WWTBAM Bored

Another day, another Republican official saying something offensive about women.

Just 24 hours after the head of a GOP PAC targeting women voters in Texas said that Republicans opposed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act because women are “busy,” the head of the Texas Republican Party has blamed the persistence of the gender pay gap on women themselves.

“Men are better negotiators,” Beth Cubriel remarked on “Capital Tonight,” a Texas political news show. “I would encourage women, instead of pursuing the courts for action, to become better negotiators.”

Cubriel is an ally of Republican gubernatorial candidate Greg Abbott, who has been dodging campaign questions about his views on pay equity laws, and successfully argued against the application of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act while serving as Texas’ attorney general.

http://www.salon.com/2014/03/18/texas_g ... gotiators/

That contributes to the fact that only 35% of Texans are registered Republicans now.

Again, the premise is a strawperson just to throw stones at your opponents. There is no significant gender pay gap. Another distractor. but thanks for bringing this up out of nowhere.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... n-men.html

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Again, the premise is a strawperson just to throw stones at your opponents. There is no significant gender pay gap. Another distractor. but thanks for bringing this up out of nowhere.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... n-men.html

"In a 2012 analysis, AAUW found that even after controlling for occupation, industry, hours, work experience, college major, religion, race/ethnicity, GPA, education, number of children and marital status, women are paid only 82 percent of what their male peers are earning just a year after college graduation. Ten years out of college, the gap widens with women earning a mere 69 percent of what men earn." --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Again, the premise is a strawperson just to throw stones at your opponents. There is no significant gender pay gap. Another distractor. but thanks for bringing this up out of nowhere.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... n-men.html

"In a 2012 analysis, AAUW found that even after controlling for occupation, industry, hours, work experience, college major, religion, race/ethnicity, GPA, education, number of children and marital status, women are paid only 82 percent of what their male peers are earning just a year after college graduation. Ten years out of college, the gap widens with women earning a mere 69 percent of what men earn." --Bob

Yeah, sure. Let's argue about it. You get your numbers and I'll get mine. But suddenly it's the number one priority of our administration. That and making sure everyone gets paid for overtime. And suddenly that's what BJ wants to post here. Don't you ever wonder why? Let's just all work for the government and let them decide what to pay us.

So we'll get some stupid bill in congress that'll be argued about. The usual suspects will be painted as the villians, It will pass or it won't pass, but it won't make any difference, because the issue will come up again sometime when it's needed to fire up the uninformed, and the cronies will get their payoffs.

Bob Juch wrote:That contributes to the fact that only 35% of Texans are registered Republicans now.

That's interesting since you don't register by party in Texas. We have (semi) open primaries. Where are you getting your 'facts'?

In the 2014 primary, there were 567,000 votes for the Democratic Governor candidates and 1,333,000 votes for the Republican Governor candidates. Not that those numbers really mean anything since the Democratic race was not competitive so I'm sure the Democratic turnout was lower.

BackInTex wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:That contributes to the fact that only 35% of Texans are registered Republicans now.

That's interesting since you don't register by party in Texas. We have (semi) open primaries. Where are you getting your 'facts'?

In the 2014 primary, there were 567,000 votes for the Democratic Governor candidates and 1,333,000 votes for the Republican Governor candidates. Not that those numbers really mean anything since the Democratic race was not competitive so I'm sure the Democratic turnout was lower.

You becaome a Republican by voting in a Republican party primary; you become a Democrat by voting in a Democratic party primary; otherwise you're unaffiliated. Apparently the 35% is how many of theose registered who voted in a Republican primary.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Yeah, sure. Let's argue about it. You get your numbers and I'll get mine. But suddenly it's the number one priority of our administration. That and making sure everyone gets paid for overtime. And suddenly that's what BJ wants to post here. Don't you ever wonder why? Let's just all work for the government and let them decide what to pay us.

The number one priority of the administration now is to preserve a Democratic majority in the Senate, and the way to do that is to keep bringing up issues on which Flock, BiT, and the Republicans are on the wrong side of the majority of the American public... such as equal pay, legalizing gay marriage, raising the minimum wage, and immigration reform, as a reminder that the Republicans have no agenda other than calling for abolishing Obamacare.

The Democrats hope that Republicans will do what they've done in the last two elections... shoot themselves in the foot by making asinine statements that alienate the middle-of-the-road voters that both sides need in order to win. I highly doubt Wendy Davis will win, but her mere presence in the race seems to attract the sort of moronic comments that will offend a lot of voters and will get plenty of play in other states where it will make a difference.

For all the talk the Republicans had after the last election about reaching out to various groups where they haven't fared well: youth, gays, Hispanics, women, it's still clear that the Republicans have nothing to offer them other than the prospects of getting good seats in the front rows at the next Presidential convention.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Yeah, sure. Let's argue about it. You get your numbers and I'll get mine. But suddenly it's the number one priority of our administration. That and making sure everyone gets paid for overtime. And suddenly that's what BJ wants to post here. Don't you ever wonder why? Let's just all work for the government and let them decide what to pay us.

The number one priority of the administration now is to preserve a Democratic majority in the Senate, and the way to do that is to keep bringing up issues on which Flock, BiT, and the Republicans are on the wrong side of the majority of the American public... such as equal pay, legalizing gay marriage, raising the minimum wage, and immigration reform, as a reminder that the Republicans have no agenda other than calling for abolishing Obamacare.

The Democrats hope that Republicans will do what they've done in the last two elections... shoot themselves in the foot by making asinine statements that alienate the middle-of-the-road voters that both sides need in order to win. I highly doubt Wendy Davis will win, but her mere presence in the race seems to attract the sort of moronic comments that will offend a lot of voters and will get plenty of play in other states where it will make a difference.

For all the talk the Republicans had after the last election about reaching out to various groups where they haven't fared well: youth, gays, Hispanics, women, it's still clear that the Republicans have nothing to offer them other than the prospects of getting good seats in the front rows at the next Presidential convention.

You are a broken record. It's not about Dems vs Reps. They are one and the same. It's about the future of this country, whether we'll remain free or become a dictatorship. It's not about equal pay, it's about whether anyone will have a frikken job when the country goes broke. If you think those issues are the highest priorities, you have not been paying attention.

Bob Juch wrote:You becaome a Republican by voting in a Republican party primary; you become a Democrat by voting in a Democratic party primary; otherwise you're unaffiliated. Apparently the 35% is how many of theose registered who voted in a Republican primary.

Your prevous post said "registered" Republican. And no, you don't become a Republican by voting in the Republican party primary. You simply limit your self to voting for Republican candidates in the Republican prirmary and run-offs, if necessary. In the general election, or any subsequent election you can vote for whomever you wish.

There are 14+ million registered voters in Texas. In this most recent primary 1.3 million voted in the Republican primary while just over 1/2 million voted in the Democratic primary. My math show that at about 9% Republican. Perhaps you should quit using Obama's AHC math help desk to get your statistics.

The day 35% of any state's registered voters (Democrat + Republicans) vote in a primary will be historical.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Yeah, sure. Let's argue about it. You get your numbers and I'll get mine. But suddenly it's the number one priority of our administration. That and making sure everyone gets paid for overtime. And suddenly that's what BJ wants to post here. Don't you ever wonder why? Let's just all work for the government and let them decide what to pay us.

The number one priority of the administration now is to preserve a Democratic majority in the Senate, and the way to do that is to keep bringing up issues on which Flock, BiT, and the Republicans are on the wrong side of the majority of the American public... such as equal pay, legalizing gay marriage, raising the minimum wage, and immigration reform, as a reminder that the Republicans have no agenda other than calling for abolishing Obamacare.

The Democrats hope that Republicans will do what they've done in the last two elections... shoot themselves in the foot by making asinine statements that alienate the middle-of-the-road voters that both sides need in order to win. I highly doubt Wendy Davis will win, but her mere presence in the race seems to attract the sort of moronic comments that will offend a lot of voters and will get plenty of play in other states where it will make a difference.

For all the talk the Republicans had after the last election about reaching out to various groups where they haven't fared well: youth, gays, Hispanics, women, it's still clear that the Republicans have nothing to offer them other than the prospects of getting good seats in the front rows at the next Presidential convention.

It's not that the Republicans have no agenda; they have a "NO" agenda. They're against anything the Democrats propose.

Bob Juch wrote:It's not that the Republicans have no agenda; they have a "NO" agenda. They're against anything the Democrats propose.

Not anything, just everything. There's a difference.