HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Thom Hartmann has advice ...

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 09:06 PM

Thom Hartmann has advice for the Hillary Clinton Campaign

105 replies, 5414 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 105 replies Author Time Post
Reply Thom Hartmann has advice for the Hillary Clinton Campaign (Original post)
jkbRN Oct 2015 OP
bravenak Oct 2015 #1
Uncle Joe Oct 2015 #2
bravenak Oct 2015 #4
Vattel Oct 2015 #6
bravenak Oct 2015 #8
Fawke Em Oct 2015 #28
bravenak Oct 2015 #34
jkbRN Oct 2015 #58
bravenak Oct 2015 #59
Vattel Oct 2015 #60
bravenak Oct 2015 #61
Vattel Oct 2015 #62
bravenak Oct 2015 #66
Vattel Oct 2015 #70
bravenak Oct 2015 #71
Vattel Oct 2015 #72
bravenak Oct 2015 #73
Vattel Oct 2015 #74
bravenak Oct 2015 #75
Vattel Oct 2015 #76
bravenak Oct 2015 #77
Vattel Oct 2015 #78
bravenak Oct 2015 #80
sabrina 1 Oct 2015 #89
bravenak Oct 2015 #104
Uncle Joe Oct 2015 #11
bravenak Oct 2015 #12
Uncle Joe Oct 2015 #14
bravenak Oct 2015 #15
Uncle Joe Oct 2015 #20
bravenak Oct 2015 #23
Uncle Joe Oct 2015 #35
bravenak Oct 2015 #37
Uncle Joe Oct 2015 #47
bravenak Oct 2015 #50
Uncle Joe Oct 2015 #51
bravenak Oct 2015 #52
jwirr Oct 2015 #26
bravenak Oct 2015 #31
840high Oct 2015 #64
Fawke Em Oct 2015 #30
bravenak Oct 2015 #33
Fawke Em Oct 2015 #36
bravenak Oct 2015 #39
840high Oct 2015 #65
bravenak Oct 2015 #67
leftofcool Oct 2015 #21
Fawke Em Oct 2015 #32
Uncle Joe Oct 2015 #53
Bread and Circus Oct 2015 #69
Kalidurga Oct 2015 #88
jkbRN Oct 2015 #54
bravenak Oct 2015 #56
jkbRN Oct 2015 #3
bravenak Oct 2015 #5
frylock Oct 2015 #13
bravenak Oct 2015 #16
frylock Oct 2015 #19
bravenak Oct 2015 #25
Fawke Em Oct 2015 #40
bravenak Oct 2015 #41
frylock Oct 2015 #55
bravenak Oct 2015 #57
TheKentuckian Oct 2015 #86
frylock Oct 2015 #96
kenfrequed Oct 2015 #98
frylock Oct 2015 #99
kenfrequed Oct 2015 #100
TheKentuckian Oct 2015 #105
Ned_Devine Oct 2015 #7
bravenak Oct 2015 #9
leftofcool Oct 2015 #17
bravenak Oct 2015 #18
Fawke Em Oct 2015 #42
bravenak Oct 2015 #43
Fawke Em Oct 2015 #45
bravenak Oct 2015 #49
Fawke Em Oct 2015 #24
bravenak Oct 2015 #29
Fawke Em Oct 2015 #44
bravenak Oct 2015 #46
Ned_Devine Oct 2015 #81
840high Oct 2015 #68
GoneFishin Oct 2015 #10
leftofcool Oct 2015 #22
Fawke Em Oct 2015 #27
senz Oct 2015 #84
leftofcool Oct 2015 #91
senz Oct 2015 #83
rjsquirrel Oct 2015 #38
Fawke Em Oct 2015 #48
Vattel Oct 2015 #63
frylock Oct 2015 #97
BlueCaliDem Oct 2015 #102
Eric J in MN Oct 2015 #79
senz Oct 2015 #82
Blue_In_AK Oct 2015 #85
anamnua Oct 2015 #87
boston bean Oct 2015 #90
Bluenorthwest Oct 2015 #92
boston bean Oct 2015 #93
Bluenorthwest Oct 2015 #94
boston bean Oct 2015 #95
MohRokTah Oct 2015 #101
INdemo Oct 2015 #103

Response to jkbRN (Original post)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 09:16 PM

1. I think Thom is wrong on this.

 

It is a real issue to many women voters. If Bernie wants to be on the national stage he has to moderate his speech so as to not offend large blocks of voters. If women felt offended, then it is an issue and having a male, tell Hillary to concentrate on 'real issues' not 'fake sexism' is not his place. Men cannot tell us when we feel sexism and they do not always even notice it or notice when they are doing it, so this should have been a sign that the language he has been using 'for years' is offending democratic women voters and rather than they 'change' their thinking, he may have to change his speech.

You can send this to him or he can find this and respond.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #1)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 09:27 PM

2. Bernie has always been speaking about this in regards to the American People as a whole, just

as he used the words "screaming" and "yelling" in this interview with Jake Tapper.



Gender has nothing to do with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uncle Joe (Reply #2)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 09:33 PM

4. Bernie is on the National stage and cannot afford to offend by doing things how he always did.

 

Let's look at it this way, there was a time when calling blacks negroes was just a descriptor, peopke said it that way for decades. Then we had a movement. It was no longer acceptable. People were offended. Those that held onto their old way got left behind. We are in third wave feminism now and ghat is no longer acceptable if he does not want to offend women. We can decide if it rubbs us the wrong way. And vote accordingly. If he wants to pull some more women on top of what he has, he has to get them from hillary because joe is out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #4)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 09:49 PM

6. So if some women thought it was sexist, then it was sexist? That can't be right.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Reply #6)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 09:50 PM

8. Possibly. Very hard for men to make that decision for us.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #8)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 10:28 PM

28. You don't get to make that decision for US, either.

It wasn't sexist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Reply #28)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 10:32 PM

34. It was to some. No one said all thought so. You were not included in the we.

 

We, the other women who did feel it, thought our own thoughts that you are not privy to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #34)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 11:11 PM

58. You should probably take some time and watch

The videos of Bernie talking about guns where he says that line almost every time (and yes, even before the debate). Within the debate he spoke that same line, how was it not sexist all of the other times, but this time it was? (I am more than positive he has said that line to a female prior to the debate).

I will look for videos when I get home, and I'll reply if I find any or if I find none so you can be able to respond accordingly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jkbRN (Reply #58)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 11:13 PM

59. I stated above that I do not care what he said before to whomever else or how he always say it.

 

I also stated an illustration of why.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #34)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 11:55 PM

60. you are entitled to believe things without evidence if you choose.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Reply #60)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 11:57 PM

61. The evidence is what we are discussing. It exists. We are not imagining things.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #61)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 12:04 AM

62. You believe it in spite of the evidence.

 

Your immediate reaction was understandable, but once you learned that he has used variations of that phrase when talking about gun control over and over again, and so there is no reason to think that he was suggesting that Clinton was shouting, you should respond to the new evidence and recognize that there was nothing in what he said that merits taking offense. I suspect that you refuse to do so because of your biases.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Reply #62)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 12:14 AM

66. Once I learned, I decided that he needs to watch how he presents himself.

 

That is why I am not calling him sexist, but saying that he needs to change the way he talks. Things that go over well with one audience can look bad to another. Most people are not goung to go look up hours of video, they just see that moment. No need fof him to feed into that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #66)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 12:18 AM

70. oh, so you agree that Clinton wrongly implied that he was being sexist.

 

great

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Reply #70)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 12:19 AM

71. No. I am sure she also did not spend hours watching videos.

 

Why would she?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #71)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 12:22 AM

72. Okay then you think she was just mistaken in thinking he was being sexist.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Reply #72)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 12:23 AM

73. No. I think she felt what she felt and addressed it accordingly.

 

If he gave her that impression, but really it was something else, he can tell her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #73)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 12:26 AM

74. You can't have it both ways.

 

Either he was being sexist, or Clinton incorrectly implied that he was being sexist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Reply #74)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 12:28 AM

75. It may not have been his intention to come off that way.

 

But since many women felt it, he may need to change his mannerisms or ensure he does not come off that way in the future. People often offend without intent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #75)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 12:33 AM

76. Lots of sexism is unintentional. But there is no reason

 

to think he was intentionally or unintentionally sexist. But let's not get side-tracked. Which is it: do you think he was unintentionally or intentionally being sexist or do you think Clinton was mistaken in implying that he was being sexist?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Reply #76)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 12:36 AM

77. I think he lacks a bit of self awareness of his mannerisms when he gets into a subject that interest

 

him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #77)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 12:42 AM

78. Sigh. You refuse to answer the question.

 

If you won't discuss things in good faith, people get frustrated. Peace out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Reply #78)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 12:52 AM

80. That is because you want to put a concrete definition to something powered by perception.

 

People can seem racist without intention. The way they say things to people rather than the words. They way things are phrased. Mannerisms. These things are just as important to winning as policy and some refuse to get the people component and how much feelings matter.
It does not matter if he was certainly sexist or certainly not sexist, the perception is what matters when it comes to winning votes. Things that I find sexist some men and women will not. I see what I see and feel accordingly.
Instead of trying to battle it out over whether it was 'real' sexism or 'not real just imaginary but percieved by the manner but if you look back through videos you can monday morning quarterback your feelings' sexism, is it not better to just adjust so as to not offend? Most people are not going to even think to look up when or where or to whom bernie said that to before.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #8)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 04:52 AM

89. WE make that decision and from all over the country the consensus is, Hillary made a very big

mistake. One of her supporters who is a friend of mine, who had been interested in Bernie but felt a certain loyalty to Hillary, switched to Bernie after that remark.

Women are NOT victims and certainly not very privileged white women like her. There certainly are victims, but it is laughable for her to make that claim.

It thoroughly disgusted ALL of the women I spoke to across the country.

She really harmed herself with that ridiculous remark.

Using race, gender etc to try to score political points, is very unpopular with voters. THEY want to hear politicians talk about the issues that matter to them. Not silly, high school nonsense which only makes a candidate look weak.

Whoever is advising here is doing a terrible job.

However I'm not going to compain since it got me one of her former supporters for Bernie today, and I'll be working on gettting a few more for the rest of the week.

Put it this like the Brock debacle, it totally backfired.

Hillary should stick to the issues as Bernie does, people are not interested in smears and political tricks, they are more than tired of that nonsense. They have REAL problems and all that did was to say to them 'I'm more interested in playing political games.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #89)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 12:50 PM

104. Emily's list agrees that it looked like sexism.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #4)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 10:03 PM

11. Does this mean using the words shouting, yelling or screaming are fine if speaking to a man

but not a woman?

In this video Rand Paul questions then Secretary of State Clinton about the "tone" and "speaking softly" (using those words times) in our national policy and in the end Hillary is complementary of Paul, is the word "tone" or "to speak softly" more acceptable than suggesting that the American People need to quit "shouting," "yelling" or "screaming" at each other on both sides of the gun issue in order to reach a beneficial common ground on that contentious subject?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uncle Joe (Reply #11)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 10:05 PM

12. Are you posting a hearing where one woman WAS getting shouted at by Conservatives to prove a point?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #12)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 10:11 PM

14. You didn't view the video, Paul was questioning our foreign policy using those words, he and Hillary

hit it off at the end.

As I stated in my post, at the end, Hillary was most complementary of Paul, she didn't seem offended, so I thought possibly those words were more acceptable.

However you didn't answer my first question are using the words "shouting" "yelling" or "screaming" in regards to the American People on both sides of the gun issue okay when speaking to a man but not if speaking to a woman?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uncle Joe (Reply #14)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 10:18 PM

15. This is deflecting from the actual point of what we women felt at his words.

 

We do not expect anything from republicans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #15)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 10:22 PM

20. I can understand not expecting anything from Republicans but why was Hillary complimentary of one?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uncle Joe (Reply #20)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 10:24 PM

23. Studied politeness and extremely good manners. I do that too. Women have to otherwise here come the

 

cries of shrillness or for me, Angry Black Woman.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #23)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 10:32 PM

35. I believe in politeness and good manners but if a message of tone and speaking softly from a

Republican can elicit such a gracious response from Hillary then why couldn't a message from a Democratic Candidate for President that we as nation need to stop shouting at each other on the gun issue be construed as the same?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uncle Joe (Reply #35)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 10:34 PM

37. That was not a presidential debate. We expect more from presidential candidates.

 

The president represents all of us and it is best to not offend, especially if you are not high in the polls.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #37)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 10:41 PM

47. If it's better to watch your tone or speak softly with our enemies or adversaries on the world stage

in order to reach peaceful and/or productive resolutions wouldn't the same hold true within the American Family?

Why should we be respectful of other nations and not of ourselves?

As you point out most astutely, the President represents all of us, this would include people on both sides of the gun divide.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uncle Joe (Reply #47)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 10:43 PM

50. I have no idea what this means or relates to. I feel like you are yelling at me.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #50)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 10:44 PM

51. I'm not.

Peace to you, bravenak.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uncle Joe (Reply #51)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 10:45 PM

52. Ok.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #15)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 10:26 PM

26. Not all women. I understood completely that this was about

guns - my family have some real battles over this issue. And Bernie is right We should stop shouting and yelling at each other when we are talking about the gun issue. That is what he said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jwirr (Reply #26)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 10:29 PM

31. I did not say all women. But many felt the same as I. He can prevent future drama by knowing this.

 

Times change, people learn, people change in response to the response to them. Time to be presidential.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jwirr (Reply #26)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 12:12 AM

64. Yes. Thank you.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #15)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 10:29 PM

30. Not "we" women. "YOU," period.

Most women didn't even blink about that.

It's crap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Reply #30)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 10:30 PM

33. Many. You do not know most women.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #33)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 10:34 PM

36. Neither do you.

Which was my point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Reply #36)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 10:35 PM

39. I did not say, "all we women' just we women. We. The ones who were offended. That we. Not you.

 

You were not included.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #33)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 12:12 AM

65. Hate to tell you - neither do you.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 840high (Reply #65)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 12:16 AM

67. I know quite a few.

 

And many of those did not watch. Of the ones that did, more than half offended. That is enough to know that the perception was there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uncle Joe (Reply #14)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 10:23 PM

21. You are mansplaining this

Try looking at this from a woman's POV. Why is that men get to decide what we women believe is a sexist statement? Shouldn't women be able to decide this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftofcool (Reply #21)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 10:30 PM

32. Not "we" women. "YOU," period.

It wasn't sexist.

I'm a woman and I think your position is partisan and political and not REAL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftofcool (Reply #21)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 11:01 PM

53. A man or woman can view anything the way they want, the same holds true for Presidential candidates.

One can view "tone" and "speaking softly" in regards to more productive International Relations from a Republican in a positive light as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did and then construe that the American People shouldn't be "shouting" at each other over the gun issue in order to reach a more productive result in a negative light as Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton did, but it lacks consistency.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftofcool (Reply #21)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 12:16 AM

69. Actually no. You can't own words. And if u cry sexism at every corner nobody is gonna wanna...

fucking listen. Well some people will but a lot will tune you out.

People get tired of hearing it all the time and get tired of "special" groups of people who get to use magic words and be the only arbiters of how we get to use and perceive those words.

Also people get tired of having to feel guilty all the damn time for shit they didn't do.

This country is based on Free Speech. It's enshrined in the constitution. You can't own words and you can't control people's thoughts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftofcool (Reply #21)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 04:38 AM

88. Mansplain again

Isn't that just a way to dismiss a mans pov without having to listen to what he says?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #4)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 11:05 PM

54. Maybe you don't understand,

The comment was not directed at her, where as calling someone a name based on race, is directed at people/person who falls into that category. Saying that everyone (meaning the TWO PARTIES) need to stop shouting is not even a logical comparison.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jkbRN (Reply #54)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 11:10 PM

56. I do understand perfectly because I reacted the same as I watched it. I laughed.

 

See that 'maybe you don't understand' thing you did? That gave me the same reaction as I had at the thing he did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #1)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 09:29 PM

3. The problem with your reasoning

Is the fact that he says this about the 2 parties and that is always his reference. Hillary should not be perpetuating a narrative that is categorically false. I could side with your reasoning if this was the first time he used that phrase, but I cannot when he uses it all the time (and ALWAYS with the gun issue) and it HAS NEVER been directed towards any woman. Moreover, if HRC didn't frame it as sexist then we wouldn't be having this conversation, she purposefully has spun something he says ALL THE TIME about the PARTIES but she made it about her--which undermines the whole argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jkbRN (Reply #3)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 09:34 PM

5. I felt exactly what she felt and do not care who else he does it to

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #5)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 10:09 PM

13. Is there a post you can reference from the night of the debate..

where you stated that you felt Sanders was being sexist with that remark?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #13)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 10:19 PM

16. Where did I say he was being sexist?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #16)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 10:22 PM

19. The entire crux of this "shouting" argument is that it was sexist or mysoginistic..

or some other bullcrap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #19)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 10:26 PM

25. And my point was to watch it in the future and know that men don't always notice.

 

I tell my husband when he is being sexist and sometimes it takes until some other guy does the same thing to me for him to believe me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #25)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 10:36 PM

40. I'm not a man and it meant NOTHING to me.

Saying that we're all "shouting" at each other is not only something we all say when people are arguing political points, but also something he usually says about the subject.

It had NOTHING to do with Hillary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Reply #40)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 10:36 PM

41. Well. Many of us others were offened. It is our right to decide what WE think.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #41)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 11:09 PM

55. Then if you could please share the post from the night of the debate..

showing that you felt offended.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #55)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 11:11 PM

57. I was on suspension.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #55)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 03:00 AM

86. This is pure distribution of talking points and hammering angle shit here.

Nobody was offended real time. I saw one ridiculous thread comparing Sanders to Lazio for like facing her I think when he was giving her cover on the emails that went over like a turd in a punch bowl but I can't recollect any real time outrage the reality is we are seeing grasping at straws smearing as we have seen the whole way because this is the nature and character of the opposition.

It is the old Republican tactic of inventing some injury and demanding an apology strident in an effort to get one to admit to the bogus affront so they could then continue to hit with the admission via any expression of responsibility.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #86)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 10:50 AM

96. You're spot on. Many of us were here the night of the debate..

and this was not an issue until Hillary's campaign saw an opening to manufacture some outrage a few days later. Fawke Em has been laying this bullshit talking point to waste.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #96)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 11:02 AM

98. The real point was to undo the positive email thing

This whole faux-sexist implication that Hillary is making is an effort to stain Sanders after he did a fairly nice thing in boldly and loudly dismissing the email nonsense question that was being pushed forward.

I think it was typical news-cycle tactician crap but actually does more harm to Hillary than good. She should fire one of her advisors over this and change her talking point. Besides, if you are twenty or thirty points ahead then why the hell would you ever go negative?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kenfrequed (Reply #98)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 11:06 AM

99. She went negative because it's her nature.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #99)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 11:12 AM

100. It is more than that.

If someone mentions the debates their long term memory is Bernie Sanders saying "The American people are sick and tired of your damned emails." That was the thing and it ends up being both an honorable thing and a call towards being both civil and issue based.

The short term "who won the debate thing" gets gradually lost in polling crap, focus groups, and silly pundits in favor of the most famous quotes. The only way to undo that is to taint it, to make it seem as though the guy that did the right thing was somehow being sexist.

It is negative, yes. I don't think it is essential to her character or anything but I do think it is dirty politics and not based on anything substantive or factual. Women struggle every day for equal pay, against sexual harrassment, to be allowed to do the same work as men, and just for some goddamned respect. This "shouting" thing is like selling all of that down the river for a political dig that doesn't even land.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #96)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 07:56 PM

105. As far as I can tell the outraged were so pissed it took more than a week for them to realize it.

Honor Deficit Disorder in full effect with these folks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jkbRN (Reply #3)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 09:50 PM

7. This debate with this person is not worth having

 

She's pulling the old "fingers in the ears screaming 'la la la! I can't hear you!' routine". Even though you and I feel like it's fake and manufactured outrage, we have no way to prove it. And even if we do, they'll just put their fingers in their ears and "la la la..."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ned_Devine (Reply #7)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 09:51 PM

9. Amazing.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #9)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 10:20 PM

17. Wow!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftofcool (Reply #17)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 10:21 PM

18. Ummm hmm. Yep. Constantly this kinda thing.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #18)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 10:38 PM

42. No. Not consistantly.

I'm a woman and I think you all didn't pay one LICK of attention to this until your candidate brought it up in some feeble attempt to smear her political foe who happens to be male.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Reply #42)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 10:38 PM

43. I said constantly not consistantly.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #43)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 10:40 PM

45. My point still stands.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Reply #45)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 10:42 PM

49. Not really.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #1)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 10:25 PM

24. No woman felt offended.

It was a political ploy by the Clinton team.

If YOU did, honestly, it's because you're partisan.

There was NOTHING sexist about what he said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Reply #24)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 10:28 PM

29. You are not omniscient. You cannot know what other women think.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #29)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 10:39 PM

44. Neither can you.

You didn't pay any attention to that until your candidate made it an issue.

I was on the board that night and the days following.

Wasn't an issue until Hillary said so.

Cut that out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Reply #44)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 10:41 PM

46. You said 'no woman felt offended'

 

That is trying to presume to know the thoughts of all other women.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Reply #44)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 01:21 AM

81. Don't engage in this debate.

 

Don't you remember kids like this in elementary school at recess? That's exactly what this reads like. Whenever I see this poster's responses it looks like the transcript of a little kid at recess making up the rules to a game as she goes. It's not worth the hassle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Reply #24)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 12:16 AM

68. I know many women who came to this conclusion.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jkbRN (Original post)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 09:54 PM

10. Notice how often he blinks? I think he is winking at me through my computer screen. I can't vote

for someone who does that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jkbRN (Original post)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 10:24 PM

22. Thom Hartmann mansplains to Hillary

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftofcool (Reply #22)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 10:27 PM

27. OK... can I womansplain to her?

It's political.

Nothing sexist about what he said.

She's WRONG and using her plumbing to get votes. Know what? THAT is sexism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Reply #27)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 02:31 AM

84. Yes. Thank you Fawke Em.

 

That's what needed to be said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Reply #27)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 08:12 AM

91. Wow! I am not surprised you said that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftofcool (Reply #22)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 02:26 AM

83. Thom Hartmann is a finer human being on every level

 

than Hillary will ever, ever, ever be.

And you can just live with that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jkbRN (Original post)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 10:35 PM

38. Let me guess: BUY GOLD THE ECONOMY IS CRASHING

 

The worst is that fake interview ad he runs with some obnoxious gold huckster, lending his own implied endorsement to "the sky is falling buy gold" nonsense.

When you'll take that money to stay on the air I don't trust a single thing you say, Thom. Youre a liberal version of Glenn Beck, and you seem smarter than that. Because you take money from con artists.

There is no great crash around the corner. And even if there were, buying gold is no solution for anyone working-class, and even if it were the bottom feeding shitstains who advertise on Hartmann (and on all the far right shoes too) are planning to rip you off.

For shame. If you need that nonsense to keep the lights on (plus all the bullshit testimonials for quack nutritional supplements) you should turn the lights off. Or go right wing populist fear monger because liberals aren't as gullible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jkbRN (Original post)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 10:42 PM

48. Meh. I'm leaving this thread.

Y'all can argue stupid, idiotic points.

As a woman, I wasn't offended in the least and I KNOW that Hillary only used this to play more of her gender card, which DID offend me during the debates.

I'm off to kvetch less and work more to get Sanders elected over this political machine in the primaries.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Reply #48)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 12:07 AM

63. Obviously you are right, but if people are willfully blind, there is nothing you can do.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Reply #48)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 10:54 AM

97. Great effort, Fawke!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Reply #48)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 11:44 AM

102. Look at the link to a video (which I provide below). He made an amateur blunder...

"As Senator from a rural State, what I can tell Secretary Clinton, "that all the shouting in the world is not going to do, what I would hope, all of us want. And that is keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have those guns and end the violence we are seeing."

See at 0:18:
http://egbertowillies.com/2015/10/27/hillary-clinton-slammed-for-falsely-accusing-bernie-sanders-of-sexism-video/

He should've kept her name OUT of his response. By including it, he made it appear as if he was telling her that she was shouting. That's how it comes across. It was a politically amateur mistake that could have some serious legs among women who aren't already Sanders supporters.

That said, he should've simply apologized when this problem arose, and he would've nipped it in the bud. Instead, he doubled down. Second big mistake and a case for "pride before the fall".

Sanders should've simply said, "It's not what I meant to say at all, but if some women feel offended, I apologize." There. End of story. But as long as he doesn't do that, Hillary Clinton will continue to use it against him, and she has every right to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jkbRN (Original post)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 12:48 AM

79. I've also heard Bernie Sanders say

...that we won't solve the gun-problem with "shouting," at events prior to the debate, with no reference to Hillary Clinton.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jkbRN (Original post)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 02:02 AM

82. Thanks for this video, jkbRN. Thom's absolutely right.

 

The only thing he could have added is that Hillary supporters who attack, harass, ridicule, mock, and bait Bernie supporters are also running a very real and serious risk of losing votes for Hillary.

And they know who they are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jkbRN (Original post)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 02:43 AM

85. Speaking as a woman,

the thing I appreciate about Bernie Sanders is that he speaks truth. He doesn't try to pretty it up. He doesn't tailor what he's saying to appeal to the crowd he's speaking to. His positions are clear, no matter who he's addressing. If he were to change the way he talks now in order not to offend the perpetually offended, I would be seriously disappointed in him.

I'm sure a lot of people prefer the smooth talkers, but I'm not one of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jkbRN (Original post)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 03:21 AM

87. I am a man and a Hillary supporter

and I perceive on an instinctive level some of the comments here as sexist (anti-man) amd misandritic. Does that mean that theye were sexist.
To label Bernie as sexist you would have to establish that the 'shouting' comment would not have been made to a male opponent. There is no basis forthis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jkbRN (Original post)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 05:46 AM

90. Sexism isn't an issue? Ok Tom.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #90)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 09:21 AM

92. Sexism is an issue, so is fairness, equality and decent treatement of all people. When straight

 

politicians who have spent years engaged in less than kind language aimed at LGBT families in which they calmly say that God does not approve and neither do they, and that politician then jumps up to grab a word like 'shout' and parse it into a great offense, all I see is a politician yet again indulging in self interested situational standards.

In 08 Hillary and Barack were 'Sanctity, they are not sanctified, I am a Christian, I purse my lips and furrow my brow at the mention of those sinners, we must not mistreat but we can not give them equality'.

But someone said 'shout' near her, and that is offensive? Why are the standards stacked in such a way that politicians get to denigrate others for years but others have to not say 'shout' near the politician?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #92)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 09:27 AM

93. Is this you going back on what you said yesterday?

White people should not explain African American issues to black people. Men should not explain sexism to women. Straight people should not explain to LGBT people how we did what we did or who are friends are. It is not your place to do so unless it is also the place of men to tell women, of whites to tell blacks and so on. Can you see that?


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=736688

Did something in my post about sexism, which I am allowed to discuss per you, upset you? Is Tom Hartmann a woman?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #93)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 09:47 AM

94. Was Hillary LGBT when she trash talked us? Was Obama? No, but they did it anyway.

 

The thing is they are politicians. If they attack others as they have from positions of great power and authority then they have set the rules by which we are all playing.
Who went after whom? Once anyone attacks me, I follow their rules of engagement because I am not a chump. No one has the right to bash others and then cry that they must be treated with extra care. Equal is equal.

So. Did she or did she not criticize LGBT families as unfit for marriage when LGBT families were in fact very supportive of her and Bill even when their own marriage looked a tad funky? Yeah, she did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #94)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 10:15 AM

95. Wow. I'm not your enemy but continue on.

I know I must be very interesting to you because I can't make even one post without these kind of responses from you that arent even on topic or to a point made.

Have a good one. I know I will.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jkbRN (Original post)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 11:19 AM

101. I don't trust a word out of that man's mouth.

 

He's tied up with RT, which automatically makes him unrustworthy and any advice he offers is worthless.

I won't even click on the video.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jkbRN (Original post)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 11:47 AM

103. I could never be as enthused about

Hillary if she is the Nominee.
This election (nomination) is being bought for Hillary by the Banks,Wall St and corporations that want a payback.
Hillary is not a Democrat.Hillary is a right wing corporatist and saying she is a progressive is a lie.
She tried to accuse Bernie Sanders of being a sexist which is BS but yet her supporters are still running with that.
The idea that the Democratic Party is now made up of center right candidates is BS. If Hillary wants to run as a right wing candidate then she should run as a Republican
If Hillary is the nominee the fact that I've never voted for a Republican and after nearly 50 years I will be damned if I start now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread