Being a feminist and living a traditional gender role are NOT in conflict. We shouldn't be crafting policy that pre-determines a woman's role in society and constricts her ability to raise her own children, especially not in the name of Feminism.
Belasco would blow a gasket reading that, she's so done being considered antifeminist for not working that she won't even call herself one sometimes.
A woman choosing to be home with the kids is not, in and of itself, anti-feminist.
The government having an explicit policy of endorsing and encouraging, through monetary or other means, traditional gender roles is anti-feminist.
If the proposed benefits were available only to women, I'd agree.
Which they wouldn't be, so??
We tried it here in Norway. Yes, the father can choose to stay at home instead of the mother.
But in practice, the mother does. This goes doubly so for immigrant families.
On paper, this gives parents a choice other than daycare. In practice, the government is paying to enforce traditional gender roles and dramatically worsen integration of immigrants.
It's not a coincidence that the policy was instituted by Kristlig Folkeparti (lit. "Christian People's Party"), the mainstream religious-conservative party.
Sic transit gloria mundi.
+4
Options
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
If we want to discuss gender roles and paying women to stay at home, it needs to be tied to actual policies endorsed by actual candidates, else it's off topic.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Being a feminist and living a traditional gender role are NOT in conflict. We shouldn't be crafting policy that pre-determines a woman's role in society and constricts her ability to raise her own children, especially not in the name of Feminism.
Belasco would blow a gasket reading that, she's so done being considered antifeminist for not working that she won't even call herself one sometimes.
A woman choosing to be home with the kids is not, in and of itself, anti-feminist.
The government having an explicit policy of endorsing and encouraging, through monetary or other means, traditional gender roles is anti-feminist.
If the proposed benefits were available only to women, I'd agree.
Which they wouldn't be, so??
We tried it here in Norway. Yes, the father can choose to stay at home instead of the mother.
But in practice, the mother does. This goes doubly so for immigrant families.
On paper, this gives parents a choice other than daycare. In practice, the government is paying to enforce traditional gender roles and dramatically worsen integration of immigrants.
It's not a coincidence that the policy was instituted by Kristlig Folkeparti (lit. "Christian People's Party"), the mainstream religious-conservative party.
We also have guaranteed parental leave for both parents. One part is reserved for the mother exclusively, one part for the father exclusively, and one part the parents decide who takes.
When the current (right-wing) government took over, they reduced the time earmarked for the father from 14 to 10 weeks (the 4 weeks were re-allocated to the shared pool). Every expert said this would mean fathers would reduce their parental leave to the minimum 10 weeks. The government insisted that we had become so egalitarian that that wouldn't happen.
It did happen. Fathers always takes the minimum, mothers always take the shared pool. The (same) government have now re-upped the father's part to 14 weeks.
We must incentivise non-traditional gender roles (and be careful not to inadvertently incentivise traditional roles), or we will never change the gender roles, to the detriment of us all.
Edit: Sorry ElJeffe. No more posts on the subject from me in this thread.
Beto gets a point for nonstop roasting everyone on guns. That's the value of a gun control argument in the Dem primaries....
What would it get you with your former party?
Literally every candidate that has a chance of winning the nomination - even in a King Ralph scenario - is for stronger gun control.
No one's running from it anymore like they would in 2000-04-08 and to a lesser extent 16.
Why would we go with a single issue candidate?
Well, he's definitely not single-issue. He's good on immigration and healthcare as well. But yeah, all the Dems go at least a little bit toward new gun laws.
It's just that, when push comes to shove, it turns out that this is a place where even progressives will compromise heavily in order to get other priorities. A full-throated gun control position as a centerpiece issue does not win you even 5% of the Democratic primary voter pool.
Beto gets a point for nonstop roasting everyone on guns. That's the value of a gun control argument in the Dem primaries....
What would it get you with your former party?
Literally every candidate that has a chance of winning the nomination - even in a King Ralph scenario - is for stronger gun control.
No one's running from it anymore like they would in 2000-04-08 and to a lesser extent 16.
Why would we go with a single issue candidate?
Well, he's definitely not single-issue. He's good on immigration and healthcare as well. But yeah, all the Dems go at least a little bit toward new gun laws.
It's just that, when push comes to shove, it turns out that this is a place where even progressives will compromise heavily in order to get other priorities. A full-throated gun control position as a centerpiece issue does not win you even 5% of the Democratic primary voter pool.
Okay I get that this guy is your pet candidate.
But can you, a conservative, at least acknowledge that the candidate you are most drawn to is probably not going to be the darling of the left, even if he's outspoken on a couple of our pet issues?
Elizabeth Warren wants to restructure capitalism in the spirit of the Roosevelt's (with less holes in the net and way way less racism) and is the anti Trump in temperament.
Bernie wants to move us away from capitalism to a socialism hybridized system.
They account for over a third of the party and while Sanders has been steady, Warren has been building that number all summer.
Biden represents over a third of the party that just wants a return to the normalcy of 2015, warts and all. Or they're just desperate to not lose.
Those three candidates are three quarters of the party in a nutshell and everyone that's left is essentially a pet candidate. The only candidate that probably has a ceiling higher then their polling numbers at present is Booker and that's because he's been Wall Street Obama for the last decade plus.
I'm glad Beto is being outspoken on gun control, but gun control is like reproductive Rights at this point. You can be against it and still be a Democrat in West Virginia or whatever, but take that shit and go looking for the nomination and everyone is going to show you the door.
She just had a problem recently where she laughed when a questioner called Trump mentally retarded which I know got her some blowback from the handicapped community, but I doubt that had a huge impact. Just kinda shows she might not be ready for primetime.
I think that Harris is doing fine and it's too early to be writing anybody off unless they are just going completely unnoticed by everybody and don't have the money to continue. Her first debate spike helped her rise above the other 1%'s and though she's dropped some in the meanwhile she's still above the rest of the losers.
She's not a front runner and she's not lost in the bottom of the pack. She's in a good position to hang in there and see how the primary goes and have a shot. There's plenty of loud far lefties and woke twitter having an influence out there, but the majority of the Dem party are moderates. If Biden stumbles I think that could be a good opportunity for her to gobble those voters up.
+4
Options
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
Woke Twitter fucking hates "copmala" and the establishment candidate so far is Biden so....
Quitting Twitter was the best thing I’ve done since quitting Facebook...
Yeah, I follow a few people (mostly some podcasters I enjoy, and "In Otter News"), to keep me informed of what THEY are doing. And only on my home PC, and only when I hit refresh (ie, no auto notifications). But any time I read into comments, I almost always absolutely regret it.
It's Gabriel's theory in action. And sometimes the anonymity isn't even at issue, just the realistic lack of ever having to face consequence.
Woke Twitter fucking hates "copmala" and the establishment candidate so far is Biden so....
Quitting Twitter was the best thing I’ve done since quitting Facebook...
Yeah, I follow a few people (mostly some podcasters I enjoy, and "In Otter News"), to keep me informed of what THEY are doing. And only on my home PC, and only when I hit refresh (ie, no auto notifications). But any time I read into comments, I almost always absolutely regret it.
It's Gabriel's theory in action. And sometimes the anonymity isn't even at issue, just the realistic lack of ever having to face consequence.
Social media has proven Gabe 100% wrong about the anonymity part.
Which means that normal person = dickwad.
Welp, that sure explains our current president.
rahkeesh2000 on
+16
Options
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
Harris is fine, broadly speaking, but she offers nothing that isn't provided by another candidate, except possibly identity politics if you want both a black and a female candidate in one package.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Harris's issue, if I were to submit she has one (it's pretty early still), is that she's trying to pull a Barack Obama without actually being Barack Obama. A freshman Senator running for President after serving only 2 years with virtually no national accomplishments to her name HAS to rely on exceptional oratory, PR, and charisma and she's middling in all of those categories.
Tom Steyer, the billionaire and former hedge fund investor turned impeachment activist, became the 11th Democratic presidential candidate to qualify for the October debates on Sunday after a new poll showed him with 2 percent support in Nevada.
To make the cut, candidates must procure donations from 130,000 people and earn 2 percent support in four qualifying polls. Mr. Steyer fell one poll short of qualifying for the third Democratic debate in Houston this week. But the Democratic National Committee’s rules allow polls to carry over and count toward qualification for the fourth set of debates.
With three qualifying polls already under his belt and the fourth published Sunday, Mr. Steyer has now secured a spot in the debates next month, scheduled for Oct. 15 and possibly Oct. 16, in a location to be announced in Ohio.
Tom Steyer, the billionaire and former hedge fund investor turned impeachment activist, became the 11th Democratic presidential candidate to qualify for the October debates on Sunday after a new poll showed him with 2 percent support in Nevada.
To make the cut, candidates must procure donations from 130,000 people and earn 2 percent support in four qualifying polls. Mr. Steyer fell one poll short of qualifying for the third Democratic debate in Houston this week. But the Democratic National Committee’s rules allow polls to carry over and count toward qualification for the fourth set of debates.
With three qualifying polls already under his belt and the fourth published Sunday, Mr. Steyer has now secured a spot in the debates next month, scheduled for Oct. 15 and possibly Oct. 16, in a location to be announced in Ohio.
This annoys me very much.
It does mean more time for each individual candidate. Which gives more chance for each candidate to make their mark (or screw the pooch). So that's the tradeoff.
I'm actually not that annoyed that 11 people qualified and that it'll probably be spilt into two nights. I'm more annoyed by the fact that this guy just essentially bought his way onto the debate stage.
Is it really accurate to say Steyer has bought his way onto the stage, or is that just a hot take?
It probably isn't any more true than for any candidate. I guess he spent more of his own money.
i mean, i doubt there's any actual constituency for this dude
are actual human beings knocking on doors for steyer, or arguing with other people that no, steyer is the guy
like say what you will about like, yang or gabbard, but i do think they have real flesh and blood supporters
Dude got 130,000 folks to give him a dollar. I don't know any of them and have no conception of why they'd do it, but it happened.
At this stage it is all about money and influence. Ideally from other folks but whatever. Bernie/Warren/Biden are just cashing in other kinds of capital to make their run. *shrug*
I think Steyer is gonna flame out and never come close to self sustaining like those others but everybody starts by dumping enough money into the PR fire to try and start something. Most just convert relationships to cash first.
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
God dammit, Nevada.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Is it really accurate to say Steyer has bought his way onto the stage, or is that just a hot take?
It is accurate to say that he gamed the system. He's spent a lot more of his own money than he's taken in donations, specifically so he could hit the required targets for the debate. He spent his money strategically in just the states where he was most likely to hit 2%, which is probably why nobody knows anyone who supports him - if you don't live in a select handful of states, he doesn't give a shit about your support right now.
I don't pretend to know what's in his heart and mind, but I will say if I had an unlimited pool of money and cared about nothing but getting access to a democratic debate, I would do exactly what Steyer did.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Harris's issue, if I were to submit she has one (it's pretty early still), is that she's trying to pull a Barack Obama without actually being Barack Obama. A freshman Senator running for President after serving only 2 years with virtually no national accomplishments to her name HAS to rely on exceptional oratory, PR, and charisma and she's middling in all of those categories.
That and what was submitted above.
She hasn't told us why she should be President.
The question you have to ask of a candidate is "Where are you going to take the country? Whats your vision of the future?"
I don't know what Harris wants. Other than to be President. I am sure she would be far better than Trump, but that is a low bar to clear. Xi Jinping would be a better President than Trump.
So why should she be President? And what will she do with the office?
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
edited September 2019
I think Harris would actually be a lot stronger in any given head to head than she is against the field. In a head to head her more amorphous brand would be able to pick up more of her competitors' discontents, and the fact that she is a competent politician who would tick off some important firsts/seconds would win her a lot of goodwill. Like maybe if it were just her and Biden she'd get a little to his left and play up the age difference with her as a fresh face. Or maybe if it were just her and Sanders or Warren she'd get a little to the right and emphasize her historic candidacy as a black woman. I have no difficulty in thinking she could find all sorts of angles for any given one v one matchup and then run reasonably well. There's pretty much no one I would be shocked she beat in a 1 v 1.
But this isn't a 1 v 1, and in a crowded field she seems like she's just running as... a Democrat. Same for Corey Booker's campaign, which also didn't take off, and to some extent Beto too (tho he's pivoting to guns, I guess). Biden, Sanders, and Warren all have distinct messages and brands that resonate strongly with reasonably large parts of the Democratic electorate--hence the 60-70% of the vote they're currently splitting. And you're not going to be able to clean up on "everyone else" because you're splitting them with Booker, Beto, Pete, Castro, etc. Just a solid Democrat might work in a one-v-one where you can heavily contrast against the well defined flaws of your opponent, but it's murder trying to stand out and garner attention and momentum in a field of a million candidates.
MrMister on
+3
Options
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
To be fair to Harris, I think "I would like to be president and probably would do a decent job" is a pretty common reason to run for president. I think it's why Gore ran for president in 2000, and why Kerry ran in 2004 (coupled with "...and I'd definitely be better than the guy in office.)
But right now, there's a huge field, and regardless of whether she'd be decent (and I believe she would be), there are candidates I think would be much better. And why vote for decent when you could vote for much better?
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
It's kind of wild that we have two candidates pushing big comprehensive visions for the country and they don't happen to be among the also rans and cranks
Going into the primaries, I had expected Harris to be a frontrunner along with Biden and Sanders—I didn't expect Warren to compete as well as she has. Do you think this will be her only run, or do you expect her to try again in 24/28?
Posts
We tried it here in Norway. Yes, the father can choose to stay at home instead of the mother.
But in practice, the mother does. This goes doubly so for immigrant families.
On paper, this gives parents a choice other than daycare. In practice, the government is paying to enforce traditional gender roles and dramatically worsen integration of immigrants.
It's not a coincidence that the policy was instituted by Kristlig Folkeparti (lit. "Christian People's Party"), the mainstream religious-conservative party.
We also have guaranteed parental leave for both parents. One part is reserved for the mother exclusively, one part for the father exclusively, and one part the parents decide who takes.
When the current (right-wing) government took over, they reduced the time earmarked for the father from 14 to 10 weeks (the 4 weeks were re-allocated to the shared pool). Every expert said this would mean fathers would reduce their parental leave to the minimum 10 weeks. The government insisted that we had become so egalitarian that that wouldn't happen.
It did happen. Fathers always takes the minimum, mothers always take the shared pool. The (same) government have now re-upped the father's part to 14 weeks.
We must incentivise non-traditional gender roles (and be careful not to inadvertently incentivise traditional roles), or we will never change the gender roles, to the detriment of us all.
Edit: Sorry ElJeffe. No more posts on the subject from me in this thread.
What would it get you with your former party?
Literally every candidate that has a chance of winning the nomination - even in a King Ralph scenario - is for stronger gun control.
No one's running from it anymore like they would in 2000-04-08 and to a lesser extent 16.
Why would we go with a single issue candidate?
Well, he's definitely not single-issue. He's good on immigration and healthcare as well. But yeah, all the Dems go at least a little bit toward new gun laws.
It's just that, when push comes to shove, it turns out that this is a place where even progressives will compromise heavily in order to get other priorities. A full-throated gun control position as a centerpiece issue does not win you even 5% of the Democratic primary voter pool.
Okay I get that this guy is your pet candidate.
But can you, a conservative, at least acknowledge that the candidate you are most drawn to is probably not going to be the darling of the left, even if he's outspoken on a couple of our pet issues?
Elizabeth Warren wants to restructure capitalism in the spirit of the Roosevelt's (with less holes in the net and way way less racism) and is the anti Trump in temperament.
Bernie wants to move us away from capitalism to a socialism hybridized system.
They account for over a third of the party and while Sanders has been steady, Warren has been building that number all summer.
Biden represents over a third of the party that just wants a return to the normalcy of 2015, warts and all. Or they're just desperate to not lose.
Those three candidates are three quarters of the party in a nutshell and everyone that's left is essentially a pet candidate. The only candidate that probably has a ceiling higher then their polling numbers at present is Booker and that's because he's been Wall Street Obama for the last decade plus.
I'm glad Beto is being outspoken on gun control, but gun control is like reproductive Rights at this point. You can be against it and still be a Democrat in West Virginia or whatever, but take that shit and go looking for the nomination and everyone is going to show you the door.
Never formulated a reason for her to be President essentially
Some specific event just happen, or just a general apathy?
Just another poll I saw with her sinking further into single digits
The majority of the primary news I’ve been getting revolves around Biden, Warren, Bernie, Beto, and Trump’s reactions.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
She's not a front runner and she's not lost in the bottom of the pack. She's in a good position to hang in there and see how the primary goes and have a shot. There's plenty of loud far lefties and woke twitter having an influence out there, but the majority of the Dem party are moderates. If Biden stumbles I think that could be a good opportunity for her to gobble those voters up.
Quitting Twitter was the best thing I’ve done since quitting Facebook...
Yeah, I follow a few people (mostly some podcasters I enjoy, and "In Otter News"), to keep me informed of what THEY are doing. And only on my home PC, and only when I hit refresh (ie, no auto notifications). But any time I read into comments, I almost always absolutely regret it.
It's Gabriel's theory in action. And sometimes the anonymity isn't even at issue, just the realistic lack of ever having to face consequence.
Social media has proven Gabe 100% wrong about the anonymity part.
Which means that normal person = dickwad.
Welp, that sure explains our current president.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
The New York Times is a newspaper.
From the story:
This annoys me very much.
It does mean more time for each individual candidate. Which gives more chance for each candidate to make their mark (or screw the pooch). So that's the tradeoff.
It probably isn't any more true than for any candidate. I guess he spent more of his own money.
are actual human beings knocking on doors for steyer, or arguing with other people that no, steyer is the guy
like say what you will about like, yang or gabbard, but i do think they have real flesh and blood supporters
Dude got 130,000 folks to give him a dollar. I don't know any of them and have no conception of why they'd do it, but it happened.
At this stage it is all about money and influence. Ideally from other folks but whatever. Bernie/Warren/Biden are just cashing in other kinds of capital to make their run. *shrug*
I think Steyer is gonna flame out and never come close to self sustaining like those others but everybody starts by dumping enough money into the PR fire to try and start something. Most just convert relationships to cash first.
pleasepaypreacher.net
"That's right, conspiracy buff. I spent 75 million dollars on a fake Presidential campaign, all just to tick Superman off."
-- Lex Luthor
It is accurate to say that he gamed the system. He's spent a lot more of his own money than he's taken in donations, specifically so he could hit the required targets for the debate. He spent his money strategically in just the states where he was most likely to hit 2%, which is probably why nobody knows anyone who supports him - if you don't live in a select handful of states, he doesn't give a shit about your support right now.
I don't pretend to know what's in his heart and mind, but I will say if I had an unlimited pool of money and cared about nothing but getting access to a democratic debate, I would do exactly what Steyer did.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Tom Steyer doesn't want to actually benefit other people, though, not without him benefiting more.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
he's throwing a lot of money in a big pit and hoping it fills the hole where a soul would go
That and what was submitted above.
She hasn't told us why she should be President.
The question you have to ask of a candidate is "Where are you going to take the country? Whats your vision of the future?"
I don't know what Harris wants. Other than to be President. I am sure she would be far better than Trump, but that is a low bar to clear. Xi Jinping would be a better President than Trump.
So why should she be President? And what will she do with the office?
But this isn't a 1 v 1, and in a crowded field she seems like she's just running as... a Democrat. Same for Corey Booker's campaign, which also didn't take off, and to some extent Beto too (tho he's pivoting to guns, I guess). Biden, Sanders, and Warren all have distinct messages and brands that resonate strongly with reasonably large parts of the Democratic electorate--hence the 60-70% of the vote they're currently splitting. And you're not going to be able to clean up on "everyone else" because you're splitting them with Booker, Beto, Pete, Castro, etc. Just a solid Democrat might work in a one-v-one where you can heavily contrast against the well defined flaws of your opponent, but it's murder trying to stand out and garner attention and momentum in a field of a million candidates.
But right now, there's a huge field, and regardless of whether she'd be decent (and I believe she would be), there are candidates I think would be much better. And why vote for decent when you could vote for much better?