Politics And Current Events

[CBear3]

That would go hand-in-hand with the chicken shits Dems have behaved like historically.
"You did a bad thing, here's a procedural finger wag in your direction. Carry On."

[obhave]

The Democrats voted for Obama and then Hillary so I think we can put to bed the sexism/racism explanations. Booker is a whiner.

Booker may be a whiner, but I think it is a little crazy for people to completely negate the impact of sexism/racsim in the Democratic or any other political race. Democrats (politicians and voters) are not some saints that are immune to implicit biases present in our society just because Obama and Hillary are the last two candidates. That's like "look I have a black friend I can't be racist" sort of arguments.

Gender or race are not the only reasons for women and POC candidates not being as successful in this race; however it is ridiculous to negate those factors.

[grunthy]

The Democrats voted for Obama and then Hillary so I think we can put to bed the sexism/racism explanations. Booker is a whiner.

Booker may be a whiner, but I think it is a little crazy for people to completely negate the impact of sexism/racsim in the Democratic or any other political race. Democrats (politicians and voters) are not some saints that are immune to implicit biases present in our society just because Obama and Hillary are the last two candidates. That's like "look I have a black friend I can't be racist" sort of arguments.

Gender or race are not the only reasons for women and POC candidates not being as successful in this race; however it is ridiculous to negate those factors.

While yes there are implicit biases among all voters, sexism/racism are not the driving forces for these candidates that aren’t making it. There are other more pressing factors (policies and etc.) that contributed to their downfall.

[faftorial]

The Democrats voted for Obama and then Hillary so I think we can put to bed the sexism/racism explanations. Booker is a whiner.

Booker may be a whiner, but I think it is a little crazy for people to completely negate the impact of sexism/racsim in the Democratic or any other political race. Democrats (politicians and voters) are not some saints that are immune to implicit biases present in our society just because Obama and Hillary are the last two candidates. That's like "look I have a black friend I can't be racist" sort of arguments.

Gender or race are not the only reasons for women and POC candidates not being as successful in this race; however it is ridiculous to negate those factors.

While yes there are implicit biases among all voters, sexism/racism are not the driving forces for these candidates that aren’t making it. There are other more pressing factors (policies and etc.) that contributed to their downfall.

I can't believe I'm doing this but

[obhave]

The Democrats voted for Obama and then Hillary so I think we can put to bed the sexism/racism explanations. Booker is a whiner.

Booker may be a whiner, but I think it is a little crazy for people to completely negate the impact of sexism/racsim in the Democratic or any other political race. Democrats (politicians and voters) are not some saints that are immune to implicit biases present in our society just because Obama and Hillary are the last two candidates. That's like "look I have a black friend I can't be racist" sort of arguments.

Gender or race are not the only reasons for women and POC candidates not being as successful in this race; however it is ridiculous to negate those factors.

While yes there are implicit biases among all voters, sexism/racism are not the driving forces for these candidates that aren’t making it. There are other more pressing factors (policies and etc.) that contributed to their downfall.

I can't believe I'm doing this but

Sure, I also said it's not the only factor. But optics are always skewed by those biases, the standards POC and women are held to, etc. So while it may not seem like they were a major factor, I think it I hard to disentangle them completely from even those policy discussions. Those biases are woven in everywhere. So, yes, it's not the only reason, but an ever present issue.

[grunthy]

Booker may be a whiner, but I think it is a little crazy for people to completely negate the impact of sexism/racsim in the Democratic or any other political race. Democrats (politicians and voters) are not some saints that are immune to implicit biases present in our society just because Obama and Hillary are the last two candidates. That's like "look I have a black friend I can't be racist" sort of arguments.

Gender or race are not the only reasons for women and POC candidates not being as successful in this race; however it is ridiculous to negate those factors.

While yes there are implicit biases among all voters, sexism/racism are not the driving forces for these candidates that aren’t making it. There are other more pressing factors (policies and etc.) that contributed to their downfall.

I can't believe I'm doing this but

Sure, I also said it's not the only factor. But optics are always skewed by those biases, the standards POC and women are held to, etc. So while it may not seem like they were a major factor, I think it I hard to disentangle them completely from even those policy discussions. Those biases are woven in everywhere. So, yes, it's not the only reason, but an ever present issue.

Sure the biases would make you look at two candidates that have similar policies and make you lean toward one of the candidates that you don’t have a bias against. The problem with applying that to this primary is that when comparing Warren to Biden or Warren to Sanders, she has taken her policies even further left than sanders. So while yes she might lose votes because she is a woman, her stances on the things like healthcare and such are driving away more moderate or left leaning voters.

Biden is leading because he isn’t messing with the status quo when it comes to hot button issues. The candidates that have lost have largely attacked the status quo when it comes to hot button issues and it is turning voters off.

[Viva la Ben]

[obhave]

We will probably start talking circles around each other, since we aren't saying wildly different points - just the extent of impact. I agree with what you said. I do think the bias cause more shifts even if there is a voter who normally would vote one way, but then votes 'unexpectantlh" because of a unrecognized bias. The bias also effect how policies are reported, the intelligence/emotion of the candidate about said policies, and so on. On the surface level we agree, but I see more threads of sexism/racism than that surface level. Again, not saying it was the "driving factor" and definitely not the only reason. I am mostly just responding to the idea that these didn't play a role (no matter the extent).

[Freddy Rumsen]

[faftorial]

Biden needs a good stock answer for Hunter/Ukraine that includes agreeing that is was not appropriate for him to take that job (see Trump and his kids). His threatening people to a pushup contest ain't going to do it.

[AuthorTony]

Agree, but the push up thing wasn't about Hunter, it was the guy telling Joe he was too old to be President.

[faftorial]

Agree, but the push up thing wasn't about Hunter, it was the guy telling Joe he was too old to be President.

You're right, he hit with that too. A bunch of them are too old including Trump.

[faftorial]

Investigation of NRA now in it's 8th month:

Among the documents sought by the subpoena are records related to transfers among N.R.A.-controlled entities, including the N.R.A. Foundation, an affiliated charity. Recent tax filings show that the N.R.A. diverted $36 million last year from the foundation in various ways, far more than ever before, raising concerns among tax experts. The transfers came as the N.R.A. experienced financial strains and challenges from gun-control groups, which outspent the organization in the 2018 midterm elections. An earlier analysis by The Times found that the foundation had transferred more than $200 million to the N.R.A. between 2010 and 2017.

While both the N.R.A. and its foundation are tax-exempt, only donations to the foundation are tax-deductible. Tax experts say the foundation has become a back door for tax-deductible donations to the N.R.A. itself. Karl Racine, the attorney general of the District of Columbia, where the N.R.A. Foundation is chartered, is also investigating.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/09/us/n ... &smtyp=cur

[crusherstasiak]

tell you what, i'm getting good and damn tired of all this regulating campus speech

[crusherstasiak]

this is a very serious problem he's addressing here
and i assume after he cleans this up he's going after the other things tearing at the fabric of this nation: cancel culture/black lives matter and crazy mothers who should be institutionalized

[Freddy Rumsen]

[Sam's Drunk Dog]

[Sam's Drunk Dog]

[Freddy Rumsen]

OH NO THE PRESIDENT IS LYING THAT IS NOT A REAL VIDEO.

[Freddy Rumsen]

[Pavel Bure]

If what is alleged is true then that shouldn’t happen but Britt isn’t a great person either.

[Freddy Rumsen]

"She deserved it because she did this thing once."

[Pavel Bure]

"She deserved it because she did this thing once."

Yep that’s what I said.

[Freddy Rumsen]

[Pavel Bure]

BTW didn’t realize this at first, c-c-c-crossover. Somebody better call the Funkasaurus’ momma because he’s gonna need a lawyer.