(05-14-2019 02:02 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-14-2019 01:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-14-2019 01:29 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-14-2019 01:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-14-2019 11:18 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The dossier is just a small part of what I want to know about. AFAIAC, this should not be
an investigation into just the dossier, but into the motivations and methods of those who used and provided it.

There is evidence that some within the government wanted to thwart the election and after the election, nullify it. I think the biggest threats to our democracy lie within the government, not overseas.

I have to wonder if any of this will lead to Hillary and/or Obama.

I hope that this will include the Tarmac meeting.

I know why this was not done earlier. To institute this investigation before Mueller was concluded would be to invite allegations of OOJ, and perhaps rightly so.

Wouldn't shock me at all if some small fish ended up indicted for lying to the investigation. Maybe even a little money laundering and campaign finance violations.

What evidence are you talking about?

And why would this include the tarmac meeting? That meeting was in June 2016 and has always been related to Benghazi-gate.

Related to email-gate you mean. Benghazi was the instance that made Hillary's server known -- way more than Benghazi resided on it.

Not really germane to the point, which is that it seems unrelated entirely to the Russia investigation.

Some consistently blend Benghazi in with the totality of the email stuff.

And yes, the tarmac meeting at least to me is seemingly unrelated. Kind of like the relation of Manafort's tax evasion to Russian collusion, eh?

Tangentially related, I said. All part and parcel of the elect Hillary/defeat Trump effort. But related or not, I would like to hear the results of an investigation into this. As long as Bill and Loretta keep their stories straight, I doubt anything can be found. But it would be interesting to hear the testimony of airport personnel and pilots to their instructions on where to park, etc. Also the whistle blower.

I personally think Lynch was offered a SCOTUS appointment. JMHO. No evidence, same as the Russia investigation.

(05-14-2019 02:26 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-14-2019 02:02 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-14-2019 01:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-14-2019 01:29 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-14-2019 01:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  What evidence are you talking about?

And why would this include the tarmac meeting? That meeting was in June 2016 and has always been related to Benghazi-gate.

Related to email-gate you mean. Benghazi was the instance that made Hillary's server known -- way more than Benghazi resided on it.

Not really germane to the point, which is that it seems unrelated entirely to the Russia investigation.

Some consistently blend Benghazi in with the totality of the email stuff.

And yes, the tarmac meeting at least to me is seemingly unrelated. Kind of like the relation of Manafort's tax evasion to Russian collusion, eh?

Tangentially related, I said. All part and parcel of the elect Hillary/defeat Trump effort. But related or not, I would like to hear the results of an investigation into this. As long as Bill and Loretta keep their stories straight, I doubt anything can be found. But it would be interesting to hear the testimony of airport personnel and pilots to their instructions on where to park, etc. Also the whistle blower.

I personally think Lynch was offered a SCOTUS appointment. JMHO. No evidence, same as the Russia investigation.

You never said anything about that being tangentially related. And even if you did, it isn't tangentially related, at all, based on our current knowledge.

If the Barr investigation somehow takes them to the meeting, then the tarmac meeting will be germane and tangentially related. But given its timing and its supposed relation to emails and not the election, it seems to have had nothing to do with Russia, and therefore, hoping it is included seems like a bit of a stretch.

How can you justify that it be included, while simultaneously complaining that the Russia investigation is an overreach?

By the way, Manafort's financial ties to Ukraine/Russia seems awfully germane to an investigation into whether or not someone conspired with the Russian government to influence the election.

Also, what whistleblower are you talking about?

(05-14-2019 02:49 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-14-2019 02:26 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-14-2019 02:02 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-14-2019 01:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-14-2019 01:29 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Related to email-gate you mean. Benghazi was the instance that made Hillary's server known -- way more than Benghazi resided on it.

Not really germane to the point, which is that it seems unrelated entirely to the Russia investigation.

Some consistently blend Benghazi in with the totality of the email stuff.

And yes, the tarmac meeting at least to me is seemingly unrelated. Kind of like the relation of Manafort's tax evasion to Russian collusion, eh?

Tangentially related, I said. All part and parcel of the elect Hillary/defeat Trump effort. But related or not, I would like to hear the results of an investigation into this. As long as Bill and Loretta keep their stories straight, I doubt anything can be found. But it would be interesting to hear the testimony of airport personnel and pilots to their instructions on where to park, etc. Also the whistle blower.

I personally think Lynch was offered a SCOTUS appointment. JMHO. No evidence, same as the Russia investigation.

You never said anything about that being tangentially related. And even if you did, it isn't tangentially related, at all, based on our current knowledge.1

If the Barr investigation somehow takes them to the meeting, then the tarmac meeting will be germane and tangentially related. But given its timing and its supposed relation to emails and not the election, it seems to have had nothing to do with Russia, and therefore, hoping it is included seems like a bit of a stretch.

How can you justify that it be included, while simultaneously complaining that the Russia investigation is an overreach? 2

By the way, Manafort's financial ties to Ukraine/Russia seems awfully germane to an investigation into whether or not someone conspired with the Russian government to influence the election. 3

Also, what whistleblower are you talking about? 4

OK, sequentially:

1. Right, the phrase I actually used was "peripherally aligned". Seems close to "tangentially" to me, but you are the engineer. To me, it is a part of a body of work designed to enhance the chances of a Hillary election and/or diminish the chances of a Trump election. Dropping the investigation would achieve both. Getting the investigation closed and getting Trump investigated achieve the same goal - helping Hillary win.

2. Tit/tat, goose/gander. But I also think it has more direct salience to the election than some of the stuff you guys cited against Trump.

3. Well, Mueller didn't think so. But we have Ukraine in connection to the Clinton Campaign AND in connection to Biden, so if you think those old connections of Manafort's were smoky, you must be coughing a lot now.

backfire

Biden

4. The one who notified the press and ruined the secrecy of the meeting.

(05-14-2019 03:56 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-14-2019 02:49 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-14-2019 02:26 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-14-2019 02:02 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-14-2019 01:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Not really germane to the point, which is that it seems unrelated entirely to the Russia investigation.

Some consistently blend Benghazi in with the totality of the email stuff.

And yes, the tarmac meeting at least to me is seemingly unrelated. Kind of like the relation of Manafort's tax evasion to Russian collusion, eh?

Tangentially related, I said. All part and parcel of the elect Hillary/defeat Trump effort. But related or not, I would like to hear the results of an investigation into this. As long as Bill and Loretta keep their stories straight, I doubt anything can be found. But it would be interesting to hear the testimony of airport personnel and pilots to their instructions on where to park, etc. Also the whistle blower.

I personally think Lynch was offered a SCOTUS appointment. JMHO. No evidence, same as the Russia investigation.

You never said anything about that being tangentially related. And even if you did, it isn't tangentially related, at all, based on our current knowledge.1

If the Barr investigation somehow takes them to the meeting, then the tarmac meeting will be germane and tangentially related. But given its timing and its supposed relation to emails and not the election, it seems to have had nothing to do with Russia, and therefore, hoping it is included seems like a bit of a stretch.

How can you justify that it be included, while simultaneously complaining that the Russia investigation is an overreach? 2

By the way, Manafort's financial ties to Ukraine/Russia seems awfully germane to an investigation into whether or not someone conspired with the Russian government to influence the election. 3

Also, what whistleblower are you talking about? 4

OK, sequentially:

1. Right, the phrase I actually used was "peripherally aligned". Seems close to "tangentially" to me, but you are the engineer. To me, it is a part of a body of work designed to enhance the chances of a Hillary election and/or diminish the chances of a Trump election. Dropping the investigation would achieve both. Getting the investigation closed and getting Trump investigated achieve the same goal - helping Hillary win.

2. Tit/tat, goose/gander. But I also think it has more direct salience to the election than some of the stuff you guys cited against Trump.

3. Well, Mueller didn't think so. But we have Ukraine in connection to the Clinton Campaign AND in connection to Biden, so if you think those old connections of manaforts were smoky, you must be coughing a lot now.

4. The one who notified the press and ruined the secrecy of the meeting.

1) Ah, I missed your response where you dove into the tarmac meeting. Don't buy that this was peripherally related to the Trump-Russia investigation on the surface, though. But like I said, if the investigation takes it there, then so be it.

2) At least you're honest about being a flag-waving partisan. I'll commend you for that.

3) What do you mean Mueller didn't think so? Obviously Mueller did think so, which is why he ended up investigating Manafort. He thought there was sufficient reason to investigate Manafort's dealings with the Russians, given that he was investigating the Trump campaign colluding with Russia...

And once Russia or Ukraine intentionally help Biden, and he publicly or privately responds as eagerly as Don Jr did, I'll agree that there is smoke. But what benefit has Biden reaped, or actions he has taken to suggest he may be benefiting from Ukraine? The whole reason there was smoke with Trump was he got a benefit (Russia dumping emails).

4) I never saw mention of anyone notifying the press in a "whistleblower" fashion. I thought it was a reporter reviewing plane tracking logs that noticed it.

(05-14-2019 04:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-14-2019 03:56 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-14-2019 02:49 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-14-2019 02:26 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-14-2019 02:02 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Some consistently blend Benghazi in with the totality of the email stuff.

And yes, the tarmac meeting at least to me is seemingly unrelated. Kind of like the relation of Manafort's tax evasion to Russian collusion, eh?

Tangentially related, I said. All part and parcel of the elect Hillary/defeat Trump effort. But related or not, I would like to hear the results of an investigation into this. As long as Bill and Loretta keep their stories straight, I doubt anything can be found. But it would be interesting to hear the testimony of airport personnel and pilots to their instructions on where to park, etc. Also the whistle blower.

I personally think Lynch was offered a SCOTUS appointment. JMHO. No evidence, same as the Russia investigation.

You never said anything about that being tangentially related. And even if you did, it isn't tangentially related, at all, based on our current knowledge.1

If the Barr investigation somehow takes them to the meeting, then the tarmac meeting will be germane and tangentially related. But given its timing and its supposed relation to emails and not the election, it seems to have had nothing to do with Russia, and therefore, hoping it is included seems like a bit of a stretch.

How can you justify that it be included, while simultaneously complaining that the Russia investigation is an overreach? 2

By the way, Manafort's financial ties to Ukraine/Russia seems awfully germane to an investigation into whether or not someone conspired with the Russian government to influence the election. 3

Also, what whistleblower are you talking about? 4

OK, sequentially:

1. Right, the phrase I actually used was "peripherally aligned". Seems close to "tangentially" to me, but you are the engineer. To me, it is a part of a body of work designed to enhance the chances of a Hillary election and/or diminish the chances of a Trump election. Dropping the investigation would achieve both. Getting the investigation closed and getting Trump investigated achieve the same goal - helping Hillary win.

2. Tit/tat, goose/gander. But I also think it has more direct salience to the election than some of the stuff you guys cited against Trump.

3. Well, Mueller didn't think so. But we have Ukraine in connection to the Clinton Campaign AND in connection to Biden, so if you think those old connections of manaforts were smoky, you must be coughing a lot now.

4. The one who notified the press and ruined the secrecy of the meeting.

1) Ah, I missed your response where you dove into the tarmac meeting. Don't buy that this was peripherally related to the Trump-Russia investigation on the surface, though. But like I said, if the investigation takes it there, then so be it.

2) At least you're honest about being a flag-waving partisan. I'll commend you for that.

3) What do you mean Mueller didn't think so? Obviously Mueller did think so, which is why he ended up investigating Manafort. He thought there was sufficient reason to investigate Manafort's dealings with the Russians, given that he was investigating the Trump campaign colluding with Russia...

And once Russia or Ukraine intentionally help Biden, and he publicly or privately responds as eagerly as Don Jr did, I'll agree that there is smoke. But what benefit has Biden reaped, or actions he has taken to suggest he may be benefiting from Ukraine? The whole reason there was smoke with Trump was he got a benefit (Russia dumping emails).

4) I never saw mention of anyone notifying the press in a "whistleblower" fashion. I thought it was a reporter reviewing plane tracking logs that noticed it.

2. Better a flag-waving partisan than a flag-burning one. I think it fair that your side get the same treatment you gave our side. Don't you? Or do you think your side should be treated differently?

Tit/tat, goose/gander = equal treatment

3. I guess those financial ties were good enough for you guys, since you were so sure there was collusion.

On the other hand, we have a public apology from Ukraine for their efforts to help Hillary. Still haven't seen where Hillary or any of her campaign rejected those efforts.

As for Biden, he bragged about getting an investigator fired who was investigating his son's company, and then the company was awarded a giant contract.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8td7JmW2sI

4. The story I heard was that an airport worker tipped off a friend who was a reporter. I would like to hear the testimony of both those people.

Why the heck would a reporter be reviewing tracking logs?

(05-11-2019 12:54 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think Democrats are driving themselves crazy going after Trump's tax returns. What do they expect to find? What do they think they will find that they can use? That he followed the law and paid the legal amount required? That is what the IRS with its hundreds of CPAs has concluded. But maybe Nadler can find something they missed.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/...li=BBnbcA1

I have heard some say that they think his returns will show he is not as rich as he says. First you won't get his net worth from income tax returns, and second, so what?

What, he has not followed the footsteps blazed by Richard Nixon, the first to do so? Oooh, Nixon is such a icon to them.

Don't Democrats have anything better to do? Like passing laws and such?

They are like kittens chasing a flashlight beam.

I got to wondering what Pelosi's tax returns look like. So I googled the question, and found that she has resisted publishing her tax returns. Makes sense - she is a shoo-in for re-election every time.

I haven't tried Nadler or Schiff yet.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl...40007.html

(05-11-2019 12:54 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think Democrats are driving themselves crazy going after Trump's tax returns. What do they expect to find? What do they think they will find that they can use? That he followed the law and paid the legal amount required? That is what the IRS with its hundreds of CPAs has concluded. But maybe Nadler can find something they missed.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/...li=BBnbcA1

I have heard some say that they think his returns will show he is not as rich as he says. First you won't get his net worth from income tax returns, and second, so what?

What, he has not followed the footsteps blazed by Richard Nixon, the first to do so? Oooh, Nixon is such a icon to them.

Don't Democrats have anything better to do? Like passing laws and such?

They are like kittens chasing a flashlight beam.

I got to wondering what Pelosi's tax returns look like. So I googled the question, and found that she has resisted publishing her tax returns. Makes sense - she is a shoo-in for re-election every time. So why should she? It would just open her up to political sniping, just like Trump.

I haven't tried Nadler or Schiff yet.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl...40007.html

Going back to the discussion about liberals and how they *never* employ 'identity politics':

Quote:Gillibrand, in an interview after the event, let out a hearty "yeah" when asked if she felt she was currently being underestimated in the race for the Democratic nomination.

"I think it's just gender bias. I think people are generally biased against women. I think also biased against young women," she said. "There's just bias and it's real and it exists, but you have to overcome it."

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/12/politics/...index.html

Best thing is that this is seemingly blue on blue identity politics porn........

(05-15-2019 12:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Going back to the discussion about liberals and how they *never* employ 'identity politics':

Quote:Gillibrand, in an interview after the event, let out a hearty "yeah" when asked if she felt she was currently being underestimated in the race for the Democratic nomination.

"I think it's just gender bias. I think people are generally biased against women. I think also biased against young women," she said. "There's just bias and it's real and it exists, but you have to overcome it."

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/12/politics/...index.html

Best thing is that this is seemingly blue on blue identity politics porn........

Has anyone said Dems never employ identity politics?

Both parties do that, and I would agree that Dems are more likely to do that.

(05-15-2019 01:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 12:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Going back to the discussion about liberals and how they *never* employ 'identity politics':

Quote:Gillibrand, in an interview after the event, let out a hearty "yeah" when asked if she felt she was currently being underestimated in the race for the Democratic nomination.

"I think it's just gender bias. I think people are generally biased against women. I think also biased against young women," she said. "There's just bias and it's real and it exists, but you have to overcome it."

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/12/politics/...index.html

Best thing is that this is seemingly blue on blue identity politics porn........

Has anyone said Dems never employ identity politics?

Both parties do that, and I would agree that Dems are more likely to do that.

You are correct lad. But 93 has seemingly argued that that perception is not justified, iirc.

From the chronicles of '93:

Quote:Really? I actually haven't heard anybody making any level of fuss regarding the ethnicities of these candidates.

While Gillibrand's comments arent 'regarding *ethnicity*' they *are* specifically regarding sex.

From the identity politics 'cookbook' --- any division is good to do this with.

Ethnicity, sex. Potayto, potahto.

I wonder if 93 stands behind that statement as clearly and unflinchingly as at the time of his comment above......

And, I think it roaringly fun that this instance is blue on blue. Now I just need some popcorn.

To be true, you do acknowledge that issue. My apologies for my broad statements being read to encompass you -- that was not the intention.

(05-15-2019 02:15 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 01:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 12:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Going back to the discussion about liberals and how they *never* employ 'identity politics':

Quote:Gillibrand, in an interview after the event, let out a hearty "yeah" when asked if she felt she was currently being underestimated in the race for the Democratic nomination.

"I think it's just gender bias. I think people are generally biased against women. I think also biased against young women," she said. "There's just bias and it's real and it exists, but you have to overcome it."

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/12/politics/...index.html

Best thing is that this is seemingly blue on blue identity politics porn........

Has anyone said Dems never employ identity politics?

Both parties do that, and I would agree that Dems are more likely to do that.

You are correct lad. But 93 has seemingly argued that that perception is not justified, iirc.

From the chronicles of '93:

Quote:Really? I actually haven't heard anybody making any level of fuss regarding the ethnicities of these candidates.

While Gillibrand's comments arent 'regarding *ethnicity*' they *are* specifically regarding sex.

From the identity politics 'cookbook' --- any division is good to do this with.

Ethnicity, sex. Potayto, potahto.

I wonder if 93 stands behind that statement as clearly and unflinchingly as at the time of his comment above......

And, I think it roaringly fun that this instance is blue on blue. Now I just need some popcorn.

To be true, you do acknowledge that issue. My apologies for my broad statements being read to encompass you -- that was not the intention.

I do think there is a difference between saying "I support X because they're Y" and saying "I think people are underestimating X because they're Y." So I definitely don't see Gillebrand and one who is currently playing identity politics, but rather commenting on its existence.

Do you think gender bias doesn't exist when talking about the entire voting population?

Actually one is a more passive way of saying 'good god you all are all ignorant sexists' when you read it.

Being such an ignorant deplorable as I am allows the 'cha cha cha' filter to catch a lot.

By the way she 'isnt commenting on [the] existence [of identity politics]' as you claim. She is using identity politics as a reason and/or excuse.

Democrats have been talking about balancing the ticket ethnically since they only had one candidate. How many have said that if they were nominated, they would move to a POC and/or female for their running mate? Bad enough that the state of a candidate is a major concern, now we need to to balance by gender and race too? There are only two spots.

That’s why I think Beta is a front runner for VP unless the nominee is a white male. He brings a Hispanic nickname, lots of fund raising, and a shot at stealing Texas.

Of course, the Dems cannot have two white males on the ticket.

BTW, Gillibrand is 52. Does that constitute “young”?

(05-15-2019 03:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I do think there is a difference between saying "I support X because they're Y" and saying "I think people are underestimating X because they're Y." So I definitely don't see Gillebrand and one who is currently playing identity politics, but rather commenting on its existence.
Do you think gender bias doesn't exist when talking about the entire voting population?

As someone who had a lot of success early on in my career because I did not underestimate X, or Y, or Z, because she was a woman, even though others in my profession did, I think I understand the difference. And I think there is an awful lot more, "vote for X because she's Y," than there is, "don't underestimate X because she's Y." In particular, I think there was a whole shipload of that with the last two democrat presidential candidates--"vote for Obama because he's black" and "vote for Hillary because she's a woman." In fairness, I have to say that to me those were probably the strongest arguments in favor of those candidates.

A funny story. I had spent four years in the Navy during the time that women were coming into the fleet, before I came back and started working in public accounting, a profession that was truly not ready for women in the mid-1970s. Therefore, when it came time to staff my jobs, the fact that I was more comfortable working with women enabled me to fill out my jobs with some extremely capable women who were not nearly in as great a demand as they should have been. When it came time for my annual review, the reviewing partner said, "Just a warning. Being a couple of years older and having been in the Navy, you have been the subject of a few rumors because you keep taking all these women out of town on jobs."

(05-15-2019 03:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 03:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I do think there is a difference between saying "I support X because they're Y" and saying "I think people are underestimating X because they're Y." So I definitely don't see Gillebrand and one who is currently playing identity politics, but rather commenting on its existence.
Do you think gender bias doesn't exist when talking about the entire voting population?

As someone who had a lot of success early on in my career because I did not underestimate X, or Y, or Z, because she was a woman, even though others in my profession did, I think I understand the difference. And I think there is an awful lot more, "vote for X because she's Y," than there is, "don't underestimate X because she's Y." In particular, I think there was a whole shipload of that with the last two democrat presidential candidates--"vote for Obama because he's black" and "vote for Hillary because she's a woman." In fairness, I have to say that to me those were probably the strongest arguments in favor of those candidates.

A funny story. I had spent four years in the Navy during the time that women were coming into the fleet, before I came back and started working in public accounting, a profession that was truly not ready for women in the mid-1970s. Therefore, when it came time to staff my jobs, the fact that I was more comfortable working with women enabled me to fill out my jobs with some extremely capable women who were not nearly in as great a demand as they should have been. When it came time for my annual review, the reviewing partner said, "Just a warning. Being a couple of years older and having been in the Navy, you have been the subject of a few rumors because you keep taking all these women out of town on jobs."

I'm not sure if this was not intentional, but you did just provide a great anecdote that explains why women candidates often poll lower than men, regardless of their aptitude or qualifications - there are plenty of people in the world that still discount a woman because she is just that, a woman.

(05-15-2019 04:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 03:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 03:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I do think there is a difference between saying "I support X because they're Y" and saying "I think people are underestimating X because they're Y." So I definitely don't see Gillebrand and one who is currently playing identity politics, but rather commenting on its existence.
Do you think gender bias doesn't exist when talking about the entire voting population?

As someone who had a lot of success early on in my career because I did not underestimate X, or Y, or Z, because she was a woman, even though others in my profession did, I think I understand the difference. And I think there is an awful lot more, "vote for X because she's Y," than there is, "don't underestimate X because she's Y." In particular, I think there was a whole shipload of that with the last two democrat presidential candidates--"vote for Obama because he's black" and "vote for Hillary because she's a woman." In fairness, I have to say that to me those were probably the strongest arguments in favor of those candidates.

A funny story. I had spent four years in the Navy during the time that women were coming into the fleet, before I came back and started working in public accounting, a profession that was truly not ready for women in the mid-1970s. Therefore, when it came time to staff my jobs, the fact that I was more comfortable working with women enabled me to fill out my jobs with some extremely capable women who were not nearly in as great a demand as they should have been. When it came time for my annual review, the reviewing partner said, "Just a warning. Being a couple of years older and having been in the Navy, you have been the subject of a few rumors because you keep taking all these women out of town on jobs."

I'm not sure if this was not intentional, but you did just provide a great anecdote that explains why women candidates often poll lower than men, regardless of their aptitude or qualifications - there are plenty of people in the world that still discount a woman because she is just that, a woman.

Both in my pre-retirement life and my post-retirement life, I have learned not to adjust my expectations of others based on either race or gender. But I can tell you that a lot of people - a LOT - have expectations of “older white men” that lead them astray. In some respects, I have been able to use those prejudices to my advantage.

(05-15-2019 04:14 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 04:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 03:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 03:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I do think there is a difference between saying "I support X because they're Y" and saying "I think people are underestimating X because they're Y." So I definitely don't see Gillebrand and one who is currently playing identity politics, but rather commenting on its existence.
Do you think gender bias doesn't exist when talking about the entire voting population?

As someone who had a lot of success early on in my career because I did not underestimate X, or Y, or Z, because she was a woman, even though others in my profession did, I think I understand the difference. And I think there is an awful lot more, "vote for X because she's Y," than there is, "don't underestimate X because she's Y." In particular, I think there was a whole shipload of that with the last two democrat presidential candidates--"vote for Obama because he's black" and "vote for Hillary because she's a woman." In fairness, I have to say that to me those were probably the strongest arguments in favor of those candidates.

A funny story. I had spent four years in the Navy during the time that women were coming into the fleet, before I came back and started working in public accounting, a profession that was truly not ready for women in the mid-1970s. Therefore, when it came time to staff my jobs, the fact that I was more comfortable working with women enabled me to fill out my jobs with some extremely capable women who were not nearly in as great a demand as they should have been. When it came time for my annual review, the reviewing partner said, "Just a warning. Being a couple of years older and having been in the Navy, you have been the subject of a few rumors because you keep taking all these women out of town on jobs."

I'm not sure if this was not intentional, but you did just provide a great anecdote that explains why women candidates often poll lower than men, regardless of their aptitude or qualifications - there are plenty of people in the world that still discount a woman because she is just that, a woman.

Both in my pre-retirement life and my post-retirement life, I have learned not to adjust my expectations of others based on either race or gender. But I can tell you that a lot of people - a LOT - have expectations of “older white men” that lead them astray. In some respects, I have been able to use those prejudices to my advantage.

So you agree with Gillebrand that candidates' sex could be a factor in opposition?

(05-15-2019 04:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 03:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 03:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I do think there is a difference between saying "I support X because they're Y" and saying "I think people are underestimating X because they're Y." So I definitely don't see Gillebrand and one who is currently playing identity politics, but rather commenting on its existence.
Do you think gender bias doesn't exist when talking about the entire voting population?

As someone who had a lot of success early on in my career because I did not underestimate X, or Y, or Z, because she was a woman, even though others in my profession did, I think I understand the difference. And I think there is an awful lot more, "vote for X because she's Y," than there is, "don't underestimate X because she's Y." In particular, I think there was a whole shipload of that with the last two democrat presidential candidates--"vote for Obama because he's black" and "vote for Hillary because she's a woman." In fairness, I have to say that to me those were probably the strongest arguments in favor of those candidates.
A funny story. I had spent four years in the Navy during the time that women were coming into the fleet, before I came back and started working in public accounting, a profession that was truly not ready for women in the mid-1970s. Therefore, when it came time to staff my jobs, the fact that I was more comfortable working with women enabled me to fill out my jobs with some extremely capable women who were not nearly in as great a demand as they should have been. When it came time for my annual review, the reviewing partner said, "Just a warning. Being a couple of years older and having been in the Navy, you have been the subject of a few rumors because you keep taking all these women out of town on jobs."

I'm not sure if this was not intentional, but you did just provide a great anecdote that explains why women candidates often poll lower than men, regardless of their aptitude or qualifications - there are plenty of people in the world that still discount a woman because she is just that, a woman.

I think there probably are some who hold women in lower regard. Just as there are some who reject anything that comes from a white male, the older the worse.

My point is that in the political arena, I've never heard democrats say, "We should elect Obama because we don't want to underestimate African-Americans," or, "We should elect Hillary because we don't want to underestimate women." What I've always heard is, "Elect Obama to be the first black president," or, "Elect Hillary to be the first woman president." My only point was that it sounds a lot more like the latter than the former of the two hypotheticals you gave earlier.

(05-15-2019 04:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 04:14 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 04:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 03:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 03:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I do think there is a difference between saying "I support X because they're Y" and saying "I think people are underestimating X because they're Y." So I definitely don't see Gillebrand and one who is currently playing identity politics, but rather commenting on its existence.
Do you think gender bias doesn't exist when talking about the entire voting population?

As someone who had a lot of success early on in my career because I did not underestimate X, or Y, or Z, because she was a woman, even though others in my profession did, I think I understand the difference. And I think there is an awful lot more, "vote for X because she's Y," than there is, "don't underestimate X because she's Y." In particular, I think there was a whole shipload of that with the last two democrat presidential candidates--"vote for Obama because he's black" and "vote for Hillary because she's a woman." In fairness, I have to say that to me those were probably the strongest arguments in favor of those candidates.

A funny story. I had spent four years in the Navy during the time that women were coming into the fleet, before I came back and started working in public accounting, a profession that was truly not ready for women in the mid-1970s. Therefore, when it came time to staff my jobs, the fact that I was more comfortable working with women enabled me to fill out my jobs with some extremely capable women who were not nearly in as great a demand as they should have been. When it came time for my annual review, the reviewing partner said, "Just a warning. Being a couple of years older and having been in the Navy, you have been the subject of a few rumors because you keep taking all these women out of town on jobs."

I'm not sure if this was not intentional, but you did just provide a great anecdote that explains why women candidates often poll lower than men, regardless of their aptitude or qualifications - there are plenty of people in the world that still discount a woman because she is just that, a woman.

Both in my pre-retirement life and my post-retirement life, I have learned not to adjust my expectations of others based on either race or gender. But I can tell you that a lot of people - a LOT - have expectations of “older white men” that lead them astray. In some respects, I have been able to use those prejudices to my advantage.

So you agree with Gillebrand that candidates' sex could be a factor in opposition?

There you go again, putting words in my mouth.

I think it “could” be a factor, as many people have Images either for or against women, but Democrats think it “should” be a factor, and I do not.

Neither my pre or post retirement lives were spent in politics. I judge people by their actions and abilities. Democrats start with race/sex.

(05-15-2019 03:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I do think there is a difference between saying "I support X because they're Y" and saying "I think people are underestimating X because they're Y." So I definitely don't see Gillebrand and one who is currently playing identity politics, but rather commenting on its existence.

The most common formulation seems to be "If you don't support X, it's because he/she is Y, and therefore you are Y-ist" -- which is identity politics in condescending and divisive form.