2016 Republican Thread

[greg775]

When you say she's running on her husband's legacy, that's sexism. She has created a massively impressive legacy on her own.

 

I don't care if you can't see it. It's normal that people who are sexist don't realize they're sexist. But systemic misogyny colors your opinion of Hillary.

Cmon. It's easy to play the sexism card here on people. Did you watch Sat. Night Live's hilarious opening skit Saturday? The fake debate? On Kate McKinnon's closing argument she said, "I get it people. You hate me. But if you elect me I'll hide in the basement four years. You won't hear from me. If I lose, you'll still see me because I will run for President until I DIE or I get elected."

Look, a lot of us 'hate' her. And it has zero to do with her sex. She's a very unlikeable person, some say crooked. We despise her just as we despise Trump and he's a male. Now Jesse Ventura or Bernie? We like!

[Middle Buffalo]

Now Jesse Ventura or Bernie? We like!

Everyone likes the backup QB.

 

If they were the candidates, the two parties would have spent the past few months trashing them. Then we'd all hate them.

[Quin]

Cmon. It's easy to play the sexism card here on people. Did you watch Sat. Night Live's hilarious opening skit Saturday? The fake debate? On Kate McKinnon's closing argument she said, "I get it people. You hate me. But if you elect me I'll hide in the basement four years. You won't hear from me. If I lose, you'll still see me because I will run for President until I DIE or I get elected."

Look, a lot of us 'hate' her. And it has zero to do with her sex. She's a very unlikeable person, some say crooked. We despise her just as we despise Trump and he's a male. Now Jesse Ventura or Bernie? We like!

 

She said in the Oval Office.

 

Stop editorializing, Greg!

[southsider2k5]

When you say she's running on her husband's legacy, that's sexism. She has created a massively impressive legacy on her own.

 

I don't care if you can't see it. It's normal that people who are sexist don't realize they're sexist. But systemic misogyny colors your opinion of Hillary.

 

It isn't sexism. She is quite literally using that Presidency as evidence of her ability to be President. The idea that it is systemic is only systemic ignorance.

[NorthSideSox72]

It isn't sexism. She is quite literally using that Presidency as evidence of her ability to be President. The idea that it is systemic is only systemic ignorance.

I tend to agree with this. She does bring up Bill's Presidency plenty, which certainly puts those issues in play.

 

That's not to say there isn't sexism at play though, as certainly there is. That last debate was like a video presentation of what mansplaining is. But that doesn't mean it's sexism to put Bill's Presidency into the discussion.

 

[southsider2k5]

I tend to agree with this. She does bring up Bill's Presidency plenty, which certainly puts those issues in play.

 

That's not to say there isn't sexism at play though, as certainly there is. That last debate was like a video presentation of what mansplaining is. But that doesn't mean it's sexism to put Bill's Presidency into the discussion.

 

It is not any different then when HR Bush ran on Reagan's Presidency, or when Gore ran on Clinton's Presidency.

[Reddy]

I tend to agree with this. She does bring up Bill's Presidency plenty, which certainly puts those issues in play.

 

That's not to say there isn't sexism at play though, as certainly there is. That last debate was like a video presentation of what mansplaining is. But that doesn't mean it's sexism to put Bill's Presidency into the discussion.

SS2k said that was ALL she is running on. THAT is sexism. The nuance matters.

[Reddy]

It isn't sexism. She is quite literally using that Presidency as evidence of her ability to be President. The idea that it is systemic is only systemic ignorance.

you don't believe systemic misogyny/sexism has played ANY role in the portrayal of Hillary Clinton over the last 30 years?

[southsider2k5]

you don't believe systemic misogyny/sexism has played ANY role in the portrayal of Hillary Clinton over the last 30 years?

 

And there go the goalposts.

[Reddy]

And there go the goalposts.

Moving the goalposts when you said sexism isn't systemic? Lol those are some mighty specific goalposts! You're funny.

 

Care to respond to the post prior, then? You're so good at evading from up on a high horse, but then again I guess horses ARE really mobile...

Edited October 3, 2016 by Reddy

[southsider2k5]

Moving the goalposts when you said sexism isn't systemic? Lol those are some mighty specific goalposts! You're funny.

 

Care to respond to the post prior, then? You're so good at evading from up on a high horse, but then again I guess horses ARE really mobile...

 

Yes. Accusing me failed, so instead you tried to change it to something else. Play your games with someone else.

[NorthSideSox72]

SS2k said that was ALL she is running on. THAT is sexism. The nuance matters.

When did he say that? I may have missed it.

 

[Reddy]

That is because Hillary is running based on her husbands record, and her involvement in those things coming to fruition.

 

^^^

[Quin]

So Trump now insulting vets who take their own lives.

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

^^^

Wait, this isn't in response to my request, is it? He clearly stated she is running based on the Clinton Prez record - which she is. He did NOT say that is all she is running on.

 

You have turned someone's statement into something more extreme than it was. Why don't you just acknowledge that it was you who added the "ALL" part, yo made a mistake, and move on?

 

[Quin]

Wait, this isn't in response to my request, is it? He clearly stated she is running based on the Clinton Prez record - which she is. He did NOT say that is all she is running on.

 

You have turned someone's statement into something more extreme than it was. Why don't you just acknowledge that it was you who added the "ALL" part, yo made a mistake, and move on?

 

Yeah, Reddy while I tend to have the same outlook as you, this is kinda what it is.

[CanOfCorn]

Wait, this isn't in response to my request, is it? He clearly stated she is running based on the Clinton Prez record - which she is. He did NOT say that is all she is running on.

 

You have turned someone's statement into something more extreme than it was. Why don't you just acknowledge that it was you who added the "ALL" part, yo made a mistake, and move on?

 

Guys, if your wife was the President and YOU ended up running, wouldn't you want to support her and her policies? This is a non-issue. She's an incredibly smart lady, for all we know, Pres. Clinton and her may have ironed out details in the Oval Office.

 

First Ladies aren't figureheads. They are smart women who still have a direct effect on their husbands and their policies. Even if they are just a sounding board. That is important. This is a silly argument. Policies are policies. You either have them or you don't. And they will change over the course of your presidency or your life.

 

 

[Middle Buffalo]

When did he say that? I may have missed it.

SS2k did not say "All," but his statement also did not qualify what he thought HC was running on beside Bill's record. He said that HC is running on her husband's record. The implication is that is all she is running on.

 

SS2k did not say she's "basically" or "mostly" or any other words that would imply that he thinks HC brings anything more to the table than Bill's presidency.

[Jenksismyhero]

Sigh.

[southsider2k5]

SS2k did not say "All," but his statement also did not qualify what he thought HC was running on beside Bill's record. He said that HC is running on her husband's record. The implication is that is all she is running on.

 

SS2k did not say she's "basically" or "mostly" or any other words that would imply that he thinks HC brings anything more to the table than Bill's presidency.

 

I shouldn't have to clarify that it was not an absolute statement. If I wanted to make an absolute statement, I would have, and would have clearly done it. I swear sometimes that people have gotten trained for finding offense in everything, and don't know how to handle something that isn't.

 

To be clear. Hillary Clinton has absolutely brought the Bill Clinton Presidency into her campaign as a very clear roadmarker of the ways that she portrays she is qualified to be President. As I said earlier, this statement is no different than what George HR Bush or Al Gore did when they ran for President having worked in highly popular White Houses as a high level. Hopefully it isn't sexist to say that Al Gore ran on Bill Clinton's Presidency.

 

Because of that it is absolutely fair to judge what happened both successfully and unsuccessfully under that Presidency for its merits on this campaign. the candidate introduced that as a deciding factor, not me.

 

And yes, Hillary Clinton has a lot of her own record to run on as well. She has a long history of being on the wrong side of a lot of initial decisions, only to change her mind later on to the more politically popular point of view. A large part of her campaign is also built on temperament, and being able to make right decisions under pressure, and without foresight. That also makes things like what has happened in Syria, Libya, and Ukraine under her watch absolutely topics of relevance. It also makes her vote on Iraq important. It is easy to way you were wrong down the road, but as President the die is already cast, and being wrong isn't really a fixable thing.

 

So before the offended train departs the station again, hopefully that clears things up.

[Middle Buffalo]

My Dad would classify this as a case of someone who can dish it out, but can't take it.

 

 

[southsider2k5]

My Dad would classify this as a case of someone who can dish it out, but can't take it.

 

Um, great?

[caulfield12]

Other than Bernie Sanders, Obama and Paul Wellstone...not to mention libertarians, who will always be non-interventionist, that leaves a very select group who were against the Iraq War.

 

You're basically asking those in Congress to have insider knowledge that Bush and Powell were deliberately misleading the country and UN.

 

If you want to take issue with Clinton, it's on issues like the Pan Pacific Trade Agreement or 9/11 lawsuit against Saudi Arabia, where she stakes out positions that are poll-tested and practical but not politically courageous. Probably the last time I admired her as a politician was when she fought for health care in 1993-94, which was also the end of her career as a political first lady.

 

After Somalia, she didn't stick her neck out for the Rwandans. The Clintons also executed a lot of people in Arkansas largely so it wouldn't be hung around their necks as being soft on crime/weak kneed liberals, like Dukakis vs. Bush. And then you have the shameful tactics against Obama in South Carolina in 2008.

 

But what is the alternative? Can any really thoughtful Republican trust Trump on foreign policy?

Why/how? Honestly...?

Edited October 4, 2016 by caulfield12

[StrangeSox]

Obama is non interventionist compared to bush, but he's had plenty of his own adventures.

[farmteam]

Obama is non interventionist compared to bush, but he's had plenty of his own adventures.

While it's be interventionist compared to Bush, "plenty of his own adventures" downplays rampant drone strikes too much I think. Could be reading too much into your words, though.