DNC vs Sanders. Is the DNC right to block Sander's access to DNC voter data?

@cicerone imposter,

You are mixing up loosely connected ideas and things. That good heatth care is beneficial to all who receive it is not a simple fact: it is instrad a tautology - a reflexive statement true by definition of the words used.

That so called "universal government managed health care" is the best way to achieve it for all is far from certain. Many measures of health care effeciveness in this country exceed the achievments of those with the universal government run systems you so admire. What fraction of the much touted benefits of Obanmacare have actually been achieved? What have been the side effects and failures (other than the obvious continuing bankrupcies of the government managed exchanges)? Do the results so far inspire you to believe the government will do better with even more control?

The CDC is a government bureaucracy that does a necessary function, but with about the same degree of excellence we get from other government bureaucracies, like the IRS, the FDA or the Energy Department. They all do necessary functions tolerably well, but they have not ever been among the sources of significant economic and technical innovation that have so improved our economic lives.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Only republicans have tried to repeal Obamacare. If you're not a republican, I'm not sure what you call yourself. Maybe, you can enlighten us.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

George, Here's a good article from Forbes. You can access the article by typing "forbes, conservative think tank, 10 countries with universal health care have freer economies."

Healthcare, Fiscal, And Tax

JAN 27, 2015 @ 01:53 PM 34,535 VIEWS

Conservative Think Tank: 10 Countries With Universal Health Care Have Freer Economies Than The U.S.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

That merely indicates that we have relativly many more restraints on economic activity in areas other than health care. It tells us nothing sbout the economic benefits of universal health care. Moreover the question for us has to do with how well our government will manage our health care. So far the evidence with Obama Care and the Veteran's Administration isn't very encouraging.

It strongly appears to me that you are trying to rationalize a preconceived opinion rather than to examine the evidence.

3 Replies

@georgeob1,

Not really. In the US today, because of universal health care, no family need go bankrupt based on health care issues.
Republicans have tried 61 times to repeal Obamacare, and failed. That should tell you they're fighting an uphill battle without any chance of gaining ground.
They're good at wasting time; Obama would never sign their repeal 'if' it passed congress.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Not me, you. The majority of Americans support Obamacare.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

It tells a whole lot about the benefits of universal health care. Do a search; you'll be surprised or shocked!

0 Replies

@revelette2,

revelette2 wrote:

For someone is not going to argue something, you had a lot to say about his sexual activities.]

And the above is a weak attempt to score a point. I actually haven't said much at all about his sexual activities other than they were more than flirting. My comments addressed what I believe is your view of his acts and why I don't find it problematic to describe him as "likable" or to acknowledge I admire certain of his talents. I've no interest in arguing whether or not he was guilty of sexual harassment (or worse) or simple marital indiscretion. Neither of us will convince the other of their respective points of view.

Quote:
I think he was more than a flirt, he had known affairs, consensual affairs, some long term. What I don't believe is that he forced in any way someone to have any kind of sexual acts and I don't think it has been proven. Affairs, sexual acts, yes, force or harassment, no. It wasn't even proven in court despite their best efforts. I think his affairs was personal, Paula Jones was pure politics, as well as that other rape charge. It was just not credible or believable by anyone. I also think for a smart guy, Bill Clinton behaved unbelievably stupid. I mean he had to know the Star report conspiracy ring was just waiting to trip him up and I guess he felt like he could get away with having a consensual relations with Monica Lewinski if he was smart enough to get around them. It was a dumb thing to do, but not criminal. I could see Hillary have a holly fit over it and throwing things. Despite the mocking Hillary got, she was in my honest opinion right about the vast right wing conspiracy. One of the players so to speak even wrote a book talking about the whole thing. I forget his name right now.

All I will say is that since you are emphasizing facts in terms of charges made against Clinton, you must have more supporting your contention that it was all "a vast right wing conspiracy" beyond a reference to an unnamed "player" writing an unnamed book.

Quote:
This line of attack is so obvious, I am just afraid it will work. Words like sexual predator and harassment puts a different aspect than just consensual affairs even if was a 21 year old intern.

Hillary Clinton opened the door to attacks involving her husband's sexual predation, when she accused Trump of being a sexist. We have expected all along that she would resort to charges of sexism at the drop of a hat and we've not been disappointed. She even insinuated Bernie Sanders was a sexist when he made the comment: “All the shouting in the world is not going to do what I would hope all of us want, and that is keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have those guns and end this horrible violence.” She is the first woman to have a real shot at becoming president of the United States and as with Barrack Obama's opportunity to become the first African-American President, the possibility of a a woman president is a big deal to a lot of people who will vote for her for no other reason.

It is a big deal, and if Carly Fiorina wins it will be a great achievement for a woman, women and the country.

Clinton would be foolish not to capitalize on the appeal of electing the first woman president. In and of itself it's a stupid reason to vote for someone, but, obviously, she believes she has plenty of additional qualifications beyond her gender. Since society (thanks to folks like Clinton and those who support her) have established "sexist" as an effective, and easy to use epithet, almost as powerful as "racist," she can be expected to employ it at every opportunity -- even those she herself creates out of whole cloth.

However, if she is going to accuse her opponents of being sexists then it is fair game for her opponents to consider her past behavior in the face of sexism and to utilize it in the form of an attack if they believe it is informative of her character.

That is what Trump has done. He's certainly not the first person to call into question the ways in which Hillary responded to her husband's blatant sexism: Namely, attack those who have claimed to be or have been identified as the victims of his sexist, sexual predation. If someone is going to present themself as a, or even the, Defender of Women, and Champion Against Sexism, then it is appropriate to question if she has played those roles when she had a personal stake in the situation, or, instead, betrayed the virtues they represent.

Since the days of Bill's sexcapades, there has been a high profile, highly charged public discussion of sexual predation by men. A great many participants in that discussion have expressed outrage and dismay whenever a claiming victim is dismissed as a slut with ulterior motives, or a jilted lover. Sounds an awful lot like the well rehearsed and practiced response of Hillary and the Clinton Team whenever a woman dare accuse Bill of sexual harassment or worse.

0 Replies

Don't forget now. Everyone go to see the current film on Dalton Trumbo.

1 Reply

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

Don't forget now. Everyone go to see the current film on Dalton Trumbo.

Does it remind you of Trump?

1 Reply

Just came across this relevant piece in my reading today...

"Research shows women leaders trade success for likability

Across a wide spectrum of traditionally male-dominated professions, women are becoming leaders with increasing frequency. But they haven’t yet been able to shed the social penalties that accompany climbing up the ladder. The same behaviors that are required of women to achieve professional success are also seen by others as "difficult," "abrasive," and "selfish." In a word, unlikable.

In studies where participants are asked to examine a job candidate, where the only variable changed is the candidate’s gender, they typically rate female candidates as equally competent to their male counterparts, but they’re perceived as much colder." http://bit.ly/1Ul357Z

1 Reply

@snood,

Quote:

Does it remind you of Trump?

I did not make that connection, snood. Cruz is, as many have observed, the present character bearing the greatest operational resemblance to McCarthy but even that connection wasn't key for me.

Rather, it was the clear similarities between then and now as regards what Hofstadter described in "The Paranoid Style in American Politics. Much of this period happened when I was too young to know it or grasp it. Like all of us, of course, I later learned much about the story of the blacklist and the dynamics that created it. But it was salutary to revisit this thing in all its ugliness and even its "evil", to use Trumbo's own term.

0 Replies

@blatham,

Now you seem to be suggesting that the consideration of "likability" in a political contest is somehow sexist.

And yet likability has been a factor in presidential elections before any women ran for the office.

You will have to ask the people who don't consider Clinton likable which of her traits have led them to such an assessment.

For me they are her mendacity, her humorlessness, her vindictiveness, her conceit, and her cackling laugh. The very same traits that would, in my estimation, render a male candidate unlikable.

Her absurd fashion sense makes her laughable as it would if it was shared by a male candidate. To some degree she is, in this sense, at a disadvantage to a male candidate. It should not be difficult for a male candidate to limit his campaign and public function wardrobe to grey and navy suits accompanied by white shirts and red or blue neckties. There must be a feminine equivalent of such a wardrobe, but the wearer would likely receive some criticism for a dull wardrobe, whereas her male counterpart would likely not. However it is as easy for a female candidate, as it is for a male one, to delegate her garment selection to a fashion expert, so the only true disadvantage that might remain would be do to ego, not gender.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

Now you seem to be suggesting that the consideration of "likability" in a political contest is somehow sexist.

No, I'm not. The consideration of "likability" isn't a sexist act, rather obviously. But as that research reveals, there's a clear correlation between "likability" and gender (in relevant circumstances, ie leadership).

What else you've written is a restatement of your perceptions of the lady"s character. Fine with me if you keep them.

Re the fashion criticisms, you see those all the time with male candidates so you're surely off the hook with that one just as Trump is off the hook with his remarks on Fiorina's face because he and other politicians talk about their male opponents' faces (attractive or repulsive) all the time too.

0 Replies

DNC vs Sanders. Is the DNC right to block Sander's access to DNC voter data?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know