Hillary Clinton is Done

Status
Not open for further replies.
Foolmewunz said:
For certain meanings of "leftist", one assumes? (e.g. "anyone more progressive than Torquemada)
Click to expand...

Why can you not just accept the label, be proud of what you believe.
You really do need to get up-to-speed on your terms. The "leftists" on these forums, for the most part, have readily self-identified as not being Hillary supporters. Some, e.g. myself, are firm Sanders supporters who will support Hillary if/when she gets the nomination but only because the evils of the GOP are a greater concern than making a gesture at the polling booths.
Click to expand...

You don't want to vote for her but you will, got it.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
And some of us who identify as, well to the Progressive left, are Clinton supporters because she has a better resume and we don't all believe you should elect a President based on a dream.
Click to expand...
Weren't you going to vote for her because she's a woman?
 
logger said:
Why can you not just accept the label, be proud of what you believe.


You don't want to vote for her but you will, got it.
Click to expand...

Not proud of it? Only in treecutter world. Only, I'm not a LOL Librul. I'm a Ha Ha In Your Face Leftist. A real one. Not the straw men you want to argue against but a gen-you-wine credentialed pinko.

I will vote against the Republicans. Period. They are a health hazard and should have hazmat labels on their foreheads. I've made that pretty clear.
 
logger said:
Weren't you going to vote for her because she's a woman?
Click to expand...

lionking said:
Oh please. ...snip...
Click to expand...

...snip... Logger left out an important part. Should have said...

"Weren't you going to vote for her, in part, because she is a woman and as such would be the best candidate for womens issues."

Based on past posting I think that is more accurate.

Edited by jsfisher: 
Moderated content and response to same redacted.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The_Animus said:
...snip... Logger left out an important part. Should have said...

"Weren't you going to vote for her, in part, because she is a woman and as such would be the best candidate for womens issues."

Based on past posting I think that is more accurate.
Click to expand...
Edited by jsfisher: 
Moderated content redacted.

ftfy

The problem with you're reasoning is a woman like Fiorina would be one of the worst candidates on women's issues. So clearly being the best candidate for women's issues is not because of one's gender.

That's not to say a woman's gender, because of her lifelong experiences, hasn't added to her qualifications on women's issues. But again, all one need do is look at Fiorina to see gender is not the acting variable.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Foolmewunz said:
Not proud of it? Only in treecutter world. Only, I'm not a LOL Librul. I'm a Ha Ha In Your Face Leftist. A real one. Not the straw men you want to argue against but a gen-you-wine credentialed pinko.

I will vote against the Republicans. Period. They are a health hazard and should have hazmat labels on their foreheads. I've made that pretty clear.
Click to expand...

I grew up with a father who spit after using Reagan's name "to get the taste of it out of (his) mouth." I could joke that I was surprised to learn Nixon's actual middle name was Milhouse not "mother ***********." I've never voted for a republican for any office above city level. But I've honestly considered it a few times, first with McCain up until he sent out his "what should I think" poll to interested parties who signed on to his website, and now with the possibility of Hillary vs someone else in '16.

I watch the GOP debates and follow some of the candidate news, hoping against the odds that one of these dingbats might be willing to keep their bible in their pants and just do the damn job. I liked Pataki, and Kasich, a couple of governors. I think either one could do a great job.

Meh. I'm sure I'll just end up voting "against" again and helping elect our first non-penis-haver to the White House.
 
Foolmewunz said:
I'm a Ha Ha In Your Face Leftist. A real one. Not the straw men you want to argue against but a gen-you-wine credentialed pinko.
Click to expand...

Bravo!

I reckon between us we must be getting on for a century's worth of that vintage.

Jrrarglblarg said:
Meh. I'm sure I'll just end up voting "against" again and helping elect our first non-penis-haver to the White House.
Click to expand...

Not that that's necessarily a good thing given Hillary's history and the experience of the Iron Bitch, may she burn in Hell, Margaret Thatcher.
 
The_Animus said:
...snip... Logger left out an important part. Should have said...

"Weren't you going to vote for her, in part, because she is a woman and as such would be the best candidate for womens issues."

Based on past posting I think that is more accurate.
Click to expand...
Edited by jsfisher: 
Moderated content redacted.

While that may be closer, I think some past postings would also indicate that Skeptic Ginger is about as likely to vote for any Republican as she is to start worshiping Xenu the space warrior.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm one of the few people here who are voting for Clinton as a first choice. I think the incessant anti-Hillary message makes her look worse than she is in reality, and I think she's the most competent choice.

Why people vote for symbols is beyond me. Clinton's resume is so far ahead of the pack, that's what one should base a President pick on.

Yes, it's nice to think the country is ready to throw off the shackles of a billionaire owned government. But then you look and see how many people are part of their flock of followers. Sanders is right we need to make some major changes in the status quo. But people want to take the easy road to that change, elect one magic man.

The way to make that change is to change state and Congressional leaders. But that requires hard work. Until the changes grow from the bottom up, no single President is going to fix the country. Look how intelligent and skilled Obama is. He got some things done. I don't think he misrepresented himself, but I don't think he was as effective as we wanted those promises to be.

Sanders doesn't come anywhere near Obama in terms of political savvy.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
ftfy
That's not to say a woman's gender, because of her lifelong experiences, hasn't added to her qualifications on women's issues.
Click to expand...

When I said best candidate I meant on the democratic side. Your past posts I was referring to were about why you preferred Hillary over Bernie and you gave the above, more or less, as one reason for your preference for Hillary.
 
The_Animus said:
When I said best candidate I meant on the democratic side. Your past posts I was referring to were about why you preferred Hillary over Bernie and you gave the above, more or less, as one reason for your preference for Hillary.
Click to expand...
If you are claiming her gender is a reason to vote for her sans anything that gender might have contributed to, you are not describing me.

Sorry you don't like that answer. I'm sure it's easier for you to dismiss her qualifications if you can pretend it's her gender that people are voting for.

And by the way, I'm gonna guess that there are probably more people who won't vote for a woman than there are people who would vote for her because she was one.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
If you are claiming her gender is a reason to vote for her sans anything that gender might have contributed to, you are not describing me.

Sorry you don't like that answer. I'm sure it's easier for you to dismiss her qualifications if you can pretend it's her gender that people are voting for.

And by the way, I'm gonna guess that there are probably more people who won't vote for a woman than there are people who would vote for her because she was one.
Click to expand...

We don't actually disagree. You seem determined to mischaracterize my views so you can be offended and have something to argue about. Have fun with that but I'm done.
 
bruto said:
While that may be closer, I think some past postings would also indicate that Skeptic Ginger is about as likely to vote for any Republican as she is to start worshiping Xenu the space warrior.
Click to expand...

:confused:
That's true but I'm not sure what her likelihood of voting republican has to do with what I said.
 
Foolmewunz said:
Not proud of it? Only in treecutter world. Only, I'm not a LOL Librul. I'm a Ha Ha In Your Face Leftist. A real one. Not the straw men you want to argue against but a gen-you-wine credentialed pinko.

I will vote against the Republicans. Period. They are a health hazard and should have hazmat labels on their foreheads. I've made that pretty clear.
Click to expand...
Lol

Probably lots of those in coffee world. We are exact polar opposites, I've never voted for a dem and never would. One difference I'm not in peoples faces and when they're in front of me its a rarity they get in mine. ;)
 
The_Animus said:
We don't actually disagree. You seem determined to mischaracterize my views so you can be offended and have something to argue about. Have fun with that but I'm done.
Click to expand...

I didn't mischaracterize this:
Should have said...
"Weren't you going to vote for her, in part, because she is a woman and as such would be the best candidate for womens issues."
Click to expand...

But you are welcome to take it back if that's not what you meant.

This does not address the issue I was pointing out:
When I said best candidate I meant on the democratic side. Your past posts I was referring to were about why you preferred Hillary over Bernie and you gave the above, more or less, as one reason for your preference for Hillary.
Click to expand...
Be it Democrat or a Green isn't relevant.

And I've said repeatedly Clinton's priorities include women's issues. I don't agree that Sanders' views are the same.

Being a woman doesn't make it a given she would be the best candidate for women's issues. But it happens to be the case and being a woman likely contributed to Clinton's POV.

You just have to be careful you don't demean a person's choice by claiming it is about race or gender like we are little sheeple.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
But you are welcome to take it back if that's not what you meant.

And I've said repeatedly Clinton's priorities include women's issues. I don't agree that Sanders' views are the same.

Being a woman doesn't make it a given she would be the best candidate for women's issues. But it happens to be the case and being a woman likely contributed to Clinton's POV.
Click to expand...
Agreed

You just have to be careful you don't demean a person's choice by claiming it is about race or gender like we are little sheeple.
Click to expand...

Not my intent
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I didn't mischaracterize this:

But you are welcome to take it back if that's not what you meant.

This does not address the issue I was pointing out:
Be it Democrat or a Green isn't relevant.

And I've said repeatedly Clinton's priorities include women's issues. I don't agree that Sanders' views are the same.

Being a woman doesn't make it a given she would be the best candidate for women's issues. But it happens to be the case and being a woman likely contributed to Clinton's POV.
Click to expand...
So you're not voting for Bernie because being a woman, I mean a man, he doesn't have a handle on women's issues like Hillary with her being a woman? Got it

What about the shameful way her HUSBAND has dealt with women?
As a woman, would you have dealt with him the way she has, I mean she is truly the most abused public woman on earth, wouldn't you agree?
Can you think of any public relationship where the husband is such a serial cheater?
 
logger said:
Lol

Probably lots of those in coffee world. We are exact polar opposites, I've never voted for a dem and never would. One difference I'm not in peoples faces and when they're in front of me its a rarity they get in mine. ;)
Click to expand...


First, I'm retired. We closed the coffee shop, effectively, a year ago. Prior to that I have 47 years in logistics (international sea-freight, to be more specific). I'm living off of ElfG rinder's money, now. (On SSA and pensions.) Do try to keep up.

And who's in who's face? What does that even mean. We're quasi-anonymous posters on the internet, arguing about politics. In a not completely scientific survey, I'd say the contents of your posts, over five years are precisely "in your face".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom