8
   

How important is having a woman president?

 
 
hightor
 
  4  
Reply Thu 20 Dec, 2018 05:57 am
@maxdancona,
Quote:
What does "neither" mean?

It means that I don't exclusively refer to gender or ideology when I make a decision to vote for a particular candidate.

As to your observation that "woman = progressive", I've noticed that myself and I think it's stupid. Women politicians can be just as toxic as men; Mrs. Thatcher comes to mind, Anne Gorsuch, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, Michelle Bachman, Sarah Palin. Having two X chromosomes isn't a reason to vote for (or against) anybody. Nor is uncritical and inflexible adherence to a particular ideology.

0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 20 Dec, 2018 07:33 am
@Real Music,
RealMusic, you and I are basically in agreement. You are making my point far better than I am.

The term "war on women" is a political term and another great example of my point. Liberal men believe there is a "war on women". Conservative women think this is pure nonsense. Whether you believe in a "war on women" has nothing to do with your gender and everything to do with your political ideology.

There are plenty of women who believe that abortion is immoral and should be illegal. There are plenty of women who believe the mandates of Obamacare are a government intrusion on personal freedom.

If there is a "war on women" they think you are the agressor. This isn't really about gender, it is about political ideology.

Thank you for helping me make this point.
revelette1
 
  3  
Reply Thu 20 Dec, 2018 08:56 am
@tsarstepan,
Quote:
Can you be anymore goofy? Can you load the question any bit more? Maybe say Eva Braun's zombie corpse as GOP presidential nomination along side Melania Trump as her running mate?

If you didn't load the question with an obvious socially conservative (and excruciatingly impossible) test case of Mia Love (whoever the heck that is)? Then you'd get some more earnest and thoughtful answers.

Seriously? What answer do you really think liberal or progressive Democrats and independents would answer? Of course, we're going to vote by ideology.


I agree completely, typical though of this poster.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Dec, 2018 10:26 am
@revelette1,
It is nice to see you, Revellette. I am glad you dropped in. It is sweet that you are supporting Tsar in this way.

That you agree with Tsar's little digs is not typical at all.
revelette1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Dec, 2018 10:45 am
@maxdancona,
I'm not really familiar with "Tsar" I forget her/his whole username, I haven't run across her/him too much. I happen to agree with her/him concerning this thread. Plus remembering some other threads in which we both participated in regarding feminist matters.
maxdancona
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 20 Dec, 2018 11:43 am
@revelette1,
I am inviting you to accept there are well meaning, intelligent people (including women) on the other side of the political divide. There is really no need for this nastiness.

Tsar came to this thread to take a cheap shot. You apparently came for the same reason.

I am not a big fan of the way modern feminism has gone. I make no secret of this. This doesn't mean that I can't have a civil discussion with a feminist. It is a matter of expressing your opinions without name calling or personal attacks.

Being able to disagree in a civil way seems to be a lost art. That is the reason we are so divided and so nasty.

You could ignore this thread if it annoys you and Tsar. Or you could have a discussion that either amuses or challenges you. I don't understand what is gained by nastiness..


tsarstepan
 
  4  
Reply Thu 20 Dec, 2018 12:38 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

I am inviting you to accept there are well meaning, intelligent people (including women) on the other side of the political divide.

Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing

Golly Max! And you clearly are the Jesus Christ of our political divide. Thanks for being the divine bridge that saves us all. You are too humble for this forum and ultimately the universe.

Damn you Romans... I mean monstrous feminists who want to make the world a better place. Please don't crucify Max for our sins.

PS: No one is convinced by your forced attempt to claim the high road in order to artificially justify your very outdated worldview.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  0  
Reply Thu 20 Dec, 2018 01:22 pm
I think it would be great to have a chick president, but only if she’s the best person for the job who espouses what I think is important for our country.

It bugs the crap out of me that people put gender or charisma above substance—something that has been rampant and increasing each cycle.

I hope—and the last crop of elected congressional winners supports that hope—that our government will begin to look more like our population.

But, I don’t think this country has too many more election cycles in its present form. Maybe our next iteration will feature a more American face.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  2  
Reply Thu 20 Dec, 2018 01:42 pm
@maxdancona,
I am looking forward to seeing a woman in the Oval Office as I was looking forward to see an African-American there. My desire to see the latter though certainly didn't supersede my good judgment in terms of voting for Obama. I wasn't going to abandon my convictions on how the nation should be run simply to be a part of history making. I don't believe I was joined by enough voters who normally vote Republican though.

So, I think there may be some traditionally Democratic voters who might vote for a female Republican primarily because she was a woman, but not any of the Democrats in this forum. Their political convictions are too strong...misguided of course, but solid as concrete.


0 Replies
 
Real Music
 
  3  
Reply Thu 20 Dec, 2018 09:21 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:
RealMusic, you and I are basically in agreement. You are making my point far better than I am.

The term "war on women" is a political term and another great example of my point. Liberal men believe there is a "war on women". Conservative women think this is pure nonsense. Whether you believe in a "war on women" has nothing to do with your gender and everything to do with your political ideology.

There are plenty of women who believe that abortion is immoral and should be illegal. There are plenty of women who believe the mandates of Obamacare are a government intrusion on personal freedom.

If there is a "war on women" they think you are the agressor. This isn't really about gender, it is about political ideology.

Thank you for helping me make this point.

What does anything you are saying in your reply have to do with the questions I asked you? Since you (deliberately) avoided answering my questions the first time, let me ask the exact same questions again. I hope this time you will actually answer the questions that I ask you. If you don't want to answer my questions, just say you don't want to answer my questions and move on. It's not rocket science.

1. Do you Max have an explanation to why the democrats had so many more women (running) for elected office than the republicans?

2. Do you Max know why the democrats are (nominating) so many more women than republicans to run for elected office?

3. Do you Max know why the republicans are (nominating) so many more men than the democrats to run for elected office

4. Do you Max, think that it is purely coincidental that the democrats are (nominating) way more women than the republicans to run for elected office?

Or do you Max have specific reasons to explain why the Democrats are (nominating) way more women than the republicans to run for elected office?


Me asking you direct questions has absolutely nothing to do with any point you are (claiming) to make.
If you don't wish to answer the ACTUAL questions, just say you don't want to answer the ACTUAL questions and move on. It's really that simple.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Dec, 2018 11:42 pm
@Lash,
What does our population look like?

What does an American Face look like?

There are more Americans of German ancestry (14.7%) than of African (12.3%) or Mexican (10.9%)

You'll get a better idea of American demographics from articles like the following than from commercials on TV or films and TV series that force diversity on casting that is highly disproportionate to reality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_United_States

Most Americans think that homosexuals (male & female) comprise a larger percentage of the population than is the case because of their strictly disproportionate representation on TV and in films. No big deal really, except that what they believe is not factual, and supposedly, facts matter...at least they do when Republicans twist them.

Have you noticed lately how many bi-racial couples appear in TV commercials? What is that all about? Aspirational representation? It's certainly not based on actual demographics. Again no big deal, but not accurate. I can't imagine the sort of person who would allow the races of a couple in a commercial influence their decision on purchasing the product advertised, so I don't know why it's being done. Virtue signaling? Clearly, every company that has such commercials is counting on socially open-minded consumers vastly outnumbering rabid racists. So either racism is much less of a problem that we are so often told it is, or a great many corporations care more about a diverse harmonious society than the almighty dollar.

Advertising is the art of manipulation.


Lash
 
  2  
Reply Fri 21 Dec, 2018 05:30 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
When the demographics of Congress match the demographics of the population, that would represent the American face.

We can start with a little over 50% female.
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Fri 21 Dec, 2018 08:12 am
@Lash,
Quote:
[We can start with a little over 50% female.


That's a great idea! Let's bring race and ethnicity into it:

54% of them can be non-hispanic whites
24% hispanic
16% black
15% asian
1% native

We could select individuals with that approximate genetic mixture of race and ethnicity to form a pool of acceptable all-purpose candidates. Every ten years after the census we'd come up with a new breakdown of qualifications for the face of the USA.

What about sexual orientation?



maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Dec, 2018 10:10 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
I don't really get your beef, Finn. Of course advertising is manipulation... it always has been. Advertisers are telling a story about their company and their product. That's just how it works.

Advertisements with interracial couples are targeted at me. It doesn't mean that I will buy the product, but it does make it more likely I will respond positively to the message. So what? There are ads targeted at you. Companies do careful research to reach specific demographics.

NPR ran an interesting story about how Subaru deliberately targeted the lesbian market. I think there was some market share to begin with, but they went after this market that was fairly young professional with disposable income when no one else was speaking to them in their ads. They made a lot of money. They made people in the demographic feel good. They sold cars. Good for them.
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Dec, 2018 12:02 pm
@hightor,
My hope is that economic and social equality would permeate society to such a degree that the demographic face of America would very naturally be represented in Congress, and STEM careers, and in teaching, and in boardrooms.

Disagree with that, Hightor?
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Fri 21 Dec, 2018 12:10 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
Have you noticed lately how many bi-racial couples appear in TV commercials?

Probably this is a case of trying to cash in on trends more that a representation of demographic reality.

What's behind the rise of interracial marriage in the USA
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Fri 21 Dec, 2018 12:15 pm
@Lash,
Quote:
My hope is that economic and social equality would permeate society to such a degree that the demographic face of America would very naturally be represented in Congress, and STEM careers, and in teaching, and in boardrooms.

My hope is that economic and social equality would permeate society to such a degree that our need to label and compartmentalize people would be transcended once and for all.
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Dec, 2018 01:38 pm
@hightor,
I couldent care less whether a candidate was male or female as long as they were sane unlike our present president.
0 Replies
 
Sturgis
 
  2  
Reply Fri 21 Dec, 2018 01:52 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:
Advertisements with interracial couples are targeted at me.

Yes and no. At the core, advertising is about targeting all viewers and not just one segment.

If an ad only appealed to one segment and did not attempt to gather up everyone to try what was being shown, the company would most likely be out of business, relatively fast.
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Dec, 2018 01:58 pm
@Sturgis,
I wonder if that’s true. Don’t companies target demographics that are more likely to use their products with specialized ads—and try to attract a new group with other ads?

If not, no multiracial ads would ever be made.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/21/2019 at 11:32:28