2016 US Presidential Election Thread IX

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
But I think a female candidate can be seen as likeable while still being tough and having leadership qualities, just HRC (and VP wannabe Carly also) can't.

This is an excellent point. Carly Fiorina is terribly unlikeable. More unlikeable than Hillary. And so is Ted Cruz.
 
There are no norms this year. Conventional wisdom is out the window.

Hillary is in trouble. And in these wild times, a socialist would beat a populist businessman.

Anoa Changa is a feminist who isn’t going to vote for Hillary Clinton. Last July, when the 34-year-old Atlanta-based attorney began volunteering with the grassroots organization Women for Bernie Sanders, she received immediate pushback from other women. Over social media, they accused her and other Sanders volunteers of betraying their gender, and of being fake feminists. Even former professors and friends questioned how she could support the Vermont senator over the secretary of state.

“Some women I encounter act as if I’ve betrayed some kind of secret society,” says Changa. “I reject this brand of feminism. I’m not only voting for my gender, I’m voting for other issues.”

For the first time in its history, America is close to electing a female president, yet many women from across the political spectrum don’t like Clinton.

It’s true that, as a whole, women support her more than both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, but that support is not nearly as overwhelming as black voter support was for Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012. Millennial women, for example, prefer Sanders to Clinton and 49% of American women give the secretary of state an unfavorable rating.

33E2209100000578-0-image-a-24_1462568617604.jpg


33E268D200000578-0-image-a-28_1462570408420.jpg
 
Last edited:
Yeah, probably not. The difference between a middle class citizen filing bankruptcy or a small business owner filing bankruptcy and Trump is that most don't ever recover from bankruptcy.


On the personal bankruptcy side you can't get a mortgage for 7 years. Not a death knell. Unless you're one of those people who fall into mindset that you need to 'own' you will survive.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
There are no norms this year. Conventional wisdom is out the window.

Hillary is in trouble. And in these wild times, a socialist would beat a populist businessman.

So that's your opinion, and it must be a fact because one opinion piece backs it up.

:wink:
 
On the personal bankruptcy side you can't get a mortgage for 7 years. Not a death knell. Unless you're one of those people who fall into mindset that you need to 'own' you will survive.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Well it's a lot more than that, it's 7 years after the last activity, which could be years after the filing, but it's not just mortgages it's most credit.

But what I was meaning is that statistically most do not recover in the sense of returning to the same financial place prior to their filing.
 
We do have the pass 6 months, for those of us that live in the real world.

There have been elections where Hillary was expected to win by 8-9 points and lost by quite a few. And then there are all your fantasy postings that Trump was just doing this for a lark, for the publicity and would fold and be out. Why not read a legit newspaper or two and apply some critical thinking. Is that too much too ask? And that was a rhetorical question. So please carry on.
 
Last edited:
better than FB postings. That was suggested as a start, multiple sourcing from many points of view is what I would recommend. It seems like people don't want to understand the arguments and just want to label the opposition as scum, worthless pieces of shit. I am not ready to write off 50% of Americans because at this point in time their opinion might be different from my current conclusions. I do have a hard time relating to the abusive and hostile language people use to put forth their arguments. So I try and find more measured presenters of those positions so I can understand why one believes a certain way.
 
better than FB postings. That was suggested as a start, multiple sourcing from many points of view is what I would recommend. It seems like people don't want to understand the arguments and just want to label the opposition as scum, worthless pieces of shit. I am not ready to write off 50% of Americans because at this point in time their opinion might be different from my current conclusions. I do have a hard time relating to the abusive and hostile language people use to put forth their arguments. So I try and find more measured presenters of those positions so I can understand why one believes a certain way.



:up:
 
If I talk about misogyny, will people respond the same way they do when someone brings up race and Obama? (STOP SAYING I'M RACIST IF I DISAGREE WITH OBAMA)

Because it's an issue (not the only issue, but it is present) here.

Gender is more complex than even race, and there may be something about the power of the presidency -- it's not like being PM, there are real differences -- that makes men (and many women) upset when envisioning a woman in that position.

I know, I know. HRC has been around for 25 years. She's as establishment as they come. She's "unlikeable." She's shrill. Earlier we talked about how much of a bitch she was or wasn't. Remember that?

Is the presidency so inherently alpha that any female candidate would be "unlikeable"?

Don't think so. I liked the takes anitram and Hewson gave.
 
This article written by Robert Kagan a Republican and former foreign policy advisor to John McCain, who's now become an independent. He denies being a neo-con, but others see him as the role model for all neo-cons. But as he works his way through what appears to be a life-long identity crisis, he's written an Op-Ed about Donald Trump that is dead-on, and truly frightening to think about.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-b:homepage/story
 
This article written by Robert Kagan a Republican and former foreign policy advisor to John McCain, who's now become an independent. He denies being a neo-con, but others see him as the role model for all neo-cons. But as he works his way through what appears to be a life-long identity crisis, he's written an Op-Ed about Donald Trump that is dead-on, and truly frightening to think about.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-b:homepage/story

It's pretty spot on, but just take a look at the comment section and you'll see that no amount of information will matter; he's just a part of the "establishment" set on taking Trump down.
 
The gender issue makes me question whether or not Clinton is so gung ho about the military because she feels that anything else will make her look weak because she's a woman. But that doesn't make me feel any better about her foreign policy, just sadder about sexism and the state of things.
 
The gender issue makes me question whether or not Clinton is so gung ho about the military because she feels that anything else will make her look weak because she's a woman. But that doesn't make me feel any better about her foreign policy, just sadder about sexism and the state of things.



And this gets at where I was trying to go. It's not that people necessarily make consciously sexist choices when they vote, but that structural misogyny shapes the way we understand female politicians, and leadership in general.
 
Last edited:
The gender issue makes me question whether or not Clinton is so gung ho about the military because she feels that anything else will make her look weak because she's a woman. But that doesn't make me feel any better about her foreign policy, just sadder about sexism and the state of things.

Honestly, that wouldn't surprise me. And that's what I find so interesting about the right's reaction to her-given some of the things she's supported that people on the right were all for at one point (or still do support), I would think that would, at the very least, make them think that she might be willing to work with them or something, or at least make them not hate her quite as much. And yet... It reminds me a lot of how the moment Obama dared to support anything the GOP was in favor of, they suddenly decided they didn't like or support it anymore.

And then I think about the GOP's attitudes on various issues of particular importance to women, and their vehement reaction to Hilary doesn't seem all that surprising to me anymore (and mind, I'm speaking about the actual party organization and politicians themselves, not the average voters here).

Do I think everyone who's got issues with Hilary is sexist in their reasoning? Of course not. Just like I don't think everyone who disagrees with Obama is racist. I think anitram and Hewson made some good arguments in their posts about some of the reasons why Hilary might be off-putting to some people, and I don't disagree with those on the left who take issue with things like her supporting the Iraq War, or other issues that the GOP supports and the Democrats don't. Heck, I mentioned months back that the whole thing with Gloria Steinem and Madeleine Albright shaming women who didn't support Hilary was a pretty shitty and bothersome thing to do, and not exactly the smartest way of endearing oneself to female voters.

But when I see someone complain about Hilary being dishonest and untrustworthy, and then mention in the same breath they're voting for Trump, or when I see them go on and on about her scandals while giving male politicians they support more of a pass for doing equally as questionable things (or being accused of them, anyway), or get on her about changing her position on an issue while not being bothered that a male politician did the same (how many times has Trump contradicted himself thus far in this campaign now?)...yeah, I'm probably gonna side-eye them a little.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom