Hillary Clinton is Done: part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
sunmaster14 said:
While I welcome your belated conversion to capitalism, it's certainly not true in all cases that people make more money because they're more talented or work harder. And it's probably not true in this case. As varwoche perceptively noted, paid speeches which actually make the promoters money, e.g. by selling tickets to the public, is a far better gauge of the value added by the speaker than a paid private speech to a big company. Goldman Sachs certainly did not make money from Clinton's speech directly. Maybe they think the wisdom she imparted was worth several hundred thousand dollars to their firm. Probably not though, unless it was "insider" information of the kind that is legal now (before she becomes President) but would be illegal after she becomes President.

Regardless, if you really want to compare Hillary's talent to Sanders', I'll point out that Sanders has proven himself capable of drawing 10,000+ crowds on a consistent basis, and getting tens of millions of dollars of small donations from people for whom there could not possibly be any quid pro quo. He hasn't translated this new-found stardom into personal wealth, but no doubt it is a product of talent that Hillary can't seem to match.
Click to expand...

I wasn't talking about all people. But as long as you are touting drawing a crowd as an important quality for a POTUS candidate, I give you Sarah Palin.
 
Maya22 said:
I apologize on behalf of my political brethren. The throwing of the dollar bills was ridiculous and sexist. No one deserves that sexist treatment, not even my arch enemies Ann Coulter and Sarah Palin.
Click to expand...


Maya22 said:
I was looking at the subtext of throwing dollar bills at women, as is frequently done in strip clubs. If the people throwing the dollar bills claim innocence about this, I will not believe them. I would be a traitor to my gender if I brushed this off so easily. Heck, even if this happened to Carly Fiorina, I would be outraged.
Click to expand...

You think all of these men and women were throwing money at her because - stripper?

Maya22 said:
While I do my best to see all people as equals, comparing someone to a stripper can be considered offensive.

Unfortunately, due to our current mode of campaign financing, ALL people running for office are money grubbers, even Trump, who is mostly, but not completely, self-funded.
Click to expand...


Being a stripper is a legal honest job. Not all strippers are whores or losers or whatever it is people think - far from it. I have worked with more strippers than I can count and they would all take offense to your comments.

I can speak for them as well as you can speak for the unnamed masses you believe you are defending. I worked with dancers who were college teachers, owned houses, had their life together. This is one profession where women are actually in control.

As someone who managed a strip club for 5 years, even I didn't make a connection between the throwing of money at Hillary. It took you to do that.

A traitor to your gender? Ask a stripper if they mind money being thrown at them. Ask them if their job is offensive.

Why should anyone be ashamed to be compared to a beautiful hard working woman who makes good money on her own terms?
 
wareyin said:
Are you certain the implied message wasn't "stripper"? Because people are certainly working hard to give that impression.
Click to expand...

That picture shows her as a whore. Different than a stripper. Not always mutually exclusive, but just saying. What does this have to do with the money throwing event? One cartoon shows her as a hooker, therefore the money throwers were treating her like a stripper?

I can't imagine Hillary swinging on a brass pole, so "whore" seems more appropriate.
 
mgidm86 said:
That picture shows her as a whore. Different than a stripper. Not always mutually exclusive, but just saying. What does this have to do with the money throwing event? One cartoon shows her as a hooker, therefore the money throwers were treating her like a stripper?

I can't imagine Hillary swinging on a brass pole, so "whore" seems more appropriate.
Click to expand...
Are you really struggling to understand the sexist connotations with associating the only female candidate with female sex workers, or is this a disingenuous question. Because 'that's a whore, not a stripper' isn't a good defense.
 
mgidm86 said:
That picture shows her as a whore. Different than a stripper. Not always mutually exclusive, but just saying. What does this have to do with the money throwing event? One cartoon shows her as a hooker, therefore the money throwers were treating her like a stripper?

I can't imagine Hillary swinging on a brass pole, so "whore" seems more appropriate.
Click to expand...

As a sex worker's rights activist for the last 25 or so years, most whores I know are appalled at being likened to Hillary...
 


Jane Fonda warns "there will be violence" if Hillary Clinton becomes president (April 17, 2016)

Jane Fonda has warned "there will be violence" if Hillary Clinton is elected president in November.

The actress and social activist warned that the former Secretary of State would face backlash from the nation's "toxic masculinity" if she were to become the first female President of the United States.

"One of the things we have to do is help men understand why they are so threatened, and change the way we view masculinity. We have a toxic masculinity and that's what needs to be addressed."

The two-time Academy Award winner, who is a prominent supporter of feminist causes, insists Clinton will win the next election.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...warns-violence-Hillary-Clinton-president.html
 
Last edited:
Slings and Arrows said:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_696355714182c15bfc.jpg[/qimg]

Jane Fonda warns "there will be violence" if Hillary Clinton becomes president (April 17, 2016)

Jane Fonda has warned "there will be violence" if Hillary Clinton is elected president in November.

The actress and social activist warned that the former Secretary of State would face backlash from the nation's "toxic masculinity" if she were to become the first female President of the United States.

"One of the things we have to do is help men understand why they are so threatened, and change the way we view masculinity. We have a toxic masculinity and that's what needs to be addressed."

The two-time Academy Award winner, who is a prominent supporter of feminist causes, insists Clinton will win the next election.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...warns-violence-Hillary-Clinton-president.html
Click to expand...

Is this supposed to be in support of the previous 'strippers and whores' connections brought up by the Bernie Bros? Or were those pre-support/foundation points for this claim?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
The Goldman Sachs 10,000 Women program is proud to partner with the Clinton Global Initiative on our shared mission to empower women worldwide.
Click to expand...
Finally the truth comes out - the real reason Hillary cozies up to Goldman Sachs. Hillary wants to 'empower' women and children, at the expense of everyone else*.

Slings and Arrows said:
Jane Fonda has warned "there will be violence" if Hillary Clinton is elected president in November.
Click to expand...
She's right. If we can't keep Hillary out of the White House by political means then we will have to raise it to the next level. Drastic action may be required to put her back in her place!

*men.
 
If I hear or read one more Berner yell "release the transcripts!!!", I'm gonna pass out.

Its the Berner version of "show us the birth certificate!!!!"
 
Hercules56 said:
If I hear or read one more Berner yell "release the transcripts!!!", I'm gonna pass out.

Its the Berner version of "show us the birth certificate!!!!"
Click to expand...

That is shillary level ridiculous.

We know she was there, we know she spoke, we know she got paid, and we know know she has the transcripts.

The fact that her incurious supporters wish everyone would stop bringing her hypocrisy is not actually going to stop people bringing up her hypocrisy.
 
Hercules56 said:
If I hear or read one more Berner yell "release the transcripts!!!", I'm gonna pass out.

Its the Berner version of "show us the birth certificate!!!!"
Click to expand...

It's not complicated. The question is whether Hillary is saying things privately for money that conflict with what she is saying publicly for votes. She could easily resolve that question, and she chooses not to.

And the President DID show us his birth certificate, even before he ran for the office. It's the reality-challenged birthers who refused to accept it.
 
0CXBjNb.jpg
 
Bob001 said:
It's not complicated. The question is whether Hillary is saying things privately for money that conflict with what she is saying publicly for votes. She could easily resolve that question, and she chooses not to....
Click to expand...
There are other possibilities, like it would be fine for the base but give the GOP material for their sound bites.

Or it might be minor things that can be taken out of context like Obama's clinging to their guns and god comment.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
There are other possibilities, like it would be fine for the base but give the GOP material for their sound bites.

Or it might be minor things that can be taken out of context like Obama's clinging to their guns and god comment.
Click to expand...

That sounds an awful lot like "You can't handle the truth!" If she said it, whatever it is, it's up to her to explain it and put it into whatever context she intended. She doesn't get to say, "Oh, you little people just couldn't understand."

And Clinton herself was the person who was loudest in throwing "guns and god" back in Obama's face.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/13/us/politics/13campaign.html?_r=0
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
There are other possibilities, like it would be fine for the base but give the GOP material for their sound bites.

Or it might be minor things that can be taken out of context like Obama's clinging to their guns and god comment.
Click to expand...

There's also the oft brought up fact that releasing the transcripts would be seen as weakness and "caving in to pressure", while not releasing them is seen as "having something to hide".

It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't kind of situation for Clinton. Might as well not do it, as that probably requires the least degree of effort.
 
I think she should publish them in book format perhaps charge something like $99.99 with all proceeds going to Planned Parenthood.....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom