2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

AbusesToilets · 10-11-2016 12:06PM

Jawgap wrote: »

Well, underlying the question about women in the cabinet is the question of whether Trump - based on his utterances - is capable of objectively assessing people and their abilities without regard to their gender or ethnicity?

If you think he is then you can be satisfied that he has picked the best available for the jobs in question, regardless of its gender/ethnicity make-up.

So how confident would people be that he can be 'gender-blind'? And if he can be or is gender blind why say things he said? Why, for example, if a woman disagrees with him must it be attributed to her menstrual cycle?

Seems like he's damned either way so. I'd be less concerned with a Secretary's gender and more focused on what policies they will pursue. Crazy, right?

10-11-2016 12:07PM

Jawgap wrote: »

You don't think a government should reflect the citizenry it serves?

For example, do you think a bunch of middle-aged men are capable of legislating or governing on women's reproductive rights?

Of course they are! Such a nonsense suggestion.

Do you think that it's crazy that no children wrote this? http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx

Have you ever heard of empathy? Objectivity?

Jawgap · 10-11-2016 12:12PM

Deleted User wrote: »

So give me some examples of people he has 'ruled out' with his nonsense?

His campaign manager for the Presidential run was who?

I'm pointing out that judging and quantifying anyone's 'gender bias' using the results of the cabinet makeup is simply bad science. And an attempt to 'score points' without any real consideration of the problem. It is at best a weak point, at worst it serves to trivialize a serious issue.

Which raises an interesting point - as the Donald is no stranger to 'bad science'

Trump's Views on Science Are Shockingly Ignorant

Anyway back to the matter at hand.....
Freud suggested there were four ways to the sub-conscious - so if you want to wait until the cabinet appointments are announced that's not a bad idea, but what in his talking about women would lead you to conclude he is capable of assessing a person's abilities without regard to their gender?

oscarBravo · 10-11-2016 12:15PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Have you ever heard of empathy? Objectivity?

If empathy and objectivity were hallmarks of the middle-aged white men making laws about women's reproductive rights, women wouldn't be so worried about those laws.

10-11-2016 12:15PM

Jawgap wrote: »

DEFLECTION

I am not a Trump supporter. I thought we were having a discussion about what his appointments to cabinet mean?

Jawgap wrote: »

Anyway back to the matter at hand.....
Freud suggested there were four ways to the sub-conscious - so if you want to wait until the cabinet appointments are announced that's not a bad idea, but what in his talking about women would lead you to conclude he is capable of assessing a person's abilities without regard to their gender?

I guess it would be his actions in employing females to jobs that they clearly do well in.

Jawgap · 10-11-2016 12:16PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Right. So if we're trying desperately to ensure a female representative, then Palin gets the role.

But wait! We don't think she's fit for it.

At least we have a female in there though. And the box can be ticked and we can continue paying lip service.

No, there's two parts to the question -

1. Do I think Palin is qualified to be in Trump's cabinet?

Yes, I do based on her experience.

2. Do I think she'll make a good Secretary of the Interior? No, I don't.

If you asked an roughneck, a rancher or a hunter they'd probably answer yes and absolutely!

10-11-2016 12:19PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

If empathy and objectivity were hallmarks of the middle-aged white men making laws about women's reproductive rights, women wouldn't be so worried about those laws.

Are you suggesting that a persons' race, age or gender precludes them from the ability to legislate for others outside those strict boundaries?

Jawgap does

Jawgap wrote: »

For example, do you think a bunch of middle-aged men are capable of legislating or governing on women's reproductive rights?

Should I have told my younger brother not to vote for Zappone based on her age and gender?

Jawgap · 10-11-2016 12:19PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I am not a Trump supporter. I thought we were having a discussion about what his appointments to cabinet mean?

I guess it would be his actions in employing females to jobs that they clearly do well in.

Kellyanne Conway only became campaign manager in August having joined the campaign in July......after he won the nomination

10-11-2016 12:19PM

Jawgap wrote: »

Kellyanne Conway only became campaign manager in August having joined the campaign in July......after he won the nomination

What did he win since?

She became campaign manager for Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump on August 17, 2016.[1] Because of Trump's Presidential election victory on November 8, 2016, Conway became the first woman to manage a victorious presidential campaign in U.S. history

But of course, this does not suit your narrative that Trump cannot work with women. The truth is he will work with anyone that gives him results.

Jawgap · 10-11-2016 12:23PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Are you suggesting that a persons' race, age or gender precludes them from the ability to legislate for others outside those strict boundaries?

Should I have told my younger brother not to vote for Zappone?

No, I'd say he's well capable of influencing the issue.....just not in the direction those most likely to be affected by it would like.....as he said in the final debate......

"I'll appoint Supreme Court justices to overturn Roe v. Wade abortion case"

Donald Trump said the overturning of the landmark Supreme Court decision giving women the right to abortion "will happen, automatically," if he is elected president and gets to appoint justices to the high court.

"I am pro-life," Trump said during Wednesday night's presidential debate when asked whether he wanted that decision, Roe v. Wade, reversed by the Supreme Court.

FrancieBrady · 10-11-2016 12:25PM

Jawgap wrote: »

No, I'd say he's well capable of influencing the issue.....just not in the direction those most likely to be affected by it would like.....as he said in the final debate......

Plenty of US women want to do that too.

Not sure what point you are trying to make with all this. Can you summarise?

10-11-2016 12:25PM

Jawgap wrote: »

No, I'd say he's well capable of influencing the issue.....just not in the direction those most likely to be affected by it would like.....as he said in the final debate......

Yes. I understand his position. His position disagreeing with mine does not mean that he cannot legislate for something though. Something you have tried to suggest upthread.

Again, I'll ask. Should I have advised my younger brother not to vote for Zappone as her aged-femaleness means that she could not be capable of legislating for his rights and protections? Why is that not a fair comparison to what you have written above?

Jawgap · 10-11-2016 12:29PM

Deleted User wrote: »

What did he win since?

But of course, this does not suit your narrative that Trump cannot work with women. The truth is he will work with anyone that gives him results.

You think she was the catalyst?

I'm sure he will, but it's the nature of the results he'll be looking for that has everyone a bit edgy......

Donald Trump 'not opposed to Muslim database' in US

10-11-2016 12:35PM

Jawgap wrote: »

You think she was the catalyst?

Could be. I don't know. Does it shatter your caricature of him as some form of misogynistic tyrant that despises women and cannot work with them though?
Sure does.

Jawgap wrote: »

I'm sure he will, but it's the nature of the results he'll be looking for that has
Deflection

I thought we were discussing his cabinet appointments and the meaning we might infer from it?

It seems that he will appoint people to get results. People. Not men.

Can we put a fork in this one? It's done.

Jawgap · 10-11-2016 12:37PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes. I understand his position. His position disagreeing with mine does not mean that he cannot legislate for something though. Something you have tried to suggest upthread.

Again, I'll ask. Should I have advised my younger brother not to vote for Zappone as her aged-femaleness means that she could not be capable of legislating for his rights and protections? Why is that not a fair comparison to what you have written above?

Well, you tell us - what in his rhetoric would lead you to believe he is capable of governing in a way that is fair, and inclusive? What in his rhetoric would lead one to conclude he is capable of governing in a way that protects minorities, those who hold minority positions and those who dissent from majority positions?

Or should he just govern in way that satisfies the majority?

alastair · 10-11-2016 12:37PM

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Right.... so you have no proof of any actual fear.... grand.
(especially when the US will be rotating more forces into east europe from next February)
.... and we'll leave aside the likely zero inerest of NATO wanting to defend the Baltics, Will portugal or Belgium send thousands to their deaths for Estonia?
I doubt it.

You are welcome to be against the US & Russia reaching some sort rapprochement.
Personally I see no downside to the reduction in tensions between the two nuclear armed superpowers! (but that's just me).

Indeed.... it seems that no one does.... least of all Hillary.

The reader will remember that the Iraqi air force wasn't "negotiated" into having its air force & air defence capability destroyed.
There wasn't "negotiations" with Serbia into having it's air force & air defence capability all but destroyed.....
And finally, the bold Col Ghadaffi wasn't extended the courtesy of those same "negotiations" before his military was annihilated as part of that no-fly-zone.

Didn't read past this slice of naievety.

An "agreement" between the invading US and the country its invading... 'allow a jet to take off & we (the invader) annihilate you'

Some agreement there Christy..... great plan!
It is remarkable that no one has thought of this in the 5 years of Syrian civil war!

Perhaps one day we will hear how Clinton planned to ground the worlds 2nd most powerful air force by sheer will alone.... and without any threat of violence!..... lol.

I really hope we do.
Wouldn't want her defeat to be down to her warmongering.

The Russian airforce are not the Syrian airforce, and the prospect of a negotiated deal whereby Russian planes are allowed agreed movement, but the Syrian airforce is not, isn't exactly an impossibility to work out. The Russians aren't particularly wedded to Assad, and any deal that ensures their continued foothold in the country is well within the bounds of pragmatism. Putin knows, same as anyone else who's not delusional, that Assad is not going to retain power in the country. He's a busted flush. The only real question is what nature of coalition is going to offer stable governance down the road.

10-11-2016 12:40PM

Jawgap wrote: »

Well, you tell us - what in his rhetoric would lead you to believe he is capable of governing in a way that is fair, and inclusive? What in his rhetoric would lead one to conclude he is capable of governing in a way that protects minorities, those who hold minority positions and those who dissent from majority positions?

Or should he just govern in way that satisfies the majority?

These questions have nothing to do with what we were discussing.

Again I'll point out that
1 - I'm not a Trump supporter
2 - I don't like the guy nor will event spend a moment defending his ridiculous policies

BUT
3 - There is enough actual , genuine, remarkable ****e to put on his table that we don't need to invent stuff. The logic that you have used to push the narrative that you have is weak, and if it is somehow acceptable, then it could be accepted again to invent and smear others. Why invent stuff up about him and project it?

It is telling that you haven't answered the question about Zappone's representative abilities btw. I don't doubt her ability to represent fairly and objectively my brother, but you would question that (if the genders were reversed).

Jawgap · 10-11-2016 12:41PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Could be. I don't know. Does it shatter your caricature of him as some form of misogynistic tyrant that despises women and cannot work with them though?
Sure does.

I thought we were discussing his cabinet appointments and the meaning we might infer from it?

It seems that he will appoint people to get results. People. Not men.

Can we put a fork in this one? It's done.

How have I caricatured him? By using his own words? By pointing out the nature of likely cabinet picks?

Did he not say the things he was reported to have said? Was that not his voice on the tape? Did he not have openly criticise a grieving mother for her inability to talk in public about her dead son?

letowski · 10-11-2016 12:45PM

Found this on FB:

*Trump's first day at the Oval Office after being elected President.*

First briefing by the CIA, Pentagon, FBI:

Trump: We must destroy ISIS immediately. No delays.

CIA: We cannot do that, sir. We created them along with Turkey, Saudi, Qatar and others.

Trump: The Democrats created them.

CIA: We created ISIS, sir. You need them or else you would lose funding from the natural gas lobby.

Trump: Stop funding Pakistan. Let India deal with them.

CIA: We can't do that.

Trump: Why is that?

CIA: India will cut Balochistan out of Pak.

Trump: I don't care.

CIA: India will have peace in Kashmir. They will stop buying our weapons. They will become a superpower. We have to fund Pakistan to keep India busy in Kashmir.

Trump: But you have to destroy the Taliban.

CIA: Sir, we can't do that. We created the Taliban to keep Russia in check during the 80s. Now they are keeping Pakistan busy and away from their nukes.

Trump: We have to destroy terror sponsoring regimes in the Middle East. Let us start with the Saudis.

Pentagon: Sir, we can't do that. We created those regimes because we wanted their oil. We can't have democracy there, otherwise their people will get that oil - and we cannot let their people own it.

Trump: Then, let us invade Iran.

Pentagon: We cannot do that either, sir.

Trump: Why not?

CIA: We are talking to them, sir.

Trump: What? Why?

CIA: We want our Stealth Drones back. If we attack them, Russia will obliterate us as they did to our buddy ISIS in Syria. Besides we need Iran to keep Israel in check.

Trump: Then let us invade Iraq again.

CIA: Sir, our friends (ISIS) are already occupying 1/3rd of Iraq.

Trump: Why not the whole of Iraq?

CIA: We need the Shi'ite govt of Iraq to keep ISIS in check.

Trump: I am banning Muslims from entering US.

FBI: We can't do that.

Trump: Why not?

FBI: Then our own population will become fearless.

Trump: I am deporting all illegal immigrants to south of the border.

Border patrol: You can't do that, sir.

Trump: Why not?

Border patrol: If they're gone, who will build the wall?

Trump: I am banning H1B visas.

USCIS: You cannot do that.

Trump: Why?

Chief of Staff: If you do so, we'll have to outsource White House operations to Bangalore. Which is in India.

Trump (sweating profusely by now): What the hell should I do as President???

CIA: Enjoy the White House, sir! We will take care of the rest!

10-11-2016 12:46PM

Jawgap wrote: »

How have I caricatured him? By using his own words? By pointing out the nature of likely cabinet picks?

Which, as I have explained, tell us almost nothing without considering the candidates involved.
Confirmation bias is a very difficult one to control for.
Presupposition and then also presupposing that sane confirmation and then acting upon that and by building a 'story' is pretty much caricaturing the man no?

Is there any reason at all, any other reason whatsoever, just one, just a single reason, why there might not be many female cabinet members?

Jawgap wrote: »

Did he not say the things he was reported to have said? Was that not his voice on the tape? Did he not have openly criticise a grieving mother for her inability to talk in public about her dead son?

I am not defending Trump against the rubbish and ridiculous stuff that he has said. I am attacking your attempted smear as both
- The evidence suggests otherwise (he appointed a female candidate to campaign manager - possibly the most important role he could have, at an extraordinarily important time)

- The logic used is so weak as to render it dangerous if it were to become acceptable. "Likely no female cabinet members => guy is a woman hater".

Jawgap · 10-11-2016 12:48PM

Deleted User wrote: »

These questions have nothing to do with what we were discussing.

Again I'll point out that
1 - I'm not a Trump supporter
2 - I don't like the guy nor will event spend a moment defending his ridiculous policies

BUT
3 - There is enough actual , genuine, remarkable ****e to put on his table that we don't need to invent stuff. The logic that you have used to push the narrative that you have is weak, and if it is somehow acceptable, then it could be accepted again to invent and smear others. Why invent stuff up about him and project it?

It is telling that you haven't answered the question about Zappone's representative abilities btw. I don't doubt her ability to represent fairly and objectively my brother, but you would question that (if the genders were reversed).

You don't have to be a supporter or a defender to draw out a few rhetorical examples to show his position on certain issues

....and what have I invented? I posted up articles discussing his likely cabinet and economic team picks in response to a question about the likelihood of him nominating women to significant cabinet positions......I agreed that Palin was a potential candidate for Interior (and I believe my assessment of her likely direction was sound given her history).....and simply asked for examples that might lead one to conclude he is capable of assessing people without regard to their gender.

And I know not much about Catherine Zappone and even less about your sibling so I doubt I'd be in a position to pass comment or judgement on her ability to represent him and address his needs.

10-11-2016 12:52PM

Jawgap wrote: »

You don't have to be a supporter or a defender to draw out a few rhetorical examples to show his position on certain issues

....and what have I invented? I posted up articles discussing his likely cabinet and economic team picks in response to a question about the likelihood of him nominating women to significant cabinet positions......I agreed that Palin was a potential candidate for Interior (and I believe my assessment of her likely direction was sound given her history).....and simply asked for examples that might lead one to conclude he is capable of assessing people without regard to their gender.

You have invented the idea that if there are no women in his cabinet it is evidence of his inability to work with women, or to not consider gender when assessing likely candidates.

However the evidence which we have available to us (Kellyanne Conway) runs counter to this.

You tried to downplay the real, tangible evidence available to us, and instead work off the theoretical musings as proof. You've presupposed an event, invented a narrative if that event occurs, and judged him based upon that narrative. It's presumptive projection.

Jawgap wrote: »

And I know not much about Catherine Zappone and even less about your sibling so I doubt I'd be in a position to pass comment or judgement on her ability to represent him and address his needs.

Well. He's a 27 year old white male. And she's a 62 year old white female TD. His TD in fact.

Why don't you believe that she could represent him and legislate for his rights accordingly?

You suggested that if the genders were swapped, then that TD would be incapable of doing so. Strange.

Jawgap · 10-11-2016 12:57PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Which, as I have explained, tell us almost nothing without considering the candidates involved.
Confirmation bias is a very difficult one to control for.
Presupposition and then also presupposing that sane confirmation and then acting upon that and by building a 'story' is pretty much caricaturing the man no?

Is there any reason at all, any other reason whatsoever, just one, just a single reason, why there might not be many female cabinet members?

I am not defending Trump against the rubbish and ridiculous stuff that he has said. I am attacking your attempted smear as both
- The evidence suggests otherwise (he appointed a female candidate to campaign manager - possibly the most important role he could have, at an extraordinarily important time)

- The logic used is so weak as to render it dangerous if it were to become acceptable. "Likely no female cabinet members => guy is a woman hater".

.....how have I smeared* him? Look, you can bandy words like 'smear' and 'caricature' around all you like, it doesn't make them true.

.....and yes, he appointed a female campaign manager, but after the primary season, and 3 months out from the general, but would you say his manner of arguing with Megyn Kelly was appropriate? What about his demeanour towards women as expressed on the Access Hollywood tape? His criticism of Ghazala Khan?

.....do you think he is a misogynist?

Smear:- damage the reputation of (someone) by false accusations

BoJack Horseman · 10-11-2016 12:59PM

alastair wrote: »

The Russian airforce are not the Syrian airforce, and the prospect of a negotiated deal whereby Russian planes are allowed agreed movement

That has nothing to do with Hillary's no-fly zone though.

There already is a de-facto demarcation of operations.
For example: RuAF planes never or very rarely go further east of the Euphrates. There only ISIS east of that river and Russia doesn't care about ISIS

However that is not what Hillary was taking about.
She was taking about a no-fly zone over rebel territories primarily in Idlib or Aleppo provinces.
or to put it another way, a no-fly zone 5-10 mins away from Latakia.
Essentially grounding the SyAF & RuAF.
This necessitates patrol aircraft to be very very close to Russia's air defence assets.

No one.... no one believes that Pres Hillary (post reset button humiliation) can ground the SyAF & RuAF & deactivate its AD assets based on "negotiation".

No, just like the Kosovan, Libyan & Iraqi no-fly zone's weren't done by asking nicely or negotiations.

Why would any American vote for this.
An absolutely moronic intention backed with nothing but bluster.

walshb · 10-11-2016 01:00PM

I have been watching a fair bit of both recently. For all his "failings" he has so much more passion and enthusiasm than her. There's a kind of honesty and sincerity about him that is sorely lacking with her. I am kind of warming to him.

10-11-2016 01:03PM

Jawgap wrote: »

.....how have I smeared* him? Look, you can bandy words like 'smear' and 'caricature' around all you like, it doesn't make them true.

Patently. However the evidence supports the opposite of what you presented. And so it's not the bandying about that's made them true, it's the backing them up with real world tangible examples that has made them true.

Jawgap wrote: »

.....and yes, he appointed a female campaign manager, but after the primary season, and 3 months out from the general, but would you say his manner of arguing with Megyn Kelly was appropriate? What about his demeanour towards women as expressed on the Access Hollywood tape? His criticism of Ghazala Khan?

He said filth about everyone. Or was it just the Mexican women he was talking about? Or the Syrians? Or the "Liberal Eilte"? Or the "establishment"?
I didn't realise he was speaking solely about the females in those groupings.

Jawgap wrote: »

.....do you think he is a misogynist?

a person who dislikes, despises, or is strongly prejudiced against women.

No. I think he's a narcissist who actually dislikes, despises and is strongly prejudiced against all non Donald Trumps.

Jawgap wrote: »

Smear:- damage the reputation of (someone) by false accusations

You literally wrote something that is demonstrably false. You accused him of being unable to not consider gender when appointing someone. You accused him of suffering from gender bias. Kellyanne Conway was appointed to the most important role in Donald's career (at that point) at a ridiculously important time. How does that fit in with your narrative?

Jawgap · 10-11-2016 01:05PM

Deleted User wrote: »

You have invented the idea that if there are no women in his cabinet it is evidence of his inability to work with women, or to not consider gender when assessing likely candidates.

However the evidence which we have available to us (Kellyanne Conway) runs counter to this.

You tried to downplay the real, tangible evidence available to us, and instead work off the theoretical musings as proof. You've presupposed an event, invented a narrative if that event occurs, and judged him based upon that narrative. It's presumptive projection.

Well. He's a 27 year old white male. And she's a 62 year old white female TD. His TD in fact.

Why don't you believe that she could represent him and legislate for his rights accordingly?

You suggested that if the genders were swapped, then that TD would be incapable of doing so. Strange.

Well, maybe start a thread on Catherine Zappone - I didn't pass judgment on her abilities to represent anyone because I know nothing about her - on the other hand having followed (and voted in the US election) I've read a lot more about Trump than I ever have about her.

Plus - 27, white and male, tells me zero about what your brother's needs, wants, aspirations or concerns so how could I possibly pass comment on her ability/inability to represent him.

...and no, I suggested that a bunch of middle-aged (I'm being generous to 70 year olds!) men are incapable of legislating on women's productive rights - as our own country shows......

alastair · 10-11-2016 01:06PM

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

That has nothing to do with Hillary's no-fly zone though.

There already is a de-facto demarcation of operations.
For example: RuAF planes never or very rarely go further east of the Euphrates. There only ISIS east of that river and Russia doesn't care about ISIS

However that is not what Hillary was taking about.
She was taking about a no-fly zone over rebel territories primarily in Idlib or Aleppo provinces.
or to put it another way, a no-fly zone 5-10 mins away from Latakia.
Essentially grounding the SyAF & RuAF.
This necessitates patrol aircraft to be very very close to Russia's air defence assets.

No one.... no one believes that Pres Hillary (post reset button humiliation) can ground the SyAF & RuAF & deactivate its AD assets based on "negotiation".

No, just like the Kosovan, Libyan & Iraqi no-fly zone's weren't done by asking nicely or negotiations.

Why would any American vote for this.
An absolutely moronic intention backed with nothing but bluster.

Hillary's strategy and the specifics of her no fly zone proposal weren't known to you, me, or any media source. Let's not pretend otherwise. The general intent was to stop helicopters dropping barrel bombs on cities. Which doesn't really impinge on Russian airbase movements. The Russians are well able to flag their movements and ensure that there's no misunderstandings in a tight airspace. That they didn't with the Turks is something that they've presumably learned from.

10-11-2016 01:10PM

Jawgap wrote: »

Well, maybe start a thread on Catherine Zappone - I didn't pass judgment on her abilities to represent anyone because I know nothing about her - on the other hand having followed (and voted in the US election) I've read a lot more about Trump than I ever have about her.

Right. But the statement you made had nothing to do with Trump.

You questioned the ability of "middle aged white men" to legislate for and represent the needs of young women. Nothing about Trump. Just this "middle aged white men" thing.

Jawgap wrote: »

Plus - 27, white and male, tells me zero about what your brother's needs, wants, aspirations or concerns so how could I possibly pass comment on her ability/inability to represent him.

↑ Cognitive Dissonance ↓

Jawgap wrote: »

...and no, I suggested that a bunch of middle-aged (I'm being generous to 70 year olds!) men are incapable of legislating on women's productive rights - as our own country shows......

BoJack Horseman · 10-11-2016 01:11PM

alastair wrote: »

Hillary's strategy and the specifics of her no fly zone proposal weren't known to you, me, or any media source. Let's not pretend otherwise.

Indeed.

And I highly doubt they were known to Hillary either.

It is a crying shame that with all those thousands of cameras & microphones in her face & the many thousands of hours for the news networks to fill she couldn't find the time to tell America how she would ground 2 x airforces without harming anyone!

Lets not defend her non-thought-out sillyness.
She probably just wanted to appear though towards Russia in opposition to Trump & his seeming favourable outlook towards Russia.

2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

Comments