If you think that you can justify his remarks with erroneous attacks on what I believe or whom I support, you are, as usual, mistaken.
I know what the quote said. And by my response, its obvious I disagree. I think different people see things differently. The total sum of their combined perceptions make up human experience. By segregating the presidency, or the SCOTUS, or CEOs, or whatever to mostly white males, or just males, it neglects the experiences felt by other races and genders. Your problem is that you can’t separate Hillary Clinton the woman from the argument being made.
Hillary is the one who said, “I just think women in general are better listeners, are more collegial, more open to new ideas and how to make things work in a way that looks for win-win outcomes.” Those are her words. She is the one saying women are better at those things.
The fact that someone can think different perspectives is better overall is a different argument than the argument she made.
I would much prefer if Hillary had said something like, “Being the first female President would be a huge honor, and obviously it would be a huge step for this country in showing that women can aspire to the highest roles in service of our country, that female perspectives are important, and that women should have an equal place in our country’s leadership. But I am not running as the best woman, I am running because I believe I am the best candidate this election, that I have the best solutions for the country’s problems. I don’t just want the votes of women in this country, I want everyone’s vote, and I want to be the President that best represents everyone.”
While I didn’t care for Carly Fiorina, I did appreciate when she said something similar to the above.
The argument that I made is if women are better at something, men are worse.
You’re free to make a different argument about perceptions and human experiences. In fact, I agree including people from different backgrounds is helpful. For example, when establishment Republicans say things like, “I don’t know anybody who’s voting for Trump,” it’s the result of their insularity - the failure to include diversity in their lives.
Your argument is fine; it just doesn’t address the topic.
Not just Fiorina, but Obama as well. Running on an accident of birth is a terrible campaign strategy. It’s a mistake that so easy to not make, it’s frustrating she made it anyway.
My prediction for Super Tuesday: Trump will win everywhere but Texas, and it’ll be uncomfortable close even there.
I disagree, I think I addressed it. I give Clinton a pass on saying “better” because to me, its clear that she meant “different”, so I have no problems with what she said and think Scott Adams is wrong.
If it’s clear (to you) that Hillary meant different rather than better, why didn’t she use different? It isn’t that different wasn’t on the palate of words she could choose from. Words, like elections, have consequences.
Officer, give me a pass. Yes, that was a Stop sign I rolled thru but it’s clear to me it was meant to be a Yield sign.
And the consequence here seem to be that those who dislike Clinton will keep on disliking her, and those who hate women will continue to hate women.
My prediction was wrong: Trump under-performed, losing two additional states. And Texas wasn’t close. Bernie, however, did better than I expected.
Interesting choice. Unfortunately, it’s a frame all but feminists will reject. And they’re voting for her anyway.
Hillary needs to work on broadening her appeal, not narrowing it. Her supporters fail when they play the gender card, just as she fails when she says women are better than men.
Watching Trump’s press conference from last night (Defending Planned Parenthood): “I’m going to be really good for women. I’m going to be really good for women’s health issues.”
Now I don’t particularly like Trump. I think he’s a lying narcissist. Perhaps he’s sexist, too. Maybe he thinks men are better, or that being a man is a qualification for president.
If he does, he doesn’t say it. Politically, it would be kind of a dumb thing to do.
Its not as black and white as you make it out to be. Speaking in public, even for the best of us, is rife with opportunities where one can make a mistake. Obama’s one of the best speakers to be president in recent years, and even he made that mistake of the “57 states”. I don’t believe for one second that Obama thinks there are actually 57 states and I don’t believe for one second that Clinton meant “better” instead of “different”.
In fact I’ve gotten out of tickets where I expressed genuine confusion and regret for a mistake I made. I guess the cop believed me or felt sorry for me, but either way, a mistake doesn’t have to be seen as some hidden truth psychologically repressed but coming out of your subconscious through Freudian slips. Sometimes a mistake is just a mistake. I’m guessing that you don’t like Clinton, so you don’t give her a pass. Well too bad, I like her and I do give her a pass.
Well, she did say that her gender is NOT a reason NOT to vote for her. So maybe that’s like saying that its a reason to vote for her because its a double negative… sorta? I dunno. I got nuthin.
Other people are as wrong as you are about certain things.
What’s interesting about that?
Nope. For example, saying to your reluctant schoolchild “Today’s drizzling rain is not a reason not to go to school” is not the same as saying “Today’s drizzling rain is a reason to go to school”.
The point is that whether or not you go to school is not about the rain.
Likewise, saying that you shouldn’t vote against a female candidate specifically because of her gender is not the same as saying that you should vote for a female candidate specifically because of her gender.
In formal logic, the relevant principle is that the truth of the proposition doesn’t imply the truth of its converse. That is, “If A then B” doesn’t imply “If not A then not B”, where A = “You don’t vote for her” and B = “It shouldn’t be on account of her gender” (so not-A = “You do vote for her” and not-B = “It should be on account of her gender”).
Bah, sorry, I mean “inverse”, not “converse”.
I’m totally befuddled how you can take the statement “I just think women in general are better listeners,” and think that somehow is supposed to mean “different listeners”, as if that makes any sense. Especially given the context of the rest of the statement: " … are more collegial, more open to new ideas and how to make things work in a way that looks for win-win outcomes." Women are better at being collegial, better at being open to new ideas and how to make things work in a way that looks for win-win outcomes. That’s what that statement means, and replacing “better” with “different” in that sentence does not make sense. She’s clearly explaining how women provide advantages in those situations.
Actually, I voted for her. I still find that attitude off-putting. And guess what, young women voters didn’t like being told they were anti-woman to vote for Bernie, either.
Democrats have done a lot of gloating over the spectacle on the Republican side of the primaries. But while participation in their primaries is breaking records, voting - except where Bernie is actively competing - has been low, on the Democratic side. That’s not a good thing, when you’re a Democrat. The key to Obama’s victories was turning out voters.
The conditions that are driving the Trump phenomenon apply to Democratic voters, also. You can look at the two charts, in the middle of this page, to get a sense of what’s going on.
Anyway, as far as “better” and “different” goes, Adams argues logic has little to do with how people make up their minds. The emotional part of the brain makes decisions. The cognitive part merely rationalizes them, afterwards.
Working people - and by that I mean not merely the “working class,” but working middle-class people as well - have been pummeled by economic policies that are designed to favor the elites. Real wages for ordinary people have been falling for decades, while the ownership class (the “billionaire class” to use Bernie’s term) are accumulating more and more of the country’s wealth. It great, if you’re part of the elite. But not so great for everyone else. And it’s not a sustainable model.
Well, he argues that’s true of most people. He claims he himself, and regular readers of his blog, are much more logical than normal people.
No, really, he wrote that.
Well, this just isn’t true. It’s true that “ordinary people” - which is not really something you’re clearly defining, but I’ll go with a median income measurement - have seen very little growth in wages recently and everyone took a shot in 2008-2009. But incomes have not bee “falling for decades” in any sense those words would mean. The median income of Americans in every income quintile is about the same as it was 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 30 years ago and 40 years ago, after adjusting for inflation.
So how was Democratic primary turnout in 2012, and did Obama win or lose that election?
Turnout numbers can be affected by a great many things, and one of them is the stakes. People are not strongly inclined to show up to vote for a done deal. Anywhere Sanders is not campaigning, the Democratic primary is a foregone conclusion.
I believe you. You’re seem like you’re smart enough to see why he’d say something like that.
The evidence is in the graph on this page. “[R]eal, median household income peaked at nearly $58,000 back in 1999 and has been sliding ever since, standing now at just $53,657.” Corporate profits, on the other hand, are higher than they’ve ever been. You’re right that 17 years isn’t decades.
As to the first question, I don’t know. But I’d anticipate that primary turnout would be low, since Obama was running unopposed. I stand by my assertion that high voter participation is generally good for Democrats.
True.