Trump and Putin in Helsinki

[Deleted member 848]

Maybe, that is all debatable but something I dont really care about.

Again, I ask you to find one single example (you wont find one).

The fact is you can say whatever you want about Clinton but her policies she ran on were well supported.

If this was the case, she would have won. aaaaaaaand she didn't. sorry. she's a neolib who only gives a **** about the upper classes, that's why no one gave a **** to go out and vote for her.

Bernie also didnt win the primary.

Ah yes, what a fair and transparent primary process that was.

Good luck putting forward any nominee from the DNC in 2020 that will beat Bernie, if he so chooses to run. Also, ironic seeing you say that "Bernie shouldn't caucus with the DNC" but then saying "Bernie shouldn't run as an independent it will splinter the left!" so, of course, the remaining option becomes "Bernie shouldn't run!"[/QUOTE]

 

[Ron Mexico]

I don’t agree with a lot of what Dala says. But I fell he’s right on this one. That and her being a Clinton. Political death to half the country. Just like a Bush to the other half.

Sure, I dont really care why you think she lost. There are a lot of reasons including some of what Dala said and some of what I said.

But my point still stands, she didnt lose because of her stance on policies. Clinton has a very good people researching for her and pushing her campaign. She campaigned on policies that were well supported. There are other reasons she lost not because more people liked Trumps or Bernies policies.

 

[Deleted member 848]

I know you are a die hard Bernie fan but there is no reason to get rude. I dont listen to propoganda against him. I liked Bernie at first and supported him but then did my own research and realized I didnt support his policies and disagreed with him. Like most politicians I support some of his ideas but not all of them.

First of all, I don't mean to be rude-- and I dont think I've been personal or anything. Secondly, I'm not a diehard Bernie fan, I have numerous critiques of him.

Real talk here... You are throwing around propaganda so I will just state this. If you 100% or close to that support one party or one candidate on all issues you have bought into their propaganda.

See above. Bernie is very flawed, much like every other politician.

Also what other countries and goverments do does not necassarily mean it will be successful with another government.

The opposite is true-- just because something worked elsewhere, doesn't mean that it can't work here.

Ill give 1 example. His most talked about and supported idea is free college education. That sounds really nice and well supported but the fact is if we did that in the US the group that would most benefit from it would be rich white males. The people who need it the least. College is free or close to free already for minorities and poor people. Plus the fact that most groups are not going to go to a high end rich school except rich white males. So you just give more to people who have the most. So its a nice idea but not doing what its supposed to or all that helpful.

You're going to need to cite a source on this, because this is firmly incorrect. Additionally, it goes against the learned lessons of other jurisdictions who fund/stipend education from K-PhD, and noticing on how the representation of minorities with higher education has increased since this implementation.

 

[Deleted member 848]

Sure, I dont really care why you think she lost. There are a lot of reasons including some of what Dala said and some of what I said.

But my point still stands, she didnt lose because of her stance on policies. Clinton has a very good people researching for her and pushing her campaign. She campaigned on policies that were well supported. There are other reasons she lost not because more people liked Trumps or Bernies policies.

Clinton had Robby ****ing Mook telling her to not stop once in Michigan to campaign.

 

[Stoked]

Sure, I dont really care why you think she lost. There are a lot of reasons including some of what Dala said and some of what I said.

But my point still stands, she didnt lose because of her stance on policies. Clinton has a very good people researching for her and pushing her campaign. She campaigned on policies that were well supported. There are other reasons she lost not because more people liked Trumps or Bernies policies.

Your personal opinion that part of why she lost is because she is a woman still stands. Great. My point of me thinking it its a crap stance still stands lol.

That convo was run into the ground lol. NEXT!

 

[One Brow]

Male privilege is a thing, white privilege is a thing, and denying it is ****ing stupid and non-factual. But how do you reconcile a politician losing "because she was a woman" when the previous politician was a much more underprivileged person-- a black male with the name of Barack Hussein Obama?

The largest error is looking for a small number of reasons for the loss. Clinton's loss was from death by 20+ small factors, and sexism did play a part (as did many other things).

As for whether a woman suffers more from prejudice than a black person, that's at least partly situation-dependent, like any type of privilege. Are we talking about a job interview (and what type of job), being pulled over by police, or running for office? After the 2016 election, congress was between 9% and 10% black (versus some 13% of the population), and between 19% and 20% female (versus 52%). Which is closer to their representation in the general population?

 

[Ron Mexico]

Again, I ask you to find one single example (you wont find one).



If this was the case, she would have won. aaaaaaaand she didn't. sorry. she's a neolib who only gives a **** about the upper classes, that's why no one gave a **** to go out and vote for her.




Ah yes, what a fair and transparent primary process that was.

Good luck putting forward any nominee from the DNC in 2020 that will beat Bernie, if he so chooses to run. Also, ironic seeing you say that "Bernie shouldn't caucus with the DNC" but then saying "Bernie shouldn't run as an independent it will splinter the left!" so, of course, the remaining option becomes "Bernie shouldn't run!"

[/QUOTE]


I am not the left or a Democrat. So trying to fit me into something is just silly of you.

An example of what? of policies she supported that were more supported in the US? Most of them. She did a great job researching that and pushing those.

You are probably new to politics but your stance on policies dont win you elections by themselves.

And yes, Bernie should not have expected support from a Party he was not in and did not support their official stance on issues. Its pretty easy to see why they would have preferred a candidate that supported their party and ideas. Its naive to think otherwise.

I think Bernie should have run with a different party. I probably would have voted for him in the general election. I dont think he should run next year. I dont support a lot of his ideas as I get older. But that doesnt mean others cant support him.

 

[Ron Mexico]

Your personal opinion that part of why she lost is because she is a woman still stands. Great. My point of me thinking it its a crap stance still stands lol.

That convo was run into the ground lol. NEXT!

I dont think that is the only reason but I do think it was a factor. There are tons of reasons she lost and that is among them. There is not 1 single reason she lost though. Public polls have supported that. People have less respect of women in the US in leadership roles. People are sexist here and that is a factor, especially in smaller towns.

But again that has nothing to do with the point I was making.

 

[Deleted member 848]

The largest error is looking for a small number of reasons for the loss. Clinton's loss was from death by 20+ small factors, and sexism did play a part (as did many other things).

As for whether a woman suffers more from prejudice than a black person, that's at least partly situation-dependent, like any type of privilege. Are we talking about a job interview (and what type of job), being pulled over by police, or running for office? After the 2016 election, congress was between 9% and 10% black (versus some 13% of the population), and between 19% and 20% female (versus 52%). Which is closer to their representation in the general population?

First point is true, and confirms what I was saying. Secondly-- obviously, it's situation dependent-- but why look at congress instead of Senate? If you're going to look at Congress, you're gonna be pulling at politicians from regions where the majority of the population is black-- of course, that will be a major confounding variable you haven't controlled for.

On a *national* stage, when you have a majority white population voting on candidates, almost all social theory and published evidence would indicate that the institutionalized and experienced discrimination of black people in America is more severe.

 

[One Brow]

The people who need it the least. College is free or close to free already for minorities and poor people. Plus the fact that most groups are not going to go to a high end rich school except rich white males. So you just give more to people who have the most. So its a nice idea but not doing what its supposed to or all that helpful.

I don't know what you mean by "rich" here. The rich can afford to pay $50K-$100K/year for the Ivy League, and would continue to do so regardless of whether there was free public education. Meanwhile, paying for college by the poor and lower middle-class often means the assumptions of a large number of loans, and it does have a cost on them. Even borrowing for community colleges can be a burden.

 

[Ron Mexico]

The opposite is true-- just because something worked elsewhere, doesn't mean that it can't work here.

Both statements can be true its not an either or. I am stating that because something worked somewhere does not guarantee it will work here or wherever. But yes it also could work here.

You're going to need to cite a source on this, because this is firmly incorrect. Additionally, it goes against the learned lessons of other jurisdictions who fund/stipend education from K-PhD, and noticing on how the representation of minorities with higher education has increased since this implementation.

What do you want cited? That those groups already have access to free college education? That is just a fact. There are tons of programs to get free college in the US. In fact all kids can get free college free in the US for the first 2 years due to a policy passed by Bill Clinton. The problem isnt paying for college its getting help getting in and encouragement to go. Its getting people to know about programs and actually use them.

Its just simple logic look at who spends the most money on college in the US rich white males. So they would gain the most from it.

Take some time to look up articles on the subject. There are tons of them.

 

[Ron Mexico]

I don't know what you mean by "rich" here. The rich can afford to pay $50K-$100K/year for the Ivy League, and would continue to do so regardless of whether there was free public education. Meanwhile, paying for college by the poor and lower middle-class often means the assumptions of a large number of loans, and it does have a cost on them. Even borrowing for community colleges can be a burden.

It can be but poor people can go for free in the current system. There is no reason we should give rich people free 100k a semester. That is a waste of tax payers money. Its a tax that benefits rich people more than poor or middle class. They get more rich and everyone else pays more taxes as a burden.

https://www.brookings.edu/research/who-would-benefit-most-from-free-college/

 

[Deleted member 848]

An example of what? of policies she supported that were more supported in the US? Most of them. She did a great job researching that and pushing those.[/QUOTE]

She didn't, or she would have won.

You are probably new to politics but your stance on policies dont win you elections by themselves.

They don't, but if the majority of America cannot list a single policy that Hillary stood for, while they can list 5 for both Trump and Bernie, it starts to paint a picture for you.

And yes, Bernie should not have expected support from a Party he was not in and did not support their official stance on issues. Its pretty easy to see why they would have preferred a candidate that supported their party and ideas. Its naive to think otherwise.

The DNC actively works to halt the emergence of any third left-wing party, year in year out. If they're going to do that, they can't feign anger when politicians join the only slightly-left party in town.[/QUOTE]

I think Bernie should have run with a different party. I probably would have voted for him in the general election. I dont think he should run next year. I dont support a lot of his ideas as I get older. But that doesnt mean others cant support him.

Fundamentally, I think America needs a third, more left-wing party (a la NDP in Canada). I dont trust the Democrats. With that said, that is a long-term goal. In the short term, socialists should crash every level of governance and push their agendas onto the electorate, and save the planet for multidimensional demise.

 

[One Brow]

Obviously, it's situation dependent-- but why look at congress instead of Senate? If you're going to look at Congress, you're gonna be pulling at politicians from regions where the majority of the population is black-- of course, that will be a major confounding variable you haven't controlled for.

On a *national* stage, when you have a majority white population voting on candidates, almost all social theory and published evidence would indicate that the institutionalized and experienced discrimination of black people in America.

That's a fair point about the House.

You didn't finish that last sentence. Trying thinking more before you respond.

There is only one national stage in the US, President. With the exception of the Democratic nomination in 2016, I don't recall the last major-party Presidential nomination process where there was a woman still in the race after all the (male) minority candidates had dropped out.

 

[Deleted member 848]

Both statements can be true its not an either or. I am stating that because something worked somewhere does not guarantee it will work here or wherever. But yes it also could work here.

I'm pointing out that your statement is a straw-man, and frankly pathetic. Me saying "this worked in 55/55 countries" and you saying "WELL WE ARE A DIFFERENT NATION" is farcical, and a defeatist mentality that stymies reasonable discussion and debate. It's a right-wing tactic used constantly. I've never said that everything that works abroad will work in America, but it's stupid to halt the implementation of something purely out of that fear. What, let people die just because of the fear that something "might not work" in America? Pathetic.

What do you want cited? That those groups already have access to free college education? That is just a fact. There are tons of programs to get free college in the US. In fact all kids can get free college free in the US for the first 2 years due to a policy passed by Bill Clinton. The problem isnt paying for college its getting help getting in and encouragement to go. Its getting people to know about programs and actually use them.

Any studies that show that free public education and tuition disproportionately benefit white men ahead of white women, WOC, or and POC. Any evidence whatsoever (you won't find it).

Its just simple logic look at who spends the most money on college in the US rich white males. So they would gain the most from it.

Most money on all colleges? Bernie only supports making tuition free for public colleges.

Take some time to look up articles on the subject. There are tons of them.

I've looked them up-- you're the one who hasn't.

 

[Ron Mexico]

They don't, but if the majority of America cannot list a single policy that Hillary stood for, while they can list 5 for both Trump and Bernie, it starts to paint a picture for you.

[/QUOTE]
I think most people I talked to did.

Fundamentally, I think America needs a third, more left-wing party (a la NDP in Canada). I dont trust the Democrats. With that said, that is a long-term goal. In the short term, socialists should crash every level of governance and push their agendas onto the electorate, and save the planet for multidimensional demise

I agree, we need more parties.

The DNC actively works to halt the emergence of any third left-wing party, year in year out.

Duh, both major parties want to stay in control. Im not sure why that is a surprise or why you think they would change.

If they're going to do that, they can't feign anger when politicians join the only slightly-left party in town.

They can and will continue to. Why wouldnt Republicans and Democrats try to protect their power and their policies. Its not on them to help people outside their ideas. Its on everyone else to start a new party and support various groups with like minded interest.

 

[Deleted member 848]

That's a fair point about the House.

You didn't finish that last sentence. Trying thinking more before you respond.

There is only one national stage in the US, President. With the exception of the Democratic nomination in 2016, I don't recall the last major-party Presidential nomination process where there was a woman still in the race after all the (male) minority candidates had dropped out.

1) I edited it soon after. Hillary Clinton nearly beat Obama in 2008, and if i'm not mistaken had nearly the same percentage of voters, if not more.
2) Dozens of regimes around the world, where women face larger extents of institutionalized sexism and discrimination than the United States, have elected female heads of state.

At this point in modern America, most social theorists would posit that while women face significant discrimination politically, it is less than that of a person of colour, and it is not singly sufficient to derail and destroy a political campaign in the United States. Any semantics that you may posit cannot erase this truth.

 

[One Brow]

It can be but poor people can go for free in the current system. There is no reason we should give rich people free 100k a semester. That is a waste of tax payers money. Its a tax that benefits rich people more than poor or middle class. They get more rich and everyone else pays more taxes as a burden.

https://www.brookings.edu/research/who-would-benefit-most-from-free-college/

That's an analysis for students currently attending college, which does not factor in the barrier-removing aspect of free tuition.

 

[One Brow]

At this point in modern America, most social theorists would posit that while women face significant discrimination politically, it is less than that of a person of colour, and it is not singly sufficient to derail and destroy a political campaign in the United States.

Quotations?

 

[Deleted member 848]

Quotations?

you're familiar with google scholar, i need to get back to work--

Let's put your point to rest right now (and with this, i'm logging out of Jazzfanz for the day).

There are 23 female senators currently serving the United States.

There are 3 black senators. 10 have been elected in the entire history of the United States. *drops mic*