NationStates Jolt Archive

Hilary Clinton seems to be bashed more than any other candidate, including by people on this forum. The weird thing is, people really seem to hate Clinton. Not the way I "hate" George Bush either, but genuinely think she is an evil person who should be tortured before being killed and sent to whatever level of hell Hitler is in. Now, she's not my first choice, but Clinton actually seems like she would make a competent president (from a Democratic point of view), and so I'm confused as to why everyone assumes she subsists on the souls of aborted babies or something. Is it because she's a Clinton? Woman? New Yorker? Please, someone explain where this anti-Clinton sentiment comes from.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't hate Clinton. I do admit that I have a general distaste for politicians, and she gets caught up in that along with the rest.

I'd actually like to have a woman as President, and maybe if she gets elected we'll at least have that.

I don't hate Clinton, but there are many reasons I don't see her as a good candidate.

Current top on the list is the fact that she places national security as more important than human rights without hesitation.

hc gets two different kinds of hate. on the one hand, she's like the embodiment of everything that is wrong with the democratic party from a sane perspective. the right-wingers, on the other hand, just dribble on themselves while screeching. i think that we can assume that they hate her because she's a woman, more or less.

Hilary Clinton seems to be bashed more than any other candidate, including by people on this forum. The weird thing is, people really seem to hate Clinton. Not the way I "hate" George Bush either, but genuinely think she is an evil person who should be tortured before being killed and sent to whatever level of hell Hitler is in. Now, she's not my first choice, but Clinton actually seems like she would make a competent president (from a Democratic point of view), and so I'm confused as to why everyone assumes she subsists on the souls of aborted babies or something. Is it because she's a Clinton? Woman? New Yorker? Please, someone explain where this anti-Clinton sentiment comes from.

Well, I'd don't really like Clinton that much. I dislike her ideas (especially that ridiculous $5000 per student plan, which would cost about a tenth of the budget), I dislike her dishonesty, and I dislike that she's a member of the same family as another president. If she were elected it would mean every president for the last 20 years has been related to some other president-- a dynasty, really.

Though I honestly can't tell if my negative perception of her comes from the media waiting for her to fuck up or if its from her making so many fuck-ups that a lot of people hate her.

I've been rather baffled by the amount and levels of hatred against here, so I'll be interested to see whether anyone can explain it...

Hilary Clinton seems to be bashed more than any other candidate, including by people on this forum. The weird thing is, people really seem to hate Clinton. Not the way I "hate" George Bush either, but genuinely think she is an evil person who should be tortured before being killed and sent to whatever level of hell Hitler is in. Now, she's not my first choice, but Clinton actually seems like she would make a competent president (from a Democratic point of view), and so I'm confused as to why everyone assumes she subsists on the souls of aborted babies or something. Is it because she's a Clinton? Woman? New Yorker? Please, someone explain where this anti-Clinton sentiment comes from.


Okay, here it goes. Her political points are much to far to the left, and whatever she says, they seem generally focused around the destruction of the United States. Unlike most radical leftists in America (Michael Moore), she holds a position of power. She also has a very power-hungry and generally fake personality, which suggests hosts of ulterior motives and general hatred of everyone. She hates the Republican party with a passion, and thereby shows hatred of even moderate right wingers (I do have respect for left wing democrats, the fact that I'm a Republican zealot doesn't change that), and possibly multi-party or bi-party democracies. She has had much legislation pushed through, all of which encourgaes destruction of our Judeo-Christian morals and the increasment of state power over the other areas. She is just a relativley evil person all around, at least from what we can tell without personally having lunch.
DOWN WITH MRS CLINTON!!!!!!!!!

i think that we can assume that they hate her because she's a woman, more or less.

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT SHE IS A WOMAN YOU IGNORANT COMMIE. If we could have our way, Condi Rice would be president. Last time I checked, she was a woman.

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT SHE IS A WOMAN YOU IGNORANT COMMIE. If we could have our way, Condi Rice would be president. Last time I checked, she was a woman.

So where are the other female candidates? The demos have tried for a female vice-president and now a president.....

Okay, here it goes. Her political points are much to far to the left, and whatever she says, they seem generally focused around the destruction of the United States. Unlike most radical leftists in America (Michael Moore), she holds a position of power. She also has a very power-hungry and generally fake personality, which suggests hosts of ulterior motives and general hatred of everyone. She hates the Republican party with a passion, and thereby shows discontent with even moderate right wingers (I do have respect for left wing democrats, the fact that I'm a Republican zealot doesn't change that). She has had much legislation pushed through, all of which encourgaes destruction of our Judeo-Christian morals and the increasment of state power over the other areas. She is just a relativley evil person all around, at least from what we can tell without personally having lunch.
DOWN WITH MRS CLINTON!!!!!!!!!

Hahahahaha. People who call Hillary Clinton a "radical leftist" crack me up.

Oh, and to answer the question, the overwhelming majority of the frothing-at-the-mouth hatred comes from either (a) people who hated her when she was the First Lady or (b) people who listen to the people in group A on talk radio. I clearly remember the moment when said people's generic dislike of Mrs. Clinton for being a Democrat seemed to me to change into deep, seething hatred, and that was when Bill Clinton revealed that he (gasp! horror! shock!) consulted his wife about political decisions! As if she was an actual person or something! Didn't she know that the role of the First Lady was to give cookie recipes to "Better Homes and Gardens" and smile on posters for some children's charity or something? Bitch!

I'm not for censorship or her policy's on leading gays into voting for her using civil unions as some sort of compromise (a common policy)

all in all shes a republican like most democrats

Okay, here it goes. Her political points are much to far to the left, and whatever she says, they seem generally focused around the destruction of the United States. Unlike most radical leftists in America (Michael Moore)!

awww bless you must be so confused with the outside world

I found this article, by Shankar Vedantam. It was first published in The Washington Post (I'm guessing it was longer too, but the SMH website is the only source I have):

iron-women-and-the-attila-the-hen-factor (http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/iron-women-and-the-attila-the-hen-factor/2007/11/15/1194766868482.html)

Some extracts:



Margaret Thatcher, of Britain, you will learn, was called "Attila the Hen". Golda Meir, the Israeli prime minister, was "the only man in the cabinet". Richard Nixon called Indira Gandhi, the Indian prime minister, "the old witch". And Angela Merkel, the Chancellor of Germany, has been dubbed "The Iron Frau".

The conventional explanation for why female leaders are widely perceived as mannish, conniving and ruthless - not just by men but by other women, too - is that politics is tough, and the only way for a woman to survive in a male-dominated field is to have sharp elbows.

...

"The roots are in stereotypes about women, men and leaders," says Alice Eagly, a social psychologist at Northwestern University. "Culturally, women are the nicer sex, and men are more aggressive go-getters. Leaders are generically in our culture more like men than women in the way people think about leaders."

...

"When people say Hillary has no heart or no sense of humour, they are saying she is not warm," says Susan Fiske, a social psychologist at Princeton University. "People do not question her competence, but her trustworthiness and warmth."

Before making the transition to leadership and label B, members of the club of first female leaders often turn out to have been described with label A. Before ascending to the chancellorship, Merkel was called "das Maedchen" - "the girl" - by her mentor, Helmut Kohl. Before Gandhi became prime minister, her chief political rival dismissed her as a "gungi gudiya", or "dumb doll".

Did "das Maedchen" become "Iron Frau" and "dumb doll" become "old witch" because Merkel and Gandhi changed personalities, or because the mantle of leadership changed how they were seen?

While both sexes can be cold, conniving and manipulative, those terms get attached to female leaders for no better reason than that they happen to be female, says the New York University organisational psychologist Madeline Heilman. "Just knowing they are successful and competent causes people to infer they have engaged in all these behaviours and to disapprove of them."

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT SHE IS A WOMAN YOU IGNORANT COMMIE. If we could have our way, Condi Rice would be president. Last time I checked, she was a woman.

....man, does that last statement suggest some scary mental images.

Hahahahaha. People who call Hillary Clinton a "radical leftist" crack me up.

Indeed. Her nanny state policies are much more right-wing and she only tends to come off as radical to some because she'll espouse a more radical position if she happens to be standing in front of a group that wants to hear it.

*snip*

Sex really has nothing to do with Clinton coming off as cold and conniving. She just comes off that way. Most of the candidates do and it turns me off to them just as much as it does to her. Most politicians are cold, conniving, and manipulative. That's why it's a breath of fresh air to find one that actually seems to care (and hope that he isn't just better at being conniving and manipulative than the others).

So where are the other female candidates? The demos have tried for a female vice-president and now a president.....

Hillary would be the absolute worst for "first woman elected president". It's better to wait another four years for another woman.

Hahahahaha. People who call Hillary Clinton a "radical leftist" crack me up.



"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." -Hillary Clinton

"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." -Hillary Clinton


http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/marxist.asp

Hillary would be the absolute worst for "first woman elected president". It's better to wait another four years for another woman.

Do we need a woman president?
It seems like somehow this is seen as a good thing, as opposed to irrelevant. Or is just the thought that a woman president would be a cute little novelty?

"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." -Hillary Clinton

http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/marxist.asp

aww did you hear it on talk radio?

Do we need a woman president?
It seems like somehow this is seen as a good thing, as opposed to irrelevant. Or is just the thought that a woman president would be a cute little novelty?

we need more tits on TV

I've been rather baffled by the amount and levels of hatred against here, so I'll be interested to see whether anyone can explain it...
Basically, the more stupid, almost universally male, part of the Republican party is scared of her mostly because she's a woman. And hey, we all know that the wimminz ain't good for nut'in other than stayin' at home and lookin' after the kids. Yeehaw.

Basically, the more stupid, almost universally male, part of the Republican party is scared of her mostly because she's a woman. And hey, we all know that the wimminz ain't good for nut'in other than stayin' at home and lookin' after the kids. Yeehaw.

or, it could be due to the fact that they hate her politics. But then that wouldn't jell with the well-known fact that the GOP is a bunch of reactionary money-grubbing pigs.

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT SHE IS A WOMAN YOU IGNORANT COMMIE. If we could have our way, Condi Rice would be president. Last time I checked, she was a woman.

Oh my Word. That does it. This kid is either hopelessly serious or he's a parody.

"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." -Hillary Clinton
OH NOES THE COMMUNISM.

Why not photoshop a picture of her giving Stalin a blowjob? Don't fuck it up too much this time, though ;)

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT SHE IS A WOMAN YOU IGNORANT COMMIE. If we could have our way, Condi Rice would be president. Last time I checked, she was a woman.
Keep it civil?

What makes Condi Rice a better candidate than Hilary Clinton?

Indeed. Her nanny state policies are much more right-wing and she only tends to come off as radical to some because she'll espouse a more radical position if she happens to be standing in front of a group that wants to hear it.

Indeed. She's a good deal too conservative for my tastes, so it's really quite funny to hear Limbaugh and the Dittoheads blathering on about how she's an arch-liberal, communist-loving antichrist. :p


Sex really has nothing to do with Clinton coming off as cold and conniving. She just comes off that way. Most of the candidates do and it turns me off to them just as much as it does to her. Most politicians are cold, conniving, and manipulative. That's why it's a breath of fresh air to find one that actually seems to care (and hope that he isn't just better at being conniving and manipulative than the others).

Sadly, I haven't found any candidate yet who doesn't strike me as conniving and manipulative. I wanted to like Obama, but he spent such a long time being excessively guarded about his actual positions that I got fed up with him. At the moment, I'm unenthusiastically stumping for Edwards as the best of a fairly lackluster bunch.

Oh my Word. That does it. This kid is either hopelessly serious or he's a parody.


Hopelessly serious. Sorry to dissapoint you, but I am DEAD SERIOIUS. No kidding, I honestly think she is a communist in disguies, and I honestly think that quote (as well as the one in that link someone provided) prove that she is a communist. And as my username says, I think communism is VERY SERIOUSLY EVIL.

Hopelessly serious. Sorry to dissapoint you, but I am DEAD SERIOIUS. No kidding, I honestly think she is a communist in disguies, and I honestly think that quote (as well as the one in that link someone provided) prove that she is a communist. And as my username says, I think communism is VERY SERIOUSLY EVIL.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/marxist.asp

your "quote" is wrong and no she not a communist, I don't even see any proof for her being left

She's the most serious right-wing person in power out there (apart from Mr. Gingrich), and is in a good position to keep the Bush Doctrine running.

which is exactly the thing which has been working?

"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." -Hillary Clinton
Sounds good to me, although I would prefer 'We will force things away from you...'.

Keep it civil?

What makes Condi Rice a better candidate than Hilary Clinton?

She's the most serious right-wing person in power out there (apart from Mr. Gingrich), and is in a good position to keep the Bush Doctrine running.

I don't like her for the simple fact that she sided with Jack Thompson in the video game bashing a couple years ago, then as soon as it was shown that jack was crazy as hell she left the band wagon. Now video games are back in the spot light and so is she calling for more regulations on the ESRB ratings board becasue of manhunt 2.

She's the most serious right-wing person in power out there (apart from Mr. Gingrich), and is in a good position to keep the Bush Doctrine running.

:D

And I thought you were serious. Keep the parody going....

Sex really has nothing to do with Clinton coming off as cold and conniving. She just comes off that way. Most of the candidates do and it turns me off to them just as much as it does to her. Most politicians are cold, conniving, and manipulative. That's why it's a breath of fresh air to find one that actually seems to care (and hope that he isn't just better at being conniving and manipulative than the others).

Being "cold" is a criticism, when applied to women. But "coldness" in men is taken more as a sign of strength. I mean, I perceive GWB as worryingly insincere, worryingly stupid and quite arrogant ... I could easily describe him as "cold" but it just doesn't seem important compared to the other criticisms.

I think the article is worth reading, though the first paragraph diminishes the credibility for internet-savvy types by referencing Wikipedia. The second page refers to results of psychological experiments, which bear on female leaders in general ... Clinton is given as only one of the examples.

She's the most serious right-wing person in power out there (apart from Mr. Gingrich), and is in a good position to keep the Bush Doctrine running.
So you are a fan of the Bush doctrine?

You are in the minority.

Condi would lose to Hilary.

Also, it's 'Capitalism'.

Hopelessly serious. Sorry to dissapoint you, but I am DEAD SERIOIUS. No kidding, I honestly think she is a communist in disguies, and I honestly think that quote (as well as the one in that link someone provided) prove that she is a communist. And as my username says, I think communism is VERY SERIOUSLY EVIL.
Capitalsim....is that a misspelling? :D

I think you need some serious evidence before you can suggest that Hilary is a Communist. I'll wait.

Hopelessly serious. Sorry to dissapoint you, but I am DEAD SERIOIUS. No kidding, I honestly think EA is a communist in disguies, and I honestly think that quote (as well as the one in that link someone provided) prove that she is a communist. And as my username says, I think communism is VERY SERIOUSLY EVIL.

She's the most serious right-wing person in power out there (apart from Mr. Gingrich), and is in a good position to keep the Bush Doctrine running.

Yeah, but she's an appointee, not an elected representative. That might not be an important distinction to you, but to dumb it right down for you: she has a job to do, and as Secretary of State it is her job to represent the Administration. She isn't speaking for herself, or answering any of the questions she'd have to answer if she ran for President.

You know she was once a Democrat, right?

Her personal beliefs aren't all that certain now, except that she's always been opposed to affirmative action. But cop this: she may be pro-choice!

"If you go back to 2000 when I helped the president in the campaign. I said that I was, in effect, kind of libertarian on this issue. And meaning by that, that I have been concerned about a government role in this issue. I am a strong proponent of parental choice -of parental notification. I am a strong proponent of a ban on late-term abortion. These are all things that I think unite people and I think that that's where we should be. I've called myself at times mildly pro-choice."

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30282-2005Mar12.html)

If Condy is the last remaining hope of the slavering right-wing, you guys really are stuffed!

Hopelessly serious. Sorry to dissapoint you, but I am DEAD SERIOIUS. No kidding, I honestly think EA is a communist in disguies, and I honestly think that quote (as well as the one in that link someone provided) prove that she is a communist. And as my username says, I think communism is VERY SERIOUSLY EVIL.

Your ... username? You mean "Capitalsim" ?

Gee, there seems to be some kind of malfunction. Silly old Jolt, it's written the wrong username next to your post. Gee, how could a thing like that happen? :p:p

Hopelessly serious. Sorry to dissapoint you, but I am DEAD SERIOIUS. No kidding, I honestly think EA is a communist in disguies, and I honestly think that quote (as well as the one in that link someone provided) prove that she is a communist. And as my username says, I think communism is VERY SERIOUSLY EVIL.

So which is the pawpet?

I don't want Hillary in office because she'll bring Bill back with her. And Bill is slimy.
The. End.

hc gets two different kinds of hate. on the one hand, she's like the embodiment of everything that is wrong with the democratic party from a sane perspective. the right-wingers, on the other hand, just dribble on themselves while screeching. i think that we can assume that they hate her because she's a woman, more or less.

the minor part of it is that she is a woman. everyone judges women politicians more harshly than their male counterparts even when they are doing a better job (there is an interesting article at slate.com on this subject right now).

but the bigger reason is their overflow hatred of her husband. the republicans hate bill clinton with an unbridled passion that transcends all reason. so much so that sean hannity credited ronald reagan with the balanced budget and reform of welfare the other day. they cant accept that bill did anything good.

to bring in hillary is to endorse bill. that cannot be allowed. if she gets the nomination we will have the most bitter and divisive campaign in history. worse than the last election, worse than the early days of the republic.

oh and the 3rd reason is a backlash against george bush of all things. because bush2 is bush1's son (and a complete wanker) the thought of having clinton2 so soon after clinton1 is unthinkable.

Okay, here it goes. Her political points are much to far to the left,

From what I've heard elsewhere, she's considered to be quite strongly right-wing.

I'm utterly bemused by the smear campaign by morons who call her a communist. Are those people shockingly ignorant themselves, or are they simply pandering to the fears of the mindless masses?


and whatever she says, they seem generally focused around the destruction of the United States.

Examples?


She also has a very power-hungry and generally fake personality, which suggests hosts of ulterior motives and general hatred of everyone.

Ridiculously vague statement. Concrete examples?


She has had much legislation pushed through, all of which encourgaes destruction of our Judeo-Christian morals

Examples?

Also, I thought you were supposed to be a secular country?


She is just a relativley evil person all around

Statements like that make it very difficult for me to take you seriously. They also make me find it dismaying that people like you may have the right to vote.

From what I've heard elsewhere, she's considered to be quite strongly right-wing.


I'm not exactly sure where people are getting that she's right wing. For an American, she's pretty far to the left. Though I don't know how that measures up in Europe...

Okay, here it goes. Her political points are much to far to the left, and whatever she says, they seem generally focused around the destruction of the United States. Unlike most radical leftists in America (Michael Moore), she holds a position of power. She also has a very power-hungry and generally fake personality, which suggests hosts of ulterior motives and general hatred of everyone. She hates the Republican party with a passion, and thereby shows hatred of even moderate right wingers (I do have respect for left wing democrats, the fact that I'm a Republican zealot doesn't change that), and possibly multi-party or bi-party democracies. She has had much legislation pushed through, all of which encourgaes destruction of our Judeo-Christian morals and the increasment of state power over the other areas. She is just a relativley evil person all around, at least from what we can tell without personally having lunch.
DOWN WITH MRS CLINTON!!!!!!!!!
I reckon that's why baby lord jesus done provided us wit the winchester shotgun. To protect our winchester shotguns and baby jesus. We also ought to get rid all em communists and homosexuals from our god given land. I done heard she the devil, and she plans to demonize our god fearing country.

No kidding, I honestly think she is a communist in disguies

And because she's a communist, she believes "there is no greater force for economic growth than free markets" (http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/marxist.asp).

No, wait... :p

From what I've heard elsewhere, she's considered to be quite strongly right-wing.
*shrug*

I'm utterly bemused by the smear campaign by morons who call her a communist. Are those people shockingly ignorant themselves, or are they simply pandering to the fears of the mindless masses?
They are trying to smear her evidently. Whether or not this is ignorance, or pandering, is up for debate. (oh waow, look, a debate forum *chuckles maniacally*)

Also, I thought you were supposed to be a secular country?
God damn secularism! :p


Statements like that make it very difficult for me to take you seriously. They also make me find it dismaying that people like you may have the right to vote.
I doubt he can vote yet. ;)

http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/marxist.asp

woot, PWND

Hopelessly serious. Sorry to dissapoint you, but I am DEAD SERIOIUS. No kidding, I honestly think she is a communist in disguies, and I honestly think that quote (as well as the one in that link someone provided) prove that she is a communist. And as my username says, I think communism is VERY SERIOUSLY EVIL.
Communism: Serious Business.

Hopelessly serious. Sorry to dissapoint you, but I am DEAD SERIOIUS. No kidding, I honestly think she is a communist in disguies, and I honestly think that quote (as well as the one in that link someone provided) prove that she is a communist. And as my username says, I think communism is VERY SERIOUSLY EVIL.

The quote was contrary to your assertion, not in favor of you. Your user name is funny because you misspelled Capitalism. Yes, yes, the evil communists are hiding under your bed, bring down the wall, and blather on about other nonsense. As Americans we have been led to fear things we feel are diametrically opposed to our position. Hence the whole hating and fear of communism thing leading to McCarthyism. This poster is an example of the people who still believe communism failed in the USSR because Reagan said to tear down the wall. It's happy horseshit history for people with very little intellectual curiosity beyond their middle and high school textbooks. it has very little basis in reality and doesn't bother to recognize that the system, as it was used, was inferior and would have crumbled on its own. Instead ethnocentric texts would like to make it about an American victory rather a Russian failing. When this kid grows up hopefully he'll be a little more objective.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/marxist.asp

It's funny. Reading these quotes (in their proper context) actually makes me like Clinton more.

From what I've heard elsewhere, she's considered to be quite strongly right-wing.

I don't actually consider her that right-wing. She's certainly more conservative than most Democrats, but not as far as the Republican candidates.
Actually, I think the accusations from the left of her being a Republican and the cries from the right that she is a communist are connected because...(drum roll) Hilary Clinton is a good politician. She compromises, she is articulate, and best of all, she knows how to get elected. It's funny that so many Republicans hate the Clintons, because neither is that liberal, Bill Clinton promised to "change welfare as we know it" or something like that. But what both people have going for them is that they can beat Republicans. The sterotypical Democratic candidate is like Michael Dukakis, while the stereotypical Republican is like Reagan, the "Teflon President." The fact that there exists these people who are not part of the GOP but still great at politicking drives the right-wing crazy, and so they come up with stupid reasons to hate them.

I don't actually consider her that right-wing. She's certainly more conservative than most Democrats, but not as far as the Republican candidates.
Actually, I think the accusations from the left of her being a Republican and the cries from the right that she is a communist are connected because...(drum roll) Hilary Clinton is a good politician. She compromises, she is articulate, and best of all, she knows how to get elected.

Perhaps the reason she's a bit hard to pin down now, is that getting elected has two stages. If she can get the Demo nomination without comitting herself to much, she can play the Presidential campaign more freely. Her positions will firm up if necessary to get the nomination, otherwise she'll just coast into it.

It's funny that so many Republicans hate the Clintons, because neither is that liberal, Bill Clinton promised to "change welfare as we know it" or something like that. But what both people have going for them is that they can beat Republicans. The sterotypical Democratic candidate is like Michael Dukakis, while the stereotypical Republican is like Reagan, the "Teflon President." The fact that there exists these people who are not part of the GOP but still great at politicking drives the right-wing crazy, and so they come up with stupid reasons to hate them.

They must have been shocked when the ever-reliable morality card failed on Bill. Yep, he had sexual relations out of wedlock, that's meant to be politically fatal but OMG it failed? Grrah! Gnash! It must be Hillary's fault! Or something like that.

I don't like her for the simple fact that she sided with Jack Thompson in the video game bashing a couple years ago, then as soon as it was shown that jack was crazy as hell she left the band wagon. Now video games are back in the spot light and so is she calling for more regulations on the ESRB ratings board becasue of manhunt 2.

Ah, a person who focuses on the serious issues. :rolleyes:

Hopelessly serious. Sorry to dissapoint you, but I am DEAD SERIOIUS. No kidding, I honestly think she is a communist in disguies, and I honestly think that quote (as well as the one in that link someone provided) prove that she is a communist.

Then you're um...you're not very bright.

Then you're um...you're not very bright.

Dead people do tend to be rather stiff, with very dull, if any, gleaming light in their eyes.

hc gets two different kinds of hate. on the one hand, she's like the embodiment of everything that is wrong with the democratic party from a sane perspective. the right-wingers, on the other hand, just dribble on themselves while screeching. i think that we can assume that they hate her because she's a woman, more or less.

I can assume that is the dumbest statement to date. I guess the conservative women hate her for the same reason then? Godforbid conservatives hate her because they just don't agree with her stance on the issues...Of course why would anybody do that?

I'm not exactly sure where people are getting that she's right wing. For an American, she's pretty far to the left. Though I don't know how that measures up in Europe...

over here she'd measure up about centre, at a guess, from what i know of her policies. and the UK has typically been right of most of the rest of the EU


as a result, i don't get the hatred at all.

Hopelessly serious. Sorry to dissapoint you, but I am DEAD SERIOIUS. No kidding, I honestly think she is a communist in disguies, and I honestly think that quote (as well as the one in that link someone provided) prove that she is a communist. :rolleyes:
No clue what communism really is, apart from being diametrically opposed to capitalism, huh?
And as my username says, I think communism is VERY SERIOUSLY EVIL.I'd have thought your username implies that you hate communsim...

I don't want Hillary in office because she'll bring Bill back with her. And Bill is slimy.
The. End.

Strange, that's exactly why I want her in office.

What's the fuss - Australia just got a female deputy leader, who's more commie than any US politician.

What's the fuss - Australia just got a female deputy leader, who's more commie than any US politician.

Ireland has had two female presidents in a row. Though they don't do much.

Better than doing things no one likes! :p

Indeed.

Ireland has had two female presidents in a row. Though they don't do much.

Better than doing things no one likes! :p

I despise because she has itchy trigger fingers (she's practically foaming at the mouth over the prospect of going to war with Iran), is a pro-censorship video game-hating bitch, and is just in general a witch. The fact that almost everyone on the left, right, and in between shudders at the mere mention of her name speaks volumes about her.

I don't care for many of her policies, but that's different from not liking her.

I don't like her because she didn't drop Bill like a bad habit when the sex scandal broke. Now, how a married couple works out their problems is up to them...

...but if she didn't hadn't had Senate and Presidential elections planned and mapped out, I would bet she wouldn't be married to him now.

The chances of a divorced woman being elected? Slim to none...instead she stays married to Bill and gets her own shot at the White House. Smacks of opportunism to me, and certainly not someone who will place the nation's interests first.

I don't care for many of her policies, but that's different from not liking her.

I don't like her because she didn't drop Bill like a bad habit when the sex scandal broke. Now, how a married couple works out their problems is up to them...

...but if she didn't hadn't had Senate and Presidential elections planned and mapped out, I would bet she wouldn't be married to him now.

The chances of a divorced woman being elected? Slim to none...instead she stays married to Bill and gets her own shot at the White House. Smacks of opportunism to me, and certainly not someone who will place the nation's interests first.

Agreed.

I don't care for many of her policies, but that's different from not liking her.

I don't like her because she didn't drop Bill like a bad habit when the sex scandal broke. Now, how a married couple works out their problems is up to them...

...but if she didn't hadn't had Senate and Presidential elections planned and mapped out, I would bet she wouldn't be married to him now.

The chances of a divorced woman being elected? Slim to none...instead she stays married to Bill and gets her own shot at the White House. Smacks of opportunism to me, and certainly not someone who will place the nation's interests first.

I don't follow that. Staying married to Bill proves that her political career is more important to her than, oh self-respect or something. (I think you don't have an adult view of relationships. "Infidelity means you dump them" is a pretty dumb rule, but that's by-the-bye)

Therefore she's selfish and can't represent the interests of the nation. That doesn't follow I don't think.

EDIT: Took out two paragraphs. They were a bit confused.

I despise because she has itchy trigger fingers (she's practically foaming at the mouth over the prospect of going to war with Iran), is a pro-censorship video game-hating bitch, and is just in general a witch. The fact that almost everyone on the left, right, and in between shudders at the mere mention of her name speaks volumes about her.

Burn the witch! Burn the witch!

No, drown her! She's a witch!

Wait, hang on, we can torture witches can't we? To find out if they really aren't a witch? Then if that doesn't work, we can torture them some more just for fun. I mean, we're going to kill them anyway, because they're a witch, so what's it matter?

:rolleyes:

What really annoys me is all the sophomoric "Girls Have Cooties" crap that goes on whenever people talk about Hilary. There are legit reasons why one might not like her as a politician, but you hardly ever get to talk about them because everyone is too busy talking about how she's too 'bitchy' or 'shrill' or just plain FEMALE to be in politics. Yawn.

I despise because she has itchy trigger fingers (she's practically foaming at the mouth over the prospect of going to war with Iran),
I would like to see you back that up with some reputable references.

is a pro-censorship video game-hating bitch,
This is a major setback in backing a candidate? Is this still part of her platform? In other words, how important is this?

and is just in general a witch.
You just throw this in for filler? What witch like qualities does she possess?

The fact that almost everyone on the left, right, and in between shudders at the mere mention of her name speaks volumes about her.
If that were true, then she wouldn't be the Democratic front runner in the current race?

You just throw this in for filler? What witch like qualities does she possess?

She turned me into a newt!






Well I got better.

She turned me into a newt!






Well I got better.

Damn it, I was just about to post that.

She turned me into a newt!


Well I got better.
Sure it wasn't a sallymander? :D

Being "cold" is a criticism, when applied to women. But "coldness" in men is taken more as a sign of strength.

Not to me. It's pretty much a criticism across the board.

What really annoys me is all the sophomoric "Girls Have Cooties" crap that goes on whenever people talk about Hilary. There are legit reasons why one might not like her as a politician, but you hardly ever get to talk about them because everyone is too busy talking about how she's too 'bitchy' or 'shrill' or just plain FEMALE to be in politics. Yawn.

And when you actually have reasons not to like her, you get told that's its really just that you're sexist and you don't like her because she's a woman. bleh

And when you actually have reasons not to like her, you get told that's its really just that you're sexist and you don't like her because she's a woman. bleh

Yeah, I've gotten that one. Which is funny, because I'm entirely in favor of having a woman president. I'd just prefer that it be someone else. Sadly, I suspect I'm going to be waiting almost as long for a decent female candidate as I have for a decent male candidate.

Hillary upsets the status quo.

This is the nation that practically pissed it's pants about electing a Catholic. A Mormon is an outsider... not even worth considering. If you look at the big picture, the American voting public are actually pretty unadventurous.

They might not admit it, because they like to think themselves modern, or they like to think America is equalitarian, but it's true that race and gender are still big handicaps in American politics... and the higher you climb, the more of an issue.

The Democrats couldn't even think of running Clinton and Obama as serious contendors, if not for the huge reaction AGAINST Bush Jr.

Yeah, I've gotten that one. Which is funny, because I'm entirely in favor of having a woman president. I'd just prefer that it be someone else. Sadly, I suspect I'm going to be waiting almost as long for a decent female candidate as I have for a decent male candidate.

That's an excuse. I've heard it before. What it comes down to is - you'll vote for a bad male candidate while 'you wait for a good female candidate'... so, a bad male is more vote-able than a 'bad' female.

Hillary upsets the status quo.

This is the nation that practically pissed it's pants about electing a Catholic. A Mormon is an outsider... not even worth considering. If you look at the big picture, the American voting public are actually pretty unadventurous.

They might not admit it, because they like to think themselves modern, or they like to think America is equalitarian, but it's true that race and gender are still big handicaps in American politics... and the higher you climb, the more of an issue.

The Democrats couldn't even think of running Clinton and Obama as serious contendors, if not for the huge reaction AGAINST Bush Jr.

yeah its a tough calculation.

it would be great to have a black or woman candidate. the republicans are so unpopular right now that either clinton or obama would have an excellent chance. and either of them would be good presidents.

but DAMN it would suck if the general public just couldnt bring themselves to vote for a woman or a black man. we cant afford another republican administration.

that fear makes me want to support john edwards even though he fully deserves to be #3 in this race.

I despise because she has itchy trigger fingers (she's practically foaming at the mouth over the prospect of going to war with Iran), is a pro-censorship video game-hating bitch, and is just in general a witch. The fact that almost everyone on the left, right, and in between shudders at the mere mention of her name speaks volumes about her.

Meh. The war talk is saber rattling for the sake of the right. A woman has to talk tough.

The game crap is for the moralists who think video games makes kids rob banks, do drugs, and kill kittens. Even if she truly believes it; there are worst things to worry about.

I don't shudder at her name.

Moral of the story? She sounds like a politician.

The chances of a divorced woman being elected? Slim to none...instead she stays married to Bill and gets her own shot at the White House. Smacks of opportunism to me, and certainly not someone who will place the nation's interests first.

Say it isn't so? A politician that is an opportunist?

Next you are going to tell me that a politician would place his constituents interests first?

What really annoys me is all the sophomoric "Girls Have Cooties" crap that goes on whenever people talk about Hilary. There are legit reasons why one might not like her as a politician, but you hardly ever get to talk about them because everyone is too busy talking about how she's too 'bitchy' or 'shrill' or just plain FEMALE to be in politics. Yawn.

All girls have cooties!

That's an excuse. I've heard it before. What it comes down to is - you'll vote for a bad male candidate while 'you wait for a good female candidate'... so, a bad male is more vote-able than a 'bad' female.

Yeah, it couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that I think Obama would be better for the country than Hilary because of policy differences. The fact that I prefer a decent male candidate to a 'bad' female candidate is a clear sign of latent sexism, let me tell you.

we need more tits on TVyep... as opposed to all the boobs we had so far...

I found this article, by Shankar Vedantam. It was first published in The Washington Post (I'm guessing it was longer too, but the SMH website is the only source I have):

iron-women-and-the-attila-the-hen-factor (http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/iron-women-and-the-attila-the-hen-factor/2007/11/15/1194766868482.html)

Some extracts: reminds me of what a friend of mine said when she was in her HS Debate Club.
"Men will be seen as assertive, but women will always be 'bitchy'."

Hopelessly serious. Sorry to dissapoint you, but I am DEAD SERIOIUS. No kidding, I honestly think EA is a communist in disguies, and I honestly think that quote (as well as the one in that link someone provided) prove that she is a communist. And as my username says, I think communism is VERY SERIOUSLY EVIL.

and you were doing soooo well up to this point. :p

That's an excuse. I've heard it before. What it comes down to is - you'll vote for a bad male candidate while 'you wait for a good female candidate'... so, a bad male is more vote-able than a 'bad' female.

Actually, I plan on voting for a good male candidate. And, if he gets the nomination, voting for him again!

If he doesn't, I'll have no one good to vote for, so I"ll have to play the "lesser evil" game again. =(


it would be great to have a black or woman candidate. the republicans are so unpopular right now that either clinton or obama would have an excellent chance. and either of them would be good presidents.

but DAMN it would suck if the general public just couldnt bring themselves to vote for a woman or a black man. we cant afford another republican administration.

that fear makes me want to support john edwards even though he fully deserves to be #3 in this race.

Ugh. That position bugs the hell out of me. "Other people might be racist or sexist, so I'm going to go along with them just in case" or "I don't know if the country is 'ready' for a black/woman president, so I'm going to support someone I like less."

It is perpetuating bigotry and it makes you just as much part of the problem as them.

Hopelessly serious. Sorry to dissapoint you, but I am DEAD SERIOIUS. No kidding, I honestly think EA is a communist in disguies, and I honestly think that quote (as well as the one in that link someone provided) prove that she is a communist. And as my username says, I think communism is VERY SERIOUSLY EVIL.

Hopelessly serious. Sorry to dissapoint you, but I am DEAD SERIOIUS. No kidding, I honestly think Zelda is a communist in disguies, and I honestly think that quote (as well as the one in that link someone provided) prove that she is a communist. And as my username says, I think communism is VERY SERIOUSLY EVIL.

(Just pretty much trying to really underline that yours wasn't the original and was as a result kinda obviously a joke. :p )

Burn the witch! Burn the witch!

No, drown her! She's a witch!

Wait, hang on, we can torture witches can't we? To find out if they really aren't a witch? Then if that doesn't work, we can torture them some more just for fun. I mean, we're going to kill them anyway, because they're a witch, so what's it matter?

:rolleyes:

Translation: I am a troll and have nothing of substance to add, aside from a few strawmen.

She turned me into a newt!






Well I got better.

Troll much?

I would like to see you back that up with some reputable references.

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8428
http://www.antiwar.com/frank/?articleid=8515
http://www.lewrockwell.com/featherstone/featherstone53.html

This is a major setback in backing a candidate? Is this still part of her platform? In other words, how important is this?

The fact that she supports it is bad enough for me.

You just throw this in for filler? What witch like qualities does she possess?

Couldn't think of a better word, and didn't feel like using "bitch" twice in a row.

If that were true, then she wouldn't be the Democratic front runner in the current race?

*shrug*

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8428
http://www.antiwar.com/frank/?articleid=8515
http://www.lewrockwell.com/featherstone/featherstone53.html
Such compelling evidence!! :p

The fact that she supports it is bad enough for me.
In the scheme of things....video games are very important when selecting a President?

Couldn't think of a better word, and didn't feel like using "bitch" twice in a row.
So I was right in that you were using the "witch" claim as filler.

*shrug*
Well you certainly have done a marvellous job exposing the evil platform of Hilary Clinton. Not!!

Troll much?actually a quote from Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

Burn the witch! Burn the witch!

No, drown her! She's a witch!

Wait, hang on, we can torture witches can't we? To find out if they really aren't a witch? Then if that doesn't work, we can torture them some more just for fun. I mean, we're going to kill them anyway, because they're a witch, so what's it matter?

:rolleyes:
is that from something? sounds familiar.

Yeah, it couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that I think Obama would be better for the country than Hilary because of policy differences. The fact that I prefer a decent male candidate to a 'bad' female candidate is a clear sign of latent sexism, let me tell you.

I believe you.

You seem to forget that your words stick around on a forum. You just said you were waiting for a good male candidate, so you're either misrepresenting THAT comment, or this one.

is that from something? sounds familiar.

It wasn't meant to be. I was making fun of IM for using the term "witch" ... at all.

Little boys who are afraid of witches really shouldn't go out in the woods.

Actually, I plan on voting for a good male candidate. And, if he gets the nomination, voting for him again!

If he doesn't, I'll have no one good to vote for, so I"ll have to play the "lesser evil" game again. =(


I'm not sure there is a good male candidate. Gravel, maybe. Oh - or Koch. Other than that, it looks pretty much bad or worse. Playing the lesser evil game from the outset.

Edit: Wow - I'd vote for Gravel entirely on the basis of: http://youtube.com/gravel2008



Ugh. That position bugs the hell out of me. "Other people might be racist or sexist, so I'm going to go along with them just in case" or "I don't know if the country is 'ready' for a black/woman president, so I'm going to support someone I like less."

It is perpetuating bigotry and it makes you just as much part of the problem as them.

It might bug the hell out of you, but it's the sad truth in a two-party nation (which, let's be realistic, this is). If you don't support one of the big handful, you're wasting your vote. If enough people do it, your vote for the 'lesser evikl' actually becomes 'handing the election to whichever greater evil is running a more populist campaign'.

Hillary is an evil democrat. She can not be president.

I'm not sure there is a good male candidate.

Personally, I'm a fan of Obama.

It might bug the hell out of you, but it's the sad truth in a two-party nation (which, let's be realistic, this is). If you don't support one of the big handful, you're wasting your vote. If enough people do it, your vote for the 'lesser evikl' actually becomes 'handing the election to whichever greater evil is running a more populist campaign'.

Interestingly enough, there are both a woman and a black man in the "top handful" right now. Ashmoria's contention was, "If I vote for the people I like in the primary, bigots in this country might not vote for them in the general election, therefore I'll vote for someone I think is less well-suited for the job." The problem with that is that it perpetuates bigotry. In fact, it makes bigotry stronger by increasing their numbers and self-perpetuating the prediction that this country "isn't ready" to elect them.

I don't like Hillary as a candidate, but anyone who doesn't vote for her simply because they are afraid that sexists might avoid her because of her genitalia are doing nothing but perpetuating sexism. They may as well actually be sexists themselves.

I believe you.

You seem to forget that your words stick around on a forum. You just said you were waiting for a good male candidate, so you're either misrepresenting THAT comment, or this one.

I remember what I said. Here's that post of mine from this thread, for reference.

Yeah, I've gotten that one. Which is funny, because I'm entirely in favor of having a woman president. I'd just prefer that it be someone else. Sadly, I suspect I'm going to be waiting almost as long for a decent female candidate as I have for a decent male candidate.

Now, my statements could be interpreted in a lot of ways.

Someone could propose that because I apparently don't think I'll be waiting quite as long for a decent female candidate as I have for a decent male candidate, I'm obviously of the opinion that decent candidates are likely to more frequently be women.

Or someone could propose that because I've apparently been waiting longer for a decent male candidate, I obviously value having a male candidate over having a female candidate.

Or someone could just ask me what my opinion is rather than assuming what my opinion is based on an obtuse analysis of limited information, but that might be less entertaining.

If you're at all interested, my opinion is that I'm going to be waiting for a decent female candidate for a while longer because there's been (and continues to be) systematic discrimination against women in the political sphere, and that those few women who have made it in the US political scene have generally had to make it the same way most of the men did, by hook and by crook. Just as a matter of odds, there's a better chance for there to be a decent male candidate because there's far more male candidates than female candidates due to the systematic discrimination, and it's easier for men to enter politics in general due to that same discrimination.

It doesn't help that a decent candidate like Carol Mosely-Braun has almost no shot at getting the nomination or at getting elected even if she runs again, and sadly her lower chances are mostly a product of the same systematic discrimination that she worked so hard to overcome in many areas.

Has anyone here ever seen the movie Hitlers Daughter?
Born in Germany, raised in the USA by a German American Nazi family as USA born, grows up runs for President of the USA, claims she is the only one who can do great things for America, wins the election and claims this during her celebration acceptance speech, sounds alot like Hillary? Hillary I hope not Yuck.

It doesn't help that a decent candidate like Carol Mosely-Braun has almost no shot at getting the nomination or at getting elected even if she runs again, and sadly her lower chances are mostly a product of the same systematic discrimination that she worked so hard to overcome in many areas.

btw, anyone find it interesting that both black senators we've had since the racists switched parties were chicago-based?

Has anyone here ever seen the movie Hitlers Daughter?
Born in Germany, raised in the USA by a German American Nazi family as USA born, grows up runs for President of the USA, claims she is the only one who can do great things for America, wins the election and claims this during her celebration acceptance speech, sounds alot like Hillary? Hillary I hope not Yuck.

A politician asserts that they are the ones who can do great things for the country? The devil you say...

Personally, I'm a fan of Obama.



Interestingly enough, there are both a woman and a black man in the "top handful" right now. Ashmoria's contention was, "If I vote for the people I like in the primary, bigots in this country might not vote for them in the general election, therefore I'll vote for someone I think is less well-suited for the job." The problem with that is that it perpetuates bigotry. In fact, it makes bigotry stronger by increasing their numbers and self-perpetuating the prediction that this country "isn't ready" to elect them.

I don't like Hillary as a candidate, but anyone who doesn't vote for her simply because they are afraid that sexists might avoid her because of her genitalia are doing nothing but perpetuating sexism. They may as well actually be sexists themselves.


now in my own defense, i only said that i THINK about supporting edwards for that reason. ill cast my actual vote in the democratic primary in my state based on who still has a chance and how i feel about them when that day comes.

btw, anyone find it interesting that both black senators we've had since the racists switched parties were chicago-based?

I must be missing something. Why would that matter?

I personally could vote for Hillary without guilt. She has the best health care reform plan of three most popular Democratic candidates, she is committed to beginning a phased withdrawl in Iraq, and her priorities are with assisting those who actually need it, not wealthy businessmen (*cough* Republicans *cough).

I must be missing something. Why would that matter?

its just an interesting fact. we've only had 5, and two of them were during reconstruction after the civil war, and two more came from just one city within a decade of each other.

its just an interesting fact. we've only had 5, and two of them were during reconstruction after the civil war, and two more came from just one city within a decade of each other.

Well, it is kinda interesting I suppose. Though I always find it more interesting that there have been so few black Senators in general, ya know?

I reckon that's why baby lord jesus done provided us wit the winchester shotgun. To protect our winchester shotguns and baby jesus. We also ought to get rid all em communists and homosexuals from our god given land. I done heard she the devil, and she plans to demonize our god fearing country.

It's DAT'S, not That's. :rolleyes:


Anyways, back to the issue at hand:
Prevention First Act: federal funds for contraception. (Oct 2006
Prevention First Act: federal funds for contraception. (Oct 2006
Co-sponsored bills totaling $502B in spending thru 2005. (Oct 2006)
Voted NO on $40B in reduced federal overall spending. (Dec 2005)
Gays deserve domestic partnership benefits. (Feb 2000)
GLBT progress since 2000, when I marched in gay pride parade. (Aug 2007)
Businesses play social role in US; gov't oversight required. (Sep 1996)
Opposes merit pay for individual teachers. (Apr 2000)
Supports merit pay for entire schools. (Apr 2000)
Voted YES on $52M for "21st century community learning centers". (Oct 2005)
Voted YES on $5B for grants to local educational agencies. (Oct 2005)
Voted YES on shifting $11B from corporate tax loopholes to education. (Mar 2005)
Voted YES on funding smaller classes instead of private tutors. (May 2001)
Voted YES on funding student testing instead of private tutors. (May 2001)
Voted YES on spending $448B of tax cut on education & debt reduction. (Apr 2001)
Children are not individualists. (Sep 1996)
Dems believe in fighting terror with cooperation. (Jun 2006)
Get assault weapons & guns off the street. (Jul 2007)
Limit access to weapons; look for early warning signs. (Sep 2000)
License and register all handgun sales. (Jun 2000)
Nixon should have been impeached for bombing Cambodia. (Dec 1999)
A safe world needs the nuclear test ban treaty. (Sep 1999)
Stand up for unions; organize for fair wages. (Jun 2007)
Make sure nobody ever tries to privatize Social Security. (Aug 2007)
Absolutely oppose the war in Iraq. (Oct 2007)
Bring out as many combat troops as quickly as possible. (Oct 2007)
NO on extending the PATRIOT Act's wiretap provision


By the way, I think I should let everyone know I'm not a redneck. I live in a very rich southern Maine town where the median income is $90000. And, although I usually don't stand up for my intelligence, having severe and what many would call wrong conceptions about a politician is not equal to stupidity. I have a 90-something grade average with 3 honors courses.*

*If anyone doesn't know, I'm 14.

Keep it civil?

What makes Condi Rice a better candidate than Hilary Clinton?

condi has already shown she is a good puppet for the GOP. thats what makes her a better cannidate ;)

Probably the single biggest thing I have against Hillary is the fact that the white house needs some fresh blood. We have already had 20 years of bush/clinton/bush I really think someone outside of this group will be better for the country.

Granted there are no candidates that thrill me right now so I could vote for her, but I really am going to wait until the election is a bit closer to come to any sort of decision.

Probably the single biggest thing I have against Hillary is the fact that the white house needs some fresh blood. We have already had 20 years of bush/clinton/bush I really think someone outside of this group will be better for the country.

If you count the VP as well, it's been 28 years. There has been a Bush or a Clinton in the president or VP position for my entire life.

It's not a good enough reason in and of itself not to vote for her, but given the fact that I don't see her as anything other than more of the same old politics anyways, it certainly compounds the problem.

I don't hate her, but I do think that she would be a horrible President. While I do want a woman in the office, she's not it.

Well, it is kinda interesting I suppose. Though I always find it more interesting that there have been so few black Senators in general, ya know?

yeah, but that fact just underlays the interestingness of chicago since about 1990. illinois has had 6 different senators between then and now, and two of them have been black. that's downright reasonable. did chicago somehow become a shining beacon of racial harmony for the country?

I don't hate her, but I do think that she would be a horrible President. While I do want a woman in the office, she's not it.

Hmm?

This could be interesting.

Who should be President then?

If you count the VP as well, it's been 28 years. There has been a Bush or a Clinton in the president or VP position for my entire life.

It's not a good enough reason in and of itself not to vote for her, but given the fact that I don't see her as anything other than more of the same old politics anyways, it certainly compounds the problem.

You are looking at a possible 16 more years.

Don't forget they are keeping sweet Jebediah in the wings....

Hilary Clinton seems to be bashed more than any other candidate, including by people on this forum. The weird thing is, people really seem to hate Clinton. Not the way I "hate" George Bush either, but genuinely think she is an evil person who should be tortured before being killed and sent to whatever level of hell Hitler is in. Now, she's not my first choice, but Clinton actually seems like she would make a competent president (from a Democratic point of view), and so I'm confused as to why everyone assumes she subsists on the souls of aborted babies or something. Is it because she's a Clinton? Woman? New Yorker? Please, someone explain where this anti-Clinton sentiment comes from.

I don't know. There's something about her that twists my insides into a knot.

It may be irrational, but my instinct has served me well.

yeah, but that fact just underlays the interestingness of chicago since about 1990. illinois has had 6 different senators between then and now, and two of them have been black. that's downright reasonable. did chicago somehow become a shining beacon of racial harmony for the country?

Hm. That, good sir, is a damn fine point.

Hilary Clinton seems to be bashed more than any other candidate, including by people on this forum. The weird thing is, people really seem to hate Clinton. Not the way I "hate" George Bush either, but genuinely think she is an evil person who should be tortured before being killed and sent to whatever level of hell Hitler is in. Now, she's not my first choice, but Clinton actually seems like she would make a competent president (from a Democratic point of view), and so I'm confused as to why everyone assumes she subsists on the souls of aborted babies or something. Is it because she's a Clinton? Woman? New Yorker? Please, someone explain where this anti-Clinton sentiment comes from.

Strangely enough the poll numbers say otherwise.

Strangely enough the poll numbers say otherwise.

yeah, but her husband caused the same sort of crazy hatred, and he's like one of the most popular people in the country even now. NL's claim of 'everyone' is a bit of an overstatement. but the dead-ender 23%ers sure do make a lot of noise and run a lot of the media narratives. so it's easy to think their ideas are more popular than they are.

[/b]

I can assume that is the dumbest statement to date. I guess the conservative women hate her for the same reason then? Godforbid conservatives hate her because they just don't agree with her stance on the issues...Of course why would anybody do that?

You're relying on logic, silly. We all know that irrational conclusions and epic jumps of logic are the correct way to think.:p

Ireland has had two female presidents in a row. Though they don't do much.

That's cuz shes a wo-Man. If ud have a man in office hed run the cuntry rite.

I can assume that is the dumbest statement to date. I guess the conservative women hate her for the same reason then? Godforbid conservatives hate her because they just don't agree with her stance on the issues...Of course why would anybody do that?

well, we know it isn't because they disagree on the issues. those nuts think she's a communist, for fucks sake. they have no grasp of issues from which to make judgments about who agrees and who doesn't.

but you are right, my statement was overly broad. they hate her because she is a powerful, ambitious, and intelligent woman who doesn't conform to their bullshit.

Troll much?

Someone clearly has no idea what trolling is.

Troll much?
http://www.giveupalready.com/images/smilies/heh.gif Yes, that's exaclty what's going on.

Strangely enough the poll numbers say otherwise.

..which is unfortunate.

The last thing we need is more people in power who will put government interests before human rights. =(

..which is unfortunate.

The last thing we need is more people in power who will put government interests before human rights. =(

Honestly, the biggest thing that pisses me off about Hilary is that so many people would rather argue if a woman would make a good president. They don't stop to look at her politcs, voting record, anything. Why the heck is that second fiddle to what freaking gender she is?

Honestly, the biggest thing that pisses me off about Hilary is that so many people would rather argue if a woman would make a good president. They don't stop to look at her politcs, voting record, anything. Why the heck is that second fiddle to what freaking gender she is?

Bigotry. It's the same reason that people want to know if Obama is "black enough" or whether the country is "ready" for a black president before they even bother looking at his record or policies.

Honestly, the biggest thing that pisses me off about Hilary is that so many people would rather argue if a woman would make a good president. They don't stop to look at her politcs, voting record, anything. Why the heck is that second fiddle to what freaking gender she is?

to hazard a guess, because getting a woman into the presidency is itself a vitally important goal if there is to be any hope for the system's continued legitimacy. and the other side is a bunch of retards who need to lose.

to hazard a guess, because getting a woman into the presidency is itself a vitally important goal if there is to be any hope for the system's continued legitimacy. and the other side is a bunch of retards who need to lose.

Voting along party lines is stupid. Voting for or against someone because you like/dislike their gender, religion, race, ect is stupid. Voting against someone because you dislike their political affiliation is stupid.

Do research, look at their voting record, look at their public statements. Vote for or against someone based on that and only that.

Voting along party lines is stupid...Voting against someone because you dislike their political affiliation is stupid.

not in a party system it isn't. it is the only sensible way to vote if there are significant differences in party platform. party affiliation and which party is empowered by the election of a person matters much much more than the actual individual elected.

not in a party system it isn't. it is the only sensible way to vote if there are significant differences in party platform. party affiliation and which party is empowered by the election of a person matters much much more than the actual individual elected.

Very true. Though I like to believe that I'm not strictly tied to either the Democrats or the Republicans, I nevertheless voted along Democratic party lines in '06, and plan to do so again in '08, in hopes of seeing a Democratic majority. A wide Democratic majority in Congress, as well as a Democratic president, are the only ways that I will see the changes I want to see occur actually come to fruition. These include:

- An end to the U.S. military's domineering role in Iraq

- Health care reform that favors civillians over insurance companies

- Curbing of executive branch authority

- Expansion of civil liberties

- Repealing legislation that favors the wealthy, and instead introducing measures that support the middle and lower classes

- Taking steps to reduce the effects of global warming

No serious contender for the Republican nomination will do any of the above. If Hillary gets the nomination, by voting for her, I can at least rest assured that some of these hopes occur. The stakes are too high to vote for a Republican in 2008.

Hopelessly serious. Sorry to dissapoint you, but I am DEAD SERIOIUS. No kidding, I honestly think she is a communist in disguies, and I honestly think that quote (as well as the one in that link someone provided) prove that she is a communist. And as my username says, I think communism is VERY SERIOUSLY EVIL

Hopelessly serious. Sorry to dissapoint you, but I am DEAD SERIOIUS. No kidding, I honestly think EA is a communist in disguies, and I honestly think that quote (as well as the one in that link someone provided) prove that she is a communist. And as my username says, I think communism is VERY SERIOUSLY EVIL.Hopelessly serious. Sorry to dissapoint you, but I am DEAD SERIOIUS. No kidding, I honestly think Zelda is a communist in disguies, and I honestly think that quote (as well as the one in that link someone provided) prove that she is a communist. And as my username says, I think communism is VERY SERIOUSLY EVIL.

(Just pretty much trying to really underline that yours wasn't the original and was as a result kinda obviously a joke. :p )

To anyone who gets it.

I didn't, and consequently looked like a fool. Now, is someone going to tell me what this is all about? It's a reference to some soap opera perhaps? Or just trying to show the blankness of the first statement by changing its object?

I don't like feeling dumb.

Anyways, back to the issue at hand:
Prevention First Act: federal funds for contraception. (Oct 2006
Prevention First Act: federal funds for contraception. (Oct 2006
Co-sponsored bills totaling $502B in spending thru 2005. (Oct 2006)
Voted NO on $40B in reduced federal overall spending. (Dec 2005)
Gays deserve domestic partnership benefits. (Feb 2000)
GLBT progress since 2000, when I marched in gay pride parade. (Aug 2007)
Businesses play social role in US; gov't oversight required. (Sep 1996)
Opposes merit pay for individual teachers. (Apr 2000)
Supports merit pay for entire schools. (Apr 2000)
Voted YES on $52M for "21st century community learning centers". (Oct 2005)
Voted YES on $5B for grants to local educational agencies. (Oct 2005)
Voted YES on shifting $11B from corporate tax loopholes to education. (Mar 2005)
Voted YES on funding smaller classes instead of private tutors. (May 2001)
Voted YES on funding student testing instead of private tutors. (May 2001)
Voted YES on spending $448B of tax cut on education & debt reduction. (Apr 2001)
Children are not individualists. (Sep 1996)
Dems believe in fighting terror with cooperation. (Jun 2006)
Get assault weapons & guns off the street. (Jul 2007)
Limit access to weapons; look for early warning signs. (Sep 2000)
License and register all handgun sales. (Jun 2000)
Nixon should have been impeached for bombing Cambodia. (Dec 1999)
A safe world needs the nuclear test ban treaty. (Sep 1999)
Stand up for unions; organize for fair wages. (Jun 2007)
Make sure nobody ever tries to privatize Social Security. (Aug 2007)
Absolutely oppose the war in Iraq. (Oct 2007)
Bring out as many combat troops as quickly as possible. (Oct 2007)
NO on extending the PATRIOT Act's wiretap provision



Firstly, these are not your own words. You should at least say "I read this somewhere" rather than claiming this list as your own work. Preferably, give a link.

It's not just that it's plagiarism, but quite simply you have picked what you perceive as the most left-wing actions and statements from a list which is many times longer. Compare this list, on On the Issues (http://www.ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm).

That's selective quoting there. Bad way to make a point.

That said, of the entire list only the ones I have coloured red approach a "communist" position. The ones in orange I consider to be left-wing, the remainder seem centrist. I gave your argument the benefit of the doubt in the case of education spending, which some would say is justified by national self-interest alone, and is not inherently leftist.

I think it's important to note, that by calling Clinton a communist and yourself a proponent of "Capitalism" you set the scale by which these policies are to be judged: left/right on the economic scale. The way you include social issues with almost no bearing on that scale, shows that your opposition to Clinton is pretty much partisan. You're a right-wing Republican, in other words.

Now, my point is that you have every right to be a vocal right-winger, but that describing those left-of-center as "communists" suggests a certain ... lack of perspective.

I would also appreciate a clear statement that you are not a puppet of Eureka Australis. I'm still confused by what happened earlier in the thread.

That said, of the entire list only the ones I have coloured red approach a "communist" position.

Out of curiosity, how is the Cambodia one Communist or near-Communist?

Out of curiosity, how is the Cambodia one Communist or near-Communist?

Impeaching a President for anything but unconstitutional behaviour is pretty radical. I guess that's what I meant, as opposed to the conduct of the Vietnam war, and I'm trying to give Capitalsim the benefit of the doubt.

EDIT: From On The Issues (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Hillary_Clinton_Homeland_Security.htm):

Nixon should have been impeached for bombing Cambodia

In Hillary’s opinion, Nixon was “evil.” [An office-mate during her time on the Watergate Committee] says that she believed that Nixon should be prosecuted or impeached not just over Watergate but over his conduct during the Vietnam War, specifically his order for the secret bombing in Cambodia, which she saw as immoral and even criminal. She argued forcefully for a broader definition of the legal justification for impeachment--a position that would come back to haunt her [with Bill Clinton].

Source: Hillary’s Choice by Gail Sheehy, p. 90 Dec 9, 1999

So, I suppose she's not communist on that, rather partisan in fact. Let's not forget how many reasonable people on all sides were very angry with Nixon ... to the point of demonizing him.

Impeaching a President for anything but unconstitutional behaviour is pretty radical. I guess that's what I meant, as opposed to the conduct of the Vietnam war, and I'm trying to give Capitalsim the benefit of the doubt.

IIRC, the action doesn't have to be unconstitutional, it just has to be illegal.

Of course, I could be wrong.

IIRC, the action doesn't have to be unconstitutional, it just has to be illegal.

Of course, I could be wrong.

When you have Watergate, you don't need a more contentious reason like a military operation (which it is hard to define as an illegal act by the C-in-C.)

"Treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" is the wording.

Why not just toss the whole thing out, and make the rule "Congress can sack a President, by 2/3 majority vote" and not bother with the legalisms?

When you have Watergate, you don't need a more contentious reason like a military operation (which it is hard to define as an illegal act by the C-in-C.)

"Treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" is the wording.

Why not just toss the whole thing out, and make the rule "Congress can sack a President, by 2/3 majority vote" and not bother with the legalisms?

Probably because the people trust congress less.

not in a party system it isn't. it is the only sensible way to vote if there are significant differences in party platform. party affiliation and which party is empowered by the election of a person matters much much more than the actual individual elected.

Not really. More than one president has proven that. For that matter, more than one Representative and Senator has proven that. You can tell who tows the party line when you look at their carreer. You can tell who likes to spend money, change trade regulations, increase or decrease taxes and social services. If you have a governer running, you can tell how well he can balance a budget.

How a person behaves during their career as a politician is the important thing, not an affiliation.

Not really. More than one president has proven that. For that matter, more than one Representative and Senator has proven that. You can tell who tows the party line when you look at their carreer. You can tell who likes to spend money, change trade regulations, increase or decrease taxes and social services. If you have a governer running, you can tell how well he can balance a budget.

How a person behaves during their career as a politician is the important thing, not an affiliation.

The "party line" is not a rope with the party attached to it, nor would towing that rope make any sense.

It's "toe the party line." You "toe the line" when you comply, and the party line is a metaphorical line, like a police line or a line of battle.

(/ Anti-Americanismism).

I'm enjoying your discussion. Carry on.

to hazard a guess, because getting a woman into the presidency is itself a vitally important goal if there is to be any hope for the system's continued legitimacy.
I'm not sure about the system, but a female President would make quite an impression overseas. In *hrmph* Muslim countries!

and the other side is a bunch of retards who need to lose.
You could defend Stalin with that ... :p

Not really. More than one president has proven that. For that matter, more than one Representative and Senator has proven that. You can tell who tows the party line when you look at their carreer. You can tell who likes to spend money, change trade regulations, increase or decrease taxes and social services. If you have a governer running, you can tell how well he can balance a budget.

How a person behaves during their career as a politician is the important thing, not an affiliation.

except when it comes to deciding what sort of laws will get the chance to be voted on, what sort of appointments will be made, what sort of regulatory efforts will be undertaken, etc. party affiliation decides all the actual running of things.

Probably because the people trust congress less.

..unrepresentative swill... *nod*

States are represented in Congress. The people's house, the Representatives, should have the upper hand in the balance of power, not the Senate!

EDIT: For that matter, why do the states feature in the election of the President? The French Presidency is far more legitimate!

The "party line" is not a rope with the party attached to it, nor would towing that rope make any sense.

It's "toe the party line." You "toe the line" when you comply, and the party line is a metaphorical line, like a police line or a line of battle.

(/ Anti-Americanismism).

I'm enjoying your discussion. Carry on.

I actually did not know that. It's one of those things I've heard said quite a bit, but never seen written out. And it does make more sense that it's "toe" and not "tow" Thanks.:)

except when it comes to deciding what sort of laws will get the chance to be voted on, what sort of appointments will be made, what sort of regulatory efforts will be undertaken, etc. party affiliation decides all the actual running of things.
Not necessarily, no. For one, congress initiates and votes on laws, the president signs them into law. If you are talking about the president's cabinet, of course they are party members. But there's a huge variation in opinions, the president is going to surround himself with advisors he (to this point) trusts. Might he take the advice of the party? Sure. But do you really think Guliani is going to have someone from the religious right as an advisor?

Speaking of Guliani, he's a shining example of someone who has very different opinions that most of the GOP. On the other side of the spectrum you have Pat Buchanan, a very hardline Republican. Both have a very different opinions on foreign policy. They are both GOP, but they are both going to run the country very differently.

Most Dems are pro-same sex marriage, some aren't. Most Reps are pro-life, some aren't. Judging a canidate on party affiliation only is not making an informed decision.

Not necessarily, no. For one, congress initiates and votes on laws

and if you elect someone of the crazy party, you help the crazy party control congress, whether your guy votes with them on particular issues or not. so what winds up mattering is what the party thinks on those issues. your guy is effectively irrelevant.

If you are talking about the president's cabinet, of course they are party members. But there's a huge variation in opinions, the president is going to surround himself with advisors he (to this point) trusts. Might he take the advice of the party? Sure. But do you really think Guliani is going to have someone from the religious right as an advisor?

think lower down, to the actual running of shit. there are, what, nearly 2000 direct political appointees in the executive branch. these people will be mainly drawn from party activists and donors. and then there are the thousands more people who will be hired by those party activists.

Speaking of Guliani, he's a shining example of someone who has very different opinions that most of the GOP. On the other side of the spectrum you have Pat Buchanan, a very hardline Republican. Both have a very different opinions on foreign policy. They are both GOP, but they are both going to run the country very differently.

Most Dems are pro-same sex marriage, some aren't. Most Reps are pro-life, some aren't. Judging a canidate on party affiliation only is not making an informed decision.

well sure, within a party you should try to push them in one direction over another. but in a race between people of different parties, vote for the fucking party if your are going to play at all. because that is what you are really doing anyway, so you might as well do so knowingly and with an eye towards actually accomplishing your goals.

so I'm confused as to why everyone assumes she subsists on the souls of aborted babies or something. Is it because she's a Clinton? Woman? New Yorker? Please, someone explain where this anti-Clinton sentiment comes from.

One thing explain my "ant-Hillary sentiment:"

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v287/Celtlund/image0016.jpg

One thing explain my "ant-Hillary sentiment:"

*snip pic of bumper sticker*

You saw a bumper sticker. *nod*

One thing explain my "ant-Hillary sentiment:"

a desire to keep bitches in their place?

One thing explain my "ant-Hillary sentiment:"

*snip image*

No, really. Put your reasons into words. Surely the arse-end of a big black SUV doesn't speak for you?

Or perhaps it does. Perhaps that's your car, and the well-thought out position "Hillary is a bitch" only looks ridiculous to a bicycle-riding dole-bludger from the other side of the world. Perhaps it's a very good reason not to vote for her, to normal folks like yourself.

On a side note, people who drive big expensive cars and criticize Life itself can just go drive into a pylon for all I care.

..unrepresentative swill... *nod*

States are represented in Congress. The people's house, the Representatives, should have the upper hand in the balance of power, not the Senate!

EDIT: For that matter, why do the states feature in the election of the President? The French Presidency is far more legitimate!

No, we actually vote for Senators now. States feature in presidential elections because there were enough elitists in 1787 to keep the people from becoming too powerful, but the two-party system means that it's mostly a popular vote. Mostly.
A voting reform I like is to give the winner of the popular vote a certain number of bonus points. This way, the electoral college can stay in place, but what happened in 1876 and 2000 is much less likely, kind of like winning Quiditch without catching the Snitch.

When you have Watergate, you don't need a more contentious reason like a military operation (which it is hard to define as an illegal act by the C-in-C.)

"Treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" is the wording.

Why not just toss the whole thing out, and make the rule "Congress can sack a President, by 2/3 majority vote" and not bother with the legalisms?

That's been tried. In fact, the only two presidents in American history were impeached because the Congress didn't like them, Johnson and Clinton. Fortunately, those who rule in the Senate had enough respect for law and the Constitution to not remove Clinton from office. That's why it's necessary to keep the legalism.
Strangely enough the poll numbers say otherwise.

That's the weird thing. In the 90s, Bill Clinton was impeached by the House. Impeached, the biggest check the Congress has. He was very nearly removed from office. And yet, while there were some who found him to be such an abuser of power that he had to go, he left office with the highest approval rating of any president since World War II, 65%.
So you're right, most people don't hate either Clinton. But there is a large minority that is very loud that does, more than the other candidates.

Personally, I'm a fan of Obama.



Interestingly enough, there are both a woman and a black man in the "top handful" right now. Ashmoria's contention was, "If I vote for the people I like in the primary, bigots in this country might not vote for them in the general election, therefore I'll vote for someone I think is less well-suited for the job." The problem with that is that it perpetuates bigotry. In fact, it makes bigotry stronger by increasing their numbers and self-perpetuating the prediction that this country "isn't ready" to elect them.

I don't like Hillary as a candidate, but anyone who doesn't vote for her simply because they are afraid that sexists might avoid her because of her genitalia are doing nothing but perpetuating sexism. They may as well actually be sexists themselves.

No - it's a tactical play. A gamble.

There are people who will not vote for any candidate that coems from the wrong party. Simple as.

There are people that might swing, but absolutely will not vote for a certain candidate.

There are people that are so frustrated with the perpetuation of one 'party', that they would vote for any (reasonable) candidate that might tip the balance.

There are also, those that would not vote for a black candidate, a woman, or - apparently the worst of all options - an athiest.

There's a balance there. And each voter must decide how to cast their vote, at each stage, to maximise what THEY want from the election.

Even the primaries are a big strategic bet, especially this year. A lot of people WILL be voting for a candidate here, bearing in mind their electability in November. Because - unfortunately, that's the way this model works.

Let's stretch the example a little - let's imagine that you think Clinton is the absolute devil, and would be the worst candidate. Imagine you believe she would, not only ruin the party, but the nation, IF she got elected. Imagine that Kucinich were to end up being her main contendor, and it's frighteningly close, with the edge slightly in Ms Clinton's favour. Are you going to vote for Obama (who we are imagining is languishing way down in the polls) because you believe in him... or are you going to block the devil?

One thing explain my "ant-Hillary sentiment:"

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v287/Celtlund/image0016.jpg

By 'bitch' you mean, all the same characteristics that would be considered good in a man?

At least someone has the balls to admit he wouldn't vote for a candidate without any.

and if you elect someone of the crazy party, you help the crazy party control congress, whether your guy votes with them on particular issues or not. so what winds up mattering is what the party thinks on those issues. your guy is effectively irrelevant.
No, the party majority controls congress, and the Speaker of the House has her fair share of influence. The president doesn't control congress. Checks and balances, remember?

think lower down, to the actual running of shit. there are, what, nearly 2000 direct political appointees in the executive branch. these people will be mainly drawn from party activists and donors. and then there are the thousands more people who will be hired by those party activists.
And you somehow think Guliani would appoint the same people as Buchanan? Seriously?


well sure, within a party you should try to push them in one direction over another. but in a race between people of different parties, vote for the fucking party if your are going to play at all. because that is what you are really doing anyway, so you might as well do so knowingly and with an eye towards actually accomplishing your goals.
And that's lazy politics, pure and simple. Vote for the person that votes the way you want, not for a party. Of course, that takes reserch, time and an understanding of how government works, and not that many people are willing to look that far into something. It's not American Idol afterall.

I think it is mostly to do with the fact she's a woman...Ok, Ok, kill me if I'm wrong, but the USA has never had a woman running for president before, and I think some of the more, how shall I put this? The more Republican of us dislike the fact that their could be a woman making all our decisions. And I don't see why not. She's fairly sensible. George Bush - why the hell do people not complain about him? He's led america into a pointless war, and he has an IQ of about 12. It's scary, sometimes.

I genuinely believe that some (DEFINITELY not all) Americans are scared by her. The USA is kinda behind the times, voting wise. They've always had white, male, presidents. I'd love to see a black, disabled, lesbian female president, but that won't happen for at least another hundred years or so. Until the sexist, racist ones die xD

No, the party majority controls congress, and the Speaker of the House has her fair share of influence. The president doesn't control congress. Checks and balances, remember?

i specifically separated the legislature and the executive out in my response, giving different examples of precisely how you are voting for the party when you vote for the individual in either case.

And you somehow think Guliani would appoint the same people as Buchanan? Seriously?

exactly the same, of course not. but candidates from any part of the republican party has to play ball with the other (significant) parts of it as a condition of success, and therefore they will get into positions of power under his admin. this is the nature of the game.

And that's lazy politics, pure and simple.

that's the party system. i make no claim on it being a good system, but it is the reality of it. your acceptable other-party congressman will vote for their party to control the congress and all of its committees, which determines pretty much everything about the legislative process other than, perhaps, the actual outcome of any particular vote - but if they know the vote won't go their way, they can always just stop it from occurring at all. your acceptable other-party president will fill the executive branch with their party's activists intending to put their party platform into action. and so on.

i specifically separated the legislature and the executive out in my response, giving different examples of precisely how you are voting for the party when you vote for the individual in either case.
Doesn't explain how on earth the president can control congress.


exactly the same, of course not. but candidates from any part of the republican party has to play ball with the other (significant) parts of it as a condition of success, and therefore they will get into positions of power under his admin. this is the nature of the game.

All he has to do is win a primary. What on earth are you talking about?


that's the party system. i make no claim on it being a good system, but it is the reality of it. your acceptable other-party congressman will vote for their party to control the congress and all of its committees, which determines pretty much everything about the legislative process other than, perhaps, the actual outcome of any particular vote - but if they know the vote won't go their way, they can always just stop it from occurring at all. your acceptable other-party president will fill the executive branch with their party's activists intending to put their party platform into action. and so on.
They don't vote as a unified block. If you take the time to look at voting records you'll clearly see that.

So Gulliani is going to become pro-life once he gets into office? Get real. And while you research voting records/statements/ect, pay extra close attention to his. You tell me exactly how much meshes with the GOP.

Edit: No, refusing to do your homework and blindly following a party is lazy.

Doesn't explain how on earth the president can control congress.

we had moved the discussion beyond just presidential politics. just a few posts back in our subthread you yourself wrote
Not really. More than one president has proven that. For that matter, more than one Representative and Senator has proven that.
i responded to that by broadening my examples of why party matters.

All he has to do is win a primary. What on earth are you talking about?

tell me this - why do well known people even bother with primaries? why don't third party candidates and independents win the presidency? why do they almost never win anything above the level of local politics? what are parties for in your understanding of the system?

They don't vote as a unified block. If you take the time to look at voting records you'll clearly see that.

look at the procedural matters. they vote within their own caucus to determine who holds particular positions, and then they vote as a block to give them those positions. this is basic shit. why else would getting 51 dems (well, and a socialist that votes with them on procedural matters) in the senate have mattered in 2006, even though one of them is fucking lieberman?

we had moved the discussion beyond just presidential politics. just a few posts back in our subthread you yourself wrote

i responded to that by broadening my examples of why party matters.
Wasn't trying to broaden the topic, just illustrate my point.



tell me this - why do well known people even bother with primaries? why don't third party candidates and independents win the presidency? why do they almost never win anything above the level of local politics? what are parties for in your understanding of the system?
Part is money. Part is enough people just don't seem to vote for indies. Look at Perot. All the money to privately finance an election, couldn't win. Why do parties matter? Because too many people blindly follow party lines.


look at the procedural matters. they vote within their own caucus to determine who holds particular positions, and then they vote as a block to give them those positions. this is basic shit. why else would getting 51 dems (well, and a socialist that votes with them on procedural matters) in the senate have mattered in 2006, even though one of them is fucking lieberman?
Is this you switching to talking about more than just a president or will this tie back?

Part is money. Part is enough people just don't seem to vote for indies. Look at Perot. All the money to privately finance an election, couldn't win. Why do parties matter? Because too many people blindly follow party lines.

you have cause and effect backwards. the american system wasn't built for parties, parties were the natural result of it. they are unavoidable because they offer freaking huge advantages. if you erased them tomorrow they'd be back within an election or two.

and because of those advantages, people seeking any moderately high office essentially have to associate with a party. but you don't gain those advantages merely by writing a little r or d next to your name. gaining the massive freaking advantages means that you take on certain obligations to the party that you must fulfill on pain of losing that association (and therefore losing, period). thus, a vote for a person is a vote for the party.