Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 05-28-2019, 12:00 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,960
Quote:
Originally Posted by spifflog View Post
So it appears from this thread, that people who dislike Clinton are largely misogynistic, chauvinistic or worse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I'm not sure this is so, and my posts don't indicate this.
Oh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I think it dates back to the 90s and the Clinton campaign and administration. She put herself forward as policy advisor (even a policy maker) and equal, and many (those with misogynistic and chauvinistic tendencies) found that highly objectionable. Others knew they could take advantage of widespread misogyny and chauvinism to make Hillary an "easy" target. When she ran for office, that took off into even higher gear, with the expectation that she would eventually run for president.
Maybe you two are disagreeing on the "reasonable" meaning of "largely"? As far as the rest of the thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
What iiandyiiii said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulfreida View Post
Misogyny. If there is one thing the Right can agree on, it's that powerful women are inspired by Satan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ukulele Ike View Post
Hillary is just so shrill.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biotop View Post
An older woman at my bridge club recently said she didn't like Hillary Clinton because she "is so pushy. She'd knock you over to get at what she wants." When I asked her if she'd say the same thing about a man she had no response.

It was the same old prejudices that were fanned by those who knew how to exploit them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
I've run into a few of these. If you want to have a little fun, say something like, "Oh, so you have no problem with a woman being president, just not Hillary Clinton?" You are sure to be met with quick agreement. "So what woman would you find acceptable to be president?"
[...]
Pushy woman.
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
She is, and continues to be, a member of the female gender.
  #102  
Old 05-28-2019, 12:03 PM
Moriarty's Avatar
Moriarty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 2,780
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
I've read summaries [of the book It Takes a Village]. Even what you've said right here is objectionable enough. I don't want Clinton's vision for the children of America...
Things I don't care about wrt Clinton:...
  • taking policy positions as a first lady
Clinton's book, "It Takes a Village" was published in '96, right smack dab in the middle of Clinton's time as First Lady. So I guess you do care about her policy positions as First Lady.

(And the answer to the OP, as has already been pointed out, is that there has been a multi-decade smear campaign against Clinton, such that people *know* that she is corrupt without really knowing why, and such that typical or mundane activity is viewed as *proof* of her derangement)

Last edited by Moriarty; 05-28-2019 at 12:06 PM.
  #103  
Old 05-28-2019, 12:07 PM
KarlGauss's Avatar
KarlGauss is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Between pole and tropic
Posts: 8,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
Lots of great reasons to hate Hillary.

Cattle Futures . . .

She helped cover up and enable Bill Clinton's treatment of women . . .

She lies and covers up during investigations . . .

Healthcare Debacle . . .

She is paranoid . . .

She is greedy . .

She supports whatever is necessary to get power . . .
Thank you. This is the type of thing I was wondering about when I posted the OP. Whether it's mostly true or not seems not to be the issue. But even if it is, the hate directed toward her for so long and with such fanaticism, for behaviours that aren't particularly rare among powerful people, seems exceptional. The consensus here (with some exceptions) is that it's mostly because she's an 'unlikeable' woman who also committed the sin of being a possible, and then actual, Democratic presidential candidate.
  #104  
Old 05-28-2019, 12:08 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moriarty View Post
Clinton's book, "It Takes a Village" was published in '96, right smack dab in the middle of Clinton's time as First Lady. So I guess you do care about her policy positions as First Lady.

(And the answer to the OP, as has already been pointed out, is that there has been a multi-decade smear campaign against Clinton, such that people *know* that she is corrupt without really knowing why, and such that typical or mundane activity is viewed as *proof* of her derangement)
You seem to have misunderstood. The act of taking policy positions I don't care about. I care about what those specific policy positions are. This is in response to the idea expressed in this thread guessing that people felt the First Lady shouldn't participate in a leadership role. If the person advances agreeable ideas, it doesn't matter from where they come.
  #105  
Old 05-28-2019, 12:15 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,994
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
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.
I use that word in an effort to try and determine our "starting points" -- i.e. "this seems reasonable to me -- if it's also reasonable to you, then we can move from this starting point. If not, then let's determine your starting point so we can try and drill down to the point of fundamental disagreement."

IIRC this has worked many times, both with you and other posters, to determine the fundamental point of disagreement. It's meant as a way to try and further the debate, not to end it.

Quote:
Or like this:
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.
In this particular example, I'm trying to focus on the Rush Limbaugh-style vitriol against HC. Based on the language he uses, it comes across to me as extremely misogynistic. And in my understanding, Limbaugh (and others like him) are very influential with the conservative "rank and file". These are general statements -- it's almost impossible to get hard data on phenomena like misogyny relating to views on a public figure. Of course it is possible to see listener numbers for Limbaugh and others like him, and I think those numbers support my statements (but I don't have links handy). Do you disagree with these general statements? If so, which part? We can have further discussion on the points you disagree with, or the points you think need more focus or clarification.

Quote:
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?
This is an interesting point that's been present in many similar sort of discussions -- how do we calibrate the perfect level of sensitivity for forms of bigotry like misogyny and racism? It will never be perfect, but is it worse to occasionally miss/ignore instances (and accusations) of bigotry, or occasionally overstate instances and accusations of bigotry? IMO, because bigotry is so incredibly common and powerful in our society, the latter is preferable in the present moment -- fighting bigotry is so important that it's better to catch every instance (which we're still not doing, IMO) than be sure to avoid the occasional overstatement.

Quote:
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.
Talking past each other is a very common problem on the Dope. I've probably been guilty of it at times. And I'm not a perfect communicator, and sometimes my message is misunderstood.

Quote:
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.
Your response so far has been mostly serious, and I appreciate that. As for trigger warnings, they can indeed sometimes be "fucking bullshit", but I know some trauma victims who are greatly appreciate when they avoid triggering content -- and since they cost nothing to exercise, I don't think they ought to be thrown out entirely when it comes to certain triggers (i.e. the kinds of things that victims of trauma can find re-traumatizing).

Quote:
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.
Things are very rarely so simple, IMO. Perhaps I sometimes don't go into enough detail on the complexity of how I see an issue. In such instances, please let me know, if you're interested in further discussion. I am happy to try and provide further explanation of how I feel about something.

Thank you for the substantive criticism! Criticism of this kind is very important to improving one's self, and I really do want to be a better poster. Hopefully we can move forward in a spirit of friendship (golly gee! ) and have more productive and satisfying discussions going forward.
  #106  
Old 05-28-2019, 12:18 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,994
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Oh?

Maybe you two are disagreeing on the "reasonable" meaning of "largely"?
The title of the thread is "Hate..." not "Dislike...". But I could have explained myself better, and made it clear that I was speaking of the sort of vitriol found online and from right-wing infotainers like Limbaugh, which I believe is widespread and explains a large amount of the "hate" directed at Hillary (but not necessarily the "dislike").

Thank you for probing questions and substantive criticism.
  #107  
Old 05-28-2019, 12:20 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,960
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
I apologize for misunderstanding. Would you like to clarify why you believe people are afraid of a reasoned discussion?
I never said anything about reasoned discussion. I talked about one specific poster's use of the word "reasonable" to describe their own position. Hope that clarifies.
  #108  
Old 05-28-2019, 12:21 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,912
At a certain point, something simply is.

Asking why people hate Hillary Clinton is like asking why people hate spiders; they just do. It doesn't matter if the spiders are harmless, or eat several hundred million tons of harmful insect pests a year, or are beneficial to the ecosystem, or whatever; etc.
  #109  
Old 05-28-2019, 12:26 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,994
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
I never said anything about reasoned discussion. I talked about one specific poster's use of the word "reasonable" to describe their own position. Hope that clarifies.
You haven't yet responded to the post in which I try to clarify how and why I use "reasonable".
  #110  
Old 05-28-2019, 12:34 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,994
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
I see iiandyiiii as always writing directly and straightforwardly as well.
Thank you for the kind words!
  #111  
Old 05-28-2019, 12:41 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,543
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
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.
..
Here is Bookers list:Keep guns out of the wrong hands with gun licensing:
..
Here’s how it would work: Individuals could seek a gun license at a designated local office, widely available in urban and rural areas, similar to applying for or renewing a passport. They would submit fingerprints, provide basic background information, and demonstrate completion of a certified gun safety course.

Bring real regulation and oversight to gun manufacturers:...

End legal immunity that prevents victims of gun violence from seeking justice:While civil liability can be applied to sellers and manufacturers of nearly every product, as a result of a 2005 law the gun industry is immune from nearly all lawsuits. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) allows the gun industry to ignore public safety implications of the misuse of their products, such as gun trafficking.
Cory will fight to end gun industry immunity by repealing PLCAA and allow victims of gun violence to have their day in court when a gun dealer or manufacturer has acted negligently.

Require handgun microstamping:...
Close the “Boyfriend Loophole”:...
Ensure a background check on every gun sale by closing the loophole on guns show and online sales and the so-called “Charleston Loophole”:...
Ban assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, and bump stocks:Provide dedicated funding for research on gun violence as a public health issue:...
Modernize and strengthen the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF):...
Support extreme risk prevention order laws:...
Limit gun buyers to one handgun per month:...
Require firearm owners to report lost or stolen firearms:...
Ramp up funding for community-based violence intervention programs:...
Increase trauma support for survivors and communities impacted by gun violence:
Call on the IRS to conduct an investigation into the NRA’s tax status:...
Finally, beginning on Day One in office, Cory will take executive action to build on ongoing efforts and take concrete steps forward — closing dangerous loopholes in gun sales, cracking down on unscrupulous dealers and gun manufacturers, and investing in communities impacted by gun violence."


THAT I consider "vehement". Compared to the rest of the Dem candidates, Hillary was "moderate". Mind you i disagree with her ideas, but still...
  #112  
Old 05-28-2019, 12:44 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,543
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
So it's the "takes a village crap" and GUNS!! Those are the ONLY reasons we've come up with for the Hillary hatred.

..
No, I explained clearly, Hillary is hated due to a concentrated propaganda campaign by the GOP and the Kremlin.

True, she is a Democrat, and a Woman, and someone with strong beliefs. All of those would cause many on the GOP side to dislike her, no doubt. Fair enough.
  #113  
Old 05-28-2019, 12:54 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,543
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
I...
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.



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.
...
The main reason Clinton lost was the FBI letter. Then the fake news campaign by the Kremlin, then her bad choice of where to campaign, and finally her policies.

So, I dont think her policies were critical.
  #114  
Old 05-28-2019, 01:26 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,639
The FBI letter wouldn't have hurt her if it had not confirmed what we knew already - that she was arrogantly paranoid, and with the attitude that rules and subpoenas and campaigning were for lesser mortals - she was engaged in Important Business. And nobody really liked her, certainly not enough to overlook it, as they did with Bill's whoring around.

Probably the most disastrous campaign promise that could have been chosen - "It's Her Turn". We don't have quotas for the Presidency. Just because we elected a black guy doesn't mean that next we are obligated to elect a woman, and next a gay person, and then a transgender, and then who knows what.

She lost to Donald Fucking Trump. Doesn't that tell you anything?

Regards,
Shodan
  #115  
Old 05-28-2019, 01:36 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 61,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
The FBI letter wouldn't have hurt her if it had not confirmed what we knew already - that she was arrogantly paranoid, and with the attitude that rules and subpoenas and campaigning were for lesser mortals - she was engaged in Important Business. And nobody really liked her, certainly not enough to overlook it, as they did with Bill's whoring around.

Probably the most disastrous campaign promise that could have been chosen - "It's Her Turn". We don't have quotas for the Presidency. Just because we elected a black guy doesn't mean that next we are obligated to elect a woman, and next a gay person, and then a transgender, and then who knows what.

She lost to Donald Fucking Trump. Doesn't that tell you anything?
That cutting off your nose to spite your face is more widespread than we thought, and that Republicans believe the ends justify the means.
  #116  
Old 05-28-2019, 01:43 PM
Xema is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 12,179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
None of that produced any evidence of wrongdoing on Hillary Clinton’s part.
Well, it didn't produce proof of culpable wrongdoing. (Freakishly improbably commodity trading results and the mysterious disappearance and re-appearance of law firm records certainly can be considered evidence.)

But this discussion is about sources of anti-Hillary sentiment. The lack of proof does not equate to a lack of negative opinions.
  #117  
Old 05-28-2019, 01:44 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 5,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
The FBI letter wouldn't have hurt her if it had not confirmed what we knew already - that she was arrogantly paranoid, and with the attitude that rules and subpoenas and campaigning were for lesser mortals - she was engaged in Important Business. And nobody really liked her, certainly not enough to overlook it, as they did with Bill's whoring around.
So as others have said, the toll of 25 years of Republican lies and propaganda succeeded in building a false narrative about her in the public's mind.
  #118  
Old 05-28-2019, 01:44 PM
spifflog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 2,434
Quote:
Originally Posted by KarlGauss View Post
. . . But even if it is, the hate directed toward her for so long and with such fanaticism, for behaviours that aren't particularly rare among powerful people, seems exceptional. The consensus here (with some exceptions) is that it's mostly because she's an 'unlikeable' woman who also committed the sin of being a possible, and then actual, Democratic presidential candidate.
The consensus is that here on this solidly left leaning message board posters believe that criticism of Clinton is more than wrong, it requires some level of evil intent to be explained.

Not likening a major political figure is not only an issue with the right as one may have believed if they only read from this site. The left hated Nixon, and then Reagan, then Bush, and Bush again with similar vitriol.

This is just one of many "have you stopped beating your wife yet" threads that allow for the affirmation that the right is in the wrong. That's your consensus.
  #119  
Old 05-28-2019, 01:46 PM
Xema is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 12,179
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
^^^ 100% of that describes Trump, so none of those can possibly the reason for the vitriol directed towards Hillary.
Right - because no vitriol is ever directed at Trump.
  #120  
Old 05-28-2019, 01:47 PM
Omar Little's Avatar
Omar Little is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Within
Posts: 13,042
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
That cutting off your nose to spite your face is more widespread than we thought, and that Republicans believe the ends justify the means.
Has the left still not realized? It wasn't Republicans that elected Trump, it was the forgotten working class of the rust belt, mostly democrats, that ushered the self promoter into office. As long as the economy holds, it will be this same group that reelects him.
  #121  
Old 05-28-2019, 01:48 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,994
Quote:
Originally Posted by spifflog View Post
The consensus is that here on this solidly left leaning message board posters believe that criticism of Clinton is more than wrong, it requires some level of evil intent to be explained.
I haven't yet seen this consensus. In fact, I and plenty of other liberal posters have directed a whole lot of criticism towards Hillary Clinton on a variety of issues.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #122  
Old 05-28-2019, 02:05 PM
spifflog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 2,434
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I haven't yet seen this consensus. In fact, I and plenty of other liberal posters have directed a whole lot of criticism towards Hillary Clinton on a variety of issues.
iiandyiiii, you want to have your cake and eat it two. This is from the OP:

Quote:
Originally Posted by KarlGauss View Post
Thank you. This is the type of thing I was wondering about when I posted the OP. Whether it's mostly true or not seems not to be the issue. But even if it is, the hate directed toward her for so long and with such fanaticism, for behaviours that aren't particularly rare among powerful people, seems exceptional. The consensus here (with some exceptions) is that it's mostly because she's an 'unlikeable' woman who also committed the sin of being a possible, and then actual, Democratic presidential candidate.

SHE thought there was a consensus, as have most of the posters here.
  #123  
Old 05-28-2019, 02:07 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,994
Quote:
Originally Posted by spifflog View Post
iiandyiiii, you want to have your cake and eat it two. This is from the OP:









SHE thought there was a consensus, as have most of the posters here.
Are you talking about criticism or hatred? Those are very different things. In the post I responded to from you, you were talking about criticism.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #124  
Old 05-28-2019, 02:25 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,543
Quote:
Originally Posted by spifflog View Post
The consensus is that here on this solidly left leaning message board posters believe that criticism of Clinton is more than wrong, it requires some level of evil intent to be explained.....
There is a difference between "I dont like Clintons Gun polices but she is ten times better than trump, so i am solidly in her camp" vs "Clinton is a murderer, a crook, and needs to be put in prison NOW!"

I criticize Clinton all the time, but she was still a solid candidate.
  #125  
Old 05-28-2019, 02:26 PM
CaptMurdock's Avatar
CaptMurdock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Evildrome Boozerama
Posts: 1,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by spifflog View Post
The consensus is that here on this solidly left leaning message board posters believe that criticism of Clinton is more than wrong, it requires some level of evil intent to be explained.

Not likening a major political figure is not only an issue with the right as one may have believed if they only read from this site. The left hated Nixon, and then Reagan, then Bush, and Bush again with similar vitriol.

This is just one of many "have you stopped beating your wife yet" threads that allow for the affirmation that the right is in the wrong. That's your consensus.
Pardon me, but our "hatred" of various figures in the Republican pantheon do not come completely out of (heh heh) left field:
  • Nixon willfully prolonged an immoral and ultimately unwinnable war for political gain and was at least tacitly complicit in subverting our political process
  • Reagan undercut organized labor with the goal of reinstating robber-baron capitolism and willfully ignored a raging epidemic
  • Bush the Elder? Ennnhhh. Not happy with the invasion of Panama, and he did the blanket pardon of the Iran-Contra clique, but not quite rising to the "Hatred" level
  • Bush the Younger: an overgrown frat-boy who let Darth Cheney play Richilieu for seven years

Hillary is hardly my best friend in the world and has done some shady stuff in her past, but one does not have to consult a Ouija board to see that the right wing, aided in part by Richard Melon Scaife, Rush Limbaugh, and yes, by her sense of entitlement and Bill's chronic inability to Keep It In His Pants, has pushed the HRC Is the Devil's Handmaiden to ridiculous extremes.
__________________
____________________________
Coin-operated self-destruct...not one of my better ideas.
-- Planckton (Spongebob Squarepants)
  #126  
Old 05-28-2019, 03:04 PM
Jackmannii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: the extreme center
Posts: 31,878
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Asking why people hate Hillary Clinton is like asking why people hate spiders; they just do. It doesn't matter if the spiders are harmless, or eat several hundred million tons of harmful insect pests a year, or are beneficial to the ecosystem, or whatever; etc.
This spider imagery is repulsive.

Let's get serious.
  #127  
Old 05-28-2019, 03:12 PM
Moriarty's Avatar
Moriarty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 2,780
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
You seem to have misunderstood. The act of taking policy positions I don't care about. I care about what those specific policy positions are. This is in response to the idea expressed in this thread guessing that people felt the First Lady shouldn't participate in a leadership role. If the person advances agreeable ideas, it doesn't matter from where they come.
Ahh, you are right that I misunderstood. So, if I have you right, the issue isn't a First Lady who has strident opinions and lets them be known; it's when those opinions are those you disagree with.

Tell me again what you disagreed with about "It Takes a Village"?

Quote:
...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...
Wait, I thought it was the substance of the complaint that bothered you, not merely that she "felt qualified to opine"; you've just said that you have no issue with a First Lady taking policy positions, but here, Clinton is a problem because she has the temerity to have a position on child rearing. It's not just that she's wrong: it's that she is "telling [you] how to raise your kids."

Do you have a similar problem with Melania telling us to "Be Best", or Nancy telling us to "Just Say No"? Where do they get off talking about growing up like that?

Or was there some sort of qualitative difference between the fact that Hillary Clinton, as First Lady, took a position on child betterment, and wrote a book about it, and the fact that other First Ladies have...done the same thing. (At this point, she had already been a point person on health care; is it that she had already crossed the divide from First Lady to administration advisor, so she could never return to the placid world of First Lady causes?)
  #128  
Old 05-28-2019, 03:53 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moriarty View Post
Ahh, you are right that I misunderstood. So, if I have you right, the issue isn't a First Lady who has strident opinions and lets them be known; it's when those opinions are those you disagree with.

Tell me again what you disagreed with about "It Takes a Village"?
Because it doesn't take a village. It's a way to describe an increasing role of government in ordering society. I reject it. I want the government to do the absolute least amount that is necessary.

Look at a contrasting example - Michelle Obama championed the cause of healthy diets, among others that included encouraging higher education, encouraging girls in education, and supporting service members. That was great and I think she did great work. But if M. Obama turned around and said you know what, we should totally ban assault weapons and completely socialize healthcare in the country, then I'd be pretty opposed. The policies matter, not the speaker.

Last edited by Bone; 05-28-2019 at 03:54 PM.
  #129  
Old 05-28-2019, 04:02 PM
spifflog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 2,434
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptMurdock View Post
Pardon me, but our "hatred" of various figures in the Republican pantheon do not come completely out of (heh heh) left field:
  • Nixon willfully prolonged an immoral and ultimately unwinnable war for political gain and was at least tacitly complicit in subverting our political process
  • Reagan undercut organized labor with the goal of reinstating robber-baron capitolism and willfully ignored a raging epidemic
  • Bush the Elder? Ennnhhh. Not happy with the invasion of Panama, and he did the blanket pardon of the Iran-Contra clique, but not quite rising to the "Hatred" level
  • Bush the Younger: an overgrown frat-boy who let Darth Cheney play Richilieu for seven years

Hillary is hardly my best friend in the world and has done some shady stuff in her past, but one does not have to consult a Ouija board to see that the right wing, aided in part by Richard Melon Scaife, Rush Limbaugh, and yes, by her sense of entitlement and Bill's chronic inability to Keep It In His Pants, has pushed the HRC Is the Devil's Handmaiden to ridiculous extremes.
I don't know how old you are (not a slight in the least) but the left, hate, hate hated Reagan with a passion. Might not be quite in Hillary territory, but it was only a zip code away. And there was a fair amount a ageism involved there too. Does anyone care about that? Are we going to rail against how evil that ageism was?

Most of the items you mention above are big issue of contention to the left, but there are big issues that the left espouses that are an issue with the right. Doesn't make you a bad guy, or your neighbor a good guy. We can honestly agree to disagree.

The very first item you mentioned was Nixon and Vietnam, but you conveniently left off the fact that two Democratic Presidents, Kennedy and Johnson got us into that mess to begin with. Did you forget that part, or didn't you think that was worth noting? Three Presidents of two different parties, same crapstorm.

Surprisingly enough, Republican Presidents have policy initiations that you don't like. Democrats have issues that the right doesn't like.

And while I don't like Scaife and Limbaugh either, you don't think that Rachael Maddow and Chris Matthews are equally obnoxious to the right?
  #130  
Old 05-28-2019, 04:04 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 61,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Because it doesn't take a village. It's a way to describe an increasing role of government in ordering society.
What part of the book lead you to this conclusion?
  #131  
Old 05-28-2019, 04:04 PM
spifflog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 2,434
dp.

Last edited by spifflog; 05-28-2019 at 04:05 PM.
  #132  
Old 05-28-2019, 04:08 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 61,731
There is that "Political Equality" Law again-Both sides must be equally bad and/or at fault!
  #133  
Old 05-28-2019, 04:16 PM
Moriarty's Avatar
Moriarty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 2,780
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Because it doesn't take a village. It's a way to describe an increasing role of government in ordering society. I reject it. I want the government to do the absolute least amount that is necessary...
Since you've already admitted to not reading the book, perhaps you could link to some summary that suggests that it is about what you think it is about. Specifically, that Hillary Clinton wrote a book about increasing the government's role in people's lives. I can't find any excerpts that even begin to touch on your presumption about the message.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Book excerpt
Children exist in the world as well as in the family. From the moment they are born, they depend on a host of other "grown-ups" -- grandparents, neighbors, teachers, ministers, employers, political leaders, and untold others who touch their lives directly and indirectly. Adults police their streets, monitor the quality of their food, air, and water, produce the programs that appear on their televisions, run the businesses that employ their parents, and write the laws that protect them. Each of us plays a part in every child's life: It takes a village to raise a child.
I chose that old African proverb to title this book because it offers a timeless reminder that children will thrive only if their families thrive and if the whole of society cares enough to provide for them...
This book is not a memoir; thankfully, that will have to wait. Nor is it a textbook or an encyclopedia; it is not meant to be. It is a statement of my personal views, a reflection of my continuing meditation on children. Whether or not you agree with me, I hope it promotes an honest conversation among us...
In the pages that follow, we will consider some of the implications of what is known about the emotional and cognitive development of children. We will explore both big and bite-sized ideas we can put to work in our homes, schools, hospitals, businesses, media, churches, and governments to do a better job raising our own children, even when the odds seem weighted against us. Above all, we will learn ways to come together as a village to support and strengthen one another's families and our own. Most of these lessons are simple, and some may seem self-evident. But it's apparent that many of us have yet to learn them or to apply them in our families and communities...
Some lessons come from countries I have had the opportunity to visit. The sight of baby carriages left unattended outside stores on the streets of Copenhagen said more to me about the safety of Danish babies than any research study could, and it made me long to know what the Danes and other cultures might teach us. As Eleanor Roosevelt said, "There is not one civilization, from the oldest to the very newest, from which we cannot learn."
Perhaps most important are the lessons I have learned from my daughter and her friends and from children all over the world. Children have many lessons to share with us -- lessons about what they need, what makes them happy, how they view the world. If we listen, we'll be able to hear them. This book is about the first and best lesson they have taught me: "It takes a village to raise a child."
Your discussion points to one of the biggest reasons people hate her - other people have told them to; she is bad and tainted, and no specific knowledge or facts are necessary to establish this truth. That's what 3 decades (or more) of negative publicity will do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone
Michelle Obama championed the cause of healthy diets, among others that included encouraging higher education, encouraging girls in education, and supporting service members. That was great and I think she did great work. But if M. Obama turned around and said you know what, we should totally ban assault weapons and completely socialize healthcare in the country, then I'd be pretty opposed. The policies matter, not the speaker.
Michelle Obama was heavily criticized for her "role" in changing the standards of school lunches. Why were you not appalled? And, what does "we should totally ban assault weapons and completely socialize healthcare in the country" have to do with writing a book about caring for the world's children? Are you saying that your disagreement with Clinton gives you the justification for being upset about the book she wrote, even if the book has nothing to do with those policy disagreements?
  #134  
Old 05-28-2019, 04:18 PM
Moriarty's Avatar
Moriarty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 2,780
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
What part of the book lead you to this conclusion?
He never read the book. He admitted as much.
  #135  
Old 05-28-2019, 04:20 PM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 663
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
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.
Do you realize you just completely undermined your position that Hillary hatred is all about policy differences? When's the last time a prominent conservative claimed to "kinda like" Hillary despite disagreeing with her policy positions?
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #136  
Old 05-28-2019, 04:23 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 61,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moriarty View Post
He never read the book. He admitted as much.
Let me rephrase the question, then: What right-wing talk show host and/or bumper sticker lead you to that conclusion?
  #137  
Old 05-28-2019, 05:05 PM
foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
Just didn’t care? Or just was less appealing to one side and decided that the way to win elections is to get your base fired up. That’s certainly how the right does things.
I just--there is probably a better way to put this, but I'll try: You can't throw black voters in prison and disenfranchise them to try to appeal to white racists, then turn around and tell labor union members that used to be the party base that they're too racist to vote for you, unless you are trying to lose.

Quote:
What in the world do you base the “strange woman” on? I have seen anything about her that’s strange, other than her unusual level of success, which most people don’t achieve.
I regret that phrase. She's mostly a very ordinary kind of self-deluded snob. Only mostly.

Last edited by foolsguinea; 05-28-2019 at 05:08 PM.
  #138  
Old 05-28-2019, 05:16 PM
foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,822
But I'm not sure I count as one of the Hillary haters. I find the Limbaugh hatred of her as a feminazi silly and offensive.

It bothers me that so many Democrats adore her. That seems ridiculous.
  #139  
Old 05-28-2019, 05:25 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moriarty View Post
Since you've already admitted to not reading the book, perhaps you could link to some summary that suggests that it is about what you think it is about. Specifically, that Hillary Clinton wrote a book about increasing the government's role in people's lives. I can't find any excerpts that even begin to touch on your presumption about the message.
Sure, the one you used is sufficient. My bold below:
Children exist in the world as well as in the family. From the moment they are born, they depend on a host of other "grown-ups" -- grandparents, neighbors, teachers, ministers, employers, political leaders, and untold others who touch their lives directly and indirectly. Adults police their streets, monitor the quality of their food, air, and water, produce the programs that appear on their televisions, run the businesses that employ their parents, and write the laws that protect them. Each of us plays a part in every child's life: It takes a village to raise a child.
I chose that old African proverb to title this book because it offers a timeless reminder that children will thrive only if their families thrive and if the whole of society cares enough to provide for them...
This book is not a memoir; thankfully, that will have to wait. Nor is it a textbook or an encyclopedia; it is not meant to be. It is a statement of my personal views, a reflection of my continuing meditation on children. Whether or not you agree with me, I hope it promotes an honest conversation among us...
In the pages that follow, we will consider some of the implications of what is known about the emotional and cognitive development of children. We will explore both big and bite-sized ideas we can put to work in our homes, schools, hospitals, businesses, media, churches, and governments to do a better job raising our own children, even when the odds seem weighted against us. Above all, we will learn ways to come together as a village to support and strengthen one another's families and our own. Most of these lessons are simple, and some may seem self-evident. But it's apparent that many of us have yet to learn them or to apply them in our families and communities...
The whole of society caring to provide for children is not a necessary condition for children to thrive. Changing child rearing through force of government by putting to work the ideas she espouses is big government.

Quote:
Michelle Obama was heavily criticized for her "role" in changing the standards of school lunches. Why were you not appalled? And, what does "we should totally ban assault weapons and completely socialize healthcare in the country" have to do with writing a book about caring for the world's children? Are you saying that your disagreement with Clinton gives you the justification for being upset about the book she wrote, even if the book has nothing to do with those policy disagreements?
M. Obama wasn't criticized by me.

You seem to have misunderstood again. Banning assault weapons and socializing healthcare has nothing to do with the book Clinton wrote. Those are representative examples of things that Clinton did that were objectionable and earned her the negative reactions she garnered. The thread is about why Clinton got the hate she did - I listed several examples. The book is one of them. There are others, and they are not all connected to each other beyond their origin.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj View Post
Do you realize you just completely undermined your position that Hillary hatred is all about policy differences? When's the last time a prominent conservative claimed to "kinda like" Hillary despite disagreeing with her policy positions?
I've never said there wasn't other reasons people may have had. I mean, just because Clinton and AOC are both women, that doesn't make them the same. I can listen and watch AOC and examine her campaign and even though I disagree, I can appreciate it for what it is. Everytime I see an old clip of Obama giving a speech or even talking contemporaneously, I do miss the days of a presidential president, even while disagreeing with most of his policies. Everyone has their own reasons for liking or not liking a given politician. My point in this thread was that to simply attribute attitudes toward Clinton as misogyny is lazy because while that is certainly true, there's a whole lot more substantive criticisms.
  #140  
Old 05-28-2019, 05:42 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moriarty View Post
Since you've already admitted to not reading the book, perhaps you could link to some summary that suggests that it is about what you think it is about. Specifically, that Hillary Clinton wrote a book about increasing the government's role in people's lives. I can't find any excerpts that even begin to touch on your presumption about the message.
I've taken the liberty of highlighting this question, which may lead us toward the heart of the matter.
  #141  
Old 05-28-2019, 05:59 PM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 663
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
I've never said there wasn't other reasons people may have had. I mean, just because Clinton and AOC are both women, that doesn't make them the same. I can listen and watch AOC and examine her campaign and even though I disagree, I can appreciate it for what it is. Everytime I see an old clip of Obama giving a speech or even talking contemporaneously, I do miss the days of a presidential president, even while disagreeing with most of his policies. Everyone has their own reasons for liking or not liking a given politician. My point in this thread was that to simply attribute attitudes toward Clinton as misogyny is lazy because while that is certainly true, there's a whole lot more substantive criticisms.
I agree that it's lazy to attribute all the dislike to misogyny, and that there were plenty of substantive reasons to vote against Hillary. I'll also grant you that it's perfectly natural to like or dislike a candidate on a superficial level, regardless of policy positions.

But "likeability" plays a much larger role in the way female candidates are discussed than it does for males, and when a female candidate scores low in that regard, the dislike comes across as unmistakably misogynistic. As reviled as Nixon, Reagan and GWB may have been, you rarely heard lefties criticizing their wardrobe choices or lack of sex appeal.

And has it escaped your notice that most prominent female American conservative politicians and commentators are conventionally good-looking?

Likeability shouldn't really be a criteria for favoring a candidate, male or female -- but female politicians are held to a different standard. That's misogyny.
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #142  
Old 05-28-2019, 07:00 PM
jasg is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Upper left hand corner
Posts: 6,051
After reading the Wiki entry on Judicial Watch, I think that they contributed quite a bit of hate for Hillary.

Quote:
Founded in 1994, JW has primarily targeted Democrats, in particular the Clinton administration, the Obama administration, and Hillary Clinton; however, it has also sued Republicans, including the administration of George W. Bush. The organization has described climate science as "fraud science" and has filed lawsuits against government client scientists. JW has made numerous false and unsubstantiated claims that have been picked up by right-wing news outlets. Courts have dismissed the vast majority of its lawsuits.[1]
  #143  
Old 05-28-2019, 07:13 PM
slatsg is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 8
There is some Hillary-hate and there is IMO substantial misogyny. Nonetheless Secretary Clinton was a very flawed candidate.

I voted for her only because of Donald Trump.

There are quite a few reasons I am not a fan. Most of them have to do with lack of ethics. Here are the top three.

1) Her vote on the Iraq war. Her apologists can spin it any way they want to, but she chose political expediency over doing what was right. Unlike some of her fervent supporters, I actually believe she is intelligent. Thus she knew that George W Bush did not ask for authorization in order to pressure Hussein. Clinton probably thought that they Iraq war would go well and didn’t want to hurt her political future by voting against it. It was probably a good political gamble but it cost the lives of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and has resulted in the destabilization of the region that will most likely take decades to resolve.

Incidentally, I have equal disdain for Kerry and Biden. I also held my nose and voted for Kerry, and will vote for Biden if the Democrats shoot themselves in the foot and nominate him.

2) The unambiguous racism in her 2008 campaign. When things started going the wrong way for her in 2008, both she and her husband played the race card in West Virginia. This was candidate Clinton:

"Sen. Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.”

Hard-working Americans, white Americans”. Really. She went there. Can you imagine the uproar if Senator Sanders or any other candidate had uttered such an unbelievably racist comment.

IMHO this is par for the course for the Clintons. I still remember his “Sister Souljah” moment. Read Michelle Alexander’s The New Jim Crow. Again perceived political expediency takes precedence over ethical behavior.

3) I didn’t mind Secretary Clinton standing by her husband after the accusations of sexual impropriety arose, but she attacked his accusers. After the Gennifer Flowers episode, a person with Secretary Clinton’s intelligence had to know her husband’s lack of character, and yet she went on the offense. Apparently women are only to be believed if they are accusing those whom we despise.

Ironically, this was the gift that kept on giving. IMO (again) the “Big Dog’s” behavior was instrumental in Gore’s loss and in his wife’s defeat. When Trump brought Clinton’s accusers to the debate, he effectively countered the accusations made against him. It may have been sleazy but it worked. He would never have been able to do that against Obama.

So yes, I voted for her, but I felt quite uncomfortable, to say the least.
  #144  
Old 05-28-2019, 07:45 PM
Moriarty's Avatar
Moriarty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 2,780
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Sure, the one you used is sufficient. My bold below:
Children exist in the world as well as in the family. From the moment they are born, they depend on a host of other "grown-ups" -- grandparents, neighbors, teachers, ministers, employers, political leaders, and untold others who touch their lives directly and indirectly. Adults police their streets, monitor the quality of their food, air, and water, produce the programs that appear on their televisions, run the businesses that employ their parents, and write the laws that protect them. Each of us plays a part in every child's life: It takes a village to raise a child.
I chose that old African proverb to title this book because it offers a timeless reminder that children will thrive only if their families thrive and if the whole of society cares enough to provide for them...
This book is not a memoir; thankfully, that will have to wait. Nor is it a textbook or an encyclopedia; it is not meant to be. It is a statement of my personal views, a reflection of my continuing meditation on children. Whether or not you agree with me, I hope it promotes an honest conversation among us...
In the pages that follow, we will consider some of the implications of what is known about the emotional and cognitive development of children. We will explore both big and bite-sized ideas we can put to work in our homes, schools, hospitals, businesses, media, churches, and governments to do a better job raising our own children, even when the odds seem weighted against us. Above all, we will learn ways to come together as a village to support and strengthen one another's families and our own. Most of these lessons are simple, and some may seem self-evident. But it's apparent that many of us have yet to learn them or to apply them in our families and communities...
The whole of society caring to provide for children is not a necessary condition for children to thrive. Changing child rearing through force of government by putting to work the ideas she espouses is big government.
This is fascinating. You formed a fully fleshed out opinion of a book, not by reading it, but by considering an excerpt. And that excerpt is the exact one I later quoted on a message board! What are the chances? (Or did I misunderstand again? I thought that your opinion was formed a while ago, not after I offered up a quote).

Ultimately, your highlights still don't say what you think they say.

"It takes a village to raise a child" - This isn't some secret code for socializing wealth. As Clinton explains, the term is an African proverb which refers to the fact that a childhood is shaped by the community in which one is raised. Her references to growing up in a successful middle class mid-American family in the 1950's - where people knew and respected their local police officers, postal workers, teachers, bus drivers, et al - is a quaint American version of this notion.

[Children] "will thrive only if their families thrive and if the whole of society cares enough to provide for them" - from this, you respond with the argument that 'The whole of society caring to provide for children is not a necessary condition for children to thrive'? How about something a little more mundane and in line with a light First Lady book about good communities, like "A rising tide lifts all boats" or any number of other platitudes that American politicians make about being a collective community of people working towards a common prosperity (e.g. Ronald Reagan: "...a growing economy and support from family and community offer our best chance for a society where compassion is a way of life, where the old and infirm are cared for, the young and, yes, the unborn protected, and the unfortunate looked after and made self-sufficient.")

"and governments to do a better job raising our own children" - I trust you realize that you only highlighted a section of a sentence, and that your highlighting changed the meaning. This sentence was not about, as you say, "changing child rearing by force of government." It was listing different arenas which impact children (besides 'government', the sentence also listed homes, schools, hospitals, businesses, media, and churches) in saying that the book is about ideas on how they can be improved. If force of government is involved, you will need to show where that comes from, because it doesn't come from a sentence that instead previews "big and bite-sized ideas". It's your own imagination that is leaping from there to force of law.

Quote:
M. Obama wasn't criticized by me.
And why is that? She was trying to tell you what to feed your kids! Just like Melania is trying to tell them how to behave when online. Why doesn't that rankle you: how come you aren't worried that they are suggesting using "force of government" to change how children are raised?

Quote:
You seem to have misunderstood again. Banning assault weapons and socializing healthcare has nothing to do with the book Clinton wrote. Those are representative examples of things that Clinton did that were objectionable and earned her the negative reactions she garnered. The thread is about why Clinton got the hate she did - I listed several examples. The book is one of them. There are others, and they are not all connected to each other beyond their origin.
If your complaint about Clinton is that she took bad policy positions, then the book is an outlier, because it advocates 'family values' the same way that other First Wives have done.

I submit that it is only because of Clinton's already prejudged reputation that such a book could be used as evidence of her divisiveness, which just begs for another origin to her reputation. If it's the health care thing, that's fine: she sullied the benefit of the doubt by being too involved in her husband's administration, so everything that came after was viewed with a jaundiced view that she had ulterior motives. But listing this book as one reason people don't like her is nonsensical unless you already understand that her reputation was poisoned.

Quote:
My point in this thread was that to simply attribute attitudes toward Clinton as misogyny is lazy because while that is certainly true, there's a whole lot more substantive criticisms.
So "some" of the criticism is due to misogyny, right?
  #145  
Old 05-28-2019, 07:54 PM
sps49sd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 461
Accurate answers are being posted, but minds appear set on 'Misogyny'!

I don't hate HRC, but she has given people reasons to dislike her personally. Hell, she flat stated that women should vote for her because she was female, and that is as wrong as voting against her for that reason. I do perceive her as lying and saying what she thinks will fool we sheep into voting for her, then paying no attention to her words later. The email server and other actions, some listed abovethread, are shady moves by someone who professes to be better than that. Stop looking for 'gotchas!' in these posts, and read them.

Rush? I have listened to 3 of his shows, none since since he derided Bill Clinton for being elected without a majority (because Perot). Fox News? I stopped watching all 'news' networks when they became wall-to-wall hosted arguments.

Stop writing off opponents as fools, stop assuming policies are not noted. It may make you feel good to 'other' those you should want to convince, but it won't help change anything.

Last edited by sps49sd; 05-28-2019 at 07:56 PM. Reason: to add Bill
  #146  
Old 05-28-2019, 08:08 PM
Moriarty's Avatar
Moriarty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 2,780
Quote:
Originally Posted by sps49sd View Post
Hell, she flat stated that women should vote for her because she was female, and that is as wrong as voting against her for that reason...
Citation, please. I don't think she ever said this; in fact, quite the opposite. But spin has a nasty way of creating facts about Clinton that are only shades (sometimes very, very pale shades) of the truth.
  #147  
Old 05-28-2019, 08:54 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,960
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moriarty View Post
Citation, please. I don't think she ever said this; in fact, quite the opposite. But spin has a nasty way of creating facts about Clinton that are only shades (sometimes very, very pale shades) of the truth.
You think she said the opposite? Do you have a cite for that?

Not sure if it's "spin" to note Clinton had a nice little laugh onstage with Albright when she gave the "special place in hell for women who don't support each other".
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...ach_other.html
  #148  
Old 05-28-2019, 10:46 PM
squeegee's Avatar
squeegee is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Aptos CA
Posts: 8,779
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Not sure if it's "spin" to note Clinton had a nice little laugh onstage with Albright when she gave the "special place in hell for women who don't support each other".
That's really weak.
  #149  
Old 05-29-2019, 07:46 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Godot View Post
So as others have said, the toll of 25 years of Republican lies and propaganda succeeded in building a false narrative about her in the public's mind.
The FBI letter showed that the narrative wasn't entirely false. She really is paranoid and arrogant and dishonest. And un-likeable and un-charismatic to the point that people wouldn't turn out for her anyway, the way they did for Bill (although he never gained the majority of the votes either time he ran for President).

The idea was that Bill would be the politician and she would be the policy wonk. Then he got elected, and she was going to put HilaryCare into place. It failed, because he was only good at politics, and she was terrible at it. So they dropped that idea in favor of just getting him re-elected, in return for her chance to become President in her own right. "It's Her Turn!" and that attitude. And that failed, twice, because she is arrogant and un-likeable and terrible at politics.

Spin doesn't always work. Right now her spin seems to be that she is arrogant and un-likeable and dishonest, and she lost because she's a woman.

:shrugs: It's fine with me if the Dems don't want to learn from experience.

Regards,
Shodan
  #150  
Old 05-29-2019, 08:00 AM
KarlGauss's Avatar
KarlGauss is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Between pole and tropic
Posts: 8,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
The FBI letter showed that the narrative wasn't entirely false. She really is paranoid and arrogant and dishonest. And un-likeable and un-charismatic to the point that people wouldn't turn out for her anyway, the way they did for Bill (although he never gained the majority of the votes either time he ran for President).

The idea was that Bill would be the politician and she would be the policy wonk. Then he got elected, and she was going to put HilaryCare into place. It failed, because he was only good at politics, and she was terrible at it. So they dropped that idea in favor of just getting him re-elected, in return for her chance to become President in her own right. "It's Her Turn!" and that attitude. And that failed, twice, because she is arrogant and un-likeable and terrible at politics.

Spin doesn't always work. Right now her spin seems to be that she is arrogant and un-likeable and dishonest, and she lost because she's a woman.

:shrugs: It's fine with me if the Dems don't want to learn from experience.

Regards,
Shodan
And the unrelenting hate, the loathing? Why do the things you describe account for hatred? A deep visceral hatred.
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 04:28 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