What is it that is supposed to represent America? I thought it was something about send my your poor, your dispossessed or something…
I thought you were supposed to be a melting, the land of opportunity where race, creed, blah blah ----
I thought you were supposed to be a multicultural utopia? There is something wrong with her trying to do this?
Seems a bit of a double standard, I don’t see any of her supporters talking about policy.
I’d like an outside view on what not being allowed to criticize officials means. Any Spaniards here?
(Though I don’t support free speech anyway, except instrumentally.)
I’m with Lobo on this, I’m not sure it’s entirely fair to call her a hypocrite for following the law as it stands while simultaneously (if it is simultaneous) calling for a change in that law. Particularly when following the law as she wishes it to be while everyone else follows the law as it stands would be deliberately putting herself at a disadvantage.
Anyway, it didn’t “make it illegal to criticize Hilary Clinton.” It made it illegal to anonymously fund campaign ads. Your characterization is like those “stupid law” collections that say “it’s illegal to walk an alligator down Main Street on a leash during daylight hours on a Tuesday” when the actual law bans keeping large reptiles as pets.
Who was the most populist, progressive benefactor of working people the White House ever saw? Right, Franklin Roosevelt of the Hyde Park Roosevelts.
Empathy for others, recognition of being part of a community with mutual obligations, and willingness to devote oneself to furthering the well-being of all are just not well-correlated with the fortunes of birth. There are many people with low-income origins who are simply mean, too.
The OP chose the topic, and thoroughly poisoned the well right from the git-go, so I’d say the general crappiness of this thread is on him.
I was merely suggesting that he could do better. No one is obilgated to discuss policy to the exclusion of all else, it just might be more relevant to the (apparent) topic of one’s motives and qualifications to be President. I’ve expressed all the opinion I have on this, and so will leave it there.
I guess the revolution WILL be televised.
Maybe it’s just me, but I think I prefer this to all the other styles of warfare I’ve seen.
Here’s why I don’t believe you:
The GOP spent pretty much all last year trying to find examples of people who had been hurt by Obamacare.
They weren’t able to come up with many cases, but the few they came up with were quickly debunked.
So really: if you aren’t bullshitting us, call your local GOP HQ, because they’re desperately looking for someone like you. They’re ready to build an ad campaign all around you, if your story checks out. (Or even if it doesn’t. They typically run with a case like this first, and see whether anyone else bothers to verify it.)
I’m finding it hard to be convinced by someone who says they’ve never voted for a Republican, but trots out every Republican talking point on the ACA and Clinton.
Remember? Where he lives Republicans don’t even bother to field a candidate. Even the presidential slate. They just don’t bother to put their names on the ballot there.
Saves ink!
What I would call your argument is stupid.
Had there been anything in the ad that actually suggested that there be any move against white (male) power, you would have had the beginning of a point. When all the ad presents is a smattering of all people of all ages, sexes, and ethnic groups while making feel-good claims about her vision of the U.Sl under her presidency, you are simply doing what multiple posters have already pointed out: you are whining that the ad was not dominated by old, white, men.
Warfare does more than suggest conflict; it demands it. Given the presence of white men of several ages, including shots with their wives and children, and with no demand that hey be stripped of power, you are fantasizing a “warfare” that does not exist.
There are any number of reasons to oppose Ms. Clinton’s effort to become president.
Granting even your admission of misogyny, this one is just dumb.
No, Stringbean. Your criticism of that video showing diversity is misogynistic, paternalist and hate-seething in and of itself; the quality of the candidate makes no difference there.
This thread addresses Ms. Clinton’s first campaign ad.
Discussions over her general policies should be taken up in a separate thread to discuss her campaign, in general.
Discussions of the Affordable Care act should be taken up in a separate thread, as well, preferably in the existing thread on that topic.
[ /Moderating ]
Not on the planet with the blue sky, he didn’t; in 2008 he was excoriated for everything from the people his parents knew while he was growing up to things said by the pastor of his church to his Chicago political/business associates.
The thread is a rant posted in the wrong forum.
Put another way – that is, another way of saying the exact same thing – it’s an attempt to frame a narrative in apparent hopes it will get traction and the phrase “demographic warfare” will enter this cycle’s lexicon of discourse, the way “class warfare” as a label for discussion of raising taxes on the rich did years ago.
Are we going to get a reprise of “Barack the Redistributor”?
Hell, I’d be happy, in a way, to see the return here of “She’s the fucking beast from Revelations”. Or even “Shrillary”.
I shudder to think what we’ll be hearing. Just the other day someone on FB said “Moochella Ovomit” should run against Hillary. I honestly had no idea what that was until I googled it and saw what sorts of sites conservatives are apparently hanging out on.
Ovomit isn’t even a good play on the sounds. They should have stuck with 0bummer (with a zero for the first letter! Because it’s so clever!)
I’ve come across “Hildebeest” too. Slightly better than “Bela Pelosi”, but only slightly.
That’s what passes for thoughtful discourse in some quarters.
Frankly, given our country’s changing demographics, this failed dogwhistle would be a terrible thing to become associated with Republicans–but only if you’re Republican. LaPierre’s “demographically symbolic” comment is clearly a racist comment intended to be heard by other racist white people. “Demographic warfare,” in this sense of a campaign that includes white people only as one group among many instead of as an overtly dominant group, has a similar flavor to it. (I’m not saying that the OP is racist in the way that Wayne LaPierre so clearly is, but this statement is definitely a racist statement).