Forums - Politics Discussion - Attitudes 100 years since women's suffrage

RJTM1991 said:
Signalstar said:

Why are you being kind? Hillary Clinton is obviously a ghoul and the most disgusting, vile, demonic creature on the planet. She does not even count as human. /sarcasm

When people bring up accusations against Bill Clinton in order to smear Hillary Clinton by association, do they at least acknowledge that Trump has been accused of equally horrible abuses? Like is voting directly for an accused rapist better than voting for the wife of an accused rapist?

Please feel free not to respond. I do not expect intelligent, persuasive, or even coherent responses from such a debased prompt.

B-b-but Trump!

Clinton is a known scumbag and paedophile. Trump was accused, but nothing happened. Can't compare them.

Women voted against Hillary because women aren't idiots who let other people make up their minds. They know she's trash. They made sure to let the world know that Hillary Clinton doesn't represent American women.

About the quality of post I expected.

Hillary Clinton has not been accused of raping anyone. Donald Trump has been accused of raping and sexually assaulting multiple women.

Hillary Clinton won the women vote in 2016. She did not win the white women vote. She won the popular vote overall.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1gWECYYOSo

Please Watch/Share this video so it gets shown in Hollywood.

Around the Network
Signalstar said:
RJTM1991 said:

B-b-but Trump!

Clinton is a known scumbag and paedophile. Trump was accused, but nothing happened. Can't compare them.

Women voted against Hillary because women aren't idiots who let other people make up their minds. They know she's trash. They made sure to let the world know that Hillary Clinton doesn't represent American women.

About the quality of post I expected.

Hillary Clinton has not been accused of raping anyone. Donald Trump has been accused of raping and sexually assaulting multiple women.

Hillary Clinton won the women vote in 2016. She did not win the white women vote. She won the popular vote overall.

Love how I took a jab at the Clintons and you automatically assumed that I was a Trump guy. Man, I'm not even American. Just calling bullshit when I see it.

So you can act all snooty, but your childishness still shines through. 



RJTM1991 said:
Signalstar said:

About the quality of post I expected.

Hillary Clinton has not been accused of raping anyone. Donald Trump has been accused of raping and sexually assaulting multiple women.

Hillary Clinton won the women vote in 2016. She did not win the white women vote. She won the popular vote overall.

Love how I took a jab at the Clintons and you automatically assumed that I was a Trump guy. Man, I'm not even American. Just calling bullshit when I see it.

So you can act all snooty, but your childishness still shines through. 

I never insinuated you were a Trump guy. I am just trying to point out a flaw in your logic. You claim that people did not vote for/support Hillary Clinton because of accusations of rape against her husband. If that is true then accusations of rape must make Trump equally repulsive to that segment of voters. If Hillary Clinton faced an opponent that did not have similar rape accusations against them, maybe your theory would have merit. There was no control group however. Claiming that accusations of rape are a turn off that led to her defeat is hard to prove when her victorious opponent was also directly accused of rape.

I do not think I am the one acting childish here. Facts are stubborn things.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1gWECYYOSo

Please Watch/Share this video so it gets shown in Hollywood.

As far as I can tell, there was a big shift in attitude from equality as the goal to equity as the goal.
To me, those two concepts seem largly opposed and mutually exclusive. I'm all for equality, so I'm all against equity and quite dissatisfied with the state if things.



JuliusHackebeil said:
As far as I can tell, there was a big shift in attitude from equality as the goal to equity as the goal.
To me, those two concepts seem largly opposed and mutually exclusive. I'm all for equality, so I'm all against equity and quite dissatisfied with the state if things.

Bingo.

Recently, there's been started a movement to end "blind auditions" in hiring for orchestral groups. Blind auditions were started with the goal of removing discrimination from the hiring process, to provide equal access for individuals without respect to their race, color, creed, etc.

However, apparently it is the case that when blind auditions are employed, you cannot ensure "equity": you cannot ensure that you'll wind up with a certain percentage of, say, black orchestra members... because you aren't taking race into account in the hiring practice at all.

And so, the Woke wish to add discrimination back into the hiring process (so long as the beneficiaries are minorities, and the ones discriminated against are male, white, etc.). They call it "justice."



Around the Network
donathos said:

Bingo.

Recently, there's been started a movement to end "blind auditions" in hiring for orchestral groups. Blind auditions were started with the goal of removing discrimination from the hiring process, to provide equal access for individuals without respect to their race, color, creed, etc.

However, apparently it is the case that when blind auditions are employed, you cannot ensure "equity": you cannot ensure that you'll wind up with a certain percentage of, say, black orchestra members... because you aren't taking race into account in the hiring practice at all.

And so, the Woke wish to add discrimination back into the hiring process (so long as the beneficiaries are minorities, and the ones discriminated against are male, white, etc.). They call it "justice."

Yeah, I have also one of those sad examples. At my university the employment process is somewhat transparant, as the rules under every open position clearly state: with the same qualifications, women are prefered. One of the problems I see in this, is that there are hardly two people with the exact same qualifications. At job interviews so much depends on soft skills and how articulate you can sell yourself, also how well you as a person can fot into a particular team. And so on. So what those nasty rules really do is adding gender as quality criteria and state that being a woman is better for the job, even though it is an outside rule and gender really has nothing to do with how good or bad you might be at your job.



Dulfite said:

Unless there is evidence that proves otherwise, it is personal stuff. His personal opinion vs. her personal opinion. If legal evidence had been brought forward, that would be different. And yeah, he could have just walked away and probably had a lot less stressful life, but why should he? He was clearly qualified for the position, as are the vast majority of candidates that are nominated by Presidents (regardless of ideology). So why should he give up the honor of the office, something he and many others on the court or aspiring to be work their entire careers towards, because someone accused him of something but couldn't prove it? Is that fair to him or anyone else seeking that office to lose everything they've worked towards when someone accuses them of something done decades ago but can't prove it?

Also, whose to say there wouldn't be some other person waiting to accuse the next nominee? And then the next?

As to needing to clear his name absolutely, first of all I'm not sure what else the man could do than provide his calendar with hand written notes from decades ago and his own witnesses. Like, what else did you want from him? I'm sure if he had anything else to offer he would have, just like she would have offered more if she had anything on him. We were given the details that we were given, and we all have to make a choice on that. If you feel that nominees require perfect records with evidence showing no foul play, that is fine and your right to demand that. I'm curious what you would think if a Democratic nominee had something like this happen.

And for the record, if ever there WAS evidence showing he lied and did those terrible things to her, I would ABSOLUTELY want him to resign and face whatever legal consequences.

Of all the stuff you said here, the bolded item stuck out to me as by far the most telling and significant, so I'll make your request here the focus of my response.

This may not have occurred to you, but though I am a registered Democrat, I don't view the question of sexual assault through a partisan lens. Without getting needlessly graphic, the issue is personal to me. I'm also among those who supported Bill Clinton's impeachment those two decades ago. (My perspective on the matter resembles the contemporaneously-stated view of Andrea Dworkin.)

I'm also a lot less psychologically attached to the Democratic Party than you seem to believe. I suppose I may come off as something of an ideological progressive or something under the present circumstances where we have Trump as president and I just really, really am against the heart and soul of what he stands for and has done to this country, but the truth is that I share your previously-stated interest in a Nikki Haley presidential run enough that I will likely change my party registration in order to vote for her in the 2024 Republican primary when nigh-inevitably she runs. I'd definitely vote for her over Joe Biden if he opted to run again (I'm pretty much just assuming that he'll be elected president this year at this point) and might even vote for her over Kamala Harris if Biden opted for only a single term, given his age. Why? Because while I strongly disagree with much of what Haley stands for (particularly when it comes to economic policy!), I see her as someone who would stand up for Hong Kong, stand up to Russia (unlike say our current president), defend freedom of speech online, on college campuses, and just in public spaces generally, and also probably sign legislation guaranteeing paid family leave into law. To that last point, she strikes me as a conservative feminist; the truth being that at this point I agree with the conservative feminists on at least as many issues as I do with the liberal feminists (being neither of those things myself). The fact is that the main problem I have with the GOP is the fact that it seems to have a problem with me. The Republicans have been the main political force in this country opposing everything from my right to marry and have kids as a lesbian to the renewal of the Violence Against Women Act and everything in-between and yeah, cumulatively I can't help but get the impression that they just don't like me. I don't have that feeling about Nikki Haley.

Enough about Nikki Haley though. The point is that I'm not a hack who holds one party to a different standard than the other. Yeah, a lot of people are, but I'm not among them. What matters to me when it comes to the case of Brett Kavanaugh is that I believe Dr. Blasey Ford. Do I have a video recording of the incident(s) in question to prove beyond any doubt that what she has said happened to her in fact did? No. That seems to be the standard you expect, but I think you know good and well that that kind of proof is unrealistic when we're talking about sexual assault. So what do we do? Just never reach any conclusions about sexual violence and let every rapist go about their merry way without even social, let alone legal, consequence? No. That can't be the answer! When we're not talking about the possibility of jail time, which is another thing...when we're talking about simply whether or not such a person as Brett Kavanaugh deserves the power to make law...the only question in my mind is...well, whether or not there's a question in my mind. Do I question his innocence? Do I question his respect for the law as someone to be tasked with making it? Do I question his ability to reach fair and reasonably objective verdicts on women's issues? The answer across the board here is a resounding "YES, I DO!" He acted guilty to my eyes and ears, responded far too emotionally to questioning for someone tasked with issuing fair and objective, legally binding verdicts...and really most importantly, he, unlike Dr. Blasey Ford, had a motive to lie. Christine Blasey Ford had nothing to gain and everything to lose by coming forward, and indeed she lost her career and will never be known henceforth as anything but "that bitch who stood in the way of Brett Kavanaugh's bright and promising career path". Her life actually is over. She has no future and will never be known for anything else. Kavanaugh, on the other hand, is now a Supreme Court justice for life. That's the reality of the situation. Now maybe that's what justice looks like to you, but it's not to me. It's also worth adding that Dr. Blasey Ford wasn't Kavanaugh's only accuser either. She's just the most famous one because she's the one who got to testify to the Senate. The odds that each of Mr. Kavanaugh's accusers were lying across the board strikes me as low. But maybe that's just me and I wouldn't know anything about how sexual predators and their survivors behave...oh wait.

I feel that President Trump could've just withdrawn Kavanaugh and nominated someone else with similar views minus the baggage. It wouldn't have been the first time a president has done just such a thing vis-a-vis Supreme Court nominations in my lifetime. Or the second either. But no! No, this was a matter of principle for Trump and the Republican Party! It had to be THIS GUY specifically! Or else how could you establish that sexual violence against women just isn't a concern worth taking seriously? I mean what's next, a better world where we don't reward that kind of behavior or casually dismiss those who may have survived it out of hand?

Last edited by Jaicee - on 10 September 2020

Jaicee said:
Dulfite said:

Unless there is evidence that proves otherwise, it is personal stuff. His personal opinion vs. her personal opinion. If legal evidence had been brought forward, that would be different. And yeah, he could have just walked away and probably had a lot less stressful life, but why should he? He was clearly qualified for the position, as are the vast majority of candidates that are nominated by Presidents (regardless of ideology). So why should he give up the honor of the office, something he and many others on the court or aspiring to be work their entire careers towards, because someone accused him of something but couldn't prove it? Is that fair to him or anyone else seeking that office to lose everything they've worked towards when someone accuses them of something done decades ago but can't prove it?

Also, whose to say there wouldn't be some other person waiting to accuse the next nominee? And then the next?

As to needing to clear his name absolutely, first of all I'm not sure what else the man could do than provide his calendar with hand written notes from decades ago and his own witnesses. Like, what else did you want from him? I'm sure if he had anything else to offer he would have, just like she would have offered more if she had anything on him. We were given the details that we were given, and we all have to make a choice on that. If you feel that nominees require perfect records with evidence showing no foul play, that is fine and your right to demand that. I'm curious what you would think if a Democratic nominee had something like this happen.

And for the record, if ever there WAS evidence showing he lied and did those terrible things to her, I would ABSOLUTELY want him to resign and face whatever legal consequences.

Of all the stuff you said here, the bolded item stuck out to me as by far the most telling and significant, so I'll make your request here the focus of my response.

This may not have occurred to you, but though I am a registered Democrat, I don't view the question of sexual assault through a partisan lens. Without getting needlessly graphic, the issue is personal to me. I'm also among those who supported Bill Clinton's impeachment those two decades ago. (My perspective on the matter resembles the contemporaneously-stated view of Andrea Dworkin.)

I'm also a lot less psychologically attached to the Democratic Party than you seem to believe. I suppose I may come off as something of an ideological progressive or something under the present circumstances where we have Trump as president and I just really, really am against the heart and soul of what he stands for and has done to this country, but the truth is that I share your previously-stated interest in a Nikki Haley presidential run enough that I will likely change my party registration in order to vote for her in the 2024 Republican primary when nigh-inevitably she runs. I'd definitely vote for her over Joe Biden if he opted to run again (I'm pretty much just assuming that he'll be elected president this year at this point) and might even vote for her over Kamala Harris if Biden opted for only a single term, given his age. Why? Because while I strongly disagree with much of what Haley stands for (particularly when it comes to economic policy!), I see her as someone who would stand up for Hong Kong, stand up to Russia (unlike say our current president), defend freedom of speech online, on college campuses, and just in public spaces generally, and also probably sign legislation guaranteeing paid family leave into law. To that last point, she strikes me as a conservative feminist; the truth being that at this point I agree with the conservative feminists on at least as many issues as I do with the liberal feminists (being neither of those things myself). The fact is that the main problem I have with the GOP is the fact that it seems to have a problem with me. The Republicans have been the main political force in this country opposing everything from my right to marry and have kids as a lesbian to the renewal of the Violence Against Women Act and everything in-between and yeah, cumulatively I can't help but get the impression that they just don't like me. I don't have that feeling about Nikki Haley.

Enough about Nikki Haley though. The point is that I'm not a hack who holds one party to a different standard than the other. Yeah, a lot of people are, but I'm not among them. What matters to me when it comes to the case of Brett Kavanaugh is that I believe Dr. Blasey Ford. Do I have a video recording of the incident(s) in question to prove beyond any doubt that what she has said happened to her in fact did? No. That seems to be the standard you expect, but I think you know good and well that that kind of proof is unrealistic when we're talking about sexual assault. So what do we do? Just never reach any conclusions about sexual violence and let every rapist go about their merry way without even social, let alone legal, consequence? No. That can't be the answer! When we're not talking about the possibility of jail time, which is another thing...when we're talking about simply whether or not such a person as Brett Kavanaugh deserves the power to make law...the only question in my mind is...well, whether or not there's a question in my mind. Do I question his innocence? Do I question his respect for the law as someone to be tasked with making it? Do I question his ability to reach fair and reasonably objective verdicts on women's issues? The answer across the board here is a resounding "YES, I DO!" He acted guilty to my eyes and ears, responded far too emotionally to questioning for someone tasked with issuing fair and objective, legally binding verdicts...and really most importantly, he, unlike Dr. Blasey Ford, had a motive to lie. Christine Blasey Ford had nothing to gain and everything to lose by coming forward, and indeed she lost her career and will never be known henceforth as anything but "that bitch who stood in the way of Brett Kavanaugh's bright and promising career path". Her life actually is over. She has no future and will never be known for anything else. Kavanaugh, on the other hand, is now a Supreme Court justice for life. That's the reality of the situation. Now maybe that's what justice looks like to you, but it's not to me. It's also worth adding that Dr. Blasey Ford wasn't Kavanaugh's only accuser either. She's just the most famous one because she's the one who got to testify to the Senate. The odds that each of Mr. Kavanaugh's accusers were lying across the board strikes me as low. But maybe that's just me and I wouldn't know anything about how sexual predators and their survivors behave...oh wait.

I feel that President Trump could've just withdrawn Kavanaugh and nominated someone else with similar views minus the baggage. It wouldn't have been the first time a president has done just such a thing vis-a-vis Supreme Court nominations in my lifetime. Or the second either. But no! No, this was a matter of principle for Trump and the Republican Party! It had to be THIS GUY specifically! Or else how could you establish that sexual violence against women just isn't a concern worth taking seriously? I mean what's next, a better world where we don't reward that kind of behavior or casually dismiss those who may have survived it out of hand?

But that lack of evidence means everything to me. I really do, absolutely, believe in innocent until proven guilty. It protects far more innocents from being wrongfully condemned than it does guilty from getting away with something. I know it's a flawed system, but it's the least flawed one there is for this kind of thing. I've worked in education for five years. What if I had a goal to be a superintendent one day, a dream where I could really impact kids lives? Then, when I'm close to getting it, someone comes out with accusations against me and presents no evidence?

I think you are underestimating how much the position means to those whom obtain it. They work their whole careers for it, and for that to just go poof and vanish because someone accuses them of something with no evidence? I can't imagine the emotions I would be feeling (especially if I was innocent). I don't judge him for his emotions, they actually revealed a human rawness to someone in the political world for the first time and it was refreshing to know how human he is. I wish our leaders would show MORE emotion as they make decisions for us that impact millions.

If she told the truth, then I agree that she had nothing to gain and her life probably is ruined. If she lied, ask yourself why she would make this up if not for a big day check in some secret bank account. She had a lot to gain by lying, but a lot to lose by telling the truth depending on which happened. Didn't she reject a massive GoFundMe or something? If so that's an odd move to make if her career is over. If not, disregard.

I think Trump felt, as did the Republican Senate, that we can't let this guy fall if there is no evidence against him. That sets a bad precedent. If Ford was lying (not saying she was, I doubt we will ever know for certain), whose to stop even more accusers from coming out to make claims about the next nominee, and then the next? Then Democrats could ride that until the next election and hope it's vacant still and try to take the seat themselves.



Aren't there options other than either Kavanaugh or Ford intentionally lied? I've seen many times over my life the case made that different people can remember the same event differently. That we can edit our memories, especially over time, and sometimes construct even new narratives for ourselves -- not because we're trying to trick anyone, but because this is how our mind works.

I understand the appeal of the simplicity in just picking a side, choosing to "believe" one and excoriating the other, but I'm not convinced that things happened exactly how either of the two of them remembers it. Trying to piece together the specifics of an event like this from so long ago, especially, is murky business.



A recent YouGov survey of 45,000 people from 42 countries and territories found the following to be the top 20 most admired men and women in the world respectively:

The World's 20 Most Admired MEN

1. Barack Obama
2. Bill Gates
3. Xi Jinping
4. Narendra Modi
5. Jackie Chan
6. Cristiano Ronaldo
7. Jack Ma
8. Dalai Lama
9. Elon Musk
10. Keanu Reeves
11. Lionel Messi
12. Vladimir Putin
13. Michael Jordan
14. Amitabh Bachchan
15. Donald Trump
16. Virat Kohli
17. Shahrukh Khan
18. Pope Francis
19. Recep Tayyip Erdogan
20. Joko Widodo

Breakdown:

7 heads of state
4 professional athletes
4 entertainers
3 captains of industry
2 religious leaders

The World's 20 Most Admired WOMEN

1. Michelle Obama
2. Angelina Jolie
3. Queen Elizabeth II
4. Oprah Winfrey
5. Jennifer Lopez
6. Emma Watson
7. Scarlett Johansson
8. Peng Liyuan
9. Taylor Swift
10. Shakira
11. Beyonce
12. Angela Merkel
13. Hillary Clinton
14. Malala Yousafzai
15. Priyanka Chopra
16. Deepika Padukone
17. Sudha Murty
18. Greta Thunberg
19. Melania Trump
20. Ellen DeGeneres

Breakdown:

12 entertainers
3 professional wives
2 activists
1 head of state
1 powerless state symbol
1 Hillary Clinton
0 professional athletes
0 captains of industry
0 religious leaders

Point: It's not difficult to see patriarchal social roles for the respective sexes in what sorts of qualities people tend to admire in them respectively. People believe men are supposed to rule the world (perhaps tyrannically), head up business empires, govern religious life, and generally be active. They're supposed to be powerful, competitive, and dominant, in other words. Women, on the other hand, are really just there to be seen and to support their husbands, the women's list communicates.

Just thoughts.