3
   

Elizabeth Warren plays the woman card...

 
 
Reply Sat 8 Feb, 2020 12:06 pm
I have supported Elizabeth Warren from the beginning. I like her intelligence, and her pragmatism. Her "I have a plan for that" theme works for me. I liked that her focus was on economics... I don't always agree with her stances, but I respect her judgment. That is exactly what I am looking for in a president.

I am afraid she screwed all of that up. When her campaign started to stumble (and many ultimately successful campaigns stumble) she grabbed for the easy way out, the cheapest fix in the Democratic political playbook.

Warrens's spat with Bernie Sanders about what he allegedly said about women was an awful mistake on her part. Warren wins when she is talking about economic policy and pragmatic, progressive solutions. Warren doesn't win when she is talking about gender, nor should she. My vote goes for the person who I believe will make the best candidate (i.e. beating Trump) and the best president. I don't vote blindly for the woman candidate. Her gender is irrelevant.

I fear that her playing this card so early might disqualify her campaign. If she wins the nomination this way, she comes out with a big disadvantage facing Trump.

Trump will run against Democratic identity politics. If that is what this election is about, he will likely win.
 
RABEL222
 
  0  
Reply Sat 8 Feb, 2020 02:25 pm
Still back dooring for Bernie?
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Feb, 2020 03:20 pm
@RABEL222,
RABEL222 wrote:

Still back dooring for Bernie?


No. I haven't supported Bernie at all in this election.

I like Bernie in the Senate. I don't think he would make a very good president. (However, I will vote for him in the general election if he is the nominee).

0 Replies
 
Sturgis
 
  4  
Reply Sat 8 Feb, 2020 03:44 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:
I don't vote blindly for the woman candidate. Her gender is irrelevant.


Then why mention it? Further, it becomes clear, whether or not you can admit to it, that gender is relevant to you. Just be honest.

As to Warren, the lack of any real and genuinely workable plans elude her. She babbles most anything in an effort to get the nomination. Then facts appear and she goes silent on a matter.

When Warren claimed to have a plan to guarantee health care for all and was then told it was not balanced or feasible, the topic went quiet.

Recently, she said she would wipe out student loan debt on day one. It cannot be done that quickly. It needs approval from The Secretary of Education. That post needs to be filled through hearings, which is not likely to happen on day one!
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Feb, 2020 03:51 pm
@Sturgis,
I don't think you read my point before responding. But OK.

I have always liked Elizabeth Warren, including declaring my support on Able2know last year. The fact that she is now playing the gender card bothers me.
Sturgis
 
  4  
Reply Sat 8 Feb, 2020 04:04 pm
@maxdancona,
She's playing the card?


...or is it you?
0 Replies
 
livinglava
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 8 Feb, 2020 04:41 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

I have supported Elizabeth Warren from the beginning. I like her intelligence, and her pragmatism. Her "I have a plan for that" theme works for me. I liked that her focus was on economics... I don't always agree with her stances, but I respect her judgment. That is exactly what I am looking for in a president.

I am afraid she screwed all of that up. When her campaign started to stumble (and many ultimately successful campaigns stumble) she grabbed for the easy way out, the cheapest fix in the Democratic political playbook.

Warrens's spat with Bernie Sanders about what he allegedly said about women was an awful mistake on her part. Warren wins when she is talking about economic policy and pragmatic, progressive solutions. Warren doesn't win when she is talking about gender, nor should she. My vote goes for the person who I believe will make the best candidate (i.e. beating Trump) and the best president. I don't vote blindly for the woman candidate. Her gender is irrelevant.

I fear that her playing this card so early might disqualify her campaign. If she wins the nomination this way, she comes out with a big disadvantage facing Trump.

Trump will run against Democratic identity politics. If that is what this election is about, he will likely win.

Ironically you are doing the classical thing that feminists accuse non-feminist socialists of doing, which is to seek economic equality without regards to forms of inequality that occur between marginalized and dominant groups, such as homo/hetero, white/non-white, and men/women.

In other words, you're basically saying, "yes, I like her focus on expanding economic inclusion, but if men take the lion's share and women continue to get marginalized and thus a smaller piece of the pie, secondary status/roles, etc. that issue isn't as important as you and other men gaining equality with richer men.

I agree with you that identity politics gets old, as does collective comparisons of groups in terms of (in)equality, but if you are seeking equality with richer people and those people are men and you are male, then it would be a problem if you don't acknowledge that other inequality in addition to the one you want to be the focus.

Now there are traditionally women's issues that are important not because of collective group identity rivalry for equality but because they just traditionally burden women more and/or differently than men, such as childcare, reproductive issues, sexist bias, cultural marginalization of things deemed feminine, etc.

Anyway, I suggest that if you have a problem with a candidate discussing women's issues, don't call it "playing a card," but rather focus on what it is about their gender focus you dislike. Don't dismiss everything feminism has studied and all issues of interest to women more so than men by calling it "playing the woman card."

Finally, realize that many if not all issues that are considered 'women's issues' also affect men in one way or another, directly and/or indirectly. So by criticizing Warren 'playing the woman card,' you are simultaneously marginalizing men who deal with similar issues to women, e.g. because they are single fathers or they are marginalized for being less masculine than stereotypically masculine men, etc.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Feb, 2020 10:21 pm
@livinglava,
Quote:
In other words, you're basically saying, "yes, I like her focus on expanding economic inclusion, but if men take the lion's share and women continue to get marginalized and thus a smaller piece of the pie, secondary status/roles, etc. that issue isn't as important as you and other men gaining equality with richer men.


What the hell are you talking about Lava?
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Sun 9 Feb, 2020 05:09 am
@Sturgis,
Sturgis wrote:

Then why mention it? Further, it becomes clear, whether or not you can admit to it, that gender is relevant to you. Just be honest.


There's a first time for everything.

Look at it from Max's point of view, he supported Warren all this time only to find out she's a woman. How sneaky!

Max's biggest problem is he believes his own bullshit. It's fairly obvious his problems with politics, television and society are all based on the misguided belief that women have it so much easier than him. This is why he ties himself up in knots trying to find any other reason not to like something/someone.

The only person stupid enough to believe this horseshit other than Max, is Oralloy. Birds of a feather and all that.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Sun 9 Feb, 2020 05:47 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

I have always liked Elizabeth Warren, including declaring my support on Able2know last year. The fact that she is now playing the gender card bothers me.



Not as much as the thought she might be the first female president. You "supported" her because you didn't think she had a chance. Now she does, that's what's changed.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 9 Feb, 2020 07:35 am
@izzythepush,
She doesn't appear to have a chance according to the polling. No one ever gets the nomination without coming in the top two in New Hampshire.

Is there even one poll out there that shows her in the top two in New Hampshire?
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 9 Feb, 2020 07:37 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:
The only person stupid enough to believe this horseshit other than Max, is Oralloy. Birds of a feather and all that.

Max and I are both vastly smarter than you are. That's why we are able to support our positions with intelligent arguments while you rely on childish personal attacks.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 9 Feb, 2020 08:34 am
@izzythepush,
If Izzy chooses leaders by what genitals they have, he must have loved Margaret Thatcher.

I think we should choose leaders for their ability to lead, and in our case to win in the general election.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Feb, 2020 09:58 am
@Sturgis,
Just for the record, this is what I wrote in October 2018

In 2018 Max wrote:
Elizabeth Warren is now clearly ramping up for a presidential run in 2020. She is doing the circuit, preparing her case and cleaning up old messes. She is doing everything she needs to do. I used to think the Senator Warren should stay in the Senate. She is a damn good senator and she represents my state well. My old line was that she would fill the role of Ted Kennedy.

I am changing my mind for a few reasons.

- She is liberal, but she isn't divisive. Conservatives may disagree with this... but compare her with any other Democratic nominee. She is not going to refer to voters as "deplorables", and she isn't going to make her gender the center of her campaign.

- She is as intelligent as hell, and she can put forward an solid argument as a professor.

- Her message is about economics and it has been consistently about economics. She will rise above the culture wars to talk authentically about the needs of middle America. With this message, she can reach people that Hillary could never reach.

- Trump wins a mud slinging contest every time. Trump loses a fair debate. Elizabeth Warren is smart enough to understand this.

We will see what happens, but if Elizabeth Warren can rise above the mud and focus us on economic issues she can beat Trump.


https://able2know.org/topic/481300-1
0 Replies
 
livinglava
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 9 Feb, 2020 11:36 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

Quote:
In other words, you're basically saying, "yes, I like her focus on expanding economic inclusion, but if men take the lion's share and women continue to get marginalized and thus a smaller piece of the pie, secondary status/roles, etc. that issue isn't as important as you and other men gaining equality with richer men.


What the hell are you talking about Lava?

I am talking about you being a group-equality person in terms of your politics, so it is hypocritical if you reject Warren or any other feminist who also thinks in terms of group-equality, but with a focus on women.

Am I wrong? Is (in)equality not something that motivates your political preferences?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

ADAM'S RIB - Discussion by Setanta
Evolving gender roles in our societies - Discussion by Olivier5
What can women do better than men? - Question by Robert Gentel
serve ladies first - Discussion by dyslexia
What sex is your brain? Take this Sex I.D test. - Discussion by Robert Gentel
The difference between men and women + a bonus - Discussion by Craven de Kere
How many genders are there? - Question by Christian0912
Is my budgie a male? Im pretty sure he is. - Question by Pickle and Tigerlily
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Elizabeth Warren plays the woman card...
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/25/2020 at 12:31:13