Hillary Clinton - the next president of America?

Message boards : Politics : Hillary Clinton - the next president of America?
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 . . . 48 · Next

AuthorMessage
bluestar

Send message
Joined: 5 Sep 12
Posts: 6995
Credit: 2,084,789
RAC: 3
Message 1807438 - Posted: 6 Aug 2016, 1:58:12 UTC

Perhaps my bad, but is it not supposed to be a difference between a political agenda and possible events that could be happening?

Always the choice or selection between the hawks and the doves if you will, but I previously gave a +1 when it comes to President Nixon.

The problem is that the fine I could recieve for making a possible crime is not because some Republican politician wants to change the world.

If so, for either the good or better, or the better for the worse.

I have not checked this out, but it is part of our history.

It should not have happened.

Abraham and Eve, to be more precise.

Sigh.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLFqeXm_5X4&list=RDMMSVkq8IEO4tc&index=5
ID: 1807438 · Report as offensive
Profile Es99
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 10874
Credit: 350,402
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1807454 - Posted: 6 Aug 2016, 2:47:11 UTC - in response to Message 1807350.  

Or better yet, leaving aside gender, the question should be: - Is she trustworthy enough to lead?

This is why seti makes me sad.

I post a video that shows how her honesty and capability has been questioned from since she barely graduated school. She has been an activist an involved in politics from before she met her husband. Time and time again from before she even had the chance to do anything..anything at all her trustworthiness was questioned and challenged.

As she progresses through her career she is judged again and again and again and evidence is constructed and exaggerated to prove that she is not trustworthy. She is judged on harsher terms than her male peers who have done far worse with far less outcry. There is a huge double standard here, and watching you all twist and turn so you don't see it makes me sad.

The sad terrible thing is that I totally recognise this behaviour. I've been a woman all my life and know exactly what she is up against.
Women constantly have their judgement questioned in a way that men never do unless they actively do something crazy (see Trump). The fact that there is even a contest between her and Trump says it all.

So I say again. Are you absolutely sure that you aren't subconsciously judging her on stereotypical assumptions of how women and men are supposed to behave? Because is really, really looks like it to me.

Simply claiming that you judge men and women the same doesn't cut it because clearly, obviously, undoubtedly you are not.

*goes away to bang head against a brick wall*
Reality Internet Personality
ID: 1807454 · Report as offensive
bluestar

Send message
Joined: 5 Sep 12
Posts: 6995
Credit: 2,084,789
RAC: 3
Message 1807470 - Posted: 6 Aug 2016, 4:11:05 UTC
Last modified: 6 Aug 2016, 4:13:48 UTC

... Or some other people here making a reference to a possible decease or malfunction.

There you are. At least this or such a thing is your problem, not mine.

But is that then supposed to be related to the subject of Politics?

Sigh, if you are left handed, you could still be dealing with the subject or subjects above.

Blame history or other events for such a thing happening or being a possibility, not necessarily that of being mentally or physically handicapped.

Sigh!
ID: 1807470 · Report as offensive
Profile betreger Project Donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 11360
Credit: 29,581,041
RAC: 66
United States
Message 1807472 - Posted: 6 Aug 2016, 4:24:20 UTC - in response to Message 1807454.  

I've been a woman all my life and know exactly what she is up against.

ES you had no choice, the rest of your post I totally agree with.
ID: 1807472 · Report as offensive
bluestar

Send message
Joined: 5 Sep 12
Posts: 6995
Credit: 2,084,789
RAC: 3
Message 1807474 - Posted: 6 Aug 2016, 4:40:09 UTC - in response to Message 1807472.  
Last modified: 6 Aug 2016, 4:46:26 UTC

Oh, better argueing between the users of this project rather than someone or somebody else.

If I ever was or supposed to be a woman, I would probably be perfect, or maybe/possibly live in a perfect world.

At least I would know, or perhaps bother what I once or originally wrote.

Sigh!

:)
ID: 1807474 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1807475 - Posted: 6 Aug 2016, 4:44:56 UTC - in response to Message 1807454.  

Or better yet, leaving aside gender, the question should be: - Is she trustworthy enough to lead?

This is why seti makes me sad.
...
*goes away to bang head against a brick wall*

Perhaps you should report these ____ to someone who can track their internet rants and correlate them with their web browsing history just to be sure none of them are becoming excessively radicalized?

As to fitness, Trump negative numbers, worse than Nixon. Hillary isn't perfect (she is a politician after all) but won't start WWIII because of a perceived slight. That being said I'd still rather see Gary Johnson elected.

So as a person she would do at least as good as any of the last several persons to occupy the office. Policy is another matter. Elect Gary Johnson!

The real question is: If she were the leader would privileged white males follow?
ID: 1807475 · Report as offensive
Profile Es99
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 10874
Credit: 350,402
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1807479 - Posted: 6 Aug 2016, 5:13:06 UTC - in response to Message 1807475.  

Or better yet, leaving aside gender, the question should be: - Is she trustworthy enough to lead?

This is why seti makes me sad.
...
*goes away to bang head against a brick wall*

Perhaps you should report these ____ to someone who can track their internet rants and correlate them with their web browsing history just to be sure none of them are becoming excessively radicalized?

As to fitness, Trump negative numbers, worse than Nixon. Hillary isn't perfect (she is a politician after all) but won't start WWIII because of a perceived slight. That being said I'd still rather see Gary Johnson elected.

So as a person she would do at least as good as any of the last several persons to occupy the office. Policy is another matter. Elect Gary Johnson!

The real question is: If she were the leader would privileged white males follow?

Some will. They are no longer the majority in America. Hence the appeal of Trump and his promise to make America great again (code for make it like when white males really did have all the power)

I don't think Hillary is perfect. However, just like the terrible vitriol thrown at Obama, there is something very skewed about the accusations levelled at her.

Concerns I have heard is that she is a warmonger. That seems a valid concern and not related to negative stereotypes about women. I am not sure where those concerns stem from, and would love to be enlightened.

However this 'lying Hillary' BS works because it goes straight to the underbelly of subconscious attitudes towards women.
Reality Internet Personality
ID: 1807479 · Report as offensive
Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 12273
Credit: 8,569,109
RAC: 79
United States
Message 1807486 - Posted: 6 Aug 2016, 6:00:43 UTC - in response to Message 1807454.  

Or better yet, leaving aside gender, the question should be: - Is she trustworthy enough to lead?

This is why seti makes me sad.

I post a video that shows how her honesty and capability has been questioned from since she barely graduated school. She has been an activist an involved in politics from before she met her husband. Time and time again from before she even had the chance to do anything..anything at all her trustworthiness was questioned and challenged.

As she progresses through her career she is judged again and again and again and evidence is constructed and exaggerated to prove that she is not trustworthy. She is judged on harsher terms than her male peers who have done far worse with far less outcry. There is a huge double standard here, and watching you all twist and turn so you don't see it makes me sad.

The sad terrible thing is that I totally recognise this behaviour. I've been a woman all my life and know exactly what she is up against.
Women constantly have their judgement questioned in a way that men never do unless they actively do something crazy (see Trump). The fact that there is even a contest between her and Trump says it all.

So I say again. Are you absolutely sure that you aren't subconsciously judging her on stereotypical assumptions of how women and men are supposed to behave? Because is really, really looks like it to me.

Simply claiming that you judge men and women the same doesn't cut it because clearly, obviously, undoubtedly you are not.

*goes away to bang head against a brick wall*


I reiterate:

My "issues" with Hilary reside in my fears that she might end up a "hawkish" president and that she might be a president who is more of a fiscal conservative than I would want her to be.


^
|
|
|

This.

Jill Stein, on the other hand, appears to be non-hawkish and not a pro-corporatist neo-liberal. None of that has anything to do with gender. On the other hand, Jill is, to my knowledge, still not on the ballot in all 50 states. Furthermore, info is coming out about her views on vaccination and "wi-fi radiation" that could be non-evidence based and detrimental to gaining support. None of this has anything to do with gender.


AND

Bernie has pulled Hillary to the left, however those fears could be founded.


McAuliffe: Clinton would flip-flop on TPP

Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe caused Hillary Clinton a political headache Tuesday night when he said he expects her to reverse her position on a major free trade deal.


Gov. McAuliffe (D).

Anyone want to place bets one of the first things Hillary does is something social, to reduce discriminiation? Perhaps all well and good, but nowhere near addressing our biggest concerns.

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.
ID: 1807486 · Report as offensive
Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 12273
Credit: 8,569,109
RAC: 79
United States
Message 1807490 - Posted: 6 Aug 2016, 6:21:46 UTC - in response to Message 1807479.  
Last modified: 6 Aug 2016, 6:23:14 UTC

Concerns I have heard is that she is a warmonger. That seems a valid concern and not related to negative stereotypes about women. I am not sure where those concerns stem from, and would love to be enlightened.


How many do you need? Shall we begin w/ the NY Times?

How Hillary Clinton Became a Hawk
Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.
ID: 1807490 · Report as offensive
Profile Siran d'Vel'nahr
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 May 99
Posts: 7379
Credit: 44,181,323
RAC: 238
United States
Message 1807523 - Posted: 6 Aug 2016, 11:21:27 UTC - in response to Message 1807398.  

Or better yet, leaving aside gender, the question should be: - Is she trustworthy enough to lead?

NO!

Is Trump trustworthy enough to lead, when he has foreign policy advisers like Carter Page.

NO!
CAPT Siran d'Vel'nahr - L L & P _\\//
Winders 11 OS? "What a piece of junk!" - L. Skywalker
"Logic is the cement of our civilization with which we ascend from chaos using reason as our guide." - T'Plana-hath
ID: 1807523 · Report as offensive
Profile Siran d'Vel'nahr
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 May 99
Posts: 7379
Credit: 44,181,323
RAC: 238
United States
Message 1807524 - Posted: 6 Aug 2016, 11:31:00 UTC - in response to Message 1807454.  

Or better yet, leaving aside gender, the question should be: - Is she trustworthy enough to lead?

This is why seti makes me sad.

I post a video that shows how her honesty and capability has been questioned from since she barely graduated school. She has been an activist an involved in politics from before she met her husband. Time and time again from before she even had the chance to do anything..anything at all her trustworthiness was questioned and challenged.

As she progresses through her career she is judged again and again and again and evidence is constructed and exaggerated to prove that she is not trustworthy. She is judged on harsher terms than her male peers who have done far worse with far less outcry. There is a huge double standard here, and watching you all twist and turn so you don't see it makes me sad.

The sad terrible thing is that I totally recognise this behaviour. I've been a woman all my life and know exactly what she is up against.
Women constantly have their judgement questioned in a way that men never do unless they actively do something crazy (see Trump). The fact that there is even a contest between her and Trump says it all.

So I say again. Are you absolutely sure that you aren't subconsciously judging her on stereotypical assumptions of how women and men are supposed to behave? Because is really, really looks like it to me.

Simply claiming that you judge men and women the same doesn't cut it because clearly, obviously, undoubtedly you are not.

*goes away to bang head against a brick wall*

Long time no see Esme, :)

What was that event that happened not long ago? My memory ain't what it used to be, I'm sure others here from the U.S. can relate the event better.

The way I remember there were 4 people in trouble and needed help from the U.S. Clinton knew about it and did NOTHING about it and the 4 people were killed.

THAT is just one of the reasons she is NOT trustworthy and not fit to lead this country. And neither is Trump!

Esme, I don't know where you are getting your information, but I have never heard of her in the light you place her in.

Peace! :)
CAPT Siran d'Vel'nahr - L L & P _\\//
Winders 11 OS? "What a piece of junk!" - L. Skywalker
"Logic is the cement of our civilization with which we ascend from chaos using reason as our guide." - T'Plana-hath
ID: 1807524 · Report as offensive
pierre
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 10 Jul 16
Posts: 22
Credit: 1,265
RAC: 0
Message 1807526 - Posted: 6 Aug 2016, 12:05:16 UTC - in response to Message 1807524.  

It's more than obvious "Siran ..." that you wish for the relevance, and stature,
of a Vulcan but have the credibility of "Pizza Rat".
ID: 1807526 · Report as offensive
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 19013
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 1807528 - Posted: 6 Aug 2016, 12:18:26 UTC - in response to Message 1807524.  

Why put all the blame on Hillary, reports say that funding for extra security was denied by the Senate, which is and was controlled by the Republicans.

And after this event didn't they recognise this failing on their part by passing the H.R.2848 - Department of State Operations and Embassy Security Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2014 which authorized over $17 billion into further training and protection for diplomatic posts.

I would read that, as saying belatedly, "We, the Republicans, did not provide enough funds, training or personnel to protect our interests abroad. As asked for previously by the Democratic President and his State Department."
ID: 1807528 · Report as offensive
Profile Siran d'Vel'nahr
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 May 99
Posts: 7379
Credit: 44,181,323
RAC: 238
United States
Message 1807531 - Posted: 6 Aug 2016, 13:17:58 UTC - in response to Message 1807526.  

It's more than obvious "Siran ..." that you wish for the relevance, and stature,
of a Vulcan but have the credibility of "Pizza Rat".

???
What the frak are you talking about?
???
CAPT Siran d'Vel'nahr - L L & P _\\//
Winders 11 OS? "What a piece of junk!" - L. Skywalker
"Logic is the cement of our civilization with which we ascend from chaos using reason as our guide." - T'Plana-hath
ID: 1807531 · Report as offensive
Profile Siran d'Vel'nahr
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 May 99
Posts: 7379
Credit: 44,181,323
RAC: 238
United States
Message 1807533 - Posted: 6 Aug 2016, 14:15:00 UTC - in response to Message 1807528.  

Why put all the blame on Hillary, reports say that funding for extra security was denied by the Senate, which is and was controlled by the Republicans.

And after this event didn't they recognise this failing on their part by passing the H.R.2848 - Department of State Operations and Embassy Security Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2014 which authorized over $17 billion into further training and protection for diplomatic posts.

I would read that, as saying belatedly, "We, the Republicans, did not provide enough funds, training or personnel to protect our interests abroad. As asked for previously by the Democratic President and his State Department."

Then please tell me why it is that Clinton told her daughter, in an email, that she (Hillary) knew it was a planned terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9/11, but turned around and said the attack was because of some video on YouTube?

There was too much irrelevant crap in the proposal from the Democrats which is why the Republicans denied it.

Peace! :)
CAPT Siran d'Vel'nahr - L L & P _\\//
Winders 11 OS? "What a piece of junk!" - L. Skywalker
"Logic is the cement of our civilization with which we ascend from chaos using reason as our guide." - T'Plana-hath
ID: 1807533 · Report as offensive
bobby
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 2866
Credit: 17,789,109
RAC: 3
United States
Message 1807535 - Posted: 6 Aug 2016, 15:04:27 UTC - in response to Message 1807533.  

Why put all the blame on Hillary, reports say that funding for extra security was denied by the Senate, which is and was controlled by the Republicans.

And after this event didn't they recognise this failing on their part by passing the H.R.2848 - Department of State Operations and Embassy Security Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2014 which authorized over $17 billion into further training and protection for diplomatic posts.

I would read that, as saying belatedly, "We, the Republicans, did not provide enough funds, training or personnel to protect our interests abroad. As asked for previously by the Democratic President and his State Department."

Then please tell me why it is that Clinton told her daughter, in an email, that she (Hillary) knew it was a planned terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9/11, but turned around and said the attack was because of some video on YouTube?

There was too much irrelevant crap in the proposal from the Democrats which is why the Republicans denied it.

Peace! :)

Who exactly did we go to war with over the youtube video? The reason I ask is that was a similar conflation following 9/11, Bush/Cheney linked Saddam Hussein with Al Qaeda This conflation was repeated by other Republicans in the lead up to the war in Iraq. Pretty sure current evidence suggests that Saddam Hussein was no friend or ally of OBL.

Did any of this make Bush untrustworthy enough for Republicans to withhold their votes in 2004, despite the 9/11 commission telling them that there was no collaborative relationship?

How many US and allied troops died and were injured as a result?

If we allow benefit of doubt, then we could give some to Clinton's argument that her mail to Chelsea was written in the fog of war, there was no such fog when Bush and Cheney re-iterated the link between Saddam and OBL in 2004.

Perhaps Esme is right and their maybe some double standards at play.
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

ID: 1807535 · Report as offensive
Profile Siran d'Vel'nahr
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 May 99
Posts: 7379
Credit: 44,181,323
RAC: 238
United States
Message 1807536 - Posted: 6 Aug 2016, 15:19:02 UTC - in response to Message 1807535.  

-[ snip ]-

Then please tell me why it is that Clinton told her daughter, in an email, that she (Hillary) knew it was a planned terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9/11, but turned around and said the attack was because of some video on YouTube?

There was too much irrelevant crap in the proposal from the Democrats which is why the Republicans denied it.

Peace! :)

Who exactly did we go to war with over the youtube video? The reason I ask is that was a similar conflation following 9/11, Bush/Cheney linked Saddam Hussein with Al Qaeda This conflation was repeated by other Republicans in the lead up to the war in Iraq. Pretty sure current evidence suggests that Saddam Hussein was no friend or ally of OBL.

Did any of this make Bush untrustworthy enough for Republicans to withhold their votes in 2004, despite the 9/11 commission telling them that there was no collaborative relationship?

How many US and allied troops died and were injured as a result?

If we allow benefit of doubt, then we could give some to Clinton's argument that her mail to Chelsea was written in the fog of war, there was no such fog when Bush and Cheney re-iterated the link between Saddam and OBL in 2004.

Perhaps Esme is right and their maybe some double standards at play.

I have no idea what prompted your response which has nothing to do with what I was talking about. What war over a video? I said nothing about a war over a video.

This is what I was referring to.
CAPT Siran d'Vel'nahr - L L & P _\\//
Winders 11 OS? "What a piece of junk!" - L. Skywalker
"Logic is the cement of our civilization with which we ascend from chaos using reason as our guide." - T'Plana-hath
ID: 1807536 · Report as offensive
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 19013
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 1807537 - Posted: 6 Aug 2016, 15:50:09 UTC - in response to Message 1807536.  

Do wish you would present some believable evidence not some over-hyped piece in the sensationalist comic called the Daily Mail.

Try again, please.
ID: 1807537 · Report as offensive
Profile celttooth
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Nov 99
Posts: 26503
Credit: 28,583,098
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1807538 - Posted: 6 Aug 2016, 15:54:50 UTC - in response to Message 1807537.  

sensationalist comic


Thank you, I thought you people were losing your touch there for a bit.

I am unable to teach the unworthy,
the uninspired, or the unwilling!


edit:
Carry on then....
ID: 1807538 · Report as offensive
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 24877
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
Message 1807539 - Posted: 6 Aug 2016, 15:55:10 UTC - in response to Message 1807454.  

Or better yet, leaving aside gender, the question should be: - Is she trustworthy enough to lead?

This is why seti makes me sad.

I post a video that shows how her honesty and capability has been questioned from since she barely graduated school. She has been an activist an involved in politics from before she met her husband. Time and time again from before she even had the chance to do anything..anything at all her trustworthiness was questioned and challenged.

As she progresses through her career she is judged again and again and again and evidence is constructed and exaggerated to prove that she is not trustworthy. She is judged on harsher terms than her male peers who have done far worse with far less outcry. There is a huge double standard here, and watching you all twist and turn so you don't see it makes me sad.

The sad terrible thing is that I totally recognise this behaviour. I've been a woman all my life and know exactly what she is up against.
Women constantly have their judgement questioned in a way that men never do unless they actively do something crazy (see Trump). The fact that there is even a contest between her and Trump says it all.

So I say again. Are you absolutely sure that you aren't subconsciously judging her on stereotypical assumptions of how women and men are supposed to behave? Because is really, really looks like it to me.

Simply claiming that you judge men and women the same doesn't cut it because clearly, obviously, undoubtedly you are not.

*goes away to bang head against a brick wall*

All I did was ask a question!

Clinton was Secretary of State & now a Presidential Candidate. I see that candidate the same as Cameron.

Consults with the EU regarding Tax Transparency...

...what do we see 12 months later?

Panama Papers ring a bell?

As far as I'm concerned, when it comes to leadership, gender plays no part. What's so hard to understand with that?
ID: 1807539 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 . . . 48 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Hillary Clinton - the next president of America?


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.