The New American Politics thread

[nik-]

well then

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Pro-life policies are not evidence of "contempt for or prejudice against" women, either. The negative effects on women's reproductive rights are ancillary to the main purpose of that legislation, which is to protect the rights of a fetus that pro life people think are important. I explained that.

"Mansplaining" is an insanely stupid term. My genitals have no more impact on my ability to talk about any topic than any woman's do.

####... I'm done. I do care about these issues, but this #### just makes me want to check out entirely. So damned depressing.

But you don't see that there's a difference in the way you view it--as someone who cannot actually be personally affected by the outcome of a bill passed about women's reproductive rights?

If Canada suddenly decided to deport all Muslims, I'm sure it would infuriate you, but don't you imagine that actual Muslims would have a different view of it? That their take would be more personal and nuanced?

As such, as women who can become pregnant, whose rights can be taken away by someone such as Pence, you cannot see how we would be more personally concerned with this particular kind of political rhetoric?

You have very interesting views on the topic, but that doesn't change the fact that even if abortion became illegal tomorrow--it wouldn't directly affect your life. The fact that companies are now legally allowed to stop a woman from accessing birth control does not directly impact your life. As women, these kinds of legislative moves do affect our daily lives, thus we have a different view of the ins and outs of it.

That's not being sexist, that's just the reality of the matter. These are decisions that can directly and immediately affect our lives.

This isn't silly women talking with their hormones, this is about women fighting for something that was declared a right long before I was born, that people like Pence are trying to infringe upon.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by GGG

Mansplaining is a terrible way to dismiss an argument you don't like. Essentially you are discounting his argument because it comes from a male perspective. It certainly doesn't raise the level of discourse

I think it goes beyond that. It implies talking down to women and essentially implies the person is sexist.

I agree, it is completely uncalled for language and serves little purpose on this board.

[Izzle]

Originally Posted by GGG

Mansplaining is a terrible way to dismiss an argument you don't like. Essentially you are discounting his argument because it comes from a male perspective. It certainly doesn't raise the level of discourse

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

I think it goes beyond that. It implies talking down to women and essentially implies the person is sexist.

I agree, it is completely uncalled for language and serves little purpose on this board.

I am sorry for using the word 'mansplaining'. I thought I was being clever. Alas, i wasnt.

However, if you want to engage in a proper discussion with facts and without name calling, please refer to wittynickname's posts. She does a wonderful job explaining things that resonate with me and is able to articulate them much better.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

But you don't see that there's a difference in the way you view it--as someone who cannot actually be personally affected by the outcome of a bill passed about women's reproductive rights?

Yes. But - and this is a longer conversation - I don't believe in identity politics. My view is that diversity is important to political discussions and perspectives only to the extent that it produces diversity in opinion, and diverse opinions are still something that should be agreed with or not.

Consequently, being a woman (or for example having had to have an abortion) would give someone a perspective that I don't have, that may contribute to them putting forward a different argument for why they believe in the necessity of reproductive rights. Without that background, I might be unable to make that argument; it simply wouldn't occur to me because of my different life experience. However, the argument is itself no better or worse inherently because of its source - it has to stand on its own merit like any other.

As such, as women who can become pregnant, whose rights can be taken away by someone such as Pence, you cannot see how we would be more personally concerned with this particular kind of political rhetoric?

I can see how you would be more personally concerned. I can see how it would make you personally angry. This has no bearing on whether or not you're right or wrong, at the end of the day.

You have very interesting views on the topic, but that doesn't change the fact that even if abortion became illegal tomorrow--it wouldn't directly affect your life. The fact that companies are now legally allowed to stop a woman from accessing birth control does not directly impact your life.

I care deeply about things that don't affect my life. The fact that Pence supports therapy as a treatment for homosexuality as if it were a disease makes me angrier than, I'd bet, a lot of gay people.

Making the case that you have to be directly affected to have a valid opinion on a particular topic, or that it makes your opinion more valid inherently, is just wrong. I don't have to be a woman to care strongly about issues that affect women, and you don't have to have had an abortion to care strongly about women who are put in that position. Suggesting the contrary is just alienating people with valid perspectives who want to be involved in dealing with an issue that's really hard to deal with. That goes for literally anything, not just abortion.

Or, more eloquently put,

Originally Posted by Barack Obama, 2004

It's not enough for just some of us to prosper. For alongside our famous individualism, there's another ingredient in the American saga, a belief that we are all connected as one people.

If there's a child on the south side of Chicago who can't read, that matters to me, even if it's not my child. If there's a senior citizen somewhere who can't pay for their prescription and having to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it's not my grandparent. If there's an Arab-American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties. It is that fundamental belief -- it is that fundamental belief - "I am my brother's keeper, I am my sisters' keeper" - that makes this country work.

It's what allows us to pursue our individual dreams, yet still come together as a single American family: "E pluribus unum," out of many, one.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

Yup that's the problem with true believers of any ilk, they have a hard time seeing the bigger picture. The single most important issues in this election is the supreme Court justice appointments. Electing Trump and allowing him to appoint three more Scalias to the bench will set the US back at least 80 years in terms of social progress. Roe v Wade? Gone. LGBTQ rights? See ya.

Don't claim to be progressive and then support what would be a conservative coup of the very fabric of the country. The independent guy lost after trying to sneak in through the side door, even he's said how catastrophic a Trump victory would be. But this has turned into Tyler Durden and Project Mayhem as it seems not even the guy who started the movement can now keep control of his neophytes.

yup and not just the supreme court.

He would be the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. and he would appoint all Supreme Court justices and all other federal judges, the NLRB board, the EPA chief, the Attorney General, etc. If the Republican Congress passes laws to repeal Obamacare, cut taxes on the rich, limit or prevent immigration from certain areas, etc., he would be the only one who could veto that.

I guess I would describe anyone who cares about progressive issues but uses their vote to make a Trump win marginally more likely by voting for a 3rd party candidate would be acting very selfishly and/or recklessly.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

But you don't see that there's a difference in the way you view it--as someone who cannot actually be personally affected by the outcome of a bill passed about women's reproductive rights?

If Canada suddenly decided to deport all Muslims, I'm sure it would infuriate you, but don't you imagine that actual Muslims would have a different view of it? That their take would be more personal and nuanced?

As such, as women who can become pregnant, whose rights can be taken away by someone such as Pence, you cannot see how we would be more personally concerned with this particular kind of political rhetoric?

You have very interesting views on the topic, but that doesn't change the fact that even if abortion became illegal tomorrow--it wouldn't directly affect your life. The fact that companies are now legally allowed to stop a woman from accessing birth control does not directly impact your life. As women, these kinds of legislative moves do affect our daily lives, thus we have a different view of the ins and outs of it.

That's not being sexist, that's just the reality of the matter. These are decisions that can directly and immediately affect our lives.

This isn't silly women talking with their hormones, this is about women fighting for something that was declared a right long before I was born, that people like Pence are trying to infringe upon.

Corsi's right though. The fact that you are framing thisas a reproductive rights issue as opposed to an "unborn fetus" issue is part of the problem.

Pro-life people don't see the debate that way. If they did, they would likely agree with you, but to them they view it is as protecting the life of an innocent unborn child.

You can't just keep saying "it is a reproductive rights issue" and make it so.

I would argue it's both, and we as a society have determined that a women's reproductive rights are more important than an unborn child's.

I hope you can also appreciate that while a person may have a moral issue with abortion (i.e. I may personally find it offensive), I can believe that legally it should be up to a woman. This does not make me a misogynist.

[calumniate]

Some good stuff in here! I don't think witty has gone over the top at all. While it's of personal interest to her, she's obviously not the only one that could be adversely affected by this.

Plus, these arguments corsi has made in regards to rationality is reaching a bit. This is politics, a platform where health, science, education, climate change and human rights are all up for grabs. It has very little to do with rationality unfortunately. Even with 'facts', these parties still trudge along so to speak, set in their ways. It's never about rationality, it's about optics.

Lastly, if you look at pences' voting record it's hard to conclude anything other than he is a monster. Look at these votes:
http://www.ontheissues.org/IN/Mike_Pence.htm

Forget misogyny, the guy is anti-life

[Izzle]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Corsi's right though. The fact that you are framing thisas a reproductive rights issue as opposed to an "unborn fetus" issue is part of the problem.

Pro-life people don't see the debate that way. If they did, they would likely agree with you, but to them they view it is as protecting the life of an innocent unborn child.

You can't just keep saying "it is a reproductive rights issue" and make it so.

I would argue it's both, and we as a society have determined that a women's reproductive rights are more important than an unborn child's.

I hope you can also appreciate that while a person may have a moral issue with abortion (i.e. I may personally find it offensive), I can believe that legally it should be up to a woman. This does not make me a misogynist.

You're right. It doesnt make you a misogynist. Same with Tim Kaine, he personally doesnt believe in abortions cos of his religious views, but via policy he supports the right for women to choose.

You cannot, in good conscience, argue that Mike Pence stands for the same thing??? Mike Pence is misogynistic.

Also wittynickname has put forth, if people were really worried about rights of an 'unborn child' then make services easier to attain for working women... day care, living wage, etc. Dont say "save the unborn child" while simultaneously making it harder for women to raise said child.

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Corsi's right though. The fact that you are framing thisas a reproductive rights issue as opposed to an "unborn fetus" issue is part of the problem.

Pro-life people don't see the debate that way. If they did, they would likely agree with you, but to them they view it is as protecting the life of an innocent unborn child.

You can't just keep saying "it is a reproductive rights issue" and make it so.

I would argue it's both, and we as a society have determined that a women's reproductive rights are more important than an unborn child's.

I hope you can also appreciate that while a person may have a moral issue with abortion (i.e. I may personally find it offensive), I can believe that legally it should be up to a woman. This does not make me a misogynist.

That says you're pro-choice. I personally probably would not have an abortion either--but it's not my decision to make for anyone else.

Mike Pence is actively and continually legislating ways to take away a woman's right to choose. That makes him misogynistic.

Again, the pro-life movement would be really impressive if they actually carried that pro-life argument into areas of life other than mandating that a woman carry a pregnancy to term. But they don't. So I can't accept that it's a moral issue if those people can stand by silently while children in Flint, MI have been dealing with lead poisoned water for years.

You can't claim to be pro-life and end it at childbirth. That is what Mike Pence and many pro-life groups do. That is not pro-life. That is pro-fetus. There are a multitude of good things that "pro-life" groups could be doing. Closing down PP is not one of those good things. Preventing a rape victim from having an abortion is not one of those things.

Bottom line of all of this, however: Pence is actively legislating to limit Roe v. Wade's scope. That is misogynistic.

Being pro-choice while personally having an issue with abortion is not.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Drak

I was just logging in to say what you said.

I don't get is why Bernie supporters or left leaning folks claim they'd rather hold their nose and vote Trump to make a statement. Why bother voting at all then? You're certainly not standing by your convictions by voting for Trump. That's just weird. Or, as you say, why not vote for Jill Stein instead?

If there was ever a time for a third party candidate to make a serious push, this is it. About as likely to happen as the next massacre of school children is to cause serious change in gun control attitudes.

Incidentally...

https://twitter.com/OwensDamien/stat...40786091671552

Damien Owens ‏@OwensDamien

I hear you, Sanders supporters who plan to vote Trump. One time I asked for Coke but they only had Pepsi, so I set fire to my head.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

Mike Pence is actively and continually legislating ways to take away a woman's right to choose. That makes him misogynistic.

Bottom line of all of this, however: Pence is actively legislating to limit Roe v. Wade's scope. That is misogynistic.

I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree, because to me, this is no different from saying "if you support legislation that would diminish affirmative action programs, you're automatically a racist".

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree, because to me, this is no different from saying "if you support legislation that would diminish affirmative action programs, you're automatically a racist".

There are varying levels of misogyny, racism, etc.

There are loud, angry, hurtful bigots who are clearly awful. The KKK, Westboro Baptists, etc.

And then there are the quiet ones, who may not consciously be hateful of various groups, but they sure are okay with limiting or completely defunding programs that might help minorities. That's still a form of racism/sexism/etc, even if the person involved doesn't consciously realize it.

In some ways the quiet, passive methods are more problematic, because they come from people who outwardly say all the right things, like Pence saying he supports a woman's right to choose while then signing bill after bill of legislation that interferes with her ability to do so.

Not everyone who is misogynistic or racist is actively doing so, with the intent to harm. But that doesn't make their actions less harmful.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Yeah, that's a problem, because it expands the definition of "racist" or "misogynist" to the point where it captures largely behaviour of innocent or even benevolent intent. Those are terms that are to be used for some of the very worst people in society. They're for George Wallace and L. Ron Hubbard. You can't just apply them to people whose policies you think are bad.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

That says you're pro-choice. I personally probably would not have an abortion either--but it's not my decision to make for anyone else.

Mike Pence is actively and continually legislating ways to take away a woman's right to choose. That makes him misogynistic.

Again, the pro-life movement would be really impressive if they actually carried that pro-life argument into areas of life other than mandating that a woman carry a pregnancy to term. But they don't. So I can't accept that it's a moral issue if those people can stand by silently while children in Flint, MI have been dealing with lead poisoned water for years.

You can't claim to be pro-life and end it at childbirth. That is what Mike Pence and many pro-life groups do. That is not pro-life. That is pro-fetus. There are a multitude of good things that "pro-life" groups could be doing. Closing down PP is not one of those good things. Preventing a rape victim from having an abortion is not one of those things.

Bottom line of all of this, however: Pence is actively legislating to limit Roe v. Wade's scope. That is misogynistic.

Being pro-choice while personally having an issue with abortion is not.

I'm speaking in a vacuum and not with regard to Mike Pence. Mike Pence is a regressive #######.

[Izzle]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Yeah, that's a problem, because it expands the definition of "racist" or "misogynist" to the point where it captures largely behaviour of innocent or even benevolent intent. Those are terms that are to be used for some of the [i]very worst people[i] in society. They're for George Wallace. You can't just apply them to people whose policies you think are bad.

Honest question: suppose wittynickname had said Mike Pence has "misogynistic tendencies" rather than outright calling him a misogynist... would that make you more agreeable to her comments?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Izzle

Honest question: suppose wittynickname had said Mike Pence has "misogynistic tendencies" rather than outright calling him a misogynist... would that make you more agreeable to her comments?

Not particularly, at least as far as it applies to her criticisms of his pro-life stance. The comments he made in that Mulan article are pretty sexist, so it might even be an accurate statement more broadly - I could be convinced.

But her complaint about his pro-life stance is that he favours policies that have a negative effect on the reproductive rights of women, thereby causing women harm. That's different from anything remotely connected to misogyny, which is a form of bigotry. It requires actual chauvinism, a belief in the inferiority of women in some way.

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Not particularly, at least as far as it applies to her criticisms of his pro-life stance. The comments he made in that Mulan article are pretty sexist, so it might even be an accurate statement more broadly - I could be convinced.

But her complaint about his pro-life stance is that he favours policies that have a negative effect on the reproductive rights of women, thereby causing women harm. That's different from anything remotely connected to misogyny, which is a form of bigotry. It requires actual chauvinism, a belief in the inferiority of women in some way.

But he has proven repeatedly that he clearly does feel that way. The Mulan article, the comment that women who work "stunt their children's growth" because of it? He has clearly proven he doesn't really hold women in a place of high-esteem nor respect their abilities very much.

He has repeatedly worked to limit the rights of women in the name of "pro-life" and "morality."

So if he's so worried about women giving birth, why is he trying to defund Planned Parenthood, often the only option for low income women in need of prenatal care? If he's so worried about women and babies, why is he taking money from the TANF fund that is specifically to help low income women and their children, and giving it to an anti-abortion group? Why is he not pushing for equal pay for women? Why is he not pushing for maternal leave for new mothers?

He isn't voting to help women, he's only voting to limit their rights.

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, votes like a duck, well.

[calgarygeologist]

Is it just me or does the speaker line-up for this weeks convention seem pretty weak? The VP isn't even on the speaker list. In terms of politcos they only have Bernie, Warren, President Clinton, President Obama and Biden. Other big names are Michelle Obama and Chelsea Clinton. Not really a lot to excited about in my opinion.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Is it just me or does the speaker line-up for this weeks convention seem pretty weak? The VP isn't even on the speaker list. In terms of politcos they only have Bernie, Warren, President Clinton, President Obama and Biden. Other big names are Michelle Obama and Chelsea Clinton. Not really a lot to excited about in my opinion.

Kaine will be speaking Wednesday night, standard spot for the VP. As to the list, well no, it's arguably one of the strongest lists ever. Just look at past conventions for reference. And when you compare it to the Trump kids, Scott Baio, Antonio Sabato Jr, Dana White and a golfer known way more for her looks than her golf, and it's probably the greatest list in the history of humanity.