dagblog - Comments for "The Gender Gap among Democratic Voters"

That's easy for you to say.

PeraclesPlease — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 14:01:20 +0000

In reply to Or maybe less t&a but still

That's easy for you to say.

Or maybe less t&a but still

EmmaZahn — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 11:52:57 +0000

In reply to Bill Clinton and Hillary

....

Bill Clinton and Hillary

EmmaZahn — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 11:52:36 +0000

In reply to The Gender Gap among Democratic Voters

....

Amanda Marcotte is not "well

HSG — Sat, 02 Jan 2016 20:17:56 +0000

In reply to Hal...

Amanda Marcotte is not "well-regarded". She's a joke. She's a nightmare. She's the worst sort of rabble-rouser - one who displays remarkable ignorance nearly every time she taps on a keyboard. See e.g., Amanda Marcotte's Ugly Prejudices, Marcotte getting the Rolling Stone U.Va article 180 degrees wrong, Marcotte showing remarkable insensitivity to Americans of color, Marcotte's absurd anti-Bernie screeds at Salon which routinely show a 10-1 negative to positive ratio in the comments section which by the way are closely screened with particularly biting criticism weeded out, Marcotte's vicious attack on "nice guys"

You say she's not willing to be lectured to. Shouldn't she be willing to listen? I am. I listen to you and to others' commentary and criticism and take it seriously. Don't you? Why do you applaud somebody for being hide-bound and blissful in her ignorant nastiness.

"None of which are anything

HSG — Sat, 02 Jan 2016 20:16:27 +0000

In reply to None of which are anything

"None of which are anything close to what she has proposed."

1) Endless war in the Middle East. On 11/19/15, Clinton outlined her plan to deal with ISIS/ISIL/Daesh: “It’s time to begin a new phase to intensify and broaden our efforts, to smash the would-be caliphate and deny ISIS control of territory in Iraq and Syria,” Clinton said. “That starts with a more effective coalition air campaign, with more allied planes, more strikes and a broader target set.” She also "called for deploying a special operations force that Obama has authorized and said she is 'prepared to deploy more as more Syrians get into the fight.'”http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/hillary-clinton-isil-strategy-216055#ixzz3vD4zUIlw

2) Regarding global warming, per Slate, "O’Malley and Sanders are much more ambitious than Clinton on climate". Per Bill McKibben, after Sanders announced he was running for President:

The Democratic presidential primary race got its second major candidate recently, and its first true climate hawk: Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, self-described democratic socialist. Sanders has one of the strongest climate change records in the Senate. In fact, according to rankings released by Climate Hawks Vote, a new super PAC, Sanders was the No. 1 climate leader in the Senate for the 113th Congress that ended in January.

In contrast McKibben called Clinton's plan "well short of bold". R.L. Miller, founder of the California-based Climate Hawks Vote PAC, told Politico that Clinton's plan is largely "remarkable for what it doesn’t say." Specifically, Miller pointed out there is "no effort to keep fossil fuels in the ground, no price on carbon; no word on . . . Arctic oil or other carbon bombs; no word on fracking."

3) Regarding economic injustice, Clinton opposes Sanders' call to raise the minimum wage to $15. She opposes tuition-free college education at state universities as do I. She opposes reinstating Glass-Steagall and she has been a fitful supporter of middle-class destroying "free trade" deals.

But none of this means anything to you right Ramona? In fact, this evidence just makes you even more confident Clinton's the better candidate. Should I try reverse psychology. Maybe praising her would cause you to look at her record more skeptically?

Celebrate on the 24th ;-)

PeraclesPlease — Sat, 26 Dec 2015 16:51:51 +0000

In reply to Thanks PP. I don't know

Celebrate on the 24th ;-) always one step ahead...

Thanks PP. I don't know

HSG — Sat, 26 Dec 2015 16:40:57 +0000

In reply to Here's why providing details

Thanks PP. I don't know whether you celebrate Christmas - I don't - but either way I hope you had a great 12/25.

Here's why providing details

PeraclesPlease — Thu, 24 Dec 2015 21:32:07 +0000

In reply to Like so much of Marcotte's

Here's why providing details is more useful than blanket ad hominem statements. I went to Psychology Today expecting to disagree with you. Instead, I think Kaufman expresses that the 4am alone in an elevator come up to my room to an unknown woman is pretty douchey and potentially quite scary for a woman out on her own - there are a lot of "nice" weirdos. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/beautiful-minds/201107/whats-shy-ge... Kaufman addresses how the saner ones can approach women at normal parts of the day without cornering in a threatening situation alone. Wehuntedthemammoth blog misrepresentrd Kaufman's column, IMHO. http://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2011/07/12/atheist-elevator-redux-part.... But here's an all too common douche who thinks it's okay for the "nice" guy to take a shot in whatever situation. http://thedamnedoldeman.com/?p=4391, sorry,if I'm walking home at night and see that and I see a single female young or old that I might freak by being too close, I change my step. Asking a stranger in an elevator to come to your room at 4am has no other interpretation, admits weird and was too forward. A pickup club would be different. I don't know owhether Mascotte mixed Mammoth's column for what Psych Today said, but knowing nothing about Kaufman's background, I'd say her characterization of Kaufman's Psych Today was way off, and he wasn't defending nice guy pervs at all.

thanks for saying this.

ocean-kat — Thu, 24 Dec 2015 20:39:13 +0000

In reply to Ocean-kat - I previously said

thanks for saying this.

Ocean-kat - I previously said

HSG — Thu, 24 Dec 2015 19:23:04 +0000

In reply to I think this is fair Ocean

Ocean-kat - I previously said that I was going to stop posting as it is Christmas Eve and people should enjoy the holiday without having blood pressure spikes resulting from contentious political screeds. But I am going to post just this and stop looking at Dag.

Let me apologize for what was a misunderstanding due solely to my poor writing. I did not mean to imply, although it seems obvious that I did imply, that you support a candidate or would be willing to support a candidate whom you perceive to be dishonest or a corporate puppet.