My Official Response To The Haters (re: Hillary)

The BBQ Pit
1

The first thing that I’ll say is that it’s no insignificant possibility that I actually vote for Hillary Clinton. I would vote for her over Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Ted Cruz, possibly Rand Paul, Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin, etc. In other words, she’s a safe, adequate choice among a backdrop of crazy moron. With regard to my thread, let’s dig in:

I’m not satisfied with the outer-most layer; I am compelled to dig deeper. Was Hillary’s 2016 presidential campaign announcement video significant? There has yet been a campaign announcement video of any similar import. This video was highly-touted, much-awaited, and carefully crafted to illuminate the core of the Clinton campaign strategy. I’ve already said it several times so I won’t repeat it ad nauseum (actually, I will); demographics, demographics, demographics…

On that note, some wonder about my use of the term “demographic fairy tales.” A fair point, so allow me to explain. The recession hit lower-class Americans the hardest. Among those lie the primary demographics Hillary is targeting—blacks, asians, and latinos. Yeah, whites were hurt too, but much less so. Hillary’s announcement video made a point of parading the stories of successful minorities. No mention that the recession has crushed minorities and how to affect that: a feast of happy-go-lucky-ism.

All, of course, a deliberate attempt to sharply contrast Hillary’s 2016 campaign (about the demographic coalition) from her failed 2008 campaign (about Hillary). The New York Times published an article analyzing the announcement video. Some snippets (bolding mine):

So, in reading on the opinion of the “experts,” one notices them drawing essentially the same conclusions I have re-iterated numerous times: this campaign will be as separated from Hillary as an individual (her history, her policies, her personality) as possible, will not actively seek the white male vote as it did in 2008, and will be a smorgasbord of demographic pandering quite apart from the reality of life for most minorities. This is the campaign of “demographic fairy tales.”

When I write on political campaign strategy, I use the terminology and brash verbiage of a campaign manager. You know, the type who might say, “I’ll have them niggers voting Democratic for the next two hundred years". I’m not going to engage in the cold-hearted analysis of modern political campaigning and try to appease the lightweights. I deign my reasoning and you do with it what you please. I believe this election will be waged on the terms of “demographic warfare.” If that term gets your panties in a bunch, read elsewhere. You’re a lightweight.

And for those who just looooove Hillary Clinton such that they enter the irrational paradigm of Hillary trumpeting, I leave you with the first (and thus most-liked) comment on Hillary’s own Youtube channel:

Oh, how the heart swells.

2

I see your point.
A hat for it, I haz one.

3

If by “lightweight” you mean “not a racist douchebag,” I’ll cop to that. Douchebags like you always think that, “BUT IT’s DA TROOF!” is an excellent defense for their racist douchebaggery, along with, “YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE TROOF!”

The problem is that your racist douchebaggery ISN’T the troof, and it’s also not what the NYT article was saying.

Wait. No, that’s not the problem. The problem is your racist douchebaggery. You’re an unreconstructed white supremacist. Own it, asshole.

4

  1. Actively seeking the white male vote is not pandering? But seeking minority votes is? I see.

  2. You want her to show more “suffering minorities” and not happy successful ones? Why exactly?

Why can’t you just complain about her being vague and empty, and has no policies, or has policies you don’t like. Why does the fact she acknowledges happy minority people (and want their vote) bother you so much?

5

What the hell do you think the word “deign” means? Because this is wrong, and it was wrong when you used it in the other thread, too. Stop using this word until you learn what it means.

6

Response to “The Haters”?? Do you mean the Dopers that seem to hate Stringbean? I think it’s your ilk with the bloated amygdalas that are most into hating.

Stringbean, you weren’t “on my radar” until the recent Pit thread, and even then I didn’t see what most of the fuss was about. I clicked some of your posts; most were bland enough … except the one where you needed to compare Obama to a monkey because even GWB would have taken out Bin Laden if only … if only what? If his controllers told him it served the interests of Haliburton and Carlyle Group?

Until you answer my comments to you about that post I’ll have no respect for you.

When a right-winger says " I might even vote for Hillary if …" it’s usually a bald-faced lie, but I’ll do you the courtesy of assuming you’re sincere. Let’s see:

You’d vote for Hillary over Sarah Palin? Even over Michelle Bachmann?? Pretend for a moment that you’re a rational human being like most of us, and imagine how such comments sound:

“I’d rather eat a greasy BigMac than a shiny dog turd.” “I’d rather have a skin rash than inoperable brain cancer.”

Could you do it; did you even try? If you can pretend you’re a rational thinker long enough to hear how ignorant it makes you sound that you need to defend yourself against the idea you’d vote for Palin or Bachmann.

As I said, you weren’t on my radar before, but this latest post is enough to tell us you’re a moron. Maybe you’re not a racist idiotic lunatic, but nobody ever really thought that the 47% of Americans who vote Lunatic are themselves lunatics. Most of them are just morons like you. Thanks for sharing.

7

This is totally something that needed its own thread.

Asshole.

8

Regarding the OP: there are no arguments more conducive to dialogue than the ones that pre-emptively insult everyone who might happen to disagree, even before they have done so. Well played.

9

how in the name of hell do you think you’re important enough to make your response “official?”

10

I deign my fries with ketchup.

11

The Melancholy Deign.

12

Lower-class Americans?

Hardly a term I’d use when trying to defend myself in this situation.

13

To be fair, that’s different: you’re not a dumbshit.

14

I think he meant “officious.”

15

Bullshit. Had you intended to say that in the other thread, you should have said that.

What you repeatedly said , beginning with the thread’s title and repeated throughout your rants, was that Ms. Clinton was waging “demographic warfare.” You have provided no evidence that she intends any sort of “warfare” and this current attempt to re-write your opinion does not erase the utter nonsense you posted in the other thread.

16

“Haters?” This shan’t end well.

Nobody hates YOU here. We just hate your ideas, your beliefs, and your utterly boneheaded inability to get a clue from the many offered to you. But we don’t hate you.

Here’s another clue: starting a new thread on the same topic while you are still being roasted in another thread just opens you up for more abuse. A lot of guys wouldn’t do that.*

    • Minnesotan for “Well, bless your heart.”
17

I hate raspberry deignish.

18

No wonder. Something’s rotten in the state of deignmark.

19

Not so fast, bub.

20

Deign it, jsgoddess went straight breakfast pastry warfare.