This is why I rarely visit these boards. You have missed my point completely. Circle back to my post.
Allow me to try to engage the point then. I'd argue that the formulation for what comprises "leadership and inspiration" in American political life is very masculine in nature. Woman political leaders, when they try to ape aspects of this formulation, get tarnished with loaded gender-specific labels males don't have to deal with. When a woman is passionate and raises her voice, she gets labelled as "shrill" or "emotional". When a woman attacks a male too vigorously, she gets labelled as "a bitch". At the same time, when a woman is reserved she's called "cold". This terminology, while it rarely registers as labels one would use for a man performing the same actions, is often deployed against and registers when applied to women. These sorts of sexist double standards can register on both a conscious and subconscious level. So I would ask you to consider everything Warren does that you'd classify as shrill or not becoming of a "leader" who "inspires", and try to consider if you'd still consider it problematic to the same extent if it were a male politician saying it, like Bernie Sanders. If you insist you'd still feel the same way and can articulate why, fine. If you don't, then perhaps you harbor certain double standards that may be worth re-evaluating.
A good leader is immune to all of the backtalk and sideways criticism, well, because she has leadership qualities. You need people to instantly respond to her on a visceral level. But she simply lacks the great political skills of an Obama or a Kennedy or a Reagan or whomever. Running your undergraduate thesis on sexism doesnt change how the human ape reacts to someone vying for the crown. That’s not to say it cannot be done by a woman—there are examples from history. Joan of Arc, Catherine the Great, Cleopatra, Boudicca, Theodora. But she will have to beat the boys on her own terms.
But why does she need people to respond on a visceral level? This is the point of the previous posts; there are plenty of examples of Presidents that haven't resonated on that level. No one is sitting here, acting like HW Bush or W Bush were transformational speakers, or Nixon, or Carter, or Ford, even Eisenhower. I'd actually say there are more Presidents in the television era that were merely functional public speakers rather than magnetic public speakers. So why does Warren have to achieve that which a lot of Presidents of varying quality haven't needed to? Again, I'd re-evaluate the standards by which you look at her, and also look at why you singled her out in that manner. It's not like Joe Biden is an amazingly magnetic figure or Bernie Sanders is the second coming of Barack Obama. IMO the two best orators in the race on a visceral level are Corey Booker and Pete Buttgieg, and they barely add up to 7.5% in the polls right now.
Nope. Supply-side economics exists as an excuse to cut the tax bill for the wealthy. The alleged benefits are an invention, because people don't want to say "If you cut my taxes, you won't get much if anything in return." Demand-side economics, on the other hand, has a track record of working as predicted. Not always perfectly, of course, but it's an actual thing, as opposed to being a political invention.
So Yanger teasing something about a gold chain tonite Two words for the debate stage tomorrow night: Gold chain.— Andrew Yang🧢⬆️🇺🇸 (@AndrewYang) September 11, 2019 Jay-Z as his running mate for the urban/Kaepernick hating voters?
Sometimes the secret sauce is not quantifiable. Things in the universe just align in a certain way and you just have to be in the right place at the right time. Personally I think the right woman could win in America easily. I think Warren would have beat Trump in 2016 for example. That's where she should have shown her alpha status. F**k Hillary and Bernie, it's my turn.
Any Democratic nominee would have won the 2008 election, with Republicans tarnished by the recession, the war, and the Katrina response.
I think too much emphasis on one over the other (demand vs. supply) is bad for the overall economy, you obviously need a balance. Normally if one party concentrates on one and the other party on the other, over the flow of political power, they should balance out, at least in theory. BTW non of that implies that politicians do not high-jack economic theories for their own personal or political gain with out fully understanding the theories behind them.
No, this isn't an instance where there's a case for one side, and a case for the other. There's no case for supply-side economics as practiced in the U.S., that is providing tax cuts to the wealthy. Sure, technically payroll tax cuts and other tax programs aimed at everyday Americans are supply-side economics and can be successful, but that's not what the GOP means by supply-side. As you know, the GOP wasn't a big fan of Obama's 2009 payroll tax cut.
Surely there must be some instance somewhere on earth at some time where trickle down economics has been shown conclusively by economists to work?
I like how you accuse me of missing you point and then, two posts later, confirm my point, when talking about "responding on a visceral level" and "great leaders," which do not apply for many, many Republican presidents. You try to force people to hold up women, like Sen. Warren to a .uch higher standard than men. Well done, sir.
That is what was my disclaimer, technically supply side economics means making it easier for business to operate so they can produce their goods efficiently and economically. Republicans took from that, give tax cuts to billionaires.
I guess people respond to Trump in a "visceral" way. His base loves him. For sane people in the US, and in the rest of the world, it is revulsion which is pretty visceral.
If you point out his folk belief is factually incorrect, he might change his mind and embrace truth. Or he might take another hiatus. The problem with supply side is, produce for whom? As a general concept, the Laffer curve makes sense. But it was adopted by the GOP without any work put into figuring out which marginal tax rates fit which part of the curve. That’s why I say it’s a folk belief.
I'm not sure how you could have a major issue with Warren's electability now but believed in her electability then? The composition of Trump's support is barely any different than it was in 2016.
I just want to point out that he came back and posted about Warren being uninspiring and shrill, and also posted about how Naymar was falsely accused of rape.
Men who call women shrill tend to be men who don't care much for women, who in turn tend to be men who aren't particularly inclined to believe rape accusations. If you haven't known many such men, you're lucky. I have,, one of whom was my own father and another of whom was my wife's father.