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.

Is it actually wrong for women to vote for a female candidate?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Is it actually wrong for women to vote for a female candidate?

Evidently quite a few thought it was, at least THAT female candidate.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Is it actually wrong for women to vote for a female candidate?

Of course not, but the question posed was that single issue voters are socially toxic. If that single issue for pertectin' mah shootin' irons or possessing a vagina, it's still a single issue.

 whembly wrote:

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:

Spoiler:

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

Spicer... meet your:

Spoiler:

...in your:

Spoiler:

Ignorant mouthpiece for an ignorant hairpiece...it's appropriate. Here's a bit more on that relevant "derp" from Spicer.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/spicer-even-hitler-didnt-use-chemical-weapons/ar-BBzJamK?ocid=ASUDHP

 feeder wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Is it actually wrong for women to vote for a female candidate?

Of course not, but the question posed was that single issue voters are socially toxic. If that single issue for pertectin' mah shootin' irons or possessing a vagina, it's still a single issue.

The obvious difference being one motivates a significant bloc of the electorate and the other one is anecdotal, at best.

I would argue that single issues are only a problem to the degree that they are used as a cover for bad policy and do not reflect a compelling problem. For example, slavery, civil rights, and global war involvement are legitimate single issue motivators. Fictional threats to gun ownership, the "homosexual agenda", and nativist rhetoric in the guise of "preventing terrorism" do not rise to that level and represent the worst kind of dishonesty by politicians engaging in fear mongering and appeals to ignorance. It may work in the short term, but it also gets you "leaders" like Trump and partisans who defend him even when he acts erratically.

True... but some single issue voters can be identified. (as Breotan anecdotally suggested)

According to ABC exit poll:

Supreme Court

Nationally, 21 percent of voters call appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court “the most important factor” in their decision, preliminary exit polls indicate...These voters overwhelmingly favor Trump, 57 to 40 percent

...I guess my point is that 'single issue voters' do exist, and sometimes can play a big role in a particular election. Ie, like peeps voting for Trumps due to SCoTUS.

 whembly wrote:

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:

Spoiler:

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

And, not only that, the only reason they didn't use chemical weapons in actual warfare is because they didn't want to get hit by them in retribution.

Well, more to the point, chemical weapons just arent worth thr effort. Theyre expensive and tricky to deploy even without retaliation, require extensive preparations for retaliation, with those preparations in place everything else becomes less effective even if the gas doesnt kill anyone, and quite frankly gas just isnt all that tremendously effective, conventional weapons generally actually are more effective at killing people and are much easier and cheaper to deploy.

This makes it relatively easy to decide against deploying them. If they really did work as well as people imagine they worked, they would absolutely be used.

And a nice bit of a real time chat with someone defending the Spicer comment:

bdcorvette: I suspect that The Frank Center understands the nature of Spicer's misstatement. Hitler never considered Jews, gypsies, or other minorities, to be German. Much ado about nothing. Spicer's point, though not well stated, is true. The Frank Center will show what side of the political spectrum it is on by how it reacts to my common sense statement.

Zincwarrior: Its not what Hitler considered them to be its the fact he gassed millions of people.

Gislef: Except Spicer didn't use the word "gassed," or claim that Hitler didn't gas millions of Jews.

He said that Hitler didn't use "chemical weapons." A cylinder of gas with a hose running to a ventilator vent is many things, but pretty much no one would call it a "weapon."

Zincwarrior : So now you're arguing Zyklon B is not a weapon. Gotcha.

Spicier just needs to realize that it was an epic fail and admit he flubbed it.

That's what happens when he tries to answer the questions w/o thinking...

As much hate as I've heaped in Bush II, that I still feel is deserved, I cannot imagine a Snow or Fleischer or any of the others making these kinds of errors on such a routine basis and being so incapable of managing it when booboos did happen.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Is it actually wrong for women to vote for a female candidate?

To me it's somewhat similar to Obama, and my answer is "I just don't know".

I know the whole "this is America, anybody can grow up to become President" is something kids always hear. And I, a white guy, could theoretically become President at some point. And of course so could the black guy, the asian woman, the transsexual Albino Muslim, and any other person legally qualified American. But I'm a white guy, I could become President, and in 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012, and 2016 I always had the ability to vote for someone who looked like me and who was a white guy just like me. In my first two elections I could pick between two white guys like me, and in the other elections "white guy" was one of my options. So after growing up and hearing "d-usa, you could be President someday" there was always someone like me who was in the POTUS FInals.

I didn't vote for the "white guy like me" in 2 out of the 5 elections, but it's always been an option available for me. But in all honesty I have no idea what it must feel like to spend your entire life being told "you could become President someday" and never seeing someone like you make it to the White House, let alone the POTUS Finals. I don't know what it must feel like for people to go from segregation to being able to vote for Obama. I don't know what it must feel like for people to be exposed to sexism and a male dominated culture to being able to vote for Hillary. I have no idea what could be going through someones head and see "I have been told all my life that I could be President someday, and now someone like me could actually become President."

And I honestly don't know if that makes them a bad voter or not. There are so many single issue voters out there, so are these people just another single issue voter? Do the life experiences of these people make their stance on this single issue of "I've never been able to vote for an [gender/race/whatever] candidate before, and I might never be able to vote for one again" make them bad voters? Presidents get bumps from many different groups for being a member of that group, like "he's from this state, like me", "he graduated from XYZ, just like me", "he was in this fraternity, just like me", and "he served in the military, just like me". Is this just another one of those things or is it more?

I agree that it is something that can happen, but I don't think it's statistically significant, and I don't know if I can judge someone for doing it because I've never experienced what they may be feeling at that point.

 whembly wrote:


Spicier just needs to realize that it was an epic fail and admit he flubbed it.

That's what happens when he tries to answer the questions w/o thinking...

I was about to dog pile that comment, but some times the shots at this administration are just too fething easy.

And, of course, one has to wonder what the ratio of eligible voters that would say, "eww, a person of different ethinicity / gender to me is in the running for the white house, we can't have that."

Oh Spicey, what are you doing man? At this point i think Melissa Mccarthey dressed as Sean Spicer would be doing a better job

And it's only Tuesday...

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Oh Spicey, what are you doing man? At this point i think Melissa Mccarthey dressed as Sean Spicer would be doing a better job

Can't wait for this week's SNL.

 d-usa wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Is it actually wrong for women to vote for a female candidate?

To me it's somewhat similar to Obama, and my answer is "I just don't know".

I know the whole "this is America, anybody can grow up to become President" is something kids always hear. And I, a white guy, could theoretically become President at some point. And of course so could the black guy, the asian woman, the transsexual Albino Muslim, and any other person legally qualified American. But I'm a white guy, I could become President, and in 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012, and 2016 I always had the ability to vote for someone who looked like me and who was a white guy just like me. In my first two elections I could pick between two white guys like me, and in the other elections "white guy" was one of my options. So after growing up and hearing "d-usa, you could be President someday" there was always someone like me who was in the POTUS FInals.

I didn't vote for the "white guy like me" in 2 out of the 5 elections, but it's always been an option available for me. But in all honesty I have no idea what it must feel like to spend your entire life being told "you could become President someday" and never seeing someone like you make it to the White House, let alone the POTUS Finals. I don't know what it must feel like for people to go from segregation to being able to vote for Obama. I don't know what it must feel like for people to be exposed to sexism and a male dominated culture to being able to vote for Hillary. I have no idea what could be going through someones head and see "I have been told all my life that I could be President someday, and now someone like me could actually become President."

And I honestly don't know if that makes them a bad voter or not. There are so many single issue voters out there, so are these people just another single issue voter? Do the life experiences of these people make their stance on this single issue of "I've never been able to vote for an [gender/race/whatever] candidate before, and I might never be able to vote for one again" make them bad voters? Presidents get bumps from many different groups for being a member of that group, like "he's from this state, like me", "he graduated from XYZ, just like me", "he was in this fraternity, just like me", and "he served in the military, just like me". Is this just another one of those things or is it more?

I agree that it is something that can happen, but I don't think it's statistically significant, and I don't know if I can judge someone for doing it because I've never experienced what they may be feeling at that point.

I'm with you on that. It really is hard to know.
It's like something I mentioned awhile back during the election: If Hillary won, then it proves a woman can be President. If Trump won, then it proves a woman who had been a model (even a nude model) can still be First Lady. Both of these are things that would never have happened 20 years ago, so there was still a positive message in all of this.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 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.

My words don't mean what you would like them to mean. Can you defend the notion that the group of people who voted for Hillary based on gender were toxic to politics or not?

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
My words don't mean what you would like them to mean. Can you defend the notion that the group of people who voted for Hillary based on gender were toxic to politics or not?

I do not know why you insist upon making me defend an argument I have not made. Someone asked if single issue voters were socially toxic (again, not politically toxic)and in return I asked whether the same could be said for those who voted for Hilary based on her gender. Since then it has been incorrectly read that I made a statement that people voting based on gender were toxic to politics, and that I had tried to demonstrate that there was a statistically significant number of people who voted for Hilary based on her gender (and the hilariously bad argument that comparing Trump and Hilary on Syria was somehow scapegoating her).

I am sorry that you mis-read what I wrote but that fault lies with you, not I. There is nothing further to discuss on this matter. You have been shown to be demonstrably incorrect, and now that the record has been corrected I intend to move on.

I honestly think that Sean Spicer has no fething clue how the Holocaust was carried out. He just said that people were taken to the "Holocaust centre".

And when you are arguing that your comment was technically correct because one person dropped gas from planes whilst the other rounded up millions of people, stuffed them into train carriages so tightly that they often suffocated or died of heat stroke on the way to the extermination camps before being packed into a shower and had gas pumped in for thirty minutes then it is time to just say you got it wrong, resign and shut the feth up.

The Jews weren't German, so Hitler didn't gas his own people.

I guess...

 d-usa wrote:
The Jews weren't German, so Hitler didn't gas his own people.

I guess...

Indeed, if only Hitler hadn't also gone after the communists, homosexuals, the disabled, gypsies, Slavs etc. the White House might even start approaching something resembling the realities of the Holocaust.

 d-usa wrote:
The Jews weren't German, so Hitler didn't gas his own people.

I guess...

Between 160,000 and 180,000 German Jews died in the Holocaust, including most of those Jews deported out of Germany during the war years. So, there's that...

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
The Jews weren't German, so Hitler didn't gas his own people.

I guess...

Between 160,000 and 180,000 German Jews died in the Holocaust, including most of those Jews deported out of Germany during the war years. So, there's that...

Those were Alternative Germans?

I don't know what he's smoking, but he needs to start sharing.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
My words don't mean what you would like them to mean. Can you defend the notion that the group of people who voted for Hillary based on gender were toxic to politics or not?

I do not know why you insist upon making me defend an argument I have not made. Someone asked if single issue voters were socially toxic (again, not politically toxic)and in return I asked whether the same could be said for those who voted for Hilary based on her gender. Since then it has been incorrectly read that I made a statement that people voting based on gender were toxic to politics, and that I had tried to demonstrate that there was a statistically significant number of people who voted for Hilary based on her gender (and the hilariously bad argument that comparing Trump and Hilary on Syria was somehow scapegoating her).

I am sorry that you mis-read what I wrote but that fault lies with you, not I. There is nothing further to discuss on this matter. You have been shown to be demonstrably incorrect, and now that the record has been corrected I intend to move on.

Ohh, it was an honest question. Normally when a question starts off with "Like..." people assume its rhetorical; a statement phrased as a question rather than a genuine inquiry. Apologies for the misunderstanding, in the future saying what your post was rather than what it was not will probably get the message across much faster.

 Frazzled wrote:
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.

You said a conflict between 'superpowers' would escalate to nuclear weapons within a month or two. I pointed out that while India and Pakistan aren't super powers, they were certainly both nuclear powers that broke out in to open fighting. You attempted to claim that was an artillery spat, presumably because you were unaware that Pakistan occupied Indian territory and the subsequent fighting caused 1,000 casualties. In response to this, you reply by just not mentioning the war between India and Pakistan, instead you point out that countries want nukes. Which is true, but completely meaningless to whether a conflict between such powers will lead to nukes within months.

Have given that non-response to the India/Pakistan conflict not escalating, you then just go back to repeating your initial claim that fighting will always escalate because theoretical models say it will.

So basically your argument is to take an absolute position based on theoretical modelling and then ignore real world evidence when it is given to you. That's really not a great way to go about things.

So far, of the 82 days of Trump’s presidency, 21 of them have been spent at Mar-a-Lago...that's right taxpayers, that's over 1/4 of his presidency so far that's been used to directly pad his own pockets and seventeen of them have been spent on the golf course. And some people wonder, "Why the hate?".

http://wncn.com/2017/04/11/nc-bill-looks-to-ban-gay-marriage/

RALEIGH, N.C. (WNCN) – A bill filed by three Republican lawmakers looks to ban gay marriage in North Carolina.

The “Uphold Historical Marriage Act” says the U.S. Supreme Court over stepped its “constitutional bounds” when in 2015 it struck down what was known as Amendment One.

In May 2012, more than 60 percent of those who cast a ballot voted in favor of Amendment One, that prohibited North Carolina from recognizing or performing same-sex marriages or civil unions.

Rep. Larry Pittman (R-Cabarrus), Rep. Michael Speciale (R-Beaufort) and Rep. Carl Ford (R-Cabarrus) are the primary sponsors of House Bill 780.

The bill says the Supreme Court not only overstepped their power in North Carolina but also overstepped the “the decree of Almighty God that ‘a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become 22 one flesh. (Genesis 2:24, ESV)'”

HB780 would make the Supreme Court’s decision on gay marriage void in North Carolina. The bill states marriages between persons of the same gender would not be valid, whether conducted inside or outside of the state.

One of the sponsors of the bill, Michael Speciale said he is only looking to return North Carolina state law to what it was before the U.S. Supreme Court got involved.

“Ideally the people who make laws would be helping to make the situation around discrimination better instead of perpetuating it,” said Ames Simmons.

Ames Simmons is the director of Transgender Police with Equality North Carolina.

He says he thinks the bill is only meant to be symbolic.

“There’s no way in modern society that a law (like) this would pass,” said Simmons.

“While people legitimately can disagree with the supreme court’s gay marriage decision a state legislature cannot overrule the supreme court’s interpretation of the federal constitution, ”said Greg Wallace, a professor of law at Campbell University.

He says any time federal law and state law conflict – federal law wins.

“If this bill were to become law it would be declared unconstitutional,” he said.

Several groups responded to the bill on Tuesday including Governor Roy Cooper who said: “ The bill is wrong. We need more LGBT protections, not fewer.”

CBS North Carolina reached out to each sponsor of the bill for comment and heard nothing.

As well as the GOP and North Carolina Values Commission for comment but no one could provide one.

Holy carp NC, this is some weapon's-grade crazy.

Prestor Jon wrote:
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.

Sure, but there's more than a little common sense we can apply here. I mean, if a team brings in a new player and they win 75% of their games, people might conclude the new player caused a lot of their wins. But if we look at the previous season and see the team won 75% of their games in that year as well, then it becomes a pretty clear default assumption that the new player added little to the team. Now, there might be other factors at play, other changes to the playing list etc, but absent other information we have a pretty strong base argument. The same is true with Clinton, Democrats went from a male candidate to a female candidate, and won pretty much exactly the same share of the female vote. It becomes a pretty safe assumption, absent other information, that the gender of the Democratic candidate made no difference.

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.

Because when Democrats put up a candidate who got 45% of the female vote, and only 40% of the vote overall, it is misleading to include that 45% as an average in comparison to a year when a Democrat got 52% of the vote. It sets up a misleading comparison.

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.

People have fetishised choice to the point where they don't even want to consider that some people's choices are more considered than others. It actually really does matter how much you think about your vote, and what information you use to reach your conclusion.

This isn't about who a person votes for, but why. Consider a person who votes Democrat because their family are Democratic voters and for no other reason. Or a person who voted for Johnson because they got confused and thought it was that Nader fellow who ran in past elections.

Every vote is equal, but not every vote is equally considered. Telling people their decision making is always okay gives people free reign to hold any stupid idea that pleases themselves, and then inflict that on everyone else at the ballot box. There needs to be a culture that expects people to be reasonably informed about the government of their country.

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.

Yep, he won the election and now he's president. I'm not saying in any way shape or form that because lots of people voted for Trump for stupid reasons it challenges his legitimacy as president.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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.

While we can't know for certain exactly why lots of people voted, we can observe overall voting patterns. For instance, we can observe that during poor economic times the incumbent party tends to lose. We have no mass surveys in which a large number of respondents have said 'I am voting against the incumbent party because they angered the economic gods', we can still the overall pattern and make a fairly sound conclusion that the two are related.

Similarly, if a party runs a female candidate, and picks up the same % of the female vote as in previous elections, then we can say results indicate that women aren't more likely to vote for a female candidate. It isn't conclusive, but it's a pretty safe starting point.

It certainly wouldn't be possible to see that evidence and continue to claim that women vote for a female candidate, based on two people writing opinion pieces about their own voting preferences in on-line magazines. That's quite clearly ridiculous.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:


Spicier just needs to realize that it was an epic fail and admit he flubbed it.

That's what happens when he tries to answer the questions w/o thinking...

In a lot of ways I feel bad for Spicer. I've been in jobs where the leadership above me ran in crisis mode, and left me answering questions on policies that often hadn't been thought through, or hadn't been properly explained to people at my level. Being left to wing it and try to present a half prepared, barely communicated strategy is my idea of hell.

However, the way Spicer's gone about this, particularly the aggression he's shown towards some pretty ordinary questions, but also the manipulation he's attempted by shutting out some major news orgs while bringing in a whole bunch of friendly fringe publications... well ultimately that means I'm quite enjoying Spicer have to squirm.

As to the actual seriousness of what he said... meh.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
To me it's somewhat similar to Obama, and my answer is "I just don't know".

I know the whole "this is America, anybody can grow up to become President" is something kids always hear. And I, a white guy, could theoretically become President at some point. And of course so could the black guy, the asian woman, the transsexual Albino Muslim, and any other person legally qualified American. But I'm a white guy, I could become President, and in 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012, and 2016 I always had the ability to vote for someone who looked like me and who was a white guy just like me. In my first two elections I could pick between two white guys like me, and in the other elections "white guy" was one of my options. So after growing up and hearing "d-usa, you could be President someday" there was always someone like me who was in the POTUS FInals.

I find this quite interesting, mostly because it's quite alien to me. Here in Australia its basically no-one's aspiration to be Prime Minister.