-->
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 10, 2019, 11:01:58 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
News: Bellagio 10452
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
+  The Smiley Smile Message Board
|-+  Non Smiley Smile Stuff
| |-+  The Sandbox
| | |-+  Campaign 2016
Pages: 1 ... 70 71 72 73 74 [75] 76 77 78 79 80 81   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Campaign 2016  (Read 216855 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
SloopJohnB
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 942



View Profile WWW
« Reply #1850 on: November 11, 2016, 06:43:17 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?

Of course, what the accused's attorneys are saying is always the absolute truth. I can't believe you're saying this with a straight face.

Also, I'm not finding anything about the details of the process followed to identify the emails, so please show me a link.

Until then, I'll keep saying that I do have a problem with people deleting emails that contain governmental information.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2016, 06:48:25 AM by SloopJohnB » Logged

I don't know where, but their music sends me there
Pleasure Island!!!!!!! and a slice of cheese pizza.
♩♬🐸 Sorry Entertainer ♯♫♩🐇
The Dr. of Wilsonomics
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10894


🍦🍦 Hi...how are you? ☮☮


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1851 on: November 11, 2016, 09:34:16 AM »

Quote
Confidence, too, is something admired in a man and considered offensive in a woman

By who?!
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!"
♩♬🐸 Sorry Entertainer ♯♫♩🐇
The Dr. of Wilsonomics
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10894


🍦🍦 Hi...how are you? ☮☮


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1852 on: November 11, 2016, 09:36:43 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.

Would work for me..I might then vote Democratic for the 2nd time in my life.  The extreme right and the centrists have their own media, have had their own candidates...about time people like me had a voice too.
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: 4934



View Profile
« Reply #1853 on: November 11, 2016, 10:03:41 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.



I don’t mind my flaws being pointed out (I surely have them), but flaws in logic can extend to non-whites and non-males too. Nobody should be afraid to concede that it can be inaccurate to label an entire gender’s feelings on a person (if they are negative feelings) as being absolutely, unequivocally warped/biased, under any and all circumstances. Black-and-white thinking like that solves nothing. Religious wars and all sorts of extremism often comes as an outgrowth of black-and-white/under-and-and-all-circumstances type of thinking. Do you disagree with that?

I don’t think it’s logical to think that anyone, regardless of gender/creed/etc. should be making blanket statements about groups of people, which are asserted to be absolutely correct, with no room for error, nuance, etc. Anytime a word like “always” or “only” comes into the equation, it doesn’t pass the sniff test for me. I don’t think it should for anybody.  




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.)





How can you say that men don’t perceive arrogance as being a flaw in a man, when men such as myself (not to mention women who I’m sure share this view) regularly rail against Mike Love for when we perceive his tone/demeanor as being arrogant in numerous interviews? I understand he is not running for political office, nor is he being judged against the behavior of a woman; it’s apples and oranges with politics and a musician. Still, his words and the way he says them simply rub me the wrong way, independent of any comparison of his behavior to anyone else. He bugs me, period. She bugs me, period.


Also – I think that Trump is a supremely arrogant ass; I hope you don’t think I somehow don’t. Regarding my feelings on Bernie being arrogant or not: I could understand how possibly sometimes people could perceive that to be the case, but it’s not something I’ve witnessed from him as a regular “thing”. I am happy to discuss any particular specific incidents, and to keep an open mind to be proven wrong (a viewpoint I hope you can share about your perceptions too – neither of us, nor anyone for that matter, should claim to be perfect and always accurate on this subject).


Plus, when it comes to the thought that some people may have some extra, biased disdain for their perceptions of Hillary’s arrogance: it’s possible that they do, and I won’t deny it can often be gender-based, but why does that HAVE to absolutely be because she’s a woman? Could seeing her as arrogant not be a feeling that is amplified in some peoples’ minds due to being beyond deeply frustrated at her by what they believe to be a rigged DNC system (with Hillary cronies like Wasserman-Schultz and Brazile doing unethical, biased rigging of the primaries for her)? It’s only natural that if Hillary is not someone’s preferred candidate, and they feel that unfair monkey business behind the scenes is at play, that potential negative feelings of that candidate will be exacerbated, regardless of gender?  





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.




I’ll bring up the Mike Love analogy again: I have witnessed Brian and Al talk about past personal successes, and I’ve seen Mike talk about past personal successes. There are elements to the way he comes off that I (and many others) observe to be coming off as overly cocky more often than not, and I observe that to be unique to him compared to those other duders. Are we wrong to judge how we perceive his interviews to come off as? I dunno. We are just people with opinions. I try to give him the benefit of the doubt, but there is often just something about him that shines through. And it ain’t just him. There are plenty of people I know in real life, both men and women, who I’d say that about. Arrogance is not a trait that is exclusive to men. Shades of grey! I recognize that unconscious bias can be a factor, but we cannot just shoehorn it in to say it is THE factor every single time.

I hope you would not say that it’s categorically impossible for any woman ever to be arrogant?  

I know plenty of women who view Hillary as arrogant, especially regarding this particular incident. Are they wrong too? Or is it that women are preconditioned to automatically dislike strong women and label them as arrogant? (I don’t doubt that CAN be the case, perhaps often or very often – but not ALWAYS).

Now I pose you this question: if all the candidates were women, and males such as myself (plus women) identically came to view Hillary’s demeanor in dismissing the African-American girl as being arrogant, would we all still be having that viewpoint absolutely, unquestionably because of gender bias? And what if they were all trans candidates or gender fluid, where it was difficult to tell what the birth gender was of each candidate. And what if I was a trans man, or a trans woman making those statements? I'm seriously asking, not trying to be joking in the slightest. Would our views then be valid, or would there still be a rush to call them sexist views? 




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.




I don’t admire Mike Love’s “confidence”. I respectfully don’t believe that argument holds water as an absolute. The keywords here are “maybe” and “probably”. Maybe I (and others) felt the way we do because of reasons you believe we do, but the flipside of maybe is that perhaps that’s not accurate, or not entirely accurate. Again - I stress the importance on everybody not getting hung up on absolutes; it is not ever appropriate to paint large swaths of people with a wide brush – that is ALWAYS going to be a problematic way to view things for every topic that involves mass groups of people, ever.


When you say “Trump did it”, please know that I think Trump is a giant turd who acts not only incredibly overconfidently, but despicably repugnant on a very regular basis. Hillary doesn’t act anywhere within a million miles as poorly or arrogantly as Trump, nor did I ever claim such; yet that doesn’t mean that I won’t call out her arrogance when I see it, despite it being far less severe than the orange idiot.


Again, regarding this discussion, I am happy to examine any new evidence that comes to light, so if I am presented with a video of Obama acting arrogantly to a person of color who is pleading for their voice to be heard about a past "superpredator" type comment (a MOST sensitive topic that has contributed to causing great harm to an entire race of people, including the girl confronting Hillary), I’ll GLADLY call that hypothetical Obama behavior out as arrogant and unacceptable too. It just so happens I haven't seen him act that way. Doesn't mean it hasn't happened. I'm open minded to calling Obama arrogant if I see video evidence of such!

 


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.




I agree that we can sometimes judge things unfairly, and that we should examine ourselves, but that’s a thing that doesn’t just exclusively apply to cis male white dudes! Women, trans men, trans women, and people of all creeds and colors CAN, at times, be inaccurate in their perceptions of other groups’ feelings when it comes to every single subject. Nobody is correct all of the time. We have to recognize that inaccurate judgment is a human trait that can occur, and the race/gender that has historically been the in-power oppressor is not the only group who can ever be that way.




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?


Regarding your 1st link : Bernie followed up his statement with “I think we have a good shot at this”, which is a very important point to make. He did not dismissively say “there is no way I will not win New York”. Compare to what I see as Hillary’s dismissive statement to override the interviewer’s statement of it still being an “if” situation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aL27RTzSjqo

Keep in mind, at this point in the election, at least 2 states hadn’t voted yet. It was NOT a situation of “no way” for her to not win the nomination. Even if it seemed very, very likely to her, there is a categorical difference of claiming it is impossible for her to lose the nomination with a “no way I will not win” statement. Find me an example of a male politician interrupting an interview to make a similar overconfident claim (instead of a more realistic “it appears very likely that I will win” type of statement) at a time in an election where it is still possible for the opponent to win, even if the opponent winning is unlikely, and I’ll find arrogance in that assertion too.  It’s all about language – that is VERY important.

Regarding your 2nd link: Bernie was addressing a crowd at a rally. Totally different situation than a sit-down interview, where facts are supposed to be discussed point by point. It’s also important to point out that when a politician says “we are going to win” to rile up a crowd, that is different from (even in a crowd rally setting) that politician saying “there is no way we will not win California”. There are differences and distinctions here, unrelated to gender, which do make a difference.

Regarding the 3rd link :
again, this is Twitter, which is a direct line meant to be to his supporters. Bernie said absolutely no such statement that there is no way he can be defeated. Yes, one might say that this is implied, but there’s a big difference between implying it and actually saying it. That’s what I call next level sh*t which isn’t what I deem as appropriate in an election. Language is VERY important. It’s all in the details, and the details don’t always have to do with gender.


« Last Edit: November 11, 2016, 11:12:21 AM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
♩♬🐸 Sorry Entertainer ♯♫♩🐇
The Dr. of Wilsonomics
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10894


🍦🍦 Hi...how are you? ☮☮


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1854 on: November 11, 2016, 10:03:53 AM »

Quote
But it doesn't mean every anti-Hillary vote was based on her gender.

Mine certainly wasn't. I was going to vote for Bernie, but wouldn't have voted for the democratic nominee otherwise, NO MATTER WHO IT WAS out of those who were running. Especially not Clinton. Why? Because  I thought Bill was a HORRIBLE PRESIDENT. So yeah, I admit to some pre-determined bias, but it's not because she's a woman, but because she's a Clinton. But, I would've been willing to look past that if not for what happened during the primaries. The DNC knew that Bernie’s name recognition from the start was a weakness, and ensured that limited debates would bolster Clinton’s chances in early contests. The centrists wanted to silence our voice.

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!"
♩♬🐸 Sorry Entertainer ♯♫♩🐇
The Dr. of Wilsonomics
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10894


🍦🍦 Hi...how are you? ☮☮


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1855 on: November 11, 2016, 10:04:23 AM »

CD...I think the quote tree got messed up...
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: 4934



View Profile
« Reply #1856 on: November 11, 2016, 10:06:43 AM »

CD...I think the quote tree got messed up...

Yeah, I'm trying to work on the HTML to fix it...  I'm having a hard time fixing it, if you are able to edit my post's HTML to make it look correct, please feel free to Smiley

Update - just fixed it!
« Last Edit: November 11, 2016, 10:12:06 AM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
♩♬🐸 Sorry Entertainer ♯♫♩🐇
The Dr. of Wilsonomics
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10894


🍦🍦 Hi...how are you? ☮☮


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1857 on: November 11, 2016, 10:22:43 AM »

Awesome...and you raised some very good points, esp with the Mike Love thing!
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!"
DonnyL
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1709



View Profile WWW
« Reply #1858 on: November 11, 2016, 10:49:20 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?

Emily, I respect and admire you, but that’s not entirely true. There are plenty examples of Sanders stepping back, listening to the people, and re-thinking his policies. The example of BLM protestors is relevant here. Bernie clearly was the most receptive of all the candidates (I recall some people even giving him flack because he stepped back and let the protestors take over the mic on one occasion). Blaming Clinton’s failure on her gender is a disservice to women everywhere.

I’m not going to go over my concerns with Clinton as a candidate, but it had little to do with her demeanor and nothing to do with her gender. My opinion is either Bernie and/or Elizabeth Warren would have defeated Trump in a landslide, because they offered conviction, something Clinton sorely lacked. The DNC/Clinton campaign and the mass media should bear the brunt of Trump as a phoenomenon for propping up a seriously flawed and unpopular candidate (Clinton), and also propping up Trump himself as a viable choice because they felt he was the weakest candidate for the general.

Our focus now should be on restructuring the Democratic Party from scratch, because seeing it as anything other than a colossal failure is lying to ourselves, and will result in more of the same down the road.

For those so inclined, here's a good start: Sign this petition to nominate Keith Ellison as DNC Chair:

https://go.berniesanders.com/page/s/keith-ellison-dnc?source=em161110

To me, we lost when Bernie lost. I was heartbroken, and I mean it. I think time will prove this to be true (it already has partially). I voted for Bernie in the primary (and donated to his campaign), but could not bring myself to vote for either Clinton or Trump in the general.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2016, 11:54:55 AM by DonnyL » Logged

Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #1859 on: November 11, 2016, 11:46:13 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?

Of course, what the accused's attorneys are saying is always the absolute truth. I can't believe you're saying this with a straight face.

Also, I'm not finding anything about the details of the process followed to identify the emails, so please show me a link.

Until then, I'll keep saying that I do have a problem with people deleting emails that contain governmental information.
I'll  find it later. I'm on a phone right now.  She hasn't been accused of illegally deleting emails (except of course by the Trump campaign, who didn't even accuse her of it, but insinuated it so people like you would assume she did something wrong when it hasn't even been suggested by the investigations that she did, in that case). So what you're basically saying is that, at the suggestion of Donald Trump, you're going to assume she's guilty of something until it's proven otherwise. Do you people even hear yourselves?
Logged
♩♬🐸 Sorry Entertainer ♯♫♩🐇
The Dr. of Wilsonomics
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10894


🍦🍦 Hi...how are you? ☮☮


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1860 on: November 11, 2016, 11:47:52 AM »

Do we even have any proof that she is the only one who deleted government emails?
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!"
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #1861 on: November 11, 2016, 11:50:05 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.
That you believe a particular man is a liar is not an explanation for why you believe a particular woman is a liar when you have no evidence that she lies more than the many people in similar positions whom you don't brand as liars.
The notion that we should think about politics in strict term of individuals is problematic. It distracts people from addressing broad forces, which is what politics is for.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #1862 on: November 11, 2016, 11:51:11 AM »

Quote
Confidence, too, is something admired in a man and considered offensive in a woman

By who?!
Men, mostly, but women as well. I guess i'I'll dredge up that many studies for you. That this surprises you is surprising.
Logged
Awesoman
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1471


Disagreements? Work 'em out.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1863 on: November 11, 2016, 11:54:29 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?
[/quote]

My brain works just fine when speaking of Hillary, but thanks for the over-generalization!  I must say I am scratching my head that you claim I have no evidence when I posted several links documenting the many, many scandals attached to this candidate.  If you're just going to turn a blind eye to them in favor of your narrow-minded misogyny paranoia, I don't know what else to tell you.  It's your petty, hate-labeling narrative that costed you the election.  Put the victim card away and consider that there were far greater factors involved in her downfall.  Yes, politics is a crooked business and yes, there are plenty of crooked people involved.  So it speaks volumes to me when both Hillary and her husband (who was impeached for lying under oath, mind you) are considered at the top of the list of untrustworthy politicians.  
Logged

I'm the man on the mountain, come on up.
I'm the plowman in the valley with a face full of mud.
Yes, I'm fumbling and I know my car don't start.
Yes, I'm stumbling and I know I play a bad guitar.

Give me little drink from your loving cup.
Just one drink and I'll fall down drunk.
♩♬🐸 Sorry Entertainer ♯♫♩🐇
The Dr. of Wilsonomics
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10894


🍦🍦 Hi...how are you? ☮☮


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1864 on: November 11, 2016, 11:56:33 AM »

Quote
Confidence, too, is something admired in a man and considered offensive in a woman

By who?!
Men, mostly, but women as well. I guess i'I'll dredge up that many studies for you. That this surprises you is surprising.

I don't know...I keep thinking we've evolved past that. I mean, I *do* see sexist pigs still but not as many, and not amongst the people I *choose* to associate with. But then again, I also choose not to lump everyone together.
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!"
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #1865 on: November 11, 2016, 11:56:58 AM »

Do we even have any proof that she is the only one who deleted government emails?
no, but how could we prove such a thing?

We do know that at least 3 other SoSs (Albright, Powell, and Kerry) used personal, unsecured email accounts for official business, though. The reality seems pretty basic: she was typically dismissive of rules designed for "them." As I've said before, this shouldn't surprise anyone: people of a certain rank at my company (which also regularly handles sensitive or confidential data) do the exact same thing, though not on personal servers, and plenty more things like it. Ego and resulting bad judgement are to be expected.

But despite a year's-long fishing expedition, nothing especially bad has been found to have happened. Which has been par for the course for a long time with GOP v Clintons.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #1866 on: November 11, 2016, 11:59:42 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.



I don’t mind my flaws being pointed out (I surely have them), but flaws in logic can extend to non-whites and non-males too. Nobody should be afraid to concede that it can be inaccurate to label an entire gender’s feelings on a person (if they are negative feelings) as being absolutely, unequivocally warped/biased, under any and all circumstances. Black-and-white thinking like that solves nothing. Religious wars and all sorts of extremism often comes as an outgrowth of black-and-white/under-and-and-all-circumstances type of thinking. Do you disagree with that?

I don’t think it’s logical to think that anyone, regardless of gender/creed/etc. should be making blanket statements about groups of people, which are asserted to be absolutely correct, with no room for error, nuance, etc. Anytime a word like “always” or “only” comes into the equation, it doesn’t pass the sniff test for me. I don’t think it should for anybody.  




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.)





How can you say that men don’t perceive arrogance as being a flaw in a man, when men such as myself (not to mention women who I’m sure share this view) regularly rail against Mike Love for when we perceive his tone/demeanor as being arrogant in numerous interviews? I understand he is not running for political office, nor is he being judged against the behavior of a woman; it’s apples and oranges with politics and a musician. Still, his words and the way he says them simply rub me the wrong way, independent of any comparison of his behavior to anyone else. He bugs me, period. She bugs me, period.


Also – I think that Trump is a supremely arrogant ass; I hope you don’t think I somehow don’t. Regarding my feelings on Bernie being arrogant or not: I could understand how possibly sometimes people could perceive that to be the case, but it’s not something I’ve witnessed from him as a regular “thing”. I am happy to discuss any particular specific incidents, and to keep an open mind to be proven wrong (a viewpoint I hope you can share about your perceptions too – neither of us, nor anyone for that matter, should claim to be perfect and always accurate on this subject).


Plus, when it comes to the thought that some people may have some extra, biased disdain for their perceptions of Hillary’s arrogance: it’s possible that they do, and I won’t deny it can often be gender-based, but why does that HAVE to absolutely be because she’s a woman? Could seeing her as arrogant not be a feeling that is amplified in some peoples’ minds due to being beyond deeply frustrated at her by what they believe to be a rigged DNC system (with Hillary cronies like Wasserman-Schultz and Brazile doing unethical, biased rigging of the primaries for her)? It’s only natural that if Hillary is not someone’s preferred candidate, and they feel that unfair monkey business behind the scenes is at play, that potential negative feelings of that candidate will be exacerbated, regardless of gender?  





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.




I’ll bring up the Mike Love analogy again: I have witnessed Brian and Al talk about past personal successes, and I’ve seen Mike talk about past personal successes. There are elements to the way he comes off that I (and many others) observe to be coming off as overly cocky more often than not, and I observe that to be unique to him compared to those other duders. Are we wrong to judge how we perceive his interviews to come off as? I dunno. We are just people with opinions. I try to give him the benefit of the doubt, but there is often just something about him that shines through. And it ain’t just him. There are plenty of people I know in real life, both men and women, who I’d say that about. Arrogance is not a trait that is exclusive to men. Shades of grey! I recognize that unconscious bias can be a factor, but we cannot just shoehorn it in to say it is THE factor every single time.

I hope you would not say that it’s categorically impossible for any woman ever to be arrogant?  

I know plenty of women who view Hillary as arrogant, especially regarding this particular incident. Are they wrong too? Or is it that women are preconditioned to automatically dislike strong women and label them as arrogant? (I don’t doubt that CAN be the case, perhaps often or very often – but not ALWAYS).

Now I pose you this question: if all the candidates were women, and males such as myself (plus women) identically came to view Hillary’s demeanor in dismissing the African-American girl as being arrogant, would we all still be having that viewpoint absolutely, unquestionably because of gender bias? And what if they were all trans candidates or gender fluid, where it was difficult to tell what the birth gender was of each candidate. And what if I was a trans man, or a trans woman making those statements? I'm seriously asking, not trying to be joking in the slightest. Would our views then be valid, or would there still be a rush to call them sexist views? 




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.




I don’t admire Mike Love’s “confidence”. I respectfully don’t believe that argument holds water as an absolute. The keywords here are “maybe” and “probably”. Maybe I (and others) felt the way we do because of reasons you believe we do, but the flipside of maybe is that perhaps that’s not accurate, or not entirely accurate. Again - I stress the importance on everybody not getting hung up on absolutes; it is not ever appropriate to paint large swaths of people with a wide brush – that is ALWAYS going to be a problematic way to view things for every topic that involves mass groups of people, ever.


When you say “Trump did it”, please know that I think Trump is a giant turd who acts not only incredibly overconfidently, but despicably repugnant on a very regular basis. Hillary doesn’t act anywhere within a million miles as poorly or arrogantly as Trump, nor did I ever claim such; yet that doesn’t mean that I won’t call out her arrogance when I see it, despite it being far less severe than the orange idiot.


Again, regarding this discussion, I am happy to examine any new evidence that comes to light, so if I am presented with a video of Obama acting arrogantly to a person of color who is pleading for their voice to be heard about a past "superpredator" type comment (a MOST sensitive topic that has contributed to causing great harm to an entire race of people, including the girl confronting Hillary), I’ll GLADLY call that hypothetical Obama behavior out as arrogant and unacceptable too. It just so happens I haven't seen him act that way. Doesn't mean it hasn't happened. I'm open minded to calling Obama arrogant if I see video evidence of such!

 


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.




I agree that we can sometimes judge things unfairly, and that we should examine ourselves, but that’s a thing that doesn’t just exclusively apply to cis male white dudes! Women, trans men, trans women, and people of all creeds and colors CAN, at times, be inaccurate in their perceptions of other groups’ feelings when it comes to every single subject. Nobody is correct all of the time. We have to recognize that inaccurate judgment is a human trait that can occur, and the race/gender that has historically been the in-power oppressor is not the only group who can ever be that way.




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?


Regarding your 1st link : Bernie followed up his statement with “I think we have a good shot at this”, which is a very important point to make. He did not dismissively say “there is no way I will not win New York”. Compare to what I see as Hillary’s dismissive statement to override the interviewer’s statement of it still being an “if” situation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aL27RTzSjqo

Keep in mind, at this point in the election, at least 2 states hadn’t voted yet. It was NOT a situation of “no way” for her to not win the nomination. Even if it seemed very, very likely to her, there is a categorical difference of claiming it is impossible for her to lose the nomination with a “no way I will not win” statement. Find me an example of a male politician interrupting an interview to make a similar overconfident claim (instead of a more realistic “it appears very likely that I will win” type of statement) at a time in an election where it is still possible for the opponent to win, even if the opponent winning is unlikely, and I’ll find arrogance in that assertion too.  It’s all about language – that is VERY important.

Regarding your 2nd link: Bernie was addressing a crowd at a rally. Totally different situation than a sit-down interview, where facts are supposed to be discussed point by point. It’s also important to point out that when a politician says “we are going to win” to rile up a crowd, that is different from (even in a crowd rally setting) that politician saying “there is no way we will not win California”. There are differences and distinctions here, unrelated to gender, which do make a difference.

Regarding the 3rd link :
again, this is Twitter, which is a direct line meant to be to his supporters. Bernie said absolutely no such statement that there is no way he can be defeated. Yes, one might say that this is implied, but there’s a big difference between implying it and actually saying it. That’s what I call next level sh*t which isn’t what I deem as appropriate in an election. Language is VERY important. It’s all in the details, and the details don’t always have to do with gender.



And you just found ways to dismiss 3 times Sanders said the same thing as Clinton. Half a year later, that one Clinton utterance is eating at you for its "overconfidence". The many times other male politicians have said the same (I can later find many clips of many male politicians saying the same in all sorts of circumstances. Will you find a reason each didn't bother you? If I find Sanders saying it in a sit down interview will it bother you?) you've forgotten, because it didn't bother you particularly. The specific examples I gave you - it doesn't count, it's Twitter. It doesn't count, it's a rally. It doesn't count, because then he said a more moderate statement that one time. Seriously? You can't question why you found it so bothersome in Clinton, in light of the 3 examples of Sanders saying the same thing and it not bothering you? You are that bad at recognizing when you are reacting to a subconscious bias?
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #1867 on: November 11, 2016, 12:01:41 PM »

Quote
But it doesn't mean every anti-Hillary vote was based on her gender.

Mine certainly wasn't. I was going to vote for Bernie, but wouldn't have voted for the democratic nominee otherwise, NO MATTER WHO IT WAS out of those who were running. Especially not Clinton. Why? Because  I thought Bill was a HORRIBLE PRESIDENT. So yeah, I admit to some pre-determined bias, but it's not because she's a woman, but because she's a Clinton. But, I would've been willing to look past that if not for what happened during the primaries. The DNC knew that Bernie’s name recognition from the start was a weakness, and ensured that limited debates would bolster Clinton’s chances in early contests. The centrists wanted to silence our voice.


So somehow them being married gave her a congenital disability? And what's your evidence for your assertion regarding the DNC and the debates?
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #1868 on: November 11, 2016, 12:06:51 PM »




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?

My brain works just fine when speaking of Hillary, but thanks for the over-generalization!  I must say I am scratching my head that you claim I have no evidence when I posted several links documenting the many, many scandals attached to this candidate.  If you're just going to turn a blind eye to them in favor of your narrow-minded misogyny paranoia, I don't know what else to tell you.  It's your petty, hate-labeling narrative that costed you the election.  Put the victim card away and consider that there were far greater factors involved in her downfall.  Yes, politics is a crooked business and yes, there are plenty of crooked people involved.  So it speaks volumes to me when both Hillary and her husband (who was impeached for lying under oath, mind you) are considered at the top of the list of untrustworthy politicians.  
[/quote]
Proving there is a scandal is not proving it was caused by Clinton doing something wrong. Don't you understand that? And don't you imagine that a number of scandals NOT based on wrong-doing will cause people who are not thinking it through and checking the evidence to THINk there's been wrong-doing when there hasn't? Case in point - you, right now.
Logged
♩♬🐸 Sorry Entertainer ♯♫♩🐇
The Dr. of Wilsonomics
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10894


🍦🍦 Hi...how are you? ☮☮


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1869 on: November 11, 2016, 12:11:09 PM »


Quote
But it doesn't mean every anti-Hillary vote was based on her gender.

Mine certainly wasn't. I was going to vote for Bernie, but wouldn't have voted for the democratic nominee otherwise, NO MATTER WHO IT WAS out of those who were running. Especially not Clinton. Why? Because  I thought Bill was a HORRIBLE PRESIDENT. So yeah, I admit to some pre-determined bias, but it's not because she's a woman, but because she's a Clinton. But, I would've been willing to look past that if not for what happened during the primaries. The DNC knew that Bernie’s name recognition from the start was a weakness, and ensured that limited debates would bolster Clinton’s chances in early contests. The centrists wanted to silence our voice.


So somehow them being married gave her a congenital disability? And what's your evidence for your assertion regarding the DNC and the debates?

Jesus... I just admitted that I did have some bias against H Clinton because I despised B Clinton as a president. What else do you want from me? I never said she had a disability, and even if she did, I wouldn't hold that against her! As far as the evidence for my assertion, well, they leaked and are readily available to everyone.

I'm trying like hell to give both sides a fair shot...can you *please* do the same? Have you once seen me put anybody down for their beliefs, whether it's political or religious? No, because I'm not like that.  I just wish people could extend me the same courtesy. Hell, maybe it's just me.  And people wonder why I have self esteem issues.
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!"
Awesoman
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1471


Disagreements? Work 'em out.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1870 on: November 11, 2016, 12:13:15 PM »

Quote
Confidence, too, is something admired in a man and considered offensive in a woman

By who?!
Men, mostly, but women as well. I guess i'I'll dredge up that many studies for you. That this surprises you is surprising.

I don't know...I keep thinking we've evolved past that. I mean, I *do* see sexist pigs still but not as many, and not amongst the people I *choose* to associate with. But then again, I also choose not to lump everyone together.

Of course we have evolved past such narrow-minded thinking.  But it's much easier to simply label someone as a hateful bigot when you cannot provide any argument of substance.  We have become a thin-skinned and emotionally inept society where words have become far more fearsome than sticks and stones.  Shouting down people you disagree with as hateful played a big factor in catapulting a nut like Trump into the White House.  
Logged

I'm the man on the mountain, come on up.
I'm the plowman in the valley with a face full of mud.
Yes, I'm fumbling and I know my car don't start.
Yes, I'm stumbling and I know I play a bad guitar.

Give me little drink from your loving cup.
Just one drink and I'll fall down drunk.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #1871 on: November 11, 2016, 12:19:16 PM »


Quote
But it doesn't mean every anti-Hillary vote was based on her gender.

Mine certainly wasn't. I was going to vote for Bernie, but wouldn't have voted for the democratic nominee otherwise, NO MATTER WHO IT WAS out of those who were running. Especially not Clinton. Why? Because  I thought Bill was a HORRIBLE PRESIDENT. So yeah, I admit to some pre-determined bias, but it's not because she's a woman, but because she's a Clinton. But, I would've been willing to look past that if not for what happened during the primaries. The DNC knew that Bernie’s name recognition from the start was a weakness, and ensured that limited debates would bolster Clinton’s chances in early contests. The centrists wanted to silence our voice.


So somehow them being married gave her a congenital disability? And what's your evidence for your assertion regarding the DNC and the debates?

Jesus... I just admitted that I did have some bias against H Clinton because I despised B Clinton as a president. What else do you want from me? I never said she had a disability, and even if she did, I wouldn't hold that against her! As far as the evidence for my assertion, well, they leaked and are readily available to everyone.

I'm trying like hell to give both sides a fair shot...can you *please* do the same? Have you once seen me put anybody down for their beliefs, whether it's political or religious? No, because I'm not like that.  I just wish people could extend me the same courtesy. Hell, maybe it's just me.  And people wonder why I have self esteem issues.
Sorry. This thread is really frustrating me. The responses are blending and I think I misread yours.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #1872 on: November 11, 2016, 12:21:17 PM »

Quote
Confidence, too, is something admired in a man and considered offensive in a woman

By who?!
Men, mostly, but women as well. I guess i'I'll dredge up that many studies for you. That this surprises you is surprising.

I don't know...I keep thinking we've evolved past that. I mean, I *do* see sexist pigs still but not as many, and not amongst the people I *choose* to associate with. But then again, I also choose not to lump everyone together.
We haven't. I'll show you recent studies. It's unconscious, but it's there. The idea that many people in this thread have that they are free from unconscious bias is childish.
Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4934



View Profile
« Reply #1873 on: November 11, 2016, 12:21:38 PM »


And you just found ways to dismiss 3 times Sanders said the same thing as Clinton. Half a year later, that one Clinton utterance is eating at you for its "overconfidence". The many times other male politicians have said the same (I can later find many clips of many male politicians saying the same in all sorts of circumstances. Will you find a reason each didn't bother you? If I find Sanders saying it in a sit down interview will it bother you?) you've forgotten, because it didn't bother you particularly. The specific examples I gave you - it doesn't count, it's Twitter. It doesn't count, it's a rally. It doesn't count, because then he said a more moderate statement that one time. Seriously? You can't question why you found it so bothersome in Clinton, in light of the 3 examples of Sanders saying the same thing and it not bothering you? You are that bad at recognizing when you are reacting to a subconscious bias?

As I mentioned, it's not *just* that Sanders said stuff at a rally (a perfectly valid point to bring up, IMO, and something that absolutely differentiates it for me compared to a sit-down interviewer)... it's also VERY MUCH relevant that Bernie added NO such "under any and all circumstances" declaration to his words... and like it or not, it's truly unfair to be dismissive of that language as being a factor. It is not negligible. It's a thing. It's a difference.

It may be negligible to you, but those words (and not necessarily the gender of the person who spoke them) were an important factor in many peoples' takeaway over this particular incident.

That said, you can surely find videos of genuinely sexist men taking a clip of that Clinton video and mocking her words in a sexist manner. And if one sees that kind of despicable mocking, especially over and over again, it can become easy to think that anyone who has a problem with her saying what she said (and how she said it) as being sexist in nature. Again... there must be nuance and shades of grey. All white men do not think the same!

Do you think it's not possible for a woman to be arrogant?

Also - your stance on this topic seems (maybe I'm wrong, please correct me if I am wrong) to imply an assumption that a person who has watched this Clinton video and come to a negative conclusion about how they feel she is acting on it has watched all sorts of videos of other candidates, but somehow focused in on Hillary just because of her gender. I am not generally a very big political person, although I do watch videos/interviews sometimes during election seasons. I cannot claim to have some giant wide, sweeping experience of watching tons upon tons of candidates. It just so happens that she rubs me the wrong way often times. Not all the time. But when she does, she does.  I could watch, just as an example, 10 political interviews from a given political cycle, and maybe be rubbed the wrong way by 1, maybe 3, maybe 0 politicians. Maybe some will be women, maybe none.

It's not logical to say that I can never find arrogance in a woman candidate. Don't you realize that if every man is shamed from EVER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES being able to claim that any woman candidate ever is acting arrogantly, that this would allow any woman to act in any kind of arrogant manner possible, and never ever be called out on it by a man? Is the endgame desire for every man ever claiming a woman to ever be arrogant to just be muzzled and shamed? I just don't know how a viewpoint that doesn't allow for nuance can lead to any other eventual conclusion.

Please also know: I do not dismiss unconscious bias as being a legit thing. Nor do I think I am immune from it. I just don't think it's any kind of black-and-white situation here.

By the way, Emily, I greatly respect you and I don't in any way mean to seem like I'm piling on you. Just want to make that clear.  
« Last Edit: November 11, 2016, 12:36:02 PM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
Awesoman
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1471


Disagreements? Work 'em out.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1874 on: November 11, 2016, 12:27:38 PM »

Quote
Confidence, too, is something admired in a man and considered offensive in a woman

By who?!
Men, mostly, but women as well. I guess i'I'll dredge up that many studies for you. That this surprises you is surprising.

I don't know...I keep thinking we've evolved past that. I mean, I *do* see sexist pigs still but not as many, and not amongst the people I *choose* to associate with. But then again, I also choose not to lump everyone together.
We haven't. I'll show you recent studies. It's unconscious, but it's there. The idea that many people in this thread have that they are free from unconscious bias is childish.

...yet nowhere near as childish as blindly asserting people think the way they do solely due to some sort of underlining hatred. 
Logged

I'm the man on the mountain, come on up.
I'm the plowman in the valley with a face full of mud.
Yes, I'm fumbling and I know my car don't start.
Yes, I'm stumbling and I know I play a bad guitar.

Give me little drink from your loving cup.
Just one drink and I'll fall down drunk.
Pages: 1 ... 70 71 72 73 74 [75] 76 77 78 79 80 81   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.224 seconds with 22 queries.