US President 2016 - the Great Horse Race

[Frikki]

You just can´t help yourself.

Help myself doing what? Use non-flattering nicknames for politicians? Or is that only acceptable for male politicians like Tricky Dick or Slick Willie but somehow becomes "sexist" or "misogynist" when applied to a female politician?
Yet another double standard from the Left.

I'm not on the Left I vote Right. But what I'm not is a woman hating racist. If that makes me a leftist in your eyes I think the problem lies with you.

 

[arkirk]

The name Sanders has a nice sound. Imagine...President Sanders. A pleasant thought...maybe Robert Reich for VP. We would at least have somebody there that understands what a government is supposed to do.

 

[angelo]

As an outsider looking in, I too like Sanders. But I'm sure there are those who will pick all the wrongs of this guy.

 

[4321lynx]

As an outsider looking in, I too like Sanders. But I'm sure there are those who will pick all the wrongs of this guy.

Oh, my! If you, in West Oz know who he is, then I, here in the Frozen North, better pull my finger out and find out something about him.

arkirk said

The name Sanders has a nice sound. Imagine...President Sanders. A pleasant thought...maybe Robert Reich for VP. We would at least have somebody there that understands what a government is supposed to do.

Is that a WASP dig at my friend Barack Obama, that he does not know what to do, and what's more, a few years ago would not be served in a Diner in States like Alabama?

 

[4321lynx]

OK I have read about Bernie and like what I see, with a reservation about his alleged far-left views. But if my favourite State in the Union likes him, then he must be OK. And his being Jewish, but educated and living in the States, he will be sensible and pragmatic and will not be ruthlessly doctrinaire, unlike the Jewish racist left-wing fanatics of 100 years ago in Russia and of 70 years ago in Eastern Europe.
And yes, I know there were historical and psychological causes for the left-wing murderous fanaticism, but these are no excuse.

NB the usual suspects, those defenders of all things Jewish, those who know that God is Jewish, even if there is no God , please ignore my aside, or start a new Thread to discuss it.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I too like Sanders. Wish he had a chance to win your election. If you elected him, I would actually be envious of the USA for the first time maybe ever.

 

[Rhea]

I'm liking Sanders and his chances more and more. His fundraising has been pretty encouraging, giving indications of his name recognition and popularity (electability) and the spread of his message/positions.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I too like Sanders. Wish he had a chance to win your election. If you elected him, I would actually be envious of the USA for the first time maybe ever.

One problem, that right-leaning moderate in the White House is getting the most push back since Andrew Johnson. What in the world do you think Sanders could achieve in the White House? Oh goodness are things so messed up in this country's government.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm liking Sanders and his chances more and more. His fundraising has been pretty encouraging, giving indications of his name recognition and popularity (electability) and the spread of his message/positions.

Oh, come on now. He's a tool!

 

[Derec]

Oh, my! If you, in West Oz know who he is, then I, here in the Frozen North, better pull my finger out and find out something about him.

He is basically the democratic version of Ron Paul. Old, iconoclastic, has sizable loyal following but not much traction in the electorate as a whole.

Is that a WASP dig at my friend Barack Obama, that he does not know what to do,

Doubt it. My interpretation was "as opposed to a mere colonel".

and what's more, a few years ago would not be served in a Diner in States like Alabama?

Half a century >> a few years.

 

[Derec]

I'm liking Sanders and his chances more and more. His fundraising has been pretty encouraging, giving indications of his name recognition and popularity (electability) and the spread of his message/positions.

 

[Derec]

I'm not on the Left I vote Right.

Is there even a right wing party for you to vote for in Iceland? Remember, yours is the country so radical feminist they banned strip clubs from the Left!

But what I'm not is a woman hating racist.

I neither hate women nor am I a racist. I merely think same rules should apply to all, and some candidates should not be shielded from attack just because they are female.

If that makes me a leftist in your eyes I think the problem lies with you.

No, the double standard is what makes me think you are a leftist. Attacking male candidates with things like funny images, nicknames or comments about their looks and age: perfectly ok. Attacking a female democrat in the exact same fashion: misogynistic pig!

 

[Derec]

The issue is not the nickname, though thanks for classing up the joint.

The issue is the demand that female candidates be given special immunity from certain attacks. To me, that is sexism. Male and female candidates should be treated equally. If we can talk about Christie's and Huckabee's weight, Sanders' wild or Edwards' and Kerry's expensively coiffured hair, etc. then we can talk about Hillary's schizophrenic hairstyles and her wrinkles as well.

No, the issue is that you're demonstrating that you see everything through the lens of your own - shall we say - quaintly outdated view of women.

How is my view on women "quaintly outdated"? I did not say women should not lead countries - by all accounts for example Angela Merkel is quite competent. If anything the idea of a woman getting a position through her husband is the quaintly outdated one.

And it isn't just the regurgitated right wing slurs against Hillary.

Like what?

It isn't just the claim that she'd be nothing without her husband.

Not "nothing". She is a quite competent lawyer and she would have had a successful law career if not for Bill. But she definitely would not have become a senator from NY, SecState and the inevitable presidential candidate for the second time.

It isn't the unflattering photos.

Then why accusations of sexism when photos of Hillary are posted.

I could give you a break if your posting history was even remotely equally littered with vicious attacks against men in general, but it isn't, so I can't.

I am not attacking women in general either. And in particular I have written negatively and posted unflattering pictures of male candidates as well.

I get it. You could only hate her more if she were black and accusing a man of rape.

If you have no real arguments pile on the non sequiturs.

There are plenty of things about Hillary I don't care for, but I'm going to make a note to myself that - if the election turns out so - I'm going to respond to your little photo up there with one of her taking the oath of office, just because I know it will piss you off.

Yes it will. Because I do not think she is the best choice to lead this country by a long shot.
However, Merkel being sworn as chancellor did not piss me off in the slightest (I follow German politics because I used to live there).

 

[Derec]

Neither referred to anything sexual, so umm... no! Dick was Richard.

And Willie==Bill, I know. That's why I said double entendre. And at least in the case of Clinton fully intentional because of his many sexual escapades. But "Hildebeest" doesn't include any reference to female anatomy. So how is it "misogynist" but nicknames for male politicians are ok?

Thanks. I always like it when you can provide images stored at the Misogynist's Only Website.

Again: Unflattering pictures of politicians are fair game and do not become "misogynistic" when they feature female politicians.

- - - Updated - - -

McCain had know health problems.

As does Hillary, or have you forgotten her blood clot episode. There could be more because I do not think she released her medical records.

And she is almost as old as McCain was in 2008.

Then the dipshit he made his VP candidate sealed that deal.

Well, we can't know yet which dipshit Hillary will choose if she is the nominee. Obama didn't do a stellar job either with his choice.

Do you remember anything without a misogynistic historical filter?

I was going to ask you the same thing, except your misogyny filter is "high pass" and also very non-linear - the output includes levels of misogyny never present in the input stream.

Given the advanced age of almost all Democratic candidates, a question.
What happens if a candidate dies or is incapacitated? If that happens before the convention presumably the delegates chosen before the death/incapacitation would be free to vote for whomever and a brokered convention is likely. But if that happens after the convention, does the running mate take over or do the delegates get to reconvene?

 

[Ford]

The issue is the demand that female candidates be given special immunity from certain attacks. To me, that is sexism. Male and female candidates should be treated equally. If we can talk about Christie's and Huckabee's weight, Sanders' wild or Edwards' and Kerry's expensively coiffured hair, etc. then we can talk about Hillary's schizophrenic hairstyles and her wrinkles as well.

Okay, I'll bite. Why don't you point out all the times you've made an issue of Christie or Huckabee's weight, Sanders or Kerry's hair, etc. I mean, if you're really all about equality, then your own posts should be consistent. Your actions should match your words.


While you're at it, remind us of all the crass nicknames you've called all the male candidates.

 

[4321lynx]

and what's more, a few years ago would not be served in a Diner in States like Alabama?

Half a century >> a few years.

Wait till you're my age; it'll seem like a few.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And Willie==Bill, I know. That's why I said double entendre.

Neither were ever double entendre.

And at least in the case of Clinton fully intentional because of his many sexual escapades. But "Hildebeest" doesn't include any reference to female anatomy. So how is it "misogynist" but nicknames for male politicians are ok?

I don't think it is sexist. I think it is blanket raging partisanship. If she had an R next to her name, she be the Republican nominee.

Thanks. I always like it when you can provide images stored at the Misogynist's Only Website.

Again: Unflattering pictures of politicians are fair game and do not become "misogynistic" when they feature female politicians.

You have an arsenal of unflattering pictures of women.

 

[Bacillus anthracis]

But he wasn't selected as running mate because he was married to Barbara but because of his extensive experience (DCI, congressman, RNC chair, various diplomatic posts) and because he finished 2nd in 1980 primaries.

Dubbya got to fuck us for 8 years because his dad was President.

He is a more apt comparison to Hillary than 41 and look how that turned out ..

So when someone says, "Hillary only got to where she is because of Bill," it is true to a certain degree. But it doesn't diminish what she's been able to do with the opportunity.

What really grinds my gears is when her sycophants overcompensate for her dearth of real experience (I do not count 16 years as first lady as real experience) by claiming that she is the most qualified candidate in a long time when she is realistically not even in the top quintile among recent (say since WWII) major party nominees.

Conversely, what's Laura Bush up to these days?

Most politician spouses don't have high political admissions, and that's good so I think. Joachim Sauer is not likely to try to become Chancellor of Germany either, so it's not about gender.

What is a qualified candidate? Briefly:

Insider and exposure to POTUS job for 8 years
Attorney
Senator
Secretary of State

That's just to name a few. if you look at all the other candidates, it is difficult, if not impossible to find one with more experience at different levels of the federal government, or knowledge of federal law than Hillary Clinton. This isn't sycophantic drivel. It's hard data.

If she isn't qualified to be POTUS, no one else in this pathetic race is either. I really don't like the fact that she's going to go unchallenged, but that's what we're looking at. She isn't very inspiring, she's a horrible public speaker--not like Dubbya was horrible--she's bad in her own way. But she is a better alternative than any of the Republican candidates--by a long shot.

And for the fucking life of me I don't know why she would want that goddamn job anyway. Maybe that should be the biggest concern. What is that drives someone who has taken so much abuse for so many years to want to continue to take it? I'd be like, "Fuck you motherfuckers. I'm gonna go buy an island and hire Republican law students to be my cabana boys."

BTW, I do agree with you on the looks-as-fair-game thing. It's part of the crucible of being a high level politician in the U.S. Just as there is soft racism, so there is soft sexism. But if you want to be in the club, you have to pay your dues.

 

[Derec]

What is a qualified candidate? Briefly:

I did not say she wasn't qualified at all, but that her qualifications are less than many other candidates and that she is certainly not the "most qualified candidate in modern history/our lifetimes" as her supporters love to claim.

Insider and exposure to POTUS job for 8 years

She was the wife of a president, and before that wife of a governor. Hardly relevant experience.

Attorney

As are most politicians, so hardly a distinguishing feature. As a matter of fact, we need fewer lawyers in politics, not more.

Senator

Sure, but that hardly puts her anywhere close to "most qualified" label, especially since her senate tenure was about 1 term.

Secretary of State

Also adds to her qualifications of course, but it brings problems as well (Benghazi for example). Also, SecState has become something of a terminal position in more recent history. Last SecState to become president was James Buchanan(also only bachelor president), in mid-19th century.

That's just to name a few.

No, that's to name absolutely everything. And including being married to the president as qualification is a real stretch.

if you look at all the other candidates, it is difficult, if not impossible to find one with more experience at different levels of the federal government, or knowledge of federal law than Hillary Clinton. This isn't sycophantic drivel. It's hard data.

Don't tempt me to post that JK Simmons gif again. Compare her resume with that of Poppy Bush.
- Naval aviator during WWII, flew numerous combat missions-
- businessman [relevant if you want to include Hillary being a lawyer]
- 2 term congressman
- UN ambassador
- RNC chief
- diplomat in China
- Director of Central Intelligence
- Vice President

All that and he was still a few years younger than Hillary when he was elected president. I assume he counts as "modern history" so the claims of Hillary sycophants are spectacularly debunked.

Even compared to people in the running today her qualifications are not the most impressive.
Bernie Sanders
- 8 years mayor of Burlington
- 16 years Congressman
- 8 years or so as Senator, including 2 years as VA committee chairman

Or take Martin O'Malley:
- Assistant State's Attorney
- 8 years Baltimore city council
- 8 years mayor of Baltimore
- 8 years governor of Maryland

Yeah, I know, none of them were married to a president so their qualifications can never be nearly as impressive as those of the Inevitable One.

If she isn't qualified to be POTUS, no one else in this pathetic race is either.

Yeah, I know, none of the other candidates was ever married to a president, although Jeb is related to two of them.

I really don't like the fact that she's going to go unchallenged, but that's what we're looking at. She isn't very inspiring, she's a horrible public speaker--not like Dubbya was horrible--she's bad in her own way. But she is a better alternative than any of the Republican candidates--by a long shot.

She managed to screw up one inevitable candidacy and that was when she was 8 years younger, and before Benghazi, blood clot, "we were so poor" comments and Servergate. Of course, if McSanders wins the nomination it might be a repeat of 1972.

And for the fucking life of me I don't know why she would want that goddamn job anyway. Maybe that should be the biggest concern. What is that drives someone who has taken so much abuse for so many years to want to continue to take it? I'd be like, "Fuck you motherfuckers. I'm gonna go buy an island and hire Republican law students to be my cabana boys."

This quote is very apropos I think.

The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.

BTW, I do agree with you on the looks-as-fair-game thing. It's part of the crucible of being a high level politician in the U.S. Just as there is soft racism, so there is soft sexism. But if you want to be in the club, you have to pay your dues.

I think the only sexism and racism in this case, soft or otherwise, is to insist certain candidates should be protected from certain things that are fair game to others.

 

[Frikki]

Is there even a right wing party for you to vote for in Iceland? Remember, yours is the country so radical feminist they banned strip clubs from the Left!

But what I'm not is a woman hating racist.

I neither hate women nor am I a racist. I merely think same rules should apply to all, and some candidates should not be shielded from attack just because they are female.

If that makes me a leftist in your eyes I think the problem lies with you.

No, the double standard is what makes me think you are a leftist. Attacking male candidates with things like funny images, nicknames or comments about their looks and age: perfectly ok. Attacking a female democrat in the exact same fashion: misogynistic pig!

... but I never said it was ok to make up derogatory names for candidates, except for Trump. Not because he's a man but because he is a shitcock.