Gut reaction to candidates

Rubber Ducky

Fri, Sep 16 2016, 12:30 am

Maya wrote:

What about Trump's refusal to publicize his tax returns? The audit argument has been disproven; he is able to release them even if they are under audit.

He has also said that if his health records would reveal anything less than good health, then he wouldn't release them.

Why don't you have a problem with his secrecy and opaqueness, but are placing those claims on Hillary for far less wrongdoing?

Again, proving the OP.

Maya, you need to chill. I dislike all of them but intend to vote for Trump. My candidates were Cruz and Fiorina. Maybe Rubio. But they all lost.

Mr. Trump should release his tax returns. Mrs. Clinton should not have destroyed her emails. Mr. Trump should release more health records than he did. Mrs. Clinton should release complete neurological records.

What I said is that Mrs. Clinton's natural tendency is to hide stuff. Like having a private email server and destroying records. General Powell was none too pleased when she claimed he did the same. Link: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/14......html

Sadie

Fri, Sep 16 2016, 12:36 am

gold21 wrote:

True, but I will have to wait and see, as nothing has been proven.

And Cosmopolitan's interview.... Ridiculous. They questioned Ivanka as to why the proposal does not advocate paternity leave for gay couples.... Well, because it's intended to help women who are physically recovering from the strain of pregnancy and childbirth... DUH! What a ridiculous interview.

Really, you don't think plans like this should include paternity leave or leave for adoptive parents? Maternity leave is only about physical recovery and not about bonding with your baby?

daagahminayin

Fri, Sep 16 2016, 12:40 am

Jeanette wrote:

What about people with neither?

It doesn't apply to them. Just an idea that I've noticed from my experience.

daagahminayin

Fri, Sep 16 2016, 12:41 am

.

Last edited by daagahminayin on Fri, Sep 16 2016, 2:36 am; edited 1 time in total

gande

Fri, Sep 16 2016, 12:44 am

Maya wrote:

Funny how you didn't put the "liar" and "dishonest" descriptions under Trump, when the facts show that they belong to him, on a very grand scale.

You're proving the OP. It's not anymore about facts or the truth. Those seemingly important aspects of an election don't matter in this one at all.

Funny because I would put the arrogant and idiot description under Hillary as well. I believe that they both have the same issues just in a different order of coming to mind.

gold21

Fri, Sep 16 2016, 12:47 am

Sadie wrote:

Really, you don't think plans like this should include paternity leave or leave for adoptive parents? Maternity leave is only about physical recovery and not about bonding with your baby?

Yeah, well, you can spin it whichever way you like. But yeah, pregnancy and childbirth does require physical recovery- you know, like heavy bleeding, stitches, possibly c-section, weakness, total body exhaustion.... But of course, let's all stump for the usual liberal women's issues like Planned Parenthood but ignore other women's issues like paid medical maternity leave, because those don't further an agenda....

When political agenda is put before your own best interest as a woman, you know you have officially bought in to the system and left common sense behind.

Should adoptive parents get paid leave? Well yes, I think they should, now that you mention it. However, choosing to throw out the baby with the bathwater is self-sabotage; its just going to hurt the country, not get us moving in the right direction. So let's start with the basics- paid medical leave for a woman who is in a medical situation, I.e. she just delivered a baby. We can ammend further as needed. But physical recovery from childbirth- medical leave- is unpaid in the US, and that comes first.

seeker

Fri, Sep 16 2016, 1:00 am

Yes, I have a gut reaction... to Gary Johnson: Not Hillary, not Donald - Yes please!
I'm not a fan of everything he says and does but after seeing the **** show put on by the other two over the last year, I don't need a whole lot of convincing to go with the "none of the above" option.

Sadie

Fri, Sep 16 2016, 1:00 am

gold21 wrote:

Yeah, well, you can spin it whichever way you like. But yeah, pregnancy and childbirth does require physical recovery- you know, like heavy bleeding, stitches, possibly c-section, weakness, total body exhaustion.... Do you disagree? Of course, let's all stump for women's issues like Planned Parenthood but ignore women's issues like paid medical leave, because it's not p.c. Makes perfect sense.

Should adoptive parents get paid leave? Well yes, I think they should, now that you mention it. However, choosing to throw out the baby with the bathwater is self-sabotage; its just going to hurt the country, not get us moving in the right direction. So let's start with the basics- paid medical leave for a woman who is in a medical situation, I.e. she just delivered a baby. We can ammend further as needed. But physical recovery from childbirth- medical leave- is unpaid in the US, and that comes first.

There's absolutely no reason why a plan can't do both (allow for physical recovery and also bonding time for nonbiological parents.) No reason whatsoever to choose one priority and put the other on the back burner (and trump will get to it when?? He's bragged about never changing a diaper. Fathers being able to take care of their own children is not important to him)

If we all agree that paid leave should ideally be available for nonbiological parents, and we have one plan that guarantees that, and another plan that doesn't, why should we choose the inferior plan?

gold21

Fri, Sep 16 2016, 1:06 am

Sadie wrote:

Sadie, I don't follow your thought process. One is medical leave and one is not.

Adoptive parents should receive paid leave, but it is not medical leave.

There can be two separate plans, if you ask me.

Let's start with the pressing issue of medical leave for post-birth moms, who are physically unable to go to work for at least 2 weeks, and often more than that- and that leave is frequently unpaid. That's a big problem. (A woman on Imamother recently posted about how she has no choice but to go back to work 2 weeks post birth. That's very risky. Birth takes a tremendous toll on the body. She may not be physically up to it at 2 weeks post birth, especially if she had a c section. Then what?)

Sadie

Fri, Sep 16 2016, 1:16 am

gold21 wrote:

Do you think that trump is going to come up with two separate plans, one for paid medical leave for birthing mothers (separate from other types of medical leave) and one for paid parental leave for fathers and adoptive parents?

I don't think he will, but even if he did that seems awfully clunky and unnecessarily bureaucratic.

Eta: included among those women who had to take unpaid leave and return to work before they were fully recovered are female employees of trump's companies. As trump says, pregnancy is bad for business.

Last edited by Sadie on Fri, Sep 16 2016, 1:20 am; edited 2 times in total

gold21

Fri, Sep 16 2016, 1:19 am

Sadie wrote:

I have no idea, but to be frank, Obama had 8 years to come up with a comprehensive plan to deal with this, and he failed to do so. At this point, I'm just grateful the issues are being brought to the forefront and slowly being dealt with.

gold21

Fri, Sep 16 2016, 1:24 am

Sadie wrote:

To your ETA: Well, presumably, Trump has such high regard for women in the workforce that he employs women at very senior level positions, so when one takes maternity leave, the impact is felt throughout the company. If the women were employed at lower level positions, perhaps it would not matter as much Wink

lol.

Sadie

Fri, Sep 16 2016, 1:40 am

gold21 wrote:

But Hillary has proposed a plan, which includes all of the benefits of trumps plan and goes beyond it to include what we all agree is the ideal (includes fathers and adoptive parents)

As a Bernie supporter I totally get not being enthused over Hillary, but basing support for trump on his maternity leave plan doesn't make sense since it's factually less inclusive than his opposition's plan.

Sadie

Fri, Sep 16 2016, 1:51 am

gold21 wrote:

lol.

I'll bet that Ivanka kept pulling a salary when she was on maternity leave... I'm talking more about the waitresses at his failed casinos, the secretaries at his failed university, the flight attendants at his failed airline or the order processors at his failed steak business.

gold21

Fri, Sep 16 2016, 2:17 am

Sadie wrote:

Can you link to Hilary's plan? I would be interested in hearing more about it.

Sadie

Fri, Sep 16 2016, 3:00 am

gold21 wrote:

Can you link to Hilary's plan? I would be interested in hearing more about it.

Here's clinton's plan from her website: https://www.hillaryclinton.com.....eave/

She proposes guaranteeing 12 weeks of paid family leave while trump is only proposing 6 weeks of paid maternity leave.

Both low numbers in my opinion but I would prefer 12 to 6.

Maya

Fri, Sep 16 2016, 6:39 am

Rubber Ducky wrote:

Maya, you need to chill. l

I don't NEED to do anything, besides pay taxes and die. You're welcome to skip over my posts if you don't like them.

Raisin

Fri, Sep 16 2016, 8:15 am

MiracleMama wrote:

LOL, no because he's always been like that. Not everyone who runs their mouth without a filter has Alzheimers.

I've also seen this posed as a theory. He did graduate from an Ivy league school. Hard to believe.

gp2.0

Fri, Sep 16 2016, 8:23 am

Social reform and legislation nearly always happen at the state level before they happen at the federal level. Gay marriage legislation was passed in many states before it was passed federally. Minimum wage and paid maternity leave are being passed as legislation in many states while the federal government keeps arguing about it.

This is why it's important to care about all the smaller names on your ballot. They matter a lot more to you because their legislation directly affects you.

youngishbear

Fri, Sep 16 2016, 8:25 am

gold21 wrote:

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry.....d99c7

Trump’s Maternity Leave Plan Is His Biggest Insult To Women Yet

Donald Trump’s last-ditch effort to appeal to women voters turns out to be a huge and profound slap in the face to all women everywhere. Oh and also to men. And children.

On Tuesday, at the urging of his daughter Ivanka and desperate to curry favor with women turned off by his history of sexist comments, the Republican presidential nominee proposed a six-week maternity leave policy, as well as tax credits for stay-at-home mothers and other child care credits.

Men are not included in the leave plan, the campaign confirmed to The Huffington Post. Let’s repeat that: Trump’s solution for struggling American families leaves out men.

More than any other problem with the plan ― and there are lots ― omitting half the population is its profoundest and most revelatory flaw, confirming once again Trump’s antiquated, sexist and harmful worldview: Men work. Women do the child-raising. The end.

Instead of helping working mothers, as is apparently intended, Trump’s plan would do them harm: At home, they’d be burdened with more childcare. At work, they’d be discriminated against because employers would likely set them on the “mommy track,” ratcheting back expectations for women who are assumed to be more devoted to the home sphere.

The Trump scheme is really just a hazy fantasy in which white men drink scotch (or in Trump’s case, Diet Coke) all day at the office while a woman at home tends to all the details of life. (People of color were never quite included in the “traditional” familial construct of stay-at-home mom and working dad.) In 2016, the difference is women can have jobs ― but they still must do all the home stuff.

Trump’s plan even includes a credit for stay-at-home mothers, but not for stay-at-home fathers. That such a man exists wouldn’t even cross the Trumpian mind.

Leaving men out quite obviously hurts fathers ― who want to be involved in their own lives ― and their families. It particularly insults gay men who become fathers.

“His announcement is so sexist it’s hard to believe [Trump] exists in this millennium,” Josh Levs, the author of All In, a book about fatherhood and work, told HuffPost.

Levs battled with his employer Time Warner several years ago for the right to paid leave. His book documents the many issues men have with employers who, like Trump, don’t even consider that men might need time off to care for, or be with, children or partners or family members.

In one particularly painful anecdote Levs recounts in his book and in the Harvard Business Review, a man named Jay Ramsey takes part of a week off after his wife had an emergency C-section and is then berated by his boss for disloyalty. Men don’t do that, the rationale goes.

No legitimate parental leave policy in this country is tethered to that belief. The federal Family and Medical Leave Act covers all workers at large companies who need time off to care for a child or ailing family member. The states that offer paid leave provide it to both genders. And leave is granted for a host of reasons ― to care for a newborn, adopted child, foster child; as well as to care for a family member with a disability or serious health condition. Increasingly, companies are offering men and women equal amounts of paid leave. Yes, birth mothers need leave for medical reasons alone, but that’s not where this conversation ends.

A policy that only includes maternity leave “misses a lot of reasons men would need to take time off,” Ben Gitis, the director of labor market policy at the American Action Forum, a conservative think tank, told HuffPost. These would include “medical issues or if you have to care for an ill child or ill, elderly parents.”

Even in the best of circumstances, men need to be involved and home with their families, Working Mother Media Editorial Director Jennifer Owens told HuffPost. “It’s the moment where we’re taking and learning responsibilities.” New dads ― just like new moms ― need some time to figure our their new role, to bond with their baby. New parents need each other.

With Trump’s plan, “there’s this implication that parenting is a mother job and not a father job. That is just old-fashioned thinking,” Owens said.

That of course is how Trump, who famously was not and is not involved in the child-rearing duties in his home, thinks. “I won’t do anything to take care of them,” he told Howard Stern in 2005. “I’ll supply funds and she’ll take care of the kids. It’s not like I’m gonna be walking the kids down Central Park.”

The Trump scheme is really just a hazy fantasy in which white men drink scotch all day at the office while a woman at home tends to all the details of life.
Leaving men out damages the families that need them at crucial times. But it’s also super terrible for women in the workplace. Not just mothers but little girls dreaming of their future or young fresh-faced college graduates plotting out their careers or families.

In countries where women get more paid leave than men, employers discriminate against them. They aren’t promoted and hired at the same rates. Pay for women declines. The pay gap widens. Consciously or unconsciously the boss thinks of you as a walking uterus just waiting for implantation and the inevitable scaling-down of the workload.

In Italy, where women are expected to take on the child-rearing and are given little support via public policy, some employers even ask women to presign a resignation letter should they become pregnant, The New York Times reported Tuesday.

A less harsh version of this kind of “mommy tracking” still happens in offices around the U.S. It would not get better if we codify discrimination, as Trump’s plan would.

The plan, while ostensibly embracing a progressive stance, rolls back decades of progress in work and in parenting in the U.S., where men have taken on more of the parenting work, and women slowly have become equals in the work world. This process is ongoing and it’s real.

Owens, whose magazine annually ranks the best companies for working mothers, says that increasingly employers get this. The best companies are seeking parity when they craft parental leave policies ― giving equal amounts to men and women. It’s a way for your boss to say “we support you,” she said.

Like many, Owens was glad Trump has brought parental leave into the national conversation, despite its flaws. She’s seen the issue go from a fringe concern to one on the national agenda.

It is definitely significant that Trump has broken with his party on this issue. The GOP has historically seen paid leave as harmful to business.

”Yes, I would like [Trump’s plan] to be better and include men and make sure it’s broad,” said Owens, “but on the good side I’m glad because him talking about it means people are talking about it.”

That’s kind of the best thing it has going for it.