Roseanne Barr on Hillary For President

[theprestige]

In a wide-ranging interview, the comedienne comments on the idea of Hillary as a woman president:

I think that a party that was woman-friendly would be revolutionary, and that party could be headed by a male or female. It’s what the party itself stands for that matters. She is standing as a Democrat so she’s a Democrat, and I don’t see much difference between them and the Republicans. They both get paid by the same guys. They do the same thing, they want the same stuff, more business.... I would rather see the first intelligent, honest American president. I don’t care what’s in their shorts. I don’t care what it looks like down there at all."​

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ting-feminism-and-not-voting-for-hillary.html

I don't subscribe to the idea that both parties are the same. However, I do think they operate along similar lines, and have similar vectors for corruption and collusion.

And I do agree with her that a woman president, as a woman president, would have to be "revolutionary" to be significant. I think she's right that Hillary would be another Democratic president and what's "in her shorts" is irrelevant, except in terms of squeezing votes from naive gender-issues voters.

I also think there's a similar, and therefore informative, dynamic with Obama's presidency. He hasn't really been a transformative president in terms of race relations, post-racialism, "diverse viewpoints", etc. He's been a rather run-of-the-mill Democrat executive, more notable for his relative inexperience and liberal ideals, than for his racial identity or minority-culture credentials. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing--it's just that history is going to record Barack Obama as a Democratic president, not a black president. "America's first black president" will be a footnote in the history books. Like Barr, I think the same would probably be true of a President Hillary.

 

[DavidJames]

I agree with most everything you said until this.

I also think there's a similar, and therefore informative, dynamic with Obama's presidency. He hasn't really been a transformative president in terms of race relations, post-racialism, "diverse viewpoints", etc. He's been a rather run-of-the-mill Democrat executive, more notable for his relative inexperience and liberal ideals, than for his racial identity or minority-culture credentials. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing--it's just that history is going to record Barack Obama as a Democratic president, not a black president. "America's first black president" will be a footnote in the history books. Like Barr, I think the same would probably be true of a President Hillary.

You can't blame Obama if racists continue to be racists.

 

[Manopolus]

Hmmph. I can't stand Roseanne. I don't appear to see anything she said in this case that I strongly disagree with though. There is a difference between the parties, but admittedly, it isn't quite as major as they like to pretend, and the actual difference in policy isn't even quite along the same lines as the difference in rhetoric.

 

[theprestige]

I agree with most everything you said until this.You can't blame Obama if racists continue to be racists.

Agreed. Nor can I blame Hillary if sexists continue to be sexists. But I can "blame" both Obama and Hillary for being notable political figures more in terms of their party affiliation, than in terms of their race or gender. Not that I'm really blaming them; it's really just an observation of how they've pursued their political careers. I think racism has very little to do with the kind of Democrat, and the kind of President, Barack Obama has chosen to be. Just as I think sexism has little to do with the kind of politician Hillary has chosen to be in the past, and will probably continue to be in the future.

 

[The Big Dog]

Roseanne is a 9/11 truther and subscribes to and reposts ******** claims like the Boston marathon bombing was a false flag operation.

I'm sure the fact that she isn't voting for Hillary is the best news Hillary has heard this week.

 

[hgc]

I agree that there are some wrong things about the way that our government operates that both major parties are responsible for, but all those who say that there's no difference between the parties are willfully ignorant. There are differences in policy agenda that really matter.

In any case, Roseanne's gibberings are hardly worth note. What she has said above is neither interesting, insightful nor original.

 

[TragicMonkey]

This is 2015. Who the heck is Roseanne Barr? Was she one of the Little Rascals?

 

[Butter!]

In other news, Jenny McCarthy knows vaccinations cause autism, Martin Sheen knows the government was complicit in 9/11 happening, and Rosie O'Donnell assures you that burning jet fuel couldn't possibly melt steel. Thank god we have such knowledgeable role models!

 

[Butter!]

This is 2015. Who the heck is Roseanne Barr? Was she one of the Little Rascals?

I heard Buckwheat's a birther now!

 

[Foolmewunz]

In other news, Jenny McCarthy knows vaccinations cause autism, Martin Sheen knows the government was complicit in 9/11 happening, and Rosie O'Donnell assures you that burning jet fuel couldn't possibly melt steel. Thank god we have such knowledgeable role models!

Martin or Charlie?

 

[Butter!]

Martin or Charlie?

I think they're both truthers, aren't they? Martin limits himself to "gubmint was complicit" while Charlie dives straight into "gubmint diddit!"

 

[TragicMonkey]

I think they're both truthers, aren't they? Martin limits himself to "gubmint was complicit" while Charlie dives straight into "gubmint diddit!"

Emilio was always the hot one anyway.

 

[Joey McGee]

"Historically, it was the jesters who spoke truth to kings."

And now we have mentally ill people babbling nonsense to the media...

Everything this woman knows about the false left-right paradigm she got from Alex Jones. Only a fellow kook could write such fawning nonsense about someone who clearly has gone Gary Busey.

Oh and Martin Sheen is a miracle-believing "radical Catholic" the kind of guy who always has his eyes glazed over with tears while contemplating the mysteries of the Eucharist or some ****.

 

[Butter!]

Emilio was always the hot one anyway.

Truer word was never spoken, boy!

 

[theprestige]

In any case, Roseanne's gibberings are hardly worth note. What she has said above is neither interesting, insightful nor original.

Perhaps. I haven't seen it discussed much here, so it's possibly original here, at least.

But not interesting or insightful? How do you figure? If Hillary were to become president, she would indeed be America's first female president. Isn't any discussion of the implications and expectations of that event interesting?

As for insightful, I don't think her opinion is any great revelation or epiphany, but I do find it at least a little insightful. Do you think her idea is not insightful because it's wrong, or because it's too obvious to qualify as insight, or some other reason?

Anyway, who cares about your disdain for Roseanne Barr? What about the idea itself? Do you agree that Hillary is significant as an establishment candidate, rather than as a woman candidate? Do you think she can be both? Do you wish she was more one or the other?

 

[plague311]

I didn't even know people interviewed Rosanne. How many pieces of film has she been apart of that have failed? Outside of the sitcom from forever ago, she's irrelevant and borderline mentally handicapped. She's probably just irritated that Hillary's campaign actually means somewhere whereas hers was just a joke.

 

[Butter!]

"Historically, it was the jesters who spoke truth to kings."

And now we have mentally ill people babbling nonsense to the media...

Everything this woman knows about the false left-right paradigm she got from Alex Jones. Only a fellow kook could write such fawning nonsense about someone who clearly has gone Gary Busey.

Oh and Martin Sheen is a miracle-believing "radical Catholic" the kind of guy who always has his eyes glazed over with tears while contemplating the mysteries of the Eucharist or some ****.

I've always been slightly jealous of people who can get their socks rocked to that degree by religious foolishness. I absolutely require substances and/or excellent sex to even come close. And obtaining either of those things requires work, which I hate.

 

[DavidJames]

Agreed. Nor can I blame Hillary if sexists continue to be sexists. But I can "blame" both Obama and Hillary for being notable political figures more in terms of their party affiliation, than in terms of their race or gender. Not that I'm really blaming them; it's really just an observation of how they've pursued their political careers. I think racism has very little to do with the kind of Democrat, and the kind of President, Barack Obama has chosen to be. Just as I think sexism has little to do with the kind of politician Hillary has chosen to be in the past, and will probably continue to be in the future.

Well, I agree with that as well. I was just responding to this:

He hasn't really been a transformative president in terms of race relations, post-racialism, "diverse viewpoints", etc.

Especially when considered in conjunction with this.

 

[Spindrift]

In other news, Jenny McCarthy knows vaccinations cause autism, Martin Sheen knows the government was complicit in 9/11 happening, and Rosie O'Donnell assures you that burning jet fuel couldn't possibly melt steel. Thank god we have such knowledgeable role models!

Charlie Sheen.

 

[Butter!]

Charlie Sheen.

Martin's on board too. He just thinks the government was complicit as opposed to outright behind it, which is what Charlie thinks.

ETA - "There are obviously a lot of unanswered questions, let me leave it that way, that are very, very disturbing. The key to that is Building 7 and how that came down under very, very suspicious circumstances." That's old Marty's comment on the issue. He's also rumored to be involved in an upcoming truther film with Woody Harrelson.

Et tu, guys?