2016 US Presidential Election Pt. IV

[womanfish]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

It's not that she is serious and takes time to make decisions, it's that she seems content to dismiss criticisms of her record and of some of her stances with nothing more than a wave of the hand. She does not feel the need to defend her questionable record on economics and foreign policy because she "gets things done." And she's happy to let identity politics take the wheel when it's convenient for her, which is usually when she's getting grilled on those sorts of things. When Bernie (correctly) pointed out that she's not a progressive, she basically said "I'm trying to be the first woman president, what's more progressive than that!" That's a cheap out when there are very real issues with her stances.

I think what bothers me is that it's a catch 22 for her. I don't think anyone can disagree that she is the subject of an incredible amount of false attacks. I can't blame her for seeming dismissive of false attack number 173. So if she is dismissive she is criticized and if she takes them seriously, she lends them a sense of there actually being a genuine issue.

Benghazi has been shown to be absolute nonsense. In fact me, and many others I know, were actually moved to support Hillary after her 11 hour grilling of what hearing number 13??
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.

I will agree that she shouldn't be too dismissive and should have faced the accusations more head on at the beginning with the public. BUT i also feel that people like us, who actually pay attention to whats going on, should not be hoodwinked by the constant onslaught of crap that GOP throws at Hillary because they are afraid of her.

I get infuriated seeing 19 year old Bernie fans lecturing lifetime liberals such as myself, on what it is to be "progressive", and what Hillary did wrong before they were born.

I think again, my issue is now even the term "progressive" has been hijacked by the Bernie campaign. I'm sorry, but he tried to backpedal last night, but he has criticized Obama greatly and is lying if he now says he considers him a progressive.

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.

Anyone in public office for years will have votes that should have been different. Bernie's gun record, his shifts on middle east policy, his voting for deregulation of credit default swaps, etc... No one is perfect, and hell, I know HRC isn't. But my list from my previous post stands. She has an in-depth grasp of a huge range of issues - more than anyone on either side.

[womanfish]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

Oh hooray. Another stomp of the heel, deflecting criticism as mere sexism. I'm so done with people drawing that card.

The only thing I was implying was that she was a sleazy politician who is so well polished in her "just tell them what they want to hear even if I don't really believe it" attitude. It's done by many politicians and businesspeople. Male and female.

I mean, go ahead and look at her historical stance on gay marriage and gay rights. She's a straight populist. She doesn't stand for it. She doesn't even like gay people. She puts on her stupid smile and pretends like she gives a damn in order to appease her base.

Don't get me wrong, I'd rather have a snake who slithers for all the right reasons than a dog who will likely shit the floor too many times. But this election just really isn't enticing with any candidate. Not even an exciting third party candidate to protest to.

That is absolute nonsense about gay people. She has by far the strongest support of any candidate from the gay community. Are they all just being duped? I don't think so.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

Oh hooray. Another stomp of the heel, deflecting criticism as mere sexism. I'm so done with people drawing that card.

The only thing I was implying was that she was a sleazy politician who is so well polished in her "just tell them what they want to hear even if I don't really believe it" attitude. It's done by many politicians and businesspeople. Male and female.

I mean, go ahead and look at her historical stance on gay marriage and gay rights. She's a straight populist. She doesn't stand for it. She doesn't even like gay people. She puts on her stupid smile and pretends like she gives a damn in order to appease her base.

Don't get me wrong, I'd rather have a snake who slithers for all the right reasons than a dog who will likely shit the floor too many times. But this election just really isn't enticing with any candidate. Not even an exciting third party candidate to protest to.

not all criticism of Obama is racist, but there is criticism of Obama that is racist. he has to deal with things a white politician does not.

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.

there are, of course, as outilned earlier, Clintonian frustrations -- the inability to accept blame or responsibility, the parsing of language, etc. i was much more in the Obama camp in '08, i think she's far from perfect. there's lots we can question. i'm not excited for her

believe it or not, i kind of do accept that people "evolve" on LGBT issues. in 2005, i, a now married gay man, was totally fine with civil unions. am i inauthentic because 10 years ago i accepted my second class status? most people don't know any trans people today, let alone in 2005.

and, finally, her positions and policies are basically more Obama and just a shade different from Bernie.

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by BVS

What are you basing this on?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Between the lovely email leak of her unnecessarily making a point of how she "doesn't agree"


The reports that came out about how she was supposedly "uncomfortable with gay people" during her time as First Lady...

Her campaign in opposition to same sex marriage for the senate, and her opposition in the senate...

Her "timely" arrival to the bandwagon of support for same sex marriage after other big names had already stepped up...

Please. She doesn't give a shit. She just peppers that in there. She's fickle. She says what she says and supports what she supports because she's supposed to.

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by womanfish

That is absolute nonsense about gay people. She has by far the strongest support of any candidate from the gay community. Are they all just being duped? I don't think so.

I never said she wouldn't do what she says she would. I didn't say she doesn't currently support the gay community. I said she's fake. She doesn't give a shit. If it wasn't good for business she wouldn't do it.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by womanfish

That is absolute nonsense about gay people. She has by far the strongest support of any candidate from the gay community. Are they all just being duped? I don't think so.

the gays in my FB feed seem pretty evenly split between Hillz/Bern.

but you can buy this shirt:

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

Between the lovely email leak of her unnecessarily making a point of how she "doesn't agree"
Attachment 10567

The reports that came out about how she was supposedly "uncomfortable with gay people" during her time as First Lady...

Her campaign in opposition to same sex marriage for the senate, and her opposition in the senate...

Her "timely" arrival to the bandwagon of support for same sex marriage after other big names had already stepped up...

Please. She doesn't give a shit. She just peppers that in there. She's fickle. She says what she says and supports what she supports because she's supposed to.

she's a politician.

Obama didn't support SSM until Biden tricked him into it in May 2012.

people asked all the time, and fairly, why i would support someone, like pre-2012 Obama, who didn't support SSM. and it's simple:

1. the other side would rather we didn't exist
2. SSM is not the be-all, end-all of LGBT life
3. we know they're faking it because there was, up until 2012, big political risk without a lot of potential political gain


also, i want to add how delighted i am that LGBT rights have become so mainstream and accepted as part of being a decent fucking human being. going back and reading old FYM threads from 10 years ago shows a very, very different world. and that's dealing with a pretty self-selecting crowd in here -- U2 fans who care enough to post about politics on a message board. some of the strongest LGBT supporters today were debating "is it a choice? what does Scripture say?" back then. we even had posters making up stories about friends dying from AIDS and repenting on their deathbed about sinful lifestyles.

it's a different world.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

Between the lovely email leak of her unnecessarily making a point of how she "doesn't agree"
Attachment 10567

The reports that came out about how she was supposedly "uncomfortable with gay people" during her time as First Lady...

Her campaign in opposition to same sex marriage for the senate, and her opposition in the senate...

Her "timely" arrival to the bandwagon of support for same sex marriage after other big names had already stepped up...

Please. She doesn't give a shit. She just peppers that in there. She's fickle. She says what she says and supports what she supports because she's supposed to.

There's nothing in that email that's discriminatory towards gay people. The terms "parent one and parent two" is stupid. People feel an attachment to the term mother and father, be it mother and mother or father and father. You're fishing.

My parents views have changed drastically since the 90's, why is it so hard to believe?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

not all criticism of Obama is racist, but there is criticism of Obama that is racist. he has to deal with things a white politician does not.

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.

there are, of course, as outilned earlier, Clintonian frustrations -- the inability to accept blame or responsibility, the parsing of language, etc. i was much more in the Obama camp in '08, i think she's far from perfect. there's lots we can question. i'm not excited for her

believe it or not, i kind of do accept that people "evolve" on LGBT issues. in 2005, i, a now married gay man, was totally fine with civil unions. am i inauthentic because 10 years ago i accepted my second class status? most people don't know any trans people today, let alone in 2005.

and, finally, her positions and policies are basically more Obama and just a shade different from Bernie.

So, you're still insisting that this is about gender. You went so far as to suggest I *don't* have a problem with someone like the likes of a Marco Rubio and the way he speaks. I detest that man.

I have no idea what you're going off about with her hair and whatnot. You seemed to have just suggested that because she's a woman, she's going to be more calculated? Wtf? Dude, my criticism of her has zero to do with her gender, and she doesn't get some female "handicap" just like Barack Obama doesn't get a black handicap. They're running for president of the United States. In my eyes, she's subject to the same criticism that every other candidate is, and you can't just shrug it off as sexism when it's not.

And ps, you don't represent every gay person. You know that, right? Do you know how frustrating that is? Your opinion isn't somehow more valuable because you're the outspoken gay guy on the forum. Just because you accept Hilary's flipping flopping fish act, doesn't mean I do.

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by BVS

There's nothing in that email that's discriminatory towards gay people. The terms "parent one and parent two" is stupid. People feel an attachment to the term mother and father, be it mother and mother or father and father. You're fishing.

My parents views have changed drastically since the 90's, why is it so hard to believe?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Yeah that's why it was rejected. She didn't like the language... 🙃

I don't even think "parent one and parent two" is the right way to go. But it's pretty easy to read her tone in that email and see. She's like Mom from Futurama, coming out in her fat suit and pretending to be a cutesy old lady.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

Yeah that's why it was rejected. She didn't like the language... 🙃

I don't even think "parent one and parent two" is the right way to go. But it's pretty easy to read her tone in that email and see. She's like Mom from Futurama, coming out in her fat suit and pretending to be a cutesy old lady.

Careful, your bias is showing.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

I have no idea what you're going off about with her hair and whatnot. You seemed to have just suggested that because she's a woman, she's going to be more calculated? Wtf? Dude, my criticism of her has zero to do with her gender, and she doesn't get some female "handicap" just like Barack Obama doesn't get a black handicap. They're running for president of the United States. In my eyes, she's subject to the same criticism that every other candidate is, and you can't just shrug it off as sexism when it's not.

i am suggesting that Hillary is subjected to a different set of pressures and expectations and double standards that male politicians are not subjected to because of her gender. i feel the same way about Obama and race.

i am suggesting that the criticisms you've leveled -- remember your Botox comment -- are in line with these double standards. that charges of her being "calculating" "ambitious" and "inauthentic" are because she has no freedom to do and be anything but because of her gender.

and i've also stated, repeatedly, that there are very real criticisms of her. many of which i agree with.

and finally i don't see all that much daylight between her and Bernie on their actual policies.

And ps, you don't represent every gay person. You know that, right? Do you know how frustrating that is? Your opinion isn't somehow more valuable because you're the outspoken gay guy on the forum. Just because you accept Hilary's flipping flopping fish act, doesn't mean I do.

well, i do live these issues in a way that you don't, so when i speak from my personal experience, i would like to think it has some credibility. i don't think i've ever claimed to speak for all gay people. but it seems inarguable that society is in a much, much different place in regards to LGBT issues than it was in 2002. why would she be any different than any other 68-year old lady?

[womanfish]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

i am suggesting that Hillary is subjected to a different set of pressures and expectations and double standards that male politicians are not subjected to because of her gender. i feel the same way about Obama and race.

i am suggesting that the criticisms you've leveled -- remember your Botox comment -- are in line with these double standards. that charges of her being "calculating" "ambitious" and "inauthentic" are because she has no freedom to do and be anything but because of her gender.

and i've also stated, repeatedly, that there are very real criticisms of her. many of which i agree with.

and finally i don't see all that much daylight between her and Bernie on their actual policies.

I think that in all the noise right now, it gets forgotten that Hillary was in the top 15 most liberal Senators, to the left of Obama, and votes in 93% agreement with Sanders. There is not much daylight between the two. I think the only difference is Sanders makes it seem that he can give you everything tomorrow, and Hillary lets you know it isn't that easy, but she will fight to get as much progress as she can.

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

i am suggesting that Hillary is subjected to a different set of pressures and expectations and double standards that male politicians are not subjected to because of her gender. i feel the same way about Obama and race.



i am suggesting that the criticisms you've leveled -- remember your Botox comment -- are in line with these double standards. that charges of her being "calculating" "ambitious" and "inauthentic" are because she has no freedom to do and be anything but because of her gender.

Yes. Hilary Clinton most likely had Botox. And Donald Trump likely sits in a tanning bed. And until last year, everyone thought it was a toupee. Yeah, definitely don't see why the Botox thing is sexist. A politician's image gets mocked regardless. Look at Ted Cruz's nose. Should I only pick on men? That's exactly the sexist problem. Can a man not have Botox? They can and they do.

Originally Posted by Irvine511

well, i do live these issues in a way that you don't

No, you don't. This is *exactly* what I'm talking about. The loudest mouth is not automatically the most important.

[Moonlit_Angel]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

She's like Mom from Futurama, coming out in her fat suit and pretending to be a cutesy old lady.

I think this is why people are commenting on the gender issue with your statements about Hilary. Criticizing her policies is totally fine, nobody here's disagreeing with that.

But these comments about her having Botox or being a "cutesy old lady" or whatever don't really have any relevance to her policies, so there's really no reason to throw it into your analysis of her as a politician.

Originally Posted by BVS

There's nothing in that email that's discriminatory towards gay people. The terms "parent one and parent two" is stupid. People feel an attachment to the term mother and father, be it mother and mother or father and father. You're fishing.

Yeah, I didn't really see anything in there that implied that she was against gay rights/gay marriage/whatever, either. Discussing and questioning a particular aspect of that issue isn't exactly akin to being flat out against it altogether.

And for context, since everyone else has been clarifying their angle of support thus far, I'm fairly neutral on Hilary in general. Same with Bernie. I know I'll vote for whichever one of them wins the nomination, but beyond that I don't have a strong preference in one direction or the other.

I'll also say that I do think it sucks that more politicians didn't openly come out in favor of gay marriage years ago, but I know that given the way politics works, you make do with what you've got sometimes, and that these sorts of issues sometimes take baby steps to get moving (after all, correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't there been stories about how some of the politicians who were involved in the civil rights movement still privately held some outdated views about black people or made racial jokes or whatever?). So long as one party's willing to at least make SOME movement towards progress on that issue, though, it's worth acknowledging that fact, even if the politicians making those advancements have some questionable personal views on the issue. That's not to say those views shouldn't be discussed or debated, of course, but context and time periods and people's views changing should also be taken into account as well.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

Yes. Hilary Clinton most likely had Botox. And Donald Trump likely sits in a tanning bed. And until last year, everyone thought it was a toupee. Yeah, definitely don't see why the Botox thing is sexist. A politician's image gets mocked regardless. Look at Ted Cruz's nose. Should I only pick on men? That's exactly the sexist problem. Can a man not have Botox? They can and they do.

yes, i agree that men's appearances come under scrutiny. but it's seen as a personality quirk rather than a character flaw. that's the sexist problem.

No, you don't. This is *exactly* what I'm talking about. The loudest mouth is not automatically the most important.

you'll have to explain further because i don't understand what you're saying here.

[anitram]

I really fail to see how a charge of inauthenticity is inherently sexist.

I think Rubio is even more inauthentic - he's basically a puppet with a cabal of billionaires up his ass telling him what to say.

Hillary's issue is that while both Clintons may be inauthentic, Bill is likeable. And no, it's not sexist to say so, either. He is just much more of a gregarious people-person and so even when he's shoveling the shit out of his mouth, he's managing to charm you. There are plenty of women out there like that, but Hillary ain't one.

Now I think when you get to people talking about her being overly ambitious, to me that does actually sound like a dog whistle.

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel

I think this is why people are commenting on the gender issue with your statements about Hilary. Criticizing her policies is totally fine, nobody here's disagreeing with that.

But these comments about her having Botox or being a "cutesy old lady" or whatever don't really have any relevance to her policies, so there's really no reason to throw it into your analysis of her as a politician.

We were not talking about her policies, directly. We were talking about her lack of genuine behavior and delivery.

And Jesus Christ... she fucking launched her campaign with a huge emphasis on the fact that she's a grandmother to illustrate her experience and repair her family values reputation. She ACTUALLY put on the grandmother act. That's not SEXIST. It's what she DID. My god... this is like saying its racist to describe a black man as being a black man.

Edit: sorry for the flagrant tone, long day...

[Hewson]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

you'll have to explain further because i don't understand what you're saying here.

From what I gather, he's basically saying that he feels you are speaking like you have a viewpoint for all gay people and one he doesn't share. That being outspoken on an issue doesn't mean your viewpoint is more valid or something to that effect.

LN7, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here.

[Moonlit_Angel]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

Yes. Hilary Clinton most likely had Botox. And Donald Trump likely sits in a tanning bed. And until last year, everyone thought it was a toupee. Yeah, definitely don't see why the Botox thing is sexist. A politician's image gets mocked regardless. Look at Ted Cruz's nose. Should I only pick on men? That's exactly the sexist problem. Can a man not have Botox? They can and they do.

Yes, male politicians' looks have been mocked and criticized, but the media still also talks seriously about their policies, and treats them like actual politicians.

With women, their looks tend to be the main, if not the only, depending on some circles, thing the media focuses on. And with Obama, his race is a big issue with some people. It's gender/race/looks first, politician second with Hilary and Obama. White male politicians have the reverse.

Having said that, though, if people are having a lighthearted conversation where jokes are flying about all politicians' looks, that's one thing. But when it comes to serious discussion of any politician, be they male or female, black or white, etc., it seems pointless to make mention of any of their looks, period. At this point I don't care about Trump's hair or Clinton's Botox or whatever. I care about their politics.