2016 US Presidential Election Pt. IV - Page 59 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-05-2016, 03:12 PM   #871
ONE
love, blood, life
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 12,339
Local Time: 07:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel View Post
She may well have been playing that up in her campaign, but I don't get where that's necessarily something to criticize or mock her for.



I'm just saying that the whole thing about her possibly having had Botox or commenting on her grandmotherly demeanor doesn't seem very relevant to the discussion about her record on various issues or whether or not she's genuine when speaking to people or whatever. Just like I don't really get why anyone would bring up the fact that Trump wears a toupee in a serious discussion about his political history.

Well, we were talking about her disingenuous behavior. The Botox was an analogy. Is her Botox actually relevant? No of course not. Was I actually judging her for having Botox? Clearly not.

But yes, her grandmother card is pertinent to the discussion. I am questioning the many faces of Hilary Clinton. Because she's an act. She's overly scripted. You don't know when she's being genuine. When she actually cares about something. I think that matters.
__________________

__________________
LuckyNumber7 is online now  
Old 02-05-2016, 03:14 PM   #872
Blue Crack Addict
 
Hewson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your own private Idaho
Posts: 26,466
Local Time: 07:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post

i also can't think of another openly gay active poster in here. Melon hasn't been here in years.
Are you missing something here Irvine? Or just messing with LN7?
__________________

__________________
Hewson is offline  
Old 02-05-2016, 03:15 PM   #873
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 07:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hewson View Post
Are you missing something here Irvine?

perhaps i am? i'm doing three things at once. posting in here is the 4th thing.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-05-2016, 03:18 PM   #874
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,255
Local Time: 06:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
One exception I can think of in this election cycle is Chris Christie - people have actually openly discussed whether he is too fat to be president. And he is regularly called Crisco, Crispy or whatever on Twitter and other places.
Very true. And that sort of criticism is silly and dumb, too. And it's also ignorant, 'cause if I recall rightly, some of our previous presidents haven't exactly been on the skinny side, so...yeah.

In short, there's a lot of really dumb stuff people will judge a president's capability or lack thereof on that has nothing to do with their actual politics. The type of scrutiny you get just varies depending on who you are or what your background is.
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 02-05-2016, 03:32 PM   #875
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 07:51 PM
lo and behold, i just stumbled across this.

Quote:
There’s a second major reason millennials prefer Sanders to Clinton, and that one is more stylistic than substantive.

It has to do with his so-called “authenticity,” by which is usually meant his willingness to look and sound like a hot mess.

I suspect young Americans have always been skeptical of anyone trying too hard to look and sound a particular way (see: Holden Caulfield vs. the “phonies”). But that skepticism is heightened among today’s youth.

In the social media era, meticulous image management is both a necessity and a source of constant resentment and cynicism. We are bombarded with carefully curated Instagram feeds, tweets and other forms of self-conscious digital preening. We must be camera-ready at all times, lest an unflattering image find its way onto Facebook. Yet what’s perhaps the bravest, most powerful boast you can make online? “#Nofilter,” a humblebrag hashtag applied to unedited photos. Or perhaps its close cousin, “#IWokeUpLikeThis.”

It is precisely Sanders’s au-naturel-ness that endears him to his young fans: his unkempt hair, his ill-fitting suits, his unpolished Brooklyn accent, his propensity to yell and wave his hands maniacally. Sanders, it appears, woke up like this.

These qualities are what make him seem “authentic,” “sincere” even — especially when contrasted with Clinton’s hyper-scriptedness. Sanders, unlike Clinton, doesn’t give a damn if he’s camera-ready.

This is, of course, a form of authenticity that is off-limits to any female politician, not just one with Clinton’s baggage.

Female politicians — at least if they want to be taken seriously on a national stage — cannot be unkempt and unfiltered, hair mussed and voice raised. They have to be carefully coifed and scripted at all times, because they have to hew as closely as possible to the bounds of propriety available to both their sex and their occupation. They can’t be too quiet or too loud, too emotional or too cold, too meek or too aggressive, and so on.

But they also can’t appear to be trying too hard, either. At least if they want the kind of enthusiastic millennial support that Sanders enjoys.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...html?tid=sm_fb
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-05-2016, 04:00 PM   #876
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
womanfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: moons of Zooropa
Posts: 4,181
Local Time: 12:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
lo and behold, i just stumbled across this.
Very well said, the second half especially
__________________
womanfish is offline  
Old 02-05-2016, 05:40 PM   #877
ONE
love, blood, life
 
digitize's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Dallas and around the Texas Triangle
Posts: 13,962
Local Time: 06:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post

same with Hillary (or any female politician) and her gender. but especially her, since she's running for president. we've never had another credible female run for office.

she can't yell. she can't be angry. she can't have a hair out of place. she has to be perfect in a way that men don't. you think a woman could get away with Trump's hair? we blast her for not being perfect, and then get angry because she's too cold and calculating. because she's a woman she can't be an outsider or a revolutionary, because if she were to sound like Bernie everyone would be all "OH LOOK IT'S THOSE CODE PINK CRAZIES." i think that's where these charges of "fake" and "inauthentic" come from. do you think Rubio says a damn word that hasn't been scripted and vetted? was anyone more heavily stage managed than W? are these men subject to the same charges of phoniness? has any woman in the past 30 years been subjected to more scrutiny than her? where "ambitious" is used as a pejorative, but only because she's female? i feel for the girl. i really do.

This is a really fair point, and something I should honestly probably keep in mind more than I do.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
__________________
digitize is offline  
Old 02-05-2016, 05:54 PM   #878
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,245
Local Time: 07:51 PM
Well, this is kind of a big deal...latest Quinnipiac poll has Sanders behind Clinton by only 6 points...they began conducting that poll before the Iowa caucus.

The last national poll from that same firm? December 21st with Clinton holding a 31 point advantage.

Again, I have to ask why so may people think Bernie's chances are improbable when he continues to close the gap with Clinton. If he could gain 25 points on her in about a month, then what's 6 more by Super Tuesday a month from now?
__________________
BigMacPhisto is offline  
Old 02-05-2016, 05:59 PM   #879
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,245
Local Time: 07:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by womanfish View Post
Hillary is pro gay rights, strongly pro-choice, strongly pro gun control, anti citizens united, has a more comprehensive wall st. reform plan than any other candidate, pro immigration reform, pro universal health care, has been endorsed by about every large liberal org in the country, and yet, doesn't meet the new standard of progressive that seems to have been shifted to suit Bernie's needs.
Progressives don't vote for the Iraq War.

Progressives don't wait to support gay rights and the blocking of the Tar Sands pipeline and TPP until it's politically popular to do so.

Progressives don't say they support universal health care without trying to obtain universal health care.

Progressives aren't war hawks.

Progressives don't call themselves moderates if they're in a swing state or queue up a fake Southern accent if they're in the lower half of the country.

Progressives don't say they're anti-Citizens United, yet have a Super PAC.

Progressives don't say they'll reform Wall Street without immediately attempting to break up the banks.


People don't consider Clinton authentic because of her constantly fluctuating opinions on the issues to whatever suits her. She has never actually been a liberal candidate in the slightest. Nor can we really trust her to deliver on progressive policies when her husband signed NAFTA, the repeal of Glass-Steagall and drastically cut welfare.

Finally, her "liberal group" endorsements are mostly hot air. Planned Parenthood for example. That was a top-down endorsement from the leader of PP who happens to have worked for the Clintons in the 90s and whose daughter is working on the Clinton campaign. If you investigate further as a lot of left-leaning sites did, you'll find that most of the organizations that have endorsed Clinton have come from the top-down rather than a vote and they're almost always headed by someone with extremely close Clinton connections.

Clinton's core support system happens to be people voting out of name recognition and/or fear that Bernie is unelectable. That's it. Most of them are old, uninformed and scared that one of these Republican clowns could actually win (no chance). There is nothing that any true liberal gets out of a Clinton Presidency that Sanders couldn't do better. And again, she will NOT get shit done either with a Republican congress. Unless of course she plans to sign conservative legislation like her husband did in the second half of his Presidency.
__________________
BigMacPhisto is offline  
Old 02-05-2016, 06:00 PM   #880
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Polish-American Stronghold PA
Posts: 4,144
Local Time: 07:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto View Post
Well, this is kind of a big deal...latest Quinnipiac poll has Sanders behind Clinton by only 6 points...they began conducting that poll before the Iowa caucus.

The last national poll from that same firm? December 21st with Clinton holding a 31 point advantage.

Again, I have to ask why so may people think Bernie's chances are improbable when he continues to close the gap with Clinton. If he could gain 25 points on her in about a month, then what's 6 more by Super Tuesday a month from now?
I can buy that
__________________
Oregoropa is offline  
Old 02-05-2016, 06:07 PM   #881
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,245
Local Time: 07:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by womanfish View Post
Now we see the email thing being absolute political hitjob. Not only did they admit it being a political hitjob, but we know she didn't break any set rules, laws, or stray from precedence of Sec of States before her.
Since when is the FBI a political organization or the government confirming a week ago that there were over twenty e-mails classified as Top Secret in the most recent batch? There's zero politics behind it, but it's convenient for Clinton to say that there happens to be (although she can't blame the Republicans on this one so she chalks it up to an agency dispute).

Benghazi? Sure, that's absolute nonsense. But Clinton's e-mail situation still isn't resolved in the slightest and she continually changes her story once new facts emerge and prove the previous story wrong.
__________________
BigMacPhisto is offline  
Old 02-05-2016, 06:12 PM   #882
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,245
Local Time: 07:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oregoropa View Post
I can buy that
Also, at this point in the 2008 campaign (just before the NH primary which was in early January), Barack Obama trailed Clinton by 22 points according to the RCP average. Post-New Hampshire, he trailed Clinton by around 6 points (as Sanders does in that recent poll). He then trailed her by about 10 points up until right before Super Tuesday.

As of right now, Sanders is averaging about 13 points behind Clinton with Super Tuesday being a month away and potential boosts from New Hampshire and possibly Nevada wins still to come.
__________________
BigMacPhisto is offline  
Old 02-05-2016, 06:13 PM   #883
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 07:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto View Post
Progressives don't vote for the Iraq War.

Progressives don't wait to support gay rights and the blocking of the Tar Sands pipeline and TPP until it's politically popular to do so.

Progressives don't say they support universal health care without trying to obtain universal health care.

Progressives aren't war hawks.

Progressives don't call themselves moderates if they're in a swing state or queue up a fake Southern accent if they're in the lower half of the country.

Progressives don't say they're anti-Citizens United, yet have a Super PAC.

Progressives don't say they'll reform Wall Street without immediately attempting to break up the banks.


People don't consider Clinton authentic because of her constantly fluctuating opinions on the issues to whatever suits her. She has never actually been a liberal candidate in the slightest. Nor can we really trust her to deliver on progressive policies when her husband signed NAFTA, the repeal of Glass-Steagall and drastically cut welfare.

Finally, her "liberal group" endorsements are mostly hot air. Planned Parenthood for example. That was a top-down endorsement from the leader of PP who happens to have worked for the Clintons in the 90s and whose daughter is working on the Clinton campaign. If you investigate further as a lot of left-leaning sites did, you'll find that most of the organizations that have endorsed Clinton have come from the top-down rather than a vote and they're almost always headed by someone with extremely close Clinton connections.

Clinton's core support system happens to be people voting nearly out of name recognition and/or fear that Bernie is unelectable. That's it. Most of them are old, uninformed and scared that one of these Republican clowns could actually win (no chance). There is nothing that any true liberal gets out of a Clinton Presidency that Sanders couldn't do better. And again, she will NOT get shit done either with a Republican congress. Unless of course she plans to sign conservative legislation like her husband did in the second half of his Presidency.



So you're saying she's a PINO.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-05-2016, 06:16 PM   #884
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,245
Local Time: 07:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by womanfish View Post
his voting for deregulation of credit default swaps
You are aware that Sanders voted for something along those lines just that one time, correct? And you are aware that Bill Clinton signed that bill into law, no?
__________________
BigMacPhisto is offline  
Old 02-05-2016, 06:19 PM   #885
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,245
Local Time: 07:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
So you're saying she's a PINO.
Never been a progressive or liberal by any liberal's standard. Ask anybody on the far left and they'll say the Clintons are moderates and they'll have told you the same thing from the 90s through today. She's only now trying to define herself as one so she can win the damn primary as she never took up that term to describe herself up until recently.

Bernie hasn't shifted the definition of the term. It's just that the definition would never cover the Clintons in the slightest. And yes, most Democratic members of congress can't be described as progressives as they are far too entrenched with the special interests and corporations that fund their campaigns. Not all of them, mind you, but certainly most of those in the Senate can't be described as liberal because of that.

And Sanders is hardly anything new in feeling the need to run against a corporatist Democratic party...I'm sure the names Ralph Nader and Dennis Kucinich will ring bells around here.
__________________

__________________
BigMacPhisto is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com