Jump to content

OMG! Hillary announces!


Ms. Spam
 Share

Recommended Posts

The GOP is the party of the old, dusty, Ward Cleaver racist misogynists.

That's not true of the ENTIRE party or all it's supporters. However, the GOP is a lightning rod for the kinds of people who do have reactionary, chauvenist ideas. I think that's their big weakness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could be wrong, and I have no evidence to back it up, but my impression is more that Democrats cry in social media against things, but vote for people. Republicans also cry on social media, but vote against people more. So Hillary will have to become someone worth voting for, and not just present someone to vote against.

 

If it becomes a challenge solely of who can be more engaged by hatred of the other, Republicans will win hands down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are no democrats like me, CM. I might tick left on certain social issues, but I'm a registered independent, and have been since 2004.

There are over 40 million registered Dems in the nation, and over 60 million that lean that direction, even if not registered. But, no... none are similar to you on the ideological spectrum, LOL :rolleyes:

 

I came this close to voting McCain in '08. Palin was their undoing. So to say I will vote for a woman is not true.

Do you still not understand that I wasn't talking about you individually?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I don't find anybody from the GOP side appealing and will prolly end up voting for some hopeless libertarian again, I can easily see Hillary being not just beaten but embarrassed in a debate with anybody not named Ted Cruz or Ted Nugent -- to the point where her supporters have nothing to fall back on other than how sexist it was for her opponent to drub her so badly.

 

I'm not saying that will happen -- I don't know what will happen -- but her skill as a campaigner and debater leaves me unimpressed, and I won't be at all surprised if all three branches of the government are GOP-ish come January 2017.

 

And I'm not just saying that because I look forward to bathing in monkeygirl's tears of confusion and rage when President Ward Cleaver takes the oath of office.

 

:eek:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I don't find anybody from the GOP side appealing and will prolly end up voting for some hopeless libertarian again, I can easily see Hillary being not just beaten but embarrassed in a debate with anybody not named Ted Cruz or Ted Nugent -- to the point where her supporters have nothing to fall back on other than how sexist it was for her opponent to drub her so badly.

Even Jeb?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I came this close to voting McCain in '08. Palin was their undoing. So to say I will vote for a woman is not true.

Do you still not understand that I wasn't talking about you individually?

 

 

Yes. I do. I'm trying to point out that I won't blindly vote for a woman because WHOA I am a woman. It was made as a point earlier in the discussion about the types of votes that will be made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't need to say it, I'm just curious to hear your reasoning.

Simple: he's faster on his feet than she is, and comes off as more comfortable in his own (bloated, toad-like) skin. For political junkies, that doesn't matter, but it's pretty huge advantage for a televised debate (and who cares about the political junkies anyway -- their minds were made up last year). Jeb isn't a great debator/orator, but he's better than Hillary, and that's as good as he needs to be.

 

He gets too much misunderestimation from the Facebook/Twitter political class 'cause of his dad (smart, but never a fan of public speaking; hated debates) and especially his brother (not the mentally challenged caricature people portray him as, but laughably bad at times), and because the FB/Twitter Chatterers are primarily composed of close-minded lefties who view conservative/Republican beliefs through a lens of pathology rather than as a philosophy worth examining on its merits (or lack thereof).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest El Chalupacabra

 

There are no democrats like me, CM. I might tick left on certain social issues, but I'm a registered independent, and have been since 2004.

There are over 40 million registered Dems in the nation, and over 60 million that lean that direction, even if not registered. But, no... none are similar to you on the ideological spectrum, LOL :rolleyes:

 

 

 

That's right. I'm not a democrat, therefore a democrat is not like me.

 

You just keep digging yourself deeper into the hole, because you can't admit you effed up and made assumptions about me that were wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Calm down for a second and actually read what I'm writing before you start typing your response.

I was making a claim about how the median Democrat voter will act in the election. I did not say registered Democrat. Nor did I claim that you were one. I am talking about the hypothetical voter that is similar to you in voting pattern and ideology.

 

I don't understand why it has taken 3 posts for you to get this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You don't need to say it, I'm just curious to hear your reasoning.

Simple: he's faster on his feet than she is, and comes off as more comfortable in his own (bloated, toad-like) skin. For political junkies, that doesn't matter, but it's pretty huge advantage for a televised debate (and who cares about the political junkies anyway -- their minds were made up last year). Jeb isn't a great debator/orator, but he's better than Hillary, and that's as good as he needs to be.

 

He gets too much misunderestimation from the Facebook/Twitter political class 'cause of his dad (smart, but never a fan of public speaking; hated debates) and especially his brother (not the mentally challenged caricature people portray him as, but laughably bad at times), and because the FB/Twitter Chatterers are primarily composed of close-minded lefties who view conservative/Republican beliefs through a lens of pathology rather than as a philosophy worth examining on its merits (or lack thereof).

 

All reasonable points. I have a little more confidence in Clinton than you do, but we're splitting hairs at that point. Neither have been truly tested in a national debate, so there is a little bit of an unknown factor we're working with.

 

Pong, one thing I've wondered, and I've asked you before (but received no response), why do you think Jeb is such a toad? I mean, he's a corporatist, sure, but then again, so is everyone that isn't Paul. I think once you strip away all the propaganda, he'd probably ultimately govern similar to HW. His true ideology (when not speaking to the Tea Party) is probably about the same. Maybe a little more hawkish, but the national mood has changed so much on that, he probably won't get a long leash.

 

So what gives? I mean, he's not particularly likeable, I get that, but I've never seen him as any worse than the average politician.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CM: I could write paragraphs outlining his hypocrisies, the mistakes I believe he's made, my philosophical differences with the man, but the bottom line is... I simply have a visceral dislike of the Jeb that I can't explain, have had it since the Terri Schiavo media feeding (tube) frenzy, and it's never gone away. So basically, I'd be wasting a lot of both our time to justify how I feel with a laundry list. There are plenty of hypocritical, mistaking, philosophically backward politicians I don't feel this way about, and I understand that the Terri Schiavo thing was a lot more complicated than the media and pundits made it out to be.

 

Unlike you, I actually suspect he is more conservative (or at least more of a true believer) than both his father and brother, but again, that doesn't in and of itself mean he would be the worst president evar, so why bother going into it? It will always boil down to the simple fact that I find him repellent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest El Chalupacabra

Calm down for a second and actually read what I'm writing before you start typing your response.

 

I was making a claim about how the median Democrat voter will act in the election. I did not say registered Democrat. Nor did I claim that you were one. I am talking about the hypothetical voter that is similar to you in voting pattern and ideology.

 

I don't understand why it has taken 3 posts for you to get this.

Why is it you don't grasp the concept that for one to be a democrat, one must be registered as one? Also, you have no clue as to how I vote, so quit trying to use me as some sort of case study for your flawed tl;dr.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OMG guys, stop calling her by her first name. That's so sexist.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/14/opinions/drexler-dont-call-her-hillary/index.html

This particular craziness got ignored in this thread, and that's a shame.

 

Is it more sexist to insist on calling her by her first name, or to REFUSE to call her by her first name, as she indicates she wants (her campaign logo is an H for crying out loud!) because she's a woman and has to be protected?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

OMG guys, stop calling her by her first name. That's so sexist.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/14/opinions/drexler-dont-call-her-hillary/index.html

This particular craziness got ignored in this thread, and that's a shame.

 

Is it more sexist to insist on calling her by her first name, or to REFUSE to call her by her first name, as she indicates she wants (her campaign logo is an H for crying out loud!) because she's a woman and has to be protected?

 

I am sure she is paying some marketing company some big bucks to come up with all of these logos and shape her campaign. The question is, who does she want to (or need to) appeal to? There is a reason behind every single piece of propaganda her campaign puts out there. I think she's probably courting the youth vote and the Democratic base.

 

I can kind of see the original author's point, that we're perhaps not showing her equal respect by calling her by her first name. It is certainly less formal. But if she's chosen that as the monkier she wants to go by, then that's her call. Titles alone do not command respect. Currently, she has no title, but she has an impressive resume. Personally, right now, Hillary has more power than "Mrs. Clinton". BUT HER TITLE HAS THE TRAPPINGS OF HER HUSBAND OMG SEXISM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CM: I could write paragraphs outlining his hypocrisies, the mistakes I believe he's made, my philosophical differences with the man, but the bottom line is... I simply have a visceral dislike of the Jeb that I can't explain, have had it since the Terri Schiavo media feeding (tube) frenzy, and it's never gone away. So basically, I'd be wasting a lot of both our time to justify how I feel with a laundry list. There are plenty of hypocritical, mistaking, philosophically backward politicians I don't feel this way about, and I understand that the Terri Schiavo thing was a lot more complicated than the media and pundits made it out to be.

 

Unlike you, I actually suspect he is more conservative (or at least more of a true believer) than both his father and brother, but again, that doesn't in and of itself mean he would be the worst president evar, so why bother going into it? It will always boil down to the simple fact that I find him repellent.

Ah, so it was the Schiavo thing. I get it. We actually are probably pretty close on that issue, though it didn't really bother me quite as much. Still, I get it.

 

By the way, when you say "I'd be wasting a lot of both our time to justify how I feel" ... etc.

 

I wasn't asking you to necessarily justify anything. I was honestly just curious. The question was intended to be harmless.

 

I actually agree that he is perhaps a notch more conservative. That's why I said he'd be more likely to be a hawk on some issues (see my post above). There are a couple other issues too. I was just saying that he was within the same realm as HW. When it's all said and done, evaluating the policies he'd actually stick his neck out for and so on, I think the end outcome of his presidency policy-wise, wouldn't be too different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Calm down for a second and actually read what I'm writing before you start typing your response.

 

I was making a claim about how the median Democrat voter will act in the election. I did not say registered Democrat. Nor did I claim that you were one. I am talking about the hypothetical voter that is similar to you in voting pattern and ideology.

 

I don't understand why it has taken 3 posts for you to get this.

Why is it you don't grasp the concept that for one to be a democrat, one must be registered as one? Also, you have no clue as to how I vote, so quit trying to use me as some sort of case study for your flawed tl;dr.

 

OK man. Look I don't want to argue with you anymore if you don't want to talk politics and about the actual point I was trying to make.

 

Still though, why are you being such a c-ck to me in this thread? Been having a bad week?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.