Jump to content
southsider2k5

2016 Democratic Thread

Recommended Posts

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Apr 18, 2016 -> 02:54 PM)
If Kasich was asked by a young man how to feel safer from muggings, and Kasich had ended his reply with "and avoid dark alleys late at night", I don't think he'd be facing any of the backlash he is now.

 

There's not a long history of victim-blaming in that case, though. You cannot ignore that context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 18, 2016 -> 01:53 PM)
Not really. More accurately would be don't drink and drive. We know that driving after drinking involves a higher rate of accidents. We tell people not to drink and drive all of the time. We also tell people not to get into a car with drunk driver, and we sure don't consider it victim shaming to do so.

 

We tell people to not drink and drive - ie, we tell people not to commit crimes. We tell people not to get in the car with drunk drivers - ie, we tell people not to follow someone who is committing a crime.

 

I'm not sure how that's remotely close to women not going to parties with alcohol...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 18, 2016 -> 02:55 PM)
But driving drunk in and of itself is bad. Going to a party is not similar to how driving a car isn't inherently bad and to be avoided. There's nothing wrong with young women wanting to go to bars or parties and even consume some alcohol.

 

Neither is having "password" for a password, but we know it makes you more likely to have your identity stolen, so we tell people not to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 18, 2016 -> 02:59 PM)
Neither is having "password" for a password, but we know it makes you more likely to have your identity stolen, so we tell people not to do so.

I'm struggling to see why you think these examples are equivalent to telling young women not to go to parties where alcohol is served i.e. normal college-age activities they should be able to freely and safely participate in. The solution for college campus sexual assault isn't for women to lock their doors and go to bed at 9PM on a Saturday night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 18, 2016 -> 03:02 PM)
I'm struggling to see why you think these examples are equivalent to telling young women not to go to parties where alcohol is served i.e. normal college-age activities they should be able to freely and safely participate in. The solution for college campus sexual assault isn't for women to lock their doors and go to bed at 9PM on a Saturday night.

 

I know you are struggling to get past the talking points, but I have no idea why. That I can't help you with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Apr 18, 2016 -> 01:54 PM)
If Kasich was asked by a young man how to feel safer from muggings, and Kasich had ended his reply with "and avoid dark alleys late at night", I don't think he'd be facing any of the backlash he is now.

 

The question was what would you do as President to make college campuses safer from sexual assault (paraphrasing). Kasich starts his response by talking about confidential reporting, access to rape kits, and access to justice. Those are all fine policy positions, and if Kasich had ended there, the answer would have been fine. Note, however, that none of those answers have anything to do with preventing sexual assault.

 

The only thing that Kasich says about sexual assault prevention in the answer is the "don't go to alcohol parties" quote. In response to a policy question about sexual assault prevention, that's the only he says that is directly on point to sexual assault prevention.

 

It would be akin to a young man asking Kasich "what policies would you implement to reduce crime in my neighborhood" and, after saying a bunch of stuff about incarceration and reducing recidivism, he said "and avoid dark alleys late at night." Because the only prevention part of the response is what that specific person can do to reduce their risk...

 

Again, to the extent Kasich clarified, I'm glad he did and I'll happily look at his policy position. But as a policy answer, the debated quote was a bad answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm struggling to see why you think these examples are equivalent to telling young women not to go to parties where alcohol is served i.e. normal college-age activities they should be able to freely and safely participate in. The solution for college campus sexual assault isn't for women to lock their doors and go to bed at 9PM on a Saturday night.

 

First of all, those aren't the only two options available. Secondly, there are "parties where alcohol is served" and there are "PARTIES WHERE ALCOHOL IS SERVED". I think you're taking Kasich's statement to an extreme that wasn't intended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The question was what would you do as President to make college campuses safer from sexual assault (paraphrasing). Kasich starts his response by talking about confidential reporting, access to rape kits, and access to justice. Those are all fine policy positions, and if Kasich had ended there, the answer would have been fine. Note, however, that none of those answers have anything to do with preventing sexual assault.

 

The only thing that Kasich says about sexual assault prevention in the answer is the "don't go to alcohol parties" quote. In response to a policy question about sexual assault prevention, that's the only he says that is directly on point to sexual assault prevention.

 

It would be akin to a young man asking Kasich "what policies would you implement to reduce crime in my neighborhood" and, after saying a bunch of stuff about incarceration and reducing recidivism, he said "and avoid dark alleys late at night." Because the only prevention part of the response is what that specific person can do to reduce their risk...

 

Again, to the extent Kasich clarified, I'm glad he did and I'll happily look at his policy position. But as a policy answer, the debated quote was a bad answer.

 

What exactly can a President do policy-wise to prevent sexual assault? The President can't prevent every problem. The President can't make every 18 year old male sit down and listen to a 45 minute lecture on sexual assault. He can encourage high schools and colleges and any other place that has large numbers of 18-24 year old males to do it, and maybe he should have said that, but he can't force that to happen, and I'm struggling to think of what else can be done policy-wise. Through his post-assault policy positions he clearly demonstrated a sensitivity to the subject, and in that context suggesting that a young woman can feel safer by avoiding certain situations is perfectly fine.

Edited by HickoryHuskers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Apr 18, 2016 -> 02:51 PM)
Except there's a huge difference between a father telling his daughter to make good choices and it being a politicians' sexual assault prevention position (particularly in light of the historic treatment of victims of sexual assault).

 

Why? It's still simple, basic guidance that has nothing to do with condoning/supporting rape.

 

I'm in agreement with others that this is akin to telling people not to walk home alone in s***ty neighborhoods, don't drive on expressways at 3am, don't leave your drink unattended at a bar, etc. Do you have the right to do those things? Sure. Are you opening yourself up to more risk by doing so, yes? Is it good, practical advice to NOT do those things? Yes.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Apr 18, 2016 -> 03:05 PM)
The question was what would you do as President to make college campuses safer from sexual assault (paraphrasing). Kasich starts his response by talking about confidential reporting, access to rape kits, and access to justice. Those are all fine policy positions, and if Kasich had ended there, the answer would have been fine. Note, however, that none of those answers have anything to do with preventing sexual assault.

 

The only thing that Kasich says about sexual assault prevention in the answer is the "don't go to alcohol parties" quote. In response to a policy question about sexual assault prevention, that's the only he says that is directly on point to sexual assault prevention.

 

It would be akin to a young man asking Kasich "what policies would you implement to reduce crime in my neighborhood" and, after saying a bunch of stuff about incarceration and reducing recidivism, he said "and avoid dark alleys late at night." Because the only prevention part of the response is what that specific person can do to reduce their risk...

 

Again, to the extent Kasich clarified, I'm glad he did and I'll happily look at his policy position. But as a policy answer, the debated quote was a bad answer.

 

How would you prevent sexual assault?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Apr 18, 2016 -> 02:15 PM)
How would you prevent sexual assault?

 

Irrelevant. I'm not running for President and wasn't asked a direct policy question on that point.

 

If I were running for President, I'd hope I would have an answer to that question that went deeper than don't go to alcohol parties...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Irrelevant. I'm not running for President and wasn't asked a direct policy question on that point.

 

If I were running for President, I'd hope I would have an answer to that question that went deeper than don't go to alcohol parties...

 

Any answer that goes deeper than avoiding certain situations is going to be the kind of unachievable hollow promise that we usually get from politicians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 18, 2016 -> 02:59 PM)
Neither is having "password" for a password, but we know it makes you more likely to have your identity stolen, so we tell people not to do so.

Shhh, don't give away Gage's password.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tonight's loss probably sunk Bernie Sander's presidential aspirations.

 

He gave it a ride, but it was short of the warning track. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw a tweet where 1.5 mil Independant voters weren't allowed to vote when Bernie could've gotten 70% of them. The whole system needs to be redone. It's too out of date like a certain amendment.

Edited by Brian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Apr 18, 2016 -> 03:21 PM)
Irrelevant. I'm not running for President and wasn't asked a direct policy question on that point.

 

If I were running for President, I'd hope I would have an answer to that question that went deeper than don't go to alcohol parties...

 

What types of answers would you have felt were a valid response? How could a candidate have answered the question that would have you applauding and not complaining?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Brian @ Apr 19, 2016 -> 11:51 PM)
Saw a tweet where 1.5 mil Independant voters weren't allowed to vote when Bernie could've gotten 70% of them. The whole system needs to be redone. It's too out of date like a certain amendment.

 

The Democrats are picking a candidate. Their group is selecting a candidate. There are mechanisms in place for people who do not wish to join the Dem organization to select and run for president. Why should people who are not Democrats have any say in which candidate that group nominates?

 

"I'm not a Democrat but dammit I want a voice in who they nominate!" Does that even sound right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Democrats are picking a candidate. Their group is selecting a candidate. There are mechanisms in place for people who do not wish to join the Dem organization to select and run for president. Why should people who are not Democrats have any say in which candidate that group nominates?

 

"I'm not a Democrat but dammit I want a voice in who they nominate!" Does that even sound right?

 

What about people who identify as Democrats but just haven't voted before? Isn't six months in advance a bit excessive for deciding you want to register and vote?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Tex @ Apr 20, 2016 -> 06:18 AM)
What types of answers would you have felt were a valid response? How could a candidate have answered the question that would have you applauding and not complaining?

Everything he said up until that last sentence would have been fine if unremarkable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Brian @ Apr 19, 2016 -> 11:51 PM)
Saw a tweet where 1.5 mil Independant voters weren't allowed to vote when Bernie could've gotten 70% of them. The whole system needs to be redone. It's too out of date like a certain amendment.

I have to imagine that is counting every registered independent in the state of New York, many of whom had no interest in voting in the primary at all, but it deceptively implies that they wanted to vote but were blocked.

 

NY's 6 month registration deadline is ridiculous, but these types of complaints aren't really very helpful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Tex @ Apr 20, 2016 -> 06:22 AM)
The Democrats are picking a candidate. Their group is selecting a candidate. There are mechanisms in place for people who do not wish to join the Dem organization to select and run for president. Why should people who are not Democrats have any say in which candidate that group nominates?

 

"I'm not a Democrat but dammit I want a voice in who they nominate!" Does that even sound right?

 

I have zero problem with closed primaries but forcing people to decide who they are voting for 6 months in advance is just flat out wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a problem with closed primaries but the six month thing can change. Waiting for Sanders supporters to rail against undemocratic caucuses also hurting their cause, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Brian @ Apr 19, 2016 -> 11:51 PM)
Saw a tweet where 1.5 mil Independant voters weren't allowed to vote when Bernie could've gotten 70% of them. The whole system needs to be redone. It's too out of date like a certain amendment.

The #feelthebern crowd is grasping at straws. The system has been the same for a while. These laws are nothing new. 1.5 million Independent voters did not show up and get turned away yesterday, that's just a lie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Brian @ Apr 19, 2016 -> 11:51 PM)
Saw a tweet where 1.5 mil Independant voters weren't allowed to vote when Bernie could've gotten 70% of them. The whole system needs to be redone. It's too out of date like a certain amendment.

 

It isn't the system that is at fault. It is the State of New York. A state like Indiana you declare you party at the poll, and they hand you the correct ballot. There is no reason for there to be a six month cut off for declaring a party. It is stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×