Post: #26

(04-10-2015 02:34 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  I don't think the point here has to do with the worthiness of the Paul candidacy or whether he'd be better than Hillary.

The point is that the media's framing this exchange as "you can't talk to a female reporter that way!" will have a ripple effect on male-female relations in our workplaces and our personal lives if people believe their tripe. The media has replaced the church when it comes to how we judge each other's behavior.

Therefore, "you can't talk to a female reporter that way" and "mansplaining" leads to our being reprimanded at work for not putting our female co-workers on a pedestal and the women we know in our personal lives expecting more double standards (i.e. she can take your job but you still have to pay on dates).

Paul handled Guthrie as he would have anyone. Replace her in your mind with Alan Colmes or even Sean Hannity, and you get a riveting tough-guy political face-off. This is what the media should be seeing: that Paul is actually not "sexist" (a bullshit word) because he didn't kowtow to Guthrie as "a lady," but treated her as an equal.

The fact that the media puts women in jobs developed by men, then turns around a cries sexism when they're treated like the men they replaced is deeply troubling. You can't have it both ways.

This is the media equivalent of those races where they give women a head start, then expect people to think of the end result as "equal."

Exactly DOBA.

Please in this thread everyone stop talkimg about the merits of a rand Paul campaign.

This thread is about the double standard of women wanting equality but at the same time demanding to be put on a pedastol and treated with kid gloves ( with the support of a legion of white knights - see Chuck Todd).

I see this in the workplace, where women are demanding to be placed in higher positions but they pull the "don't hit the girl" card as soon as there is the slightest hint of adversity.

Post: #27

Delete

Post: #28

(04-10-2015 10:17 AM)Renzy Wrote:  This might be too far back, but does anyone else remember the interview between Bush Senior and Dan Rather back in the 80s, when Rather tried to bully Bush and Bush wouldn't put up with his shit? And he stopped Dan Rather in his tracks with the line:

Quote:'I want to talk about why I want to be President,'' Mr. Bush said, his voice rising. ''It's not fair to judge my whole career by a rehash on Iran. How would you like it if I judged your career by those seven minutes when you walked off the set in New York?''

You want to see a caustic interview between men, here's one.





Ironically, this interview actually helped Bush in the polls at the time. It made him look strong, like he wouldn't shrink from confrontation, which was important at the time because he was perceived as a wimp by the public.

Of course it doesn't work this way with women, does it? When you won't put up with their bullshit, the public doesn't say you look stronger, instead they say you look like a bully.

I'm old enough to remember when Bush debated Geraldine Ferraro in the VP debate. Bush was called a bully and "patronizing" because he had the temerity to debate Geraldine in you know - a debate. If he disagreed with her the feminist at the time and the manginas got their panties in a twist. He didn't realize his role was not to debate her but instead marvel at her historic position as the first female vp candidate.

Post: #29

I like Rand Paul but I can never be sure if he means what he says.

Whereas with Chris Christie, everyone knows he's dirty as hell and a bully. He's got that dirty honesty about him that's sort of refreshing.

Post: #30

I don't know much about US politics, but damn that Rand Paul is alpha as fuck. Impeccable body language and confidence oozing out it's crazy. Politics aside, if his type was the manhood standard, instead of the Beta Male getting controlled by their women, shit would be going way better for men all around.

Post: #31

Just sowing the seeds of male vs. female election.

Be prepared for terms like trigger warning, misogynist, and sexist to be used more in MSM.

Remember, if you don't vote for Hillary, you're a sexist misogynistic pig....

Post: #32

(04-10-2015 11:50 AM)kaotic Wrote:  Just sowing the seeds of male vs. female election.

Be prepared for terms like trigger warning, misogynist, and sexist to be used more in MSM.

Remember, if you don't vote for Hillary, you're a sexist misogynistic pig....

Yup. There going to set it up so whoever runs against Hillary has to walk on eggshells and can't defend himself against her and the medias attacks.

Unilateral disarmament.

Post: #33

I didn't see anything rough at all. He just didn't let her frame his views the way she wanted too.

Post: #34

Rand's a sane man in an insane world and will therefore never get elected.

The fact that this video caused outrage is proof positive that America is a pussy-whipped, vegetarian version of a once great land that neither understands liberty anymore nor wants it, and therefore doesn't deserve it.

I watched several of the videos before reading the context of the thread and thought it was about as PG as you can get.

All he did was calm that shrill-voiced harpy down for a second so he could answer her own loaded questions, dismantled the deceitful packaging of her queries, and made her look like a little girl sitting in a sandbox in red overalls.

And now it's going viral because he spoke without equivocation, without apology and without shame in being a man, and standing for beliefs that he can cogently defend?

What the actual fuck is going on over there in America where you can't even tell a bitch to shut the fuck up for a second so you can answer her own stupid question?

Hence why I maintain that we'll never get our country back until there's another violent revolution.

The reality of the people is so warped that even to raise the question that something is amiss with their ideologies would be rejected out of hand.

And thus no matter how much evidence you present to the contrary, it will all fall on deaf ears.

For example, "never hit a woman" is incontestable gospel in the USA.

Just try playing devil's advocate to that position and witness the brainwashing.

This is an impressive piece of ideological technology.

If men indoctrinate themselves that under no circumstances can they bring physical harm, or threat of physical harm to a woman, then a woman no longer has anything to fear for bad behavior.

Other examples abound.

Post: #35

My thoughts on the matter all the while shaming the white knight Chuck Todd.

Don't know about you guys, but I hope they frame this as a male versus female election. Maybe more guys would actually see that their identities are under attack.

It's for this reason that I do not think they will do this. They will not allow men to identify as a block.

It's going to be the typical feminist talking points of "oh, he's just a misogynist, this isn't 1950 anymore."

Post: #36

From the Washington Post:

Quote: Rand Paul’s problem with female interviewers just cropped up again

By Chris Cillizza April 8

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) went on the "Today" show this morning to tout his just-announced presidential bid. But things didn't go so well.


"Today" host Savannah Guthrie began by asking Paul a question about the criticism leveled by some that he has changed his positions on a variety of issues -- from Israel to defense spending. It's a perfectly fair question and one that is central to Paul's challenge in the race: Can he, an avowed libertarian, find a way to shift enough in his views to appeal to more mainstream conservative voters?

But before Guthrie even gets halfway through the question, Paul begins to interrupt her. "Before we we go ... before we go ... before we go through a litany," he says, repeatedly talking over Guthrie.

Then Paul says: "Why don't we let me explain instead of talking over me?" (Worth noting: Watch the clip above. It's pretty clear who's talking over whom.) "Why don't you ask me a question of whether I have changed my opinion," Paul scolds Guthrie, adding: "You've editorialized."

Later, as Guthrie tries to clarify Paul's position on aid to Israel, he tells her, "let me answer the question."

This isn't the first time Paul has had a run-in with a female reporter this year. In an interview with CNBC's Kelly Evans in early February, Paul shushed Evans and told her to "calm down a bit."

In the wake of that interview, Paul was unapologetic -- insisting that he was simply speaking truth to a resistant media. "I think if you're forthright and answer a lot of questions, sometimes you'll get people who won't let you answer the questions and that makes for a difficult answer," Paul told CNN.

[Rand Paul has a victim complex]

Okay, sure. But at some level, these two episodes suggest that Paul seems to misunderstand the nature of running for president. It is not a college lecture class where you talk and other people listen and take notes. It is an active back and forth between the candidate, voters and, yes, the media. And, that means that sometimes you get asked things you think are (a) stupid, (b) unfair or, often, both.


But as we noted when we wrote about Scott Walker's terrible answer on a question about President Obama's Christianity, the goal of a candidate for president is to be a candidate for president, not a media critic. Don't like the question? Choose not to answer it diplomatically rather than being openly dismissive (Paul) or launching into some broad riff on the problems of the press (Walker).

In an interview with Howard Kurtz on Fox News Channel's "Media Buzz", Paul addressed the "shushing" incident. "I did learn you're not supposed to shush people," he told Kurtz, adding later: "I'm human. I get mad sometimes. And I try to be as even keeled as I can, but sometimes like everybody else, there are interviews that I would have done differently."

Paul's interviewing problem is made worse by the fact he has now been seen mansplaining to two well-respected female reporters. That, of course, could simply be coincidence: I've not watched every somewhat-contentious Rand Paul interview this year to see whether female reporters are involved more often than men. But that the two high-profile incidents this year have happened with women does not help Paul.


The perception of Paul as not only resistant to tough questions but mocking and dismissive of them is not a good one. At all. Paul needs to understand that the political campaign he has just embarked on is a very different thing than his 2010 Senate campaign in Kentucky. The level of scrutiny, the number of people always watching and the hurdles of credibility are all much, much higher. Coming across as thin-skinned when faced with the gentlest of "tough" questions isn't a very encouraging development for those who would like to see Paul emerge as the GOP's standard-bearer sometime next year.

Post: #37

Fuck Rand. How come nobody is noticing how is doing the typical volley and flip flop that all POTUS candidates make. You never saw his father flip-flop on issues, he remained firm on his stances towards policy and gave no fucks who liked them or not. The reporter was a cunt but Rand showed equally he is already going to be a typical D.C. slime ball in this election and won't be any different then any left or right hack they parade out to the masses.

Post: #38

Stuff like that is just the cost of doing business if you want to be elected. Ron wasn't all pure either as he advertised himself with Reagan all the while criticizing him more or less simultaneously in his campaigns.

Like it or not, Rand is probably going to be the best choice we have in this election cycle for the Republicans, with Jim Webb being the likely best choice we have for the Democrats. Would like to see them go against each other but I probably have a better chance of going to Mars.

Post: #39

(04-10-2015 12:38 PM)Dusty Wrote:  From the Washington Post:

Quote: Rand Paul’s problem with female interviewers just cropped up again

By Chris Cillizza April 8

Paul's interviewing problem is made worse by the fact he has now been seen mansplaining to two well-respected female reporters.

This might seem small, but am I the only one who finds it disturbing to see a term like 'mansplaining' used here by a mainstream news source. And used in such a way it's clear the author assumes everyone knows what he's referring to. I mean, if this were an article from Jezebel yeah...but from a mainstream media source like the Washington Post.

Post: #40

Her manners were atrocious.

With that said, he could have handled her better. Perhaps instead of interrupting her interrupting, he could have held his tongue and then responded with, "Are you finished?" and then proceed to answer the original question without missing a beat. Frame, man, Frame!

Post: #41

(04-10-2015 01:18 PM)Alpha_Romeo Wrote:  Her manners were atrocious.

With that said, he could have handled her better. Perhaps instead of interrupting her interrupting, he could have held his tongue and then responded with, "Are you finished?" and then proceed to answer the original question without missing a beat. Frame, man, Frame!

Solid. Reminds me of the time that some Occupy protesters interrupted a Ron Paul speech (even though he is probably the most sympathetic to their more reasonable positions). He let them rage and chant without doing much, stood there with an amused smile on his face, then when the chanting trailed off he asked "do you feel better?", a few of them laughed, most of them sat down, and he continued with the speech.

Post: #42

"You said in 2007 that Iran wasn't a threat" That was eight years ago you dumb cunt!



This man is EXACTLY what the United States needs for its president. Hes sane, collected and intelligent and doesn't conform to the frames of others. He doesn't tolerate bullshit and he makes rational decisions based on facts.

He doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell.

Post: #43

@The Father... You had respect for Chuck Todd BEFORE you watched that clip?

Quote:Lost all respect for Chuck Todd after watching that clip.

I'll bet any RooshV member a Mexican coke that Rand Paul doesn't get anywhere near the Republican party nomination. Paul regularly breaks a cardinal rule that we have here on the forum: "don't be a dick." You, reading this, may like Paul, and think that was really Alpha the way he acquitted himself with her, but to the blue pill American public, he came across as a dick, and especially to women, who comprise something like 53% of the electorate in presidential elections (I'm not putting a value judgement on this, I'm just saying this is the political reality in America today, and how this particular situation is being covered by the media and thus perceived by the public). To me, red pill starts with the recognition of reality, and, like it or not, that's how he is being perceived, and the (not as liberal as you think, I'll expand on this momentarily) media is going to play this to the end of the earth.

Barack Obama, whether you like him or not, has a great deal of political skill in this regard. He can put reporters in their place, charmingly, disarmingly, with a big smile on his face, and without looking like a dick. This is a very important skill to have in order to win over the media and voters more generally. Rand Paul doesn't have it, and this will become more and more obvious with more time in the spotlight. He's appeared on Fox News something like 120 times since he's been in the senate, but these friendly Fox appearances don't prepare him for the scrutiny he faces now that he's announced his candidacy. He is a political lightweight who has never really faced a serious electoral test, and he will crumble. Mark my words, Rand Paul will be a political memory 15 months from now, if it takes that long (and I would be somewhat surprised if it does).

Unless some sort of dark horse candidate comes out of nowhere (which I doubt, because republicans nominate the guy whose turn it is, and have for a long time, Goldwater 1964 was the last deviation from this) this nomination fight will come down to Jeb Bush versus Scott Walker. You could make the argument that Rubio could be in the mix there, but only under the right circumstances. I personally think that time will reveal Rubio to be a political featherweight as well. Ted Cruz is a dick, and almost no one disagrees about this. The fact of it is, the Republican establishment wants someone that will keep the Security/Military Industrial complex gravy train rolling. That will be called into question if Rand Paul were to get the nomination, and a lot of moderate security/industrial type support will go to Hillary if Paul gets the nomination. The Republican hoi palloi won't let that happen, especially not with 3-4 supreme court nominations at stake in the coming years.

The (not really liberal) mainstream media has a stake in this too. If you look at ownership of news media in this country, you will see that it is inextricably intertwined with ownership of defense contracting companies. The people who own the media and decide how candidates are scrutinized also stand to lose financially if a relative dove like Paul (and you can see he's already moving away from his dovish positions, because he knows he has to politically) gets in there. If Paul were to get the nomination, as I said before, a lot of political opportunists will throw their support behind Clinton; they know her, and they know she won't fuck with their gravy train too much. That is, by the way, a big part of why the mainstream media is inherently conservative: they're trying to conserve things as they are ie: keep their gravy train going. Most of the people you see on TV, including Savannah Guthrie, I'm sure, are multi-millionaires and have bought into this whole status quo. That's why they're there, because they've sold out to that mission. Hillary versus Jeb would be a very satisfying outcome for them. That's a big part of why you keep getting Bush Clinton Bush Clinton Bush Clinton. The reason Obama was able to even get in there, aside from his political skills, is that he was able to convince the powers that be that his getting in there wouldn't change things that much for them, and it hasn't. The last time the Republican party won a presidential election without a Bush on the ticket was 1972. That's not a coincidence either.

The real red pill candidate in this race, if he runs, is Jim Webb. The powers that be would never let this happen for obvious reasons, but Webb would kick the shit out of Rand Paul in a political one on one. Webb came out of nowhere and took out George Allen in 2006, at a time when Allen was largely thought to be W's heir apparent, next in line for the republicans. I'll bet most of you guys under 30 have either never even heard of him or don't know much about him at all. That's how hard Jim Webb deep sixed George Allen's political career. He would do the same thing to Rand Paul in a one on one. Rand Paul is already changing his positions to reflect the reality of the political debate (and pissing off a lot of his Dad's base in the process). Jim Webb would change the political debate. And that makes him dangerous.

The game of politics is just like game, some people are born with it to some degree, some people work on themselves to develop those skills. Rand Paul doesn't have it, and hasn't done the work to get it. This will become glaringly obvious with time, and the media will be only too happy to illuminate that for all to see.

Rand Paul is toast, he just doesn't know it yet. And if you don't either, just watch this whole process unfold. It's already started, and going exactly as I expected.

Post: #44

(04-10-2015 02:17 PM)Capitán Peligroso Wrote:  @The Father... You had respect for Chuck Todd BEFORE you watched that clip?

Quote:Lost all respect for Chuck Todd after watching that clip.

I'll bet any RooshV member a Mexican coke that Rand Paul doesn't get anywhere near the Republican party nomination. Paul regularly breaks a cardinal rule that we have here on the forum: "don't be a dick." You, reading this, may like Paul, and think that was really Alpha the way he acquitted himself with her, but to the blue pill American public, he came across as a dick, and especially to women, who comprise something like 53% of the electorate in presidential elections (I'm not putting a value judgement on this, I'm just saying this is the political reality in America today, and how this particular situation is being covered by the media and thus perceived by the public). To me, red pill starts with the recognition of reality, and, like it or not, that's how he is being perceived, and the (not as liberal as you think, I'll expand on this momentarily) media is going to play this to the end of the earth.

Barack Obama, whether you like him or not, has a great deal of political skill in this regard. He can put reporters in their place, charmingly, disarmingly, with a big smile on his face, and without looking like a dick. This is a very important skill to have in order to win over the media and voters more generally. Rand Paul doesn't have it, and this will become more and more obvious with more time in the spotlight. He's appeared on Fox News something like 120 times since he's been in the senate, but these friendly Fox appearances don't prepare him for the scrutiny he faces now that he's announced his candidacy. He is a political lightweight who has never really faced a serious electoral test, and he will crumble. Mark my words, Rand Paul will be a political memory 15 months from now, if it takes that long (and I would be somewhat surprised if it does).

Unless some sort of dark horse candidate comes out of nowhere (which I doubt, because republicans nominate the guy whose turn it is, and have for a long time, Goldwater 1964 was the last deviation from this) this nomination fight will come down to Jeb Bush versus Scott Walker. You could make the argument that Rubio could be in the mix there, but only under the right circumstances. I personally think that time will reveal Rubio to be a political featherweight as well. Ted Cruz is a dick, and almost no one disagrees about this. The fact of it is, the Republican establishment wants someone that will keep the Security/Military Industrial complex gravy train rolling. That will be called into question if Rand Paul were to get the nomination, and a lot of moderate security/industrial type support will go to Hillary if Paul gets the nomination. The Republican hoi palloi won't let that happen, especially not with 3-4 supreme court nominations at stake in the coming years.

The (not really liberal) mainstream media has a stake in this too. If you look at ownership of news media in this country, you will see that it is inextricably intertwined with ownership of defense contracting companies. The people who own the media and decide how candidates are scrutinized also stand to lose financially if a relative dove like Paul (and you can see he's already moving away from his dovish positions, because he knows he has to politically) gets in there. If Paul were to get the nomination, as I said before, a lot of political opportunists will throw their support behind Clinton; they know her, and they know she won't fuck with their gravy train too much. That is, by the way, a big part of why the mainstream media is inherently conservative: they're trying to conserve things as they are ie: keep their gravy train going. Most of the people you see on TV, including Savannah Guthrie, I'm sure, are multi-millionaires and have bought into this whole status quo. That's why they're there, because they've sold out to that mission. Hillary versus Jeb would be a very satisfying outcome for them. That's a big part of why you keep getting Bush Clinton Bush Clinton Bush Clinton. The reason Obama was able to even get in there, aside from his political skills, is that he was able to convince the powers that be that his getting in there wouldn't change things that much for them, and it hasn't. The last time the Republican party won a presidential election without a Bush on the ticket was 1972. That's not a coincidence either.

The real red pill candidate in this race, if he runs, is Jim Webb. The powers that be would never let this happen for obvious reasons, but Webb would kick the shit out of Rand Paul in a political one on one. Webb came out of nowhere and took out George Allen in 2006, at a time when Allen was largely thought to be W's heir apparent, next in line for the republicans. I'll bet most of you guys under 30 have either never even heard of him or don't know much about him at all. That's how hard Jim Webb deep sixed George Allen's political career. He would do the same thing to Rand Paul in a one on one. Rand Paul is already changing his positions to reflect the reality of the political debate (and pissing off a lot of his Dad's base in the process). Jim Webb would change the political debate. And that makes him dangerous.

The game of politics is just like game, some people are born with it to some degree, some people work on themselves to develop those skills. Rand Paul doesn't have it, and hasn't done the work to get it. This will become glaringly obvious with time, and the media will be only too happy to illuminate that for all to see.

Rand Paul is toast, he just doesn't know it yet. And if you don't either, just watch this whole process unfold. It's already started, and going exactly as I expected.

One of the many reasons I love this fucking forum.

Post: #45

(04-10-2015 02:23 PM)RIslander Wrote:  The real red pill candidate in this race, if he runs, is Jim Webb.

Jim Webb is also my top choice for many reasons. Glad you are bringing him up again on here.

Post: #46

(04-10-2015 02:17 PM)Capitán Peligroso Wrote:  You, reading this, may like Paul, and think that was really Alpha the way he acquitted himself with her, but to the blue pill American public, he came across as a dick, and especially to women, who comprise something like 53% of the electorate in presidential elections (I'm not putting a value judgement on this, I'm just saying this is the political reality in America today, and how this particular situation is being covered by the media and thus perceived by the public). To me, red pill starts with the recognition of reality, and, like it or not, that's how he is being perceived, and the (not as liberal as you think, I'll expand on this momentarily) media is going to play this to the end of the earth.

The thing is though, I don't think you're giving credit to the incredibly short attention spans most people have, especially now. Like Basil said earlier, no one will remember this in two weeks and that interview was nothing out of the ordinary with regards to how politicians interact with the media. If this was a male reporter this thread wouldn't be made, and the fact that this is a story is a canary in the coalmine for me that the feminists are going to push VERY hard this time, especially since they've been wounded in the past year, unlike in the leadup to the 2012 cycle.

Timing is everything and it is helpful that this is happening now rather than later. Rand might get coaching or he might not. We'll see.

Not that I expect him or Webb to get the nominations in their respective parties for the other reasons you mentioned. The best we can hope for is that they do as much damage to the narrative as possible for better hopes of success in the next few iterations of the endless game.

Post: #47

Rand needs lots of generic Republicans contending against him, so that they'll split the vote; there are a lot of people for whom it's vote Rand or stay home.

It's hard to see Webb going anywhere given the colossus that is Hilary. If Webb were in Rand's position, where he's going up against several interchangeable establishment candidates, he might have a chance. Be he doesn't, so he won't. The Democratic Party has decided this is Hilary's election.

Post: #48

(04-10-2015 12:32 PM)VincentVinturi Wrote:  For example, "never hit a woman" is incontestable gospel in the USA.

I'll just leave this here.

G

Post: #49

I like the fact Webb has a much younger non American Asian wife. That'll piss off a lot of American harpies though.

Post: #50

I don't see any way possible that today's Democratic party would even let Webb have a shot. He goes almost against where the party stands today. Maybe 30 years ago. He might have a shot in the Republican party, just because his common sense approach would appeal to many of the in the middle voters the Republicans are desperate to get.

The Republicans have a problem in that if they don't find someone socially conservative they cannot drive out their base. But social conservatives turn off young libertarian and even young conservative voters. And we will see this play out with Rand. This will excite the young male voters, who are sick and damn tired of this equal rights/no responsibility standard women are held to. But the old blue pill beta males will see this as bad form and will opt for someone more blue pill/main stream.

As someone said, it will most likely be Hillary v. Jeb and in the end all of us men will lose.