Yet ironically the Bernheads I know are the most resistant to raising the retirement age of any political cohort.
Let’s not forget that women live longer, so when you factor that in Hillary has a good decade on Bernie at least. My experience with relatives and general observation of society is that octogenarians are simply unlikely to have the acuity and stamina for an incredibly intense job like this.
And when you can see a noticeable decline already (is anyone disputing this after watching that video?), adding another nine years seems like a very iffy proposition. Whereas Hillary strikes me as just as sharp and vigorous as she did in her senatorial days.
Actually I think he is scarily the same. I don’t see anything that I can call a decline. A bit less angry of a tone currently but hey was talking to the Socialist’s Satan there, what do we expect?
It’s the biggest point to his credit and against him, the constancy of his positions and of his schtick.
Nice to know that he truly believes what he says as he’s been saying pretty much the same message in pretty much the same way (varying the amount of stridency perhaps some) for decades now, be it against the currents or with it.
But to some degree it would be nice to see some … growth. I wouldn’t expect to read posts I wrote 20 years ago and completely agree now with everything I wrote then. The fact he has shown no change in his thoughts and no real variation in his arguments actually concerns me a small bit.
You really think that means anything? I mean seriously, how many people have you discussed retirement age with? While knowing which specific political cohort they are in?
Yes. However, that does not undermine the truth of the statement. Undoubtedly raising the retirement age is a bigger issue then gay marriage or gun control.
I don’t know how to interpret that statement. The importance of the issues strikes me as not consistently disparate enough to tell if you’re being sarcastic or not.
Google “Hillary Clinton cackle”. Thereare loads ofexampleseverywhere of people focusing on herlaugh, as if she’s not allowedto do it. These are attacks coming from conservatives because they don’t have legitimate reasons to oppose her. There’s even a Clinton laughing pen.
Witches cackle. Witches are female, therefore the implication is that Clinton is a witch or some kind of supernaturally evil creature simply by the association of her laughter. Its not a stretch, its an absolute real thing and only the ignorant pretends it doesn’t happen. Conservatives have tried for years to take her down with no luck, so they resort to superficial attacks on her looks, voice, age, clothes because as a society, we often judge women based on how superficially appealing they are.
On the other hand, if you try to Google Trump, Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, Rubio, or Chris Christiecackle, you get pretty much no responses. The only one with a lot of hits is ironically Trump because he put out an ad recently with Clinton’s laughing face superimposed over the ruins of Benghazi. This isn’t in dispute here, this happens to Clinton and its sexist, that’s a fact. My question is what you have to gain by pretending it doesn’t happen. The sexism inherent in the GOP’s decades of attacks on Clinton is a real, pervasive, and ongoing tactic they’ve decided to do either individually, or someone like Frank Luntz coordinated.
You don’t have to like Clinton or defend her. My purpose is to educate someone like Bone who either doesn’t know or is pretending sexism doesn’t exist when it comes to attacks on Clinton. The purpose is twofold:
First, most people won’t openly consider themselves sexist, even if they do sexist things. By pointing out their sexism, it either makes them a more honest sexist, or maybe, just maybe, gets them to stop.
And second, you can still pretend to be non-sexist and use those words to attack Clinton, but I’m making damn sure everyone knows about it. What I won’t do is just sit back and let people claim there’s no sexism inherent in attacks on her, but allow attacks on her looks, voice, laugh, or clothes go unchallenged. If people are going to be sexist, I’m going call them out on it, simple as that. Or you can choose to not be sexist
In good faith, I clicked through each of the links. In none of them did anyone make the argument, * “She’s a woman, she’ll get mood swings, like all women, so we can’t have her as president” or “She’s not attractive (or for other women “she’s too attractive”) therefore we can’t take her seriously.”* Your claim thus far is unfounded. None made that argument regarding her laugh either. Care to try again?
Educate? That’s quaint. I am sure there are attacks against Clinton that are sexist. Unfortunately for you, You have failed to present any. But continuing to throw charges of sexism with weak as fucking shit evidence and overstating your claim by a mile does nothing to advance the cause of equal treatment. just as false allegations of rape damages perception when true rape happens, and calling everything racist belittles true racism, poorly attempting to deflect criticism with casual accusations of sexim weakens all other claims of sexism.
You’re doing that thing racists do, when they look at an example of racism and say, “well, no one actually said the words that negros are inferior, therefore it’s not racist”. Only with sexists.
Comparing women to witches has hundreds of years of context as a way to dismiss women for being old and/or threaten them for rocking the boat. Pretending that hundreds of years of context doesn’t exist is, all by itself, a sexist act.
People still say and do the old sexist and racist things. The big difference now is that it’s somewhat safer to point it out.
Basically, the very things people don’t like about Clinton, they shouldn’t talk about, because it’s sexist. If a guy had a laugh that loud whenever he was asked a question he didn’t want to answer, that’d get noticed too.
Ideally, we wouldn’t judge any candidate based on superficialities. But the fact of the matter is, we judge male and female candidates alike on superficialities. We don’t judge every candidate based on the same superficial features, because not all candidates have the same superficial features.
Ask yourself this: If we were living in an alternate universe where the male candidate had an annoying laugh and the female candidate had an ugly wig, and people in that alternate universe made jokes about both, would you claim that making fun of the wig was evidence of sexism? If so, then it’s clear that the sexism you’re seeing doesn’t exist.
And on the retirement age: Retirement age is the age at which it becomes practically possible to retire. Many people, on reaching retirement age, decide that they’re going to just take it easy now. But many others decide that they love their work so much that they’re going to keep on doing it. It’s all about having the choice. Retirement age is not, or at least should not be, mandatory. And apparently Sanders (and Clinton, and Trump) have all decided that they want to stay in politics, rather than retiring, and they should be allowed to make that decision.
