The reason I believe the issue is manfactured is because Democrats themselves pay women in their employ less than men. This is true of the President as well:
Diane Feinstein is an even worse offender:
That’s a very silly reason to believe the issue is manufactured. If anything, it shows the issue is real and extremely pervasive.
Or, it could mean there are reasons other than discrimination for lower female pay, in which case it’s an entirely made up issue if Democrats already know this. Since they pay their own women less, they apparently do know it, so made the whole thing up.
It could be, but it’s not. There are non-sexist reasons for part of the discrepancy, but not all of it. Equally qualified and experienced women still make less than men when these factors are taken into account.
This does not follow logically. Sounds like a rectum-derived statement.
“The Democrats” ain’t the only organization making an issue of pay disparity, you know. Did they all make it up?
The Democrats are the only ones passing equal pay bills after the last few equal pay bills didn’t get the job done.
Either they like failing, or they like the issue.
Is this supposed to be an argument? I can’t see what the point is supposed to be… is it supposed to be “if it doesn’t work the first time you should give up”?
Once you’ve outlawed discrimination you should at least make a serious attempt to find out if discrimination is still a big factor, how it’s happening, and how to stop it.
A big part of the problem is simply women’s unwillingness to negotiate, whereas men are more aggressive. I’m not sure a law addresses that. The other is that women are more likely to take paternity leaves that slow down their advancement. There are no laws that can address that either.
Instead, the newest law just lards on more reporting requirements and creates more avenues for shakedowns. Which is fine, because it gives Democratic interest groups more money to spend on campaigns.
What does any of this have to do with states moving to the left or the right?
It goes back to what I said about the Democrats manufacturing new issues once an issue should be laid to rest.
Even if Republicans come around on gay marriage, Democrats will find new ways to make Republicans the enemies of the LGBT community. Just pass a special domestic abuse bill designed specifically for LGBTs and use it against Republicans when they object on federalist grounds.
Let me get this straight… as an example of an issue that Democrats “manufacture”, you’re picking gay marriage?!?
Whatever you’re smoking, I think it’s time to pass it on to the next guy.
I didn’t say gay marriage was manufactured, only that future LGBT issues will be created out of thin air by Democrats if necessary to keep them within the Democratic fold. Women and LGBTs are natural swing voters unless Democrats find grievances for them.
That will not happen. The Dems will fix on no issue that has not occurred to the LGBT’s themselves first, and been expressed in public demands repeatedly, and by definition that will not be any issue “created out of thin air by Democrats.” No more so than any issue Dems have run on in the past.
You want an instance of an issue created out of thin air, see GHWB’s proposed anti-flag-burning legislation. Even that issue already existed – some demonstrators were burning Old Glory and some Americans did not like that – but it took GHWB to make it important. The Dems will fix on no LGBT issue, nor any other, that is not already important.
It’s the Dope, roll with it.
:rolleyes: Of course they’re the only ones doing that; they are not the only organization concerned with pay disparity, but they are the only such organization that is a political party with a caucus in Congress.
Do House Pubs repeatedly try and fail to repeal the ACA because they “like failing”?
The bills don’t pass. If the Republicans repealed ACA and it still existed somehow, another bill repealing ACA wouldn’t be very sensible.
:rolleyes: That shit again?!
You mean maternity, and I think that might have been a Freudian slip.
No, I thought paternity was gender neutral. Was I wrong again?
“Paternity” is not gender-neutral. That is why there are such things as paternity suits but no maternity suits.
Even if the mother doesn’t know if it’s hers?