Are Hillary's opponents just anti-women?

by Original Quill Mon May 23, 2016 10:16 pm

POLITICO wrote:Hillary’s Woman Problem

Hillary Clinton is an unquestioned pioneer—no woman has ever been president, or come anywhere near as close as she has. To many older feminists—the generation who lived through Women’s Lib, fought for Title IX and can quote The Feminine Mystique—this is a profound and galvanizing moment. The prize is in sight. Finally, young women across the country have the chance to finish the job their mothers and grandmothers started, and help vault Clinton into office. For those women who think otherwise, “there’s a special place in hell,” as Madeleine Albright put it this week.

But so far, the opposite appears to be happening: In New Hampshire’s primary, Bernie Sanders, a 74-year-old white man, won 53 percent of the female vote, compared with Clinton’s 46 percent. And his numbers among young women were astonishing: 82 percent of women under age 30 supported him. What’s going on here? Why are millennial women giving up on Clinton? We asked a wide range of women—younger, older, in between, feminists and not—to deliberate on that question. Clinton’s shot at history just might depend on the answer.

If she were black, or gay, or poor, young liberals might be more inclined to vote for her," [said Molly Roberts, a] senior at Harvard University and columnist for the Harvard Crimson.

Hillary Clinton’s presidency would be epochal—the first time in 227 years of American history that a woman would lead the White House’s West Wing rather than the East. So why do young people see this election cycle’s “outsider” as another gray-haired white guy?

There’s more to it than just young people’s attraction to radical change. Feminism has changed, especially on campus, and among the left-leaning. The fact is, among certain segments of the liberal millennial population, Clinton’s gender is simply not enough to make her a ground breaker. She might be a woman, but she is also white, and well-off, and straight. If she were black, or gay, or poor—as well as female, some young liberals might be more inclined to vote for her.

When I wrote a column recently for the Harvard Crimson explaining why I think many young women don’t like Clinton—and why they should—I got pushback from people who thought I was focusing too much on Clinton’s gender and not enough on the ways in which, despite being a woman, she has a leg up on most Americans. One online comment read:

“Establishment Harvard student exhorts her peers to support establishment Democratic candidate.” Another critique came in a Facebook status accusing me of ignoring the perspectives of minorities.

This vein of criticism is part of a concept that’s been around since the 1980s but just recently come into campus vogue—“intersectionality.” The word is shorthand for the idea that it’s impossible to separate social identities, or the oppression that surrounds them. Clinton may be a woman, but she is also white—and thus privileged. When Gloria Steinem and Madeline Albright stand up for Clinton and urge young women to get behind her, they seem understandably shocked that women aren’t rallying together to help break through another final, uncracked pane of the glass ceiling. When a modern campus feminist watches the same scene, she sees a group of older, privileged white women circling the wagons around one of their own.

To many on the left, then, Clinton’s gender is simply not enough to make her exciting. She doesn’t belong to enough categories of disenfranchised people. In fact, some argue, the ways Clinton does fit into the establishment outweigh the way she doesn’t. Maybe it’s easier for people in a generation where more women than men are graduating from college to forget how difficult it once was to be female in the United States. The focus on hardship has shifted from sex to privilege as the country has moved forward on gender equality.

But, when women still struggle for equal pay and equal representation in government and industry, I’d argue that the country hasn’t moved forward far enough. Though it’s important that women be represented by black women, queer women and poor women, it’s surprising to me that, before any woman has even made it close to the White House, so many are spending time finding fault with the kind of woman who just might get there.
(This response has been condensed from a full article.

Why Millennials Don’t Care That Hillary Clinton Is a Woman
By MOLLY ROBERTS

It seems Americans are more afraid of a female president than a black president. It is a quaint touch that Republicans are putting up Donald Trump--the great anti-feminist and misogynist--to counter her. It's a perfect test of what America believes in.

by Guest Mon May 23, 2016 10:47 pm

People must think that running for POTUS office in America is the have all - do all for any red-blooded-American to aspire for their BUCKET LIST!

Before I die, I want to run for political office and be treated to all of the worst haranguing/public humiliation/verbal abuse and slander that all of those 'walk-on-water' humans are able to dish out!

This woman has had every innuendo - horrible rumor - nasty insult - BS hyped up/make believe attempt to knock her down and keep her there then any other American, I've watched.
And the only thing they have left is; 'SHE'S A LIAR' Evil or Very Mad

But some of this is because the GOP was left lounging on their sofa's/lingering in their beer joints/setting around their man-caves chuckling about the likelihood of some 'Black Dude' becoming our POTUS - and then yet again --- Are Hillary's opponents just anti-women? 2581891615

Are Hillary's opponents just anti-women? 2581891615

So they got their GOP asses handed to them for piss poor voter turn out and they are as flummoxed and confused as a pack of rabid dogs ...and they've kept the racist/ugly/asinine attacks going at POTUS Obama non-stop!
So HRC is getting her bonfire/arsonist attacks ...at every stop; the GOP is afraid to fail yet again.

by Original Quill Tue May 24, 2016 12:13 am

I know. It's clear there was a 'we/they' thing going on with Obama. It was racial, but we knew America is a racist nation, beginning in slavery, and still going strong in racial animus.

I never got to gauge how America feels about women leaders. Well part of that was that Obama was such a phenomenal representative of his race that he turned out to be not only a great black president, but one of our two or three best presidents ever.

Unfortunately, Hillary is not so spectacular. But I feel a lot more comfortable with her than I did with Ronald Reagan, with his bite-sized wars everywhere.

But I'm beginning to recognize Sander's supporters as just disaffected Republicans, who were pissed at their lying leaders. He may be slightly pink, but at least he's a male. That puts Hillary's position in an entirely different light. Apparently it is a woman thing.

by veya_victaous Tue May 24, 2016 1:07 am

saying people anti hilliary are anti women is a cop out

notice that those that call out her shittyness the most are often left wing people from nations that have already had a least one female leader.

the gender card doesn't change the fact she is a sell out, poster child for what is wrong with the system.

by Guest Tue May 24, 2016 1:15 am

I don't buy those talking sound bites Veya and I never have;
A.) she's highly educated
B.) she's got a ridged back bone; know any other female that could handle all the BS that she's been through {private & public}
C.) she's poised - she's knowledgeable - she's well traveled - and she knows what it takes to do the JOB
And right now ...now that puts her eons ahead of Trump and even Bernie {as much as I do like him} I won't be voting for him!

by veya_victaous Tue May 24, 2016 1:32 am

4EVER2 wrote:I don't buy those talking sound bites Veya and I never have;
A.) she's highly educated
B.) she's got a ridged back bone; know any other female that could handle all the BS that she's been through {private & public}
C.) she's poised - she's knowledgeable - she's well traveled - and she knows what it takes to do the JOB
And right now ...now that puts her eons ahead of Trump and even Bernie {as much as I do like him} I won't be voting for him!

Wasn't a policitcan until she supported Bill in the monica affair
parachuted in to a safe new york senate seat, to become first female senator for new york
and has literally been railroaded to the white house she only missed out last time because a REAL leader emerged.
She is openly for the rich end of wall street.

A) So are lots of women

B) LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL she backflips faster than Trump, that is Crap.
JULIA GILLARD a female leader that didn't rely on any of the shit Hilliary has, Open Athiest and Openly in a defacto relationship, Started her political career in the Communist party. Hammered constantly but the likes of Murdoch and big business. (that unfortuantly has much reduced public opinion even though she managed to get through some pretty major reforms and really is one of the Best PMs we have had in terms of progress made, all while having a hung parliment)

C)And that is the problem She is going to do 'the job' exactly like every other Wall street puppet Evil or Very Mad

by Guest Tue May 24, 2016 1:53 am

Oh, noooo, quite to the contrary there Veya; she's been right there along side and in face quite afew have felt and were justified in how well the state of Arkansas was able to turn their financial Welfare State around so soundly was by her genius and his affable persona.

He was the front man and she was the point guard with the know-how and methods to get the changes done; she was quite an imposing Mrs. Arkansas Governor and that's very well documented pre-land sales fiasco that the republicans dug and entrenched to bury Bill & Hillary during his impeachment year.

Sure she's probably a 'ball buster' just as that every loyal-smiling Cheshire Cat woman Mrs. Nancy Reagan was! But as most often our first ladies are formidable take no hostages type of females or shy/retiring/druggy/alcoholics that remain hidden until it's absolutely necessary to be SEEN.

HRC - is one Intelligent - BALL BUSTER - FORMIDABLE - SURVIVOR and that's good enough for me!

by Original Quill Tue May 24, 2016 3:40 am

4EVA wrote:Sure she's probably a 'ball buster' just as that every loyal-smiling Cheshire Cat woman Mrs. Nancy Reagan was! But as most often our first ladies are formidable take no hostages type of females or shy/retiring/druggy/alcoholics that remain hidden until it's absolutely necessary to be SEEN.

Your third paragraph is probably hammer+nail+head. She's everything you say she is, but men fear her as a "ball buster" and women tend to distance themselves from anyone whom their men dislike/fear/loathe.

Especially the young ones, themselves probably looking for a mate. And that's the disaffection of the younger women. They are probably looking at HC through the eyes of their menfolk, and their menfolk are seeing "ball buster."

Too bad she hasn't got the grace and persona of Obama, but she more than makes up for that in brains.

by veya_victaous Tue May 24, 2016 6:15 am

http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/how-corporate-america-bought-hillary-clinton-for-30-million/news-story/4e0958338cdcd8a2359f874c9b3fb9ae

So what would Washington and Jefferson make of Hillary Rodham Clinton? Mandatory financial disclosures released this month show that, in just the two years from April 2013 to March 2015, the former first lady, senator and secretary of state collected $30 million ($US21.667 million) in “speaking fees,” not to mention the cool $6.9 million ($US5 million) she corralled as an advance for her 2014 flop book, Hard Choices.

Throw in the additional $36.9 million ($US26.63 million) her ex-president husband hoovered up in personal-appearance “honoraria,” and the nation can breathe a collective sigh of relief that the former first couple — who, according to Hillary, were “dead broke” when they left the White House in 2001 with some of the furniture in tow — can finally make ends meet.
No wonder Donald Trump calls her “crooked Hillary.”

A look at Mrs. Clinton’s speaking venues and the whopping sums she’s received since she left State gives us an indication who’s desperate for a place at the trough — and whom another Clinton administration might favour.

First off, there’s Wall Street and the financial-services industry. Democratic champions of the Little Guy are always in bed with the Street — they don’t call Barack Obama “President Goldman Sachs” for nothing, but Mrs Clinton has room for Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice and their 10 best friends. Multiple trips to Goldman Sachs. Morgan Stanley. Deutsche Bank. Kohlberg Kravis Roberts. UBS Wealth Management.

by eddie Tue May 24, 2016 2:55 pm

So referring to the OP; if she'd left her lying cheating shithead of a husband and been "a single woman raising her kids", she'd have stood a better chance.

by Guest Tue May 24, 2016 3:01 pm

eddie wrote:So referring to the OP; if she'd left her lying cheating shithead of a husband and been "a single woman razing her kids", she'd have stood a better chance.

Naaaa, that would've just fed the 'right leaning rabble GOP', to shred her inability to keep her marriage intact; see the marriage is such a sacred thing for the Republicans - they preach about morality issues ALL OF THE TIME Suspect

Unfortunately, they just don't practice those same morality issues that they preach about! The ole' double standard would be HRC undoing.

by Original Quill Tue May 24, 2016 4:52 pm

eddie wrote:So referring to the OP; if she'd left her lying cheating shithead of a husband and been "a single woman razing her kids", she'd have stood a better chance.

She and her husband are Yale University-educated lawyers. Of course she can do anything she wants to do. But what kind of a message does that send to the less fortunate?

Marriage is a bad bargain all around. As a lawyer giving practical advice, I always advise against it. But some people are incorrigible. Laughing

If one doesn't like Bill Clinton, don't vote for him.

Now that we have stripped away all extraneous matters, you can see that what people don't like--particularly white males--is that an uppity female wants to lead us. They argue that women shouldn't be aggressive and combative. And once a month they'll be indisposed and will have to get some man to run things, anyway. They should stick to what they are good at.

Isn't that the same type of argument that we heard with blacks, only with new symbols? Blacks are good dancers; women are good housekeepers. Leave the serious stuff like running a government to the white males.

by eddie Tue May 24, 2016 5:07 pm

Wow. She will have some proving of herself to do! I don't much like her nor do I trust her, from what I've seen/read but to simply dislike because of her sex??

Btw I knew how to spell 'raise' - no idea what it came out with a 'z' ??

by Guest Tue May 24, 2016 5:54 pm

eddie wrote:Wow. She will have some proving of herself to do! I don't much like her nor do I trust her, from what I've seen/read but to simply dislike because of her sex??

Btw I knew how to spell 'raise' - no idea what it came out with a 'z' ??

I swear - I didn't touch that; I don't know why but when I pull up this sight on my tablet ...all sorts of crazy crap happens to quoted posts and things that I try to type and the 'AUTO CORRECT' becomes a SPELL CHECKER NAZI and takes control!
I try to be real careful and never pull forward any of WYWolfies/Veya's/or Irn's posts; not that they have any word issues, but those uniquely used ways of spelling ...makes my tablet light up like a neon sign and then I can't get past all of the auto - correct interruptions that keep opening up! Razz

I don't know how you people with your I-phones do it; I'd be beating the living crap out of my phone of dropping it into the river up the road from me ~~~ Evil or Very Mad

by eddie Tue May 24, 2016 11:09 pm

I've no idea either! My iPad is a pain at changing what i type anyway.

by Guest Tue May 24, 2016 11:50 pm

eddie wrote:I've no idea either! My iPad is a pain at changing what i type anyway.

Did you notice that it happened to Quill's post as well; when he quoted your post and pulled it forward --- something quirky/odd and just creepy going on around here Suspect

by Eilzel Wed May 25, 2016 12:24 am

They aren't anti-women they're anti liar. I bet Elizabeth Warren wouldn't have raised smilar levels of loathing.

Clinton's only bonuses are experience and not being quite as foul as Trump.

by Guest Wed May 25, 2016 12:43 am

Eilzel wrote:They aren't anti-women they're anti liar. I bet Elizabeth Warren wouldn't have raised smilar levels of loathing.

Clinton's only bonuses are experience and not being quite as foul as Trump.

Oh, she's had her 'OOPSIE' campaign moments as well; she's tried that 'I'm a native American' spiel once to many times and now she's had to eat her words and she no longer uses that little gotcha talking points.

Lies/Lying and telling the American hearing public - what we need to hear and what we chose to hear, has always been a selective process.
And Elizabeth Warren, IS NOT RUNNING, so the point is moot Are Hillary's opponents just anti-women? 2190311264

Are Hillary's opponents just anti-women? 2190311264

by veya_victaous Wed May 25, 2016 1:57 am

by Original Quill Wed May 25, 2016 5:15 am

4EVA wrote:And Elizabeth Warren, IS NOT RUNNING, so the point is moot.

More than that, because she's not running she's not receiving the ire that Hillary is. She would get the same treatment were she running.

by Guest Wed May 25, 2016 12:44 pm

Original Quill wrote:
4EVA wrote:And Elizabeth Warren, IS NOT RUNNING, so the point is moot.
More than that, because she's not running she's not receiving the ire that Hillary is. She would get the same treatment were she running.

Lot of FACT in that statement, Quill.
Walter Mondale's VP choice for his 1984 POTUS election bid was testimony to the vapid method that our media/good-ole'-boy political party system went after her and her husband.
Mondale announces his VP choice >
http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0712.html

And in her own words >

"All these phenomenal things. I want to focus on the fact that it is not me, personally, so much as it is the campaign and the candidacy, because I do think it made a difference for this country," she said.
But during the 1984 presidential campaign, Ferraro faced harsh criticism and attacks -- both political and personal -- and remembers the different criteria she endured, a standard she feels all women entering the political arena are held to.
She was dogged by questions about her and her husband's finances and the subsequent investigation by the House Ethics Committee.
"My biggest challenge in the '84 campaign was doing the job so that I didn't let down women," she said. "In many instances because I was the first there were people looking at me and saying, 'I just hope she's able to handle it,' because if I failed, they would fail. It's a lot of pressure. It's pressure that they don't put on a man, obviously. I mean, look at Dan Quayle.
"If that had been a woman who had either made his mistakes in the campaign or during the four years of the vice presidency, it would have been a disaster," she continued. "So the pressure is really quite acute, until we get enough women doing the job. It's just a matter of getting the people in there making their voices heard."
http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/03/26/obit.geraldine.ferraro/index.html

by Original Quill Wed May 25, 2016 3:30 pm

Yes, what is this strange phenomenon that with women candidates, they go after her husband?

by Guest Wed May 25, 2016 4:46 pm

Original Quill wrote:Yes, what is this strange phenomenon that with women candidates, they go after her husband?

Oh, it was a rabid feast from the Ronnie Regan & GHW-Bush side of the campaign Evil or Very Mad

I remember GHWB making horrible rude/snarky remarks about Geraldine's husband having gone to a mental health councilor for help with his depression and how he 'felt REAL men didn't need such limp wristed things like that, we just MAN-UP and deal with our problems'; I don't think it ever came to light just how the GOP was able to obtain those private records from Geraldine's husband doctors office files ...but she didn't push the matter!

She was a class act ...and deserved for better then what bat shit crazy Ronnie Reagan & his VP did to her family

by veya_victaous Thu Jun 02, 2016 6:28 am

by Ben Reilly Thu Jun 02, 2016 6:55 am

Original Quill wrote:Yes, what is this strange phenomenon that with women candidates, they go after her husband?

It's the 'little lady votes with her husband' syndrome. Women are not seen as truly independent of their husbands by a certain knuckle dragging segment of society.

by eddie Thu Jun 02, 2016 10:44 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Original Quill wrote:Yes, what is this strange phenomenon that with women candidates, they go after her husband?

It's the 'little lady votes with her husband' syndrome. Women are not seen as truly independent of their husbands by a certain knuckle dragging segment of society.

I have heard lots of rumours that there's a whole heap of dirt on Bill Clinton to emerge.

And I keep saying, lots of women won't respect a women that stays with a man after he publicly humiliates her and gets spunk on another woman's dress.

by Guest Thu Jun 02, 2016 12:19 pm

eddie wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:
It's the 'little lady votes with her husband' syndrome. Women are not seen as truly independent of their husbands by a certain knuckle dragging segment of society.
I have heard lots of rumours that there's a whole heap of dirt on Bill Clinton to emerge.

And I keep saying, lots of women won't respect a women that stays with a man after he publicly humiliates her and gets spunk on another woman's dress.

Oh, Eddie ..."RUMOR", really?
That would mean the GOP and Kenneth Starr & his hoard of legal eagles had left something of Bill's testicles hanging around just for 'shits & grins' Rolling Eyes

And I've no doubt that there's not been a man walking in our political system that's been vetted for his every innuendo/rumor/what-if/make believe story, then Bill Clinton. Suspect

And as far as that 'drum beating' you keep drumming on about his fornication; explained that, numerous times - you seem hung up on it, they've moved on!
LONG - LONG AGO Are Hillary's opponents just anti-women? 2190311264

why can't you - you aren't the one laying down at night with him! Wink

by Original Quill Thu Jun 02, 2016 4:46 pm

eddie wrote:And I keep saying, lots of women won't respect a women that stays with a man after he publicly humiliates her and gets spunk on another woman's dress.

That is on monumental piece of anti-reason. I have no way to even assess that. Did the "a woman" do something wrong? Or, are the "lots of women" just catty cunnuses? What is the standard by which that judgment is made?

Reverse the picture. Gen. David Petraeus, former Director of the CIA while Hillary was Secretary of State, had an ill-advised bedding with a married woman, a writer and former Army officer, one Paula Broadwell.

Hmmm...how do we feel about Ms. Broadwell's husband, Dr. Scott Broadwell? I mean, Paula got spunk in places where the dress don't reach. By your logic we should despise this spouse, no? How do we justify turning on this poor man merely because he was in the wrong place, at the wrong time?

By contrast, isn't holding Hillary responsible for being a victim, merely the most extreme form of sexism? And isn't that what we've been saying about Donald Trump all along?

by eddie Fri Jun 03, 2016 12:05 am

She's weak. Read between the lines Quill.

by eddie Fri Jun 03, 2016 12:08 am

Here, to help your imagination along the way so I don't need to spell out, why most women stay after being humiliated and cheated upon, like she was:

http://www.examiner.com/article/6-kinds-of-women-who-stay-with-cheating-husbands

by eddie Fri Jun 03, 2016 12:11 am

Clipped:

She is the wife of a man who while he was president was caught cheating with a much younger female White House intern named Monica Lewinsky who was barely out of college. If this had been the only affair, the GOP presidential candidate surrogates—like Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, and the Fox babes (excluding Greta Van Susteren but not Laura Ingraham, of course) will say,

“I can see why she would have forgiven and stood by her husband. But, my gosh, Bill Clinton had at least three other affairs while he was the nation’s president and who knows how many he had when he was governor? Did Hillary know about all these affairs? Well, if she wasn’t aware of what her own husband was doing behind her back, how can she possibly be aware enough to know what her own government is doing? And what about foreign leaders of countries like Red China and Syria and Iran--and the Soviet Union? (This is Sarah and Michele talking, after all.)

“And what if she DID know about all those affairs? What does it say about her strength of character that she has stayed married to a serial cheater of a husband? How could she live with herself? And (here’s what is meant to be the killing blow) what kind of message did this send to your little daughter? That it’s ok to stay married to a man who would rather cheat with other women than be at home with his wife and child? Bill’s no longer president—why doesn’t she divorce him? Has she no self-respect? If she’s too weak to leave a philandering husband, how can she be possibly strong enough to run the most powerful nation on earth and stand up to the enemies who want to destroy us?”

An interesting article : http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/1/22/1271601/-Hillary-Clinton-s-Wronged-Woman-Problem

by Guest Fri Jun 03, 2016 2:29 am

Many people find it hard to understand why a woman would choose to stay in a marriage or a relationship with a man who has cheated on her, or who has a history of extramarital affairs.
Yet there are millions of women, who for various reasons, have chosen to stay with a cheating mate.
Reasons Women Stay with Cheating Men
Listed below are a few of the reasons why women choose to stay with a cheating spouse or significant other:
• Love
• Convenience
• Financial reasons
• Not willing to give up lifestyle
• Insufficient proof of infidelity
• For the sake of the children
• Fear of change
• Low self esteem
• Bad timing
• Thinking the cheater will change
• To achieve career goals
• Hoping counseling will help
• Fear of being alone
• Loyalty
• Religious beliefs
• Desire to keep the family intact
• Belief that it won’t happen again
These are not the only reasons women remain in relationships with cheaters. There are other reasons, too -- reasons that make sense only to the woman involved.
A Woman Shouldn’t Have to Explain
Having been a victim of infidelity myself, I feel that a woman should never have to explain or defend her decision to anyone (other than her children) as to why she has chosen to leave or to stay with a man who cheats.
Choosing to leave, or to stay with a cheating spouse or significant other is a very personal matter. Some women will make a spur the moment decision the minute they find out about the affair. And many times they may regret their choice. For other women, whether to stay or leave is a carefully thought-out decision in which many factors have been taken into consideration.
Well-wishing friends and family members are quick to tell w woman what they think she should do if her husband or boyfriend is having an affair. But it’s up to the woman to decide for herself what’s in her (and her children’s) best interests at the time. She is the one who has to live with the decision that’s made.
http://www.selfgrowth.com/articles/Why_Women_Stay_with_Men_Who_Cheat.html

As I've given you several explanations and examples before and tried to reason with you about what a 'CAREER WOMAN' vs a 'SOAP OPERA' mentality of a real marriage foundation is based on ...

This most recent link and section provides you 8 highlighted red font'd listed reasons why HRC would deem it necessary for 'HER' to stay with Bill despite many of 'YOUR' reasons that she should flee from the marriage.

As with so many career women recent history/prior history/ancient history have shown ...people stay married for a vast grab bag of reasons - not all of them make rational thoughts and valid reasons to each of us ...but we are not in their shoes - we are not living their lives - walking their walk and sleeping next to their spouses!
You deem it a complete failure and see it as a weakness, Are Hillary's opponents just anti-women? 2190311264

...frankly, it proves she's made of some tough stuff and a strong constitution to put up with that moron and have guided his meandering penis behavior down the path that they've come! You must think that all of those years were just a 'walk in the park'! Most Americans do not agree with you. Are Hillary's opponents just anti-women? 202592697

Are Hillary's opponents just anti-women? 202592697

by veya_victaous Fri Jun 03, 2016 3:04 am

by Original Quill Fri Jun 03, 2016 2:51 pm

eddie wrote:“And what if she DID know about all those affairs? What does it say about her strength of character that she has stayed married to a serial cheater of a husband? How could she live with herself? And (here’s what is meant to be the killing blow) what kind of message did this send to your little daughter? That it’s ok to stay married to a man who would rather cheat with other women than be at home with his wife and child? Bill’s no longer president—why doesn’t she divorce him? Has she no self-respect? If she’s too weak to leave a philandering husband, how can she be possibly strong enough to run the most powerful nation on earth and stand up to the enemies who want to destroy us?”

A person's marriage is his or her proprietary right. It seems just a few weeks ago we were telling RW'ers to butt the fook outta a gay couple's marriage. It's none of their business.

Now we are inventing flimsy, judgmental standards like, 'strength of character' or 'serial cheater' and 'what kind of message did this send...' all because you want to run her life! I say to you, like I said to those Mormons and Roman Catholics who wanted to control the lives and marriages of gays, it's not your fookin' business...butt out!

by eddie Fri Jun 03, 2016 4:23 pm

It isn't my business if she's my neighbour or a work colleague...but it is, if I'm a would-be voter.

These things matter Quill, perhaps they shouldn't, but they do.

by Original Quill Fri Jun 03, 2016 4:50 pm

eddie wrote:It isn't my business if she's my neighbour or a work colleague...but it is, if I'm a would-be voter.

These things matter Quill, perhaps they shouldn't, but they do.

But that only works if you say that marriage is the business of that which you vote for. In other words, you've got to be saying that marriage is a presidential skill. And, of course, then you open the door to criticizing the kind of marriage. Is it a part of the presidential skill to not be a gay? How 'bout a black man?

One's marriage has always been off-limits when it comes to being presidential. FDR was married to an open and notorious lesbian. Some say Lincoln was a homosexual. But because these were proprietary matters, the wags kept out. This should be particularly true when one was the victim, and had no choice in the wrongdoing. It is bad enough that you are forced to select one of two bad choices (to stay or go), but now you want to make a moral issue of it and criticize her for not throwing her whole life over.

Are you willing to live with the consequences? Hell no. Then why do you dictate to her what she should do with her life.

by Guest Fri Jun 03, 2016 5:14 pm

eddie wrote:It isn't my business if she's my neighbour or a work colleague...but it is, if I'm a would-be voter.

These things matter Quill, perhaps they shouldn't, but they do.

Well, hells - bells ...easy - peasy solution; DO NOT VOTE FOR HER THEN Rolling Eyes

Sorry, that was my snarky/sarcastic overly repressed attitude slipping out
...I can only hold it in for just soooo long!

by eddie Fri Jun 03, 2016 6:25 pm

When you're voting for someone their integrity and their honour, matters.

He publicly humiliated her on four separate occasions that we know about. You think she stayed for love?
And what message is she sending young women - and her own daughters??

And yes I know I'm not a would-be voter but I'm gonna have my say so there! Razz

by Guest Fri Jun 03, 2016 6:43 pm

eddie wrote:When you're voting for someone their integrity and their honour, matters.

He publicly humiliated her on four separate occasions that we know about. You think she stayed for love?
And what message is she sending young women - and her own daughters??

And yes I know I'm not a would-be voter but I'm gonna have my say so there!

Out of a possible 17 emotional reasons that humans have to stay in any given marriage; I highlighted a possible 8 for HRC and her reasons are for her - it's a 'non-ya' for me!

When I'm VOTING; I'm voting on the way this American can handle their persona in the world stage - how do they make their tough decisions - do they have fortitude - are they of strong character - can they stand the pressure of the position - and do they know what it takes to protect America and do the right thing for ALL OF US!

The rest is just pure emotional hype and 'National Enquirer' fodder for those that have nothing more to do with their time then gossip and worry about morality issues - LIKE OUR GOP does and has done and yet they brake their own moral code just as often.

What message is HRC sending to American women; what message have I been telling you that you've plugged your fingers into your ears and 'la-la-la-la-la'd' your way into yet another ignoring why she's as popular as she is and she's survived all of the ugly/nasty/judgmental/ass-swipes attacks that the nay-sayers have thrown at her. Are Hillary's opponents just anti-women? 2190311264

by eddie Fri Jun 03, 2016 6:47 pm

Sorry but I would question her judgement based in her integrity.
She hasn't stayed out of love! Come on. Seriously??

She stayed for her own selfish and political reasons - wold I take advice from someone that is obviously false and a liar?
Nope.

by Original Quill Fri Jun 03, 2016 6:51 pm

Frankly, I'm not sold that Hillary is all that bad. I mean, I know Trump is that bad. Trump's nature is to be hostile and selfish.

And, while I'm not critical directly, my impression of Sanders is he's heavy on the denunciation, but zilch on doing something about it. I like to bitch and complain too, but I get more excited when someone has a plan.

The thing about Hillary is, I've got the nagging feeling that our criticisms of her could be wrong. We are judging really superficial things. Yes, it was horrible to vote for war with Iraq, but most of that is lying Dick Cheney's fault. GWB and Cheney were pulling off the greatest fraud ever.

Benghazi and emails are complete Republican fabrications. Benghazi was just another action in an on-going war. War's a bitch...no shit Sherlock. Emails...if that isn't the most boot-strapped argument, I don't know what. I mean, nothing happened...no horrid secret got away. There's no there, there. Those allegations are just Republicans fast-talking, and you know how they lie.

So, all we're left with is: she looks sneaky. Hells-bells, that sounds like, Scots are penny pinchers or Jews possess too much wealth and power. If "looks" is all we've got on her, maybe we should let it slide and vote for her.

by eddie Fri Jun 03, 2016 6:53 pm

You sound like you're settling for second best Quill.

by Original Quill Fri Jun 03, 2016 6:56 pm

eddie wrote:You sound like you're settling for second best Quill.

Not at all. I'm analyzing. It's what academics do...as opposed to settling for street opinion.

by Guest Fri Jun 03, 2016 7:06 pm

eddie wrote:Sorry but I would question her judgement based in her integrity.
She hasn't stayed out of love! Come on. Seriously??

She stayed for her own selfish and political reasons - wold I take advice from someone that is obviously false and a liar?
Nope.

Hmmm, you have a rather ...well odd way of explaining how/why women stay - when your choice of words are NOT as gentle/nice/warm/fuzzy as those on the list up there; why are you so hyper critical and judgmental about HRC, what did she ever do to you personally? Suspect

And if your Are Hillary's opponents just anti-women? 2187004795

for snooping out "obviously false and lying" politicians ...then we need you at some of the sign up/vetting processes around this huge country of mine - because there's always room for a method/litmus test that will weed out those "lesser thinking humans - obviously false and lying" from our political process.
Then we'll have nothing but honorable/proper/trusting humans to do as 'I' want! You will follow my directive for vetting the 'Right People' ...won't ya? Are Hillary's opponents just anti-women? 1399249160

Are Hillary's opponents just anti-women? 1399249160

by eddie Sat Jun 04, 2016 5:07 pm

Well of course most of them are liars. I don't believe most of them start out that way but when in Rome etc..

I don't think it's odd to say that she's stupid and stayed for her own selfish reasons.
You think if he wasn't president and/or she didn't have her own political agenda she'd have stayed otherwise?

If she doesn't become president - I bet she fucks off and leaves him.

by Original Quill Sat Jun 04, 2016 5:29 pm

eddie wrote:Well of course most of them are liars. I don't believe most of them start out that way but when in Rome etc..

No, most are not liars. That's one of the grandest of myths spread around by conservatives. Because conservatives must lie, it serves their purposes to say all people lie--like us conservatives (sic)! When in fact, most liberals have no need to lie--they are honest out front, in what they are doing.

What is Benghazi or the Email issue? They are little models of mendacity, built up by conservatives to suggest the other side lies. But they forgot one thing: where's the lie? Benghazi was a CIA outpost, and meh...it's a war and attacks happen during war. Emails? Fer chrrissake they haven't even found the wrong!! No leaks whatsoever. So you see, that myth is all smoke and mirrors.

eddie wrote:I don't think it's odd to say that she's stupid and stayed for her own selfish reasons.
You think if he wasn't president and/or she didn't have her own political agenda she'd have stayed otherwise?

If she doesn't become president - I bet she fucks off and leaves him.

We all have our reasons for what we do. Are we all evil? I don't think that argument floats. Sometimes women stay for money. Sometimes for prestige. Sometimes because he's got good looks or a sense of humor...or people admire him. If you are saying she's selfish, you are only saying that all women are selfish.

Do you think that divorce cleanses the soul? Ask those who are shut up in old-folks homes, with no fond memories, and only thoughts of bitterness, if they feel cleaner.

by eddie Sat Jun 04, 2016 6:08 pm

Oh quill sometimes you really don't come across as being that clued up.
If I'm saying she's selfish then it follows I'm saying ALL women must be selfish? scratch

Do you realise that makes no sense?
I'm going to give you a few minutes to rephrase that..... scratch

by Original Quill Sat Jun 04, 2016 6:17 pm

eddie wrote:Oh quill sometimes you really don't come across as being that clued up.
If I'm saying she's selfish then it follows I'm saying ALL women must be selfish?

Do you realise that makes no sense?
I'm going to give you a few minutes to rephrase that.....

And sometimes you come across as being...well, "uneducated" is the kindest way to put it. Think...is my advice.

My comment makes every sense: you are trying to distinguish HC's actions as out-of-the-ordinary and selfish, when they match what every woman does. Who doesn't make the best decision for herself...or himself, for that matter?

But that's the whole problem with this entire line of criticism. Trying to blame the victim turns all logic upside-down. Here you are criticizing her for not making the decision you would have made, when it's her choice. What's the bigger evil? The choice she made, or denying her freedom to make choices for herself.

by eddie Sat Jun 04, 2016 6:25 pm

And you seem to be putting all women into the Stupid Pot together!
You're basically saying we are all the same?

No. I wouldn't have stayed. First time that ever happens to me (it's never happened) I'd be off faster than you can blink. No kidding.
And I know lots of women like that - and lots who've left too.

So no Quill, you're wrong.
And to think that every woman in the planet is the same is just "uneducated"

And btw, I don't think many people in forums are any more educated than me on life issues - I can hold my own seeing as I've lived a very, very colourful life with very colourful people.
Have I read lots of literature by boring people? Nope.

But you have apparently, and often you've been proven really, really embarrassingly wrong!

This is a matter of opinion Quill and you're a little antiquated to be fair, when it comes to certain topics.
There are of course, certain topics where I'd bow to your knowledge (and have), and if I don't know something I will say so....I've seen what happens to people who bluff and bluster their way on a thread and I've seen their arses pounded harshly....

Know what I mean? Wink

by Original Quill Sat Jun 04, 2016 8:22 pm

eddie wrote:And you seem to be putting all women into the Stupid Pot together!
You're basically saying we are all the same?

To the contrary...I am saying that it's perfectly OK for her to make a different decision than you would have made.

eddie wrote:No. I wouldn't have stayed. First time that ever happens to me (it's never happened) I'd be off faster than you can blink. No kidding.
And I know lots of women like that - and lots who've left too.

No doubt I would have left, too. God bless freedom-of-choice.

eddie wrote:So no Quill, you're wrong.
And to think that every woman in the planet is the same is just "uneducated"

I'm for independence of thought and decision, remember? That goes for all women, too. If Hillary chose to stay with her husband, and that's a decision different than you would have made, that's all right.

Nowhere is that a moral or political issue, as you would have it. So any issue of Bill's infidelities is irrelevant as to Hillary. And it it were an issue, it would go to her strength and courage in composing herself during a time of personal crisis.

eddie wrote:And btw, I don't think many people in forums are any more educated than me on life issues - I can hold my own seeing as I've lived a very, very colourful life with very colourful people.

I was being kind, not criticizing in the manner of some (unnamed) people. I don't know anything about your education, but it sounded as if you had lost grasp of logic: the victim is responsible? Rubbish.

eddie wrote:Have I read lots of literature by boring people? Nope.

But you have apparently, and often you've been proven really, really embarrassingly wrong! This is a matter of opinion Quill and you're a little antiquated to be fair, when it comes to certain topics.

Also rubbish. I admit I am often out on the edge of certain ideas, but that is because I have been trained as an original thinker...and most people are interested only in ideas they have heard before. It's hurts...a new idea...even if supported by logic and the facts. The people who pronounce me 'wrong' are the people who haven't yet caught up.

I make no excuse for originality, and being on the cusp of thought.

eddie wrote:There are of course, certain topics where I'd bow to your knowledge (and have), and if I don't know something I will say so....I've seen what happens to people who bluff and bluster their way on a thread and I've seen their arses pounded harshly....

Know what I mean?

I'd much rather that you thought for yourself, but that you thought logically and originally. I am always much prouder of a student whom I've taught to think, than a follower who simply puppets my ideas.

by Sponsored content