The Democratic Presidential Debates

ecdanc

cincybearcat said:

Can we stop with the people don’t read nonsense?

SC - you states that Amy and Warren voters would go to the other? Is that right?

You think so because they are women. Right?

So you think some people are only voting for them cause they are women? Or are you quoting a news source that stated this?  Not agreeing or disagreeing just trying to understand why you said that? 

And yes i went back... I think far enough to look for it. But coulda accidentally scrolled passed it on my phone. 

I can't speak for SC, but I do know what he wrote. He implied that people likely to vote for one woman might be drawn to vote for a different woman. This isn't a particularly contentious claim. 

I can only offer anecdotal evidence, but that's all SC's claim would require to be true, so I'll offer one example: Me. If there were two candidates, both of whom I felt I could vote for, who had identical platforms, and one was a woman (the other a man), I'd vote for the woman. 

Edited to add: he did not say that people are ONLY voting for them because they are women. 

cincybearcat

ecdanc said:

cincybearcat said:

Can we stop with the people don’t read nonsense?

SC - you states that Amy and Warren voters would go to the other? Is that right?

You think so because they are women. Right?

So you think some people are only voting for them cause they are women? Or are you quoting a news source that stated this?  Not agreeing or disagreeing just trying to understand why you said that? 

And yes i went back... I think far enough to look for it. But coulda accidentally scrolled passed it on my phone. 

I can't speak for SC, but I do know what he wrote. He implied that people likely to vote for one woman might be drawn to vote for a different woman. This isn't a particularly contentious claim. 

I can only offer anecdotal evidence, but that's all SC's claim would require to be true, so I'll offer one example: Me. If there were two candidates, both of whom I felt I could vote for, who had identical platforms, and one was a woman (the other a man), I'd vote for the woman. 

I can see that as being a valid statement. I think we’ve seen it before as well. Still wondering if it is his opinion or something he read he was passing on

mrussel1

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

The toxic Pete Pals. Just like the Trumpeters and also not far enough from the other side.

https://twitter.com/LovesTheBern/status/1231413515027537920?s=20

You muzzle a dog.  I've never heard of that term being pointed at a particular race or sex.  That's a reach. 

Clearly there's no history of referring to women--specifically--as dogs. 

So no men have ever been referred to as dogs,  it's purely women?  

mrussel1

ecdanc said:

cincybearcat said:

Can we stop with the people don’t read nonsense?

SC - you states that Amy and Warren voters would go to the other? Is that right?

You think so because they are women. Right?

So you think some people are only voting for them cause they are women? Or are you quoting a news source that stated this?  Not agreeing or disagreeing just trying to understand why you said that? 

And yes i went back... I think far enough to look for it. But coulda accidentally scrolled passed it on my phone. 

I can't speak for SC, but I do know what he wrote. He implied that people likely to vote for one woman might be drawn to vote for a different woman. This isn't a particularly contentious claim. 

I can only offer anecdotal evidence, but that's all SC's claim would require to be true, so I'll offer one example: Me. If there were two candidates, both of whom I felt I could vote for, who had identical platforms, and one was a woman (the other a man), I'd vote for the woman. 

Edited to add: he did not say that people are ONLY voting for them because they are women. 

Except their platforms are different, in the world of Democratic policies  killing your entire theory.

ecdanc

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

The toxic Pete Pals. Just like the Trumpeters and also not far enough from the other side.

https://twitter.com/LovesTheBern/status/1231413515027537920?s=20

You muzzle a dog.  I've never heard of that term being pointed at a particular race or sex.  That's a reach. 

Clearly there's no history of referring to women--specifically--as dogs. 

So no men have ever been referred to as dogs,  it's purely women?  

I thought you studied history? 

cincybearcat

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

cincybearcat said:

Can we stop with the people don’t read nonsense?

SC - you states that Amy and Warren voters would go to the other? Is that right?

You think so because they are women. Right?

So you think some people are only voting for them cause they are women? Or are you quoting a news source that stated this?  Not agreeing or disagreeing just trying to understand why you said that? 

And yes i went back... I think far enough to look for it. But coulda accidentally scrolled passed it on my phone. 

I can't speak for SC, but I do know what he wrote. He implied that people likely to vote for one woman might be drawn to vote for a different woman. This isn't a particularly contentious claim. 

I can only offer anecdotal evidence, but that's all SC's claim would require to be true, so I'll offer one example: Me. If there were two candidates, both of whom I felt I could vote for, who had identical platforms, and one was a woman (the other a man), I'd vote for the woman. 

Edited to add: he did not say that people are ONLY voting for them because they are women. 

Except their platforms are different, in the world of Democratic policies  killing your entire theory.

That is true, but do you not think there are people out there that just want a woman to win? I mean, as long as the woman meets whatever they believe is qualified?

i believe those people exist. 

mrussel1

cincybearcat said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

cincybearcat said:

Can we stop with the people don’t read nonsense?

SC - you states that Amy and Warren voters would go to the other? Is that right?

You think so because they are women. Right?

So you think some people are only voting for them cause they are women? Or are you quoting a news source that stated this?  Not agreeing or disagreeing just trying to understand why you said that? 

And yes i went back... I think far enough to look for it. But coulda accidentally scrolled passed it on my phone. 

I can't speak for SC, but I do know what he wrote. He implied that people likely to vote for one woman might be drawn to vote for a different woman. This isn't a particularly contentious claim. 

I can only offer anecdotal evidence, but that's all SC's claim would require to be true, so I'll offer one example: Me. If there were two candidates, both of whom I felt I could vote for, who had identical platforms, and one was a woman (the other a man), I'd vote for the woman. 

Edited to add: he did not say that people are ONLY voting for them because they are women. 

Except their platforms are different, in the world of Democratic policies  killing your entire theory.

That is true, but do you not think there are people out there that just want a woman to win? I mean, as long as the woman meets whatever they believe is qualified?

i believe those people exist. 

Absolutely

mcgruff10

cincybearcat said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

cincybearcat said:

Can we stop with the people don’t read nonsense?

SC - you states that Amy and Warren voters would go to the other? Is that right?

You think so because they are women. Right?

So you think some people are only voting for them cause they are women? Or are you quoting a news source that stated this?  Not agreeing or disagreeing just trying to understand why you said that? 

And yes i went back... I think far enough to look for it. But coulda accidentally scrolled passed it on my phone. 

I can't speak for SC, but I do know what he wrote. He implied that people likely to vote for one woman might be drawn to vote for a different woman. This isn't a particularly contentious claim. 

I can only offer anecdotal evidence, but that's all SC's claim would require to be true, so I'll offer one example: Me. If there were two candidates, both of whom I felt I could vote for, who had identical platforms, and one was a woman (the other a man), I'd vote for the woman. 

Edited to add: he did not say that people are ONLY voting for them because they are women. 

Except their platforms are different, in the world of Democratic policies  killing your entire theory.

That is true, but do you not think there are people out there that just want a woman to win? I mean, as long as the woman meets whatever they believe is qualified?

i believe those people exist. 

Those people definitely exist. 

mrussel1

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

The toxic Pete Pals. Just like the Trumpeters and also not far enough from the other side.

https://twitter.com/LovesTheBern/status/1231413515027537920?s=20

You muzzle a dog.  I've never heard of that term being pointed at a particular race or sex.  That's a reach. 

Clearly there's no history of referring to women--specifically--as dogs. 

So no men have ever been referred to as dogs,  it's purely women?  

I thought you studied history? 

I thought you lived in the same world as me where both sexes have been referred to as a dog. 

ecdanc

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

cincybearcat said:

Can we stop with the people don’t read nonsense?

SC - you states that Amy and Warren voters would go to the other? Is that right?

You think so because they are women. Right?

So you think some people are only voting for them cause they are women? Or are you quoting a news source that stated this?  Not agreeing or disagreeing just trying to understand why you said that? 

And yes i went back... I think far enough to look for it. But coulda accidentally scrolled passed it on my phone. 

I can't speak for SC, but I do know what he wrote. He implied that people likely to vote for one woman might be drawn to vote for a different woman. This isn't a particularly contentious claim. 

I can only offer anecdotal evidence, but that's all SC's claim would require to be true, so I'll offer one example: Me. If there were two candidates, both of whom I felt I could vote for, who had identical platforms, and one was a woman (the other a man), I'd vote for the woman. 

Edited to add: he did not say that people are ONLY voting for them because they are women. 

Except their platforms are different, in the world of Democratic policies  killing your entire theory.

I sometimes imagine you at your computer saying to yourself "ha! I've got him now!!" A good portion of the time, though, you might as well just type the word "potato" instead of your actual responses--it would be equally sensical. 

But....since you're going to complain I'm avoiding things, I'll go ahead and explain the nature of your, ahem, inaccuracy in this case: the conversation surrounding SC's comment(s) was not "you're factually incorrect," but "what you're saying is somehow offensive/sexist." The latter is false on its face, because he was making a comment about voters without defining their gender. I can see myself falling into the group he described (in slightly different circumstances), so reading his comment as about women voters says more about the reader than about his post. So, we can address whether he's factually inaccurate. Are there voters for whom electing a woman is as important or more important than minor policy differences? I believe so. I, for one, don't see Warren's and Klobuchar's platforms and particularly different, so if I were amongst that group, I could imagine myself switching allegiance from one to the other. 

ecdanc

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

The toxic Pete Pals. Just like the Trumpeters and also not far enough from the other side.

https://twitter.com/LovesTheBern/status/1231413515027537920?s=20

You muzzle a dog.  I've never heard of that term being pointed at a particular race or sex.  That's a reach. 

Clearly there's no history of referring to women--specifically--as dogs. 

So no men have ever been referred to as dogs,  it's purely women?  

I thought you studied history? 

I thought you lived in the same world as me where both sexes have been referred to as a dog. 

I once heard a white person called the n-word. 

ecdanc

mrussel1 said:

cincybearcat said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

cincybearcat said:

Can we stop with the people don’t read nonsense?

SC - you states that Amy and Warren voters would go to the other? Is that right?

You think so because they are women. Right?

So you think some people are only voting for them cause they are women? Or are you quoting a news source that stated this?  Not agreeing or disagreeing just trying to understand why you said that? 

And yes i went back... I think far enough to look for it. But coulda accidentally scrolled passed it on my phone. 

I can't speak for SC, but I do know what he wrote. He implied that people likely to vote for one woman might be drawn to vote for a different woman. This isn't a particularly contentious claim. 

I can only offer anecdotal evidence, but that's all SC's claim would require to be true, so I'll offer one example: Me. If there were two candidates, both of whom I felt I could vote for, who had identical platforms, and one was a woman (the other a man), I'd vote for the woman. 

Edited to add: he did not say that people are ONLY voting for them because they are women. 

Except their platforms are different, in the world of Democratic policies  killing your entire theory.

That is true, but do you not think there are people out there that just want a woman to win? I mean, as long as the woman meets whatever they believe is qualified?

i believe those people exist. 

Absolutely

Great. Now I wasted five minutes explaining something to you that you already know, but because you're so intent on trolling me, you pretended (being generous here) to be confused. 

mrussel1

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

cincybearcat said:

Can we stop with the people don’t read nonsense?

SC - you states that Amy and Warren voters would go to the other? Is that right?

You think so because they are women. Right?

So you think some people are only voting for them cause they are women? Or are you quoting a news source that stated this?  Not agreeing or disagreeing just trying to understand why you said that? 

And yes i went back... I think far enough to look for it. But coulda accidentally scrolled passed it on my phone. 

I can't speak for SC, but I do know what he wrote. He implied that people likely to vote for one woman might be drawn to vote for a different woman. This isn't a particularly contentious claim. 

I can only offer anecdotal evidence, but that's all SC's claim would require to be true, so I'll offer one example: Me. If there were two candidates, both of whom I felt I could vote for, who had identical platforms, and one was a woman (the other a man), I'd vote for the woman. 

Edited to add: he did not say that people are ONLY voting for them because they are women. 

Except their platforms are different, in the world of Democratic policies  killing your entire theory.

I sometimes imagine you at your computer saying to yourself "ha! I've got him now!!" A good portion of the time, though, you might as well just type the word "potato" instead of your actual responses--it would be equally sensical. 

But....since you're going to complain I'm avoiding things, I'll go ahead and explain the nature of your, ahem, inaccuracy in this case: the conversation surrounding SC's comment(s) was not "you're factually incorrect," but "what you're saying is somehow offensive/sexist." The latter is false on its face, because he was making a comment about voters without defining their gender. I can see myself falling into the group he described (in slightly different circumstances), so reading his comment as about women voters says more about the reader than about his post. So, we can address whether he's factually inaccurate. Are there voters for whom electing a woman is as important or more important than minor policy differences? I believe so. I, for one, don't see Warren's and Klobuchar's platforms and particularly different, so if I were amongst that group, I could imagine myself switching allegiance from one to the other. 

Considering the two are on the ends of the spectrum on health care and student debt, the two hallmarks of Warren's candidacy, that would simply make you an uniformed voter.  

mrussel1

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

The toxic Pete Pals. Just like the Trumpeters and also not far enough from the other side.

https://twitter.com/LovesTheBern/status/1231413515027537920?s=20

You muzzle a dog.  I've never heard of that term being pointed at a particular race or sex.  That's a reach. 

Clearly there's no history of referring to women--specifically--as dogs. 

So no men have ever been referred to as dogs,  it's purely women?  

I thought you studied history? 

I thought you lived in the same world as me where both sexes have been referred to as a dog. 

I once heard a white person called the n-word. 

And that's the sum total of all the times you've heard a man being referred to as a dog.. A 'lap dog' 'attack dog' 'he's such a dog', you ain't nothing but a hound dog...

You should engage in popular culture a little more often.

pjl44

If women are uniquely called dogs, it's as a misogynistic slag against their looks. If someone is using muzzling, as in an attack dog, I've not seen that be a gendered thing. 

ecdanc

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

cincybearcat said:

Can we stop with the people don’t read nonsense?

SC - you states that Amy and Warren voters would go to the other? Is that right?

You think so because they are women. Right?

So you think some people are only voting for them cause they are women? Or are you quoting a news source that stated this?  Not agreeing or disagreeing just trying to understand why you said that? 

And yes i went back... I think far enough to look for it. But coulda accidentally scrolled passed it on my phone. 

I can't speak for SC, but I do know what he wrote. He implied that people likely to vote for one woman might be drawn to vote for a different woman. This isn't a particularly contentious claim. 

I can only offer anecdotal evidence, but that's all SC's claim would require to be true, so I'll offer one example: Me. If there were two candidates, both of whom I felt I could vote for, who had identical platforms, and one was a woman (the other a man), I'd vote for the woman. 

Edited to add: he did not say that people are ONLY voting for them because they are women. 

Except their platforms are different, in the world of Democratic policies  killing your entire theory.

I sometimes imagine you at your computer saying to yourself "ha! I've got him now!!" A good portion of the time, though, you might as well just type the word "potato" instead of your actual responses--it would be equally sensical. 

But....since you're going to complain I'm avoiding things, I'll go ahead and explain the nature of your, ahem, inaccuracy in this case: the conversation surrounding SC's comment(s) was not "you're factually incorrect," but "what you're saying is somehow offensive/sexist." The latter is false on its face, because he was making a comment about voters without defining their gender. I can see myself falling into the group he described (in slightly different circumstances), so reading his comment as about women voters says more about the reader than about his post. So, we can address whether he's factually inaccurate. Are there voters for whom electing a woman is as important or more important than minor policy differences? I believe so. I, for one, don't see Warren's and Klobuchar's platforms and particularly different, so if I were amongst that group, I could imagine myself switching allegiance from one to the other. 

Considering the two are on the ends of the spectrum on health care and student debt, the two hallmarks of Warren's candidacy, that would simply make you an uniformed voter.  

Even an uninformed voter would confirm SC’s point. 

Spiritual_Chaos

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

cincybearcat said:

Can we stop with the people don’t read nonsense?

SC - you states that Amy and Warren voters would go to the other? Is that right?

You think so because they are women. Right?

So you think some people are only voting for them cause they are women? Or are you quoting a news source that stated this?  Not agreeing or disagreeing just trying to understand why you said that? 

And yes i went back... I think far enough to look for it. But coulda accidentally scrolled passed it on my phone. 

I can't speak for SC, but I do know what he wrote. He implied that people likely to vote for one woman might be drawn to vote for a different woman. This isn't a particularly contentious claim. 

I can only offer anecdotal evidence, but that's all SC's claim would require to be true, so I'll offer one example: Me. If there were two candidates, both of whom I felt I could vote for, who had identical platforms, and one was a woman (the other a man), I'd vote for the woman. 

Edited to add: he did not say that people are ONLY voting for them because they are women. 

Except their platforms are different, in the world of Democratic policies  killing your entire theory.

I sometimes imagine you at your computer saying to yourself "ha! I've got him now!!" A good portion of the time, though, you might as well just type the word "potato" instead of your actual responses--it would be equally sensical. 

But....since you're going to complain I'm avoiding things, I'll go ahead and explain the nature of your, ahem, inaccuracy in this case: the conversation surrounding SC's comment(s) was not "you're factually incorrect," but "what you're saying is somehow offensive/sexist." The latter is false on its face, because he was making a comment about voters without defining their gender. I can see myself falling into the group he described (in slightly different circumstances), so reading his comment as about women voters says more about the reader than about his post. So, we can address whether he's factually inaccurate. Are there voters for whom electing a woman is as important or more important than minor policy differences? I believe so. I, for one, don't see Warren's and Klobuchar's platforms and particularly different, so if I were amongst that group, I could imagine myself switching allegiance from one to the other. 

Considering the two are on the ends of the spectrum on health care and student debt, the two hallmarks of Warren's candidacy, that would simply make you an uniformed voter.  

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

cincybearcat said:

Can we stop with the people don’t read nonsense?

SC - you states that Amy and Warren voters would go to the other? Is that right?

You think so because they are women. Right?

So you think some people are only voting for them cause they are women? Or are you quoting a news source that stated this?  Not agreeing or disagreeing just trying to understand why you said that? 

And yes i went back... I think far enough to look for it. But coulda accidentally scrolled passed it on my phone. 

I can't speak for SC, but I do know what he wrote. He implied that people likely to vote for one woman might be drawn to vote for a different woman. This isn't a particularly contentious claim. 

I can only offer anecdotal evidence, but that's all SC's claim would require to be true, so I'll offer one example: Me. If there were two candidates, both of whom I felt I could vote for, who had identical platforms, and one was a woman (the other a man), I'd vote for the woman. 

Edited to add: he did not say that people are ONLY voting for them because they are women. 

Except their platforms are different, in the world of Democratic policies  killing your entire theory.

I sometimes imagine you at your computer saying to yourself "ha! I've got him now!!" A good portion of the time, though, you might as well just type the word "potato" instead of your actual responses--it would be equally sensical. 

But....since you're going to complain I'm avoiding things, I'll go ahead and explain the nature of your, ahem, inaccuracy in this case: the conversation surrounding SC's comment(s) was not "you're factually incorrect," but "what you're saying is somehow offensive/sexist." The latter is false on its face, because he was making a comment about voters without defining their gender. I can see myself falling into the group he described (in slightly different circumstances), so reading his comment as about women voters says more about the reader than about his post. So, we can address whether he's factually inaccurate. Are there voters for whom electing a woman is as important or more important than minor policy differences? I believe so. I, for one, don't see Warren's and Klobuchar's platforms and particularly different, so if I were amongst that group, I could imagine myself switching allegiance from one to the other. 

Considering the two are on the ends of the spectrum on health care and student debt, the two hallmarks of Warren's candidacy, that would simply make you an uniformed voter.  

Just because they are on seperate ends doesnt mean the voter has to be at one end and then jumping all the way over to the other. 

also, just because you believe there is a huge chasm between opinions om certain issues - doesnt mean another voter has to believe the issue is as important. 

Spiritual_Chaos

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

cincybearcat said:

Can we stop with the people don’t read nonsense?

SC - you states that Amy and Warren voters would go to the other? Is that right?

You think so because they are women. Right?

So you think some people are only voting for them cause they are women? Or are you quoting a news source that stated this?  Not agreeing or disagreeing just trying to understand why you said that? 

And yes i went back... I think far enough to look for it. But coulda accidentally scrolled passed it on my phone. 

I can't speak for SC, but I do know what he wrote. He implied that people likely to vote for one woman might be drawn to vote for a different woman. This isn't a particularly contentious claim. 

I can only offer anecdotal evidence, but that's all SC's claim would require to be true, so I'll offer one example: Me. If there were two candidates, both of whom I felt I could vote for, who had identical platforms, and one was a woman (the other a man), I'd vote for the woman. 

Edited to add: he did not say that people are ONLY voting for them because they are women. 

Except their platforms are different, in the world of Democratic policies  killing your entire theory.

Then why is many Biden fans second choice Bernie?

By your binary view of it all. 

ecdanc

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

The toxic Pete Pals. Just like the Trumpeters and also not far enough from the other side.

https://twitter.com/LovesTheBern/status/1231413515027537920?s=20

You muzzle a dog.  I've never heard of that term being pointed at a particular race or sex.  That's a reach. 

Clearly there's no history of referring to women--specifically--as dogs. 

So no men have ever been referred to as dogs,  it's purely women?  

I thought you studied history? 

I thought you lived in the same world as me where both sexes have been referred to as a dog. 

I once heard a white person called the n-word. 

And that's the sum total of all the times you've heard a man being referred to as a dog.. A 'lap dog' 'attack dog' 'he's such a dog', you ain't nothing but a hound dog...

You should engage in popular culture a little more often.

It’s gonna be tough to find the time to teach MORE classes on the subject and give MORE presentations, but I’ll see what I can do. 

mrussel1

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

cincybearcat said:

Can we stop with the people don’t read nonsense?

SC - you states that Amy and Warren voters would go to the other? Is that right?

You think so because they are women. Right?

So you think some people are only voting for them cause they are women? Or are you quoting a news source that stated this?  Not agreeing or disagreeing just trying to understand why you said that? 

And yes i went back... I think far enough to look for it. But coulda accidentally scrolled passed it on my phone. 

I can't speak for SC, but I do know what he wrote. He implied that people likely to vote for one woman might be drawn to vote for a different woman. This isn't a particularly contentious claim. 

I can only offer anecdotal evidence, but that's all SC's claim would require to be true, so I'll offer one example: Me. If there were two candidates, both of whom I felt I could vote for, who had identical platforms, and one was a woman (the other a man), I'd vote for the woman. 

Edited to add: he did not say that people are ONLY voting for them because they are women. 

Except their platforms are different, in the world of Democratic policies  killing your entire theory.

I sometimes imagine you at your computer saying to yourself "ha! I've got him now!!" A good portion of the time, though, you might as well just type the word "potato" instead of your actual responses--it would be equally sensical. 

But....since you're going to complain I'm avoiding things, I'll go ahead and explain the nature of your, ahem, inaccuracy in this case: the conversation surrounding SC's comment(s) was not "you're factually incorrect," but "what you're saying is somehow offensive/sexist." The latter is false on its face, because he was making a comment about voters without defining their gender. I can see myself falling into the group he described (in slightly different circumstances), so reading his comment as about women voters says more about the reader than about his post. So, we can address whether he's factually inaccurate. Are there voters for whom electing a woman is as important or more important than minor policy differences? I believe so. I, for one, don't see Warren's and Klobuchar's platforms and particularly different, so if I were amongst that group, I could imagine myself switching allegiance from one to the other. 

Considering the two are on the ends of the spectrum on health care and student debt, the two hallmarks of Warren's candidacy, that would simply make you an uniformed voter.  

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

cincybearcat said:

Can we stop with the people don’t read nonsense?

SC - you states that Amy and Warren voters would go to the other? Is that right?

You think so because they are women. Right?

So you think some people are only voting for them cause they are women? Or are you quoting a news source that stated this?  Not agreeing or disagreeing just trying to understand why you said that? 

And yes i went back... I think far enough to look for it. But coulda accidentally scrolled passed it on my phone. 

I can't speak for SC, but I do know what he wrote. He implied that people likely to vote for one woman might be drawn to vote for a different woman. This isn't a particularly contentious claim. 

I can only offer anecdotal evidence, but that's all SC's claim would require to be true, so I'll offer one example: Me. If there were two candidates, both of whom I felt I could vote for, who had identical platforms, and one was a woman (the other a man), I'd vote for the woman. 

Edited to add: he did not say that people are ONLY voting for them because they are women. 

Except their platforms are different, in the world of Democratic policies  killing your entire theory.

I sometimes imagine you at your computer saying to yourself "ha! I've got him now!!" A good portion of the time, though, you might as well just type the word "potato" instead of your actual responses--it would be equally sensical. 

But....since you're going to complain I'm avoiding things, I'll go ahead and explain the nature of your, ahem, inaccuracy in this case: the conversation surrounding SC's comment(s) was not "you're factually incorrect," but "what you're saying is somehow offensive/sexist." The latter is false on its face, because he was making a comment about voters without defining their gender. I can see myself falling into the group he described (in slightly different circumstances), so reading his comment as about women voters says more about the reader than about his post. So, we can address whether he's factually inaccurate. Are there voters for whom electing a woman is as important or more important than minor policy differences? I believe so. I, for one, don't see Warren's and Klobuchar's platforms and particularly different, so if I were amongst that group, I could imagine myself switching allegiance from one to the other. 

Considering the two are on the ends of the spectrum on health care and student debt, the two hallmarks of Warren's candidacy, that would simply make you an uniformed voter.  

Just because they are on seperate ends doesnt mean the voter has to be at one end and then jumping all the way over to the other. 

also, just because you believe there is a huge chasm between opinions om certain issues - doesnt mean another voter has to believe the issue is as important. 

True, but that's not the definition of 'identical platforms'.  If one concludes they have identical platforms, they are uninformed.