Trump vs. Biden: It's down to that. Strengths, weaknesses, who will win?

[Scout]

It's going to be a fight to the finish. Any ideas about strengths and weaknesses of the candidates? Who will win and why?

[J.J.]

It's hard to say. The chaos of today is sinking Trump, but given how fickle people are, that could turn around once the protests/riots are behind us. We're already seeing signs the economy will recover almost as fast as it tanked, so by Nov., that won't be an issue for Trump.

Biden's strength is that he's been hidden and out of sight. Every time he comes out in public, his gaffs just prove more and more crazy. I think I agree with the conservative thought that once you put him on the debate stage with Trump, it will be game over for him. if you look back at the interview he did with Charlemagne Tha God, his misstep went beyond telling black people they weren't black if they didn't vote for him. Prior to that, he got visibly mad when the host said he wants to know what a candidate has done for the black community lately. And that's been a trend on the campaign trail before Covid shut everything down. He told one voter "you should vote Trump," in a fit of anger. And then there was the elderly veteran he called a dog-face liar and challenged to a push-up contest because the guy asked a critical question. Trump will push his buttons, and it won't look good for Biden when he blows up on that stage.

[Nik]

My impression would be very superficial at this stage, as I don't follow closely the race. Looks like both candidates fit well into their initial respective Rep/Dem base and should garner support of their parties' "regulars". The rest and those swingers will largely depend on how the situ in the States will be towards the date. It's so volatile now for a slew of reasons that the circumstances probably dictate mood and inclinations much more than the candidates.. Trump would need to project he's on top of things to be in a good shape towards the ballots and would need riots dying down, corona diminishing, economy returning to the rising course and lower unemployment. Biden needs to excel his charisma and sharpness, but not sure whether he's capable

[G.R.]

Biden is more likable to a wider swath of moderates than Trump, but he has to avoid the pitfall Hillary made by thinking he should be entitled to be President (like the comment he made about black voters). If he stays focused on demonstrating why he's the best leader for the country right now, he has a very reasonable chance even if the economy bounces back some.

Meanwhile, Trump could have put this whole thing away if he would simply have handled the coronavirus and George Floyd issues properly, even by showing a modicum of common sense and sympathy. The country always rallies around the sitting president in times of crisis. George W. Bush's approval rating was sitting very low until 9/11 happened. Trump just doesn't know what he's doing and it shows.

[J.]

I'm not sure that Covid will have as big an impact on Trump as some think. At this time, the top five states by numbers of infections are all states that went to HRC. The economic impact will probably outstrip the disease, and enough Dem proxies have openly hoped for an economic downturn to give Trump plenty of ammo.

I find myself evaluating party positions and strategy more than the candidates, and I am seeing so much worrying stuff from the left that I cannot in good faith support them.

[J.J.]

J. wrote: "I'm not sure that Covid will have as big an impact on Trump as some think. At this time, the top five states by numbers of infections are all states that went to HRC. The economic impact will proba..."

NC's Democratic governor is up for re election this year, and as far as the race goes, he's in the same boat as Trump in that Covid has pushed his opponent out of the light while he's got a monopoly on public exposure. On the other hand, Cooper has now had just about every group sue him over Covid restrictions. churches have sued him, and now bars and gyms have lawsuits. Republican lawmakers have now passed bills that would allow these business to open while leaving the possibility that they may be forced closed in the future if covid cases spike, but the governor has vetoed them.

Then you have the RNC threatening to pull the national convention from Charlotte and take with them a $130 million infusion into NC's economy because he won't give them a firm commitment on what he will allow.

I think come November, a lot of people are going to look back and see covid as an opportunity for the Governor to shut down those businesses he doesn't like and keep open those he does. I think the Republicans will paint his handling of the lockdowns to reshape NC's economy based on the political leanings of individual businesses and industries.

On a bit of a different note, we're seeing political ads return to the airwaves. right now, we have the Republican Senate incumbent running ads for his campaign, a dark money, liberal group running ads against him, and Trump is running a campaign ad. Both Trump and Tillis are running positive ads, while the dark money group is running they typical negative, attack ads.

The Trump ad in particular is interesting, IMO. While he goes on the attack on Twitter, and in his press conferences, the ad focuses on him and on the country. It exudes a belief that there is a greatness in this country, and that that greatness will shine once we're through this mess. Once Biden starts running ads again, if he takes the position that things are bad, that everything is Trump's fault, and he focuses strictly on negativity the way Clinton did in 2016, he's going to shoot his own campaign in the foot.

[Charissa]

Looks like it's going to be an interesting debate.

[Lizzie]

I wish there was a winnable 3rd option, or that Trump was not running at all. Any vote I make will be a vote against Trump. I just don't like his attitude towards women, minorities, his own prior aids, and most of all his believe that truth doesn't matter.

All that aside, I don't see Biden pulling enough of the swing votes from any group or any minority, gender, color, or religion.

Maybe the debate will provide for a a different perspective of the candidates.

[Graeme]

Now here's a thought.

In the last Australian general election the Australian Labor Party (Democrat equivalent) took on the policy position of the Greens (Democrat more left wing equivalent) to appease them, largely because the ALP establishment couldn't understand that their own policy position was being eaten from the inside by the more extreme elements of their own party.

In the last election, they had a resounding loss in an environment where they were expected to win. I.e. They snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

IMHO: The number one sacrosanct rule to win an election in a democracy - is take the middle ground and force you opponent to the extremes. This works every time. Anyone who fails to follow this rule inevitably loses.

The ALP above was the most recent example of a political organisation tempted by their own noisy zealots to give up the middle ground and slide into defeat for 'ideological purity.'

So, after that lengthy preamble...

The Democrats are faced with a nominally Marxist inspired BLM movement that they do not know how to deal with. The Democrat establishment (Pelosi, Biden, etc even AOC) is seeking to co-opt the BLM narratives (defund/abolish cops, white supremacy, etc) and tone them down to make them palatable to voters come November... but I think their failing to co-opt effectively. The BLM message is getting through. BLM are honestly proposing that police forces be defunded, abolished, and disbanded.

That will not sell well with the majority of Americans.

[1] So, does the Democrat establishment face more of an issue from BLM, then it does from Trump?

[2] If they accommodate BLM, they will lose the middle ground and hence become unelectable in November. Does this affect Biden's strategy? How will he respond to BLM?

For me, the danger for the Democrats is that they will allow the BLM movement to take them to a visible Marxist position that will result in the following.

[1] Lots of kudos on social media, back slapping and virtue signalling, with associated positive polls that more than half the voters will lie in to avoid censure, and then blinded by a media mirror that only reflects what they want to see will walk into the November election expecting a landslide victory and will,

[2] Be defeated... resulting in a massive upheaval of unrest, discombobulation, cognitive dissonance and accusations that Trump has once again stolen the election. That the election was not legitimate, diminishing the belief in democracy and therefore licensing violence.

Thoughts?

[Leonie]

I really understand Lizzie's comment.

Several years ago I was at a Spec Fic Convention, which was when the Sad Puppies saga was ongoing. One of the authors there had received quite a bit of stick due to his stance on what was called social justice politics.

He described his political stance being regarded in the US as very left. Then he laughed and said "That means slightly right of centre" everywhere else.

This is partly what fascinates me about US politics, and more recently, some Australian politics.

There seems to be only two options, ever, in the US. Vote Democrat or vote Republican. The divide is incredible. If a candidate suggests that universal health care is a good thing, they're called 'socialist.' To me, socialist smacks of communism.

Yet Australia is anything but a very left leaning country and we have universal health care. In fact, it might be argued that our current government has moved quite a long way to the right recently. And that there are some quite far right members of our currently governing party. The main opposition party is much more to the right than at any time in my memory. (And obviously this is my opinion, and not necessarily the opinion of other Australians.)

But the US is even more extreme. There seems to be a 'never the twain shall meet' attitude. I've watched, astounded, as the leadership seems to be more and more fragmented down party lines, while COVID-19 marches on almost unregarded, with political point scoring in some peoples' minds more important than lives.

Then you add the BLM movement into the mix, on top of the minority groups suffering more greatly from COVID-19. It's almost unbelievable, and like a train wreck, I struggle to look away.

[Nik]

Read some analytics and in a way they conform my own impressions and thoughts that "left" ideology somewhat lost its worldwide appeal. Some connect it with the demise of the USSR that fed socialist/communist/left/commune ideology, some give other explanations. However, the feeling is that indeed moneymaking, narrow personal agendas, individual material success and interests took prevalence over more "idealistic" projects, like "social justice", "fairness", "equality", etc.. It's harder to sell those to the masses and recruit supporters behind them. The public seems fragmented over much more "niche" angles, that strike a closer personal chord. Should work as long as the substantive population is relatively well off. Plus cellphones and virtual reality substitute and avail escape to day-to-day bad surprises the reality provides. I'm kinda reluctant to look closely at my cellphone usage reports :)
From local point of view, the Labor party (to a degree analogous to Democrats or British Labour) that basically shaped this country for much of its history, barely made into the Parliament last elections and they seemed lost in an ideological void. Syndicating leaders from social protests didn't help.
I understand the desire of politicians to jump on the bandwagon of something "popular", but not sure "BLM" won't be antagonizing more than solidifying if the looting doesn't stop. There is a big distance btw protesting police brutality and pillaging stores. Kneeling may be nice for some while laughable or ridiculous for others, not sure it brings votes from "average" uninvolved people. Sure, excessive use of force on the part of the police, and a vicious circle, which prevents improvement of economic well-being of some minorities are real problems that need to be tackled. However, the underlying "revolutionary" vibe at least at this stage would be rejected by general public and may do damage to a political force attempting to syndicate the players. Maybe Michelle Obama as a VP can help :)

[Scout]

Dream on. Michelle doesn't want anything to do with politics. Read her book. She had nothing good to say about the political scene.

We are very politically polarized here because that's the way people want it. Politicians respond to what the people want. People have their minds made up about the issues, and they're reluctant to change. I talk with my left-leaning neighbor daily, and I can see some of her points. But at times I'm thinking, Really, you think police should call an Uber for a guy who's driving drunk instead of arresting him? We can talk as long as I keep most of my opinions to myself. That's how we remain friends.

[Nik]

Scout wrote: "Dream on. Michelle doesn't want anything to do with politics. Read her book. She had nothing good to say about the political scene.
We are very politically polarized here because that's the way people want it. ..."

This might be her "call of duty, call of the hour".
If not Michelle, then maybe - Melania to diminish the eternal rift :)
Are you sure, people prefer "polarized" over "united"? Can't talk about others of course, but I prefer to be pleasantly surprised (sometimes happens) from a politician I voted against than saying "you see I was right"

[Charissa]

They did a study in one of the colleges around here. They wanted to prove whether or not people were able to see the other side of the argument. They took centrists, conservatives, liberals, and progressives from the student body and had them answer a test four times, once for each ideology. The end results were that centrists and conservatives were fairly close on how the others thought, progressives and liberals missed on the conservative and centrists ideals. The further to progressive ideas a person was, the more that the other side was populated with strawmen. They were able to get the progressive and liberal students to see the other side pretty well for about six weeks. After another six weeks they went back to their beliefs on the others.

[Lizzie]

Leonie wrote: ",,, One of the authors there had received quite a bit of stick due to his stance on what was called social justice politics.

He described his political stance being regarded in the US as very left. Then he laughed and said "That means slightly right of centre" everywhere else. ..."

And that is exactly me and one of my 3 sisters. It is social justice from health insurance to treat everyone the same and keep religion out of politics that we end up on the left. The rest is probably pretty much the center of the road leaning to the right. In the early 70s, the Republican party stayed silent on abortion. A very different party from what it is now.

My other 2 sisters cannot separate out issues from politics. They are Republican and very Christian religion oriented so Democrats are bad and Republicans are good. Trump is a Republican so he is good (no matter how many lies he tells).

In my mind, O'Bama was almost a Republican aside from his position on equal rights and the ACA - which was destroyed before it even went into effect.

[Scout]

I guess my question would be, What are the chances that you will change your basic beliefs? There are only two parties here, and they're diametrically opposed. Pro-lifers will only vote Republican. Pro-choicers will only vote Democrat. So, Nik, I think people prefer to be polarized because of their basic beliefs. People in other countries don't understand how this one issue divides people politically in the U.S. It's not the only issue, but it's a line most people won't cross.

[Nik]

Scout wrote: "....What are the chances that you will change your basic beliefs?...."

I guess that's what the political elites prefer: that people line behind some theoretical, practically irrelevant to most of them issues. It would only be a wild guess, but I doubt whether more than 10% encounter this issue as their personal dilemma. Moreover, I'd love to see those advocating for this or that course make those personal decisions in their own circumstances and try to align with the beliefs they proclaim.
Although I have my opinion, of course, but I'd assume both beliefs are totally fine and certainly can vote a party with opposite view on this specific issue, if it otherwise offers a more attractive agenda which is more relevant specifically to me. But that's me. If people vote because of abortion stance, fine.. :)

[G.R.]

I have tried to understand this disparity of political belief "reliance" within our primarily two-party system for years. Guns and abortions seem to be the issues that many Republican Americans will lean toward when choosing a candidate regardless of all else, even if these issues (as Nik pointed out) have the least significance to them on a daily basis. You would think things like taxes, education, health care, minimum wage, and the economy would outweigh all others and those other two would just be side notes.

[Charissa]

It's a morality thing. There are certain things that just make your beliefs well known. An easily accessed abortion ruling, allows people to run from their mistakes, something America isn't known for. And our entire Bill of Rights is predicated on the first and second amendments. Chip away at those, and the whole thing falls apart. That's why the conservatively minded will die on those hills.

[Nik]

Wonder how those, who cherish morality, reconcile Stormy’s and McDougal’s alleged affairs and hush money paid

[J.]

I find it refreshing. It is perfectly logical for a female to choose a prospective mate based on his ability to provide for her and their potential offspring. Plus after a lifetime of being told how the most important qualities one can have to woo a woman are charm and good manners, having absolute proof of the lie is a bitter-sweet victory.

[Scout]

Politicians in both parties have committed patently immoral acts yet, as I said, those don't matter much in American politics. People have their minds made up on abortion and (thanks for reminding me G.R.) gun rights. Also on how our tax money is spent. Those lines aren't going to be crossed by ardent supporters of either party. There are some who don't care either way about those issues. I wonder what percentage of the population they comprise.

[Philip]

Middle ground is where it's at. 25-30% left and right will never change and don't believe anything the opposition tells them. The 30-40% in the middle decide. These are of course spread around the country hence you end up with swing voting areas where all the action is. Alienate this group (Hilary) and fail to get your 25-30% to vote (Hilary) in normally safe areas (Hilary) and the opposition get in. The UK labour party did exactly the same - talked to only their core supporters and lost big time.

Abortion and gun rights are not issues in UK politics - outside Ireland and Northern Ireland abortion is not an issue in Europe. I'm amazed it still is in USA. In Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything the reduction in crime rates is correlated with Roe v Wade - an interesting take on the subject

[Charissa]

Speaking personally, I don't reconcile it. The problem I have with Roe v. Wade is that it was a slippery slope. Not one person that I've ever met thought that a child that could survive out of the womb should be aborted, yet that's where the extremists on abortion want to take us.

[Philip]

Charissa wrote: "Speaking personally, I don't reconcile it. The problem I have with Roe v. Wade is that it was a slippery slope. Not one person that I've ever met thought that a child that could survive out of the ..."

The debate in the UK is not about abortion per see but as you mention survival levels. As medical science has improved so has ability to keep premature babies alive - although significant caveats on the future health of the child. The current limit in UK is 25 weeks

As a male and a father I do not believe I have any say in whether a woman should or should not terminate a pregnancy. As this is such an emotive subject I'll stop now.

[Lizzie]

Being pro-choice I don't agree that aborting a child who can survive out of the womb which was believed to be 24 weeks but now is possible at 22 weeks, thanks to modern medicine. We can also determine pregnancy much earlier than we could 25 years ago. I don't agree that abortion should be banned, nor should health insurance deny coverage of the morning after pill. So if any fertilized egg is considered a life than we should start defrosting all those in the deep freeze?

Two of my sisters have had abortions. One at age 15 and if my parents had known she was pregnant she would have been on the streets. She only regretted it 20 years later. The other one who has done so does believe it is a woman's right. So not theoretical in my world.

For me it is about women's rights being diluted in any form. Did you know -?
1. Most Ivy League schools did not accept women until after 1969;
2. Title IX of the Education Amendments was instituted preventing discrimination by schools and financial assistance programs, including athletic programs – as a result, enrollment of women in college and professional schools took huge jumps in the early-70s;
3. In many states women could not serve on juries until 1973. These days most of us don’t want to be called for jury duty but it was representative of equal citizenship and a battle of 90 years to obtain the right. Also of import, how does a woman get a fair trial of a jury of her peers if the jurors, judge, and lawyers are all men;
4. Until the mid 1970s women were precluded from certain jobs, such as being a police officer or in Michigan a barmaid unless you were the male owner’s relative;
5. Unmarried women could not get credit cards and married women could only get them with her husband’s permission until 1974 (and we still generally pay .5% more in interest as of 2015);
6. Until 1978 being pregnant was a basis for being fired;
7. Birth control was not accessible to unmarried women and married women had to have their husbands’ permission until 1972;
8. Sexual harassment in the workplace was not recognized by a court until 1977;
9. A man had the right to have sex with his wife without her agreement (marital rape did not become a crime until 1993);
10. If you were female military personnel, prior to 1973 your male spouse did not get any benefits because you were a woman;
11. Women could be denied the ability to enter into rental contracts for homes or apartments until 1974;
12. In 1974 the Supreme Court said you can no longer pay women lower wages based on the excuse of that is what they traditionally received under the going market rate;
13. Prior to the changes in the law in the 1970s, women did not have any rights over marital property. It was in 1979 that Louisiana became the last state to give a wife the legal right to manage marital property. Some states denied women the right to operate an independent business without their husband’s permission.

To me it is not just about abortion, it is about the slippery slope that beings when a society believes it is reasonable to limit the rights of any group. If we are going to limit a women's right to not bring a fertilized egg to term as a baby, then is the next step going to be we can't tie our tubes because we are then not fulfilling our obligation to have babies? It may seem farfetched, but look at how much science fiction deals with having babies being an issue, i.,e. The Handmaiden.

Gun rights, I am torn on, so it won't affect who I vote for.

[J.]

Slippery slope arguments are a logical fallacy. They presume that a government is incapable of doing all due research and deliberation in order to draft and ratify legislation that is narrowly worded and effective even though doing just that is their job.

For those who are "amazed" that this is still an issue in the US, simply understand that for the anti-abortion crowd an unborn fetus is an innocent child. They are uninterested in parsing out the details of ensoulment. In their minds, they are saving children from being murdered with vacuum cleaners.

Personally, I am ambivalent on the matter.

[Leonie]

Fascinating commentary, Lizzie. Here's a timeline of similar stuff in Australia. https://timeline.awava.org.au/timeline

And one for New Zealand - since they were a bit ahead of us. https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/wo...

I'm with Lizzie on her comments. There are a lot of nuances in politics, and if we focus only on one or two issues, then we are in danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

While abortion is a complex and emotive issue, as Lizzie has said, it speaks to more things than just itself. I too struggle with things like late term abortion vs viable live births. There is almost a point of cognitive dissonance in this.

But having said that, and having been on the end of gender discrimination more than once, the slippery slope is not something to be denied. When you've come from a position of effective powerlessness, and now you have at least some inkling of freedom, then a right potentially snatched away makes you feel like you're on top of that slippery slope.

I think I'm a little younger than Lizzie, (I may be wrong!), but at 55, I can look back and see that my generation of Australian women was the first to automatically assume we would have a career. I would assume the generational aspirations are similar in the US.

What astounds me is that there are clearly a chunk of US voters who 'long for the good old days' when women didn't have the choices we now have. There are voters who would ban contraception for women. Voters who don't seem to care about death rates of living human beings, but focus only on the unborn.

So in the same (I'm generalising here) group of voters, you see a focus on shutting down abortion, but an equal focus on gun rights, despite gun crime and massacres. (That have killed children.) Obviously, I'm not American, and I think we've established that I don't 'get' the gun thing, but those two things are really dissonant in my mind. Not to mention that it seems a chunk of women vote for people who are actively working to disenfranchise them, or trivialise their struggles.

Whether there is something in Biden's past, I think we're still uncertain. There may well be. We certainly know there's a lot in Trump's.

[Lizzie]

Leonie, I will be 61 next month. I have a friend who is 68. The difference between graduating high school in 1969, 1977 and 1982 (my youngest sister), is amazing in the differences for how women were seen and treated, along with the rights specified for us.

I graduated high school in 1977 at age 17. I couldn't take out loans to go to Princeton because I had no one (i.e. dad or husband) to co-sign. After 1 year and summer classes at Rutgers (state university), I quit in the fall and moved to Texas. I couldn't get a car loan, despite having a job, without my dad co-signing. I was 19. Yes, I have had jobs where I wasn't allowed to do certain tasks because only men did those. It wasn't meant to be discriminatory and the 50 plus year old Jewish department head really was trying to look out for me. I have noticed a lot of paternal attitude from men in my life. I don't blame them individually. They are products of their society too.

I have been told to wear makeup, panty hose, dresses and no pants, etc. In other words, how to be a woman by the employer's standards, according to the women in charge of my position.

I have been discriminated against by other women too. Because of our systematic dismissiveness of women, those who attain some portion of power are afraid of losing any of it to some other women who may be looking to move up. It was much more pervasive in the 80s. In the 90s women started being more mentoring. I have also had bosses who have stated that yes they would pay a man more, because a man has a family to support.

Those who nay say the slippery slope concept - look at American politics. Earlier this month our government dictated a more limited definition of sexual discrimination. Those who are transgender were included in that protection under sexual discrimination during the prior president's 1st term. Now that has been thrown out and you can discriminate against transgender persons without consequence. Gender is now specifically limited to biology. Then the Supreme Court ruled in favor of protections for LGBTQ against discrimination. It will probably equally apply to the health insurance, but until that issue comes before the court they will be able to deny treatment if they so choose. We still have 13 states that do not provide for equal protections for LGBTQ in any capacity. That was one of the people who brought forth the claim that the Supreme Court was ruling on. He had been fired from his job for joining a gay sports team.

The slippery slope is real. Legal terminology and interpretation will continue to make it so. It is how our laws and courts work.

[Leonie]

Lizzie wrote: "Leonie, I will be 61 next month. I have a friend who is 68. The difference between graduating high school in 1969, 1977 and 1982 (my youngest sister), is amazing in the differences for how women we..."

Yes! I graduated high school in 1982 at the age of seventeen. By the age of twenty-one, I had graduated from university, and was working full time as a sole hospital physiotherapist in a remote area. I was able to get a loan by myself in order to purchase a car, and had no requirement to have a man stand in for me financially.

I did have a different uniform than my male equivalent - culottes or gauchos, rather than trousers, however there was still one hospital in Perth that required the female physios to wear a white dress with green epaulettes. Sigh...cannot imagine grovelling on the floor in a white dress to do my job. (Physios sit/lie/crouch/kneel on the floor a lot.) Nowadays we all wear trousers.

Mind you, only a few years ago, I had a discussion with a young female patient with a severely sprained ankle that was rather disturbing. I reminded her not to wear heels.

Her reply: "I don't think my boss would like that. He prefers we women to wear heels."

My reply: "Does he also make the men wear heels when they have a sprained ankle?"

She still thought I was mad - but she'd been conned to believe that there need to be differing dress standards for different genders for the same job.

[Nik]

Gender equality is excellent, although don't expect me to watch women's football :)
Wonder what's your attitude to countries giving advantages to women, like for example half of the world sets earlier retirement age for women as opposed to men:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retirem...
Some countries pay single mother's help and maternity leave, but not paternity or require army duty from men while women can do it voluntarily if they want.
And to be fair could you think of examples where inequality is to women's favor rather than detriment?
Personally, I've nothing against any preference women might have, I can still compete :) I am a little afraid that we may be losing a bit in gender diversity and turn into a sexless species. And I do think that mother and father don't necessarily play the same role within the family.

[Nik]

J. wrote: "For those who are "amazed" that this is still an issue in the US, simply understand that for the anti-abortion crowd an unborn fetus is an innocent child...."

Understandable, although it takes time (somewhere towards 2nd-3d trimester?) until a few cells become a living organism. A volition for having a child that also assumes responsibility for his/her fate and upbringing seems important, otherwise an unwanted (or with medical conditions) child and his/her parents may be destined to a life of misery.
Wonder whether those opposing abortion would also oppose a capital punishment to not take life but elect a different punishment?

[Leonie]

As a woman, I don't expect an earlier retirement age. Gender equality means equality. Maternity and paternity leave are just as important. Some countries will always be slower to adopt equality, for a number of reasons, some of which are cultural and religious.

But rather frustratingly, the comment 'And to be fair could you think of examples where inequality is to women's favor rather than detriment? absolutely demonstrates the frustration that we (who have experienced gender discrimination) deal with all the time.

It says to me : "OK, you experience gender discrimination, but what about when I do - despite me being of the privileged gender who has actually never really had to deal with negative gender discrimination - isn't that really important?" To someone who has spent a lifetime dealing with gender discrimination, it demonstrates why we still have gender discrimination issues.

I might add that (and I'm not upset at you, Nik) but I did - and I suspect Lizzie may also have done so when she read it - roll my eyes when I read that comment.

Which in turn, makes me think about racial discrimination, which I have never experienced, and it makes me understand more easily why those who have experienced racism firsthand can be incredibly angry.

[Nik]

Leonie wrote: "But rather frustratingly, the comment 'And to be fair could you think of examples where inequality is to women's favor rather than detriment? absolutely demonstrates the frustration that we (who have experienced gender discrimination) deal with all the time.

It says to me : "OK, you experience gender discrimination, but what about when I do - despite me being of the privileged gender who has actually never really had to deal with negative gender discrimination - isn't that really important?" To someone who has spent a lifetime dealing with gender discrimination, it demonstrates why we still have gender discrimination issues...."

I intentionally raise these issues fully aware that it might be viewed equivocal, provocative or even chauvinist, although that's not my intention, but rather to not shun discussing contentious issues.
I'm hardly a saint, however I never asked for a dress code as an employer or paid differently to men or women and I hope never otherwise discriminated a woman. I do notice high heels, sexy outfit and stuff like that whatever it says about me :)
And I experienced and experience racial/or semi- discrimination, but I kinda grew insensitive on most part to it.
Moreover, I'm in favor of positive discrimination: lower grade requirement or lower/no tuition to applicants from low socio-economic standing for higher education, privileges to women that may not be available to men, help to elderly and those in need, etc...
I come from the world (Ukraine) where a woman never pays a bill in a pub/cafe or restaurant and would never bring me flowers to a date, but I'm fine with that :)
But I imagine in other countries, women may never have any advantages, are only equal and formerly/currently discriminated against. Just asking to hear

[Charissa]

Let me parse out the abortion vs. capital punishment idea. Remember this is my opinion. The way I see it: abortion basically says, for example, a woman was raped. Prior to the 70's rape was a death sentence case, now days, the fetus is aborted, and the rapist can get out of jail in 5-10 years or so. Rape is also a progressive crime, not talking politics. Sexual crimes usually go: peeping, molesting, rape, then rape and murder. Sometimes panty thefts are included, sometimes not.

There are just some crimes that the perpetrators have proven that they cannot live in society. And look to England in this case, after they abolished the death penalty, they soon abolished life without parole. It's almost impossible to be sentenced to 'the Queen's leisure'.

[Nik]

Charissa wrote: "...And look to England in this case, after they abolished the death penalty, they soon abolished life without parole...."

Another possible slippery slope? Well, my impression is that the legal doctrine doesn't go towards making rape and variations pardonable any time soon, if that's the fear.

[Lizzie]

Read the comments onany articles on abortion and it is amazing the number of people, esoecially women, who believe you cannot get pregnant from rape. the act of conception proves you wanted it and lied about it being rape.

in regards to thise same pro-lifers being ok with the death sentence, the response I see is that a baby is innocent and a criminal is not.

[Charissa]

Rape won't be seen as acceptable. Though that'll be a miracle with how some women are claiming several things as sexual assault that would never pass the 'reasonable doubt' test.

[Nik]

I guess my extreme views scare ppl off from discussing this otherwise very relevant topic :)

[Charissa]

You or me. One of my family members is notorious for ending threads. Guess I picked that skill up.

[Nik]

Charissa wrote: "You or me. One of my family members is notorious for ending threads. Guess I picked that skill up."

-:) Me, Charissa, I believe your input is mainstream at least for the beliefs you represent. Belonging to an oppressing gender, I'm disqualified :) And I can understand that to a degree - I imagine some people of color wouldn't want me weighing in either on "their issue"

[G.R.]

Charissa wrote: "Sexual crimes usually go: peeping, molesting, rape, then rape and murder. Sometimes panty thefts are included, sometimes not...."

Panty thefts?

Dammit! Now I completely lost my train of thought. :o

[G.R.]

Oh, right. I was going to say that, while abortion is a very 'nerve-touching' topic (which I am not going to weigh in on, sorry), this discussion has devolved a long way from Trump vs. Biden.

[Nik]

G.R. wrote: ".... a long way from Trump vs. Biden."

My impression from afar is that currently it's Trump vs himself or T vs corona & riots, while Biden can be sitting quietly in the waiting, hanging there as an alternative choice and still scoring points

[G.R.]

In 2016, the choice was between Hilary, whom Democrats weren't very excited about and Republicans hated, vs. Trump, who, while both Democrats and Republicans alike weren't totally bought into, was a bit of an X-factor. Would he run the country the way he ran his businesses? Would he treat his administration of the Government of the U.S. responsibly or like a reality show? Will he, as a political outsider, be capable of healing the binary divides that are keeping us from moving forward on any issue?

In 2020, the choice is between Biden, whom most Democrats agree is not a choice that's going to stimulate the base but at least is not as despised on the right as Hilary was, vs. Trump who is no longer an X-factor. The questions above have now been answered in the last three and a half years. Regardless of whether the economy and unemployment rate bounce back in the next few months, I think the damage he wrought is not reparable. But we will find out in a few months.

[J.]

There is an element of the conservative mindset that is being overlooked, our complete contempt for the liberal agenda.

Detroit, LA, and Chicago are the result of decades of Democratic politicians. What have the people of these cities gotten for their votes? Under performing schools, high crime rates, low rates of home ownership, and a basic social structure which has been undermined by a dissolution of the family unit. These people deserve better than that.

[Scout]

I saw Hillary on a news program today, and she's still harping on winning the popular vote. She's not letting it go, even after almost 4 years, and neither are the Democrats. Despite election laws, they think they should have won, which is evident in everything they've done since the election.

[J.J.]

Lizzie wrote: "I have been told to wear makeup, panty hose, dresses and no pants, etc. In other words, how to be a woman by the employer's standards, according to the women in charge of my position...."

For the record, men have historically had to deal with grooming standards and dress codes in the workplace. Employers requiring "business attire" and clean shaven faces. Working for a grocer as late as the early 2000s, I worked for a manager that liked to go around touching the faces of the male associates to determine if they were "smooth enough."

Otherwise, discrimination is still out there. I worked with a number of women district managers, and I would say they were a lot more competent than many of the men, but, there were all kinds of derogatory comments coming from the stores behind their backs. They were often hard-nosed, so they would be referred to as the B-word. One was speculated to be gay for no reason I could see. this was all in the last 20 years - not way back in the 70s or 60s. And it still isn't right. I've worked for a lot of men who were stupid, clueless, lazy, and their integrity was less than garbage. I worked for a manager one time who even the owner of the company thought was an idiot, and to this day, I still have no idea how he had the job. but I've seen women work twice as hard as their male coworkers, and they still face that glass-ceiling. And the only way they move up is if the company needs a "token" to show they take diversity seriously - not because their work earned that promotion, but because the company has a box to check.

[Scout]

Who will win? Polls say Biden. How much confidence do you have in polls?

[Graeme]

Scout wrote: "Who will win? Polls say Biden. How much confidence do you have in polls?"

Not much. 2016 proved the polls are ineffective at catching voter intentions.