Democrats Take Back House

[Karha of Honor]

I never thought we'd take all of Congress, and I urged Mom to realize this. Especially when she had to admit the Senate is gerrymandered to hell. And no, clearspira, you're completely wrong. Saying Clinton was all about being a woman candidate is missing the point. If anything, she struck me more as Obama's third term, or a return to the values we had in the 1990s. But you are right about some people being more anti-Clinton than pro-Trump. Though the reverse is true. There are some people who were more anti-Trump than pro-Clinton. And the same held true for Sanders as well. It was a very conflicting time. And it will be even more so if another woman wins the nomination in 2020. I hope Kamala Harris does. This country could use a good kick in its patriarchal nuts and finally get a female President. How pathetic is it that we're that far behind the rest of the world? Germany, the country that murdered huge populations of people, has had a female leader? That's how low we've sunk, people. That's how patriarchal and conservative we are...

Values of the 90s return? What? Hillary ran a 2016 progressive campaing. If she ran a 90s one the press would have hated her and woudl have branded her a racist.

How woudl having a female president change anythign for the better? How is not having one makes the US backwards?

[Yukaphile]

You'd think a country that preaches freedom and equality would have had one long before now. Maybe we're not as equal as we think?

[Karha of Honor]

You'd think a country that preaches freedom and equality would have had one long before now. Maybe we're not as equal as we think?

Equality? That shit does not exist like that. It does not exist like that even where they claim it exists.

[Yukaphile]

I guess my point then is that other countries have been more progressive than us, kept up with the times, while we're still afraid of female leaders. "With, like, boobs and stuff!"

[Karha of Honor]

I guess my point then is that other countries have been more progressive than us, kept up with the times, while we're still afraid of female leaders. "With, like, boobs and stuff!"

Times? Sounds like fashion to me.

[ChiggyvonRichthofen]

As littleraven said, the Senate isn't gerrymandered.

European countries are certainly more progressive/liberal in most ways, but one of the reasons I see Trump as more symptom than cause is because there's been a definite rise in nationalistic/far-right/whatever-you-want-to-call-it sentiment in Europe as well. In some countries it's not as pronounced as in the U.S., but it's there.

Is there any subject the two agree on anymore? The two can't agree on giving free medicine to the poor.

I think artificially dividing people into two groups (or more) is one of the basic elements of politics. If you removed those labels or are in the midst of a crisis where those labels don't matter, then I think there's a huge amount of things that people could agree on, or at least compromise. What does worry me about the current state of the divide is that so many seem to have lost the ability to differentiate between parties and individuals, despite most having plenty of perfectly normal acquaintances, friends, and relatives who are "on the other side." No, instead everyone is evil and either a nazi or communist.

The politicians themselves definitely know better, but right now the strategy has been to play to the base of your party that makes up 15-25% of the population. Trump made this clear when he mocked about half a dozen losing Republican representatives and implied that they lost only because they didn't "accept the embrace."

So I guess what I'm saying that people could agree, but so many are so bitter right now that they wouldn't agree on anything even if both sides would agree completely in a vacuum.

[LittleRaven]

I guess my point then is that other countries have been more progressive than us, kept up with the times, while we're still afraid of female leaders. "With, like, boobs and stuff!"

I don't think America is particularly backwards when it comes to electing females. Sure, we haven't had a female President yet, but we also don't have a parliamentary system, the way that most European countries do. Merkel does not run for her role. Her party runs, and if it wins, then she gets the office as the head of her party. Nancy Pelosi has used the same trick to become Speaker several times.

Whether or not a parliamentary system is superior to FPTP is up for debate. Both systems have strengths and weaknesses.

[Madner Kami]

You'd think a country that preaches freedom and equality would have had one long before now. Maybe we're not as equal as we think?

The fact that she is a woman doesn't make her any less qualified to be president, but it also doesn't make her any more qualified. In a truely equal society, she'd get elected because people agree with her viewpoints and policies, not because they want to see boobs in office.

[Yukaphile]

Well, I sadly think we can expect a token female Vice-President in 2020, especially if it's a female candidate that loses to the more popular guy, and that bugs me because if she's qualified enough to be Vice-President, then she deserves the top job, over the man, because we've never had a female President before, and little girls and women deserve to be empowered that way for the first time in 200 years. But it's not going to happen. I'm probably going to have to wait till 2028 or beyond before we see a legitimately elected female President, chosen by the masses, rather than piggybacking on a man. That's pathetic.

[Madner Kami]

Well, I sadly think we can expect a token female Vice-President in 2020, especially if it's a female candidate that loses to the more popular guy, and that bugs me because if she's qualified enough to be Vice-President, then she deserves the top job, over the man, because we've never had a female President before, and little girls and women deserve to be empowered that way for the first time in 200 years. But it's not going to happen. I'm probably going to have to wait till 2028 or beyond before we see a legitimately elected female President, chosen by the masses, rather than piggybacking on a man. That's pathetic.

What's pathetic is the notion, that a woman deserves office because she's a woman. It's incredibly patronizing to get her into office over anyone else, just because she's female instead of her actual merits. "Because she's female" is as stupid a reason to get someone somewhere as is "because he's male". Either she gets there on her own merits or she gets there because she's a token woman. Only one of those two options is benefitial to equality. The other ruins any chance of credible equality.