Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 kronk wrote:

 Stevefamine wrote:


No, Bernie 2020 is the serious post

I dunno. He's already really fething old.

I still hope for a Elizabeth Warren ticket.

Would Rachel Dolezal be her Vice President choice?

So the press corps asked Sean Spicer about exactly what Trump's position on Syria is, after the missile strike.

Reporter: Is the red line for this White House chemical warfare? Is conventional warfare enough to get the president to go further than this White House is going?
Spicer: I think the president has been very clear that there are a number of lines that were crossed last week. He's not going to sit down - you saw this with the last administration, they drew these red lines, and then the red lines were run over... The answer is that if you gas a baby, if you put a barrel comb into innocent people, I think you will see a response from the president. That is unacceptable.

This left everyone trying to figure out if Spicer just announced the US was about to enter full engagement with Syria, or if Spicer just doesn't know what he's talking about. Because barrel bombs are just barrels filled with explosives, you just drop them out of the side of a helicopter. Dropping them on a civilian areas is a routine part of how Syria is fighting the war, they drop about 10,000 bombs a year, many on civilian targets. If the US was declaring that was a red line, then they'd basically be telling Syria they cannot take any action against civilian areas, or the US would retaliate.

That's a big damn thing to announce through a press secretary. As it turns out though, it wasn't the Whitehouse position at all. A later clarification came from the Whitehouse, talking about barrel bombs containing chemical weapons. This isn't what Spicer said, so it turns out instead of stumbling in to a major intervention in Syria, it's actually just a case of the Press Secretary explaining the President's position without actually knowing any of the details of how the situation actually works.

Which is better than the US stumbling in to war, but still a very long way away from good.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
PSSSTTT..... in your rush to score cheap points with the peanut gallery you got the definition of scapegoat wrong.

That's true. Your post wasn't scapegoating, it was whataboutism. So you are technically correct*. Its still yet another example of people trying to defend Trump by talking about anything and everything except what Trump actually did. I wish people would stop doing that.



*The best kind of correct!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
President Ivanka .

There's having thin skin and there's responding with immature hyperbole. Frazzled may have the former but your response reflects far more poorly on you and adds nothing positive to this thread. If you really want to criticise something and have people listen that is the least effective way of doing it.

To be fair, if we evaluate most terrorist attacks on a practical basis alone they would also seem quite meaningless. That there was a missile strike on a Syrian airbase means more than any damage actually inflicted. Of course if that turns out to be a bluff then it will be worse than meaningless.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
To be fair, if we evaluate most terrorist attacks on a practical basis alone they would also seem quite meaningless. That there was a missile strike on a Syrian airbase means more than any damage actually inflicted. Of course if that turns out to be a bluff then it will be worse than meaningless.

Interesting comparison, and a fair point - the reaction to terrorism is typically a lot bigger than the act itself, I guess largely due to the threat of future strikes. I guess then it comes down to how well the US can establish they will act again, and why. I mean, if it really just comes down to telling Syria that can murder civilians, but only with some weapons and not others, I'm at something of a loss about the whole thing.

 Frazzled wrote:
You're just jealous of our Freedom Fries, our rattlesnakes, and Texas Women.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
There's having thin skin and there's responding with immature hyperbole. Frazzled may have the former but your response reflects far more poorly on you and adds nothing positive to this thread. If you really want to criticise something and have people listen that is the least effective way of doing it.

That's interesting, please tell me more about it .

 djones520 wrote:
China's border with North Korea is heavily guarded, to stop N. Korean's from flooding in. China doesn't want them anymore then the S. Korean's do. Decades of N. Korean leadership policy has created a nation of millions of illiterate people whose only skill is to farm enough to barely sustain themselves. That means that in the eyes of modern nation states, they're nothing more then welfare recipients.

China actually has several hundred thousand to millions (depending on the year) of NKs working in Manchuria and China. They are kind of like the illegals here-very cheap factory labor. This is based on someone I worked with who's family actually made it out that way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Pakistan had its first successful nuclear weapons test in 1998. India has had nukes since the 70s. In 1999 they fought yet another round in their interminable fight over Kashmir. Both sides lost around 500 dead each, and because this is the world defined by Fraz this immediately led to nuclear weapons being fired by both sides and both countries being wiped from the map.

Or, alternatively, Fraz is completely wrong.

That was an artillery spat.

See Cold War and the Policy of Mutual Assured Destruction and NATO drills and theories on nuclear war escalation.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Thats a good point. Could you return to the comment made earlier about people voting for Clinton because she's a woman? There was some data raised that rendered your claim false and I am interested to hear your response.

Which data was that?

 jreilly89 wrote:
Oh man, a No Fly Zone? That's so much worse than a direct air strike on another country! Seriously man, even if it did lead to war, how's that different than the current situation? I'll take leads us to war over leads us to war, dismantles the EPA, and feths over education at every turn.

You mean like those drone strikes have lead us to war in Yemen and Pakistan? There is a vast difference between a targeted and measured strike of cruise missiles on an airfield that was used to deploy chemical weapons and deploying fighter aircraft and all necessary support to actively enforce a No Fly Zone in which military aircraft from another Superpower are active.

 sebster wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
To be fair, if we evaluate most terrorist attacks on a practical basis alone they would also seem quite meaningless. That there was a missile strike on a Syrian airbase means more than any damage actually inflicted. Of course if that turns out to be a bluff then it will be worse than meaningless.

Interesting comparison, and a fair point - the reaction to terrorism is typically a lot bigger than the act itself, I guess largely due to the threat of future strikes. I guess then it comes down to how well the US can establish they will act again, and why. I mean, if it really just comes down to telling Syria that can murder civilians, but only with some weapons and not others, I'm at something of a loss about the whole thing.

What it simply boils down to is that it's "a message'.

How it's interpreted is going to be the key.

You have to admit... it's a pretty impressive "precision" message.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Thats a good point. Could you return to the comment made earlier about people voting for Clinton because she's a woman? There was some data raised that rendered your claim false and I am interested to hear your response.

Which data was that?

 jreilly89 wrote:
Oh man, a No Fly Zone? That's so much worse than a direct air strike on another country! Seriously man, even if it did lead to war, how's that different than the current situation? I'll take leads us to war over leads us to war, dismantles the EPA, and feths over education at every turn.

You mean like those drone strikes have lead us to war in Yemen and Pakistan? There is a vast difference between a targeted and measured strike of cruise missiles on an airfield that was used to deploy chemical weapons and deploying fighter aircraft and all necessary support to actively enforce a No Fly Zone in which military aircraft from another Superpower are active.

D USA wrote it and it was speculated that you would ignore it and so far that seems to be holding true

 Ustrello wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Thats a good point. Could you return to the comment made earlier about people voting for Clinton because she's a woman? There was some data raised that rendered your claim false and I am interested to hear your response.

Which data was that?

 jreilly89 wrote:
Oh man, a No Fly Zone? That's so much worse than a direct air strike on another country! Seriously man, even if it did lead to war, how's that different than the current situation? I'll take leads us to war over leads us to war, dismantles the EPA, and feths over education at every turn.

You mean like those drone strikes have lead us to war in Yemen and Pakistan? There is a vast difference between a targeted and measured strike of cruise missiles on an airfield that was used to deploy chemical weapons and deploying fighter aircraft and all necessary support to actively enforce a No Fly Zone in which military aircraft from another Superpower are active.

D USA wrote it and it was speculated that you would ignore it and so far that seems to be holding true

That data wasn't really conclusive. What it showed was that in recent presidential elections (1996-onwards) over 50% (approx. 54% on average) of women voters voted Democrat and 54% of women voters voted for Hillary in 2016. However, there is a noticeable spike in women voting Democrat in 2008 and 2012 and those elections were historic events (2008 moreso than 2012 but still atypical). Prior to 2008 (1972-2004) the average % of women voting Democrat was just under 48% which is noticeably lower than the 54% that voted for Clinton in 2016. Of course none of that actually tells us WHY the given percentage of women voted Democrat in each presidential election. Obviously prior to 2016 the Democratic nominee had never been a woman so that wasn't a factor but the raw data that 54% of women voted for Hillary doesn't show what the primary factor in choosing to vote for her was for those female voters.

I don't think it matters why people vote for a given candidate. Well, it matters in terms of planning effective campaigns but there's no right or wrong reason to vote for a given candidate. Exercising your right to vote is a personal choice and you should vote for any candidate you want for whatever reason you want.

While there may have been a percentage of women who voted for Hillary primarily because she was a woman I don't think there's any reliable data that tells us what that percentage was. Unfortunately for Clinton she didn't do well enough with women overall to have a successful election night.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-couldnt-win-over-white-women/

Preliminary exit poll results show that while she won women by 12 points overall (Trump won men by the same margin, a historic gender gap), Clinton lost the votes of white women overall and struggled to win women voters without a college education in states that could have propelled her to victory. I wrote Tuesday night about Clinton’s collapse in the Midwest — she saw Ohio, Wisconsin and probably Michigan slip away, all states President Obama won in 2008 and 2012 — and this appears to be in part because of her performance among voters who don’t have a college degree, including women. In Michigan, Trump won those women along with white men, their support for him drowning out white, college-educated women’s votes for Clinton. She won that demographic by 10 points, but these women account for only two in 10 Michigan voters.

In Iowa, a state Obama also won in 2008 and 2012, the class-tinged tale was much the same. White women without a college degree account for just over a quarter of voters in the state, and while Obama won them by 17 percentage points in 2012, Clinton and Trump split their support. Trump won the state by 10 percentage points.

CLINTON TRUMP
White men 31% 63%
White women 43 53
White women college graduates 51 45
White women non-college graduates 34 62
White men college graduates 39 54
White men non-college graduates 23 72

White women without college degrees chose Trump


Source: Edison Research Exit Polls

Although Clinton didn’t outright lose women, their relatively anemic support for her in key states played a role in her Electoral College demise. Preliminary exit polls Tuesday showed that her loss in Florida was driven, in part, by her poor performance among women in the state. She won them with only a 4-point margin, compared with 16 points in Colorado; 13 in New Hampshire and Pennsylvania; 11 in Michigan and Georgia; 10 in Wisconsin; and 8 in North Carolina.

 Frazzled wrote:
That was an artillery spat.

An artillery spat that killed 1,000 people. Come on mate, you got it wrong. Don't stick your fingers in your ears, accept that you made a claim that wasn't true, and then we all move on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
What it simply boils down to is that it's "a message'.

How it's interpreted is going to be the key.

Is it, though? Trump goes from Monday saying Syria needs to be decided by the Syrians (ie America is not getting involved) to Thursday making a military strike against a Syrian air base. The only message I can get from this is that no-one knows what Trump is gonna do from day to day.

You have to admit... it's a pretty impressive "precision" message.

Was it? I mean. sure the Americans decided to blow some gak up and they did it like only they can. But I think most people know we're in a world where America can blow up any installation it wants to. In any theatre with American forces they can do it within minutes of making the decision.

This wouldn't have wowed anyone with what America can do. We know what it's military can do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:
That data wasn't really conclusive. What it showed was that in recent presidential elections (1996-onwards) over 50% (approx. 54% on average) of women voters voted Democrat and 54% of women voters voted for Hillary in 2016.

The data didn't show exactly why women voted for Clinton, but it still does a very good job of showing that Dreadclaw69's argument that women voted for Clinton because she's a women was junk. Afterall, if 54% of women voting for Clinton is evidence that it was just because Clinton is a women, then 55 and 56% of women must have voted for Obama just because he was a woman.

Prior to 2008 (1972-2004) the average % of women voting Democrat was just under 48% which is noticeably lower than the 54% that voted for Clinton in 2016.

Your stats there are a bit misleading, as the total is dragged down by the inclusion of some races where the Democratic vote was low in total, for both men and women. McGovern got just 38% of the vote not because he was or wasn't a women, but because he sucked. Same for Democrats in three elections in the 80s, and even in '92 Clinton won, but the vote was split 3 ways, giving a reduced share of both male and female votes. What is telling is that in all years the female democratic vote share exceeded the male, and in all races since 96 Democrats have won a majority of the female vote, even in defeats.

I don't think it matters why people vote for a given candidate. Well, it matters in terms of planning effective campaigns but there's no right or wrong reason to vote for a given candidate. Exercising your right to vote is a personal choice and you should vote for any candidate you want for whatever reason you want.

Oh no, there's plenty of stupid reasons to vote one way or another, and it is bad when this happens. It's probably worse when people don't vote at all, but that doesn't make stupid voting okay.

Although Clinton didn’t outright lose women, their relatively anemic support for her in key states played a role in her Electoral College demise. Preliminary exit polls Tuesday showed that her loss in Florida was driven, in part, by her poor performance among women in the state. She won them with only a 4-point margin, compared with 16 points in Colorado; 13 in New Hampshire and Pennsylvania; 11 in Michigan and Georgia; 10 in Wisconsin; and 8 in North Carolina.

An artillery spat that killed 1,000 people. Come on mate, you got it wrong. Don't stick your fingers in your ears, accept that you made a claim that wasn't true, and then we all move on.

I didn't get it wrong. Were you around during the Cold War? Why on earth do you think Iran is going head for heels for a nuke and that, once they do, the Gulf States will be mere months behind? Why do you think NK has nukes? China? Russia? Its so we don't stand off and obliterate them.

Simple games theory will denote that two major nuclear powers will escalate quickly if a shooting war starts. That was NATO's belief.

Anyone arguing otherwise is arguing from position without logic.

 Frazzled wrote:

An artillery spat that killed 1,000 people. Come on mate, you got it wrong. Don't stick your fingers in your ears, accept that you made a claim that wasn't true, and then we all move on.

I didn't get it wrong. Were you around during the Cold War? Why on earth do you think Iran is going head for heels for a nuke and that, once they do, the Gulf States will be mere months behind? Why do you think NK has nukes? China? Russia? Its so we don't stand off and obliterate them.

Simple games theory will denote that two major nuclear powers will escalate quickly if a shooting war starts. That was NATO's belief.

Anyone arguing otherwise is arguing from position without logic.

I maintain that nukes will not be used. No matter how rich Putin and Trump are (or pretend to be), they can't buy their way out of total nuclear annihilation.

I maintain that nukes will not be used. No matter how rich Putin and Trump are (or pretend to be), they can't buy their way out of total nuclear annihilation.

Thats cute but fething irrelevant. NATO theory continues to be that a conventional war between the US and Russia would lead to nuclear war.

Lets step back and assume it doesn't. Do you really want a war with Russia? How many Canadians died in WWII?

 Frazzled wrote:

I maintain that nukes will not be used. No matter how rich Putin and Trump are (or pretend to be), they can't buy their way out of total nuclear annihilation.

Thats cute but fething irrelevant. NATO theory continues to be that a conventional war between the US and Russia would lead to nuclear war.

NATO assumes that in the event of war between US and Russia, generals on both sides will say, "ya know what? Humanity's had a good run. the differing economic and political goals of our two governments is more important than all human existence until now."

Come on Frazz. This isn't a war of ideologies anymore. This is the ultra rich on each side of the Iron Curtain jockeying for a larger share of the pie. They will send millions of us to our deaths for their greed but they will not risk their own skin.

Lets step back and assume it doesn't. Do you really want a war with Russia? How many Canadians died in WWII?

I not sure when I said I was pro-war with Russia. I mean, the view from Texas's house is I have socialised medicine and that's basically Communist already.

But to make things clear: I am against war, in pretty much all cases. I am certainly against interfering in Syria.

 Ustrello wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Thats a good point. Could you return to the comment made earlier about people voting for Clinton because she's a woman? There was some data raised that rendered your claim false and I am interested to hear your response.

Which data was that?

D USA wrote it and it was speculated that you would ignore it and so far that seems to be holding true

Or it could have been, as it is in this case, a post that was merely overlooked. Now that my attention has been drawn to it would you be so kind as to post a link, or would you rather try to score cheap points?

Russia has no ability to stand against the US in a conventional conflict, much less NATO as a whole. The US has twice the population, many multiples more funding for the military, way better logistics, owns and manages the bulk of the core of worldwide telecom infrastructure,, and far more areas to operate from. If nothing else, look at the smoothe routine operation of multiple large US carrier battle groups versus Russia's one-off deployment of a small carrier force for a comparison.

Russia's only military option in a direct open conflict with the US and NATO is nuclear escalation, Russia does not have the capability to compete on any other capability in a large conventional conflict.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Russia has no ability to stand against the US in a conventional conflict, much less NATO as a whole. The US has twice the population, many multiples more funding for the military, way better logistics, owns and manages the bulk of the core of worldwide telecom infrastructure,, and far more areas to operate from. If nothing else, look at the smoothe routine operation of multiple large US carrier battle groups versus Russia's one-off deployment of a small carrier force for a comparison.

Russia's only military option in a direct open conflict with the US and NATO is nuclear escalation, Russia does not have the capability to compete on any other capability in a large conventional conflict.

Or hoping that they invade during winter

In Putin's Russia, winter invades you!

 sebster wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:
That data wasn't really conclusive. What it showed was that in recent presidential elections (1996-onwards) over 50% (approx. 54% on average) of women voters voted Democrat and 54% of women voters voted for Hillary in 2016.

The data didn't show exactly why women voted for Clinton, but it still does a very good job of showing that Dreadclaw69's argument that women voted for Clinton because she's a women was junk. Afterall, if 54% of women voting for Clinton is evidence that it was just because Clinton is a women, then 55 and 56% of women must have voted for Obama just because he was a woman.

Prior to 2008 (1972-2004) the average % of women voting Democrat was just under 48% which is noticeably lower than the 54% that voted for Clinton in 2016.

Your stats there are a bit misleading, as the total is dragged down by the inclusion of some races where the Democratic vote was low in total, for both men and women. McGovern got just 38% of the vote not because he was or wasn't a women, but because he sucked. Same for Democrats in three elections in the 80s, and even in '92 Clinton won, but the vote was split 3 ways, giving a reduced share of both male and female votes. What is telling is that in all years the female democratic vote share exceeded the male, and in all races since 96 Democrats have won a majority of the female vote, even in defeats.

I don't think it matters why people vote for a given candidate. Well, it matters in terms of planning effective campaigns but there's no right or wrong reason to vote for a given candidate. Exercising your right to vote is a personal choice and you should vote for any candidate you want for whatever reason you want.

Oh no, there's plenty of stupid reasons to vote one way or another, and it is bad when this happens. It's probably worse when people don't vote at all, but that doesn't make stupid voting okay.

Although Clinton didn’t outright lose women, their relatively anemic support for her in key states played a role in her Electoral College demise. Preliminary exit polls Tuesday showed that her loss in Florida was driven, in part, by her poor performance among women in the state. She won them with only a 4-point margin, compared with 16 points in Colorado; 13 in New Hampshire and Pennsylvania; 11 in Michigan and Georgia; 10 in Wisconsin; and 8 in North Carolina.

Your link was part of a series 538 did on showing the real split in the vote. Stronger than gender, strong than race, stronger even than income, the biggest predictor of a person's vote was their education. Trump said the uneducated love him. He wasn't wrong.

I think that there is no data that supports an assertion that women voters voted for Hillary Clinton just because she's a woman and that the charts posted didn't show any data that explains the reasoning behind the votes cast by women in previous elections.

The fact that President Obama isn't a woman and got a majority of the female vote doesn't mean that there wasn't a meaningful percentage of the female vote that voted for Hillary because she was a woman. How many women voted for Obama because he isn't white? How many women voted for Hillary because she isn't a man? The charts don't show why women voted Democrat only the percentage that chose to do so.

I don't see why a distinction between "good" and "bad" candidates needs to be made when looking at the chart showing the % of women who voted Democrat in recent presidential elections. The quality of a candidate is always going to be mostly an eye of the beholder issue, the Democratic Party is responsible for the candidates they nominate and if they choose nominees that don't appeal to women they have to accept those low turnouts from women same as they have to accept the nominees that do attract women voters. Cherry picking the "good" candidates for female voters is just going to create confirmation bias issues.

The only bad vote is not voting. We're free to vote so we all get to vote however we want. We can't try to impose conformity on the decision making process for individuals to exercise their freedom to choose their own representation in govt. People living different levels, in different places, with different opinions are going to have different reasons for voting the way they choose to vote and that's ok. I didn't vote for Trump because I couldn't think of a compelling reason to do so but tens of millions of my fellow citizens decided he was the best candidate in the primaries and general election so now he's PotUS. I don't know why they voted for Trump and it doesn't matter to me because I don't need to judge their reasoning, they did nothing wrong, they exercised their right to vote for the candidate of their choice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Russia has no ability to stand against the US in a conventional conflict, much less NATO as a whole. The US has twice the population, many multiples more funding for the military, way better logistics, owns and manages the bulk of the core of worldwide telecom infrastructure,, and far more areas to operate from. If nothing else, look at the smoothe routine operation of multiple large US carrier battle groups versus Russia's one-off deployment of a small carrier force for a comparison.

Russia's only military option in a direct open conflict with the US and NATO is nuclear escalation, Russia does not have the capability to compete on any other capability in a large conventional conflict.

Very true. However, Russia also has much shorter supply lines to Syria, a strong compelling interest to maintain strong ties and high levels of influence with Syria and a govt that can more easily ignore public objection to or lack of support for more military operations in the ME. Russia has an easier task, maintain enough influence in Syria to make sure that whomever is in charge of the country doesn't allow any pipelines to the EU that would compete with Gazprom to go through Syrian territory and allow the Russian to continue to operate their naval base in Tartus. We have the much tougher task of overthrowing the current Syrian regime, installing a new regime with which we could have a good relationship, restoring order to Syria, eliminating the destabilizing influences in Syria (which includes Russia and Iran as well as ISIS and AQ) and maintaining public support for such a military effort. Russia wins just by the US not being motivated enough to invade and occupy Syria.

 Ustrello wrote:
D USA wrote it and it was speculated that you would ignore it and so far that seems to be holding true

I actually found it and now I may comment on it.

What D said in response to my point about people only voting for Hilary because she was a woman was;

 d-usa wrote:
Looks like the "women voting for Clinton because she's a woman" effect was pretty mild, if even really statistically existing at all:

So what D said was that there were still people who voted for Hilary because she was a woman as the "effect was mild", not non-existent. In fact there were calls for women to vote for Hilary because of her gender;
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/giana-pacinelli/if-youre-a-woman-you-should-vote-for-hillary-clinton-for-president_b_10396106.html

This piece isn’t to bash Trump, but to justify the option of voting for Clinton on the basis that she represents women. Because a woman in office offers American women the protection that no other candidate has ever offered.

http://dailyfreepress.com/2016/10/06/kavanagh-im-voting-for-hillary-clinton-because-shes-a-woman/

I plan on voting to make America greater than it ever was by diversifying the nation’s leaders and electing the first female president. I’m voting for a woman … because she’s a woman.

At no point did I attempt to quantify how many women voted for Hilary. Other people erroneously read that into the plain and ordinary meaning of my words. It was merely enough for this particular argument that women voted for Hilary because she was a woman. Even D's evidence shows that, and his words show that he agrees with the point that I made.

So, I hope you are now happy that we have that addressed that post.

Meanwhile, it seems another step is made towards new hostilities;

http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/we-will-solve-the-problem-trumps-big-threat-to-north-korea/news-story/68936bf25f0f902dd52cd15cc4ce423e

‘We will solve the problem’: Trump’s big threat to North Korea
[
US PRESIDENT Donald Trump has issued a stern threat to North Korea, as the rogue nation’s state media warned that it would launch a nuclear attack on the US if provoked.

Ready to fight on two fronts? It's fun, you'll see. Too bad for "Warhawk Hillary".

On a lighter note, RBG with a bit of an unintentional moniker mishap...or was it?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ginsburg-refers-to-graham-as-one-of-the-women-of-the-senate/ar-BBzJ4fv?li=BBnbfcL&ocid=ASUDHP

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
D USA wrote it and it was speculated that you would ignore it and so far that seems to be holding true

I actually found it and now I may comment on it.

What D said in response to my point about people only voting for Hilary because she was a woman was;

 d-usa wrote:
Looks like the "women voting for Clinton because she's a woman" effect was pretty mild, if even really statistically existing at all:

So what D said was that there were still people who voted for Hilary because she was a woman as the "effect was mild", not non-existent. In fact there were calls for women to vote for Hilary because of her gender;
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/giana-pacinelli/if-youre-a-woman-you-should-vote-for-hillary-clinton-for-president_b_10396106.html

This piece isn’t to bash Trump, but to justify the option of voting for Clinton on the basis that she represents women. Because a woman in office offers American women the protection that no other candidate has ever offered.

http://dailyfreepress.com/2016/10/06/kavanagh-im-voting-for-hillary-clinton-because-shes-a-woman/

I plan on voting to make America greater than it ever was by diversifying the nation’s leaders and electing the first female president. I’m voting for a woman … because she’s a woman.

At no point did I attempt to quantify how many women voted for Hilary. Other people erroneously read that into the plain and ordinary meaning of my words. It was merely enough for this particular argument that women voted for Hilary because she was a woman. Even D's evidence shows that, and his words show that he agrees with the point that I made.

So, I hope you are now happy that we have that addressed that post.

Your statement was that the group of voters who voted based on Clinton's gender were toxic to the process overall, the counter argument was that there is no evidence which supports that group having a statistically relevant impact on the election. So I'm still waiting.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Your statement was that the group of voters who voted based on Clinton's gender were toxic to the process overall, the counter argument was that there is no evidence which supports that group having a statistically relevant impact on the election. So I'm still waiting.

Here is my statement, and the quote that directly preceded it;

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
The problem here is the use of the term "legitimate". This may have been a concern. It may have been the result of a causal chain of events. But no, nothing about this last election made voting on this single issue a "legitimate" act.

It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to say that in today's politics, single issue voters are socially toxic.

Like those people who voted for Hilary because she was a woman?

What I said does not mean what you would like it to mean.

It takes a significant leap of logic to go from "socially toxic" to "toxic to the process overall", as these are clearly two distinct propositions (social v political toxicity). Again I see no statement that I made quantifying the effects or volume of women who voted for Hilary because of her gender. If the counter point was meant to shift the goalposts and insert the notion of "a statistically relevant impact" into my argument and you then expect me to defend a position that I did not take then you are being dishonest.

There can be no "facts" regarding how many people voted for HRC solely because of her gender, just as we don't know how many people vote for Trump solely for his SC pick. Apart from self-identifying single issue voters like Breotan, we don't know the motivations of millions of voters. We can safely say there is a non-zero number of votes cast for HRC based solely on her gender, that's it. The rest is pointless bickering.

I identify as Orange American, so people can just make assumptions.

 Sarouan wrote:
Meanwhile, it seems another step is made towards new hostilities;

http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/we-will-solve-the-problem-trumps-big-threat-to-north-korea/news-story/68936bf25f0f902dd52cd15cc4ce423e

‘We will solve the problem’: Trump’s big threat to North Korea
[
US PRESIDENT Donald Trump has issued a stern threat to North Korea, as the rogue nation’s state media warned that it would launch a nuclear attack on the US if provoked.

Ready to fight on two fronts? It's fun, you'll see. Too bad for "Warhawk Hillary".

I can't help but wonder if Trump's unilateral missile strike on Syria and its subsequent general positive reception hasn't sent the wrong message to Trump, who is very approval driven. Launch a bunch of missiles = get good feedback is a pretty scary lesson, especially for someone who is embroiled in controversy and seems unable to organize his administration effectively. It also shows that Trump has no more loyalty to anti-interventionists than to Russia, no matter how much they wanted him to win

 feeder wrote:
There can be no "facts" regarding how many people voted for HRC solely because of her gender, just as we don't know how many people vote for Trump solely for his SC pick. Apart from self-identifying single issue voters like Breotan, we don't know the motivations of millions of voters. We can safely say there is a non-zero number of votes cast for HRC based solely on her gender, that's it. The rest is pointless bickering.

Which still supports my point, thank you.

 d-usa wrote:
I identify as Orange American, so people can just make assumptions.

Are you the Second Coming of Cheeto Jesus?

Spicer on Syria: “You had someone as despicable as Hitler who didn’t even sink to using chemical weapons…” pic.twitter.com/UN3JfRRg0w

— Bradd Jaffy (@BraddJaffy) April 11, 2017

Auschwitz would like to have a word with you:


Stop being too cute Spicer! Assad is BAD enough on his own!

Spicer... meet your:

...in your: