-->
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 14, 2019, 07:24:25 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
News: peteramescarlin.com
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
+  The Smiley Smile Message Board
|-+  Non Smiley Smile Stuff
| |-+  The Sandbox
| | |-+  Campaign 2016
Pages: 1 ... 69 70 71 72 73 [74] 75 76 77 78 79 ... 81   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Campaign 2016  (Read 217151 times)
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #1825 on: November 10, 2016, 08:38:09 PM »

I'' sure you don't believe you do. Just like people who compare Obama to an ape or constantly respond to concerns about law enforcement with their obsession with "black-on-black" crime don't have a racist bone in their body.

Your hallucination of me sounds like a horrible person, but it's not who I am.
The majority of people deny being racist or misogynist, but if you deny the impact of those things in society or on the campaign, you are not able to recognize it outside yourself, so how would you be expected to recognize it inside yourself?

Because he is not being either racist nor misogynist.  Never mind that corruption, scandals, and criminal investigations have followed Hillary Clinton for the past 30 years or that she's often been painted as untrustworthy (which is astounding considering she is already a politician); her critics didn't like her solely because she's a woman!  
How do you explain that unproven claims of corruption, fake scandals and multiple investigations with no real basis have followed Hillary Clinton for the past 30 years?
How do you explain that she was painted as untrustworthy without being untrustworthy?
How do you explain that even the guys on her side on this forum don't really feel like they can be on her side and have to couch it in "though she has baggage" or something like that, even though if I managed to engage them in it, they wouldn't be able to support that with evidence other than criticizing her for things that Obama, Gore, Kerry, etc. have all supported as well (CSM at least is consistent here and is clear that he supports them just as little as Clinton).
I think it's evidence that her critics don't like her solely because she's a woman.


 Poll after poll confirms the majority of Americans do not consider Hillary to be honest or trustworthy. She is, in fact, a documented liar. Is my conclusion based on her gender or ideology? No, because I reject the scourge of identity politics. She is a corrupt politician who happens to be a woman.
Her opponent was a significantly more documented liar, as are most other politicians, and her opponent has more actually documented evidence of being corrupt.
If she lies less and there is less evidence of her being corrupt, how do you explain the polls that confirm the majority of Americans do not consider her to be honest or trustworthy?
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #1826 on: November 10, 2016, 08:39:35 PM »



In the thousands and thousands of words spoken out against Hillary Clinton I've heard from dozens of conservative commentators including Limbaugh and Hannity, at no point did I ever hear anyone attack Hillary for being a woman.  Never.
hm. Guess you didn't listen to them long enough.
“I don’t need her to drown me in estrogen every time she opens her mouth” –Ana Navarro, GOP Strategist
“In her Iowa round tables, she acted as though she were following dating tips from 1950s advice columnists to women trying to "trap" a husband: listen a lot, nod a lot, widen your eyes, and act fascinated with everything that's said.” –Maureen Dowd, New York Times Columnist
“If Hillary Rodham married some guy named Bill Smith we wouldn't be having this or any other conversation about her. She might be a lawyer someplace or other but she wouldn't be running for president - and wouldn't have been elected to the United States Senate and wouldn't have been picked as secretary of state” -Bernie Goldberg, Fox News
"When she comes on television, I involuntarily cross my legs." -Tucker Carlson, MSNBC
“The cleavage registered after only a quick glance. No scrunch-faced scrutiny was necessary. There wasn’t an unseemly amount of cleavage showing, but there it was.” -Robin Givhan, Washington Post
"I'm starting to worry that when Hillary Clinton travels, there's gonna need to be two planes – one for her and her entourage, and one for her baggage." -Rand Paul, Presidential hopeful
"You all saw the famous photo from the weekend of Hillary looking so haggard and, what, looking like 92 years old. If that's the face of experience, I think it's going to scare away a lot of those independent voters that are on the fence." -Michelle Malkin, Fox News
“What is the downside of having a woman become the president of the United States?” -Bill O'Reilly
“You mean besides the PMS and the mood swings, right...Well, you know, I'm joking. Of course, the main problem I have is if a woman has a female agenda.” –Marc Rudov’s response to the above question
“Shrill-ary: Is Clinton’s problem as basic as her voice?” –Headline by Megan Garber in the Columbia Journalism Review
“When Barack Obama speaks, men hear, 'Take off for the future.' And when Hillary Clinton speaks, men hear, 'Take out the garbage.'” -Marco Rudov (again!)
"It is what it is but it’s patently unfair that male candidates have to bend over backwards to avoid being condescending when dealing with women candidates." -James Joyner, in a column about Clinton and sexism
“Will Americans want to watch a woman get older before their eyes on a daily basis? And that woman, by the way, is not going to want to look like she’s getting older because it’ll impact poll numbers, it’ll impact perceptions.” -Rush Limbaugh
"If Hillary Clinton can’t satisfy her husband what makes her think she can satisfy America?" —Donald Trump, April 2015
 In a single speech on Saturday, Trump attacked Clinton’s sanity, her stamina, her ability to please her husband, and her own fidelity. In other words, he hit the Big Six of misogynist slurs: Ugly, slutty, crazy, disloyal, deceitful, and weak.
“Don’t you think a man who has this kind of economic genius is a lot better for the United States than a woman,” Rudy Giuliani
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/15/hillary-clinton-press-sexism-media-interviews
"When she reacts the way she reacts to [Sen. Barack] Obama with just the look, the look toward him, looking like everyone's first wife standing outside a probate court," ~ Mike Barnicle (MSNBC) about Hillary Clinton
"[Hillary Clinton] is not called a B-word because she's assertive and aggressive; she's called a B-word because she acts like one." ~ Mark Rudov


Hey, you found some quotes!  Great.  Some of these appear to be taken out of context, and some of these comments come from females themselves!  What do you make of that?  I'm assuming they hate themselves? 
The quotes you said don't exist. Further context doesn't save any of them. And, sure, women are misogynist. They grew up in a misogynist culture too.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #1827 on: November 10, 2016, 08:44:38 PM »

I'' sure you don't believe you do. Just like people who compare Obama to an ape or constantly respond to concerns about law enforcement with their obsession with "black-on-black" crime don't have a racist bone in their body.

Your hallucination of me sounds like a horrible person, but it's not who I am.
The majority of people deny being racist or misogynist, but if you deny the impact of those things in society or on the campaign, you are not able to recognize it outside yourself, so how would you be expected to recognize it inside yourself?

Because he is not being either racist nor misogynist.  Never mind that corruption, scandals, and criminal investigations have followed Hillary Clinton for the past 30 years or that she's often been painted as untrustworthy (which is astounding considering she is already a politician); her critics didn't like her solely because she's a woman! 
How do you explain that unproven claims of corruption, fake scandals and multiple investigations with no real basis have followed Hillary Clinton for the past 30 years?
How do you explain that she was painted as untrustworthy without being untrustworthy?
How do you explain that even the guys on her side on this forum don't really feel like they can be on her side and have to couch it in "though she has baggage" or something like that, even though if I managed to engage them in it, they wouldn't be able to support that with evidence other than criticizing her for things that Obama, Gore, Kerry, etc. have all supported as well (CSM at least is consistent here and is clear that he supports them just as little as Clinton).
I think it's evidence that her critics don't like her solely because she's a woman.

Oh come on now.   Roll Eyes

Again, there is no evidence that her sole criticism has ever been her gender.  And all those pithy comments you quoted are the least of her problems. If you had a far less polarizing female candidate running for office and these comments were made I could possibly see your point.  But not with Hillary.  She has far too many skeletons in her closet. 

Here's a little light reading:  http://www.wnd.com/2015/05/here-they-are-hillarys-22-biggest-scandals-ever/
Oh, this too:  http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/tracking-the-clinton-controversies-from-whitewater-to-benghazi/396182/

To completely deny, dismiss or ignore her countless controversies and scandals in favor of the extremely lazy and one-dimensional security blanket argument "They're picking on her because she's a woman!!!!" is just another lame politically correct tirade that lacks any substance or even logic.  I'll give you that there probably are some guys out there threatened by a female President.  But there are plenty of reasons why both Clinton and Trump have been routinely labeled as two of the most unpopular presidential candidates in history.  And they have absolutely nothing to do with gender. 

I am hopeful that one day we will have a female President and I am grateful that it will never be Hillary Clinton.  Oh, for what it's worth I don't care for Obama, Gore or Kerry either. 


Another woman wouldn't be less polarizing, because she'd be a woman. Clinton is only polarizing because she's a woman. Her policies are very centrist and mainstream. I'm not denying the existence of the controversies - quite the opposite - they exist because she's a woman. If you had any evidence for the validity of any of them, that would be different. But the very fact that you are here arguing that it isn't logical for someone to dismiss things that there's no evidence for? The fact that you are committed to these things that there's no evidence for? What's your motive? If not sexism, why are you committed to believing things for which there is no evidence? Why does your brain go dead when it comes to Hillary Clinton if not for sexism?
Given the statements that you just read, and you think the opposition to Clinton has absolutely nothing to do with gender? Again, if not for sexism, why does your brain stop working when you talk about Hillary Clinton?
Logged
♩♬🐸 Sorry Entertainer ♯♫♩🐇
The Dr. of Wilsonomics
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10895


🍦🍦 Hi...how are you? ☮☮


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1828 on: November 10, 2016, 08:52:22 PM »

I'' sure you don't believe you do. Just like people who compare Obama to an ape or constantly respond to concerns about law enforcement with their obsession with "black-on-black" crime don't have a racist bone in their body.

Your hallucination of me sounds like a horrible person, but it's not who I am.
The majority of people deny being racist or misogynist, but if you deny the impact of those things in society or on the campaign, you are not able to recognize it outside yourself, so how would you be expected to recognize it inside yourself?

Because he is not being either racist nor misogynist.  Never mind that corruption, scandals, and criminal investigations have followed Hillary Clinton for the past 30 years or that she's often been painted as untrustworthy (which is astounding considering she is already a politician); her critics didn't like her solely because she's a woman! 
How do you explain that unproven claims of corruption, fake scandals and multiple investigations with no real basis have followed Hillary Clinton for the past 30 years?
How do you explain that she was painted as untrustworthy without being untrustworthy?
How do you explain that even the guys on her side on this forum don't really feel like they can be on her side and have to couch it in "though she has baggage" or something like that, even though if I managed to engage them in it, they wouldn't be able to support that with evidence other than criticizing her for things that Obama, Gore, Kerry, etc. have all supported as well (CSM at least is consistent here and is clear that he supports them just as little as Clinton).
I think it's evidence that her critics don't like her solely because she's a woman.

Oh come on now.   Roll Eyes

Again, there is no evidence that her sole criticism has ever been her gender.  And all those pithy comments you quoted are the least of her problems. If you had a far less polarizing female candidate running for office and these comments were made I could possibly see your point.  But not with Hillary.  She has far too many skeletons in her closet. 

Here's a little light reading:  http://www.wnd.com/2015/05/here-they-are-hillarys-22-biggest-scandals-ever/
Oh, this too:  http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/tracking-the-clinton-controversies-from-whitewater-to-benghazi/396182/

To completely deny, dismiss or ignore her countless controversies and scandals in favor of the extremely lazy and one-dimensional security blanket argument "They're picking on her because she's a woman!!!!" is just another lame politically correct tirade that lacks any substance or even logic.  I'll give you that there probably are some guys out there threatened by a female President.  But there are plenty of reasons why both Clinton and Trump have been routinely labeled as two of the most unpopular presidential candidates in history.  And they have absolutely nothing to do with gender. 

I am hopeful that one day we will have a female President and I am grateful that it will never be Hillary Clinton.  Oh, for what it's worth I don't care for Obama, Gore or Kerry either. 


Another woman wouldn't be less polarizing, because she'd be a woman. Clinton is only polarizing because she's a woman. Her policies are very centrist and mainstream. I'm not denying the existence of the controversies - quite the opposite - they exist because she's a woman. If you had any evidence for the validity of any of them, that would be different. But the very fact that you are here arguing that it isn't logical for someone to dismiss things that there's no evidence for? The fact that you are committed to these things that there's no evidence for? What's your motive? If not sexism, why are you committed to believing things for which there is no evidence? Why does your brain go dead when it comes to Hillary Clinton if not for sexism?
Given the statements that you just read, and you think the opposition to Clinton has absolutely nothing to do with gender? Again, if not for sexism, why does your brain stop working when you talk about Hillary Clinton?

Bolded for truth,  and far too centrist for me! The more I think about it  the more I'm starting to agree, because it seems like she's taking the brunt for things that were both her AND Bill, and people seem to have let him off the hook even though he was highly overrated as a president
Logged

RIP Daniel Dale Johnston ( 1961-2019)
_______________________________________________________
Fear 2 Stop: eating all of Elon Musk's nightmares as he sleeps

"I've never heard such ear-pleasing screams before!"
___________________________________________________


"I’d rather die than owe the hospital Till I get old/ I get adrenalin straight to the heart/ like Uma Thurman overdosing kick-start/ Anaphylactic and super hypocondriactic "

^ This fake quote brought to you by "Oyster Pudding™ ....the Pudding with the Pearl inside!"
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8544



View Profile WWW
« Reply #1829 on: November 10, 2016, 09:18:55 PM »

If you voted for or support Trump, you have zero credibility in citing "Clinton is a liar" as a reason not to vote for her. It's like saying you choose Crack Cocaine over Aspirin because Aspirin is a drug.
Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
KDS
Guest
« Reply #1830 on: November 10, 2016, 10:01:11 PM »

If you voted for or support Trump, you have zero credibility in citing "Clinton is a liar" as a reason not to vote for her. It's like saying you choose Crack Cocaine over Aspirin because Aspirin is a drug.

Good to see you're thinking for Trump voters yet again.
Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4937



View Profile
« Reply #1831 on: November 10, 2016, 11:56:26 PM »

If you voted for or support Trump, you have zero credibility in citing "Clinton is a liar" as a reason not to vote for her. It's like saying you choose Crack Cocaine over Aspirin because Aspirin is a drug.

I despise Trump and very much dislike Hillary, but I will say this much: Even though Trump is a liar too, Trump - unlike Hillary - hasn't been a politician yet (beyond ridiculous of course that he still could attain the presidency), so it's not possible to really accurately claim he has lied as a politician while holding political office, yet there are many examples of Hillary doing so.

In trying to wrap my head around figuring out how people justified voting for Trump, that is an inarguable point which the pro-Trump side can make. I assume his voters can spin it to legitimize her for having more baggage as a political liar than him. Of course I realize this overlooks Trump's many, many shady dealings/lies in private business aspects unrelated to being an elected politician.
Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4937



View Profile
« Reply #1832 on: November 11, 2016, 12:12:21 AM »


Another woman wouldn't be less polarizing, because she'd be a woman. Clinton is only polarizing because she's a woman. Her policies are very centrist and mainstream. I'm not denying the existence of the controversies - quite the opposite - they exist because she's a woman. If you had any evidence for the validity of any of them, that would be different. But the very fact that you are here arguing that it isn't logical for someone to dismiss things that there's no evidence for? The fact that you are committed to these things that there's no evidence for? What's your motive? If not sexism, why are you committed to believing things for which there is no evidence? Why does your brain go dead when it comes to Hillary Clinton if not for sexism?
Given the statements that you just read, and you think the opposition to Clinton has absolutely nothing to do with gender? Again, if not for sexism, why does your brain stop working when you talk about Hillary Clinton?

I don't think it can be accurately claimed that Clinton is only polarizing because she's a woman. And I honestly think that's an extreme, dangerous statement to make as a black-and-white wide brush, because the backlash to that type of all-or-nothing thinking, in my opinion, is largely responsible for the proliferation of Trumpism.

For example, a way that Hillary has polarized some people, including me: the way that Hillary often (not always, but way too often for my tastes) comes off as to me, and to many people I know personally, is being incredibly arrogant; this is a quality that I personally find deeply repugnant. Just as an example: the way she dismissively brushed off the African-American girl who came to ask Hillary about the "superpredators" comment. Hillary's elitist and dismissive tone with that girl was the opposite way I could ever remotely imagine Barack Obama or Bernie ever being like. Every human, male or female, has their personality quirks. It just happens to be her quirk.

Another example: the way she, way back during the primaries, stated on an interview that she WAS going to win the primaries, categorically dismissing the interviewer, without even allowing for the possibility that Bernie could win (which WAS, although improbable, statistically possible at the time). That is dangerous AND stupid. It's like printing a Dewey Defeats Truman newspaper days in advance. Now the fact that she KNEW for sure (because of, IMO, the collusion of her cronies at the DNC helping to rig things in her favor against Bernie) is besides the point; I found it condescending to hear her talk overconfidently and so incredibly dismissively when there were still states that had not yet voted. It's basically her saying: California, your vote does not fucking count. Go f*** yourself, all Bernie supporters. That's how I felt when hearing it. And I'm very not used to feeling quite that way when hearing any politician speak (regardless of gender). I don't like feeling dismissed as a voter in that manner because of someone's ego trip.

Maybe one can say she developed being that way as a response to sexism; I don't know. But regardless of why, it is there, and it's not a non-issue. It's something that I have a real problem with (which is why I point it out when Mike Love acts similarly arrogant on a regular basis, and he's a man). I swear to you, Emily, on my grandparents' graves, that if I witnessed a male politician acting in that way repeatedly, I would be equally as disgusted.

Now we can certainly agree that Trump can (and did) get away with FAR FAR more repugnant behavior during this election compared to Hillary, and people often just laughed it off. Hillary could not get away with so much of that profane way of speaking that is uniquely Trump's, and that's because of gender. Gender absolutely plays a role in this in the big picture, in many, many ways. But it's quite unfair, inaccurate, and IMO dangerous to make that "Clinton is only polarizing because she's a woman" comment. It's not true. I am very pro-feminist, a liberal, but I feel it's imperative that people stop thinking in extremes like that. It's not always true. Not saying that there isn't some truth to it, but respectfully speaking, I believe it's far from entirely true, and should never, ever be claimed as such.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2016, 01:17:20 AM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
♩♬🐸 Sorry Entertainer ♯♫♩🐇
The Dr. of Wilsonomics
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10895


🍦🍦 Hi...how are you? ☮☮


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1833 on: November 11, 2016, 12:15:05 AM »


Another woman wouldn't be less polarizing, because she'd be a woman. Clinton is only polarizing because she's a woman. Her policies are very centrist and mainstream. I'm not denying the existence of the controversies - quite the opposite - they exist because she's a woman. If you had any evidence for the validity of any of them, that would be different. But the very fact that you are here arguing that it isn't logical for someone to dismiss things that there's no evidence for? The fact that you are committed to these things that there's no evidence for? What's your motive? If not sexism, why are you committed to believing things for which there is no evidence? Why does your brain go dead when it comes to Hillary Clinton if not for sexism?
Given the statements that you just read, and you think the opposition to Clinton has absolutely nothing to do with gender? Again, if not for sexism, why does your brain stop working when you talk about Hillary Clinton?

I don't think it can be accurately claimed that Clinton is only polarizing because she's a woman. And I honestly think that's an extreme, dangerous statement to make as a black-and-white wide brush, because the backlash to that type of all-or-nothing thinking, in my opinion, is largely responsible for the proliferation of Trumpism.

For example, a way that Hillary has polarized some people: the way that Hillary often (not always, but way too often for my tastes) comes off as to me, and to many people I know personally, is being incredibly arrogant; this is a quality that I personally find deeply repugnant. Just as an example: the way she dismissively brushed off the African-American girl who came to ask Hillary about the "superpredators" comment. Hillary's elitist and dismissive tone with that girl was the opposite way I could ever remotely imagine Barack Obama or Bernie ever being like. Every human, male or female, has their personality quirks. It just happens to be her quirk.

Another example: the way she, way back during the primaries, stated on an interview that she WAS going to win the primaries, without even allowing for the possibility that Bernie could win (which WAS, although improbable, statistically possible at the time). Now the fact that she KNEW for sure (because of, IMO, the collusion of her cronies at the DNC helping to rig things in her favor against Bernie) is besides the point; I found it condescending to hear her talk overconfidently and so incredibly dismissively when there were still states that had not yet voted. It's basically her saying: California, your vote does not fucking count. Go f*** yourself, all Bernie supporters. That's how I felt when hearing it. And I'm very not used to feeling quite that way when hearing any politician speak (regardless of gender). I don't like feeling dismissed as a voter in that manner because of someone's ego trip.

Maybe one can say she developed being that way as a response to sexism; I don't know. But regardless of why, it is there, and it's not a non-issue. It's something that I have a real problem with (which is why I point it out when Mike Love acts similarly arrogant on a regular basis, and he's a man). I swear to you, Emily, on my grandparents' graves, that if I witnessed a male politician acting in that way repeatedly, I would be equally as disgusted.

Now we can certainly agree that Trump can (and did) get away with FAR FAR more repugnant behavior during this election compared to Hillary, and people often just laughed it off. Hillary could not get away with so much of that profane way of speaking that is uniquely Trump's, and that's because of gender. Gender absolutely plays a role in this in the big picture, in many, many ways. But it's quite unfair, inaccurate, and IMO dangerous to make that "Clinton is only polarizing because she's a woman" comment. It's not true. I am very pro-feminist, a liberal, but I feel it's imperative that people stop thinking in extremes like that. It's not always true. Not saying that there isn't some truth to it, but respectfully speaking, I believe it's far from entirely true, and should never, ever be claimed as such.
Well said.
Logged

RIP Daniel Dale Johnston ( 1961-2019)
_______________________________________________________
Fear 2 Stop: eating all of Elon Musk's nightmares as he sleeps

"I've never heard such ear-pleasing screams before!"
___________________________________________________


"I’d rather die than owe the hospital Till I get old/ I get adrenalin straight to the heart/ like Uma Thurman overdosing kick-start/ Anaphylactic and super hypocondriactic "

^ This fake quote brought to you by "Oyster Pudding™ ....the Pudding with the Pearl inside!"
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4937



View Profile
« Reply #1834 on: November 11, 2016, 12:29:52 AM »


Another woman wouldn't be less polarizing, because she'd be a woman. Clinton is only polarizing because she's a woman. Her policies are very centrist and mainstream. I'm not denying the existence of the controversies - quite the opposite - they exist because she's a woman. If you had any evidence for the validity of any of them, that would be different. But the very fact that you are here arguing that it isn't logical for someone to dismiss things that there's no evidence for? The fact that you are committed to these things that there's no evidence for? What's your motive? If not sexism, why are you committed to believing things for which there is no evidence? Why does your brain go dead when it comes to Hillary Clinton if not for sexism?
Given the statements that you just read, and you think the opposition to Clinton has absolutely nothing to do with gender? Again, if not for sexism, why does your brain stop working when you talk about Hillary Clinton?

I don't think it can be accurately claimed that Clinton is only polarizing because she's a woman. And I honestly think that's an extreme, dangerous statement to make as a black-and-white wide brush, because the backlash to that type of all-or-nothing thinking, in my opinion, is largely responsible for the proliferation of Trumpism.

For example, a way that Hillary has polarized some people: the way that Hillary often (not always, but way too often for my tastes) comes off as to me, and to many people I know personally, is being incredibly arrogant; this is a quality that I personally find deeply repugnant. Just as an example: the way she dismissively brushed off the African-American girl who came to ask Hillary about the "superpredators" comment. Hillary's elitist and dismissive tone with that girl was the opposite way I could ever remotely imagine Barack Obama or Bernie ever being like. Every human, male or female, has their personality quirks. It just happens to be her quirk.

Another example: the way she, way back during the primaries, stated on an interview that she WAS going to win the primaries, categorically dismissing the interviewer, without even allowing for the possibility that Bernie could win (which WAS, although improbable, statistically possible at the time). That is dangerous AND stupid. It's like printing a Dewey Defeats Truman newspaper days in advance. Now the fact that she KNEW for sure (because of, IMO, the collusion of her cronies at the DNC helping to rig things in her favor against Bernie) is besides the point; I found it condescending to hear her talk overconfidently and so incredibly dismissively when there were still states that had not yet voted. It's basically her saying: California, your vote does not fucking count. Go f*** yourself, all Bernie supporters. That's how I felt when hearing it. And I'm very not used to feeling quite that way when hearing any politician speak (regardless of gender). I don't like feeling dismissed as a voter in that manner because of someone's ego trip.

Maybe one can say she developed being that way as a response to sexism; I don't know. But regardless of why, it is there, and it's not a non-issue. It's something that I have a real problem with (which is why I point it out when Mike Love acts similarly arrogant on a regular basis, and he's a man). I swear to you, Emily, on my grandparents' graves, that if I witnessed a male politician acting in that way repeatedly, I would be equally as disgusted.

Now we can certainly agree that Trump can (and did) get away with FAR FAR more repugnant behavior during this election compared to Hillary, and people often just laughed it off. Hillary could not get away with so much of that profane way of speaking that is uniquely Trump's, and that's because of gender. Gender absolutely plays a role in this in the big picture, in many, many ways. But it's quite unfair, inaccurate, and IMO dangerous to make that "Clinton is only polarizing because she's a woman" comment. It's not true. I am very pro-feminist, a liberal, but I feel it's imperative that people stop thinking in extremes like that. It's not always true. Not saying that there isn't some truth to it, but respectfully speaking, I believe it's far from entirely true, and should never, ever be claimed as such.
Well said.

Thanks Billy. I actually feel that in many ways, the tragedy is that type of black-and-white thinking on a widescale basis (and its resulting backlash) is in part what ultimately cost the Dems the election. That ideology, when devoid of nuance, is to me the ultimate example of polarization.  It's become a really, really big problem, especially in recent years. (Just as real, undeniable deep-rooted sexism is also, of course, a HUGE problem). You can see it on social media all the time. People have often become quick to make broad accusations, when in fact there is sometimes much nuance involved. Again - I say this being a liberal democrat! Claims can be partly true, maybe even largely true, but that doesn't mean they can just be made to be true across the board. Things are complicated sometimes, and don't always easily completely fit a narrative that people want it to. This *especially* applies to Hillary Clinton.

It is this wide brush mentality that has spread amongst so many people (followed by people sometimes unjustly getting piled on/defamed by strangers in social media) that becomes, IMO, deeply problematic. People should not necessarily always automatically be dismissed as having sexist views, when in fact that *could* be an inaccurate accusation. People have become itchy on the trigger finger. I am certainly willing to recognize an aspect of myself, as a white dude, that I sometimes am guilty of unconsciously doing or saying something sexist. I want to be better and not be like that ever... yet there are traits that get ingrained into all of us sometimes, and it's not easy for many people to admit that it happens sometimes. I really, greatly hope this post doesn't come off that way. I deeply intend for it NOT to, because that is far from my intent.

That said, I'm being honest and admitting that unconscious sexism/bias can come from me sometimes. I try to learn from my mistakes, take in new points of view, and to continuously evolve to be better. We can ALL have our blinders on sometimes. The flipside of that honesty of mine is that people have a real responsibility to be honest on the other side, by conceding that people *sometimes* get accused of sexism when it's not really always accurate. Sometimes it is accurate, maybe often, maybe really often, but not always. I think it's fair to say that inaccurate accusations (and people being unwilling to budge an inch on accusations, trying to outright muzzle even a reasoned rebuttal with a mansplaining accusation) often undermine the cause for equality as a whole. It can be incredibly self-defeating despite good intent.

And just like with any crime or accusation, it's really deeply problematic for people to be wrongly accused - and then for that accusation to stick, without any recourse or way to stand up for themselves, after an internet pitchfork mob may have gone to town on them. Most especially in the online world, where text-only form is devoid of nuance that would otherwise happen with face-to-face interaction. (Although this still happens in face-to-face interaction too).

I don't know how such rules of determination of sexism can be properly defined (some - perhaps many/most Dems? - say that no white man can ever state/determine how sexist/not sexist anything they ever say is... that only a woman can ever make that determination)... but if that's going to be the "rule", then accusers have an obligation to be very responsible in making such determinations, and also be willing to accept that they CAN be wrong sometimes. I don't think it's right to fear being automatically accused of mansplaining just by trying to express this point of view... yet I do have that fear for even sticking up for my thoughts on this matter, despite trying very hard to sincerely be diplomatic and polite. Accusers can be wrong sometimes. It sucks deeply to be misconstrued, just as it must suck to be wrong sometimes and to admit it. At times, people walk on eggshells with a very specific intent to NOT be misconstrued, and even then still sometimes get wrongly accused. I'm not trying to be pejorative or dismissive in any way, just expressing my honest opinion about a very touchy subject.

Not talking about this conversation in this thread specifically, but in general: when people won't ever admit they CAN sometimes be incorrect about this type of subject (and I see such refusal is often the case online)... and that refusal to admit such gets validated time and time again in the media, either via a Facebook echo chamber, or clickbaity tabloid-esque websites propagating claims that might perhaps be sketchy in origin... some of the worst aspects of Trumpism then arises, like a disease. And I can see how it can happen, because Trump people can rally against being wrongly accused of stuff sometimes, and that's not necessarily an inaccurate point of view. I don't exactly want to give credit to any of pro-Trump peoples' talking points, but it is good and healthy for us as a nation to try and understand the opposing political side, and how we can meet each other halfway, even at times like this where a giant orange moron has been elected, and when AWFUL sexist/racist crap - in the name of Trump - is happening throughout the country via a repulsive contingency of his supporters.  

It's tragic to me. We just need more nuance so that more people don't make that switch to the dark side, just because they are pissed about repeatedly being wrongly accused (or seeing other people possibly being wrongly accused) one too many times. It's sadly not some super rare thing, either, IMO. On the internet, even just witnessing a few inaccurate and unjust accusations can emotionally add up in peoples' minds, especially when it seems like the internet news media/political climate gives absolutely zero f*cks about the problem of potentially inaccurate accusations. The internet is a kangaroo court for accusations like this sometimes. Just like about the story of this band. Things are not always all one way or all the other! It's sometimes as hard to realize this as it is to realize that Mike is not always a bad guy. It can be very, very difficult to see past certain things to find the real truth.  

It's VERY important that Dems and pro-Hillary people realize that they are sometimes inadvertently helping to create (or enlarge) a monster with their well-intended, but not always accurate broad statements and actions. IMO it's *imperative* that people must let their guard down and not be closed-minded on this issue of confronting accuracy vs. inaccuracy. The status quo on this is feeding a monster. And many Dems/liberals are afraid to confront this and talk about it, perhaps out of a fear of backlash (being accused of being sexist for just daring to have a dialog about the topic). I absolutely don't want anyone to feel muzzled and afraid to call out actual sexism when they see it, either. I don't wish to undermine the fact that there IS real, despicable sexism at play on a very large level at various aspects of this election.

It's just that nobody should believe that an inaccurate claim of sexism isn't an actual, problematic thing that sometimes occurs. Much like the song Wrinkles, it's a thing that unfortunately exists.

Sorry if this is long-winded. It's a complex issue that IMO deserves nuance and discussion. I'd love to know others' opinions on this.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2016, 03:26:01 AM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8544



View Profile WWW
« Reply #1835 on: November 11, 2016, 04:06:37 AM »

If you voted for or support Trump, you have zero credibility in citing "Clinton is a liar" as a reason not to vote for her. It's like saying you choose Crack Cocaine over Aspirin because Aspirin is a drug.

Good to see you're thinking for Trump voters yet again.

It's an observation, not a case of "thinking for" anybody.

If someone won't acknowledge that Trump is a serial liar, regardless of how they voted, then I'll weigh their credibility accordingly.
Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #1836 on: November 11, 2016, 04:32:00 AM »


I don't think it can be accurately claimed that Clinton is only polarizing because she's a woman. And I honestly think that's an extreme, dangerous statement to make as a black-and-white wide brush, because the backlash to that type of all-or-nothing thinking, in my opinion, is largely responsible for the proliferation of Trumpism.

I understand that it's impolitic to hurt white guy's feelings by pointing out their flaws, thanks. I've never been good at the politics of politics.

For example, a way that Hillary has polarized some people, including me: the way that Hillary often (not always, but way too often for my tastes) comes off as to me, and to many people I know personally, is being incredibly arrogant; this is a quality that I personally find deeply repugnant. Just as an example: the way she dismissively brushed off the African-American girl who came to ask Hillary about the "superpredators" comment. Hillary's elitist and dismissive tone with that girl was the opposite way I could ever remotely imagine Barack Obama or Bernie ever being like. Every human, male or female, has their personality quirks. It just happens to be her quirk.
First of all, Sanders is the epitome of arrogant. Much more than Clinton, he takes the stance that his views are unquestionably correct. Of Sanders, Trump and Clinton, Clinton exhibited the least arrogance. But arrogance isn't a flaw in a man. Second, if she weren't a woman, you may have read her body language and tone differently. You probably would have expected a different response from him than the one you expected from her. People criticize Clinton in those situations for not being "warm" (then in other situations, the question is whether she's tough enough.)
The basic training of ALL politicians, and if you ever saw Sanders confronted on the road or Obama or any of the others, is if it's a negative question about something you've addressed, move on as quickly as possible. If you look, you'll find them all doing it. But the MANNER in which it's done is examined (like the manner in which everything she does is done) more closely with Clinton. Because the body language and tone of a man doing it, is the code we recognize as the right body language and tone, so we don't even look at it anymore.
I'll put a caveat below.

Another example: the way she, way back during the primaries, stated on an interview that she WAS going to win the primaries, categorically dismissing the interviewer, without even allowing for the possibility that Bernie could win (which WAS, although improbable, statistically possible at the time). That is dangerous AND stupid. It's like printing a Dewey Defeats Truman newspaper days in advance. Now the fact that she KNEW for sure (because of, IMO, the collusion of her cronies at the DNC helping to rig things in her favor against Bernie) is besides the point; I found it condescending to hear her talk overconfidently and so incredibly dismissively when there were still states that had not yet voted. It's basically her saying: California, your vote does not fucking count. Go f*** yourself, all Bernie supporters. That's how I felt when hearing it. And I'm very not used to feeling quite that way when hearing any politician speak (regardless of gender). I don't like feeling dismissed as a voter in that manner because of someone's ego trip.
Confidence, too, is something admired in a man and considered offensive in a woman. Maybe you felt that way because she's a woman being confident, and that's why you're not used to it. How many times have you heard men say they're going to win before it's done? You probably don't know, because you wouldn't have noticed because it wouldn't have bothered you. Go back and look. Obama's done it (before he beat Clinton in the primaries) Trump did it. It's, again, a common campaign thing that back-fired on Clinton. Politicians (and business executives and military officers, etc.) are taught that exuding confidence causes people to accept your leadership. Asserting confidence that your campaign will win is so common it's a trope, but it only works for men, it turns out.
Again, caveat below.
 

Maybe one can say she developed being that way as a response to sexism; I don't know. But regardless of why, it is there, and it's not a non-issue. It's something that I have a real problem with (which is why I point it out when Mike Love acts similarly arrogant on a regular basis, and he's a man). I swear to you, Emily, on my grandparents' graves, that if I witnessed a male politician acting in that way repeatedly, I would be equally as disgusted.
caveat: if you are already predisposed to dislike someone, you read their actions differently and you react to the same things differently. So, when someone you WANT to win, says they're going to win or something arrogant "we've started a revolution." "if Sanders was nominated he would have won" - Sanders himself frequently asserted that he was going to win - it doesn't bother you. The candidate you DON'T support saying the same thing does bother you. This goes back to Hey Jude's point of questioning yourself. We all judge people on unconscious factors. You might THINK you're judging fairly, but if you examine yourself, you often are not.


Now we can certainly agree that Trump can (and did) get away with FAR FAR more repugnant behavior during this election compared to Hillary, and people often just laughed it off. Hillary could not get away with so much of that profane way of speaking that is uniquely Trump's, and that's because of gender. Gender absolutely plays a role in this in the big picture, in many, many ways. But it's quite unfair, inaccurate, and IMO dangerous to make that "Clinton is only polarizing because she's a woman" comment. It's not true. I am very pro-feminist, a liberal, but I feel it's imperative that people stop thinking in extremes like that. It's not always true. Not saying that there isn't some truth to it, but respectfully speaking, I believe it's far from entirely true, and should never, ever be claimed as such.

I'm pretty confident I'm right. And many, many studies show that people judge girls and women differently, particularly when they assert themselves in mixed-sex groups, as just about every woman who has ever asserted herself in a mixed-sex group can attest. And in this case, the criticisms against Clinton that you raise very closely fit the pattern of the criticisms often raised against women asserting themselves in mixed-sex groups, the denial of it is rather illogical
And, again, if it's TRUE, I don't really care if asserting it is impolitic.

Some evidence:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/04/bernie-sanders-new-york-win-221454
Here's Sanders saying "we are going to win New York." Did that bother you?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItsTu0Glg-c
Here's Sanders saying "we are going to win here in California."
https://twitter.com/berniesanders/status/661312860983705600
Here's Sanders saying "We will win in 2016."

Were you "as disgusted" by his arrogance or over-confidence?
« Last Edit: November 11, 2016, 05:47:24 AM by Emily » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #1837 on: November 11, 2016, 04:33:45 AM »

If you voted for or support Trump, you have zero credibility in citing "Clinton is a liar" as a reason not to vote for her. It's like saying you choose Crack Cocaine over Aspirin because Aspirin is a drug.

I despise Trump and very much dislike Hillary, but I will say this much: Even though Trump is a liar too, Trump - unlike Hillary - hasn't been a politician yet (beyond ridiculous of course that he still could attain the presidency), so it's not possible to really accurately claim he has lied as a politician while holding political office, yet there are many examples of Hillary doing so.

In trying to wrap my head around figuring out how people justified voting for Trump, that is an inarguable point which the pro-Trump side can make. I assume his voters can spin it to legitimize her for having more baggage as a political liar than him. Of course I realize this overlooks Trump's many, many shady dealings/lies in private business aspects unrelated to being an elected politician.
Where is your evidence that she lied in a way or to a degree that it would be reasonably expected to be widely considered a problem with any other office-holder?
And, lying on the campaign trail IS lying as a politician.
Logged
SMiLE Brian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8142



View Profile
« Reply #1838 on: November 11, 2016, 04:59:51 AM »

Now the dems are going to go full Bernie Sanders and turn to left wing populism. The moderates will be forced out and the system will get even more pollarized.
Logged

And production aside, I’d so much rather hear a 14 year old David Marks shred some guitar on Chug-a-lug than hear a 51 year old Mike Love sing about bangin some chick in a swimming pool.-rab2591
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2869


View Profile
« Reply #1839 on: November 11, 2016, 05:04:27 AM »

I agree that many of the arguments against Clinton were framed the way they were because of gender biases. However, the Republican party since the 90s have been a party of fringe extremists whose only goal is to undermine the Democratic party no matter what their policies are. They shutdown the government against Obama over Obamacare and actively opposed Democratic bills on the grounds that they were Democratic; they impeached Bill Clinton over what was essentially a non-political issue. I have no doubt that that the kinds of arguments made against Hillary were motivated by the fact that she was a woman, but had a man been running, they also would have used whatever it took to try and dismantle their candidacy since that is their modus operandi.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2016, 05:08:05 AM by Chocolate Shake Man » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #1840 on: November 11, 2016, 05:13:35 AM »

I agree that many of the arguments against Clinton were framed the way they were because of gender biases. However, the Republican party since the 90s have been a party of fringe extremists whose only goal is to undermine the Democratic party no matter what their policies are. They shutdown the government against Obama over Obamacare and actively opposed Democratic bills on the grounds that they were Democratic; they impeached Bill Clinton over what was essentially a non-political issue. I have no doubt that that the kinds of arguments made against Hillary were motivated by the fact that she was a woman, but had a man been running, they also would have used whatever it took to try and dismantle their candidacy since that is their modus operandi.
I don't disagree with you. That has clearly been their approach from the 1970s on, using whatever tools are at their disposal, be it race, gender, looking silly in a helmet on a tank, having done drugs (unless it's their candidate) swift-boating, mocking brown suits, whatever. But I'm saying that the fact that it sold so well, even among Democrats and the left, has to do with wide-spread misogyny. People had so much more ease recognizing the racism in the attacks on Obama, and so much more comfort standing up for him and opposing the race-based attacks. The left didn't take the bait as easily, because they recognize racism more easily than they recognize misogyny.
How many leftists, Democrats, and even moderate Republicans do you see flat out denying the role of race in the attacks on Obama?
« Last Edit: November 11, 2016, 05:17:02 AM by Emily » Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2869


View Profile
« Reply #1841 on: November 11, 2016, 05:19:54 AM »

I agree that many of the arguments against Clinton were framed the way they were because of gender biases. However, the Republican party since the 90s have been a party of fringe extremists whose only goal is to undermine the Democratic party no matter what their policies are. They shutdown the government against Obama over Obamacare and actively opposed Democratic bills on the grounds that they were Democratic; they impeached Bill Clinton over what was essentially a non-political issue. I have no doubt that that the kinds of arguments made against Hillary were motivated by the fact that she was a woman, but had a man been running, they also would have used whatever it took to try and dismantle their candidacy since that is their modus operandi.
I don't disagree with you. But I'm saying that the fact that it sold so well, even among Democrats and the left, has to do with wide-spread misogyny. People had so much more ease recognizing the racism in the attacks on Obama, and so much more comfort standing up for him and opposing the race-based attacks. The left didn't take the bait as easily, because they recognize racism more easily than they recognize misogyny.
How many leftists, Democrats, and even moderate Republicans do you see flat out denying the role of race in the attacks on Obama?

I agree with your point except to say that I'm still uncertain about how well it sold. No doubt it sold well amongst some. Yet while Clinton did have about six million less votes than Obama had last election, that could very well come down to the growing disenchantment with the political system in general. After all, BOTH candidates in this election had fewer votes than the LOSING candidate in the last election. To me, that's more a reflection of the growing awareness of the political system than anything else, which is not a surprise given what has happened in the last decade or so, with the Occupy movement, etc.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2016, 05:21:00 AM by Chocolate Shake Man » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #1842 on: November 11, 2016, 05:28:52 AM »

I agree that many of the arguments against Clinton were framed the way they were because of gender biases. However, the Republican party since the 90s have been a party of fringe extremists whose only goal is to undermine the Democratic party no matter what their policies are. They shutdown the government against Obama over Obamacare and actively opposed Democratic bills on the grounds that they were Democratic; they impeached Bill Clinton over what was essentially a non-political issue. I have no doubt that that the kinds of arguments made against Hillary were motivated by the fact that she was a woman, but had a man been running, they also would have used whatever it took to try and dismantle their candidacy since that is their modus operandi.
I don't disagree with you. But I'm saying that the fact that it sold so well, even among Democrats and the left, has to do with wide-spread misogyny. People had so much more ease recognizing the racism in the attacks on Obama, and so much more comfort standing up for him and opposing the race-based attacks. The left didn't take the bait as easily, because they recognize racism more easily than they recognize misogyny.
How many leftists, Democrats, and even moderate Republicans do you see flat out denying the role of race in the attacks on Obama?

I agree with your point except to say that I'm still uncertain about how well it sold. No doubt it sold well amongst some. Yet while Clinton did have about six million less votes than Obama had last election, that could very well come down to the growing disenchantment with the political system in general. After all, BOTH candidates in this election had fewer votes than the LOSING candidate in the last election. To me, that's more a reflection of the growing awareness of the political system than anything else, which is not a surprise given what has happened in the last decade or so, with the Occupy movement, etc.
That's a fascinating piece of information. Thanks. And I hope you're right.
Logged
SloopJohnB
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 942



View Profile WWW
« Reply #1843 on: November 11, 2016, 05:51:29 AM »

Are women more prone to severe cases of email deletion?  Roll Eyes
Logged

I don't know where, but their music sends me there
Pleasure Island!!!!!!! and a slice of cheese pizza.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #1844 on: November 11, 2016, 06:04:21 AM »

Are women more prone to severe cases of email deletion?  Roll Eyes
You've been listening to distortions. The deleted emails were identified by her attorneys as her personal emails. You can find online the process they followed to identify them. If you have a problem with it, let me know. If you have a problem in general with people deleting personal emails that were NOT subpoenaed, then you have to change a lot of privacy laws and we will most of us be eligible for prosecution.
How much of a big whoop was made about all the other people, prominent and identified, who didn't follow email protocols? What investigation was there after millions of emails in the Bush White House went missing? What about the fact that Bush White House emails were kept on a Republican National Committee server? What about Powell's email usage? Who ran the congressional and FBI investigations into that?
Seriously?
« Last Edit: November 11, 2016, 06:07:06 AM by Emily » Logged
Moon Dawg
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1036



View Profile
« Reply #1845 on: November 11, 2016, 06:05:17 AM »

I'' sure you don't believe you do. Just like people who compare Obama to an ape or constantly respond to concerns about law enforcement with their obsession with "black-on-black" crime don't have a racist bone in their body.

Your hallucination of me sounds like a horrible person, but it's not who I am.
The majority of people deny being racist or misogynist, but if you deny the impact of those things in society or on the campaign, you are not able to recognize it outside yourself, so how would you be expected to recognize it inside yourself?

Because he is not being either racist nor misogynist.  Never mind that corruption, scandals, and criminal investigations have followed Hillary Clinton for the past 30 years or that she's often been painted as untrustworthy (which is astounding considering she is already a politician); her critics didn't like her solely because she's a woman!  
How do you explain that unproven claims of corruption, fake scandals and multiple investigations with no real basis have followed Hillary Clinton for the past 30 years?
How do you explain that she was painted as untrustworthy without being untrustworthy?
How do you explain that even the guys on her side on this forum don't really feel like they can be on her side and have to couch it in "though she has baggage" or something like that, even though if I managed to engage them in it, they wouldn't be able to support that with evidence other than criticizing her for things that Obama, Gore, Kerry, etc. have all supported as well (CSM at least is consistent here and is clear that he supports them just as little as Clinton).
I think it's evidence that her critics don't like her solely because she's a woman.


 Poll after poll confirms the majority of Americans do not consider Hillary to be honest or trustworthy. She is, in fact, a documented liar. Is my conclusion based on her gender or ideology? No, because I reject the scourge of identity politics. She is a corrupt politician who happens to be a woman.
Her opponent was a significantly more documented liar, as are most other politicians, and her opponent has more actually documented evidence of being corrupt.
If she lies less and there is less evidence of her being corrupt, how do you explain the polls that confirm the majority of Americans do not consider her to be honest or trustworthy?


 Yes, Clinton and Trump are both liars. A liar is a liar - I can't parse out who the bigger liar is. If we can somehow document that Trump is a "60 % liar" and Hillary is a "50 % liar" do we really want to trust either one?

Trump has been a public figure for 30 plus years but is new to politics. Hillary has been running for office forever, either on her own or as a complement to Bill. She was profoundly unsuited to the populism which gripped both parties in 2016. In some sense, for some people, Trump rode the Zeitgeist of the times.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2016, 06:06:29 AM by Moon Dawg » Logged
thorgil
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 416


GREAT post, Rab!


View Profile
« Reply #1846 on: November 11, 2016, 06:11:42 AM »

Sigh again. Let's all agree that Trump won because of Pet Sounds and let's take a vacation. Angry

« Last Edit: November 11, 2016, 06:14:47 AM by thorgil » Logged

DIT, DIT, DIT, HEROES AND VILLAINS...
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #1847 on: November 11, 2016, 06:14:23 AM »

I'' sure you don't believe you do. Just like people who compare Obama to an ape or constantly respond to concerns about law enforcement with their obsession with "black-on-black" crime don't have a racist bone in their body.

Your hallucination of me sounds like a horrible person, but it's not who I am.
The majority of people deny being racist or misogynist, but if you deny the impact of those things in society or on the campaign, you are not able to recognize it outside yourself, so how would you be expected to recognize it inside yourself?

Because he is not being either racist nor misogynist.  Never mind that corruption, scandals, and criminal investigations have followed Hillary Clinton for the past 30 years or that she's often been painted as untrustworthy (which is astounding considering she is already a politician); her critics didn't like her solely because she's a woman!  
How do you explain that unproven claims of corruption, fake scandals and multiple investigations with no real basis have followed Hillary Clinton for the past 30 years?
How do you explain that she was painted as untrustworthy without being untrustworthy?
How do you explain that even the guys on her side on this forum don't really feel like they can be on her side and have to couch it in "though she has baggage" or something like that, even though if I managed to engage them in it, they wouldn't be able to support that with evidence other than criticizing her for things that Obama, Gore, Kerry, etc. have all supported as well (CSM at least is consistent here and is clear that he supports them just as little as Clinton).
I think it's evidence that her critics don't like her solely because she's a woman.


 Poll after poll confirms the majority of Americans do not consider Hillary to be honest or trustworthy. She is, in fact, a documented liar. Is my conclusion based on her gender or ideology? No, because I reject the scourge of identity politics. She is a corrupt politician who happens to be a woman.
Her opponent was a significantly more documented liar, as are most other politicians, and her opponent has more actually documented evidence of being corrupt.
If she lies less and there is less evidence of her being corrupt, how do you explain the polls that confirm the majority of Americans do not consider her to be honest or trustworthy?


 Yes, Clinton and Trump are both liars. A liar is a liar - I can't parse out who the bigger liar is. If we can somehow document that Trump is a "60 % liar" and Hillary is a "50 % liar" do we really want to trust either one?

Trump has been a public figure for 30 plus years but is new to politics. Hillary has been running for office forever, either on her own or as a complement to Bill. She was profoundly unsuited to the populism which gripped both parties in 2016. In some sense, for some people, Trump rode the Zeitgeist of the times.
If you can't parse out who the bigger liar is, that might have to do with misogyny. Clinton has been recorded lying very few times, once as far as I've heard. How many times can you argue that what she said that was not true was a lie?
The separate question is, how many times has a candidate said something that's not true. Clinton, less than virtually every major presidential candidate in recent years. Trump, more than virtually every major presidential candidate in recent years. But look up "dishonest women" and "dishonest men" on google. You'll see that the first leads to multiple direct quotes, the second leads to multiple quotes of "dishonest people." Women being dishonest is a misogynist meme in our society. Thus it's easy to believe that Clinton is more dishonest than she actually is (she is less so than most politicians). As she is less so than most politicians, yet it is commonly believed she is more so, there's some underlying factor causing people to believe something that's not true. What do you suppose that is?
Logged
Moon Dawg
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1036



View Profile
« Reply #1848 on: November 11, 2016, 06:25:38 AM »

I'' sure you don't believe you do. Just like people who compare Obama to an ape or constantly respond to concerns about law enforcement with their obsession with "black-on-black" crime don't have a racist bone in their body.

Your hallucination of me sounds like a horrible person, but it's not who I am.
The majority of people deny being racist or misogynist, but if you deny the impact of those things in society or on the campaign, you are not able to recognize it outside yourself, so how would you be expected to recognize it inside yourself?

Because he is not being either racist nor misogynist.  Never mind that corruption, scandals, and criminal investigations have followed Hillary Clinton for the past 30 years or that she's often been painted as untrustworthy (which is astounding considering she is already a politician); her critics didn't like her solely because she's a woman!  
How do you explain that unproven claims of corruption, fake scandals and multiple investigations with no real basis have followed Hillary Clinton for the past 30 years?
How do you explain that she was painted as untrustworthy without being untrustworthy?
How do you explain that even the guys on her side on this forum don't really feel like they can be on her side and have to couch it in "though she has baggage" or something like that, even though if I managed to engage them in it, they wouldn't be able to support that with evidence other than criticizing her for things that Obama, Gore, Kerry, etc. have all supported as well (CSM at least is consistent here and is clear that he supports them just as little as Clinton).
I think it's evidence that her critics don't like her solely because she's a woman.


 Poll after poll confirms the majority of Americans do not consider Hillary to be honest or trustworthy. She is, in fact, a documented liar. Is my conclusion based on her gender or ideology? No, because I reject the scourge of identity politics. She is a corrupt politician who happens to be a woman.
Her opponent was a significantly more documented liar, as are most other politicians, and her opponent has more actually documented evidence of being corrupt.
If she lies less and there is less evidence of her being corrupt, how do you explain the polls that confirm the majority of Americans do not consider her to be honest or trustworthy?


 Yes, Clinton and Trump are both liars. A liar is a liar - I can't parse out who the bigger liar is. If we can somehow document that Trump is a "60 % liar" and Hillary is a "50 % liar" do we really want to trust either one?

Trump has been a public figure for 30 plus years but is new to politics. Hillary has been running for office forever, either on her own or as a complement to Bill. She was profoundly unsuited to the populism which gripped both parties in 2016. In some sense, for some people, Trump rode the Zeitgeist of the times.
If you can't parse out who the bigger liar is, that might have to do with misogyny. Clinton has been recorded lying very few times, once as far as I've heard. How many times can you argue that what she said that was not true was a lie?
The separate question is, how many times has a candidate said something that's not true. Clinton, less than virtually every major presidential candidate in recent years. Trump, more than virtually every major presidential candidate in recent years. But look up "dishonest women" and "dishonest men" on google. You'll see that the first leads to multiple direct quotes, the second leads to multiple quotes of "dishonest people." Women being dishonest is a misogynist meme in our society. Thus it's easy to believe that Clinton is more dishonest than she actually is (she is less so than most politicians). As she is less so than most politicians, yet it is commonly believed she is more so, there's some underlying factor causing people to believe something that's not true. What do you suppose that is?


 Sure it is a valid element in play. But it doesn't mean every anti-Hillary vote was based on her gender. I believe Bill Clinton is an unusually good liar as well, and he is a man. And no, that is not based on the "D" beside both Clinton names. (IMO Barack Obama is a relatively honest politician.)

Identity politics have circumvented looking at people as individuals. It causes us to judge people on what rather than who they are. We all fall prey to this as individuals, but this mindset has increasingly permeated the Democratic Party as an entity.
Logged
Moon Dawg
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1036



View Profile
« Reply #1849 on: November 11, 2016, 06:36:37 AM »

I'' sure you don't believe you do. Just like people who compare Obama to an ape or constantly respond to concerns about law enforcement with their obsession with "black-on-black" crime don't have a racist bone in their body.

Your hallucination of me sounds like a horrible person, but it's not who I am.
The majority of people deny being racist or misogynist, but if you deny the impact of those things in society or on the campaign, you are not able to recognize it outside yourself, so how would you be expected to recognize it inside yourself?

Because he is not being either racist nor misogynist.  Never mind that corruption, scandals, and criminal investigations have followed Hillary Clinton for the past 30 years or that she's often been painted as untrustworthy (which is astounding considering she is already a politician); her critics didn't like her solely because she's a woman!  
How do you explain that unproven claims of corruption, fake scandals and multiple investigations with no real basis have followed Hillary Clinton for the past 30 years?
How do you explain that she was painted as untrustworthy without being untrustworthy?
How do you explain that even the guys on her side on this forum don't really feel like they can be on her side and have to couch it in "though she has baggage" or something like that, even though if I managed to engage them in it, they wouldn't be able to support that with evidence other than criticizing her for things that Obama, Gore, Kerry, etc. have all supported as well (CSM at least is consistent here and is clear that he supports them just as little as Clinton).
I think it's evidence that her critics don't like her solely because she's a woman.


 Poll after poll confirms the majority of Americans do not consider Hillary to be honest or trustworthy. She is, in fact, a documented liar. Is my conclusion based on her gender or ideology? No, because I reject the scourge of identity politics. She is a corrupt politician who happens to be a woman.
Her opponent was a significantly more documented liar, as are most other politicians, and her opponent has more actually documented evidence of being corrupt.
If she lies less and there is less evidence of her being corrupt, how do you explain the polls that confirm the majority of Americans do not consider her to be honest or trustworthy?


 Yes, Clinton and Trump are both liars. A liar is a liar - I can't parse out who the bigger liar is. If we can somehow document that Trump is a "60 % liar" and Hillary is a "50 % liar" do we really want to trust either one?

Trump has been a public figure for 30 plus years but is new to politics. Hillary has been running for office forever, either on her own or as a complement to Bill. She was profoundly unsuited to the populism which gripped both parties in 2016. In some sense, for some people, Trump rode the Zeitgeist of the times.
If you can't parse out who the bigger liar is, that might have to do with misogyny. Clinton has been recorded lying very few times, once as far as I've heard. How many times can you argue that what she said that was not true was a lie?
The separate question is, how many times has a candidate said something that's not true. Clinton, less than virtually every major presidential candidate in recent years. Trump, more than virtually every major presidential candidate in recent years. But look up "dishonest women" and "dishonest men" on google. You'll see that the first leads to multiple direct quotes, the second leads to multiple quotes of "dishonest people." Women being dishonest is a misogynist meme in our society. Thus it's easy to believe that Clinton is more dishonest than she actually is (she is less so than most politicians). As she is less so than most politicians, yet it is commonly believed she is more so, there's some underlying factor causing people to believe something that's not true. What do you suppose that is?

 "If you can't parse out who the bigger liar is, that might have to do with misogyny."  

 So, a few responses in and you are but a step away from calling me a misogynist because I refuse to quantify the difference between two obvious liars (Hillary and Trump) based on their gender. You neatly illustrated my point about the corrosive mind numbing groupthink that is Identity politics.


BTW- Do I consider Trump a misogynist? Yes.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2016, 06:43:39 AM by Moon Dawg » Logged
Pages: 1 ... 69 70 71 72 73 [74] 75 76 77 78 79 ... 81   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.769 seconds with 22 queries.