Thread: 2016 Democratic US Presidential Candidates

It looks like Bernie may give her a good run for her money - we'll see at the debate how serious it will get.
I do hope it all stays civil - the last thing that's needed is losing the moral high-ground vis-a-vis the Republican monobrows

Originally Posted by panama hat

It looks like Bernie may give her a good run for her money

He will in a few states but short of a miracle according to current polls, sadly, will be Hillary in a landslide.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stat...rimaries,_2016


Key:
Hillary Clinton 27 states + 5 shared
Bernie Sanders 3 states + 5 shared
No polling data in last six months 15 states & D.C

Originally Posted by panama hat

It looks like Bernie may give her a good run for her money - we'll see at the debate how serious it will get.
I do hope it all stays civil - the last thing that's needed is losing the moral high-ground vis-a-vis the Republican monobrows

It's good that the Democrat debates seem to be more about their respective positions on issues rather than the petty sniping on the clown show.

Bernie seems to have been the winner tonight, but it still isn't enough to get him the nomination.

However, there are plenty more debates left.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

However, there are plenty more debates left

Yep. Early days. Things can change from a sure thing to defeat as Hillary is well aware of.

Originally Posted by MrG

Originally Posted by longway

You are not bright enough to understand its not an argument against her, as its irrelevant, but a reference to the import she gives tosomething thst should be unimportant.

I understand that you're trying to make is so by attacking her on only that level. You call it an agrugument, but it's not an argument--not even a thought, really--to anyone who has the capacity to deal in even the simplst of concepts that don't involve a body part. She's a woman so she touts her support of issues that appeal to women. If there were not gender inequality it would not be necessary. You and your bum buddies seem to be threatened by the possibility that these issues can be discussed and resolved. But you want to be a man, so you support demagogary that makes you feel more like a man--calling people by their sexual parts. Why don't you be a real man and address real issues with real thoughts instead of you puerile school boy obsessions.

She does not bring up any issues that are real, the 'gender' pay gap does not exist, it's been easily and amply refuted earlier in the thread it's simply a lie. As I have said a dozen times already, calling her vagina 911 is not an argument against her, it's a reference to the central position of her vagina in her bid for office. You have all already admitted she running a sexist campaign.

Originally Posted by david44

Tipper is in his eyrie, longway reflects the present state of the union

Classic as always. Can't green you for whatever reason.

Originally Posted by longway

She does not bring up any issues that are real, the 'gender' pay gap does not exist, it's been easily and amply refuted earlier in the thread it's simply a lie.

No it wasn't, and no it isn't. You posted some statistics and I and others posted plenty more that refuted it.





http://time.com/money/4009768/wage-g...men-equal-pay/




And so on.

I would hope that Hilly's winning team will show the good grace, plurality and inclusivity to offer Bernie an appropriate role in the future Clinton administration (Mk2). Frankly, that is the best I can pragmatically hope for- but will it be the case? I wonder. She doesn't seem the nicest person, to me.

It will certainly be an interesting comparison to Obama's magnanimity in granting the important Secretary of State role to his defeated rival, one Hillary Clinton.

Originally Posted by longway

none of this teddies anything. there is an earnings gap between men and women which is entirely due to the choices they make. Worn typically work less over the course of their worming lives for example. It's illegal to discriminate in pay and if women were really working for less market forces would even out the difference over a proud of a few years. It's patent nonsense. You yourself posted that differential is at most 95 cents in the dollar once hours worked and professions,are taken into account.

In fact now women earn more than men until the age of 35, the earnings gap only appears after thst, so it's pretty obvious there is no discrimination against women.

Sorry, all I heard was an opinionated and unsubstantiated "blah blah blah".

Originally Posted by sabang

I would hope that Hilly's winning team will show the good grace, plurality and inclusivity to offer Bernie an appropriate role in the future Clinton administration

I hope she doesn't or does and Bernie knocks it back - he's more valuable in the senate

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by longway

none of this teddies anything. there is an earnings gap between men and women which is entirely due to the choices they make. Worn typically work less over the course of their worming lives for example. It's illegal to discriminate in pay and if women were really working for less market forces would even out the difference over a proud of a few years. It's patent nonsense. You yourself posted that differential is at most 95 cents in the dollar once hours worked and professions,are taken into account.

In fact now women earn more than men until the age of 35, the earnings gap only appears after thst, so it's pretty obvious there is no discrimination against women.

Sorry, all I heard was an opinionated and unsubstantiated "blah blah blah".

l

You can just read your own post where you conclusively demonstrated that a 'gender' wage gap is no more than a few cents at most, once variables like experience and hours worked were accounted.

Anyway you cant hear much with your head stuck up your own ass.

Originally Posted by longway

the 'gender' pay gap does not exist

Originally Posted by longway

a 'gender' wage gap is no more than a few cents at most

So first you declare there is no gap but now concede there is one, albeit a small one in your opinion.

It's progress I suppose.

Congratulations, you'll get there eventually!

Originally Posted by longway

You can just read your own post where you conclusively demonstrated that a 'gender' wage gap is no more than a few cents at most, once variables like experience and hours worked were accounted.

Umm, you do understand the concept of per-'cent'? As for the rest of your sentence . . . looks like this applies to you:

Originally Posted by longway

Anyway you cant hear much with your head stuck up your own ass.

^^ if its arguing about whether a few cents can be considered real or just an artefact, i cant be bothered to argue sbout it, however what has been conclusively demonstrated that popularly bandied about figures of 20% is deliberate misinformation.

Originally Posted by longway

if its arguing about whether a few cents can be considered real or just an artefact, i cant be bothered to argue sbout it, however what has been conclusively demonstrated that popularly bandied about figures of 20% is deliberate misinformation.

Maybe, I don't know what the actual figure is or even if it can be stated at a set point. It may for instance be 20% in one industry but five percent in another. Point is that it exists.

And if '20%' is 'deliberate misinformation' then so is 'no more than a few cents at most'.

^ there is no 'gender' wage gap, so it cant be set as anything. The 79% figure you see from the graph is just mens and womens earnings averaged over a lifetime.

This is figure is deliberately used to try and make people believe that women get less than men for the same job.

There is definitely an earnings gap, but once you account for different working patterns for men and women the gap vanishes, it exists at most as a few cents in the dollar, you can find a similar gap, depending on how the data is broken down between tall and short people.

If people want to talk about a 'gender' wage gap of a 2-4 cents in a dollar, then i wont dispute it, but its very hard to determine the cause of that gap as its so small.

If yoh look at cuurent trends you will find that average earnings as in the graph for people under the age of 35, you will find that the 'gender' wage gap is flipped and women outearn the men by a few percent, i think it can be upto 8%. After that age the trend reverses again and men outearn the women on average.

However can you really say this reflects discrimination against men under 35 and women over 35? It simply cannot be used for such a claim.

Originally Posted by longway

^^ if its arguing about whether a few cents can be considered real or just an artefact, i cant be bothered to argue sbout it, however what has been conclusively demonstrated that popularly bandied about figures of 20% is deliberate misinformation.

And again, you're inventing fallacies to try and win arguments.

Give it up FFS it's boring.

It's acknowledged by both parties that there is a gender gap.

There is only one woman running, and she's raising it as an issue to get female votes.

Fuck me, you'd think this is rocket science the way you go on.

Besides which the GOP don't seem to think it's an issue because they blocked the last attempt at legislation against it.

So who needs to campaign for female votes?

Originally Posted by longway

the 'gender' pay gap does not exist

Originally Posted by longway

a 'gender' wage gap is no more than a few cents at most

Originally Posted by longway

there is no 'gender' wage gap

There isn't, there is, there isn't... Make up your mind!

Whatever decision you finally come to just be aware that there actually is a proven gender pay gap.

A picture is indeed worth a thousand words. The state on the Clinton campaign can be summed up by this pic of poor little Bill.

Christmas jumpers, every man's worst nightmare the world over.

With 84% of the vote in, a virtual dead heat. Clinton 50%, Sanders 49%. O'Malley says he will drop out.