Debate PEDs? Cancelling SNL? [A politics thread]

[HughJ]

There is a actually pretty big difference between voting Johnson and not voting at all, even if he realistically stands no chance in this election. Winning 5% of the popular vote will qualify the libertarians for millions of dollars in public funding for the next election. Hitting that mark will be a step towards breaking the current republican/democrat duopoly.

I like this guy

[AuthorReborn]

I'm supposed to be studying, but I wanted to get involved in a little bit of discussion here, so I will just throw in a couple of cents here and be on my way. I'll (probably) be back to chat more in the next few days. Just read the bold text for tl;dr.

Okay, so this topic was from a little while ago in this thread (not going to lie, I was ignoring this thread for a lil bit due to its political nature but eventually my curiosity got the better of me), but sexual assault, specifically referring to the arguments of "why now" and "too late/should have come forward sooner to make it non-politicized:"

As others have stated, sexual assault is an incredibly traumatic experience that often leads to the victim being further abused if they come forward with their allegations. As a result, most don't tell for years or even decades in certain cases. It should certainly be noted that the criminal law in America reflects this reluctance to come forward, since in most states, there is no statute of limitations on rape (and there are several allegations of rape being raised against Trump), with many states having a sizable period of time for the victims to come forward for other sexual misconduct and offenses. Thus, there's really no reason that they shouldn't be able to come forward at anytime, regardless of the obvious impact it will have on the opinions of people for the election. I'm certain that they were inspired in some way by the terror of the potential for their sexual abuser to become the nation's Executive or by the reveal of the 2005 tape and its implications that they were not only the one of the the many women that Mr. Trump had mistreated or, quite frankly, some or all of them may be lying about the allegations and only raised them for the desire to harm Mr. Trump's candidacy in some way. Regardless of the truth of the allegations, it is important to remember that they are entirely within their legal rights to raise these charges against Mr. Trump at any point in time and shouldn't necessarily be scrutinized (outside of the very real and necessary legal scrutiny their cases should receive within the court of law) by the general public simply based on timing alone.

[Chase]

I was pretty supportive of Cruz following Marco Rubio's exit - yes. Largely because at that point, it was quite decided that Republicans were either going to go with the super conservative who could care less about some people, versus ...well....you-know-who.

It wasn't a pleasant choice, but Cruz at least had a chance of playing at the middle without damaging his standing in a Trumpian manner among Republicans (he would have had to in order to beat Clinton, in my opinion) and there's also the per-emptory voting pattern Congressional races have where a decisive Republican president usually causes good turnouts for voters supporting Democrats for Congress (and much like President Obama would find out, vise-versa.)

There was also Kasich...who....well, was in a position a lot like the one Johnson is in now. The best option on the table from my vantage point, but decidedly unable to gain any ground in the race.

Unlike the Democrats, we didn't pass on a good candidate in the primary. We passed on 5 or 6 good candidates in a messy 17-way race that came down to two unsavory options.

I think it's important to say that my enthusiasm for Cruz peaked around the time of the Wisconsin primary (along with his campaign) - before North Carolina passed HB2 and before Trump got to his beloved Northeastern map. From there, I didn't stick with the ship.

Rubio was my guy. He still isn't the sexiest option for transgender individuals, but he knows how to work with Democrats (as seen through his attempt in passing the Gang of Eight bill) and I agreed largely with his viewpoints. He also is someone who gave an Iowa atheist the best answer to the question of God's place in governance - one that seemed to be very open to religious freedom for all beliefs and non-aggressive when it came to policy.

---

The trust thing is important here. I can tell you that this election has been a hideous experience, but it's caused me to do a lot of soul-searching. When I watch the news, I see people concerned with the way the GOP nominee behaves and talks about people much like them - and it's not something I would want to enact on everyone in the country. I've waffled on a several things (such as marijuana legalization) when reviewing policy in my spare time - when I otherwise would have been firm.

If there's one thing that I know about my heart, it's that people matter and their lives are worth defending. The map isn't drawn well - as conservatives have to answer for weak gun policy when claiming to be pro-life, and liberals have to answer for weak global response when claiming to oppose terrorism - but everyone in public service at least - should - be trying to protect as many lives as possible through the work that they do.

What you said about electing Obama for a third term? I'm in the same boat. At least that guy appears to be trying.

If you think my motives are against you, there's not any physical way I can prove the contrary to you. We don't live in the same place, and our discourse seems to largely be focused on these icky political matters usually in disagreement. However, after watching this chaos over the past year, I would be willing to bet that moderate Republicans appeal the most to me from here on out - and that every measure of governance I review gets put under the scrutiny of both the "Christian" and the secularist, so that I can determine - for myself - what the right thing to do in those measures is.

[Eviora]

Question: If the election magically became Clinton vs Cruz, with Johnson remaining as a third party candidate, who would you vote for?

From my perspective, the problem with people like Rubio and Kasich is that despite their more moderate viewpoints, they would still appoint Supreme Court justices who would likely uphold discrimination. That means they would do damage outlasting their tenure as president just the same as Trump would. Further, though I'm not familiar on the specifics concerning whether those candidates have addressed this issue, I notice many of the Republican candidates seem trigger happy about the prospect of undoing Obama's executive orders, many of which protect people from discrimination. So there's this baseline standard of dehumanization that seems common among many Republican presidential candidates, even the ones who don't appear as horrible as the rest.

Trust is important when it comes to friendship, and what I've learned from this election is that so many people seem completely oblivious that there's a relationship between what they do and what they say that trust becomes all but impossible. But I don't believe it's your goal to be discriminatory. I just think you might do it anyway in pursuit of some other objective, and that's something I find hard to forgive and harder to even want to forgive. It has always been the case that people who, in an ideal world, would want the best for each other end up fighting instead over what they believe is best. As they say, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

[Chase]

I don't know how valid that view on Republicans nominating strict conservatives that are malicious is, but I know for a fact that when it comes to upholding ideology over justice, the "conservative" justices on the Supreme Court aren't as consistent as their liberal counterparts. That's another thing that I happen to like about conservative presidents. Historically, Republican presidents don't always go for the Antonin Scalia (from an ideology standpoint) - whereas Democrats seem to have a penchant for judicial activists who will stretch for liberal causes and dismiss sound dissenting arguments from their conservative counterparts.

Part of strict construction-ism (the antithesis of judicial activism) is holding the law as it's written. This has burned people hoping to discriminate against people in the past, and makes it hard for even the most conservative of justices to misconstrue or undermine the law.

Taking Obergefell's decision into account, it would almost take a conservative version of today's liberal justices to revert that decision - and when it comes to finding conservative judicial activists, well - Republican presidents haven't done a great job of it -or- Democratic Congresses have thumbs downed those justices beforehand. Thankfully.

---

Yeah, you should see me try to point out that relationship of actions and intentions to reluctant Trumpers. It's almost become as routine as eating dinner or brushing my teeth, and it's also a sad thing to witness. It does - admittedly - get to the point where I have to eschew the election and remember that those people generally behave in a trustworthy manner anywhere else.

I also know however, that take-and-give is very necessary in today's world - because not everyone can go on Sherman's March to the Sea and come out with the so-called "ideal world." A good example of this is Trump himself. He's going to lose this election because he's trying to run against other Republican leaders, the media, entire ethnic groups, women, and Hillary all at the same time. Avoiding the scorched-earth is pertinent to people who aren't Trump and should learn from his demise.

Knowing my background - I believe the ideal world is an impossibility (for humanity to engineer), but that it's still a valiant cause to at least build community with one another. If any politician has their sights on a perfect country - Republican, Democrat, independent - that is a cause that is destined for failure. However, hope can be restored and generated tenfold if the goals are made a little bit lower and tolerance improves.

God, I just used the word "tolerance"...Damn this election.

---

I believe you would want a real forthcoming answer and not just the one in hindsight.

I really, really, dislike Clinton. Considering the fact that I knew Donald Trump was a disaster nomination, I would have been elated if Cruz were to make the comeback because I like underdogs and I know come November all of the liberals (and some of the conservatives out there) are going to be as relieved as I would have been to see Trump fall.

There's also a personal empathy that I have for Cruz in that it's hard for him to be liked - and I've always felt I had that stigma myself. That was enough to make Cruz a semi-respectable alternative to the Donald.

Against Clinton - I would probably be on Ted's bandwagon at the start, and there's a good chance (if Hillary failed to make anything we've discussed stick) that Ted Cruz might have gotten my vote in November.

---

In hindsight though - Johnson is a much more attractive alternative - as he is against Trump and Clinton today. You mentioned Cruz's late endorsement - and it was around that point I stopped caring completely about our dear senator - who rescinded the action that gave him a shred of respect after imploding during the final days of the primary. He -again- would suffer from being a minor party candidate, but at least he doesn't actively try to harm other people with his policy positions.

In short, yesterday I would probably have been Cruzin', today I would be voting for Gary.

Hindsight has 20/20 vision though - I have to be ready to admit potentially making a mistake in pursuit of being truthful.

[Eviora]

Well, props to you for admitting you probably would have made a mistake. I suppose I can't hold what you never did against you - after all, I've made more than my share of actual mistakes.

I find it difficult to accept anything less than complete legal equality when it comes to these discussion, because doing so feels like an endorsement of the idea that I'm worth less than most people, and I hate myself enough as it is without adding that baggage to the heap. Compromise, I feel, can only really be achieved when two parties view each other as deserving of respect. To me, the baseline decency not to reject an entire demographic without a really good reason (like if that demographic is "serial killers") is necessary to qualify for a position of any power. That is why I never can trust anyone who claims to give a shit about me when they're willing to support people who fall short of that standard.

Anyway, it looks like, somehow, we've managed to temporarily diffuse the storm of emotions that usually follows me around, and I feel like I've emphasized my "actions first" way of thinking more than enough in this thread. It's probably just because this is the first day in a while that I've felt better than 'bleh'. Otherwise, I'm sure I would have done a better job of living up to my reputation as an insufferable bitch. Regardless, I feel like I'm barely even talking about politics anymore, and I've probably taken my tangent a bit too far already, so I will bow out now. Have fun, everyone~

[Hiss13]

Can we just have both the candidates arrested and have a do over? I'd really like that. :3

[Chase]

You know, Evi. I actually think you're pretty cool and -not- an insufferable bitch. It's admirable to be as steadfast as you are to your cause. Hopefully my needling isn't seen as anything more than a nuisance. I only do so because I too care about many of the issues you bring up, without being exactly certain your method is the best way to go about it. There's a difference between bitching because you are passionate and bitching to bitch if you will. The way I see it, is that you want change to hold and to continue.

If not for your own sense of security and yourself, for the safety and progress of others like you.

That much isn't just a you and I thing. It's essentially similar to both Democrats and Republicans trying to solve bipartisan issues through different means. When that's the goal - the only appropriate thing to offer the other party is respect. It's a real shame some of us on the right forget that as of late. Consider your view on compromise seconded. Both sides can do a better job of trying to govern the country if they would enter the House and Senate chambers and the debate halls with respect for their opposing peers. When that happens, America gets things done for once.

As far as weather dispositions go, I'm very much like the state I live in. Some days I feel great and don't mind giving a little in my discourse. Other days I'm overcast and drone on issues without budging, and still others I'm a raging storm and will tenaciously pursue defense for a particular side.

Admittedly, that doesn't do much for people's emotions - and as a thinker (not a feeler) I often rub people the wrong way in that regard. I do apologize for whatever I might have caused you in that regard.

---

I don't need either candidate arrested, Hiss - but a do-over would be very much appreciated.

[nsbwinner2]

Sorry to take a big step into this, but I just wanted to provide my opinion. Warning, I'm not a college student or a qualified conspiracy theorist, so don't take my word as a prophet's word. Regarding the email scandal, I believe absolutely that there should have been a major consequence. She was issued a subpoena in the beginning of the month, and suddenly, by the end of the month, 33,000 emails just so happened to be bleached from existence, those who did the act of destroying the evidence would answer no questions, and just so happened to be granted a complete immunity. I AM 15 AND I CAN SMELL SOMETHING FISHY!!

Subpoena issued March 5th, 2015!

Emails deleted and BLEACHED March 25th-31st 2015!

That is illegal guys. When you get a subpoena, you can't play that game. I won't be able to believe my eyes if she doesn't get in trouble for this sooner or later big time. I believe it's 3 years for every confidential email, oh boy Hillary, talk about rotting in jail.

As for trump, Jesus Christ man focus on the message!! While he is absolutely correct about media bias, (if you don't see it, you haven't been paying much attention) he keeps saying that it will be rigged instead of fighting to win. He is playing in the dirt while Hillary barely takes up that lead that she needs to form a win. If he does not smack her down hard at this debate, it won't be pretty.

Regarding the sexual assaults, once again, I am no professional, but hear me out.

When these women all suddenly come forward at the same time, all with stories of sexual assault, and just so happen to be coming out shortly before the debates, I sense some major bull. Not only that, but in fact, I found it a bit strange when I did some research and found out that lady who claimed that Trump "was all over her like an octopus", had ripped the line WORD FOR WORD FROM ANOTHER SEXUAL ASSAULT CASE IN THE UK!!

https://conservativedailypost.com/trump-accuser-on-airplane-proven-guilty-airplane-details-show-blatant-lie/

When all of the these women come forward in the same day, around the same time, against the same person, with some pretty damn sketchy stories... I think I'll rely on my own thoughts and research over what the media rants about.

You know it's bad when their families and witnesses are coming forward and calling their crap on it. I can't believe some women could do such a thing. Why? What do you seek to gain other than ridicule when you're exposed? Besides the fact records show more than 50% of rape allegations are proven false...

And.. 35 years, ok? You can't be ok with it for so many years, never coming forward, and then sudddnly along with a perfect half dozen other women all come forward at the same time. It just doesn't add up in the slightest. This election, is honestly and without a doubt, deplorable. The media is blatantly caught in Wikileaks to be lying to us all and doing select cut style reporting from certain outlets, (Washington post etc etc) and now they expect us to trust them? I cannot believe my eyes, I may not know policy down to a T, but even I can tell this is ridiculous.

Thanks for reading! Any feedback is appreciated as long as it's not personal attacks (please guys, I get all trump style pissed!)

If I had to vote right now, it would certainly be for Trump. At least he can name our enemy and not use Benghazi as a political distraction.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clinton-campaign-used-benghazi-as-distraction-from-email-scandal/article/2604251

As well as the fact that he will actually advocate change instead of continuing obama'a FAILURES as he has doubled our debt, left us with the time bomb of Obamacare, and has quite literally been the single most girly president I have ever seen. His political correctness makes me want to stab myself just to remind myself what the real world feels like... I just hope it won't be a repeat of what wasted my father's life in Iraq by pulling the troops out after all of their hard fought efforts just to allow another regime to rise (and Hillary and Obama decided to feed the beast)

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/wikileaks-confirms-hillary-sold-weapons-isis-drops-another-bombshell-breaking-news/

But I'll just go ahead and leaves the politics to the grown ups now, I suppose. Sure hope that subpoena case comes to bite Hillary.

Idea to discuss of my own, what should come first in society, law or liberty? I put my money on liberty without a second thought, but I wonder what others might say.

The fact that you cite sketchy conservative sources says it all really. I'm sure it's OK to grab women by the ***** too right?

Trump's going to lose next month and you know it. No need to be salty...

[nsbwinner2]

I don't know how valid that view on Republicans nominating strict conservatives that are malicious is, but I know for a fact that when it comes to upholding ideology over justice, the "conservative" justices on the Supreme Court aren't as consistent as their liberal counterparts. That's another thing that I happen to like about conservative presidents. Historically, Republican presidents don't always go for the Antonin Scalia (from an ideology standpoint) - whereas Democrats seem to have a penchant for judicial activists who will stretch for liberal causes and dismiss sound dissenting arguments from their conservative counterparts.

Part of strict construction-ism (the antithesis of judicial activism) is holding the law as it's written. This has burned people hoping to discriminate against people in the past, and makes it hard for even the most conservative of justices to misconstrue or undermine the law.

Taking Obergefell's decision into account, it would almost take a conservative version of today's liberal justices to revert that decision - and when it comes to finding conservative judicial activists, well - Republican presidents haven't done a great job of it -or- Democratic Congresses have thumbs downed those justices beforehand. Thankfully.

---

Yeah, you should see me try to point out that relationship of actions and intentions to reluctant Trumpers. It's almost become as routine as eating dinner or brushing my teeth, and it's also a sad thing to witness. It does - admittedly - get to the point where I have to eschew the election and remember that those people generally behave in a trustworthy manner anywhere else.

I also know however, that take-and-give is very necessary in today's world - because not everyone can go on Sherman's March to the Sea and come out with the so-called "ideal world." A good example of this is Trump himself. He's going to lose this election because he's trying to run against other Republican leaders, the media, entire ethnic groups, women, and Hillary all at the same time. Avoiding the scorched-earth is pertinent to people who aren't Trump and should learn from his demise.

Knowing my background - I believe the ideal world is an impossibility (for humanity to engineer), but that it's still a valiant cause to at least build community with one another. If any politician has their sights on a perfect country - Republican, Democrat, independent - that is a cause that is destined for failure. However, hope can be restored and generated tenfold if the goals are made a little bit lower and tolerance improves.

God, I just used the word "tolerance"...Damn this election.

---

I believe you would want a real forthcoming answer and not just the one in hindsight.

I really, really, dislike Clinton. Considering the fact that I knew Donald Trump was a disaster nomination, I would have been elated if Cruz were to make the comeback because I like underdogs and I know come November all of the liberals (and some of the conservatives out there) are going to be as relieved as I would have been to see Trump fall.

There's also a personal empathy that I have for Cruz in that it's hard for him to be liked - and I've always felt I had that stigma myself. That was enough to make Cruz a semi-respectable alternative to the Donald.

Against Clinton - I would probably be on Ted's bandwagon at the start, and there's a good chance (if Hillary failed to make anything we've discussed stick) that Ted Cruz might have gotten my vote in November.

---

In hindsight though - Johnson is a much more attractive alternative - as he is against Trump and Clinton today. You mentioned Cruz's late endorsement - and it was around that point I stopped caring completely about our dear senator - who rescinded the action that gave him a shred of respect after imploding during the final days of the primary. He -again- would suffer from being a minor party candidate, but at least he doesn't actively try to harm other people with his policy positions.

In short, yesterday I would probably have been Cruzin', today I would be voting for Gary.

Hindsight has 20/20 vision though - I have to be ready to admit potentially making a mistake in pursuit of being truthful.

Ted Cruz single-handedly almost shut down the government even after both parties had agreed on a deal...says it all really.

It's always good to hear people admit they made a mistake (of course Donald could never say that) but your new opinion isn't much better

On top of which, Gary Johnson doesn't know what Aleppo is and can't name a single world leader. If you can't talk to the world, you have no right to be president -- that simple.

[HughJ]

On top of which, Gary Johnson doesn't know what Aleppo is and can't name a single world leader. If you can't talk to the world, you have no right to be president -- that simple.

Don't exaggerate. Johnson knew about the Syrian refugee crisis and the moment he was reminded that Aleppo was the second-largest city in Syria he talked intelligently about the subject and how Russian assistance would be needed

And he didn't fail to name a single world leader, he failed to recall the name of Vincente Fox (whom he thought of less than 10 seconds after being asked).

People forget names sometimes, and the fact that he was willing to own up to it on camera instead of Trump or Clinton's political tiptoeing around the issue (do you know how many times Trump just starts answers with "I started with a small million" or Clinton tries to pitch "Well as an OUTSIDE candidate...")

It's amazing that politicians have become so good at passing the buck that when someone actually owns up to a slight mistake, everyone regards it as incompetence.

[Eviora]

Well, it's kind of you to say that, but I know what kind of aura I give off. I certainly have no delusions about being a friendly person.

---

As far as a do-over is concerned, that would be a hard thing to justify on the Republican side considering that, as far as I'm aware, Trump won the nomination fair and square. Perhaps if fewer minor candidates crowded in for a shot at the glory the party could settle on someone a bit less horrible...

On the Democratic side, though, apparently there was some type of bias in Hillary favor. That's a fact that doesn't sit well with me considering just how good a guy Bernie is. When asked if he was frustrated by learning that the DNC had conspired against him, Bernie admitted that he was, but then brushed the matter aside, held up a statement of Hillary's platform, and said, "This is what matters". It's a shame more politicians aren't so selfless. Though it may make me a fool, I trust Bernie to earnestly do what he thinks is best and to always treat people fairly. If, in 2020, Hillary finds herself running in the Democratic primary and she has a decent opponent, I don't think I'll forget what her camp did to Bernie. It's a shame he's almost certainly too old to run again.

[Chase]

D.C. has been shut down before over sequestration before, friend. With that one, you have to lay the lumber on Senators like Cruz as well as President Obama. I'm not going to waste my time vilifying the president. If you're going to say Cruz is a jerk for causing gridlock, Obama is just as much of a jerk according to your logic.

Knowing that Cruz was campaigning against the Affordable Care Act due to it's implications (which he's actually been RIGHT about in most cases) - I can't fault the Senator for being aggressive. Even the Clintons will willingly admit Obamacare needs to be amended because it does limit choice and hike premiums in several areas while -failing- to achieve "universal" status.

It -has- given lots more folks access to healthcare - but it's a bill that needs to be altered to where it's not hurting Americans simultaneously. If it can't be changed to avoid harming Americans simultaneously, it -does- need to be struck down.

---

Oh, Trump won fair and square. I don't need justification to "want" a re-do - if Trump being himself doesn't count as justification to begin with.

I believe Hillary also had a bigger turnout than Bernie (which is what matters), but there was some preference for Hill within Democratic brass - and it did get out in the open thanks to WikiLeaks.

Those e-mails revealed the DNC saying a bunch of pretty mean things about the Bern, and there did seem to be a little collusion between Camp Hillary and Wasserman-Schultz' gang - but I don't think it's enough to say she cheated the primary away.

I will say that I think it's unfair to show bias one way or the other.

[Hiss13]

I finally remembered what it was that I wanted to comment on here.

4. Women don't yet have equal pay for equal work (We may not be a minority, but it remains an equal treatment issue)

When did the Equal Pay Act of 1963 become null and void? There's an earnings gap, yes. But, if there were any hint of pay discrimination based on sex, there would be lawsuits everywhere. Because it's illegal.

EDIT: I just stuck my hand into a hornet's nest on this one. Hehehe. But, I've heard this so many times that it pisses me off.

Edited October 24, 2016 by Hiss13

[Eviora]

I'm too distracted by the prospect of my imminent death (or worse) to take that bait. Do your research.

[Hiss13]

I have. And all the statistics and research I have looked into pretty much paint a different picture from what you're saying. If you're referring to the 77 cent to a dollar figure, then you clearly have not looked into how that figure was calculated or what it actually means. There is a difference between an earnings gap and a pay gap. If you are not, then I have no idea what you are referring to.

Also, damn. That response of yours is incredibly condescending.

Edited October 24, 2016 by Hiss13

[Chase]

Well, she felt you were baiting her on that one...so... There may be some misunderstanding all around there.

I think there are some unavoidable things regarding that Equal Pay act.

The last time it was updated was in 1963 - before the Civil Rights act was passed. This may possibly explain some of a stark increase in the earnings gap between men and women of minority groups.

Not all employers are actively trying to discriminate against women - but payroll auditing (something that's just a good idea for a company in general) would shore up the gap a little bit to prevent the gap from getting worse. In most causes, payroll isn't audited, and it is proven that the wage gap is existent. It's trending speed however depends on companies' willingness to be put under the microscope, and I think that's a good thing to want.

It's literally the difference between equal pay being achieved by 2060, or by 2160.

Now, there are some things that contribute outside of things legislators and business types can control.

• There tend to be more stay-at-home moms than there are stay-at-home dads.
• There tend to be more men in industrial jobs (i.e. foundry workers) than there are women.
• There tend to be more male doctors than there are female ones (almost 2 men to 1 woman!)
• There tend to be more male lawyers than women (60%-40%)

Those things will need more women to continue entering the work force and breaking the status quo in order to change. With the lawyers example, current attendance in graduate law programs have women making up 47% of students. Things like this improve the gap because the more women getting the higher paying jobs the more they lower the gap without government assistance.

This doesn't mean, however, that the government shouldn't touch the issue further. I just think things like a 15 dollar minimum wage isn't the best thing to go about it.

[Hiss13]

Well, she felt you were baiting her on that one...so... There may be some misunderstanding all around there.

I swear, mental sarcasm and bait detectors are terrible on the internet. The amount of false positives and false negatives you get are crazy.

I think there are some unavoidable things regarding that Equal Pay act.

The last time it was updated was in 1963 - before the Civil Rights act was passed. This may possibly explain some of a stark increase in the earnings gap between men and women of minority groups.

Not all employers are actively trying to discriminate against women - but payroll auditing (something that's just a good idea for a company in general) would shore up the gap a little bit to prevent the gap from getting worse. In most causes, payroll isn't audited, and it is proven that the wage gap is existent. It's trending speed however depends on companies' willingness to be put under the microscope, and I think that's a good thing to want.

It's literally the difference between equal pay being achieved by 2060, or by 2160.

Now, there are some things that contribute outside of things legislators and business types can control.

• There tend to be more stay-at-home moms than there are stay-at-home dads.
• There tend to be more men in industrial jobs (i.e. foundry workers) than there are women.
• There tend to be more male doctors than there are female ones (almost 2 men to 1 woman!)
• There tend to be more male lawyers than women (60%-40%)

Those things will need more women to continue entering the work force and breaking the status quo in order to change. With the lawyers example, current attendance in graduate law programs have women making up 47% of students. Things like this improve the gap because the more women getting the higher paying jobs the more they lower the gap without government assistance.

This doesn't mean, however, that the government shouldn't touch the issue further. I just think things like a 15 dollar minimum wage isn't the best thing to go about it.

Here's the problem. A lot of what you are talking about is due to the choices of people. That's where the main issue arises. You can't force people to change what they want. But, considering that you're talking about percentage of women in law school as an example, you are fully aware of the fact that the 77 cent figure (which is what I am assuming what Eviora is talking about till she says otherwise) is a general median figure. Any scientist would look at the lack of accounting for external variables and laugh.

In the end, there are a ton of external factors that lead to that figure including total hours, overtime pay, frequency of men vs women in each field, and job tenure, each of which are all generally individual choices. I'd site the CONSAD report, done by the US Department of Labor, which pretty much did a meta analysis and concluded "The differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers."

It's a long report though the Foreword does a nice job of summing up the findings.

Long story short, the 77 cent figure is used as a tool to generate fear of some patriarchy while at the same time hiding the meaning of the figure. The choices of an individual play a huge role in that figure. It's something that can really only be fixed by changing individual choices and frankly, I would rather see an individual making their own choices. If someone focuses on that 77 cent figure, then I should say that fatal workplace injury is also a matter of inequality because of the 92-8 men-women ratio.

[Chase]

I'm not the one saying wage gaps between genders are solely due to discrimination - but that's entirely hard to say for certain one way or the other unless you are focusing on specific data points or research. That's bad academics right there.

If we're being completely honest about women in the workplace getting payed as much as men are - the trend shows two things.

• Women are improving their standing, generally closing the gap with men as the years go on.
• There is indeed an apparent stalling of progress. It's not so much that women are losing ground, but are slowing their progress down.

Yes, you are absolutely right that employees' individual decisions play into the wage gap, but that isn't the only issue there. Employers can always take steps to ensure they are not lapsing with payroll responsibilities - including monitoring the payroll through personal investigations as opposed to allowing the government to do so.

That doesn't mean the gap doesn't exist. That also doesn't mean that workplace discrimination doesn't happen. Have you ever asked yourself why equal pay is something the Democrats care a whole bunch about?

• Democrats love equality issues in general. If there's one they can reasonably highlight for their cause, they will.
• Democrats have a huge gain over Republicans when it comes to worker's unions - which deals in fairness for employees.
• Democrats claim to be the party for women -and- progressivism.

Essentially, equal-pay is actually the bigger cash-cow for female votes than even women's choice with pregnancy is. So long as there is evidence supporting a wage discrepancy, they will spin it to ensure it mobilizes women to the ballot box. It also isn't met with nearly as many women who are on the fence or opposed over the issue of abortion. Everyone wants to payed fairly.

It's also a very relevant issue because it allows Hillary to flaunt the woman card without taking as hard a stance on other women's issues. Most people want women to be treated fairly in the workplace and there's really not much of an objection there. Hillary becomes the champion princess of women by making this a major campaign issue.

If you are still thinking "Hunter, I still think this is just completely spin" - you're half right in some senses. Democrats don't say "We're making progress as it is already" all that often. It's a part of the equality drive though. They won't stop harping until the gap is completely crushed.

It doesn't matter what the real cause is.

[Hiss13]

I'm not the one saying wage gaps between genders are solely due to discrimination - but that's entirely hard to say for certain one way or the other unless you are focusing on specific data points or research. That's bad academics right there.

My bad if it came off like I was trying to argue that with you. Now that I think about it, that first paragraph was kinda confrontational. Sorry 'bout that.

If we're being completely honest about women in the workplace getting payed as much as men are - the trend shows two things.

• Women are improving their standing, generally closing the gap with men as the years go on.
• There is indeed an apparent stalling of progress. It's not so much that women are losing ground, but are slowing their progress down.

Yes, you are absolutely right that employees' individual decisions play into the wage gap, but that isn't the only issue there. Employers can always take steps to ensure they are not lapsing with payroll responsibilities - including monitoring the payroll through personal investigations as opposed to allowing the government to do so.

There's also the fact that women have avenues by which to go after anyone who may actually be discriminating against them. You're right. There are numerous steps that can be taken without government intervention.

That doesn't mean the gap doesn't exist. That also doesn't mean that workplace discrimination doesn't happen. Have you ever asked yourself why equal pay is something the Democrats care a whole bunch about?

• Democrats love equality issues in general. If there's one they can reasonably highlight for their cause, they will.
• Democrats have a huge gain over Republicans when it comes to worker's unions - which deals in fairness for employees.
• Democrats claim to be the party for women -and- progressivism.

Essentially, equal-pay is actually the bigger cash-cow for female votes than even women's choice with pregnancy is. So long as there is evidence supporting a wage discrepancy, they will spin it to ensure it mobilizes women to the ballot box. It also isn't met with nearly as many women who are on the fence or opposed over the issue of abortion. Everyone wants to payed fairly.

It's also a very relevant issue because it allows Hillary to flaunt the woman card without taking as hard a stance on other women's issues. Most people want women to be treated fairly in the workplace and there's really not much of an objection there. Hillary becomes the champion princess of women by making this a major campaign issue.

If you are still thinking "Hunter, I still think this is just completely spin" - you're half right in some senses. Democrats don't say "We're making progress as it is already" all that often. It's a part of the equality drive though. They won't stop harping until the gap is completely crushed.

It doesn't matter what the real cause is.

What it boils down to is that it's the ugliness of political virtue signaling at work.

*sigh*

And honestly, I don't have much left to say here. I'm not much of a fan of politics so, jumping into this thread for debate was probably a terrible idea on my part, but eh. I got what I needed to say off my chest.

[PokeFailure]

I spent like an hour reading this entire thread because I was really bored

I'm not gonna comment on anything other than share one simple thing, People complain about corruption in politics "They take money, bribes, give up their morals etc."

Politicians don't care, they care about their party, You can complain about the left, the right,the middle, that one tree that voted and no one noticed, It doesn't matter.

A politicians "Job" is to serve the interest's of the people, I think we can all agree they don't do that very well.

Both sides are corrupt, you can argue one is more corrupt than the other, it doesn't matter, because you're Arguing and are distracted from the issues.

One vote doesn't change an election, One person doesn't change a party. At the end of the day, you can vote for that one amazing candidate you love but the common problem still remains, What is that problem you ask? Politics, at the root problem of politics is corruption, power leads to corruption and it's an endless cycle.

Whether you're a Trump Supporter for whatever reason, Or a hillary supporter for whatever reason, Neither of them care about what you want, their party doesn't either.

3rd Party candidates Might care, but they lack the power to change anything or they get squashed by "Don't throw away your vote the other guy might win if you do"

At the end of the day, Nothing will change, the cycle will continue, politicians will pretend to care, you'll go out and vote for them (or not) and life won't change all that much.

So I just have one question for all of you, Why do you bother caring about things like politics? I mean I get it from a "They oppose the thing I like or I have a right to and they might take it away" But aside from politicians taking away your guns, Saying Abortion is murder (Even though the government drops more bombs and kills more people than Abortions do) or any other controversial topic.

Why bother caring about something that offers.....Nothing in return and you have no control over? Why not phase it out of your life and replace it with something more....Rewarding, Like a pet that actually cares about you, http://www.adoptapet.com/ Adopt a pet, stop caring about politics and start caring about things that actually matter. Adopt a pet and the other candidate might not win, you never know.

[HughJ]

Why bother caring about something that offers.....Nothing in return and you have no control over? why not phase it out of your life and replace it with something more....Rewarding, Like a pet that actually cares about you, http://www.adoptapet.com/ Adopt a pet, stop caring about politics and start caring about things that actually matter. Adopt a pet and the other candidate might not win, you never know.

I was waiting for the switch on this fatalistic bait and switch but all i got was a pet advertisement

You have to go harder in the paint. End your political diss tracks with a hard sell of cocaine or don't begin them at all

"Politics is never going to change and the human race is doomed anyway, so why not speed things up a little with a few 8 balls?"

Edited October 25, 2016 by HughJ

[Strider]

I think everyone should put some thought into politics.

Not voting, and not caring only compounds the problems in the system which you speak of.

[Chase]

I was really hoping there would be a call to get eat some Arby's. Adopting a pet is actually almost... heartfelt.

People care about politics because even if corrupt the politicians that represent you influence the direction of the country. If voters have the opportunity to put people that represent them in office then, that is where people should care and engage in the system.

I agree though, adopting a pet is probably more rewarding.... in the short term.

[mde2001]

People care about politics because if everyone took that mindset we'd have huge issues. One vote doesn't change the course of an election, but if everyone starts to think their vote isn't worth a lot then the whole system is screwed. Its up to individuals to get educated about these things and vote for the candidate they believe in.

Pets might give you attention but in the end they aren't the ones who are making huge decisions for you country. Politicians get to decide on taxes, wars, marriage equality, gun control, gender identity laws, appoint/ block people to the supreme court, public education and a whole host of other important things. Caring about politics means you care about those issues and your country's stance on them.

Government corruption is a thing and you can say that voting is useless, but I'd like you to see a country where voting isn't an option. Something tells me you wouldn't enjoy it all that much. People all over the world are fighting for their right to vote and if you're lucky enough to live in a country where that is a right you have, I don't think you should squander it yourself, let alone go out and actively tell other people to squander it and that they shouldn't care. Every political system has problems and politicians don't always do what their voters want, but that doesn't invalidate politics as a whole.

You don't have to care, no-one can or should try to make you become super involved, but don't go around telling people they shouldn't care. Everyone has their own interests and things they care about and if politics happens to be one of ours then that isn't your problem. Honestly there are a lot of less important things to care about than world events and the people who are in charge of some of the world's superpowers.