Thread: 2016 Democratic US Presidential Candidates

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by RPETER65

You are using percentages of people voted into positions as comparables for gender discrimination, what do you suggest rules on who one can vote for based on percentages of men and women in those positions, maybe a law demanding every other presidential term has to be a women.

I didn't suggest any rules.

I simply pointed out the facts.

It's up to the parties themselves to start picking female candidates on merit, rather than their mates on a dodgy handshake.

Of course women can help in this by getting out and voting for pro-equality candidates - i.e. not Republicans.

No you didn't suggest any rules but the subject you picked as an example is not only rediculouse it would also require some pretty strict rules. Maybe you should have picked something from the occupational field as an example, at least it would have made some sense, but the truth is the imaginary gender gap is just that and used for political purposes to stir up the female voters.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Well that is not what I read, the national statistics on the wage gap between men and women lump all catagories together and come up with a median wage for both men and women.

You read incorrectly then - why not quote or cite the 'findings'.

Come on, rpeters, even to you it must sound odd to do that. Wouldn't it make more sense to take a man and a woman in a like-job and compare it? Then do it again in other jobs?

It is completely irrelevant what you come up with regarding which jobs are primarily filled by whom, I would suggest

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by RPETER65

You are using percentages of people voted into positions as comparables for gender discrimination, what do you suggest rules on who one can vote for based on percentages of men and women in those positions, maybe a law demanding every other presidential term has to be a women.

I didn't suggest any rules.

I simply pointed out the facts.

It's up to the parties themselves to start picking female candidates on merit, rather than their mates on a dodgy handshake.

Of course women can help in this by getting out and voting for pro-equality candidates - i.e. not Republicans.

No you didn't suggest any rules but the subject you picked as an example is not only rediculouse it would also require some pretty strict rules. Maybe you should have picked something from the occupational field as an example, at least it would have made some sense, but the truth is the imaginary gender gap is just that and used for political purposes to stir up the female voters.

You are living proof why women are starting to realise that Republicans don't have a fucking clue.

"Imaginary"?

Figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics can be found here:

Median weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers by detailed occupation and sex

I would suggest you look through them, they are quite comprehensive.

When John McCain chose Sarah Palin as his running mate was that sexism, Norton? Longway"

Originally Posted by panama hat

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Well that is not what I read, the national statistics on the wage gap between men and women lump all catagories together and come up with a median wage for both men and women.

You read incorrectly then - why not quote or cite the 'findings'.

Come on, rpeters, even to you it must sound odd to do that. Wouldn't it make more sense to take a man and a woman in a like-job and compare it? Then do it again in other jobs?

It is completely irrelevant what you come up with regarding which jobs are primarily filled by whom, I would suggest

Come on empty hat catch up, read post 3445

Originally Posted by Humbert

When John McCain chose Sarah Palin as his running mate was that sexism, Norton? Longway"

That was politics.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by RPETER65

You are using percentages of people voted into positions as comparables for gender discrimination, what do you suggest rules on who one can vote for based on percentages of men and women in those positions, maybe a law demanding every other presidential term has to be a women.

I didn't suggest any rules.

I simply pointed out the facts.

It's up to the parties themselves to start picking female candidates on merit, rather than their mates on a dodgy handshake.

Of course women can help in this by getting out and voting for pro-equality candidates - i.e. not Republicans.

No you didn't suggest any rules but the subject you picked as an example is not only rediculouse it would also require some pretty strict rules. Maybe you should have picked something from the occupational field as an example, at least it would have made some sense, but the truth is the imaginary gender gap is just that and used for political purposes to stir up the female voters.

You are living proof why women are starting to realise that Republicans don't have a fucking clue.

"Imaginary"?

Figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics can be found here:

Median weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers by detailed occupation and sex

I would suggest you look through them, they are quite comprehensive.

Averages mean nothing other than reflect personal choices and desire to be rich. Some people are career obsessed money grubs, some are not. Some people trade off looks or connections, others get dealt worse cards.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by RPETER65

You are using percentages of people voted into positions as comparables for gender discrimination, what do you suggest rules on who one can vote for based on percentages of men and women in those positions, maybe a law demanding every other presidential term has to be a women.

I didn't suggest any rules.

I simply pointed out the facts.

It's up to the parties themselves to start picking female candidates on merit, rather than their mates on a dodgy handshake.

Of course women can help in this by getting out and voting for pro-equality candidates - i.e. not Republicans.

No you didn't suggest any rules but the subject you picked as an example is not only rediculouse it would also require some pretty strict rules. Maybe you should have picked something from the occupational field as an example, at least it would have made some sense, but the truth is the imaginary gender gap is just that and used for political purposes to stir up the female voters.

You are living proof why women are starting to realise that Republicans don't have a fucking clue.

"Imaginary"?

Figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics can be found here:

Median weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers by detailed occupation and sex

I would suggest you look through them, they are quite comprehensive.

I would suggest you read post 3445. Now I have to go watch the Voice don't bother me with your bs.

Your capacity to ignore facts that don't suit your opinions is quite impressive. And by that I mean silly.

Originally Posted by Humbert

Norton?

I don't believe I said anything about sexism but certainly McCain thought she would bring in a few female votes.

Other than that I don't know what the hell he was thinking.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Your capacity to ignore facts that don't suit your opinions is quite impressive. And by that I mean silly.

Buddy, men are more greedy than women. In 1000 yrs time it will still be men.

Originally Posted by baconandeggs

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Your capacity to ignore facts that don't suit your opinions is quite impressive. And by that I mean silly.

Buddy, men are more greedy than women. In 1000 yrs time it will still be men.

I'm not quite sure if that's either a valid statement or what it has to do with anything.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

I would suggest you read post 3445. Now I have to go watch the Voice don't bother me with your bs.

Yes, going and watch your brainless trash TV, it seems to be at about the peak of your intellectual level.

Originally Posted by baconandeggs

Averages mean nothing other than reflect personal choices and desire to be rich.

No wonder you have so many reds. You talk bollocks.

But you know, if you want to provide some kind of evidence to back up your hare-brained theory, carry on.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics can be found here:

Median weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers by detailed occupation and sex

I would suggest you look through them, they are quite comprehensive.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Come on empty hat catch up, read post 3445

Originally Posted by RPETER65

I would suggest you read post 3445

Do 'they' allow you to have a license? You know, to drive a car?

Please do click on the link provided by Harry, it's by some small organisation called the Bureau of Labor Statistics

Originally Posted by panama hat

Originally Posted by longway

The fuckwits are back

Originally Posted by longway

what a pair of wankers

Originally Posted by longway

The call me names fuckwits just dont let up do they?

Originally Posted by longway

Empty hat and no trousers

Originally Posted by longway

his idiot friend

Originally Posted by longway

empty hat

Originally Posted by longway

you 2 fuckwits

Quality - all this in just three posts. Impressive

Yeah...he's a thinker alright.

This is getting bloody funny.

Panam lost his marbles 6 years old and after that idea of terrorism with Nev against US and UK - bomb the tube - took over his remainig 2 brain cells. We see your camel right now babe.

Originally Posted by MrG

Originally Posted by panama hat

Originally Posted by longway

The fuckwits are back

Originally Posted by longway

what a pair of wankers

Originally Posted by longway

The call me names fuckwits just dont let up do they?

Originally Posted by longway

his idiot friend

Originally Posted by longway

empty hat

Originally Posted by longway

you 2 fuckwits

Quality - all this in just three posts. Impressive

Yeah...he's a thinker alright.

^
Articulate, too.

Oh, yes. Imagine if Exit Strategy and longway would reproduce . . . the lovechild would be something else.

Originally Posted by longway

and i am pointing out that shillary's campaign is based on sexism, ie people should vote for her simply because she is a woman, you yourself pointed out she is supposed to bring something different than a man, if that is not sexsim then what is?

If she is using sexism to gain votes, is it not hypocritical to call out people who use her sex against her for sexsim. both sides are sexist, that is my point.

Her campaign is not based on sexism. She pushes for agenda important for women and families which men do not see as important. If she were a man doing the same, she would get women's votes.

Originally Posted by longway

as for your poor old grandmother, men did do something about it, the equal pay act was enacted in 1972 and it has been illegal ever since then for any company to discriminate on pay based on sex or race.

the so called gender (actually gender is the wrong word) pay gap has been debunked a long time ago, its one of shillary's fake problems she will pretend to solve, it doesnt exist. there is however a 'gender' work gap that explains the entire issue.

Not my grandmother, my mother and this was around 1972 and continued beyond in the US South where it is very conservative and slow to change. What you or Sowell state is not what I and other women actually experienced. I will not go into anecdotal evidence here only to say I left the parochial South for California and there was a world of difference in how women were paid and treated at work.

There is evidence of a 'gender' gap now presented on this thread. Until last year many employers had wage secrecy clauses on their employment contracts to keep employees from discussing their pay. This protected employers from law suits brought up by women for unequal pay.

Originally Posted by longway

btw did you ever wonder why an employer would pay one worker more than another worker, if they did the same job? do you really think they would fork out more cash unless there was a discernable difference between the 2? why not just hire another woman and pay her less too? why get an expensive man?

No, I don't wonder why. I have heard the reasons straight from an employer's mouth.


I have to laugh. One thing this exchange between you and I is doing is making me less distressed at having to vote for Clinton as a second choice to Sanders.

Originally Posted by misskit

There is evidence of a 'gender' gap now presented on this thread

Of course there is and if people like rpeters and longway can't see it then it is a problem they have.
Actually, the gender pay gap is heavily in favour of women, don't you know.

When Fiorina was the big boss at HP she earned more than the barista around the corner . . .
Disgusting

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by RPETER65

You are using percentages of people voted into positions as comparables for gender discrimination, what do you suggest rules on who one can vote for based on percentages of men and women in those positions, maybe a law demanding every other presidential term has to be a women.

I didn't suggest any rules.

I simply pointed out the facts.

It's up to the parties themselves to start picking female candidates on merit, rather than their mates on a dodgy handshake.

Of course women can help in this by getting out and voting for pro-equality candidates - i.e. not Republicans.

No you didn't suggest any rules but the subject you picked as an example is not only rediculouse it would also require some pretty strict rules. Maybe you should have picked something from the occupational field as an example, at least it would have made some sense, but the truth is the imaginary gender gap is just that and used for political purposes to stir up the female voters.

You are living proof why women are starting to realise that Republicans don't have a fucking clue.

"Imaginary"?

Figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics can be found here:

Median weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers by detailed occupation and sex

I would suggest you look through them, they are quite comprehensive.

I see they left out the occupations where women average as much or more than men: Electrical engineers, mechanical engineers, and the three others mentioned in my post from Monster.

Originally Posted by misskit

Originally Posted by longway

and i am pointing out that shillary's campaign is based on sexism, ie people should vote for her simply because she is a woman, you yourself pointed out she is supposed to bring something different than a man, if that is not sexsim then what is?

If she is using sexism to gain votes, is it not hypocritical to call out people who use her sex against her for sexsim. both sides are sexist, that is my point.

Her campaign is not based on sexism. She pushes for agenda important for women and families which men do not see as important. If she were a man doing the same, she would get women's votes.

Originally Posted by longway

as for your poor old grandmother, men did do something about it, the equal pay act was enacted in 1972 and it has been illegal ever since then for any company to discriminate on pay based on sex or race.

the so called gender (actually gender is the wrong word) pay gap has been debunked a long time ago, its one of shillary's fake problems she will pretend to solve, it doesnt exist. there is however a 'gender' work gap that explains the entire issue.

Not my grandmother, my mother and this was around 1972 and continued beyond in the US South where it is very conservative and slow to change. What you or Sowell state is not what I and other women actually experienced. I will not go into anecdotal evidence here only to say I left the parochial South for California and there was a world of difference in how women were paid and treated at work.

There is evidence of a 'gender' gap now presented on this thread. Until last year many employers had wage secrecy clauses on their employment contracts to keep employees from discussing their pay. This protected employers from law suits brought up by women for unequal pay.

Originally Posted by longway

btw did you ever wonder why an employer would pay one worker more than another worker, if they did the same job? do you really think they would fork out more cash unless there was a discernable difference between the 2? why not just hire another woman and pay her less too? why get an expensive man?

No, I don't wonder why. I have heard the reasons straight from an employer's mouth.


I have to laugh. One thing this exchange between you and I is doing is making me less distressed at having to vote for Clinton as a second choice to Sanders.

Could you tell us what you heard straight from an employer's mouth?

Originally Posted by panama hat

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics can be found here:

Median weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers by detailed occupation and sex

I would suggest you look through them, they are quite comprehensive.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Come on empty hat catch up, read post 3445

Originally Posted by RPETER65

I would suggest you read post 3445

Do 'they' allow you to have a license? You know, to drive a car?

Please do click on the link provided by Harry, it's by some small organisation called the Bureau of Labor Statistics

Have you read my post 3445 from Monster comparing 5occupations where women make as much or more than men.