OMG Politics, I'm over it already.

Status
Not open for further replies.
On a slightly different, although related topic, I'll just leave this here. It's only 6 minutes of his 45 minute speech, but he makes some good points.

 
Just want to remind folks that the latest quotes we actually Stephen King's comments that I posted.

That said, if you remember back to 1992, Rush Limbaugh started a unending attack on Hillary. He coined the term femnazi for her because she didn't (and shouldn't have had to) feel obligated to play the traditional role of the timid first lady. It clearly fed conservative opinions of her and has cast a shadow over everything they have done as so many conservatives remain scarily focused on tearing down the Clintons.

Oddly, there are plenty of things worth going after, but a lot of the conservative voters and tea party types still have issues with her not falling into their perception of the traditional role of a women...and some of these folks are women that currently hold public office. Despite his overwhelming popularity, the repeal of Glass Steagall should be enough to full tarnish the image of Slick Willie (and those closely associated with him), but it seems to roll off him like it never happened (unlike semen on a blue dress) and is not heavily discussed as being a prime contributor to the nearly decade old financial crisis from which many are still trying to recover.

Hillary generally supported all of the Bill's political moves, so her complicity makes her a target although as first lady she couldn't have changed anything even if she was against any of the actions. Her tenure as Senator for NY is fondly remembered by centrist and leftist women and leftist men, but was far from perfect. As secretary of state, well world relations did not collapse, for whatever that's worth. But the aforementioned shadow is of distrust and her work and actions are not objectively judged by conservatives.

Every other action and experience being equal, any other female candidate with her credentials would likely receive a small fraction of the vilification aimed at Hillary. Her "brand" is anti-conservative despite her actually being right of center. It's just that the right has gone so far right they can't see it. The only "liberal" candidate upon until DC was Bernie. Hillary is just a pro-choice conservative that doesn't like guns. Oddly Bernie won't commit to being pro gun control because he feels beholden to his Vermont constituents that haven't really called out for a change.

Anyway, the scariest thing is now is when things will actually start to get nasty...only just now. Then it will get kicked up a ton of notches following the conventions. I'm so glad I rarely watch TV anymore, because I don't want to see/hear the mudslinging.
 
Also, I just want to go on record that today I had a productive, even positive and respectful, conversation about gun control vs. constitutional rights, with another member here on Facebook, who believes strongly in gun rights. It was a good experience, and was glad to be able to converse in a not all black and white manner in a respectful way. Not going to go into details here. Just pleased about the conversation.
 
mongooz said:
i think i said something about powerful GOPers rallying to nominate someone else at the convention. about 2 pages ago.
Click to expand...

Notice they have 30 delegates who are talking about a rule change. 30 out of 2400. A Republican coup is a LONG way off.
 
sunvalleylaw said:
Also, I just want to go on record that today I had a productive, even positive and respectful, conversation about gun control vs. constitutional rights, with another member here on Facebook, who believes strongly in gun rights. It was a good experience, and was glad to be able to converse in a not all black and white manner in a respectful way. Not going to go into details here. Just pleased about the conversation.
Click to expand...

What a coincidence. I joined a conversation on Facebook about guns too. Only difference was, they are a relative, not a forum member and, it was like talking to a brick wall.
 
in this process, I have been looking hard at myself to see if some or all of my resistance to Hillary as the nominee was due to sexism. I am, after all, a white male who did have some privilege growing up. I was raised not to be sexist, but the world is what it is and we are not perfect. So I have been willing to dig deep. This guy's piece that got featured on the daily kos helped me clarify things for myself.

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2016/6/...g-defense-of-Hillary-Clinton-I-have-ever-seen

I would agree that overall nationwide, sexism plays a role. But it is not what motivated my decision. Why? Because if Elizabeth Warren had run, I would have been right there to get a sticker and a button. I just like her politics more, and her ability to communicate and speak more.

This little thing showing the differences as between Ms. Warren and Ms. Clinton confirms it. The big areas of difference are where I get really wary of Ms. Clinton.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/215817-clinton-vs-warren-where-they-disagree

that said, I do agree with the guy's conclusion at the end that she, if elected, will be a decent, if far from perfect, president, and far better than anything the other main party has to offer. So until we have a different voting system, I will support her. Just not necessarily gonna run out and get stickers and buttons though.

I am glad to have thought it through and feel confirmed that my decision is not sexist in origin.
 
sunvalleylaw said:
in this process, I have been looking hard at myself to see if some or all of my resistance to Hillary as the nominee was due to sexism. I am, after all, a white male who did have some privilege growing up. I was raised not to be sexist, but the world is what it is and we are not perfect. So I have been willing to dig deep. This guy's piece that got featured on the daily kos helped me clarify things for myself.

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2016/6/...g-defense-of-Hillary-Clinton-I-have-ever-seen

I would agree that overall nationwide, sexism plays a role. But it is not what motivated my decision. Why? Because if Elizabeth Warren had run, I would have been right there to get a sticker and a button. I just like her politics more, and her ability to communicate and speak more.

This little thing showing the differences as between Ms. Warren and Ms. Clinton confirms it. The big areas of difference are where I get really wary of Ms. Clinton.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/215817-clinton-vs-warren-where-they-disagree

that said, I do agree with the guy's conclusion at the end that she, if elected, will be a decent, if far from perfect, president, and far better than anything the other main party has to offer. So until we have a different voting system, I will support her. Just not necessarily gonna run out and get stickers and buttons though.

I am glad to have thought it through and feel confirmed that my decision is not sexist in origin.
Click to expand...

I too would rather have Warren running. I would probably take her over Bernie.

My biggest issue with Clinton is that she should have never been a senator. She was qualified, but she never lived in NY. Had she run from Arkansas, it would have been fine. Buying a house in a state the year before an election because you know only a democrat will win, sounds something like the Underwoods would do.

I'll still end up voting for her because she is going to be the best choice but I am not excited by her as a candidate. I'm sure in the end , she will do more good than harm so that is a win.
 
Just had my father try to stifle my vote by him telling me "you live over there now, you need to stay out of our politics".

He settled down a bit after I pointed out that I'm over here working hand in hand with soldiers (as soldier, DOD CIV and contractor) for the last 27 years and have more than enough right to my vote and opinion.

Happy fathers day.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top