2016 U.S. General Election

[Poe Dameron]

 

 

Why would you even say this when you'd never say anything remotely like it about a male candidate?

 

I'll just step over the crassness of the original post to address the outrage at the idea that such a thing would never be applied to a male candidate and point out that the size of Trump's penis managed to become a campaign issue earlier this year.

 

The importance of physical attractiveness in politicians is NOT a new concept that's only being applied to women. It's not some big coincidence that we've only elected one bald president in the past 135 years (Eisenhower) or that most are tall. And, like it or not, women who wanted to bang Kennedy provided him with the margin he needed to get into the Oval Office over the less attractive Nixon.

[Driver]

You make some legit male examples-- but it's only a few. Hillary is constantly asked "who she's wearing," a question that no male politician ever gets.

 

I know the conservative side likes to say there's equal ridiculousness by trotting out a few outlier examples, but the numbers are incredibly disproportionate.

 

Besides, in a controlled comparison we'd have to stick to Marc's rhetoric and as far as I know the only times he's mentioned wieners is when he's concerned about ladies having them in Target bathrooms.

[Poe Dameron]

I know the conservative side likes to say there's equal ridiculousness by trotting out a few outlier examples, but the numbers are incredibly disproportionate.

 

It's not outliers though. Being physically attractive is simply a good way to get votes. Always has been, especially in the age of television. When I'm judging a candidate's chance to win, you better believe that I take their physical appearance and charisma into account, male or female.

 

Eight years ago Democrats were crowing about how HD killed McCain's chances. Four years ago, Mitt Romney never heard a peep about his age despite being in his mid-60s because he looks unusually young for his age. Earlier this year Cruz's physical appearance was constantly brought up because he's got those droopy eyes. Rubio had trouble being taken seriously because he looked too young. Do I even need to mention Christie's weight? On the Democrat side, the younger more dynamic Obama took out Clinton 8 years ago. I can keep going, I'm only touching on a few examples at the presidential level.

 

These are not outliers. This is a rather basic part of politics. In the end, it's all a popularity contest.

 

 

 

Hillary is constantly asked "who she's wearing," a question that no male politician ever gets.

 

That's not even really the same thing. Do you really imagine that question is coming from pigs and woman haters? That the dank lower reaches of the internet concerned with whether they'd have sex with her are asking each other who designed her pantsuits?

 

That question is being asked by publications catering to the interests of women.

[Marc DuQuesne]

http://nypost.com/2016/09/14/ex-congressman-says-hillary-knows-you-dont-want-to-have-sex-with-her/

[Driver]

If you don't see the connection, you don't see my point.

[Guest]

Your point is that she gets asked sexist questions because people care what she's wearing and about her looks.

 

Part of the reason Bill got elected was because he was young and attractive. So, sure there is a degree of sexism, you'd have to be wearing blinders to ignore it, but there are also plenty of examples of looks being used for men: Edwards and Ryan come to mind immediately, along with Bill Clinton. Pretending that these things don't exist means that Hillary is just a victim who needs to be protected, which is a form of sexism too.

[Driver]

Looks are important-- we've known that forever. FDR had wheelchair shame and Nixon being painted like a clown for his debates was TMZ fodder for its day.

 

Not saying it doesn't work in both directions, just that it is disproportionate and women face it way more than men do. I'd also say that while it's a factor, I think it plays far more into a position of attack against females.

 

Sure we could say Bill was handsome-- but his opposition didn't use that against him constantly. There was no HE'S TOO PRETTY TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY BY FORIEGN OFFICIALS.

 

Again, I'm reacting to Marc's initial comment for context and the fact that he went for the low hanging fruit. He's representative of a problem I think.

 

This goes back to the beginning of the season when people would say they wouldn't vote for her because I DONT TRUST HER and SHE'S SO COLD. Nothing about her politics-- again, just the easiest base snide remarks.

 

I'd be foolish to think political debate can happen with only rhetoric and policy taken into account, but that doesn't mean I can't call somebody on the opposite side of me (who wants to be taken seriously) out for having an attack based on their use of pejorative crass statements in the same breath as legit policy concerns.

[Poe Dameron]

I'd be foolish to think political debate can happen with only rhetoric and policy taken into account, but that doesn't mean I can't call somebody on the opposite side of me (who wants to be taken seriously) out for having an attack based on their use of pejorative crass statements in the same breath as legit policy concerns.

 

Didn't say you couldn't. As a matter of fact, I said I was side-stepping the crassness of the original post and specifically addressing your comment that, "you'd never say anything remotely like it about a male candidate".

 

The specific comment I highlighted didn't seem to have much nuance. It totally ignores that comments like these happen all the time to male politicians (yes, including youthful looks being a negative for strength, see Rubio). Despite it being drawn out by a troll post, it remind me of the reflexive "You don't like Obama because he's black" nonsense we've had for the past 8 years and "You don't like Clinton because she's a woman" we'll hear as long as Clinton is a thing.

[Carrie Mathison]

Not saying it doesn't work in both directions, just that it is disproportionate and women face it way more than men do. I'd also say that while it's a factor, I think it plays far more into a position of attack against females.

Has this actually been proven?

 

I mean, I understand this is the oft-repeated Democrat scripted talking point on this subject, but has there actually been a reputable, scientific study on this? I once looked, and admittedly it wasn't for very long, but I couldn't really find anything other than blog articles linking to other articles, that were mainly assertions by journalists with no evidence. I'm not trying to be cheeky on this, I'm actually being serious- I'd love to see something quantifiable on this subject.

 

I could be wrong, but what I suspect, is that you're just more sensitive to hearing certain things about Clinton, because you've trained your ear to perk up for anything that could be remotely construed as sexist or insensitive, whereas anything about a male's appearance you just don't notice since you're subconsciously not considering it an insensitive remark.

 

The truth is, almost every critique I've seen out there about Trump mentions the same type of things- his hair, his orange tan, and so on. For about a month last year the most frequent criticism I saw from the left about Trump was that he supposedly had a small penis. When people say that Clinton is "so cold" and so on, I'm not sure that's really all that different than people saying Trump is "unhinged" or some nonsense about how supposedly he will "start World War III" (even though that is actually the opposite of Trump's position, which is to actually decrease our military engagement in the Middle East and in NATO, and not to mention that no President can unilaterally launch nuclear weapons by pressing a button because of the two-man rule, but hey, details).

 

Along those lines, I remember the same type of criticism being thrown Romney's way in 2012- that he was "too robotic" and "doesn't care about poor people." The people saying these things, of course, would be hard pressed to actually name any difference between Romney and Obama in 2012, just that "Romney doesn't look like he cares." Bringing us back to the present, let's take Olbermann's much publicized return last week, in which his first comment about Trump had nothing to do with policies, but rather, were the two things you criticize, mentioning looks and getting the heebie-jeebies... when he said Trump is the "demonic messiah in Oompa Loompa's clothing." Not really sure where the policy discussion is there...

 

Truth of the matter is Tank, that as much as it pains me to say it, Poe is right. Stuff like looks and how a candidate "makes you feel" has certainly been the most important thing since 1960, if not earlier, when the first TV debate was held between JFK and Nixon and JFK was deemed to have "won the debate" by those who watched it on TV, though those who only listened to it on the radio thought Nixon won since he was clearly more knowledgeable on the issues. Up until that point Nixon was leading in the polls and the election is still one of the closest in American history. It's not an exaggeration to say that if Nixon didn't sweat so much and was more attractive and a better dresser, he may very well have won and the entire course of the 20th century would've been different.

[Marc DuQuesne]

If you don't see the connection, you don't see my point.

Connection to what? You had a fit because I posted that nobody wants to have sex with Hillary Clinton. I then gave you a link to what I was referencing so we could be on the same page. I wasn't trying to insult HRC's sexual attractiveness or lack thereof. I was giggling about a supporter telling everyone that nobody (not even Bill obviously) wants to have sex with her, so she has a lot of time, repressed sexual energy, and hatred to put to work for our country. She can be the woman scorned we always wanted.

[Driver]

 

I'd be foolish to think political debate can happen with only rhetoric and policy taken into account, but that doesn't mean I can't call somebody on the opposite side of me (who wants to be taken seriously) out for having an attack based on their use of pejorative crass statements in the same breath as legit policy concerns.

Didn't say you couldn't. As a matter of fact, I said I was side-stepping the crassness of the original post and specifically addressing your comment that, "you'd never say anything remotely like it about a male candidate".

 

The specific comment I highlighted didn't seem to have much nuance. It totally ignores that comments like these happen all the time to male politicians (yes, including youthful looks being a negative for strength, see Rubio). Despite it being drawn out by a troll post, it remind me of the reflexive "You don't like Obama because he's black" nonsense we've had for the past 8 years and "You don't like Clinton because she's a woman" we'll hear as long as Clinton is a thing.

 

very fair point!

 

 

Not saying it doesn't work in both directions, just that it is disproportionate and women face it way more than men do. I'd also say that while it's a factor, I think it plays far more into a position of attack against females.

Has this actually been proven?

 

I mean, I understand this is the oft-repeated Democrat scripted talking point on this subject, but has there actually been a reputable, scientific study on this? I once looked, and admittedly it wasn't for very long, but I couldn't really find anything other than blog articles linking to other articles, that were mainly assertions by journalists with no evidence. I'm not trying to be cheeky on this, I'm actually being serious- I'd love to see something quantifiable on this subject.

 

I could be wrong, but what I suspect, is that you're just more sensitive to hearing certain things about Clinton, because you've trained your ear to perk up for anything that could be remotely construed as sexist or insensitive, whereas anything about a male's appearance you just don't notice since you're subconsciously not considering it an insensitive remark.

 

...

 

Truth of the matter is Tank, that as much as it pains me to say it, Poe is right. Stuff like looks and how a candidate "makes you feel" has certainly been the most important thing since 1960, if not earlier, when the first TV debate was held between JFK and Nixon and JFK was deemed to have "won the debate" by those who watched it on TV, though those who only listened to it on the radio thought Nixon won since he was clearly more knowledgeable on the issues. Up until that point Nixon was leading in the polls and the election is still one of the closest in American history. It's not an exaggeration to say that if Nixon didn't sweat so much and was more attractive and a better dresser, he may very well have won and the entire course of the 20th century would've been different.

 

Like I said above-- Poe makes a very valid point and I can concede to that to an extent. Candidates are under the microscope for everything. I brought up Nixon's clownface as well...

 

When I say disproportionate though I'm probably expanding in a lot of directions-- which I could have been clearer about. I am reminded of the wage gap in my industry frequently. I'm also thinking about female casting, and conservatives trying to pass measures that are an affront to women. I don't need to open a can of worms with that, and obviously a lot of people think this is something the democrats hype to get women voters-- but that doesn't make it completely untrue.

 

But hey, if you're Howard Dean you can throw an entire campaign by making the wrong noise.

 

 

 

If you don't see the connection, you don't see my point.

Connection to what? You had a fit because I posted that nobody wants to have sex with Hillary Clinton. I then gave you a link to what I was referencing so we could be on the same page. I wasn't trying to insult HRC's sexual attractiveness or lack thereof. I was giggling about a supporter telling everyone that nobody (not even Bill obviously) wants to have sex with her, so she has a lot of time, repressed sexual energy, and hatred to put to work for our country. She can be the woman scorned we always wanted.

 

"Fit?"

 

I didn't realize taking a troll comment to task means I'm throwing a fit. Once again, you picture me giving way more of a crap about what you say than I do. Reminds me of the time you called me a little bitch because you got tired of me questioning your nonsense.

 

For future reference, I laugh* at most of the things you post, and don't really care once I walk away from the computer.

 

* = that's laughing AT, not WITH

[Carrie Mathison]

When I say disproportionate though I'm probably expanding in a lot of directions-- which I could have been clearer about. I am reminded of the wage gap in my industry frequently. I'm also thinking about female casting, and conservatives trying to pass measures that are an affront to women. I don't need to open a can of worms with that, and obviously a lot of people think this is something the democrats hype to get women voters-- but that doesn't make it completely untrue.

Well fair enough, but now you're talking about a completely different phenomenon. Something like the wage gap is an entirely different discussion and topic, and that one actually does have some research on it that I've read (although, it should be noted, the conclusion of such research is not always what liberals expect).

 

My post to you was in regards to only the claim that women are more frequently criticized (or just commented on) with stuff like appearance and demeanor, and again, I'm not sure there's actually any scientific basis to back that up.

 

Now the question of whether women are treated differently than men, generally speaking, is true, but to what degree, when, and whether that is actually even a negative thing (or sometimes can be a positive thing), is like I said, an entirely different discussion that goes way beyond the election.

[Guest El Chalupacabra]

 

 

If you don't see the connection, you don't see my point.

Connection to what? You had a fit because I posted that nobody wants to have sex with Hillary Clinton. I then gave you a link to what I was referencing so we could be on the same page. I wasn't trying to insult HRC's sexual attractiveness or lack thereof. I was giggling about a supporter telling everyone that nobody (not even Bill obviously) wants to have sex with her, so she has a lot of time, repressed sexual energy, and hatred to put to work for our country. She can be the woman scorned we always wanted.

 

"Fit?"

 

I didn't realize taking a troll comment to task means I'm throwing a fit. Once again, you picture me giving way more of a crap about what you say than I do. Reminds me of the time you called me a little bitch because you got tired of me questioning your nonsense.

 

For future reference, I laugh* at most of the things you post, and don't really care once I walk away from the computer.

 

* = that's laughing AT, not WITH

 

I care even less.

 

Everything the guy says is a troll comment. Which is why I have him on ignore, because most of what he has to say isn't even worth my time to chuckle at or find laughable.

[Marc DuQuesne]

 

It was oversensitive little bitch. As evidence I point to the fact that you are still crying about it.

[Driver]

Again, your interpretation of how you effect me is grossly overrated.

[Marc DuQuesne]

Mental exercise: try to think of an argument which is proven false by the will to argue.

[Marc DuQuesne]

 

Sad for her, this likely a win or go to jail situation for her.

Do you ever perform at clubs, or are you purely a message board comedian?

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/20/clinton-email-wiper-appears-to-have-asked-online-how-to-hide-vip-info.html

 

Boom. Conspiracy, etc, so on and such. Of course the guy who did it at her instruction already has immunity. In return for testifying? Of course not, for keeping his mouth shut. Trump wins, she gets locked up.

[Driver]

Wait, the fair and balanced team at Fox News has exposed Hillary corruption?

[Marc DuQuesne]

No, read the story, "citizen-detectives on Reddit" exposed this particular corruption. Fox News just happens to be covering it.

[Driver]

Nah

[Ms. Spam]

GAWD. Ted Cruz is such a crap politician. Not only has he endorsed Trump this week, he's been quietly selling Trump his donor list of emails six weeks after he bowed out of the race.

[Driver]

GAWD. Ted Cruz is such a crap politician human being. Not only has he endorsed Trump this week, he's been quietly selling Trump his donor list of emails six weeks after he bowed out of the race.

Fixed.

[Guest El Chalupacabra]

GAWD. Ted Cruz is such a crap politician. Not only has he endorsed Trump this week, he's been quietly selling Trump his donor list of emails six weeks after he bowed out of the race.

I am sure he sold his official endorsement, too. That was probably what his tirade at the GOP convention was all about and Trump hadn't paid up at that point. But then again, I'd bet that most of the other GOP candidates did the same thing, too. I wouldn't put it past Trump to wave some money in their faces in order for them to take a powder this time around with the promise of cabinet positions for some of them, and favors for others if he wins.

[Ms. Spam]

The GOP is so confusing to me right now.

[Guest]

Cruz had to give Trump at least a half-hearted endorsement (which he did). The race is tightening up, so Cruz can't afford to be a holdout and get blamed for Hillary winning. He still wants to be president, and you can't do that without support from the party. Its one thing to be a rebel within the party, something else to be against the party entirely.