Post: #1

In another gem from the Huff Post we learn that Hillary Clinton supporters apparently believe criticism of their candidate is sexist...
I can't wait for the manosphere trolling to start. Protip, don't google image search "mangina" some things can't be unseen.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/27...56384.html

Quote:A group known as The HRC Super Volunteers has launched a campaign aimed at journalists to prevent the use of sexist language when covering potential 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

The group began as an online Facebook community made up of some 150,000 members who came together during the 2007-2008 primaries to take a stand against sexist reporting.



A group known as The HRC Super Volunteers has launched a campaign aimed at journalists to prevent the use of sexist language when covering potential 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

The group began as an online Facebook community made up of some 150,000 members who came together during the 2007-2008 primaries to take a stand against sexist reporting.



One of the founders, John West, approached journalists via email this week to warn them about using "coded sexism" in their writing about Clinton such as words and phrases like, "ambitious," "tired," "entitled," "worn out" and "will do anything to win."



"Already we have seen the coded language of sexism and innuendo used by major news outlets and we are not happy," West wrote in an email obtained by The Huffington Post.



He proceeded to give several examples from major news outlets:
The New York Times stated Hillary continued to “scramble in the dirt on the crabbed limbs of legal compliance.”
Washington Post comparing Hillary to a “stale, musty” old car.
The New Yorker prefers the derogatory term “petulant.”
USA Today refers to Hillary Clinton’s “reputation for secrecy.”
Washington Post: “[H]er judgment and penchant for secrecy.”
NBC News: “Folks, this is the Clinton Way. Secretive.”
TIME: “penchant for secrecy.”
New York Times: “[T]he imbroglio could grow into a problem with voters, including some women, if Mrs. Clinton comes to be seen as unduly secretive or imperious in the months ahead.”
Politico uses the same technique, opening an article by calling her “devious” then concluding it by asserting that “it’s hard to win if you’re constantly on the defensive.” See the trap? Attack her, then claim she’s on the defensive.
Similarly, the “inevitability” frame is an artificial perch that others place her on and then try to knock her off. When her behavior doesn’t conform to the media’s expectations, she is “defiant.”



"You are on notice that we will be watching, reading, listening and protesting coded sexism this time around," West warned. "We expect you to exercise restraint and take editorial responsibility."



New York Times' political reporter Amy Chozick tweeted about receiving an email from the group:

Post: #2

Journalists are stenographers to power nowadays, not muckrakers.

This is part of the gender metapolitics that will be deployed on both sides in this campaign.

It may even be a false flag / parody account to provoke exactly this kind of criticism.

If it isn't, they are trying to intimidate journalists accustomed to the politically correct atmosphere of American universities. Not censor them, but get them to censor themselves.

There won't be many critical articles about any of the front runners backed by the oligarchy, like Clinton or Bush. Expect them to tear into any insurgent candidate like Cruz or Webb like wolves.

I feel nausea just thinking about another American presidential campaign. A year and a half of moronic trivialities for the masses, while the real issues are never discussed.

Post: #3

FWIW I know lots of true-believer-liberals who don't like Hillary

No one likes the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton thing

Post: #4

Quote:

I remember the last two elections, some people said you were racist against blacks if you dont like Obama, even though hes also white.

Itd be hilarious if it happens again this time. Some people saying you would be sexist against women if you dont like Hillary. Even though shes also a man.

Post: #5

Despite her resume and the support she has solely for being a woman, Hillary's campaign face serious obstacles, almost all of them self-imposed. She just doesn't have the grace under fire that her husband does.





And that's necessary to become President these days, especially if you carry as much baggage as Hillary does. She gets rattled too easily, and she didn't have Bill behind her back she'd be nowhere right now. That said, it will be entertaining to watch the wheels fall off.

Edit: To compare, W. Bush ducked two shoes with a smirk on his face.



Now that will help you win an election.

Post: #6

If you just look solely at her performance Hillary was an awful Secretary of State. She dropped the ball on the Arab Spring, as well as the Benghazi thing, and in SEA when it came to China policy. I remember seeing a live broadcast of her when she was in SEA years ago. She bumbled her way through questions and policy statements. Nothing about her ever seems genuine, she's almost like a talking mannequin.

People generally didn't like her much overseas and the only reason she got any attention was because of her connection with Bill.

Post: #7

Not really sure what she "did" as SOS.

What would she point to as her greatest accomplishments in office?

Post: #8

Here's some food for thought. Do you think the right would have a better chance if they selected a female candidate to run against Hillary?

Before Obama got elected I was saying that the republicans would have had a better chance if they would have selected a black candidate, and I think similar logic could be applied to the next election.

Having a female running against Hillary could level the playing field significantly. Voters who simply wanted to see a woman in office would have two choices instead of just one.

Would it be good to have a female president? Absolutely not. I can't imagine most countries would respect us at all, especially Russia and China. However Hillary would be the worst possible candidate.

I don't follow elections very closely and I don't know who the GOP has to nominate, male or female. This is just food for thought.

Post: #9

Republicans will not get any brownie points for nominating a female. See: Palin, Sarah.

Post: #10

(03-28-2015 07:01 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  Not really sure what she "did" as SOS.

What would she point to as her greatest accomplishments in office?

Post: #11

(03-28-2015 07:47 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  Republicans will not get any brownie points for nominating a female. See: Palin, Sarah.

Sadly whoever it will be will be a warmonger. I had faith after the Paul - Carson - Cruz wave that we would see a new GOP that appealed to younger, diverse voters and was more fiscally conservative/isolationist. After Netanyahu ' s guest speech in DC I was proven wrong.

Post: #12

(03-28-2015 09:45 PM)MdWanderer Wrote:  

(03-28-2015 07:47 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  Republicans will not get any brownie points for nominating a female. See: Palin, Sarah.

Sadly whoever it will be will be a warmonger. I had faith after the Paul - Carson - Cruz wave that we would see a new GOP that appealed to younger, diverse voters and was more fiscally conservative/isolationist. After Netanyahu ' s guest speech in DC I was proven wrong.

You're not right or wrong yet, it's something still in the making:


Martin Armstrong: Civil War Brewing Inside the Republican Party:

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2015/03/07...can-party/

Post: #13

(03-28-2015 10:25 PM)Easy_C Wrote:  

(03-28-2015 09:45 PM)MdWanderer Wrote:  

(03-28-2015 07:47 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  Republicans will not get any brownie points for nominating a female. See: Palin, Sarah.

Sadly whoever it will be will be a warmonger. I had faith after the Paul - Carson - Cruz wave that we would see a new GOP that appealed to younger, diverse voters and was more fiscally conservative/isolationist. After Netanyahu ' s guest speech in DC I was proven wrong.

You're not right or wrong yet, it's something still in the making:


Martin Armstrong: Civil War Brewing Inside the Republican Party:

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2015/03/07...can-party/

Palin was and is pretty clearly a shallow twit. She's an example of a typical American woman of the faux-Christian conservative type who rode the cock carousel and is an attention whore.

Even though McCain is still alive, it would have been highly risky putting her so close to nuclear launch codes in 2008.

It would have been different if McCain had picked someone like Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison, Elizabeth Dole, or Lisa Murkowski. Palin really did not know jack shit about the world and did not read anything; it's obvious from her interviews. Palin probably excited some blood flow into that old dog McCain's penis, I'll give her that.

I've written before that I think the main danger of Hillary is that when confronted with an international crisis she will try to play the Iron Lady, compounded by her rage about Bill fucking around. Lacking a sense of what a guy like Putin or Xi is capable of, she would push things too far. She's another warmonger.

Post: #14

WNVF. Would not vote for, (if I was an American).

Post: #15

Unfortunately every survey seems to suggest that Hillary has a substantial lead in the polls against every republican candidate.

Post: #16

(03-28-2015 01:03 PM)Medic42 Wrote:  In another gem from the Huff Post we learn that Hillary Clinton supporters apparently believe criticism of their candidate is sexist...
I can't wait for the manosphere trolling to start. Protip, don't google image search "mangina" some things can't be unseen.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/27...56384.html

Quote:One of the founders, John West, approached journalists via email this week to warn them about using "coded sexism" in their writing about Clinton such as words and phrases like, "ambitious," "tired," "entitled," "worn out" and "will do anything to win."

"Already we have seen the coded language of sexism and innuendo used by major news outlets and we are not happy," West wrote in an email obtained by The Huffington Post.

He proceeded to give several examples from major news outlets:
The New York Times stated Hillary continued to “scramble in the dirt on the crabbed limbs of legal compliance.”
Washington Post comparing Hillary to a “stale, musty” old car.
The New Yorker prefers the derogatory term “petulant.”
USA Today refers to Hillary Clinton’s “reputation for secrecy.”
Washington Post: “[H]er judgment and penchant for secrecy.”
NBC News: “Folks, this is the Clinton Way. Secretive.”
TIME: “penchant for secrecy.”
New York Times: “[T]he imbroglio could grow into a problem with voters, including some women, if Mrs. Clinton comes to be seen as unduly secretive or imperious in the months ahead.”
Politico uses the same technique, opening an article by calling her “devious” then concluding it by asserting that “it’s hard to win if you’re constantly on the defensive.” See the trap? Attack her, then claim she’s on the defensive.
Similarly, the “inevitability” frame is an artificial perch that others place her on and then try to knock her off. When her behavior doesn’t conform to the media’s expectations, she is “defiant.”

This is pretty clever. Hillary does have a "penchant for secrecy" but it's one of her big weaknesses so her campaign wants the media to shut up about it. What better way than to insist that talking about an obvious fact of the world is sexism?

Post: #17

(03-29-2015 08:53 AM)lavidaloca Wrote:  Unfortunately every survey seems to suggest that Hillary has a substantial lead in the polls against every republican candidate.

Wait until the mud starts flying. Hillary won't last very long.









I hope.

Post: #18

(03-29-2015 10:50 AM)Grange Wrote:  

(03-29-2015 08:53 AM)lavidaloca Wrote:  Unfortunately every survey seems to suggest that Hillary has a substantial lead in the polls against every republican candidate.

Wait until the mud starts flying. Hillary won't last very long.









I hope.

Agreed. If the Republicans pick a sharp candidate he will wipe the floor with her. For example, if Cruz can get the nomination, can you imagine what he would do to her in debates? Hate on Cruz all you want, but he is fucking smart. Magma cum laude at Harvard and ultra liberal Professor Alan Dershowitz said Cruz was the smartest student he's ever had.

Post: #19

^Since when do women make rational decisions based on logical things like the outcome of a debate?

Hillary is going to win and we're all fucked.

Post: #20

For everyone's enjoyment, playing with this electoral map can be fun in imagining how the election will shake out

http://uselectionatlas.org/TOOLS/evcalc.php

The default here is Obama's results from 2012 which shows you Republicans will have to swipe a solid number of states from Dems to win

For instance, if Republicans took back Virginia, Florida and Ohio, that would still not be enough, they'd need 1 more state. Nevada? Colorado? Iowa? Michigan? New Hampshire?

Getting back Virginia, Florida and Ohio seems completely necessary for a Republican to have a chance. If even one of those states goes for the Democrat it seems like Republicans have no realistic chance of getting enough other states to win.

Looking at the electoral math it becomes clear this could be a relatively close election like both of Bush's.

Post: #21

(03-29-2015 10:54 AM)komatiite Wrote:  

(03-29-2015 10:50 AM)Grange Wrote:  

(03-29-2015 08:53 AM)lavidaloca Wrote:  Unfortunately every survey seems to suggest that Hillary has a substantial lead in the polls against every republican candidate.

Wait until the mud starts flying. Hillary won't last very long.



I hope.

Agreed. If the Republicans pick a sharp candidate he will wipe the floor with her. For example, if Cruz can get the nomination, can you imagine what he would do to her in debates? Hate on Cruz all you want, but he is fucking smart. Magma cum laude at Harvard and ultra liberal Professor Alan Dershowitz said Cruz was the smartest student he's ever had.

Mr. Canadian Ted Cruz? You really think Americans would take serious a born and raised Canadian attempting to become President? This would all make Obama's "Birther" folly look tame. Obama was born in the USA, Ted Cruz was far from that in being born and raised in Alberta, Canada until he was 5 years old. The man did not give up his Canadian citizenship and passport until 2014 when he decided he wanted to run. As far as I know he is "naturalized" as a American and the Constitution would not allow him to take the seat of Presidency. This is the type of prospects the inept GOP is rolling out.

Post: #22

^his mom was an American citizen so he is good.

Post: #23

(03-29-2015 11:25 AM)kosko Wrote:  

(03-29-2015 10:54 AM)komatiite Wrote:  

(03-29-2015 10:50 AM)Grange Wrote:  

(03-29-2015 08:53 AM)lavidaloca Wrote:  Unfortunately every survey seems to suggest that Hillary has a substantial lead in the polls against every republican candidate.

Wait until the mud starts flying. Hillary won't last very long.



I hope.

Agreed. If the Republicans pick a sharp candidate he will wipe the floor with her. For example, if Cruz can get the nomination, can you imagine what he would do to her in debates? Hate on Cruz all you want, but he is fucking smart. Magma cum laude at Harvard and ultra liberal Professor Alan Dershowitz said Cruz was the smartest student he's ever had.

Mr. Canadian Ted Cruz? You really think Americans would take serious a born and raised Canadian attempting to become President? This would all make Obama's "Birther" folly look tame. Obama was born in the USA, Ted Cruz was far from that in being born and raised in Alberta, Canada until he was 5 years old. The man did not give up his Canadian citizenship and passport until 2014 when he decided he wanted to run. As far as I know he is "naturalized" as a American and the Constitution would not allow him to take the seat of Presidency. This is the type of prospects the inept GOP is rolling out.

@Kosko If he was a US citizen the whole time it might not matter.

@komatiite That doesn't matter much. Presidential "debates" are just talking points. Hillary gets a lot of support from young people who only know she's a woman, she's famous, she was/is powerful, that's all they know. A lot of that support will disappear when Elizabeth Warren says she's part of The System in every way. Even if Hillary gets the D nomination her position then will be weaker relative to the Republican.

Post: #24

Can we just give George Bush 10x more credit for standing back up straight after the first shoe not worried about dodging the second?