The South Carolina Debate thread

Also, I'm not sure an example of an experienced, highly-qualified woman losing out to a man who's forced us to revise "unqualified" downward is a convincing example of the death of misogyny.

grrrr

drummerboy said:

smedley,

Are you making the argument that if someone achieves some level of success, that they could not have been affected by prejudice?

Because that's what it sounds like.

 Your words, not mine. The comment I took issue with was "If there was any justice, and if voters were actually paying attention, she'd be ahead of the field by 20 points. I can't help but believe misogyny is the only barrier between Warren and the White House." This suggests that misogyny is the difference between a candidate being 13% ish/ 4th place in the primary polls currently, and being in command with a big lead and headed to the WH. That's the comment I took issue with.   

FYI on current SC polling data.

Link to data:  https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/sc/south_carolina_democratic_presidential_primary-6824.html

Morganna said:

I hated the way Warren chose to bring Bloomberg down. Using the words "kill it" for shock value.

Did he tell a woman, who he may or may not have been involved in to have an abortion? Who knows. He denies it. Some woman told Warren who told the world. Very tabloid and far in the past.

 The words “kill it” are indeed shocking. They are also a direct quote, according to the corroborated account that Warren relies on. 
It might have “shock value” but it also has footnotes to sources. 

Smedley said:

nohero said:

Of the group last night, which one would you want as President today, assessing information and making decisions to deal with the looming pandemic and associated economic disruption?

Objectively, it's Warren.

“Objectively”....Please.  

 I would love to hear your alternative suggestion. 

Please. 

There is no objectively best candidate. Each voter votes for who he/she believe to be the best candidate which is wholly subjective. 

If there was such a thing as an objectively best candidate we may as well do away with our democracy and just have an algorithm pick a president. 

Smedley said:

If there was such a thing as an objectively best candidate we may as well do away with our democracy and just have an algorithm pick a president. 

Subordinate Clauses for $100, Alex.

Of the group last night, which one would you want as President today, assessing information and making decisions to deal with the looming pandemic and associated economic disruption?

DaveSchmidt said:

Smedley said:

If there was such a thing as an objectively best candidate we may as well do away with our democracy and just have an algorithm pick a president. 

Subordinate Clauses for $100, Alex.

Of the group last night, which one would you want as President today, assessing information and making decisions to deal with the looming pandemic and associated economic disruption?

 not sure where you’re going, but I’ll play along. I’ll restate to

If there was such a thing as an objectively best candidate  To assess information and make decisions to deal with the looming pandemic and associated economic disruption, we may as well do away with our democracy and just have an algorithm pick the best candidate for this.

Same premise. Is this satisfactory to you?

Smedley said:

 Your words, not mine. The comment I took issue with was "If there was any justice, and if voters were actually paying attention, she'd be ahead of the field by 20 points. I can't help but believe misogyny is the only barrier between Warren and the White House." This suggests that misogyny is the difference between a candidate being 13% ish/ 4th place in the primary polls currently, and being in command with a big lead and headed to the WH. That's the comment I took issue with.   

 I actually need to thank you. Because almost every time I am stupid enough to make a statement that contains an absolute like "only" you call me on it.  Getting called out on such rhetorical errors forces me to be more careful in future arguments.  I suspect most people got my intent, but you're right, my literal words were too extreme.

Let's change "the only" to "a significant" in my comment, and I'll stand by it.

Smedley said:

Same premise. Is this satisfactory to you?

It seemed to me that a candidate’s overall superiority and a candidate’s superiority in dealing with a specific crisis could be judged by different standards, with one maybe more objective than the other. If, rather, they’re all the same to you, and your answer stands, that helps me understand it. So sure, satisfactory. Thanks.

ml1 said:

Smedley said:

 Your words, not mine. The comment I took issue with was "If there was any justice, and if voters were actually paying attention, she'd be ahead of the field by 20 points. I can't help but believe misogyny is the only barrier between Warren and the White House." This suggests that misogyny is the difference between a candidate being 13% ish/ 4th place in the primary polls currently, and being in command with a big lead and headed to the WH. That's the comment I took issue with.   

 I actually need to thank you. Because almost every time I am stupid enough to make a statement that contains an absolute like "only" you call me on it.  Getting called out on such rhetorical errors forces me to be more careful in future arguments.  I suspect most people got my intent, but you're right, my literal words were too extreme.

Let's change "the only" to "a significant" in my comment, and I'll stand by it.

 Fair enough. I have been the callee as well as the caller on stuff like this. I think i remember one time you said "words matter" to me when I stated something too definitively or the like and then had to clarify/backtrack. I forget the what the discussion was about. So i too (believe i) am a better debater from being in dust-ups on here.

words do matter

ml1 said:

 exhibit A 

 To support what? Amy is not throwing tantrums. Trump on the other hand....

drummerboy said:

One of my favorite foreign policy columnists throws a wet blanket over the debate: And over some of the FP answers by the candidates.

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/the-chaotic-debate-in-south-carolina/

 I don't know that guy but I think he got it more right than all the other "pundits".

Jaytee said:

 To support what? Amy is not throwing tantrums. Trump on the other hand....

 I’d like to see some examples of those daily tantrums you think Warren is throwing. 

"Tantrums"?

Bernie seems in a perpetual tantrum.

Mike Bloomberg said that being President is a Management position for which he has been preparing all his life. You can ask that other "Mike" Dukakis how campaigning on that worked out.

And saying Xi is not a dictator because he is answerable to the Politbureau is one of the dumbest answers I have ever heard in a Presidential Debate.

Bernie is doing well because many people vote on the basis of hope. He appeals to people's hearts and aspirations. 

Elizabeth is trying to do the same. I hope those of you who support her will put your money and time where your keyboard is.

STANV said:

"Tantrums"?

Bernie seems in a perpetual tantrum.

Mike Bloomberg said that being President is a Management position for which he has been preparing all his life. You can ask that other "Mike" Dukakis how campaigning on that worked out.

And saying Xi is not a dictator because he is answerable to the Politbureau is one of the dumbest answers I have ever heard in a Presidential Debate.

Bernie is doing well because many people vote on the basis of hope. He appeals to people's hearts and aspirations. 

Elizabeth is trying to do the same. I hope those of you who support her will put your money and time where your keyboard is.

Biden's demeanor last night was closer to a tantrum than anyone else.  He seemed to shout most of his responses for no apparent reason.  It feels like he's angry that he has to share the debate stage with anyone.  "I was Vice President for eight years for cryin' out loud!! I shouldn't have to put up with this debate malarkey!" 

PVW said:

Also, I'm not sure an example of an experienced, highly-qualified woman losing out to a man who's forced us to revise "unqualified" downward is a convincing example of the death of misogyny.

 https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/02/25/american-politics-sexism-harris-117264

Smedley said:

DaveSchmidt said:

Smedley said:

If there was such a thing as an objectively best candidate we may as well do away with our democracy and just have an algorithm pick a president. 

Subordinate Clauses for $100, Alex.

Of the group last night, which one would you want as President today, assessing information and making decisions to deal with the looming pandemic and associated economic disruption?

 not sure where you’re going, but I’ll play along. I’ll restate to

If there was such a thing as an objectively best candidate  To assess information and make decisions to deal with the looming pandemic and associated economic disruption, we may as well do away with our democracy and just have an algorithm pick the best candidate for this.

Same premise. Is this satisfactory to you?

 You're trying very hard to just mock the discussion.  Sorry for using a word ("objectively") that made you misread what was asked.

The only mocking I've seen on this thread was the Jeopardy snark directed at me that I didn't even really 'get' and therefore shouldn't have responded to.

I do take issue with the notion that one candidate is 'objectively' the best one as that implies everyone who supports a different candidate is wrong. And my comments, which on balance I believe have been on-topic and non-mocking, have been directed toward that end.

Smedley said:

I do take issue with the notion that one candidate is 'objectively' the best one as that implies everyone who supports a different candidate is wrong. And my comments, which on balance I believe have been on-topic and non-mocking, have been directed toward that end.

Fine, that's how you interpret use of that word. 

drummerboy said:

That's a very inaccurate way of framing it.  The Bloomberg comment has been reported for years, and fits in quite well with his other, on the record, sexism.

It's odd that you're discounting the woman's story over Bloomberg, of all people.

 As a viewer who knew nothing about the story, who the woman was, what the circumstances were, my reaction during the debate was What is she talking about and who knows what happened. And what does this have to do with the debate. 

Another poster once commented on something in Harris's personal life. I complained about that as well. I'm not the morality monitor. When I call myself a liberal, I mean that I cut people a lot of slack for past transgressions.  I was as disinterested in Bill Clinton's actions as I was in Kennedy's affair.  

The week before Warren blasted Bloomberg for calling a woman a fat broad. No I didn't clutch my pearls because my friends and I have mercilessly made fun of Trump's appearance.

As for "discounting a woman's story over Bloomberg of all people", I haven't heard the whole story and I don't know much about Bloomberg's personal life or history.  I can't judge anything without any facts and if I heard the whole tale I might just shrug.

I support women running for office, I don't belong to a secret society, where the members mind meld.

The crap some of you argue over is amazing. Anyone watching the debate last night might have thought everyone was throwing tantrums, shouting and attacking people. I liked Liz but after last night I am over her. She was malicious. Even Amy and pete avoided that foolishness. By next week this time the survivors will have to step up their game and show us their plans to correct this train wreck. My opinion is my objective view. Not a candidate’s....

Morganna said:

The week before Warren blasted Bloomberg for calling a woman a fat broad. No I didn't clutch my pearls because my friends and I have mercilessly made fun of Trump's appearance.

This just won MOL.  

Smedley said:

The only mocking I've seen on this thread was the Jeopardy snark directed at me that I didn't even really 'get' and therefore shouldn't have responded to.

I was trying, in a lighthearted way, to bring out something in a comment that your reply may have missed. I’m selfish, and I get more out of these discussions when everyone gets what everybody else is saying.

It sounded like snark, so I failed. I apologize.

DaveSchmidt said:

Smedley said:

The only mocking I've seen on this thread was the Jeopardy snark directed at me that I didn't even really 'get' and therefore shouldn't have responded to.

I was trying, in a lighthearted way, to bring out something in a comment that your reply may have missed. I’m selfish, and I get more out of these discussions when everyone gets what everybody else is saying.

It sounded like snark, so I failed. I apologize.

 Np. I can be guilty of snark aplenty myself, so I should not cast stones. All good 

Jaytee said:

The crap some of you argue over is amazing. Anyone watching the debate last night might have thought everyone was throwing tantrums, shouting and attacking people. I liked Liz but after last night I am over her. She was malicious. Even Amy and pete avoided that foolishness. By next week this time the survivors will have to step up their game and show us their plans to correct this train wreck. My opinion is my objective view. Not a candidate’s....

 it's also amazing what crap people use to decide they no longer like a presidential candidate.  To each his/her own I guess.

Morganna said:

 As a viewer who knew nothing about the story, who the woman was, what the circumstances were, my reaction during the debate was What is she talking about and who knows what happened. And what does this have to do with the debate. 

Another poster once commented on something in Harris's personal life. I complained about that as well. I'm not the morality monitor. When I call myself a liberal, I mean that I cut people a lot of slack for past transgressions.  I was as disinterested in Bill Clinton's actions as I was in Kennedy's affair.  

The week before Warren blasted Bloomberg for calling a woman a fat broad. No I didn't clutch my pearls because my friends and I have mercilessly made fun of Trump's appearance.

As for "discounting a woman's story over Bloomberg of all people", I haven't heard the whole story and I don't know much about Bloomberg's personal life or history.  I can't judge anything without any facts and if I heard the whole tale I might just shrug.

I support women running for office, I don't belong to a secret society, where the members mind meld.

I'm a little surprised that you'd pass judgment on Warren's debate comments if you don't know about the story she's referencing.  what she's talking about regarding Bloomberg is not something from his personal life.  It's an example that is part of a larger ongoing pattern of how women at Bloomberg were treated by him and by others at the company.  If you learn the whole story and you still think it's no big deal that's one thing.  But I don't understand why you would assume Warren is making a big deal over nothing if you don't actually know the details of what she's bringing up.

"Politics ain't bean bag".

Liz had to try to break out and dominate. Being Ms. Nice Gal didn't seem to be doing her any good. As a foe of large financial institutions it figures that she would resent someone like Bloomberg attempting to make his own rules and but the nomination.

Bloomberg came close to red-baiting Sanders and Pete implied, if he did not say, that he thinks Amy is not too bright.

"If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen". 

I sincerely hope the eventual Dem nominee will be "nasty" to Trump. We know that Trump is going to be vicious.