HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » It wasn't particularly su...

Sat Sep 12, 2015, 07:26 AM

It wasn't particularly surprising that opposing Clinton would be regarded as sexist...

Last edited Sat Sep 12, 2015, 08:11 AM - Edit history (1)

It's not difficult. It's the simplest and most obvious defense.

IF you think you're talking to an ocean of fucking morons.

The only way it works is if there are any "swing" voters who might be persuaded that someone saying "I think voting for the Iraq War is likely not the kind of person we want" is sexist. But that's not going to work if it's been blindingly obvious since the beginning that the person you're making the accusation against has also opposed men who prosecuted the Iraq War.

If your opponent criticises a female candidate for connections to Wall Street and also criticises male candidates for the same thing, it's a little difficult for you to establish that the criticism aimed at the female candidate is sexist, as it actually just looks more like your opponent expects the female candidate to meet the same standards as everyone else.

And if you're not careful, you end up looking as though you're saying female candidates should be allowed greater leeway for ill-advised choices than male ones. You're essentially saying, albeit unconsciously, that female candidates shouldn't be expected to have the integrity we expect of male ones. It carries the inescapable subtext of "she can't be expected to know better. It's so unfair. She's JUST A WOMAN."

And that really would be sexist.

Wouldn't it?

65 replies, 3732 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 65 replies Author Time Post
Reply It wasn't particularly surprising that opposing Clinton would be regarded as sexist... (Original post)
sibelian Sep 2015 OP
orpupilofnature57 Sep 2015 #1
sibelian Sep 2015 #2
orpupilofnature57 Sep 2015 #3
Fairgo Sep 2015 #4
sibelian Sep 2015 #10
2banon Sep 2015 #24
left-of-center2012 Sep 2015 #13
sibelian Sep 2015 #48
kath Sep 2015 #60
sibelian Sep 2015 #62
Fred Sanders Sep 2015 #5
sibelian Sep 2015 #8
Fred Sanders Sep 2015 #9
zeemike Sep 2015 #16
Fred Sanders Sep 2015 #18
zeemike Sep 2015 #19
Fred Sanders Sep 2015 #20
zeemike Sep 2015 #22
7962 Sep 2015 #27
sibelian Sep 2015 #42
A Simple Game Sep 2015 #49
SonderWoman Sep 2015 #6
sibelian Sep 2015 #7
Fuddnik Sep 2015 #12
SonderWoman Sep 2015 #15
sibelian Sep 2015 #50
cui bono Sep 2015 #65
jtuck004 Sep 2015 #26
SonderWoman Sep 2015 #29
sibelian Sep 2015 #51
Le Taz Hot Sep 2015 #11
SonderWoman Sep 2015 #17
sibelian Sep 2015 #47
Hydra Sep 2015 #37
SoapBox Sep 2015 #14
2banon Sep 2015 #21
7962 Sep 2015 #23
Android3.14 Sep 2015 #25
7962 Sep 2015 #30
RandySF Sep 2015 #56
Ichingcarpenter Sep 2015 #28
7962 Sep 2015 #32
Fred Sanders Sep 2015 #38
sibelian Sep 2015 #52
RandySF Sep 2015 #57
sibelian Sep 2015 #58
Scootaloo Sep 2015 #54
kath Sep 2015 #63
Armstead Sep 2015 #31
7962 Sep 2015 #33
Rose Siding Sep 2015 #34
Android3.14 Sep 2015 #39
Rose Siding Sep 2015 #40
Android3.14 Sep 2015 #45
Rose Siding Sep 2015 #53
Android3.14 Sep 2015 #64
sibelian Sep 2015 #46
SouthernProgressive Sep 2015 #35
sibelian Sep 2015 #61
jalan48 Sep 2015 #36
Yallow Sep 2015 #41
pinebox Sep 2015 #44
stupidicus Sep 2015 #43
RandySF Sep 2015 #55
sibelian Sep 2015 #59

Response to sibelian (Original post)

Sat Sep 12, 2015, 07:31 AM

1. Most intelligent Woman I know would be insulted, of course being intelligent they know Gender isn't

 

a substitute for policies, or History or Contributors .I've often said look at their voting histories and Hillary feeds in to Chauvinism and Bernie has been a Feminist for a long time .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orpupilofnature57 (Reply #1)

Sat Sep 12, 2015, 07:49 AM

2. Glad it's not just me, to be honest.


I think the positive rhetoric around Clinton is incredibly sexist.

There's this whole unspoken thing of "SHE CAN DO IT", like she's this plucky underdog. Of course she can bloody do it, that's not the point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sibelian (Reply #2)

Sat Sep 12, 2015, 07:57 AM

3. + 1000

 

The thing that gets distorted ,polarized and forgot, the Point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sibelian (Reply #2)

Sat Sep 12, 2015, 08:17 AM

4. A rational argument

Very refreshing. You open a door for deeper dialog on gender politics. One based on community values rather than plumbing, tactics, or stereotypes. Hope you get some takers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fairgo (Reply #4)

Sat Sep 12, 2015, 08:28 AM

10. Well, thank you.


I think you might be reading a little more into what I posted than I intended, but thank you all the same!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fairgo (Reply #4)

Sat Sep 12, 2015, 09:17 AM

24. well said..

 

as a senior generation feminist, I'm really disappointed and sick of the rather bizarre (to me) emphasis/rationalization wrt identity politics based on "plumbing" as the sole basis for support or push back of policy makers and in this case this particular candidate. accusations of sexism and even misogyny flung loosely and wildly for any perceived criticism to policy dispute. giving a inaccurate if not disturbing definition to the terms sexism and misogyny. The rhetoric is beyond the pale and does a huge disservice to the struggle for equality.

(edited for more clarity)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sibelian (Reply #2)

Sat Sep 12, 2015, 08:34 AM

13. "I think the positive rhetoric around Clinton is incredibly sexist"

I keep hearing and reading:
"It's time for a woman!"

Isn't that sexist?
Why not just vote for the best candidate regardless, of sex, color, etc?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to left-of-center2012 (Reply #13)

Sat Sep 12, 2015, 10:59 AM

48. It's indecipherable to me, but then I'm from the UK and we DID that...

And we got THIS:



So whenever anyone in the States talks about the First Female ANYTHING, I'm like.... HeeeeelllOOOOOOoooo...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sibelian (Reply #48)

Sat Sep 12, 2015, 12:01 PM

60. Thank you, thank you, thank you! Maggie T should be brought up here WAY more often than she is.

Every time someone brings up the "first woman president" bs as a reason to vote for HRC I just want to scream at them "Just ask the working people of Britain just how wonderful it was to have THEIR first female PM, you moran!"

I will not vote for someone based on their plumbing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kath (Reply #60)

Sat Sep 12, 2015, 12:05 PM

62. ....Indeed.


I'm fairly convinced Thatcher's gender DID help her gain power.

Ah, Elizabeth... why didn't you run....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sibelian (Original post)

Sat Sep 12, 2015, 08:18 AM

5. It is not particularity surprising that opposers of Clinton would jam words into her mouth she

has not uttered or impute motives that only exist in their own imaginations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanders (Reply #5)

Sat Sep 12, 2015, 08:24 AM

8. An important subject, there, Fred.


A subject of vital interest, I'd suggest, to the entire board. We would need to know more, I think.

Perhaps you should write an OP on the subject.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sibelian (Reply #8)

Sat Sep 12, 2015, 08:25 AM

9. What subject? Unattributed and unsubstantiated by any fact imaginings are not a subject. Clinton has to use "she" because she is a she!

And if a woman President following a black President for an historical 3rd straight WH term is not exciting enough for some....that is just an opinion I disagree with and an OP is not required.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanders (Reply #9)

Sat Sep 12, 2015, 08:52 AM

16. Form over substance.

That is your argument?
Where does a Jew fit in that lineup?...ahead or behind the first gay, Latino, Asian or Native American?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #16)

Sat Sep 12, 2015, 08:56 AM

18. What are you strawman building about? But since the game is on...I would say a Muslim woman, next!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanders (Reply #18)

Sat Sep 12, 2015, 09:02 AM

19. Your definition of a strawman is interesting.

Anything that questions your rational is a straw man?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #19)

Sat Sep 12, 2015, 09:03 AM

20. Your question is a red herring, with bait. I answered your last red herring...I pass on this one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanders (Reply #20)

Sat Sep 12, 2015, 09:09 AM

22. Well at least it graduated to a red herring from a strawman.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #19)

Sat Sep 12, 2015, 09:19 AM

27. Thats usually when that term is tossed out.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanders (Reply #9)

Sat Sep 12, 2015, 10:27 AM

42. Well, you thought it was important enough to bring into THIS thread


Where it doesn't particularly have anything to do with what I posted unless you think I'm suggesting Clinton has said something that she hasn't.

Anyway, I'm not very interested in "excitement". Most of us can't afford to be. Feeling good about things and getting problems actually fixed, while not mutually exclusive options, are not always necessarily politically congruent processes.

I'm from the UK. We've already had our First Female. She was called Margaret Thatcher. It took the shine off things a bit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanders (Reply #9)

Sat Sep 12, 2015, 11:01 AM

49. Oh, I know what would be exciting! How about real hope and change following the

hope and change Presidency.

And why not a Jewish President following a Black President. A lot less American Jews than American women.

Interesting you use gender as the first qualifier, interesting. Or does it come second after color?

I have said for a long time that some on DU and elsewhere are just minority shopping for a President... to each their own.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sibelian (Original post)

Sat Sep 12, 2015, 08:21 AM

6. Oh, I thought there would be a link or something.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SonderWoman (Reply #6)

Sat Sep 12, 2015, 08:23 AM

7. Well...


There isn't.

Life is full of little disappointments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sibelian (Reply #7)

Sat Sep 12, 2015, 08:34 AM

12. Ouch!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fuddnik (Reply #12)

Sat Sep 12, 2015, 08:51 AM

15. Yes, strawmen are painful sometimes.

 

Fun making statements with zero evidence to back it up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SonderWoman (Reply #15)

Sat Sep 12, 2015, 11:01 AM

50. Continue at your most frank and open-handed pace...


... by all means.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SonderWoman (Reply #15)

Sun Sep 13, 2015, 12:54 AM

65. Oh, I thought there would be a link or something.

You made a statement that strawmen are painful sometimes. Please back it up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SonderWoman (Reply #6)

Sat Sep 12, 2015, 09:18 AM

26. This is called thinking for yourself. Try it. Beats inventing "strawmen" over blue links. <G> n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jtuck004 (Reply #26)

Sat Sep 12, 2015, 09:22 AM

29. Ted Cruz has "thoughts" also.

 



All of which are fact free.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SonderWoman (Reply #29)

Sat Sep 12, 2015, 11:03 AM

51. I suppose thinking must be bad, then.


I wish someone had told me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sibelian (Original post)

Sat Sep 12, 2015, 08:33 AM

11. The argument is easily countered:

If Elizabeth Warren were running, she'd get virtually universal support here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Le Taz Hot (Reply #11)

Sat Sep 12, 2015, 08:53 AM

17. True, which is probably why...

 

No one is making that argument, as evidenced by the lack of evidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SonderWoman (Reply #17)

Sat Sep 12, 2015, 10:54 AM

47. Maybe you just can't read. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Le Taz Hot (Reply #11)

Sat Sep 12, 2015, 09:51 AM

37. I suspect the poll numbers would be virtually the same here, If Warren was running instead of Burnie

We wouldn't be hearing anything about "It's time for a Woman" though- we'd be hearing over and over about how Elizabeth lacks the necessary experience and does not look "Presidential enough."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sibelian (Original post)

Sat Sep 12, 2015, 08:44 AM

14. Agree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sibelian (Original post)

Sat Sep 12, 2015, 09:07 AM

21. ab-so-flipping-lutely

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sibelian (Original post)

Sat Sep 12, 2015, 09:12 AM

23. Thats all they have to hang their hat on. "Misogynist" "Sexist' etc.

 

No different than crying "Racism!" if you dont support a candidate who happens to be black.
Your "yes she can" comment is also very true. Its actually an insult to women when you act like its a big deal that we're suggesting a female for president!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sibelian (Original post)

Sat Sep 12, 2015, 09:17 AM

25. It's the cognitive dissonance

 

Let's omit the paid shills as an annoyance similar to weeds in a garden or perhaps as bad and unavoidable as a fart in an elevator.

As for her genuine supporters, because of an inability to discuss issues, the Clinton wing must protect themselves with wacky tail-eating logic, unfounded accusations of sexism and erroneous claims of persecution. Any attempt to discuss the issues and whether HRC's record reflects a supporter's values always ends up in a group photograph of the three monkeys of denial.

When the primaries come to an end, or Hillary drops out (doubtful), and we have a candidate that actually shows leadership on the important issues of the day, my hope is they will realize Bernie is for real, and those of us who saw that truth early on will welcome Hillary's ardent former supporters without judgment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Android3.14 (Reply #25)

Sat Sep 12, 2015, 09:22 AM

30. Dont forget the tried-and-true "vast right wing conspiracy" thats worked for 20+ yrs!

 

Your points are spot on. Any opposition simply CANNOT be for any other reason than "anti Clinton/woman"
It cant be, for example, that she has not been truthful on many occasions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 7962 (Reply #30)

Sat Sep 12, 2015, 11:40 AM

56. The right wing conspiracy was real

I know. I was around to witness it. It's up to you if you don't like Clinton but don't rewrite history and don't provide cover for the right wing nuts that went after the Clintons in the 90's.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sibelian (Original post)

Sat Sep 12, 2015, 09:20 AM

28. Three statements

— “I'm not asking people to vote for me because I'm a woman, but I think if you vote for somebody on their merits—one of my merits is I'M A WOMAN”

— “I'm not asking people to vote for me because I'm black, but I think if you vote for somebody on their merits—one of my merits is I'M BLACK'

— “I'm not asking people to vote for me because I'm Jewish but I think if you vote for somebody on their merits—one of my merits is I'M JEWISH"


I find each of these statements, reprehensible two of the statements nobody ever said but one was stated on a TV show last week.















&t=1m15s

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Reply #28)

Sat Sep 12, 2015, 09:25 AM

32. Holy crap thats a brilliant post! Points out the absurdity of it all.

 

If you go around telling everyone that its "time for a woman" etc, then you cant scream "sexist!" whenever someone comes out against you

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Reply #28)

Sat Sep 12, 2015, 09:54 AM

38. One statement is an orange, the other an apple, and the last is some other fruit also not logically comparable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanders (Reply #38)

Sat Sep 12, 2015, 11:05 AM

52. Perhaps you need a snack, Fred.


Is your blood sugar a problem?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sibelian (Reply #52)

Sat Sep 12, 2015, 11:42 AM

57. Oh lord it's going to be a long primary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RandySF (Reply #57)

Sat Sep 12, 2015, 11:51 AM

58. The quicker people respond to what other people actually say...


... in meaningful and useful plain English, detailing their objections to the points their opponents have actually made, the quicker it will all seem.

Laboriously trundling through every misdirection in the book will certainly result in an extremely tedious process.

However, I have plenty of time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanders (Reply #38)

Sat Sep 12, 2015, 11:12 AM

54. Nope, all three are very comparable.

 

"Vote for me because of a characteristic of my identity!" is a doofus argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Reply #28)

Sat Sep 12, 2015, 12:12 PM

63. Oh, GAH, I can't believe she actually said that.

Jeebus H. Christ

And yes, ALL three of those statements are reprehensible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sibelian (Original post)

Sat Sep 12, 2015, 09:24 AM

31. They're having a discussion about this on MSBC right now

 

Melissa Harris Prry leading a discussion on the subject

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Armstead (Reply #31)

Sat Sep 12, 2015, 09:33 AM

33. Oh God, you made me watch it.

 

I'm sorry, but what an in depth discussion with a whole lot of nothing. One of them just said there isnt a black running for president tis time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sibelian (Original post)

Sat Sep 12, 2015, 09:38 AM

34. Do you disagree with Sanders that some of the criticism is sexist?

"I think for a variety of reasons, Hillary Clinton has been under all kinds of attack for many, many years. In fact, I can't think of many personalities who have been attacked for more reasons than Hillary Clinton. And by the way, let me be frank and I'm running against her: Some of it is sexist,"

and

"I don't know that a man would be treated the same way that Hillary is," Sanders said. "So all that I can say is I have known Hillary Clinton for 25 years. I admire her. I respect her. I like her. She and I have very different points of view on a number of issues."

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/09/politics/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-sexist-criticism/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rose Siding (Reply #34)

Sat Sep 12, 2015, 09:57 AM

39. Sure, some of the criticism is sexist, but most is not

 

Do you agree that responding with knee-jerk accusations of sexism to legitimate questions regarding issues is inherently sexist?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Android3.14 (Reply #39)

Sat Sep 12, 2015, 10:14 AM

40. It would be, were it to ever happen

But I'm relieved to know you see some of the criticism as sexist.

I do believe, as does Sanders, that she's held to a different standard than male candidates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rose Siding (Reply #40)

Sat Sep 12, 2015, 10:41 AM

45. The OP is spot on

 

The Hillary campaign wants special treatment because she is a woman, making many of the supporters, inherently sexist. And based on her statement to Degeneres, this criticism includes HRC herself.

And definitely that is the case here on DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Android3.14 (Reply #45)

Sat Sep 12, 2015, 11:09 AM

53. I see. I didn't find her remark controversial

And I've seen zero incidents of the "Hillary campaign wants special treatment". Zero, so we disagree about that.

I agree with Hillary. Any attribute -race, ethnicity, gender, age, sexual orientation- that affects the quality of ones life experience is, to me, a valid consideration. -Not a determining factor, but worth considering.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rose Siding (Reply #53)

Sat Sep 12, 2015, 12:23 PM

64. None so blind as those who refuse to see

 

I sympathize with the HRC supporters who are facing the fact that her candidacy is about as appealing as week old tapioca to most of us on DU. Yet she should receive no pass just because she is a woman. Either she is the best candidate or she isn't.

To treat her any other way demeans her as a woman. This means we examine her potential as President on her record and the issues.

Yet it's painfully obvious that her supporters will not discuss the issues in any substantive fashion, probably because they know by now that Sanders' stance on those issues is much more in line with Democratic Party values as well as the progressives who interact here.

Hopefully Bernie will gain the nomination, Bernie supporters will gracefully invite their primary foes to fight together in the GE, and the HRC folks will have the grace to join us.

I haven't felt this excited, ever, about a candidate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rose Siding (Reply #34)

Sat Sep 12, 2015, 10:52 AM

46. From Republicans, yes. As for DU...


I suppose I could make the case for a mildly misogynist subtext in wondering why someone is spending vast amounts of money on polls, which has been mentioned on DU. It could be interpreted, via a rather circuitous route, as having an over-inflated interest in one's "appearance", which could be conflated with - gasp! - "narcissism". That's a thing that does get thrown at women. Unfortunately following her thing about sending beauty products she endorses to her supporters, it's beginning to look like she IS rather more interested in herself than her job, but having spent ages on this site pointing at other people and calling them fools for accusing other people of being narcissists, I can't really do it myself. As far as *I'm* concerned she's allowed to have a high opinion of herself, that shouldn't affect my understanding of her political acumen. I don't have to like it, particularly, but it shouldn't stop me thinking she's a good politician... However, is it sexist to talk about her liking lots of polls? Hmmmmmmmm. It might be if the extent of her actual fascination with them wasn't so very pronounced.

There is also, of course, this "she's manipulative" thing, which I hate saying about women because it's one of those damn things that people say about women. Unfortunately she's making a very good show of appearing actually to be highly manipulative. It's a problematic intersection, sometimes real politicians are actually manipulative. In fact.... it's an important qualification in some positions.

So yeah, maybe those two things, both of which I had to really sell to myself as potential examples and neither of which I have much faith in.

My problem is that "sexism!" is trundled out constantly in lieu of a substantive response to the content of her detractors positions. That's no use for anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sibelian (Original post)

Sat Sep 12, 2015, 09:42 AM

35. It wasn't particularyly surprising that opposing Sanders would be regarded as anti-semetic.

See how that works. And yes, posts can be found here claiming just that. But I'm sure one is real while the other isn't. Posting a highly unflattering pic of Clinton with no comment isn't sexist, is it? It is no different than Trumps comments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SouthernProgressive (Reply #35)

Sat Sep 12, 2015, 12:02 PM

61. No. I don't see how it works...


Unless perpetual accusations of "ANTISEMITISM!!!!" come out of Sanders supporters in lieu of a substantive response to Sander's detractors, which, as a phenomenon rather than a trickle of isolated flippancies, I have yet to observe, with the possible exception of my own extremely lumpy and ranty satirical curation of The Big Book of Nast Bernie Things...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251551771

...in which I make an extremely repetetive point about Bernie detractors being quasi-antisemitic... in my admittedly rather poor defense, I didn't particularly expect that to be taken as seriously as it turned out to be. Oh, well.

As in all similar cases, I will happily bow to your superior research skills.

I haven't seen any unflattering picutres of Clinton used for political purposes on this board, though I don't doubt they have been used elsewhere, and, possibly, here. On that point I will also bow to your superior research skills, and agree with your distaste for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sibelian (Original post)

Sat Sep 12, 2015, 09:46 AM

36. For some, it's simply like the Academy Awards.

It's Hillary's turn this time. No other argument is necessary, there is really little need for policy discussion or debates. There has never been a woman elected President so it's Hillary's turn this time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sibelian (Original post)

Sat Sep 12, 2015, 10:16 AM

41. I Support Hillary - I Support Bernie More

 

If their positions and records were reversed, my preference would be reversed.

It's not about sex.

It's about what you will do to fix this nightmare called government.

You know, government by the rich, and for the rich.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yallow (Reply #41)

Sat Sep 12, 2015, 10:38 AM

44. Amen

 

I'm not voting for a corporate hack, I'm voting for someone who has a vision of what America should be like and who has a real pathway forward.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sibelian (Original post)

Sat Sep 12, 2015, 10:29 AM

43. the attempted lashings by frustrated and desperate ____always ignore the self-administration of such

 

it always is and can only be...

Like with misery and assorted other negative/undesirable states, it's the company sought and gained that keeps the stupid alive and festering.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sibelian (Original post)

Sat Sep 12, 2015, 11:32 AM

55. Oh FFS people. Decide already

So many accuse Clinton supporters of being sexist for supporting Hiklary to begin with, and now this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RandySF (Reply #55)

Sat Sep 12, 2015, 11:53 AM

59. I don't think supporting Hillary is inherently sexist.


I think definding her from criticisms that have nothing do do with her gender on the grounds that they are sexist... is sexist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread