The guy that lied and told Ohio Jeep workers that Chrysler was going to send all of their jobs to China and prompted Chrysler to emphatically deny the story and whose lie was named Politifact’s Lie of the Year.
What’s divisive and ugly about Hillary’s video that the OP linked to, or any other part of her fledgling Presidential campaign?
I don’t particularly like Hillary, but I’ll support her enthusiastically because the alternative (based on Republicans hinting and announcing so far) will be so, so much worse for America and Americans. I liked Obama a bit more, but not a lot, but supported him enthusiastically because he was so, so much better than the alternatives.
Apparently, for some folks like Shodan, thinking Clinton and Obama would be much better than their Republican opponents counts as “automatic pass” and “liberal Flavor-Aid”. Isn’t it conceivable that we don’t worship them and just think they’re better than the alternatives?
The creator of Romneycare, who thinks that qualifies him as “severely conservative”?
He was probably honest about the 47% comment, but that’s still hardly in his favor.
Does the gay couple count as white males?
I watched four seconds of the video and saw a white guy wandering through a warehouse. I am lukewarm at best on Hillary but this thread is moronic.
This could just be the break that the McCain campaign needs!
I’m a white man and I won’t be satisfied 'til she embraces Cliven Bundy!
No, you really don’t.
There are plenty of valid reasons to be unenthusiastic about Mrs. Clinton. I share some of those myself. (flag burning amendment, really?) But I join the chorus asking you Stringbean what the hell do you mean by “blatant demographic warfare?” You act like you’re simply pointing out somelthing obvious, but I honestly don’t even know what you mean. I think I disagree, but perhaps I’m missing your point. Has Clinton done anything that would be more offensive to white guys like me then to the population in general? I can’t think of one “anti-white guy” proposal she has made in any of her campaigns.
100%, apparently.
No, it’s only divisive and ugly if it’s divisive and ugly. But in the real world, Republican ads show that a lot more than Democratic ads.
In the United States, 63% of people are White, 16% are Hispanic, 13% are Black, 5% are Asian, and 3% are “other”. 76% are Christian and 24% are non-Christian. 49% are men and 51% are women. Around 95% are straight and around 5% are LGBT.
Run the numbers and you’ll see around 22% of Americans are straight white male Christians. So in a political ad that reflects reality, four out of five people should be something other than a straight white male Christian.
[snip]
Well one has to hit the disregard button at that spot. 
Anyone that ignores that Obama was reelected in 2012 is just making a nonsensical point because many showed that they did not consider what Obama did a fable.
But going forward this is the demonstrated pattern that I see many congress critters on the right are doing: tripping and planting their faces on the floor is their specialty when confronting the Clintons, the pattern is always that in order to get Clinton down the right does think that the crazy beliefs about her (or Bill) are real or have merit and by the time they do notice how crazy it was it is too late. Everyone (or just what it is needed to win an election) notices then how dumb the effort was because it usually concentrates on the crazy belief instead of the most mundane explanation of an apparent impropriety or even a real one. Because the item is exaggerated so much the Republican investigations and investigators in congress end up looking like idiots.
How’s that Romney presidency working for ya, chief?
Ohhhhh. Right. Romney failed to prevent the re-election of a president whilst the unemployment rate was over 7%. First time that’s happened in, what, fifty years?
“Qualified.” :smack:
Since 1964 the Republican party has committed itself to “demographic warfare” against
Blacks
Pro-choice women
Hispanics who didn’t come from Cuba
Gays
Anyone who isn’t an Evangelical Christian
Union employees
Public employees
Public schools
People who receive Social Security
“The 47%”
If Hillary wants to play demographic warfare, of course she’ll be at a disadvantage. The GOP has a 50-year head start on her.
You don’t like Hillary, we get it. :rolleyes: But I’m curious if from now on you and others who dislike her can attack her without referring to her physical attributes. Its so odd as an enlightened liberal to hear all these typical political attacks and suddenly someone interjects a comment about her wrinkles or her face. Like I fell into a portal taking me back a hundred years
I suspect its the old shit on the wall tactic. Attack her in every aspect, and if even a fraction of one percent of people think she’s ugly and don’t vote for her, you’ve accomplished what you set out to do. But its just so odd that it stands out, you know? Why wouldn’t you think that such an attack motivates the other side more than it helps you?
I know this is kind of par for the course for all female candidates and I’m not trying to take a stand, really. I’m actually more curious to see if it can actually be done. If it does, well it tells me everything I need to know about you and whoever else is using looks as a barometer for presidential fitness.
Maybe I’ll start commenting on how ugly the GOP is 
I’m imagining Stringbean watching the Superbowl, and enraged about the other team using unfair tactics such as running and passing the ball.
But…but don’t you know? Rural white people are the TRUE Americans, the heartland, and all that shit.
And a candidate wins over their opposition, well their election isn’t truly legitimate, and it’s time to “take America back” from the guy/gal who won on the votes of minorities and cosmopolites and urban elites and whatnot.
My main objection to Ms Clinton…outside of the fact that I just plain don’t like her…is the Clinton’s central role in moving the Democratic Party into a “business friendly”, menshevik, third-legged blue dead dog Republican Lite party of corporate suck-ups. I understand the practical tactics of that move, I understand the necessity of money. The America we are working to create does not yet exist, and towards that end, there are going to be times when shit must be eaten. You grab your spoon, you put on your shit-eatin’ grin, and say “MMMM-good!”.
I understood that when I resolved to vote for Hillary as a necessity, when I thought Obama couldn’t beat her. I was wrong. As a pessimist, I love being wrong.
But there have been some fundamental shifts in our people. I am not certain to what extent, but it clearly is there. Lizzy Warren is the most prominent figure representing that shift. (And I’m not saying that just because she is so hot! That’s part of it, sure, but still…)
So, Lizzy and Hillary had a nice lady-like chat over tea. (I love the way the soft guys with the wobbly bits negotiate, they really are better at it than us who suffer from testosterone poisoning…). And now, Hillary comes out swinging with an Eat The Rich class-war agenda! Well, sorta, kinda, enough to get ol’ Stringbean clutching his pearls and fainting dead away.
Do I believe her? Not really. But hypocrisy is the very stuff of mass-market politics. And sometimes it is just as important, sometimes it tells us where the power shifts have occurred, what principles a shrewd politician must kiss up to. I don’t really think that Ol’ Hillary us going all Tom Joad/Pete Seegar on us. But such is Progress, its never progress enough, it damned sure isn’t soon enough, and after you fight to get it, you have to fight to keep it.
So, this is a good thing. Not a real good thing, but it’ll have to do. For now. Fighting money and power, always gonna be two steps forward, one back and one sideways. And so it goes.
By the bye, this “demographic warfare” phrasing? Is that the latest dog-whistle for “class war”?
Cute.
Well, you’ve got a metric ton of candidates for the GOP Presidential nomination. Sorry to hear that, even by your standards, none of them are qualified and honest.
Better luck in some other political epoch.