Turku.
I have not wondered that. It doesn't appear to me that being bullied at school should discourage one from attending higher education.
To be fair to Joe Biden, I think the guy really is just a bit of a hugger. I would venture to guess if there was some kind of sexual harassment situation with him, we would have heard about it by now, given that he was Vice President for 8 years, and we've had months and months of non-stop revelations. He has also ran for President 2 or 3 times besides that. He actually recently apologized for his role in the Anita Hill hearings:
Comments
I get so sick of hearing about we need 50/50 male/female in every job because 'fairness' when there may be valid reasons why there are less females in that profession. I don't hear the same complaining about how we need more male teachers or nurses. Why? I guess the answer is we need to force more females into engineering, science and business and force more males into teaching, nursing and veterinary jobs. Everyone will surely be happy then. Somehow I think the same people will be complaining but about some other 'unfairness'. I'm all for everybody having the opportunity to do whatever they want in Life as long as it's not hurting somebody, but this quest for 'fairness' is never-ending. Equal opportunity does not mean everything has to be equally distributed.
My dislike of liberal thinking in a nutshell. I'll get off of my soapbox now...
If certain groups are prevented from a field and they really want it (say Female Navy Seals) they should be given the opportunity to make. Most will probably fail but it's the same for men.
Affirmative action, which has been widely derided for years by the right I believe, has done a lot of good to the point where it is possible that some day it won't be needed. Unfortunately, it seems like that time is not any time close to 2018. We've really backslid on race relations very quickly. I'd say it's something that should be around for a while more.
You've mostly misunderstood liberal ideology then. Liberalism isnt about forcing a woman who wants to be a nurse into being an engineer. I'm sure there's some small sect of people who think that way (just like saying every Conservative wants to take away equal representation for African Americans... a small sect might feel that way, but it's largely disingenuous).
However - liberal ideology does want to foster an environment that allows for there to be just as many woman lawyers/judges/politicians/engineers/etc as men If they want to be.
The root of that issue, though, is that we feel that the only way to achieve a society with that goal is via government regulation. This is borne mostly out of historical norms that have required it in the past. There's a reason why women were not allowed to vote when the nation was originally founded, and it mostly (not entirely, but mostly) deals with the fact that there were no women amongst the founders. A group of rich, white and influential men made decisions based on their worldview, and it doesnt comport with the modern American (liberal or conservative, we agree in principal that women should be able to vote) view. The only way to officially remedy it was through an amendment (Otherwise known as: Government sanctioned regulation).
Where all of this breaks down, and why there's such incredible strife (using women voting as an example): Women are currently more likely to vote for a liberal candidate. Since politics is inherently a zero-sum affair, it becomes advantageous for liberals to stoke that advantage, and for conservatives to operate in opposition to that norm, disenfranchising a group that they are already disadvantaged with. When you take this to its political zenith due to hyper-partisanship, you get an electorate defined by identity politics.
This is my second favorite political smear in the history of the US. I was still a republican at the time, and I still thought it was ridiculous. Makes me laugh to this day.
People like to say Hillary was the only one that could lose to Trump. Maybe. To me, Trump was the only Republican that could beat Hillary. The Republicans are so fractured they needed a candidate whose only appeal was stimulating the electorate’s lizard brain. Only Trump could bring enough pissed bodies to the polls.
Face it, under Hillary the US would have continued its gradual recovery. No one would be freaked out wondering who would be her next twitter target. Would she make mistakes? Probably. Would the whole planet be on-edge? Not likely.
I never saw much reason to dislike Clinton. Based on her speeches and her history, she was just a boring policy wonk more than anything else. I agree with most of this, but the "why" is that engineering jobs, dominated by men, are so much higher paying than teaching jobs, dominated by women.
A lot of the Hilary hate (from what I can tell at least) is based almost entirely on her personality, she is just not very charismatic at all. Her being female and tied to Bill is also pretty damning to the right. Her adherence to the status quo, at a time when change has been a VERY EFFECTIVE platform (see Obama) was another point against her. Her falling out with Mother Theresa also paints her as a target to the religious community. She doesn't have any one single huge fatal flaw, she just has a wide enough range of them that some aspect of her can turn off people across the whole political spectrum. Though I think her losing to Trump opens the door wider to future female candidates.
This woman said she had not previously grabbed a tag to fulfil a wish from a child from a financially insecure family, but it made her ache how "modest" some of the wishes were.
A pre-teen child had wished for underwear and socks. (!!)
I don't mind political debate at all - in which context it greatly bothers me how the current Finnish government does not mind increasing poverty - but in spirit of x-mast, do remember:
Lack of social mobility means accepting that a child of poor parents shall very likely be born unto a lifelong poverty. And how soon how modest their wishes become!
I hail from quite a destitute background, and I am debating here, but am wondering if we are quite proportional - and regardless bothers me to see this "debate" of US political financing millions - when a pre-teen child only asks for underwear and socks, and Finland could afford to make it not so.
But let me ask: have you not wondered what happens to pupils whom are bullied at our schools? (The extent of which I think is intolerable, really!)
And have you pondered that bullying tends to compound, unfortunately, with social dispriviledge?
I have coped because as a female, I was programmed to perform. But I dreaded for the longest time any social encounter with unknown persons, because I was pretty cruelly bullied at school.
I think there are two strong non-merit based issues in Finland: not having parental network to put you to that first job thanks to relations; and school-bullying making it worse for less socially privileged even later in life.
Or will you tell me Harkimo Junior got to Finnish Parliament thanks to merit alone?
As a side note - I personally think the major reason why Hillary Clinton was so unlikable can be boiled down into a few pieces.
First - she's been one of the preeminent female politicians/political voices in the US since 1992. That gave the right 25 years to demonize and smear her. She was a target as the first modern politically active first lady. She was a target as the senator from New York, and she was a target as Obama's Secretary of State.
Second - She essentially epitomized what a politician looked like. She seemed like the kind of person who was willing to move to the left or to the right as the political winds changed. This made her seem disingenuous.
Combine the two, and enough people started to say "Both options stink" and stayed home. Add in a few other pieces (You're right, she's not charismatic - especially compared with Obama. Sexism also played a role) - and she ended up in trouble when the electorate wasnt motivated to vote for her.
Even her initial vote for the authorization of force in regards to Iraq (which cost her the the 2008 nomination) can PROBABLY be explained by the fact that Bush initially gave her and Schumer everything they asked for funding-wise in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. I still hate her vote on the authorization, but I doubt many of her constituents in New York did at the time. Because the Bush Administration lied about everything leading up to the war. Now, I do ask myself how I could have know the Bush Administration was lying and Democrats like John Kerry and Hillary Clinton didn't. It's possible that the mid-terms of 2002 told them that politically it would be suicide to not support it (it did turn out to be suicide for both of them, Kerry in the General in 2004, and Hillary in the primary in 2008). Nevertheless, I also tell myself most of the time that those votes were meaningless. Republicans could have passed the authorization without Democrats at all, and even if they HADN'T have received Congresstional authority (so to speak, because it still wasn't a declaration of war), the Bush Administration would have attacked regardless. Nothing would have stopped them.
As for the other point, about shifting positions, that is true, absolutely. It's the reason I felt so comfortable voting for her. Because her positions had changed based on what was popular in the country. She was uniquely susceptible to pressure from the left because of how close Bernie came in the primary. She had been pushed WAY to the left because she was such a political creature. She had been pushed all the way to a $12 minimum wage. She had been pushed in Bernie's direction on college. A MASSIVE part of the Democratic Platform last year was Bernie Sander's wet dream. They got massive concessions from Hillary, forced her far more to the left than she had ever been. And it was Bernie voters who wanted 100% purity who ended up costing her the election.
I still believe that sexism played a huge role in it. So many people out there (men and women) couldn’t stand that Hillary was smarter than them. Hated that she didn’t stay home and bake cookies. It’s sickening. I was so looking forward to my daughter waking up the day after the Election and telling her how we had our First Madam President. Someday, sweetheart.
No one thinks Joe Biden is viable for 2020? Too old? He definitely appeals to blue collar folks.
Rather than gathering a bunch of quotes. I'll say I largely agree with @jjstraka34 - although I dont know that I think her "changeableness" was necessarily a good thing. I can see how in some circumstances it's a positive (she came around on issues I deem pretty important) - but I also it leads to a feeling of that person being somewhat inauthentic. I think that hurt her. I also think a *lot* of things hurt her. It essentially took a confluence of a dozen issues that ate away at the margins to take her down.
I also agree one of those factors was sexism. It wasnt the only one, and I dont want to overstate that I think simply because people thought she was smarter they didnt vote for her... but I do think there's an not insignificant group of people who were pushed in one direction or another because of her gender.
...is not a man who is batting 1.000 vis-à-vis boundaries. And any hint of a personal record, when combined with his Anita Hill stuff, could make him toxic to the party's left wing right now.
I would pay money to watch an Elizabeth Warren/Donald Trump debate. Especially since Trump is practically shuttering the consumer protection bureau Warren helped create.
I have not wondered that. It doesn't appear to me that being bullied at school should discourage one from attending higher education.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/14/politics/biden-anita-hill-teen-vogue/index.html
That said, still don't want him to run. Again, too old.