Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 05-27-2019, 05:49 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 9,651
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
There are other Hillary haters here; I hope they provide their lists also.
She RIGGED the election and stole it from Bernie - and oh yeah, she murdered Vince Foster and Seth Rich and dumped their bodies in the Potomac.

I think my one beef with Hillary Clinton is that she knowingly voted to authorize military force in Iraq when I suspect she knew all along it was a bad idea. And I don't think Sanders was completely wrong about judgment being an occasionally an issue with her. I think she is a brilliant woman - far more intellectually capable than myself and most people I know. But I think that her intelligence sometimes borders on arrogance and occasionally makes her prone to ignoring the advice of people she ought to be listening to. I also don't think she's particularly great at forging broad coalitions. Some of that might be the result of being overly-guarded and suspicious of the public, owing to years of vitriol - I don't know.
  #52  
Old 05-27-2019, 09:27 AM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,237
Because something something emails. And she wears pantsuits! How dare her not give us a leg shot! And because her husband cheated on her. And she had the audacity to get people together from all the concerned parties to try to come up with health care reform. You don't pass major legislation like that! When you're the majority party, you're supposed to exclude the opposition, ignore any facts that might be in your way, and draft it in secret among yourselves and make revisions on cocktail napkins, only letting the opposition see the bill hours before voting on it. She just didn't want to do things the American way. And oh my God, she isn't an enthusiastic NRA member! Don't you know that guns are the ONLY issue that you're supposed to vote on and that supporting ANY controls on guns makes you unworthy of office?
  #53  
Old 05-27-2019, 10:25 AM
Wesley Clark is offline
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 21,867
Hillary rose to national prominence in the early 90s, which were a different time. Misogyny was more pronounced then.

There are various reasons people dislike her.

I'd say the right dislikes her because of misogyny and 30 years of propaganda portraying her and her husband as serial killers and master criminals.

Some on the left hate her because they see her as too pro-corporate.

But some people didn't like her because they felt she'd say whatever she needed to to win. They didn't see her as someone who said what she truly believed. Sadly when Hillary actually is authentic (like with the deplorables comment) she gets slammed and apologizes. But her deplorable comment was one of the most acute and honest assessments of where we are in America. Half of Trump's base actually are bigots who hate democracy*, she called that and got ridiculed for it. So she can't win. If she focus group tests everything she says she is called inauthentic. If she is honest people can't handle the truth and get upset.

*If you look at polling of republicans, no matter how stupid or evil a question is, about half of republicans give the wrong answer. Is pizzagate real, should Trump postpone elections, Was Obama born in Kenya, did God want Trump to be president, should Trump be allowed to shut down news media outlets, Families should be separated at the border, etc. Her calling half of Trump's supporters a basket of deplorables was a very accurate statement.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...-be-president/

ttps://www.nbcnews.com/card/one-quarter-registered-voters-almost-half-republicans-believe-god-wanted-n971706

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.95dc4ab093f6

pizzagate-theory-believed-by-nearly-half-of-republ/


https://www.vox.com/2015/2/25/8108005/obama-muslim-poll

https://www.thedailybeast.com/poll-r...aration-policy
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #54  
Old 05-27-2019, 11:35 AM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 3,766
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
I never listened to Rush but I do know that Clinton pushed the idea of "it takes a village". She is vehemently anti gun. She pushed for greater governmental involvement with health care. She has had problems with the first amendment, wanting to ban violent video games. I mean I have always been opposed to Clinton. I'd be opposed to anyone who held her policy views.

Opposition to Clinton is often characterized as misogynistic. It's a given that motivated some people, but defaulting to that is just lazy. There's a ton from her to be opposed to. But it all started with her nannyistic arrogant BS about taking a village crap.
She is NOT vehemently anti-gun. To my mind, that would mean she wants to ban whole swaths of guns. She does not. She wants to bring back the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004. She is certainly for stricter background checks and restrictions due to mental health. What would you characterize as "vehement"? As for the hatred starting with "it takes a village", you mean your dislike of her, or in general? Because if you mean in general, that's laughable.
  #55  
Old 05-27-2019, 12:22 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,290
Someone else posted before that Hillary's voice, appearance and style reminds many voters, subconsciously, of an overbearing room teacher or school-authority figure from their childhood and that brings back unpleasant memories. The quote used by the Doper was "Hillary is like the teacher who deliberately assigns you a ton of homework right before you begin school break" (can't find the thread.)
  #56  
Old 05-27-2019, 05:59 PM
jaycat is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,289
I, for one, am not thrilled with her treatment of the women who had prior "dealings" with her husband.
  #57  
Old 05-27-2019, 06:15 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,541
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaycat View Post
I, for one, am not thrilled with her treatment of the women who had prior "dealings" with her husband.
There's no indications there of any mistreatment by Hillary vs her husbands accusers. Hillary did say Bill shouldnt have resigned. Which is correct.
  #58  
Old 05-27-2019, 06:48 PM
Heffalump and Roo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic View Post
Some folks are angry about this because:

"Screw you buddy! I did EVERYthing myself! I built the roads outside my house with my own two hands, and taught myself to read! I designed the pipes that carry my sewage to the plant that I created all by myself, with NO HELP FROM ANYONE!"

The "I did everything myself" thought pattern is so strong in some, that their brains have turned to tapioca, and they cannot BEAR THE THOUGHT that a working, cooperative society might actually be a good thing.
Thanks for posting this. I was just about to ask why "it takes a village" would be problematic for anyone.
  #59  
Old 05-27-2019, 07:19 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 35,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
First on your list. Oh lord, how dare she...
"It Takes a Village: And Other Lessons Children Teach Us is a book published in 1996 by First Lady of the United States Hillary Rodham Clinton. In it, Clinton presents her vision for the children of America. She focuses on the impact individuals and groups outside the family have, for better or worse, on a child's well-being, and advocates a society which meets all of a child's needs."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Takes_a_Village

Have you read the book? Or are you angry at the right wing shortened bumper sticker interpretation?
Part of the conservative ideology is to worship the idea of the nuclear familya heterosexual cisgender couple with their mutual offspring. Any notion of children needing anything more than an authoritative father and a nurturing motherfor example a public safety netthreatens their worship of the status quo hierarchy, which in the end is all that conservatism is about.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with ē, ēm, and ēs as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender. (I am also contemplating the spellings /m/s, /m/s, e/em/es, Ē/Ēm/Ēs, /m/s, /m/s, E/Em/Es.)
  #60  
Old 05-27-2019, 07:48 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,314
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
None of this conflicts with anything I've said.
That's because you haven't said anything of substance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post

Have you read the book? Or are you angry at the right wing shortened bumper sticker interpretation?
I've read summaries. Even what you've said right here is objectionable enough. I don't want Clinton's vision for the children of America. Nor did it seem the country as a whole both times she ran. That she felt qualified to opine on what children need was off putting enough. Maybe that's just my personal hangup, but I don't respond well to other people telling me how to raise my kids. That, combined with all of the other policy positions she took was pretty terrible. Of course, Bill Clinton, Obama, Bush 43, all took policy positions that were pretty horrible. It has nothing at all to do with her gender, and everything to do with opposing everything she wanted to do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
She is NOT vehemently anti-gun. To my mind, that would mean she wants to ban whole swaths of guns. She does not. She wants to bring back the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004. She is certainly for stricter background checks and restrictions due to mental health. What would you characterize as "vehement"? As for the hatred starting with "it takes a village", you mean your dislike of her, or in general? Because if you mean in general, that's laughable.
Talk about laughable. If Clinton isn't vehemently anti-gun in your view, then our scales are pretty far apart. I mean, you say with a straight face that she didn't want to ban whole swaths of guns at the same time saying she wanted to ban assault weapons. I guess assault weapons aren't whole swathes of guns in your mind either? She wanted to repeal the PLCAA. She wanted to allow unlimited delays in background checks, then require them for all sales. She was in favor of the 1994 AWB. I mean, if we can't even agree that Clinton was anti-gun, well that's your opinion I suppose. Good luck with that.

****

Things I don't care about wrt Clinton:
  • her gender
  • emails
  • her voice
  • what she wears
  • Benghazi
  • taking policy positions as a first lady
Those aren't real issues. But look at what left leaning folks in this thread focus on - no substantive issues. Instead, things that don't matter, and facile caricatures. No matter, her political career is essentially over so she doesn't much matter anymore. I'd raise objection to any politician who espouses the positions she did.
  #61  
Old 05-27-2019, 08:01 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,541
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
....
Talk about laughable. If Clinton isn't vehemently anti-gun in your view, then our scales are pretty far apart. I mean, you say with a straight face that she didn't want to ban whole swaths of guns at the same time saying she wanted to ban assault weapons. I guess assault weapons aren't whole swathes of guns in your mind either? She wanted to repeal the PLCAA. She wanted to allow unlimited delays in background checks, then require them for all sales. She was in favor of the 1994 AWB. I mean, if we can't even agree that Clinton was anti-gun, well that's your opinion I suppose. ....
You know you & I mostly agree on guns, but I would not say Clinton was vehemently anti-gun. She is more or less middle of the road as far as anti-gun goes. Booker is vehemently anti-gun. Harris might be vehemently anti-gun, I think she is but her stated public policy isnt Booker bad.
  #62  
Old 05-27-2019, 08:16 PM
Larry Borgia's Avatar
Larry Borgia is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 10,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Someone else posted before that Hillary's voice, appearance and style reminds many voters, subconsciously, of an overbearing room teacher or school-authority figure from their childhood and that brings back unpleasant memories. The quote used by the Doper was "Hillary is like the teacher who deliberately assigns you a ton of homework right before you begin school break" (can't find the thread.)
I think that was me. From a thread with almost the same title right after the election I wrote

Quote:
I voted for Hillary Clinton, and not just as a lesser of two evils. I think she would have made a decent president and as a moderate liberal I agree with most of her positions. She would have had a rough time with congress, but so would most any Dem. I do agree that some of the hate is based on a misogynistic dislike of women in power, and also that some was based on absurd conspiracy and utter nonsense, like Benghazi and Vince Foster.

But.

Even if you ignore the nonsense, there is still a lot of stuff associated with the Clintons that reeks of corruption and bad judgement. The Clinton foundation was a huge conflict of interest, and smelled of pay to play, even if nothing could be proven. Lack of transparency was a real issue, and talking money from Saudi Arabia looks odd for a champion of Women's rights. The email server showed appalling judgement and an arrogant "rules for thee but not for me" attitude. A lesser government employee would have been frog marched to the door for handling classified materials in that matter, even if it wasn't criminal.

It's not just right wingers that don't like Clinton. My progressive friends really dislike her chumminess with wall street, including secret speeches and cushy jobs for Chelsea. It made them skeptical that there would be any real reform of the financial sector under her administration. They also don't like her hawkishness and eagerness to get entangled in Middle East conflicts.

She is seen as the insider's insider, thoroughly enmeshed in DC power structures. More and more people feel that the establishment is serving itself, not the people it is supposed to serve. The DNC basically anointed her Queen, and helped her fight off a rebellion from Bernie Sanders. When Bill ran for office, he was the governor of a small state, and had to fight his way through a primary where he was not favored at first. Now he and Hillary mingle with the rich and powerful, including Donald Trump back in the day.

And there is the Charisma thing. It's partly misogyny, but it's not just misogyny. There was a very charismatic woman on the trail with her: Michelle Obama. When Michelle speaks she is genuine and emotional and seems to be really speaking to you. Hillary is harsh and phony. She reminds people of the teacher who would assign extra homework on a long weekend. Her attempts at empathy seem rehearsed rather than natural. You can argue that that's unfair, but it's real. I'll bet most of you, men and women alike, have encountered people you just didn't warm to, simply because talking to them was so awkward.

You can argue against all these points, but they are real critiques, and can't just be dismissed as the ravings of right wing crazies.
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...d.php?t=810330
  #63  
Old 05-27-2019, 08:16 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 8,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
... Maybe that's just my personal hangup, but I don't respond well to other people telling me how to raise my kids.... .
Well it's a good damn thing that Hillary Clinton didn't do that, eh? But you go ahead and hate her for something in your imagination, if it pleases you.
  #64  
Old 05-27-2019, 08:26 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 35,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
That's because you haven't said anything of substance.


I've read summaries. Even what you've said right here is objectionable enough. I don't want Clinton's vision for the children of America. Nor did it seem the country as a whole both times she ran. That she felt qualified to opine on what children need was off putting enough. Maybe that's just my personal hangup, but I don't respond well to other people telling me how to raise my kids.
She wasn’t telling people how to raise their kids. She was using an analogy to describe the influence of the community/government/neighborhood/extended families/support networks at large on the growth and development of children.

Which it seems should be an important part of the consideration for anyone seeking to influence government policy.

And which conservatives can’t shut up about, but when it’s Hillary Clinton, somehow that’s supremely offensive.

When it comes down to it, there’s no good reason to hate Hillary, not any more than any mainstream politician. There’s absolutely no reason that Hillary Clinton, a competent, boring politician, should have become the most negatively viewed centrist or Democratic candidate in recent history. It’s because of a decades-long organized campaign to paint her as beyond the pale and make her a negative symbol of the left.

The hate only makes sense in the context of creating wedge issues based on identity politics.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with ē, ēm, and ēs as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender. (I am also contemplating the spellings /m/s, /m/s, e/em/es, Ē/Ēm/Ēs, /m/s, /m/s, E/Em/Es.)

Last edited by Acsenray; 05-27-2019 at 08:27 PM.
  #65  
Old 05-27-2019, 08:59 PM
Dr_Paprika is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: South of Toronto, Canada
Posts: 3,863
It is true that some people really don’t seem to like Ms. Clinton much. I like her, but think of her as a very intelligent policy wonk with nothing like Bill Clinton’s charisma.

Getting elected often seems to mean making compromises and giving different messages to different people. Clinton has been in politics for a long time. There is probably some misogyny, but I don’t think this fully explains things. Certainly she was tarred by 90s conservative talk radio. I am sure many people resent an accomplished, outspoken and successful woman. But being that may mean, fairly or not, being perceived as less feminine or less family oriented. She has been portrayed, fairly or not, as being (at times) smug, condescending, giving different messages to different audiences, being extremely ambitious, lacking warmth, etc.

I don’t think many of these characterization are unusual in politicians. Journalists, noting Trump had one or two negative characteristics, seemed to compensate during the campaign by making mountains out of Clinton’s molehills. And things like pantsuits and minor gaffes were given much more weight than they were worth.

I think she’s been in politics so long it eventually became a sort of lazy shorthand for people to bond over dislike of Clinton - people will disagree over health policy, foreign policy, tax policy, confound Bill and Hilary, dislike an active First Lady, believe the stronger nonsense or dislike female politicians — but there are certainly times when she seemed to lack a lighter touch. Trump has been a very different president who has shaken up the old ways, although many of these were sensible and time-proven.
__________________
"A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man"
  #66  
Old 05-27-2019, 10:25 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 35,574
It wasn't an accident—"lazy shorthand"—it was an intentional and sustained campaign of continuous attack from 1992 onward. The firehouse of bullshit. And it wasn't just Rush Limbaugh. Every single person on the right signed on to one extent or other to the notion that Hillary Clinton was uniquely odious, corrupt, dishonest, etc. And the mainstream media simply accepted that she was somehow inherently "divisive," as of that was somehow because of something she did.

And the right is doing it again, to people like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. A constant barrage of blatantly idiotic nonsense so that mere mention of her initials evokes an instant image of an insanely radical a
Bugbear.

She's might become the most skilled and charismatic politician of her time, but if she gets close to running for president, she'll be weighed down by the same kind of nonsense that burdened Hillary Clinton.

And then some large group of people will bray like a Broderian ass about "see what happens when you nominate the most disliked candidate in the field?"
__________________
*I'm experimenting with ē, ēm, and ēs as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender. (I am also contemplating the spellings /m/s, /m/s, e/em/es, Ē/Ēm/Ēs, /m/s, /m/s, E/Em/Es.)
  #67  
Old 05-27-2019, 11:51 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,314
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
You know you & I mostly agree on guns, but I would not say Clinton was vehemently anti-gun. She is more or less middle of the road as far as anti-gun goes. Booker is vehemently anti-gun. Harris might be vehemently anti-gun, I think she is but her stated public policy isnt Booker bad.
You'll have to illustrate how the two are different. Clinton pushed the 1994 AWB. She wanted to eliminate the PLCAA - in an effort to bankrupt gun manufacturing in the US. She thought Heller was wrongly decided - meaning she wanted to also be able to ban handguns. If she's middle of the road, well, we see the road completely different.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
Well it's a good damn thing that Hillary Clinton didn't do that, eh? But you go ahead and hate her for something in your imagination, if it pleases you.
As long as she's not attempting to craft public policy, then I wouldn't give her a moment's thought.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post

When it comes down to it, theres no good reason to hate Hillary, not any more than any mainstream politician. Theres absolutely no reason that Hillary Clinton, a competent, boring politician, should have become the most negatively viewed centrist or Democratic candidate in recent history. Its because of a decades-long organized campaign to paint her as beyond the pale and make her a negative symbol of the left.

The hate only makes sense in the context of creating wedge issues based on identity politics.
Why do you rule out actual policy differences? This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. I can list out substantive policy positions that are disagreeable, but no, those are tossed out as no good reason. It's like caricatures all the way down.

As far as AOC - I kinda like her. I mean, I disagree with virtually every policy position she puts out there, but she's very charismatic and engaging. I really liked the campaign she ran. Watching the Netflix documentary, Bring Down the House was pretty inspiring. If only she had better policy positions.
  #68  
Old 05-28-2019, 12:35 AM
Biotop's Avatar
Biotop is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Faber, VA
Posts: 8,070
Bone, do you think Hillary Clinton lost because of her policy positions?
  #69  
Old 05-28-2019, 02:15 AM
kaylasdad99 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 31,601
It would be interesting to learn if Bone would care to name a man in politics with virtually the same policy positions as Mrs. Clinton’s.

And if he finds that man to be objectionable to an equivalent degree as he finds Mrs. Clinton to be.

ETA: And to assess the general Hillary-hating public’s expressed opinion of him.

Last edited by kaylasdad99; 05-28-2019 at 02:18 AM.
  #70  
Old 05-28-2019, 02:56 AM
foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,760
I know that I am biased against Bill, and that probably has something to do with taking in a lot of Rush Limbaugh back in about 1991-1992.

So maybe I am unfair to the Clintons. But I think there really was some self-dealing through their foundations, and they had some very strange economics. It seems like she wasn't a good candidate in the eyes of working-class swing voters, and she just didn't care. Strange woman.

Last edited by foolsguinea; 05-28-2019 at 03:00 AM.
  #71  
Old 05-28-2019, 04:13 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,972
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
That's because you haven't said anything of substance.
Gee, we used to have pretty good discussions. I remember some very interesting back-and-forths with you, without this kind of very thinly disguised vitriol. I wonder what happened?
  #72  
Old 05-28-2019, 06:11 AM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 35,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by foolsguinea View Post
I know that I am biased against Bill, and that probably has something to do with taking in a lot of Rush Limbaugh back in about 1991-1992.

So maybe I am unfair to the Clintons. But I think there really was some self-dealing through their foundations, and they had some very strange economics. It seems like she wasn't a good candidate in the eyes of working-class swing voters, and she just didn't care. Strange woman.
Just didnt care? Or just was less appealing to one side and decided that the way to win elections is to get your base fired up. Thats certainly how the right does things.

What in the world do you base the strange woman on? I have seen anything about her thats strange, other than her unusual level of success, which most people dont achieve.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with ē, ēm, and ēs as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender. (I am also contemplating the spellings /m/s, /m/s, e/em/es, Ē/Ēm/Ēs, /m/s, /m/s, E/Em/Es.)
  #73  
Old 05-28-2019, 06:32 AM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 35,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Why do you rule out actual policy differences? This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. I can list out substantive policy positions that are disagreeable, but no, those are tossed out as no good reason. It's like caricatures all the way down.
Her policy positions are very common, and no one gets hated like her, not on a daily basis for 25 years. It's obvious that people don't hate Hillary Clinton because of policy. The way they talk about her makes it obvious too. There's nothing rational about it.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with ē, ēm, and ēs as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender. (I am also contemplating the spellings /m/s, /m/s, e/em/es, Ē/Ēm/Ēs, /m/s, /m/s, E/Em/Es.)
  #74  
Old 05-28-2019, 07:40 AM
Xema is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 12,105
70+ posts with no mention of sleaziness related to billing records of the Rose Law Firm? Improbable & spectacular profits in commodities trading?

These were significant sources of negative public sentiment that long predate most of what has been mentioned here.
  #75  
Old 05-28-2019, 07:55 AM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 35,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xema View Post
70+ posts with no mention of sleaziness related to billing records of the Rose Law Firm? Improbable & spectacular profits in commodities trading?

These were significant sources of negative public sentiment that long predate most of what has been mentioned here.
None of that produced any evidence of wrongdoing on Hillary Clintons part. Its not like shes the only politician whose friends and associates have been caught up in scandal.

And no one would have looked that closetat the Tose Law Firm anyway had her entire kife already been targeted.

None of these things add up to rational basis for hatred. And none of them are unusual for politicians generally.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with ē, ēm, and ēs as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender. (I am also contemplating the spellings /m/s, /m/s, e/em/es, Ē/Ēm/Ēs, /m/s, /m/s, E/Em/Es.)
  #76  
Old 05-28-2019, 07:57 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,972
There are plenty of reasons for substantive dislike of Hillary Clinton. In my experience, tons of people who hate Hillary Clinton openly say that they dislike her because of the way she comes across on television, or some variation of that, rather than anything substantive. For this latter group, it's entirely (trigger warning Bone!) reasonable to suspect that misogyny, chauvinism, or related phenomena might have something to do with their attitude about her.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 05-28-2019 at 07:58 AM.
  #77  
Old 05-28-2019, 08:56 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 9,651
So we don't want people even talking about how children should be raised, is that it? People shouldn't have opinions on how they should dress, how they should behave, what they should and should not wear, what they should and should not eat? I don't know what kind of society some people grew up in, but that's not one I recognize. Where I grew up if a liberal had said "I don't want people talking about X" conservatives, which comprised the majority, would have responded with a hearty "Tough shit." Sorry, but people are going to have opinions. People are going to try to legislate based on those opinions. Rather than attacking someone for simply having them in the first place, maybe try to have more substantive and valid opinions.

Last edited by asahi; 05-28-2019 at 08:56 AM.
  #78  
Old 05-28-2019, 09:16 AM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 35,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
There are plenty of reasons for substantive dislike of Hillary Clinton. In my experience, tons of people who hate Hillary Clinton openly say that they dislike her because of the way she comes across on television, or some variation of that, rather than anything substantive. For this latter group, it's entirely (trigger warning Bone!) reasonable to suspect that misogyny, chauvinism, or related phenomena might have something to do with their attitude about her.
Yes there are substantive reasons to dislike her, or rather her policy positions. But theres no rational reason to hate her.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with ē, ēm, and ēs as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender. (I am also contemplating the spellings /m/s, /m/s, e/em/es, Ē/Ēm/Ēs, /m/s, /m/s, E/Em/Es.)
  #79  
Old 05-28-2019, 09:20 AM
steronz is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 4,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Those aren't real issues. But look at what left leaning folks in this thread focus on - no substantive issues. Instead, things that don't matter, and facile caricatures. No matter, her political career is essentially over so she doesn't much matter anymore. I'd raise objection to any politician who espouses the positions she did.
"Nasty woman" was not a substantive rebuke of Clinton's policy positions, or even a reasonable opinion of her personality. Of course there are reasonable reasons not to be a huge fan, but she's also dedicated much of her life to public service and trying to make America better. How did we go from that to one major party candidate calling her a "NASTY WOMAN" during a major televised debate!? And not being rebuked for it!

NASTY WOMAN tapped into something much deeper than opposing her policies. I freely admit that this is conjecture on my part, I wish I had some data to back it up, but I'm not sure how you prove misogyny scientifically. To me, though, much like gamergate, the sheer degree to which people hate on Clinton goes well beyond their stated reasons.
  #80  
Old 05-28-2019, 09:38 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Gee, we used to have pretty good discussions. I remember some very interesting back-and-forths with you, without this kind of very thinly disguised vitriol. I wonder what happened?
I've noticed that you've ncreasingly used some form of the rejoinder "your argument has nothing to do with what I said" in many threads as you did above. Maybe that has something to do with it.
  #81  
Old 05-28-2019, 09:56 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,359
So it's the "takes a village crap" and GUNS!! Those are the ONLY reasons we've come up with for the Hillary hatred.

Since the Board's own Hillary haters aren't contributing we're left to speculate in caricatures? She's "shrill"? She has too many X chromosomes? There's no doubt in my mind that the major reason is that right-wing heroes like Rush Limbaugh told them to hate her.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xema View Post
70+ posts with no mention of sleaziness related to billing records of the Rose Law Firm? Improbable & spectacular profits in commodities trading?

These were significant sources of negative public sentiment that long predate most of what has been mentioned here.
Let's round up a random group of 100 Americans who admit to hating Hillary. How many of them could remember or articulate anything intelligible about her commodity trading? Will you bet with me, Xema? What's your pick on this question, 50+? I'm torn between guessing zero and one.

The Hillary haters who don't even remember that Hillary was once a lawyer outnumber those who could say anything intelligible about her law career.

Note that Bill isn't hated, despite that HE also made the commodity bet, HIS name is also on the Clinton Foundation, and HE was the one out grabbing pussy.

Am I correct that only one Hillary hater has actually posted in the thread? Are the Haters implicitly admitting that they know their hatred is irrational?
  #82  
Old 05-28-2019, 10:09 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,972
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
I've noticed that you've ncreasingly used some form of the rejoinder "your argument has nothing to do with what I said" in many threads as you did above. Maybe that has something to do with it.
I used to try and dig to figure out what a poster actually objects to in my posts, when something doesn't seem to match what I actually posted. But now I just identify it and move on.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #83  
Old 05-28-2019, 10:14 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,443
The thing is, I think your "identification" of such has a lot of false positives. It's connected, probably, to why Bone rolls his eyes at our use of "reasonable". Your opinion is the "reasonable" one so anyone who disagrees must either be unreasonable or not understand what you're saying. But hey, you do you.
  #84  
Old 05-28-2019, 10:15 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
I've noticed that you've ncreasingly used some form of the rejoinder "your argument has nothing to do with what I said" in many threads as you did above. Maybe that has something to do with it.
Are you saying that Bone's thinly veiled vitriol towards posters he disagrees with has something to do with how his responses to iiandyiiii's arguments are not relevant to anything that he said?

You probably are on to something.
  #85  
Old 05-28-2019, 10:21 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,443
I said iiandyiii's shtick might rub people the wrong way.
  #86  
Old 05-28-2019, 10:55 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,972
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
The thing is, I think your "identification" of such has a lot of false positives. It's connected, probably, to why Bone rolls his eyes at our use of "reasonable". Your opinion is the "reasonable" one so anyone who disagrees must either be unreasonable or not understand what you're saying. But hey, you do you.
It is indeed possible. My use of "reasonable" isn't meant to signal "this is factually the reasonable position and if you disagree you are unreasonable", but rather "I see this as reasonable, and this is where my opinion is coming from... if you don't see this as reasonable, then that is the source of our disagreement, and let's explore that". My ultimate goal in these sort of disagreements is to try and drill down to the fundamental point of disagreement -- and it often is different perceptions and understandings of phenomena like racism and misogyny. And I want to explore those different perceptions and understandings. Some posters enjoy that, and some do not.
  #87  
Old 05-28-2019, 11:06 AM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,520
Lots of great reasons to hate Hillary.
Cattle Futures - When her husband was governor she allowed a lawyer for Tyson foods to trade commodities on her behalf. She supposedly risked more than their combined annual income on commodities trading despite not having enough cash for a margin call. Her account was able to grow to $100,000 by betting on a fall cattle futures at a time when cattle prices doubled. A study by Auburn university found that likelihood of achieving such results were 1 in 31 trillion. She received a legal bribe from a lawyer for a big business for husband was dealing with as governor.

She helped cover up and enable Bill Clinton's treatment of women- Bill Clinton had a history of using women and sexually assaulting them. Hillary knew about the women and empowered him to keep doing it. She helped prepare the strategy for her husband's bimbo eruption team and defended him publicly against accusations she knew to be true. When news of the affair with Lewinsky came out she publicly blamed it on a vast right wing conspiracy. She enabled her husband's poor treatment of women because riding his coattails gave her more power. Just to prove it was no fluke she had a campaign adviser who was accused of sexual harassment three separate times, and kept him on for years even though all her other advisers wanted him gone.

She lies and covers up during investigations - During the Whitewater investigation her billing records from the Rose Law Firm were subpoenaed. She claimed they were lost and then two years later the records were found in the Clinton residence with her fingerprints on them. She defied the subpoena because laws are for little people and don't apply to her. When there was a controversy over the Travel Office firings when Clinton first became president, she lied to the investigators and said she had nothing to do with it, but memos surfaced that refuted her claim. After Benghazi she told the relatives of the dead that the incident was caused by a film and that they were going to get the filmmaker despite her knowing that the incident was terrorism and had nothing to do with the film.

Healthcare Debacle - Despite her having no experience in the area she was given the task of creating a new healthcare bill. An economist who worked on the task force with her said "My two cents’ worth–and I think it is the two cents’ worth of everybody who worked for the Clinton Administration health care reform effort of 1993-1994–is that Hillary Rodham Clinton needs to be kept very far away from the White House for the rest of her life. Heading up health-care reform was the only major administrative job she has ever tried to do. And she was a complete flop at it. She had neither the grasp of policy substance, the managerial skills, nor the political smarts to do the job she was then given. And she wasn’t smart enough to realize that she was in over her head and had to get out of the Health Care Czar role quickly.
So when senior members of the economic team said that key senators like Daniel Patrick Moynihan would have this-and-that objection, she told them they were disloyal. When junior members of the economic team told her that the Congressional Budget Office would say such-and-such, she told them (wrongly) that her conversations with CBO head Robert Reischauer had already fixed that. When long-time senior hill staffers told her that she was making a dreadful mistake by fighting with rather than reaching out to John Breaux and Jim Cooper, she told them that they did not understand the wave of popular political support the bill would generate. "
That supports what I have been told by people who have worked for her. She is a demanding boss, arrogant, and quick to mistake disagreement with disloyalty.

She is paranoid - The whole reason she set up a private server for her email which was against advise and against the law was because she did not want to have to give the press access to her records. She compromised national security by putting classified information on an unsecured server because she cared more about her own privacy than the country's interests. She created a spreadsheet of people disloyal to her after the 2008 campaign ranking them according to perceived disloyalty.

She is greedy - She has sought to make money from her political connections. She let her husband raise funds from foreign governments for the Clinton Foundation while she was Secretary of State. People she talked to as Secretary of State gave the Clinton Foundation 156 million dollars. 16 foreign governments she met with as Secretary of State gave 170 million dollars. She allowed her husband to earn millions giving speeches to foreign interests as Secretary. As soon as she stopped being Secretary of State she started giving speeches to groups for hundreds of thousands of dollars while she was planning a run for president. She was paid 21 million dollars by groups to give speeches while she was planning her campaign.

She supports whatever is necessary to get power - She has changed sides on so many issues. She said marriage was "a sacred bond between a man and a woman" and supported the Defense of Marriage Act, then switched as soon as gay marriage become popular among donors. She said TPP was the gold standard of trade agreements and then opposed it. She voted for the Iraq war and then came out against it. She said about immigration "We have to send a clear message that just because your child gets across the border, that doesn’t mean your child gets to stay" then she changed her mind.

Last edited by puddleglum; 05-28-2019 at 11:06 AM.
  #88  
Old 05-28-2019, 11:15 AM
Omar Little's Avatar
Omar Little is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Within
Posts: 12,797
I've known the Clintons since Bill was governor of Arkansas and Hillary was a partner at the Rose Law Firm.

She's just not likeable. Which is a HUGE contrast with her husband. And her ambition isn't based upon doing things for the American people, it is power, clear and simple. There probably is some misogyny, involved, as power hungry women are seen in worse light than power hunger men.
  #89  
Old 05-28-2019, 11:17 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
I said iiandyiii's shtick might rub people the wrong way.
True, reasonable discussion may rub people the wrong way when they are insisting upon a position that they can not defend with reason.

Easier to ignore and "discount" the things that "rub you the wrong way".
  #90  
Old 05-28-2019, 11:19 AM
steronz is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 4,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
Lots of great reasons to hate Hillary.
Shady business dealings.

Poor treatment of women.

Lies and conceals during investigations.

No actual policy experience or managerial skills -- "in over head"

Paranoid.

Greedy.

Will take whatever position seems to be necessary to hold power.


^^^ 100% of that describes Trump, so none of those can possibly the reason for the vitriol directed towards Hillary.
  #91  
Old 05-28-2019, 11:28 AM
Jackmannii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: the extreme center
Posts: 31,624
Democrats who want Trump gone have a new and legitimate grievance against Hillary Clinton - she just isn't willing to relinquish the spotlight, scheduling interviews to carp and moan about being denied the Presidency and other topics, casting a shadow over other contenders for the 2020 nomination.

(I say "other contenders" because it's clear HRC still craves the Presidency and is obviously hoping that potential nominees crash and burn, leading the party to turn to her as their savior. And if anyone can assure another four years of Donald Trump*, it's Hillary Clinton).

*with genius strategies like lying about being under fire and contemptuously dismissing a large segment of voters as "deplorables".
  #92  
Old 05-28-2019, 11:30 AM
Omar Little's Avatar
Omar Little is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Within
Posts: 12,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
Shady business dealings.

Poor treatment of women.

Lies and conceals during investigations.

No actual policy experience or managerial skills -- "in over head"

Paranoid.

Greedy.

Will take whatever position seems to be necessary to hold power.


^^^ 100% of that describes Trump, so none of those can possibly the reason for the vitriol directed towards Hillary.
I can't stand Trump, but...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Omar Little View Post
power hungry women are seen in worse light than power hunger men.
  #93  
Old 05-28-2019, 11:31 AM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,290
There's a Facebook meme (dates about 2 years ago, I think) in which Bambi's mother tells Bambi: "Bambi, I have information that will lead to the indictment of Hillary Clinton."


That should give a clue as to why Hillary elicits such strong suspicion and dislike.
  #94  
Old 05-28-2019, 11:32 AM
spifflog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 2,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
There are plenty of reasons for substantive dislike of Hillary Clinton. In my experience, tons of people who hate Hillary Clinton openly say that they dislike her because of the way she comes across on television, or some variation of that, rather than anything substantive. For this latter group, it's entirely (trigger warning Bone!) reasonable to suspect that misogyny, chauvinism, or related phenomena might have something to do with their attitude about her.
So it appears from this thread, that people who dislike Clinton are largely misogynistic, chauvinistic or worse. So that accounts for the vast majority of republicans. What about the millions of democrats that voted for Trump, or didn't vote for Clinton? Are they all women hating a-holes too?
  #95  
Old 05-28-2019, 11:32 AM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,314
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Gee, we used to have pretty good discussions. I remember some very interesting back-and-forths with you, without this kind of very thinly disguised vitriol. I wonder what happened?
I've regularly called you on your lack of substance labeling things you agree with as reasonable. It's a meaningless word that is fundamentally wishy washy and lacking in substance. Watch, I'll illustrate:
There are plenty of reasons for substantive dislike of Hillary Clinton. In my experience, tons of people who hate Hillary Clinton openly say that they dislike her because of the way she comes across on television, or some variation of that, rather than anything substantive. For this latter group, it's entirely reasonable to suspect that this is shorthand for policy disagreements and may have something to do with their attitude about her.
Or like this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Not her disfavor -- but the incredible white-hot hatred that goes far beyond the typical dislike that conservatives have for liberals and Democrats. That's what I think it's reasonable to attribute to misogyny -- just like birtherism and the other nonsense that went beyond typical dislike for liberals against Obama can reasonably be attributed to racism. Not everyone who dislikes Hillary Clinton is a misogynist, but those who really, really hate her and were influenced to that hatred by Rush Limbaugh and similar, likely have been strongly influenced by misogyny.
What does this even mean? It's crafted in a way to allow deflection of any counter example. Disagree with actual policy, oh then not that type of dislike. It's like a True Scotsman took up residence and filters everything that comes out the front door. If people dislike a certain politician, they are going to use whatever material sticks to attack them.

Here's a more benign example. I don't like Billy Bob Thorton as an actor. I don't like his looks, his voice, his mannerisms, the way he delivers lines, pretty much if he's in a movie, it's harder for me to watch it. I can level these criticisms about him and it has nothing to do with his gender, or being a misandrist. Can the same be said about a female actress without drawing scrutiny for misogyny?

And then as has been mentioned, you fall back on one of a couple schticks. The first is claiming that criticism of your position isn't actually related to what you've said. The second is the 'golly gee' attitude which is also on display here (trigger warnings). It's fine, if you want to respond in an unserious way, then you get unserious responses. I mean, I'm glad you mock trigger warnings because they are fucking bullshit, but trust me, I'm not triggered.

I've always written directly and straightforwardly. If there is a question that says, is the answer A, or B? And the response is, well, it could be A, and it could be B. I'm going to say that is a meaningless answer. And that's the type of thing you've offered.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Biotop View Post
Bone, do you think Hillary Clinton lost because of her policy positions?
I think Clinton lost for a number of reasons, of which her policy positions were a part. With less than 100K total votes across three states, do I think her vehement anti-gun rhetoric may have influenced less people to go to the polls that would have otherwise, and more people to go to the polls that would not have otherwise? I don't know the answer to that and I don't know if there is a single 'but for' reason. I would like the answer to be yes. I would like the answer to be a definitive yes with such magnitude as to make her policy positions radioactive for any future politician and that if anyone were to take up her mantle they would be severely punished electorally. But I don't know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 View Post
It would be interesting to learn if Bone would care to name a man in politics with virtually the same policy positions as Mrs. Clintons.

And if he finds that man to be objectionable to an equivalent degree as he finds Mrs. Clinton to be.

ETA: And to assess the general Hillary-hating publics expressed opinion of him.
Bloomberg comes to mind. If not for him, most gun control groups would have floundered and he is probably the single most influential person in the gun control movement. So yeah, fuck that guy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
Her policy positions are very common, and no one gets hated like her, not on a daily basis for 25 years. It's obvious that people don't hate Hillary Clinton because of policy. The way they talk about her makes it obvious too. There's nothing rational about it.
This is also a function of her being in a highly visible role - yeah not that many people have been hated on a daily basis for 25 years, but not that many people have been in top leadership positions for 25 years. As First Lady, then as Senator, then as Secretary of State, then as a two time presidential candidate, she's been in the spot light for a very long time. Leaders get the hate. But much like Bush 43 who also got a lot of hate, after office he's just not a focus. Nor is Clinton. I grant that Trump for some reason can't get over it and still likes to bash on her, but he's kinda an outlier.
  #96  
Old 05-28-2019, 11:33 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
True, reasonable discussion may rub people the wrong way when they are insisting upon a position that they can not defend with reason.

Easier to ignore and "discount" the things that "rub you the wrong way".
This doesn't seem to address anything I've actually said, so I'll just identify that and move on.
  #97  
Old 05-28-2019, 11:35 AM
Omar Little's Avatar
Omar Little is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Within
Posts: 12,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
But much like Bush 43 who also got a lot of hate, after office he's just not a focus. Nor is Clinton. I grant that Trump for some reason can't get over it and still likes to bash on her, but he's kinda an outlier.
I agree that Clinton isn't a focus, except when she keeps putting herself in the spotlight. W kind of road off into the sunset.
  #98  
Old 05-28-2019, 11:38 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,972
Quote:
Originally Posted by spifflog View Post
So it appears from this thread, that people who dislike Clinton are largely misogynistic, chauvinistic or worse.
I'm not sure this is so, and my posts don't indicate this.

Quote:
So that accounts for the vast majority of republicans. What about the millions of democrats that voted for Trump, or didn't vote for Clinton? Are they all women hating a-holes too?
I expect the answer is pretty complicated. I was talking about a specific phenomena -- the right-wing infotainer-fueled vitriol and hatred of Hillary Clinton. So Rush Limbaugh and those influenced by him and those like him, which I believe qualifies for a large number (but by no means all) of conservatives and Republicans (and some Democrats too).
  #99  
Old 05-28-2019, 11:48 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
This doesn't seem to address anything I've actually said, so I'll just identify that and move on.
I apologize for misunderstanding. Would you like to clarify why you believe people are afraid of a reasoned discussion?
  #100  
Old 05-28-2019, 11:53 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
I've always written directly and straightforwardly.
You may believe that, but that doesn't mean that you always come across direct and straightforward.

I see iiandyiiii as always writing directly and straightforwardly as well.
Quote:
If there is a question that says, is the answer A, or B? And the response is, well, it could be A, and it could be B. I'm going to say that is a meaningless answer. And that's the type of thing you've offered.
If you believe that that the world is black and white, and that you can pigeonhole all answers into a binary proposition, then I think I may have found your problem.

Last edited by k9bfriender; 05-28-2019 at 11:54 AM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:35 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017