Thread: Trump gives young feminist the brush-off on equal pay and abortion

Everyone knows how to snake drains. Sometimes a garden hose will also work to get a sudden volume of water into the line and wash debris down as it should be. I don't think a candy bar would typically block a sewer pipe; maybe there was an additional cause. Do you have tree root problems?

My view of what women can do has no effect on their actual performance, I am just observing it. And generally I would rather work with a woman. But I can;t do two people's jobs at the same time. And that includes men who either can't or won't do good work.

Originally Posted by ALIPAC

That young lady standing there with her hands on her hips and a bossy look.... she looks just ridiculous.

W

Why would you say that? I thought she looked adorable and brave. Her question was very good, hit two important issues in one little sentence.

Originally Posted by csarbww

This post is a reply to the following quotation from Judy’s post:

“Women are not required to meet any different performance standard than men. There are men performing way below the standards that women are performing, yet men make more money, a lot more money, than women doing not only the same work, but a higher quality of work. On this issue, Trump failed.”

I try to avoid the so called “woman’s issues” because I want to stay focused on my single priority issue: ending the illegal alien invasion. But this statement is too much for me to ignore. Your assertion about the faux disparity in compensation between men and women in the work force is so totally contrary to my experiences in a life time of working many different jobs with many different employers. Never ever has any employer offered me more money because I was a man. This is the job, this is what it pays. That was always the way it was. No man verses woman pay stuff. I worked as a medical lab tech and OR Room surgical nurse. Those jobs are overwhelmingly done by females. Never was I offered a penny more for doing that work. It never entered my head nor any of my employer’s heads to give me more money then a women.

My only experiences with pay disparity was when I worked production line in a factory. They worked me like a mule all day long lifting heavy pans of small parts to supply women working on the line who sat on their fat behinds. In the summer heat they had big fans blowing on them-- I had none. I had to lift 70 pounds they lifted little rings a few ounces each. I probably worked 3 times harder for a whopping 5% increase in pay.

One of the women on the line decided she wanted to do a “man’s job” because it paid better. She got the easiest job for a man, driving a fork lift. Two weeks later she was back on the production line lifting little metal rings. When I asked her why she came back to the old job she told me that the small increase in pay was not worth all of the extra hard labor she had to do--gee you think! Yes sir we males all conspiring together get all of the big bucks while secretly scheming to keep women poor, barefoot and pregnant.

Later in life when I was still working my ass off in low wages jobs, I dated women who were secretaries or middle management office workers who earned far bigger salaries than mine, two times or more doing jobs a lot easier. Yet I drove them all around in my car and paid for everything on a date. Of course these things did not last long because I could not afford to keep buying dinners at nice restaurants that they took for granted. Of course not all women are like that but it goes to the disparity in pay stuff.

Later in life I worked office jobs and almost all of my bosses were women making a lot more money. And I know for afact their salaries were the same as the few men at the same level of management.

I personally know of police departments and fire departments that had two different physical standards to qualify for those jobs, always the woman’s standards were far easier than those for men. I hope nobody tries to deny this because I know this for a fact from the poor guys who tried to get hired. This was done to keep the federal government off of their back for not having enough women or minorities.

And while I am on the subject, White males are the only group there can be too many of when it comes to hiring employees in private companies or government jobs or college admissions.

I know that some of my examples are not about the exact same type of work but most are, and the other information ties into the bigger picture of assumed disadvantages in lifetime earnings and standards of living.

I am really tired of hearing how easy men have it, of how stupid and incompetent we are, of how we are responsible for everything that is wrong in the world as compared to the wonders of female competence and brilliance. It gets to be tedious and insulting.

I have more but I will stop here because this could fill an entire book.

P.S. Judy you are a good person but…

No one thinks men have it good. American Workers of all races of both genders are getting screwed. But it's not women who have caused your plight. Lack of jobs and too many foreign workers are the reason American Workers are getting screwed, along with the decline in unions who have been the only entity that really fights for the wages and benefits of American Workers.

No one has said that men are stupid or incompetent. Men have the same issues in those areas as women. There are stupid people, there are incompetent people, and there are smart and competent people, regardless of gender.

From your own experience, you believe the women managers in the companies you worked with earn the same as men managers. That may be true, it may not be. One only knows if the information is available to you, which is usually isn't, which is why women have been paid less for decades only to find out they were discriminated against, too late to file a discrimination suit. That's what led to the Lilly Ledbetter legislation that changed the way our EEO office handles and addresses these claims.

In any event, not all companies cheat women, but enough do, that it's a serious problem. It's less so now, because of a woman named Lily Ledbetter, whose situation exposed the problem, led to US Supreme Court Rulings, and eventually to the federal law known as the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.

What a disgrace to the Republican Party to try and block such a bill? It passed the House in 2007, but was blocked by the efforts of John McCain and Republicans in the Senate. It was introduced again, and passed in 2009 and signed into law by Barack Obama, and at least this part of inequality in the work force can be addressed and hopefully eradicated over time. If employers know they'll be punished when they're caught cheating female workers, they'll be far less likely to do so.

You guys needs to remember that the women being cheated are your wives, your daughters, your sisters, your mothers, grand-daughters, other female relatives and friends, neighbors and fellow citizens.

Why in the world would you not want to stand up for us? You act and post like the women who benefit from this road to equality have nothing to do with you, as you were born in a test tube and raised in a bubble. These issues are your issues because the beneficiaries are your own family members, which means your own families, which means ... YOU. When women are treated equally, all the men in their families benefit, which means you benefit.

Why do you want to shoot yourself in the foot or cut your nose off to spite your own face??!!

COME ON, GUYS! We're all in this together, what benefits one, benefits another, and it all comes home to roost in the family checking accounts, whether it's your own, your parents, a siblings, a cousins, your kids or grand-kids.

Originally Posted by Captainron

Everyone knows how to snake drains. Sometimes a garden hose will also work to get a sudden volume of water into the line and wash debris down as it should be. I don't think a candy bar would typically block a sewer pipe; maybe there was an additional cause. Do you have tree root problems?

My view of what women can do has no effect on their actual performance, I am just observing it. And generally I would rather work with a woman. But I can;t do two people's jobs at the same time. And that includes men who either can't or won't do good work.

You didn't read the post carefully. Yes, they snaked it with a large snake, it was after they had snaked it that the candy bar fell into the clean out pipe and got hung up in the curve right at the joint of where it joins the main sewer pipe. So it was going to catch everything that came through the pipes from the house and create a blockage. You should know that. You can't put a candy bar in a sewer pipe wrapped in a water-proof candy wrapper and not have a blockage in the near future.

But I can;t do two people's jobs at the same time. And that includes men who either can't or won't do good work.

Exactly. Gender is irrelevant. The issue isn't whether a worker is a man or a woman if they're qualified and capable. The issue is who is qualified and capable, not their gender.

I'm not a strong woman. I can do a lot of things, but my hands, shoulders and back aren't strong. My legs are strong and I can use them to help me lift things, but generally I'm not a physically strong person, I'm athletic but not strong when it comes to lifting, pulling or carrying. I can push pretty good, but other things not so well. My sister on the other hand who is actually much shorter than I am is much stronger than me. My mother was very strong, although tall and slim, she had great strength for her size and could do things well that I couldn't do at all. So I am a woman who knows her limitations so I improvise and do these incrementally. It can get done but drives people crazy watching me and it would never work on a job site, takes too long.

But simply because I can't do these things, I don't want to see other women who can be deprived of their right to do those jobs and when they do be paid equally for equal work.

What American can possibly be opposed to that?!

Originally Posted by MW

Judy wrote:



Actually Romney won the higher percentage of the white woman vote. Yes, he did lose by a large percentage to black and Hispanic women, but an argument could be made that it had little to do with women issues. I say that because we know Obama took most of the black votes, male and female, simply because he was black. As for Hispanic women, I think immigration was the issue that guided them to vote Obama.

Well, he didn't get this white woman's vote or Mom's, or my sister's, or any other female in our family. It doesn't take too many of those to lose an election.

In Romney's case, he lost the gender cap by the widest margin of any President since 1952.

___________________________________

http://www.gallup.com/poll/158588/ge...p-history.aspx

November 9, 2012

Gender Gap in 2012 Vote Is Largest in Gallup's History
by Jeffrey M. Jones
Obama wins women's vote; Romney has eight-point edge among men

PRINCETON, NJ -- President Barack Obama won the two-party vote among female voters in the 2012 election by 12 points, 56% to 44%, over Republican challenger Mitt Romney. Meanwhile, Romney won among men by an eight-point margin, 54% to 46%. That total 20-point gender gap is the largest Gallup has measured in a presidential election since it began compiling the vote by major subgroups in 1952.

Gender Gap in Voting for President, Final Pre-Election Polls, 1952-2012
Track the 2012 race and compare it to past elections >

Notably, Obama's 12-percentage-point advantage among women is slightly less than the 14-point advantage he had over John McCain in 2008, while Romney improved on McCain's performance among men by eight points. Thus, the narrowing of Obama's winning margin between the two elections, from seven points to two points, can be ascribed mainly to men's shifting more Republican.

Gallup's historical estimates of the gender gap are based on its final pre-election estimate of the major candidate vote for each election, with the results adjusted, if necessary, to correct for any difference between Gallup's pre-election estimate of the vote and the actual election results. In the 2012 election, Gallup's final unallocated estimate of the vote, based on Nov. 1-4 tracking, showed Obama favored by 48% of likely voters and Romney by 49%. Thus, for this analysis, Obama's support among men and women was weighted upward slightly to match his actual 50% support in the election, and Romney's was weighted downward to match his 48% support level.

The gender gap has been evident in presidential voting since at least 1952, though it tended to be somewhat muted in the 1960-1972 elections, averaging just four points. Two of those elections, 1964 and 1972, were landslide victories for incumbent presidents. The other two were highly competitive contests. The actual percentages of the major-party vote each candidate received from men and women can be found in Gallup's election center.

Prior to this year, the largest gender gap in Gallup polling history was 18 points in the 1984 election that saw Republican Ronald Reagan win a second term in office. Majorities of both men and women voted for Reagan in that election, but he won among men by 28 points (64% to 36%) and among women by 10 points (55% to 45%). It is unclear to what extent the presence on the Democratic ticket of Geraldine Ferraro, the first woman to be a major party's nominee for vice president, had on the vote of women that year.

Women have supported the Democratic candidate in each of the last six elections. Men favored the Democrat in only two of the last six -- 1992 and 1996 -- and in only four of the 16 elections since 1952.

Overall, since 1952, men and women have differed as to the party's candidate they favored six times, including 1960, 1968, 1976, 2000, 2004, and 2012. In 2008, McCain ran even among men, while women preferred Obama by a large margin.

Implications

The gender gap continues to be a significant factor in U.S. presidential elections, and the preferences of men and women have never differed more than in the 2012 election. There are a number of possible reasons for the increase in the gender gap this year. For example, Romney's business background may have been more appealing to men than to women. Obama's campaign stressed maintaining the social safety net, raising taxes on the wealthy, maintaining abortion rights, and requiring healthcare coverage for contraception -- all in contrast to Romney's more conservative positions on these issues of potential interest to women.

The Democratic Party will likely attempt to secure Obama's election advantage among women by carrying forward the themes that seemed to work in future elections at all levels of government. It remains to be seen whether and how the Republican Party will change course to try to broaden its appeal to women without forfeiting the strong support of men.

____________________________

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...me_voters.html

We Won the White Vote

Romney lost. So why do his advisers brag about the demographic groups they won?
By William Saletan

In the three weeks since the election, we’ve heard excuses and explanations from Mitt Romney, his pollsters, and his chief campaign strategist. Romney’s pollsters published their initial thoughts on Nov. 12. Two days later, Romney and his chief pollster issued a postmortem report to his campaign donors on a pair of conference calls. This week, we got another review from Romney’s polling firm, an op-ed from his senior strategist, and a follow-up interview on CBS.

The overall tenor of these reflections is that Romney and his advisers are proud of what they accomplished. They won the demographic groups they set out to win. The only problem is that these groups didn’t add up to a majority. The operation was a success, though the patient died.

Let’s take the putative success stories one by one.

1. Incomes over $50,000. A few days ago, in a review of the exit polls, Glen Bolger of Public Opinion Strategies, who polled for Romney’s super PAC and for Karl Rove’s American Crossroads, pointed out that “Romney won middle income voters ($50-100K) by six points.” Bolger was troubled that Romney lost the election while winning this group. But two days later, in a Washington Post op-ed, Romney’s chief strategist, Stuart Stevens, converted this statistic into a boast. “Romney carried the majority of every economic group except those with less than $50,000 a year in household income. That means he carried the majority of middle-class voters,” Stevens crowed. Brushing aside the campaign’s critics, Stevens concluded that “any party that captures the majority of the middle class must be doing something right.”

Sorry to break it to you, gents, but if you check the most recent U.S. census data (Table A-1 of this report), you’ll discover that 49.8 percent of Americans have less than $50,000 a year in household income. And if you look at the right-hand columns, you’ll find that median household income is slightly more than $50,000. So when you brag about winning “every economic group except those with less than $50,000 a year in household income,” that doesn’t mean you won middle-income voters. It means you don’t know what middle-income is. And it means you’re dismissing 50 percent of Americans, which makes you 3 percentage points more out of touch than Romney and pretty much kills you in any election where lower-income people show up to vote.

2. Whites under 30. In his op-ed, Stevens touted Romney’s success with young voters: “While John McCain lost white voters younger than 30 by 10 points, Romney won those voters by seven points, a 17-point shift.” But wait a minute. The joint national exit poll says President Obama beat Romney 60 to 36 percent among voters under 30. How does Stevens turn this into a Romney triumph? By excluding minorities. According to the exit poll, roughly 35 to 40 percent of voters under 30 were black or Latino. Set those people aside, and voila, Romney won young voters.

3. White women. In his Nov. 12 analysis, Bolger discounted the idea of a Republican problem with women:

The first thing I want to point out about the exit polls is that Mitt Romney won white women by 14 points—56%-42%. … So, the next time you hear Republicans are struggling with “women”—push back with that. Yes, the GOP is getting killed with minority women—4% with African American women, 23% with Latino women—but the whole “war on women cost Romney the election” is simply not true.

Really? Let’s look at that exit poll again. Romney’s performance among white women was 6 points worse than his performance among white men. His performance among black women was 8 points worse than his performance among black men. His performance among Latino women was 10 points worse than his performance among Latino men. Shrugging this off as a problem with minorities, not women, ignores a gender pattern that extended across all ethnic groups. Oh, and Romney won the election by 7 points among men. That tells you all you need to know about the GOP’s awesome relationship with women.

4. Independents. In his Nov. 26 analysis, Bolger noted: “Romney won Independents by five points. That’s better than George W. Bush in 2004 by six net points. … Romney was the first national candidate in exit polling history to decisively win Independents and lose the election.” This paradox completely shocked the Romney team, as Slate’s John Dickerson reported three days after the election:

They believed Obama would win only if he won over independent voters. So Romney focused on independents and the economy, which was their key issue. The Republican ground game was focused on winning those voters. “We thought the only way to win was doing well with independents and we were kicking ass with independents,” says a top aide. One senior adviser bet me that if Obama won Ohio, he would donate $1,000 for every point that Romney won independents to my favorite charity. (That would be a $10,000 hit since Romney lost Ohio but won independents by 10 points).

Again, Romney won the battle but lost the war. Capturing independents by five points gave Romney a 1.5 percent advantage in the overall vote—not nearly enough to overcome the 4.5 percent advantage Obama got from the predominance of Democratic voters, who outnumbered Republicans 38 to 32 percent.

In all four cases, the pattern is the same. Romney won the groups he targeted, and his team continues to point out proudly that he won them. But mathematically, these groups no longer decide elections. In a Nov. 12 memo, Romney’s polling firm asserted that “our research did what it is designed to do—provide strategic counsel to campaigns about key target groups and messages designed to help them win.” But what happens when the “key target groups” aren't key? You can exclude blacks, Latinos, surplus Democrats, and people who earn less than $50,000 from your target groups and your poll analysis. But you can’t exclude them from the election.

Romney, in his postmortem conference calls, pretended not to have played this game. "The president's campaign, if you will, focused on giving targeted groups a big gift," he argued. Specifically, Romney said Obama had targeted “the African-American community, the Hispanic community and young people.” By contrast, Romney claimed his own campaign had focused on “talking about big issues for the whole country.” Stevens, in his op-ed and in his follow-up interview, made the same pitch: While Obama played small ball, Romney “wanted to talk about big national issues.”

Please. You guys played the same demographic game the Democrats did. The difference is, your target groups don’t add up to a majority. Narrowing the electorate on paper to the groups that favored you isn't how you retool for the next election. It's how you lost.

William Saletan's latest short takes on the news, via Twitter:
Tweets by @saletan

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...me_voters.html
____________________________

Romney lost the women vote, referred to as the "gender gap", by 20 points, the highest in US history since 1952, when Gallup started doing the post-election surveys.

What race women are is irrelevant. In this country, it's 1 person, 1 vote, regardless of race.

When Republican platforms are anti-women, anti-equal pay, anti-women's rights, you are insulting the intelligence of most women. There is no honest woman who wants to be paid less than man for equal work, and I doubt any man in her life would want her to be, so who are these people opposing equal pay for equal work? MORONS. And at the end of the day, the same is true on abortion rights. No honest woman would want to force their female family members into childbirth against their will and no man who cared about her would either. Sure, it's easy to stand back and judge a policy when it may not apply to you and decide what someone else should do. It's like in college, we used to talk about how all the Catholics were opposed to abortion, until they needed one.

These truly bizarre inexplicable platforms in the Republican Party platform is killing our country, because you're forcing voters to choose between equal pay for equal work and the right of someone in their family to terminate an unwanted pregnancy and other issues we stand for like stopping illegal immigration and ending free trade treason. The first two platforms serve no purpose, no public policy, are totally UnAmerican, and are just too weird for most Americans to cast a vote for.

Yes, you can get candidates into Congress through sections of the country, but only for awhile, and not long enough to achieve our other important goals which need strong majorities in both chambers of Congress and the White House.

So I'm hoping the National Republican Platform Committee has the common sense, intelligence and loyalty to the American People to change it and support equal rights for everyone, including women and go neutral and silent on abortion, the way it used to be.

Then that frees our candidates to go out there and be candidates for all the people of the United States, the way it was intended.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016...-plant-n443476

Trump Accuses Tough Questioner of Being a Bush Plant

by Leigh Ann Caldwell

After a member of the audience defiantly challenged Donald Trump at an event in New Hampshire Monday evening, Trump said the young woman was a plant by the Jeb Bush campaign.

Trump tweeted quoting a conservative website that said the woman was an intern for Bush.

Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump

"@Politics_Reddit: That feminist who called out Trump last night? She's a Jeb intern. http://www.theconservativetreehouse....p-narrativehit …" Jeb always gets caught, sad!
6:02 AM - 13 Oct 2015

The woman, identified as Lauren Batchelder, demanded to know if Trump would ensure that woman are paid the same amount as a man if he became president and if she would have say over her body.

Trump responded that a woman "will make the same if you do as good a job." In response to the abortion question, Trump simply said, "I'm pro-life."

The Bush campaign responded that she has never been paid but volunteers at events.

"Like many in NH, Lauren is a student at St. A's who is passionate about and active in politics and attended this event on her own accord. While this question was not sanctioned by the campaign, we can't help but notice Mr. Trump does seem to be very sensitive about being challenged by women," a campaign aide said.

Judy wrote:

Well, he didn't get this white woman's vote or Mom's, or my sister's, or any other female in our family. It doesn't take too many of those to lose an election.

Well I certainly hope it wasn't Obama!

Judy you keep arguing different points than what the guys are making. Yes, women are good organizers, and able to read better than men. In fact we had a US Senate candidate here, who is both a skilled neurosurgeon and would have been able to handle the Senate---she is brilliant. But what about those of us who work hard but are not capable of that brilliant mental activity? We want our jobs to be protected---so yes maybe we add up to less capable people, when everything is factored in. But then it is obvious that when a job requires strength, men can do it. And not just do it here and then, but repeatedly over the years. If you don't have the strength you will eventually end up with injuries that cost society or you endanger someone. Plus, men have broader experience at some things, thus have better problem solving ability. Lots of things are not learned in a book.

I am sure that more and more high level opportunities will open up for women. Presently female physicians tend not to be able to handle the stress of intensive surgery. But as remote technologies improve---and women are good at mastering those--they will increasingly occupy those roles. But since this is a bipartisan forum, I am incensed when women become corporate climbers and the corporation is a nasty bunch of money grubbers. And it is those kinds of people who support illegal immigration, too.

Originally Posted by MW

Judy wrote:



Well I certainly hope it wasn't Obama!

Well, you can hope all you want, because even though I didn't vote for Obama, most everyone else did. And these are dyed in the wool life-time Republicans, born and raised, from multiple generations of descendants of people who founded the Republican Party, even founded this country, who put civil rights first, because they're the foundation for everything else.

Originally Posted by Judy

Why would you say that? I thought she looked adorable and brave. Her question was very good, hit two important issues in one little sentence.

The importance of an issue is only determined by the individual considering it. Yep, I'm suggesting there are folks that don't consider those two issues high on their 'issues of importance' list. Personally, I support pay based on ability and suitability for the specific job, regardless of race or gender. As for a woman making decisions regarding her body and well-being. Of course, I absolutely support that. However, that's an issue that changes considerably when the woman is sharing her body with an unborn child. What about the child's rights and well-being ......shouldn't that become a consideration? At 8 weeks from conception, a baby's heartbeat can be detected by Ultrasonic stethoscope.