Hillary Clinton Recent Behavior

#1 Posted by playmynutz (6321 posts) -

She pressed the reset button and laughed hysterically. Hillary Clinton also changed her position on gay marriage. Is she high?

#2 Edited by -Blasphemy- (3229 posts) -

nope just trying to get elected. im not sure why they try so hard... the presidency it's all a bunch of bullshit anyway.

#3 Edited by Gaming-Planet (14327 posts) -

Just trying to set an image. All you need is a Bible, some American flags, and patriotism to get elected by idiots.

#4 Posted by 10854 (116 posts) -

@Gaming-Planet: You forgot a ton of hypocrisy.

#5 Posted by jasean79 (2375 posts) -

@Gaming-Planet said:

All you need is a Bible, some American flags, and patriotism to get elected by idiots.

Obama was none of those and he still got elected...twice.

#6 Posted by Master_Live (15666 posts) -

Corporate Hillary is just suffering from post concussion syndrome. The idiotic "dead broke" comment and the awkward gay marriage interview are just manifestations.

#7 Edited by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

It's great to know that Hilldog is just as out of touch and narcissistic as ever. Then again she did learn from the master, her business partner husband.

#8 Posted by Serraph105 (28488 posts) -

Did I step into a thread from a year and a half ago? Her switch to supporting gay marriage feels pretty old at this point.

#9 Edited by GreySeal9 (25041 posts) -
@jasean79 said:

@Gaming-Planet said:

All you need is a Bible, some American flags, and patriotism to get elected by idiots.

Obama was none of those and he still got elected...twice.

Were you even paying attention to the campaign? Just like any other cookie cutter politician, Obama emphasized all three of those things, religion to a lesser extent.

#10 Edited by GazaAli (23583 posts) -

@-Blasphemy- said:

nope just trying to get elected. im not sure why they try so hard... the presidency it's all a bunch of bullshit anyway.

I hear you. U.S presidency was once a mighty and prestigious position to hold. Nowadays it seems mostly embarrassments, blunders and scandals.

#11 Posted by GazaAli (23583 posts) -

@jasean79 said:

@Gaming-Planet said:

All you need is a Bible, some American flags, and patriotism to get elected by idiots.

Obama was none of those and he still got elected...twice.

What he said applies to whites. Americans of color are a different story. They just need their color and good public speech and community organizing capacities.

#12 Posted by LJS9502_basic (152283 posts) -

@-Blasphemy- said:

nope just trying to get elected. im not sure why they try so hard... the presidency it's all a bunch of bullshit anyway.

Any politician....president....prime minister etc.

#13 Edited by GreySeal9 (25041 posts) -

@GazaAli said:

@jasean79 said:

@Gaming-Planet said:

All you need is a Bible, some American flags, and patriotism to get elected by idiots.

Obama was none of those and he still got elected...twice.

What he said applies to whites. Americans of color are a different story. They just need their color and good public speech and community organizing capacities.

You guys are so ignorant about politics.

If I had a nickel for every banal patriotic pro-America statement that came out of Obama's mouth, I'd be able to at least afford a new video game console.

He's really not different than white politicians in any significant way.

#14 Edited by chessmaster1989 (29714 posts) -
@GreySeal9 said:
@jasean79 said:

@Gaming-Planet said:

All you need is a Bible, some American flags, and patriotism to get elected by idiots.

Obama was none of those and he still got elected...twice.

Were you even paying attention to the campaign? Just like any other cookie cutter politician, Obama emphasized all three of those things, religion to a lesser extent.

What's the betting jasean'll respond that Obama's a Muslim?

#15 Edited by GreySeal9 (25041 posts) -

@chessmaster1989 said:
@GreySeal9 said:
@jasean79 said:

@Gaming-Planet said:

All you need is a Bible, some American flags, and patriotism to get elected by idiots.

Obama was none of those and he still got elected...twice.

Were you even paying attention to the campaign? Just like any other cookie cutter politician, Obama emphasized all three of those things, religion to a lesser extent.

What's the betting jasean'll respond that Obama's a Muslim?

rofl. That would not surprise me at all.

#16 Edited by GazaAli (23583 posts) -

@GreySeal9 said:

@GazaAli said:

What he said applies to whites. Americans of color are a different story. They just need their color and good public speech and community organizing capacities.

You guys are so ignorant about politics.

If I had a nickel for every banal patriotic pro-America statement that came out of Obama's mouth, I'd be able to at least afford a new video game console.

He's really not different than white politicians in any significant way.

He's the president of the United States, of course he will constantly utter patriotic blather. That however, has nothing to do with the subject of how he might have come into power, or how any American president does so for that matter. Not to mention that this patriotic blather can take different shapes and forms.

I can't find the part in my post where I said he's any different than other American presidents. You should work on your reading comprehension skills before going around calling people ignorant.

#17 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

@GazaAli said:

I can't find the part in my post where I said he's any different than other American presidents.

"What he said applies to whites. Americans of color are a different story."

#18 Edited by GreySeal9 (25041 posts) -

@GazaAli said:

@GreySeal9 said:

@GazaAli said:

What he said applies to whites. Americans of color are a different story. They just need their color and good public speech and community organizing capacities.

You guys are so ignorant about politics.

If I had a nickel for every banal patriotic pro-America statement that came out of Obama's mouth, I'd be able to at least afford a new video game console.

He's really not different than white politicians in any significant way.

He's the president of the United States, of course he will constantly utter patriotic blather. That however, has nothing to do with the subject of how he might have come into power, or how any American president does so for that matter. Not to mention that this patriotic blather can take different shapes and forms.

I can't find the part in my post where I said he's any different than other American presidents. You should work on your reading comprehension skills before going around calling people ignorant.

My reading comprehension is fine: you implied that a different set of rules applied to him because he's not white, which you didn't back up with anything resembling knowledge of our political system. While there might be some new dynamics at play with a non-white candidate, the whole "all they need is their color, good public speaking, community organizing skills" is such a laughable analysis. ANY candidate needs some amount of public speaking proficiency and ability to organize people and there's no evidence that color matters as much as you think it does.

Also, Obama uttered the same patriotic platitudes before he was elected. Why? Because, regardless of color, that's the kind of stuff the electorate wants to hear from their candidates.

#19 Edited by GazaAli (23583 posts) -

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

@GazaAli said:

I can't find the part in my post where I said he's any different than other American presidents.

"What he said applies to whites. Americans of color are a different story."

Which was a response to that post regarding how politicians are supposedly elected in the U.S.

#20 Posted by LJS9502_basic (152283 posts) -

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

@GazaAli said:

I can't find the part in my post where I said he's any different than other American presidents.

"What he said applies to whites. Americans of color are a different story."

LOL....that was short and sweet Sun.

#21 Posted by GazaAli (23583 posts) -

@GreySeal9 said:

@GazaAli said:

@GreySeal9 said:

@GazaAli said:

What he said applies to whites. Americans of color are a different story. They just need their color and good public speech and community organizing capacities.

You guys are so ignorant about politics.

If I had a nickel for every banal patriotic pro-America statement that came out of Obama's mouth, I'd be able to at least afford a new video game console.

He's really not different than white politicians in any significant way.

He's the president of the United States, of course he will constantly utter patriotic blather. That however, has nothing to do with the subject of how he might have come into power, or how any American president does so for that matter. Not to mention that this patriotic blather can take different shapes and forms.

I can't find the part in my post where I said he's any different than other American presidents. You should work on your reading comprehension skills before going around calling people ignorant.

My reading comprehension is fine: you implied that a different set of rules applied to him because he's not white.

Also, he uttered the same patriotic platitudes before he was elected. Why? Because, regardless of color, that's the kind of stuff the electorate wants to hear.

I implied that a different set of rules applied to his election because he's not white, not to his policies, agenda and/or strategies/interests.

Are you disagreeing with that statement? If so then it's fine, but you would at least be disagreeing with the intended statement.

#22 Edited by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

@GazaAli said:

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

@GazaAli said:

I can't find the part in my post where I said he's any different than other American presidents.

"What he said applies to whites. Americans of color are a different story."

Which was a response to that post regarding how politicians are supposedly elected in the U.S.

#23 Posted by GreySeal9 (25041 posts) -

@GazaAli said:

@GreySeal9 said:

@GazaAli said:

@GreySeal9 said:

@GazaAli said:

What he said applies to whites. Americans of color are a different story. They just need their color and good public speech and community organizing capacities.

You guys are so ignorant about politics.

If I had a nickel for every banal patriotic pro-America statement that came out of Obama's mouth, I'd be able to at least afford a new video game console.

He's really not different than white politicians in any significant way.

He's the president of the United States, of course he will constantly utter patriotic blather. That however, has nothing to do with the subject of how he might have come into power, or how any American president does so for that matter. Not to mention that this patriotic blather can take different shapes and forms.

I can't find the part in my post where I said he's any different than other American presidents. You should work on your reading comprehension skills before going around calling people ignorant.

My reading comprehension is fine: you implied that a different set of rules applied to him because he's not white.

Also, he uttered the same patriotic platitudes before he was elected. Why? Because, regardless of color, that's the kind of stuff the electorate wants to hear.

I implied that a different set of rules applied to his election because he's not white, not to his policies, agenda and/or strategies/interests.

Are you disagreeing with that statement? If so then it's fine, but you would at least be disagreeing with the intended statement.

When I say that there's nothing significantly different about him than other politicians, I am encompassing the arc of his ascension/election to the Presidency, which is obvious from the conversation. You're arguing semantics. Leave that shit to thegerg.

As to the second part of your post, there's nothing to suggest that that statement is correct. I mean, there might be slightly new dynamics at play with a non-white candidate, but overall, there's nothing to suggest that a non-white candidate with mainstream appeal needs different "ingredients" than white politicians.

#24 Edited by LJS9502_basic (152283 posts) -

@GreySeal9 said:

@GazaAli said:

@GreySeal9 said:

@GazaAli said:

What he said applies to whites. Americans of color are a different story. They just need their color and good public speech and community organizing capacities.

You guys are so ignorant about politics.

If I had a nickel for every banal patriotic pro-America statement that came out of Obama's mouth, I'd be able to at least afford a new video game console.

He's really not different than white politicians in any significant way.

He's the president of the United States, of course he will constantly utter patriotic blather. That however, has nothing to do with the subject of how he might have come into power, or how any American president does so for that matter. Not to mention that this patriotic blather can take different shapes and forms.

I can't find the part in my post where I said he's any different than other American presidents. You should work on your reading comprehension skills before going around calling people ignorant.

My reading comprehension is fine: you implied that a different set of rules applied to him because he's not white, which you didn't back up with anything resembling knowledge of our political system. While there might be some new dynamics at play with non-white candidate, the whole "all they need is their color, good public speaking, community organizing skills" is such a laughable analysis. ANY candidate needs some amount of public speaking proficiency and ability to organize people and there's no evidence that color matters as much as you think it does.

Also, Obama uttered the same patriotic platitudes before he was elected. Why? Because, regardless of color, that's the kind of stuff the electorate wants to hear from their candidates.

Especially for re-election.

#25 Posted by GreySeal9 (25041 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic said:

@GreySeal9 said:

@GazaAli said:

@GreySeal9 said:

@GazaAli said:

What he said applies to whites. Americans of color are a different story. They just need their color and good public speech and community organizing capacities.

You guys are so ignorant about politics.

If I had a nickel for every banal patriotic pro-America statement that came out of Obama's mouth, I'd be able to at least afford a new video game console.

He's really not different than white politicians in any significant way.

He's the president of the United States, of course he will constantly utter patriotic blather. That however, has nothing to do with the subject of how he might have come into power, or how any American president does so for that matter. Not to mention that this patriotic blather can take different shapes and forms.

I can't find the part in my post where I said he's any different than other American presidents. You should work on your reading comprehension skills before going around calling people ignorant.

My reading comprehension is fine: you implied that a different set of rules applied to him because he's not white, which you didn't back up with anything resembling knowledge of our political system. While there might be some new dynamics at play with non-white candidate, the whole "all they need is their color, good public speaking, community organizing skills" is such a laughable analysis. ANY candidate needs some amount of public speaking proficiency and ability to organize people and there's no evidence that color matters as much as you think it does.

Also, Obama uttered the same patriotic platitudes before he was elected. Why? Because, regardless of color, that's the kind of stuff the electorate wants to hear from their candidates.

Especially for re-election.

Totally agree.

#26 Edited by GazaAli (23583 posts) -

@GreySeal9 said:

@GazaAli said:

@GreySeal9 said:

@GazaAli said:

@GreySeal9 said:

@GazaAli said:

What he said applies to whites. Americans of color are a different story. They just need their color and good public speech and community organizing capacities.

You guys are so ignorant about politics.

If I had a nickel for every banal patriotic pro-America statement that came out of Obama's mouth, I'd be able to at least afford a new video game console.

He's really not different than white politicians in any significant way.

He's the president of the United States, of course he will constantly utter patriotic blather. That however, has nothing to do with the subject of how he might have come into power, or how any American president does so for that matter. Not to mention that this patriotic blather can take different shapes and forms.

I can't find the part in my post where I said he's any different than other American presidents. You should work on your reading comprehension skills before going around calling people ignorant.

My reading comprehension is fine: you implied that a different set of rules applied to him because he's not white.

Also, he uttered the same patriotic platitudes before he was elected. Why? Because, regardless of color, that's the kind of stuff the electorate wants to hear.

I implied that a different set of rules applied to his election because he's not white, not to his policies, agenda and/or strategies/interests.

Are you disagreeing with that statement? If so then it's fine, but you would at least be disagreeing with the intended statement.

When I say that there's nothing significantly different about him than other politicians, I am encompassing the arc of his ascension/election to the Presidency, which is obvious from the conversation. You're arguing semantics. Leave that shit to thegerg.

As to the second part of your post, there's nothing to suggest that that statement is correct. I mean, there might be slightly new dynamics at play with a non-white candidate, but overall, there's nothing to suggest that a non-white candidate with mainstream appeal needs different "ingredients" than white politicians.

How exactly am I arguing semantics here? The ascension of a politician to power and how he utilizes that power are two separate subjects. I was getting at the former, you perceived the latter.

As I said you're free to disagree with that statement as it was the intended message. With that said, I think race did play a role in Obama's election to the presidency. The race effect may progressively diminish in the future in case the U.S continues to have more and more nonwhite presidents, but in the case of Obama I think it did play a significant role owing to the fact that he set a precedence. It happens all the time in different domains and parts of public life. Have you forgotten how much significance was given to the fact that the U.S was having its first black president following the announcement of the results of 2008's elections? I remember clearly how many people back then were saying "Now Clinton 2016". Tell me, was Hilary such an amazing politician back then that people were barely able to wait until 2016 to make her president or was it the case that after having set the precedence of a first nonwhite president, a large portion of the American electorate was ready to move on to the next precedence, first female president of the U.S?

This has always been one of the main ends of certain partisans: setting a precedence in public life as an impetus of social progress.

#27 Edited by LJS9502_basic (152283 posts) -

I always love how someone with zero experience of a country argues like they know what they are talking about.

#28 Posted by GazaAli (23583 posts) -

@GreySeal9 said:

Totally agree.

Considering how Obama/Biden were against McCain/Palin, that election didn't leave enough room for any factors to be in play. It rendered everything rather superfluous and peripheral.

#29 Edited by GreySeal9 (25041 posts) -

@GazaAli said:

@GreySeal9 said:

@GazaAli said:

@GreySeal9 said:

@GazaAli said:

@GreySeal9 said:

@GazaAli said:

What he said applies to whites. Americans of color are a different story. They just need their color and good public speech and community organizing capacities.

You guys are so ignorant about politics.

If I had a nickel for every banal patriotic pro-America statement that came out of Obama's mouth, I'd be able to at least afford a new video game console.

He's really not different than white politicians in any significant way.

He's the president of the United States, of course he will constantly utter patriotic blather. That however, has nothing to do with the subject of how he might have come into power, or how any American president does so for that matter. Not to mention that this patriotic blather can take different shapes and forms.

I can't find the part in my post where I said he's any different than other American presidents. You should work on your reading comprehension skills before going around calling people ignorant.

My reading comprehension is fine: you implied that a different set of rules applied to him because he's not white.

Also, he uttered the same patriotic platitudes before he was elected. Why? Because, regardless of color, that's the kind of stuff the electorate wants to hear.

I implied that a different set of rules applied to his election because he's not white, not to his policies, agenda and/or strategies/interests.

Are you disagreeing with that statement? If so then it's fine, but you would at least be disagreeing with the intended statement.

When I say that there's nothing significantly different about him than other politicians, I am encompassing the arc of his ascension/election to the Presidency, which is obvious from the conversation. You're arguing semantics. Leave that shit to thegerg.

As to the second part of your post, there's nothing to suggest that that statement is correct. I mean, there might be slightly new dynamics at play with a non-white candidate, but overall, there's nothing to suggest that a non-white candidate with mainstream appeal needs different "ingredients" than white politicians.

How exactly am I arguing semantics here? The ascension of a politician to power and how he utilizes that power are two separate subjects. I was getting at the former, you perceived the latter.

As I said you're free to disagree with that statement as it was the intended message. With that said, I think race did play a role in Obama's election to the presidency. The race effect may progressively diminish in the future in case the U.S continues to have more and more nonwhite presidents, but in the case of Obama I think it did play a significant role owing to the fact that he set a precedence. It happens all the time in different domains and parts of public life. Have you forgotten how much significance was given to the fact that the U.S was having its first black president following the announcement of the results of 2008's elections? I remember clearly how many people back then were saying "Now Clinton 2016". Tell me, was Hilary such an amazing politician back then that people were barely able to wait until 2016 to make her president or was it the case that after having set the precedence of a first nonwhite president, a large portion of the American electorate was ready to move on to the next precedence, first female president of the U.S?

This has always been one of the main ends of certain partisans: setting a precedence in public life as an impetus of social progress.

There's no doubt that Obama being the first non-white President gave his campaign a layer of "excitement," but you said that all a non-white candidate needs is his color, good speaking skills, and community organizing skills. That is ridiculously simplistic. As shown by Obama's campaign strategies, a non-white candidate needs to hit the same notes that a white candidate does. And a white candidate needs good community organizing/speaking skills as well. Look at what happened to Rick Perry because he sounded so dumb in the debates.

In any case, where is the data that shows that the racial milestone that Obama's election represented was more than superficial as far as voter motivations are concerned?

Also, the left is pushing Hillary so hard not because she's a woman, but because of the Clinton legacy. That's not to say that her gender has absolutely nothing to do with it, but you are overstating its importance.

#30 Posted by GreySeal9 (25041 posts) -

@GazaAli said:

@GreySeal9 said:

Totally agree.

Considering how Obama/Biden were against McCain/Palin, that election didn't leave enough room for any factors to be in play. It rendered everything rather superfluous and peripheral.

Not sure what you mean by this, but if you're saying that McCain/Palin were totally outmatched (and I'd agree with that), then you're only strengthening the idea that color isn't as important as other factors.

#31 Posted by Master_Live (15666 posts) -

@GreySeal9 said:

@GazaAli said:

@GreySeal9 said:

@GazaAli said:

@GreySeal9 said:

@GazaAli said:

@GreySeal9 said:

@GazaAli said:

What he said applies to whites. Americans of color are a different story. They just need their color and good public speech and community organizing capacities.

You guys are so ignorant about politics.

If I had a nickel for every banal patriotic pro-America statement that came out of Obama's mouth, I'd be able to at least afford a new video game console.

He's really not different than white politicians in any significant way.

He's the president of the United States, of course he will constantly utter patriotic blather. That however, has nothing to do with the subject of how he might have come into power, or how any American president does so for that matter. Not to mention that this patriotic blather can take different shapes and forms.

I can't find the part in my post where I said he's any different than other American presidents. You should work on your reading comprehension skills before going around calling people ignorant.

My reading comprehension is fine: you implied that a different set of rules applied to him because he's not white.

Also, he uttered the same patriotic platitudes before he was elected. Why? Because, regardless of color, that's the kind of stuff the electorate wants to hear.

I implied that a different set of rules applied to his election because he's not white, not to his policies, agenda and/or strategies/interests.

Are you disagreeing with that statement? If so then it's fine, but you would at least be disagreeing with the intended statement.

When I say that there's nothing significantly different about him than other politicians, I am encompassing the arc of his ascension/election to the Presidency, which is obvious from the conversation. You're arguing semantics. Leave that shit to thegerg.

As to the second part of your post, there's nothing to suggest that that statement is correct. I mean, there might be slightly new dynamics at play with a non-white candidate, but overall, there's nothing to suggest that a non-white candidate with mainstream appeal needs different "ingredients" than white politicians.

How exactly am I arguing semantics here? The ascension of a politician to power and how he utilizes that power are two separate subjects. I was getting at the former, you perceived the latter.

As I said you're free to disagree with that statement as it was the intended message. With that said, I think race did play a role in Obama's election to the presidency. The race effect may progressively diminish in the future in case the U.S continues to have more and more nonwhite presidents, but in the case of Obama I think it did play a significant role owing to the fact that he set a precedence. It happens all the time in different domains and parts of public life. Have you forgotten how much significance was given to the fact that the U.S was having its first black president following the announcement of the results of 2008's elections? I remember clearly how many people back then were saying "Now Clinton 2016". Tell me, was Hilary such an amazing politician back then that people were barely able to wait until 2016 to make her president or was it the case that after having set the precedence of a first nonwhite president, a large portion of the American electorate was ready to move on to the next precedence, first female president of the U.S?

This has always been one of the main ends of certain partisans: setting a precedence in public life as an impetus of social progress.


Also, the left is pushing Hillary so hard not because she's a woman, but because of the Clinton legacy.

Ha.

#32 Edited by GreySeal9 (25041 posts) -

@Master_Live said:

@GreySeal9 said:

@GazaAli said:

@GreySeal9 said:

@GazaAli said:

@GreySeal9 said:

@GazaAli said:

@GreySeal9 said:

@GazaAli said:

What he said applies to whites. Americans of color are a different story. They just need their color and good public speech and community organizing capacities.

You guys are so ignorant about politics.

If I had a nickel for every banal patriotic pro-America statement that came out of Obama's mouth, I'd be able to at least afford a new video game console.

He's really not different than white politicians in any significant way.

He's the president of the United States, of course he will constantly utter patriotic blather. That however, has nothing to do with the subject of how he might have come into power, or how any American president does so for that matter. Not to mention that this patriotic blather can take different shapes and forms.

I can't find the part in my post where I said he's any different than other American presidents. You should work on your reading comprehension skills before going around calling people ignorant.

My reading comprehension is fine: you implied that a different set of rules applied to him because he's not white.

Also, he uttered the same patriotic platitudes before he was elected. Why? Because, regardless of color, that's the kind of stuff the electorate wants to hear.

I implied that a different set of rules applied to his election because he's not white, not to his policies, agenda and/or strategies/interests.

Are you disagreeing with that statement? If so then it's fine, but you would at least be disagreeing with the intended statement.

When I say that there's nothing significantly different about him than other politicians, I am encompassing the arc of his ascension/election to the Presidency, which is obvious from the conversation. You're arguing semantics. Leave that shit to thegerg.

As to the second part of your post, there's nothing to suggest that that statement is correct. I mean, there might be slightly new dynamics at play with a non-white candidate, but overall, there's nothing to suggest that a non-white candidate with mainstream appeal needs different "ingredients" than white politicians.

How exactly am I arguing semantics here? The ascension of a politician to power and how he utilizes that power are two separate subjects. I was getting at the former, you perceived the latter.

As I said you're free to disagree with that statement as it was the intended message. With that said, I think race did play a role in Obama's election to the presidency. The race effect may progressively diminish in the future in case the U.S continues to have more and more nonwhite presidents, but in the case of Obama I think it did play a significant role owing to the fact that he set a precedence. It happens all the time in different domains and parts of public life. Have you forgotten how much significance was given to the fact that the U.S was having its first black president following the announcement of the results of 2008's elections? I remember clearly how many people back then were saying "Now Clinton 2016". Tell me, was Hilary such an amazing politician back then that people were barely able to wait until 2016 to make her president or was it the case that after having set the precedence of a first nonwhite president, a large portion of the American electorate was ready to move on to the next precedence, first female president of the U.S?

This has always been one of the main ends of certain partisans: setting a precedence in public life as an impetus of social progress.


Also, the left is pushing Hillary so hard not because she's a woman, but because of the Clinton legacy.

Ha.

You can laugh all you want, but what I'm saying is true. Hillary is pushed so hard because she is perceived to be unbeatable (which is ridiculous; no candidate is unbeatable) and she's perceived as unbeatable because of the good will the Clinton name inspires. People see her as symbolic of a return to 90s prosperity, which is also ridiculous, but it is what it is.

Yes, her potentially being the first female President does give her some points, but it's secondary to the clout that being a Clinton gives her. If you disagree, why aren't other female candidates being talked up?

#33 Posted by LJS9502_basic (152283 posts) -

@GreySeal9 said:

@Master_Live said:

@GreySeal9 said:


Also, the left is pushing Hillary so hard not because she's a woman, but because of the Clinton legacy.

Ha.

You can laugh all you want, but what I'm saying is true. Hillary is pushed so hard because she is perceived to be unbeatable (which is ridiculous; no candidate is unbeatable) and perceived as unbeatable because of the good will the Clinton name inspires. People see her as symbolic of a return to 90s prosperity, which is also ridiculous, but it is what it is.

Yes, her potentially being the first female President does give her some points, but it's secondary to the clout that being a Clinton gives her. If you disagree, why aren't other female candidates being talked up?

I'd agree the Clinton name is more important than sex in this case....

#34 Edited by Master_Live (15666 posts) -

@GreySeal9 said:

@Master_Live said:

@GreySeal9 said:

@GazaAli said:

@GreySeal9 said:

@GazaAli said:

@GreySeal9 said:

@GazaAli said:

@GreySeal9 said:

@GazaAli said:

What he said applies to whites. Americans of color are a different story. They just need their color and good public speech and community organizing capacities.

You guys are so ignorant about politics.

If I had a nickel for every banal patriotic pro-America statement that came out of Obama's mouth, I'd be able to at least afford a new video game console.

He's really not different than white politicians in any significant way.

He's the president of the United States, of course he will constantly utter patriotic blather. That however, has nothing to do with the subject of how he might have come into power, or how any American president does so for that matter. Not to mention that this patriotic blather can take different shapes and forms.

I can't find the part in my post where I said he's any different than other American presidents. You should work on your reading comprehension skills before going around calling people ignorant.

My reading comprehension is fine: you implied that a different set of rules applied to him because he's not white.

Also, he uttered the same patriotic platitudes before he was elected. Why? Because, regardless of color, that's the kind of stuff the electorate wants to hear.

I implied that a different set of rules applied to his election because he's not white, not to his policies, agenda and/or strategies/interests.

Are you disagreeing with that statement? If so then it's fine, but you would at least be disagreeing with the intended statement.

When I say that there's nothing significantly different about him than other politicians, I am encompassing the arc of his ascension/election to the Presidency, which is obvious from the conversation. You're arguing semantics. Leave that shit to thegerg.

As to the second part of your post, there's nothing to suggest that that statement is correct. I mean, there might be slightly new dynamics at play with a non-white candidate, but overall, there's nothing to suggest that a non-white candidate with mainstream appeal needs different "ingredients" than white politicians.

How exactly am I arguing semantics here? The ascension of a politician to power and how he utilizes that power are two separate subjects. I was getting at the former, you perceived the latter.

As I said you're free to disagree with that statement as it was the intended message. With that said, I think race did play a role in Obama's election to the presidency. The race effect may progressively diminish in the future in case the U.S continues to have more and more nonwhite presidents, but in the case of Obama I think it did play a significant role owing to the fact that he set a precedence. It happens all the time in different domains and parts of public life. Have you forgotten how much significance was given to the fact that the U.S was having its first black president following the announcement of the results of 2008's elections? I remember clearly how many people back then were saying "Now Clinton 2016". Tell me, was Hilary such an amazing politician back then that people were barely able to wait until 2016 to make her president or was it the case that after having set the precedence of a first nonwhite president, a large portion of the American electorate was ready to move on to the next precedence, first female president of the U.S?

This has always been one of the main ends of certain partisans: setting a precedence in public life as an impetus of social progress.


Also, the left is pushing Hillary so hard not because she's a woman, but because of the Clinton legacy.

Ha.

You can laugh all you want, but what I'm saying is true. Hillary is pushed so hard because she is perceived to be unbeatable (which is ridiculous; no candidate is unbeatable) and perceived as unbeatable because of the good will the Clinton name inspires. People see her as symbolic of a return to 90s prosperity, which is also ridiculous, but it is what it is.

Yes, her potentially being the first female President does give her some points, but it's secondary to the clout that being a Clinton gives her. If you disagree, why aren't other female candidates being talked up?

Oh boy. First regarding your original post, I don't know what you mean by left, but Clinton is an establishment candidate, more of a moderate, which does very well with blue collar Democrats/Reagan Democrats; the left wing of the party is skeptical of how Clinton would govern.

Which brings me to your last point which clearly illustrate either your lack of knowledge with the topic at hand or your unfamiliarity with the left. The most talked about candidate outside Hillary Clinton, then one that lights up all the bleeding liberals hearts out there, has been Elizabeth Warren and as far as I know (can't confirm) she has a vagina too.

#35 Posted by GreySeal9 (25041 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic said:

@GreySeal9 said:

@Master_Live said:

@GreySeal9 said:


Also, the left is pushing Hillary so hard not because she's a woman, but because of the Clinton legacy.

Ha.

You can laugh all you want, but what I'm saying is true. Hillary is pushed so hard because she is perceived to be unbeatable (which is ridiculous; no candidate is unbeatable) and perceived as unbeatable because of the good will the Clinton name inspires. People see her as symbolic of a return to 90s prosperity, which is also ridiculous, but it is what it is.

Yes, her potentially being the first female President does give her some points, but it's secondary to the clout that being a Clinton gives her. If you disagree, why aren't other female candidates being talked up?

I'd agree the Clinton name is more important than sex in this case....

Yeah, Democrats (and Republicans) want to win above all else and the way Bill rocked the Democratic convention reminded liberals of how much political power the Clintons still have.

They wish Bill could run again and they see Hillary as the next best thing lol.

#36 Edited by GreySeal9 (25041 posts) -

@Master_Live said:

@GreySeal9 said:

@Master_Live said:

@GreySeal9 said:

@GazaAli said:

@GreySeal9 said:

@GazaAli said:

@GreySeal9 said:

@GazaAli said:

@GreySeal9 said:

@GazaAli said:

What he said applies to whites. Americans of color are a different story. They just need their color and good public speech and community organizing capacities.

You guys are so ignorant about politics.

If I had a nickel for every banal patriotic pro-America statement that came out of Obama's mouth, I'd be able to at least afford a new video game console.

He's really not different than white politicians in any significant way.

He's the president of the United States, of course he will constantly utter patriotic blather. That however, has nothing to do with the subject of how he might have come into power, or how any American president does so for that matter. Not to mention that this patriotic blather can take different shapes and forms.

I can't find the part in my post where I said he's any different than other American presidents. You should work on your reading comprehension skills before going around calling people ignorant.

My reading comprehension is fine: you implied that a different set of rules applied to him because he's not white.

Also, he uttered the same patriotic platitudes before he was elected. Why? Because, regardless of color, that's the kind of stuff the electorate wants to hear.

I implied that a different set of rules applied to his election because he's not white, not to his policies, agenda and/or strategies/interests.

Are you disagreeing with that statement? If so then it's fine, but you would at least be disagreeing with the intended statement.

When I say that there's nothing significantly different about him than other politicians, I am encompassing the arc of his ascension/election to the Presidency, which is obvious from the conversation. You're arguing semantics. Leave that shit to thegerg.

As to the second part of your post, there's nothing to suggest that that statement is correct. I mean, there might be slightly new dynamics at play with a non-white candidate, but overall, there's nothing to suggest that a non-white candidate with mainstream appeal needs different "ingredients" than white politicians.

How exactly am I arguing semantics here? The ascension of a politician to power and how he utilizes that power are two separate subjects. I was getting at the former, you perceived the latter.

As I said you're free to disagree with that statement as it was the intended message. With that said, I think race did play a role in Obama's election to the presidency. The race effect may progressively diminish in the future in case the U.S continues to have more and more nonwhite presidents, but in the case of Obama I think it did play a significant role owing to the fact that he set a precedence. It happens all the time in different domains and parts of public life. Have you forgotten how much significance was given to the fact that the U.S was having its first black president following the announcement of the results of 2008's elections? I remember clearly how many people back then were saying "Now Clinton 2016". Tell me, was Hilary such an amazing politician back then that people were barely able to wait until 2016 to make her president or was it the case that after having set the precedence of a first nonwhite president, a large portion of the American electorate was ready to move on to the next precedence, first female president of the U.S?

This has always been one of the main ends of certain partisans: setting a precedence in public life as an impetus of social progress.


Also, the left is pushing Hillary so hard not because she's a woman, but because of the Clinton legacy.

Ha.

You can laugh all you want, but what I'm saying is true. Hillary is pushed so hard because she is perceived to be unbeatable (which is ridiculous; no candidate is unbeatable) and perceived as unbeatable because of the good will the Clinton name inspires. People see her as symbolic of a return to 90s prosperity, which is also ridiculous, but it is what it is.

Yes, her potentially being the first female President does give her some points, but it's secondary to the clout that being a Clinton gives her. If you disagree, why aren't other female candidates being talked up?

Oh boy. First regarding your original post, I don't know what you mean by left, but Clinton is an establishment candidate, more of a moderate, which does very well with blue collar Democrats/Reagan Democrats; the left wing of the party is skeptical of how Clinton would govern.

Which brings me to your last point which clearly illustrate either your lack of knowledge with the topic at hand or your unfamiliarity with the left. The most talked about candidate outside Hillary Clinton, then one that lights up all the bleeding liberals hearts out there, has been Elizabeth Warren and as far as I know (can't confirm) she has a vagina too.

Your problem is that you assume I'm talking about the far left. I'm not. I'm talking about average Democrats who qualify as center left. And while the left may be skeptical of how Clinton would govern, they see her as the best candidate to take on the Republicans.

Also, Hillary is a generic center left Dem. Not really much different than Obama in that respect. Not to mention that being "establishment" is not mutually exclusive from being really liberal. Nancy Pelosi is "establishment," but pretty darn liberal on the whole. You're making a lot of simplistic distinctions.

As for your last comment, I'm not talking about the fringe left. I'm talking about average Democrats, who under any reasonable definition, can be classified under "the left."

Lastly, while there are liberals who desperately want Warren to run, she is hardly being pushed in any politically significant way.

#37 Edited by Master_Live (15666 posts) -

Lets take a look at a March Gallup Poll:

Yeah, I say she potentially being the first female President gives her more than "some points".

http://www.gallup.com/poll/168041/clinton-top-selling-point-2016-first-female-president.aspx

#38 Posted by coasterguy65 (6234 posts) -

Hillary understands the pain of the average American. According to her, Bill and her were "dead broke" when they left the White House. They get the whole wage equality thing, just like Obama does. The poor thing had to slum it when she moved to New York, to carpet bag just to get elected to the Senate.

Here's how you get elected in America...Union support...Union rights...woman rights....senior citizen rights.....we care...yada....yada...yada.

Meet the new boss...same as the old boss.....

#39 Edited by GreySeal9 (25041 posts) -
@Master_Live said:

Lets take a look at a March Gallup Poll:

Yeah, I say she potentially being the first female President gives her more than "some points".

http://www.gallup.com/poll/168041/clinton-top-selling-point-2016-first-female-president.aspx

Well, I'll concede that my language downplayed how important her gender is to some people, but this poll is hardly evidence that most Democrats want her to run primarily because she is a woman.

#40 Posted by sSubZerOo (43899 posts) -

@coasterguy65 said:

Hillary understands the pain of the average American. According to her, Bill and her were "dead broke" when they left the White House. They get the whole wage equality thing, just like Obama does. The poor thing had to slum it when she moved to New York, to carpet bag just to get elected to the Senate.

Here's how you get elected in America...Union support...Union rights...woman rights....senior citizen rights.....we care...yada....yada...yada.

Meet the new boss...same as the old boss.....

Yeah I have to admit this was facepalm worthy that she would even dare suggest she was considered "broke".. This was as bad as the cringe worthy statements Romney made during his tour showing how out of touch he really was with the average American when it came to economic problems. Not too sure about Union support.. Union's are dead.. They have been attacked in all fields and have been systematically destroyed for better or worse.. They literally make up less than 12% of the workforce now..

#41 Edited by coasterguy65 (6234 posts) -

@sSubZerOo said:

@coasterguy65 said:

Hillary understands the pain of the average American. According to her, Bill and her were "dead broke" when they left the White House. They get the whole wage equality thing, just like Obama does. The poor thing had to slum it when she moved to New York, to carpet bag just to get elected to the Senate.

Here's how you get elected in America...Union support...Union rights...woman rights....senior citizen rights.....we care...yada....yada...yada.

Meet the new boss...same as the old boss.....

Yeah I have to admit this was facepalm worthy that she would even dare suggest she was considered "broke".. This was as bad as the cringe worthy statements Romney made during his tour showing how out of touch he really was with the average American when it came to economic problems. Not too sure about Union support.. Union's are dead.. They have been attacked in all fields and have been systematically destroyed for better or worse.. They literally make up less than 12% of the workforce now..

Romney was so out of touch it wasn't even funny. Of course when can millionaires understand what the average middle class, or poor American is going through. Unions may be dead, but every candidate courts them. Knowing full well that the majority of their members will vote however the leadership tells them to.

#42 Posted by GazaAli (23583 posts) -

@GreySeal9 said:

@GazaAli said:

@GreySeal9 said:

@GazaAli said:

@GreySeal9 said:

@GazaAli said:

@GreySeal9 said:

@GazaAli said:

What he said applies to whites. Americans of color are a different story. They just need their color and good public speech and community organizing capacities.

You guys are so ignorant about politics.

If I had a nickel for every banal patriotic pro-America statement that came out of Obama's mouth, I'd be able to at least afford a new video game console.

He's really not different than white politicians in any significant way.

He's the president of the United States, of course he will constantly utter patriotic blather. That however, has nothing to do with the subject of how he might have come into power, or how any American president does so for that matter. Not to mention that this patriotic blather can take different shapes and forms.

I can't find the part in my post where I said he's any different than other American presidents. You should work on your reading comprehension skills before going around calling people ignorant.

My reading comprehension is fine: you implied that a different set of rules applied to him because he's not white.

Also, he uttered the same patriotic platitudes before he was elected. Why? Because, regardless of color, that's the kind of stuff the electorate wants to hear.

I implied that a different set of rules applied to his election because he's not white, not to his policies, agenda and/or strategies/interests.

Are you disagreeing with that statement? If so then it's fine, but you would at least be disagreeing with the intended statement.

When I say that there's nothing significantly different about him than other politicians, I am encompassing the arc of his ascension/election to the Presidency, which is obvious from the conversation. You're arguing semantics. Leave that shit to thegerg.

As to the second part of your post, there's nothing to suggest that that statement is correct. I mean, there might be slightly new dynamics at play with a non-white candidate, but overall, there's nothing to suggest that a non-white candidate with mainstream appeal needs different "ingredients" than white politicians.

How exactly am I arguing semantics here? The ascension of a politician to power and how he utilizes that power are two separate subjects. I was getting at the former, you perceived the latter.

As I said you're free to disagree with that statement as it was the intended message. With that said, I think race did play a role in Obama's election to the presidency. The race effect may progressively diminish in the future in case the U.S continues to have more and more nonwhite presidents, but in the case of Obama I think it did play a significant role owing to the fact that he set a precedence. It happens all the time in different domains and parts of public life. Have you forgotten how much significance was given to the fact that the U.S was having its first black president following the announcement of the results of 2008's elections? I remember clearly how many people back then were saying "Now Clinton 2016". Tell me, was Hilary such an amazing politician back then that people were barely able to wait until 2016 to make her president or was it the case that after having set the precedence of a first nonwhite president, a large portion of the American electorate was ready to move on to the next precedence, first female president of the U.S?

This has always been one of the main ends of certain partisans: setting a precedence in public life as an impetus of social progress.

There's no doubt that Obama being the first non-white President gave his campaign a layer of "excitement," but you said that all a non-white candidate needs is his color, good speaking skills, and community organizing skills. That is ridiculously simplistic. As shown by Obama's campaign strategies, a non-white candidate needs to hit the same notes that a white candidate does. And a white candidate needs good community organizing/speaking skills as well. Look at what happened to Rick Perry because he sounded so dumb in the debates.

In any case, where is the data that shows that the racial milestone that Obama's election represented was more than superficial as far as voter motivations are concerned?

Also, the left is pushing Hillary so hard not because she's a woman, but because of the Clinton legacy. That's not to say that her gender has absolutely nothing to do with it, but you are overstating its importance.

Clearly that was meant as a cynical exaggeration. All serious presidential candidates who have an actual shot at the presidency will need to satisfy pretty much the same criteria. They would also need a satisfactory combinations of certain skills. Beyond that however, each candidate usually has one or more winning cards. In the case of Obama back in 2008, race was definitely at least of those winning cards.

I don't have data and I'm not sure if they exist. What I have been stating in this topic is largely my own take on the subject so it could be wrong after all.

I may or may not be overstating her gender's importance, but its definitely there. Hilary would definitely receive a large portion of women's vote and an even bigger portion of youth and other social progressives/liberals.