Welcome to the 'Can Joe Biden Win' Discussion?

[Shelby_]

I am so doing a face palm and rolling my eyes.
It's kinda funny though.;-)

Such a blatant display of misandry. ;-)

Not sure why you're rolling your eyes and face palming. I realize the wink indicates you're joking, but I find there's always some truth in a joke, so I wanted to clarify.

The purpose of my original reply to Richard was to highlight the real problem: not hysterical emotional female thinking, but his absurdly narrow minded antiquated stereotyping and overall misogyny.

To be clear, I like men and I enjoy their company.

[Zacha341]

^^^ I'm with you on that last sentence for sure S.

I refuse to feed into the angst, all out war of the sexes and anti-male dispensation.

Some of my best friends are men......

[Richard]

Not sure why you're rolling your eyes and face palming. I realize the wink indicates you're joking, but I find there's always some truth in a joke, so I wanted to clarify.

The purpose of my original reply to Richard was to highlight the real problem: not hysterical emotional female thinking, but his absurdly narrow minded antiquated stereotyping and overall misogyny.

To be clear, I like men and I enjoy their company.

Navratilova states her belief that trans women are men who “decide to be female,” and that to allow them to compete with women is “insane and it’s cheating... it is surely unfair on women who have to compete against people who, biologically, are still men.”

https://www.outsports.com/2019/2/17/...omen-is-unfair


So what is the big deal then if men and women are built the same way.

Not to even mentioning diverting the discussion from how candidates measure up when it comes to composure on the campaign trail into I am a woman hater.

But that is the objective,right,diversionary tactics of the progressive left 101,if you cannot “win” a discussion pick a name to label somebody with in order divert from the discussion.

To bad it is not a winning formula.

[Dan Wesson]

[Richard]

I was referring to the candidates in the current election,Or as Shelby puts it “hysterical women”

I would never argue that Hillary did not have a big set,something unfortunately the previous president lacked.

If you can keep your head when all others around you are losing theirs and blaming you.

Or unflappable.

[Zacha341]

This is a WHOLE 'nuther subject but Navratilova's correct and the fallout in sports is only beginning. As usual women will be impacted negatively.

We should have seen this [[the consequence) around the corner but most were not looking.Eyes wide shut.

[Shelby_]

Shelby, I agree with your comment, "in general women have greater emotional intelligence, or EQ, than men" In your opinion, do you also think men have a greater intelligence of some other type?

It bears repeating that my primary motive was to dispel Richard's ridiculous notion that female leaders are too influenced by their emotions to be effective leaders and the real problem is Richard's flawed perception.

I cannot stress enough that my statements were very general. I think men have just as much potential as women in terms of emotional intelligence. I suspect the higher EQ seen in women is related to the differences in how male and female infants are parented. For example, studies have shown that parents respond to the cries of female infants more promptly than that of their male counterparts. Perhaps that gives female infants subtle encouragement to cry more often and by default become more emotionally secure.

I suspect the same holds true for males. Nurturing and encouragement influence where and how males excel.

Then again, there are biological differences between male and female brains that can't be ignored. Women have a larger hippocampus, men have a larger amygdala. Women have more neural connections between their left and right hemispheres. Women have a larger corpus callosum. Men have more connections between the frontal lobes and the occipital lobe.

A brief anecdote: my two sons seem to have more natural aptitude than my daughter, especially in math. However, my daughter was the better student in respect to grades and achievement because she has a phenomenal work ethic. Maybe my son's quick grasp of calculus is related to gender, but my daughter compensated from her own area of strength....[[Richard!!!)

Not every woman leader was a Mother Teresa. However, European Queens Waged more War than Kings especially married queens. Indira Gandhi, Golda Mier, and Margaret Thatcher were all involved in wars. Hillary was threatening that she was going to shoot Russian planes down over Syria if she became president. Hillary was John McCain in pantsuits. Shiver the thought. One theory is that male rulers think that women are weak or don't like women telling what to do. The flip side of that is that women leaders have to prove something. This history of European queens showed they were 27% more likely to be in a war than kings.

I would guess kings in other countries saw queens as easy pickings. You know, because they're just weak women. So maybe those women did have something to prove.

[Shelby_]

Not wading into the deep waters here, but enthused that you note the differences between men and women in comments. Increasingly, the whole gender/ sex thing; denying such, has become incoherent in the denial. Treading upon itself in justification of gender equality at all costs. Demanding that there's no difference between the sexes [[genders) - especially flowing from the academe.

Made even more curious when obvious differences and protections are ADVANCED one gender over another [[once more) when it is expedient and politically correct to do so! The gender fluidity social construct is still relatively new; recently cannonized as the new progressive intelligence and orthodoxy.

Viva la difference! Let male and female strengths compliment one another towards advancing the best culture possible.

I have to confess, I'm lost on the whole "gender is a social construct" thing. I see gender as a genetic construct. My daughter says I'm being close minded because I see gender as binary. I disagree. I don't care if a guy decides to wear a dress and identify as a her [[though as a grammar nerd when they identify as they/them it makes me crazy), I don't quite understand what they're going through, but I would never try to tell them they can't go through it.

Here's something that kind of blows my mind: my daughter has a friend who is a bio female/trans male. He is absolutely beautiful. Even when he identifies as a guy and wears guy cloths, straight cis guys are always hitting on him. His girlfriend is a bio male/trans female.

My apologies if my ignorance offends anyone. Believe me, I never thought I would be old and not "woke."

[Canadian Visitor]

I have to confess, I'm lost on the whole "gender is a social construct" thing. I see gender as a genetic construct. My daughter says I'm being close minded because I see gender as binary. I disagree. I don't care if a guy decides to wear a dress and identify as a her [[though as a grammar nerd when they identify as they/them it makes me crazy), I don't quite understand what they're going through, but I would never try to tell them they can't go through it.

Here's something that kind of blows my mind: my daughter has a friend who is a bio female/trans male. He is absolutely beautiful. Even when he identifies as a guy and wears guy cloths, straight cis guys are always hitting on him. His girlfriend is a bio male/trans female.

My apologies if my ignorance offends anyone. Believe me, I never thought I would be old and not "woke."

I don't see anything in your posts to apologize for........

My understanding is that 'sex' is binary, it refers to physiology and phenotypicity, hormones, genitals etc.

Overwhelmingly, sex, as defined above is male or female. It is worth noting that approximately 1 in 1500 children are born intersex possession some portion of the sexual reproductive marks of both sexes, and don't neatly fit the above definition.

Gender, on the other hand is generally intended to refer to those behaviors or outward-facing, non-physical, characteristics one chooses to adopt [[style of dress, use of make up, in some measure how one walks or talks and perhaps, but not necessarily, which sex one has an interest in romantically.

Based on the evidence of which I am aware, maleness or femaleness as referring to personality traits really aren't hard and fast........you tend to see most men line up at one end of a spectrum and most women the other but there is an overlap in varying degrees in the middle.

In the past, society would have simply described a 'tom boy' in reference to a girl who liked to work on cars or whatever......

While a male who was highly successful, but emotional might get a passive comment like 'gentle soul'; while a less successful individual might end up a sissy etc.

I think the push here is both to let people who don't squarely end up one side or the other choose how they wish to identify; and to generally push-back against pejorative stereotypes.

That said, I think the idea that gender is entirely a construct is a crock; as multiple, controlled academic studies have shown that most characteristics emerge even when actively worked against in early parenting.

[[boys are more aggressive, like things that move quickly, like to move themselves)

[[girls are more social, more oriented to other people, more communicative)

[Canadian Visitor]

Now, having done my share to emulate Richard in helping keep a thread off-topic.....perhaps we can all get back to Mr. Biden..... LOL

[Zacha341]

It's alot of confusion out there made only worse with the new um' 'choices'. Unapologetically, I am not 'woke' for every progressive incoming societal value and view.

Part of the problem is feeling an obligation to agree with all of this, at the risk of being called intolerant or a hater. SMH!

My apologies if my ignorance offends anyone. Believe me, I never thought I would be old and not "woke."

[Zacha341]

Back to BIDEN:

Julián Castro on Biden jab: I wouldn't do it differently

2020 Democratic primary: Joe Biden is not Barack Obama - Vox

[Richard]

Castro needs to own up to his forced relocations plan,they helped create the massive homeless situation and the best solution was to come up with is forced relocations.

Anticipating NIMBY resistance, Castro last month threatened to sue suburban landlords for discrimination if they refuse even Section 8 tenants with criminal records. And last year, he implemented a powerful new regulation — “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing” — that pressures all suburban counties taking federal grant money to change local zoning laws to build more low-income housing [[landlords of such properties are required to accept Section 8 vouchers).

https://nypost.com/2016/05/08/obamas...-less-wealthy/

[Richard]

Now, having done my share to emulate Richard in helping keep a thread off-topic.....perhaps we can all get back to Mr. Biden..... LOL

The topic brought up by Richard was the difference in composure amongst the candidates and how Biden seemed to be the one that was able to maintain his.

I am not sure how that became diverted to an attack on women in general unless the intent was to divert the discussion.

I am not sure what Shelby was going on about,when you look at what life was like for women in the 1930s they actually have it easy.

Kitchens rival that of most homes back then,washers and dryers have options that rival a new Cadillac,Alexia and YouTube how to explain how to change a vacuum cleaner belt so they do not have to bother thier man when he comes home tired from work with mundane tasks,Uber picks up the kids and a phone call delivers the evening meal right to the door.

So what’s the problem?

[Shelby_]

I don't see anything in your posts to apologize for........

Overwhelmingly, sex, as defined above is male or female. It is worth noting that approximately 1 in 1500 children are born intersex possession some portion of the sexual reproductive marks of both sexes, and don't neatly fit the above definition.

Gender, on the other hand is generally intended to refer to those behaviors or outward-facing, non-physical, characteristics one chooses to adopt [[style of dress, use of make up, in some measure how one walks or talks and perhaps, but not necessarily, which sex one has an interest in romantically.

This is how my kids have explained it as well.

[Shelby_]

The topic brought up by Richard was the difference in composure amongst the candidates and how Biden seemed to be the one that was able to maintain his.

I am not sure how that became diverted to an attack on women in general unless the intent was to divert the discussion.

It became diverted because of this:

There seems to be a level of unstableness within the females of the party,what would happen if there is a crisis in the White House,would they be able to lead sans the emotions?

I am not sure what Shelby was going on about,when you look at what life was like for women in the 1930s they actually have it easy.

Kitchens rival that of most homes back then,washers and dryers have options that rival a new Cadillac,Alexia and YouTube how to explain how to change a vacuum cleaner belt so they do not have to bother thier man when he comes home tired from work with mundane tasks,Uber picks up the kids and a phone call delivers the evening meal right to the door.

So what’s the problem?

So now you're implying that the kitchen a woman's domain?

In what century were you born Richard? The days when women stayed home waiting for their man to come home are long gone. Women work just as long and just as hard and we're just as tired.

[Zacha341]

^^^Yep, and I think we worked very hard back in the day of being 'stay at home' women and mothers too. That option is very under appreciated IMO!

[jcole]

^^^Yep, and I think we worked very hard back in the day of being 'stay at home' women and mothers too. That option is very under appreciated IMO!

The difference was that staying home and raising the kids was their "job", at least according to conventional wisdom. Now, women leave the home to work and are then expected to come home and do all the work there, too. Men have never been expected to do that. Even when the home was their "job", women worked day and night; daytime cleaning, cooking,taking care of the kids: nighttime, taking care of their man, in several ways. Men came home, sat down, expected some sort of cold drink to be waiting, dinner almost ready, house clean, wife "pretty", kids tidy and ready for bed right after dinner. Then he got to sit and watch the news, have a smoke, etc, while the little woman "red" up the dishes and then "red" up for him.

[Richard]

It became diverted because of this:

There seems to be a level of unstableness within the females of the party,what would happen if there is a crisis in the White House,would they be able to lead sans the emotions?



So now you're implying that the kitchen a woman's domain?

In what century were you born Richard? The days when women stayed home waiting for their man to come home are long gone. Women work just as long and just as hard and we're just as tired.

I made a simple comment about candidates use of emotions as a tool while on the campaign trail.

And asked the question,with the image that it portrays,would they be able to lead sans the emotions.

You quoted it and for a second time,instead of discussing the comment you chose to turn it into an attack on women in general.

Are you going to address the question or continue with diversionary tactics?

Case in point - Kamala Harris has on several times addressed,in a highly emotional state,a bussing policy that was addressed by Mr Biden in his early years.

Completely ignoring that at that time bussing was in its infancy stages and was a highly votile issue.

The question still stands,is it possible for somebody on the campaign trail that uses emotions as a tool forgo that while in office when making decisions.

I already know your response Shelby because you allowed the false narrative of “they are sending children to thier death” to effect you emotionally and without facts spread the false narrative.

I also realize that some may not see that in a harmful way but there a lot that do.

On the second part,I am not sure what century or world you are living in but women have been in the workforce sense the start of time and weather you like it or not there are still women that prefer to stay at home and take care of thier man,as you put it,it was war and economics that changed the role of women in the workforce.

Why would you refer to it in a degrading manner,do not those women that prefer to stay at home deserve the same respect as those who either choose not to or are force to due to financial reasons?

I thought it was about a woman’s right to choose?

[Zacha341]

Yes some marriages were that glum, no doubt. Successful marriages and relationships now benefit from everyone pitching in and sharing duties. Expectations are still based on WHO you choose without talking out world views and roles before living together. Talk it out in detail for less surprises later. What is 'red' up BTW?

The difference was that staying home and raising the kids was their "job", at least according to conventional wisdom. Now, women leave the home to work and are then expected to come home and do all the work there, too. Men have never been expected to do that. Even when the home was their "job", women worked day and night; daytime cleaning, cooking,taking care of the kids: nighttime, taking care of their man, in several ways. Men came home, sat down, expected some sort of cold drink to be waiting, dinner almost ready, house clean, wife "pretty", kids tidy and ready for bed right after dinner. Then he got to sit and watch the news, have a smoke, etc, while the little woman "red" up the dishes and then "red" up for him.

[Shelby_]

^^^Yep, and I think we worked very hard back in the day of being 'stay at home' women and mothers too. That option is very under appreciated IMO!

Absolutely. I didn't mean to imply stay at home moms don't work hard. I was lucky enough to stay home with my kids until they started school. Unfortunately that isn't an option for most families

[jcole]

Yes some marriages were that glum, no doubt. Successful marriages and relationships now benefit from everyone pitching in and sharing duties. Expectations are still based on WHO you choose without talking out world views and roles before living together. Talk it out in detail for less surprises later. What is 'red' up BTW?

It’s an old fashions mid Atlantic saying that means to tidy up or clean up. As in “to redup ones room “ I think it may have to do with “get ready”. To get ready ones room or the dishes

[Shelby_]

I made a simple comment about candidates use of emotions as a tool while on the campaign trail.

And asked the question,with the image that it portrays,would they be able to lead sans the emotions.

You quoted it and for a second time,instead of discussing the comment you chose to turn it into an attack on women in general.

#31

Please use the above link to reread your comment. I did discuss your comment. I suggested you were making a mountain out of a mole hill. I said that any woman who has distinguished herself professionally has learned how to deal with men who question their leadership abilities based on stereotyped assumptions. I said successful women have trained themselves to compartmentalize because if they were out of control and overly emotional, they wouldn't be in a position of leadership for very long.

I said you failed to see the benefits of having high emotional intelligence. Those who possess it are better at communicating, resolving conflict, reading people and picking up on subtle nonverbal clues.

I said that empathy, the ability to relate to people, and to intuitively understand etc., cannot be learned.

Finally, I said that maybe our country would benefit from a leader who's actually capable of feelings beyond his own self interest.

Case in point - Kamala Harris has on several times addressed,in a highly emotional state,a bussing policy that was addressed by Mr Biden in his early years.

Completely ignoring that at that time bussing was in its infancy stages and was a highly votile issue.

The question still stands,is it possible for somebody on the campaign trail that uses emotions as a tool forgo that while in office when making decisions.

Yes. See my above comments.

I already know your response Shelby because you allowed the false narrative of “they are sending children to thier death” to effect you emotionally and without facts spread the false narrative.

Closing your eyes to reality won't make it go away. It wasn't a false narrative and not knowing the correct semantics doesn't mean I was wrong.

On the second part,I am not sure what century or world you are living in but women have been in the workforce sense the start of time and weather you like it or not there are still women that prefer to stay at home and take care of thier man,as you put it,it was war and economics that changed the role of women in the workforce.

"Their man" came from you. See #64

Why would you refer to it in a degrading manner,do not those women that prefer to stay at home deserve the same respect as those who either choose not to or are force to due to financial reasons?

I thought it was about a woman’s right to choose?

Refer to what in a degrading manner?

[oladub]

The difference was that staying home and raising the kids was their "job", at least according to conventional wisdom. Now, women leave the home to work and are then expected to come home and do all the work there, too. Men have never been expected to do that. Even when the home was their "job", women worked day and night; daytime cleaning, cooking,taking care of the kids: nighttime, taking care of their man, in several ways. Men came home, sat down, expected some sort of cold drink to be waiting, dinner almost ready, house clean, wife "pretty", kids tidy and ready for bed right after dinner. Then he got to sit and watch the news, have a smoke, etc, while the little woman "red" up the dishes and then "red" up for him.

Step right up. Uncle Joe has the elixir! This is a Joe Biden thread after all.

"You get a tax break for a racehorse, why in God's name couldn't we provide an $8,000 tax credit for everybody who has childcare costs?" "It would put 720 million women back in the workforce. It would increase the GDP, to sound like a wonk here, by about eight-tenths of one percent. It would grow the economy." -Joe Biden in Philadelphia 9/17/19

Trump's tax cuts included an increase of day care credits from $1,000 to $2,000 and expanded the range of eligible beneficiaries. In May, Biden said, "First thing I'd do would be to end those Trump tax cuts." It isn't clear if Biden meant to end Trump's daycare tax cut before doing his own but the good news is that it would put 720M women back in the work force.

Expanding the work force is always good for business profits too especially when it can be accomplished with government subsidies. I just came across this curious article that might be related to subsidizing corporations. "The major cities being designed without Children in mind"

[Pam]

Step right up. Uncle Joe has the elixir! This is a Joe Biden thread after all.

"You get a tax break for a racehorse, why in God's name couldn't we provide an $8,000 tax credit for everybody who has childcare costs?" "It would put 720 million women back in the workforce. It would increase the GDP, to sound like a wonk here, by about eight-tenths of one percent. It would grow the economy." -Joe Biden in Philadelphia 9/17/19

Trump's tax cuts included an increase of day care credits from $1,000 to $2,000 and expanded the range of eligible beneficiaries. In May, Biden said, "First thing I'd do would be to end those Trump tax cuts." It isn't clear if Biden meant to end Trump's daycare tax cut before doing his own but the good news is that it would put 720M women back in the work force.

Expanding the work force is always good for business profits too especially when it can be accomplished with government subsidies. I just came across this curious article that might be related to subsidizing corporations. "The major cities being designed without Children in mind"

As pointed out elsewhere- the total US population is only 330 million. Just stop talking Joe.