# Fuck Me (Susan Rice) **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [October 6, 2018, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-me-susan-rice/822560 "2018-10-06T12:50:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 2\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2018, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-me-susan-rice/822560/61 "2018-10-10T00:09:43Z")
> [@TonySinclair](#): > > A parting gift: > > [https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/mhVCiBsubhnAzUtVNVyKmUgI\_Ww=/0x0:804x452/1200x0/filters:focal(0x0:804x452):no\_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus\_asset/file/9733527/Hannity.jpg](https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/mhVCiBsubhnAzUtVNVyKmUgI_Ww=/0x0:804x452/1200x0/filters:focal(0x0:804x452):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/9733527/Hannity.jpg) Wow. It’s bizarre. But, Hannity viewers would never vote for D anyway, and they _always_ vote. So who cares? The good guys just have to energize their voters. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2018, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-me-susan-rice/822560/62 "2018-10-10T00:51:44Z")
> [@TonySinclair](#): > > I absolutely do, so this really will be it. You’re not just flailing now; you’re denying the obvious, so this is a complete waste of time. Yes, you implied I was sexist, OBVIOUSLY. Yes, you brought up a straw man, obviously. Yes, I have been challenged in this thread about my assertion that Rice would energize the Republican electorate, and no, even your erroneous perception that I have not would not prove that everyone concedes it. If people didn’t concede it, then they would be arguing against it. That’s how debates work. And saying that something is obviously a strawman is not showing that it is a strawman. It actually implies the opposite: that you can’t prove it was a strawman, so you just call it “obvious.” > [@](#): > > [Geez, weren’t you the guy who said I keep repeating myself to no purpose? And yet, even though I’ve repeated several times that Fox News and other right wing media would pound and pound on anything Rice did after puberty if she ran, you seem to have missed it. > > The fact that legitimate news sources drop a story after it’s not news anymore has nothing to do with Fox News. They will blow up the tiniest stories, or make shit up if necessary, and keep pounding on them for years. I don’t think Hannity has gone a week this year without spending at least half an hour on the _ **HUGE** _ Uranium One scandal, which you’ve probably never heard of if you don’t watch Fox News. The “scandal” is about a perfectly mundane mineral rights purchase that required the unanimous approval of nine different cabinet-level agencies in 2010. But since one of the agencies was the State Dept., it’s portrayed as Hillary giving all our uranium to the Russians, leaving us defenseless, in return for bribes. It’s just one of many reasons they want to lock her up. > > So maybe you don’t care what happened last month, but Fox News viewers are still infuriated over what happened when Bill was still attorney general in Arkansas. You still have not established why said hammering would be any worse than any other candidate. You still have not established why Democrats should care if Republicans get riled up. You haven’t established that anyone watching Fox News wasn’t already going to vote against them. The problem is that you keep assuming something that other people have challenged you on. You can call people political doofuses or mock them for not believing that Biden was just as vulnerable as Clinton, but you haven’t actually answered their questions. You just keep assuming that something is axiomatically true. But that doesn’t work if you’ve been challenged on it. > [@](#): > > Wow, you must suck at “Where’s Waldo?” Go back to the post you just quoted and look really, really hard. The only person he “just quoted” is you. And he is right that no one has asserted that Rice would not energize the Trump base. Some have asked what that means. Some have asked why it matters. Others have asked why it would be any worse than for anyone else. And still others have just said that it’s wrong to let that determine who becomes the nominee. None have said that Republicans wouldn’t be energized. They’ve only questioned the assumptions you’ve made about that. Funny thing is, I can actually see a point in what you said. I can see an argument that her past history makes her an easier target to rile people up. Problem is, you didn’t make those arguments. You just started acting like everyone was stupid for challenging your assumptions. You know another word for challenging assumptions? Debating. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-me-susan-rice/822560.md?page=3)