Further, as I recall, Comrade Fergie has been a longtime booster of Howie Hawkins, the perennial Green candidate for every office in New York State. I couldn't say what Comrade Fergie's other activities have been (hanging out with Richard Wolff, I believe, getting arrested at the RNC back in the day), but all this talk about "pissing and moaning keyboard warriors" is f+~!ing bullshiznit.
I don't know what your deal is, Citizen Quest, but from what I've been able to gather, the only activists on the other side* in these threads are Citizen Betts (former youth outreach something or other for Obama back in the day), Citizen K(e)rensky (former Democratic Committee member in rural Pennsylvania or something) and, recently, Comrade Pravda has been hanging out with Keith Ellison or something. Perhaps I've missed something, but "keyboard warrior" is a term that can be applied to many sides on these threads.
---
*I guess there are multiple other sides; I mean activists in the Democratic Party.
I find it very funny that you are using a Gandhi quote to press for getting on board with establishment candidates that are screwing the poor. Would Gandhi vote for Hillary Clinton?
That's one of the reasons I'm so critical of the "my candidate or no one" whiners on this threat and elsewhere. ...
Almost certainly, yes. Mohandas Gandhi was a very smart man, and he understood the difference between playing a long game and playing a losing one.
Voting for local progressive candidates is playing a long game.
Voting for Jill Stein is a losing one.
It seems you (and some others) seem to be attributing a sense of absolutism to people who don't want to vote for Hillary or Trump.That's right. Because voting for Jill Stein is the equivalent of not voting, and as such deprives whoever you dislike less of even your marginal support.
Conversely, it seems that you (and some others) seem to be attributing some sort of positive effect to not bothering to vote against the worst realistic candidate. This is stupid, short-sighted, and selfish. I might even say it's absolutely so.
Two Inbound High-Velocity CP
I resent the suggestion that voting for Hillary = intelligence. I know several demonstrably intelligent individuals who will not vote for her. And whether I'm "stupid" or not, she's not getting my vote.
Furthermore, invoking a long-dead activist to endorse a present-day candidate is not only nonsense, but on the verge of terribly arrogant. To the contrary view: I would wager quite willingly that Mohandas Gandhi would not vote for HRC.
Probability explains nothing (especially so when used in a context that falls well outside the constraints of time, citizenship, and common sense), but could describe a thing that could, or could not, be.
Whether an intentional zinger which you, yourself, regard as having no true meaningful content or otherwise, or a marked unveiling of your true thoughts/beliefs regarding those of us who refuse to support the "lesser" of two evils (which is certainly a debatable thing), the combination of these two summary statements point to two inarguable facts:
1) You have placed an inordinate amount of value on just who takes the Presidency.
2) You have said that people who refuse to support HRC are stupid.
Having already dealt with #2, let's go on with #1.
If you will, follow a line of reasoning with me:
1) If Trump wins, the world will not end.
2) If Hillary wins, the world will not be saved.
3) If someone else wins, the world will recover from the shock in record time.
4) Ultimately, it makes no difference who goes to the White House.
Or, if you prefer, we can just cut straight to George Carlin and have done:
(paraphrased)"No, it's not my fault! I didn't vote for any of those \@{#?$^*(!}/!!!"
The president matters. I doubt we would have had the Iraq war under President Gore.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you will, follow a line of reasoning with me:
1) If Trump wins, the world will not end.
2) If Hillary wins, the world will not be saved.
3) If someone else wins, the world will recover from the shock in record time.
4) Ultimately, it makes no difference who goes to the White House.
Sure thing. Let's take it point by point.
1. Posit. There is a greater than zero chance that World War III will happen under President Trump. I'm not saying he starts it, or that he does anything to provoke it, since there are enough nuclear hotbeds in the world right now that something could happen that sparks a MAD scenario. Likewise, there's a greater than zero chance that WWIII will happen under President H. Clinton, for the exact same reasons. The question, therefore, is which of the two numbers is lower? I suggest that while President Clinton is hawkish and will very likely preside over some sort of military action in her first four years, the chances of it becoming world ending is rather small. President Trump, however, has proven himself time and again to be a blustering demagogue, threatening allies and enemies alike with terrible policies when he's actually pinned down to give them. I have no idea what the numbers would be, but the number under President Trump is undeniably larger than under President H. Clinton. Therefore, while not incorrect, your initial assertion is not based on solid logical ground.
2. Agreed. President H. Clinton's presidency will not end world hunger, solve the energy crisis, or achieve peace in our time. No presidency will. The question, again, therefore becomes "which presidency of the two candidates that will win will enact changes that benefit the most people?" It's not hard to see again that President H. Clinton is the answer here. Sure, her policies will benefit the political machine, but President Trump's administration will only benefit himself and his chosen few. So again, while your assertion is technically true, it ignores the real damage that President Trump will cause.
3. Agreed, but you might as well say that "tomorrow the sky will be tartan colored and the moon will crash into the earth" while we're talking about things that won't happen. There is no path to victory for Gary Johnson, and he's the third party candidate with the best chance. Only one of two people will win in November - either Hillary or Donald. If you suggest anyone else will, then you are not being realistic.
4. I've outlined above why it does. If you believe that the American political system is flawed as Hell but ultimately worth saving, then vote Hillary, and work like Hell the next four years to elect candidates to local offices that agree with the policies you want to see enacted. All politics is local, after all. The Tea Party started as a grassroots movement and came to dominate and reshape the Republican Party. It won't be overnight, and it won't be easy, but a shift in the electorate will eventually enact a shift in the political parties. If, however, you believe that the American political system (and America in general, honestly) isn't worth saving, then by all means, vote Donald Trump. He will hasten the demise of this Great Experiment.
The president matters. I doubt we would have had the Iraq war under President Gore.
Not to mention the whole, "Bin-Laden determined to attack" memo wouldn't have gone ignored.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I remember when Obama first got elected... people were celebrating in the streets, walking roung saying 'Change' to anything with a pulse, convinced that he was the man to unite a racially divided country and bring back hope for the population...
What has he ACTUALLY done.... nada, zip, zilch... ZERO
If anyone actually thinks that HC is going to do anything of note, you are in for a severe disappointment.
Bring on Trump.... risky?...absolutely.
But you have no chance of doing anything of substantial worth in life if you arent prepared to break eggs. History shows this emphatically.
HC brings nothing but mediocrity, just like Obama.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I remember when Obama first got elected... people were celebrating in the streets, walking roung saying 'Change' to anything with a pulse, convinced that he was the man to unite a racially divided country and bring back hope for the population...
.
There's a point where slowing/stopping the bleeding is good news. Even if you're still in trouble.
What has he ACTUALLY done.... nada, zip, zilch... ZERO
killed Osama
Except draw down iraq and afghanistan (you know leaving isn't a possibility, we're still in korea 60 years later)
Vastly increase the number of americans with health insurance
Ended don't ask don't tell and allowed gays to serve openly in the military
Killed Osama
Stopped waterboarding
Allowed women to sue for pay discrimination they find out about later
Didn't let a republican nominate 2 supreme court justices.
Just about as much nonsense as invoking a long dead activist to attack a present-day candidate. Damned if I know what Gandhi would do here - if he was not dead and an American citizen and thus lived in completely different circumstances than those that he actually did.
Make no mistake -- I'm not attacking HRC with the Ghost of Gandhi Passed. The point of that statement was to further illustrate the illogic of probability as it pertains to the matter of the 2016 election -- within the context of a thing that could not be.
1) True. It will likely get a lot worse for a lot of people - possibly a whole lot given his comments on using nukes.
2) True. I do think it will continue to improve in many ways, if not as swiftly and drastically as I would like. (I'm not even sure what "saved" means in this context.)
3) I suspect the shock would be extreme and long lasting, given the complete upending of what we know about how the American electoral system works. I suppose if both Trump & Clinton died or had truly horrific scandals revealed, it would be possible within the current system. The consequences of any of the other candidates taking office would be pretty extreme, though limited by the lack of support in Congress.
4) This is complete nonsense - unless meant in an "Ultimately nothing matters. Etc . . . "
1) Nuclear war would be a shakeup. And if Hillary wins, things will get (a lot) worse for a lot of people, too. The criteria for such evaluations differ from person to person. Even hinting that certain of those perspectives should be discarded is, at the very least, unfair.
2) I find your faith a bit disturbing. Not so much that you have vested some measure of it in HRC, but, rather, that you assert that "things" will "continue" to "improve". Surely an exhaustively-driven student of history as yourself can look back at just the past 150 years and see that little has changed, and neither good nor bad. "Saved" in the original context is simply an admission of faith that whether HRC is "better" than Trump or not, life will go on with or without her.3) We're almost there . . . .
4) . . . And now we have arrived. Ultimately, politics does not matter to me. It took me a long, agonizing road to get to this point. I really don't even like the position, but I find it more reasonable than backing any candidate I find distasteful. The things that truly matter, from my point of view, are things upon which politics has neither bearing nor power. Its circumstantial impact is moot. Many certainly disagree, hence this thread. But, if you can agree on any point of the preceding three, surely you can understand that a rational process definitely allows for the fourth.
I would have said nothing at all had I not taken umbrage at Orfamay's posit that I am stupid. Whether I am or not, as I mentioned before, I know quite well that many who are not stupid will not vote for HRC.
I usually pass through this thread to pick up some new laughs at the extremity to which its participants' convictions drive them.
Vote, or don't. Do eat Arby's.
I'm not stupid.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fact is that it is overwhelmingly likely that either Trump or Clinton will be the next president. Pick one. Or don't. But ultimately, your reasons for doing so don't matter...if you're eligible and able to vote, but choose not to, you own the outcome.
In other words...if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't know that Jane Sanders used to be a Vermont senator whose husband served as a salesman / surrogate for her misguided policies. Huh. Learn something new everyday.Yes. The article is from February and isn't trying to say that black people should vote for Trump.
However, before Comrade Jeff whipped out his "whitesplaining," I don't believe Citizen Moonrunner was arguing that people shouldn't vote for Hillary, just an honest assessment of the Democrats and the Clintons.
I think this article provides that.
Don't forget the article's inherent sexism.
Cause we see a whole lot of articles blaming men for what their wife did at her previous job....
The article does spend time on Hillary herself, but it also talks about what Bill did an awful lot. Does it talk about Sander's wife at all? Heck, did any article ever? Hyperbole, I'm sure that there was at least one article that talked about her, possibly even a handful. The point is that male candidates are never asked to account for their wife's behavior.
Just to be clear, the best you got is a sarcastic comment framed as a fictional account. That's your proof there's no sexism.
Pardon me if I'm not swayed by this supreme display of eloquence and facts.
The fact is that it is overwhelmingly likely that either Trump or Clinton will be the next president. Pick one. Or don't. But ultimately, your reasons for doing so don't matter...if you're eligible and able to vote, but choose not to, you own the outcome.
:P
This offer only valid in swing states. if voting for hillary induces nausea, vomiting, senses of guilt confusion and uncertainty, it will be worth it. If symptoms persist for more than 4 hours...
@Misroi --
Surely you're not suggesting you know with complete certainty that WWIII will destroy the world? I'm certainly convinced that with HRC in the office we'll be up to our eyeballs in another useless "brush fire war" somewhere in the world (I'm still waiting on my cheaper oil, cheap opiates, and Middle-Eastern mail-order brides, by the way). Trump might get us a war that's "bigger" and/or "worse", but, having worked in the defense industry for 6 years and 28 days (long since abandoned), I can tell you from first-hand experience that the profitability of war is a major driver of what this nation does, and, on that count, HRC is superior to no candidate. EVER.
Regarding your fourth -- I think the current American political system is a horrid mutation of what it could be; I think that pushing the lesser of two evils to the fore is the hunt for the lowest common denominator, which is in no way inspiring; I advocate the third option --
Neither HRC nor Trump. Buy a gun or 20 and go on with your life.
@BNW --
I was a dupe in the 2000 election. I figured that out quickly. We might not have had the Second Iraq War with Gore in office, but we can't be certain we wouldn't still have been in Afghanistan. Again, to parallel thejeff's frequent complaints against those of us who refuse to back HRC after our preferred candidate(s) have been eliminated from consideration: "It's over. Move along."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@BNW --
I was a dupe in the 2000 election. I figured that out quickly. We might not have had the Second Iraq War with Gore in office, but we can't be certain we wouldn't still have been in Afghanistan. Again, to parallel thejeff's frequent complaints against those of us who refuse to back HRC after our preferred candidate(s) have been eliminated from consideration: "It's over. Move along."
We can be pretty certain there would be no iraq war 2. No matter what else you think that is a VAST improvement. 5,000 dead americans and at a MINIMUM 100,000 dead Iraqis still alive today. Why do we even NEED more improvement than that very real, very visceral danger to give up something as ephemeral as ideological purity to accomplish?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find it very funny that you are using a Gandhi quote to press for getting on board with establishment candidates that are screwing the poor. Would Gandhi vote for Hillary Clinton?
That's one of the reasons I'm so critical of the "my candidate or no one" whiners on this threat and elsewhere. ...
Almost certainly, yes. Mohandas Gandhi was a very smart man, and he understood the difference between playing a long game and playing a losing one.
Voting for local progressive candidates is playing a long game.
Voting for Jill Stein is a losing one.
It seems you (and some others) seem to be attributing a sense of absolutism to people who don't want to vote for Hillary or Trump.That's right. Because voting for Jill Stein is the equivalent of not voting, and as such deprives whoever you dislike less of even your marginal support.
Conversely, it seems that you (and some others) seem to be attributing some sort of positive effect to not bothering to vote against the worst realistic candidate. This is stupid, short-sighted, and selfish. I might even say it's absolutely so.
Two Inbound High-Velocity CP
I resent the suggestion that voting for Hillary = intelligence. I know several demonstrably intelligent individuals who will not vote for her. And whether I'm "stupid" or not, she's not getting my vote.
Furthermore, invoking a long-dead activist to endorse a present-day candidate is not only nonsense, but on the verge of terribly arrogant. To the contrary view: I would wager quite willingly that Mohandas Gandhi would not vote for HRC.
Probability explains nothing (especially so when used in a context that falls well outside the constraints of time, citizenship, and common sense), but could describe a thing that could, or could not, be.
Whether an intentional zinger which you, yourself, regard as having no true...
Welcome to the 2016 Get Bur... Hillary Elected and if you don't vote for her you're an idiot thread.
Multiple other reasons to see this thread as a cesspit (like a M/C Disparity thread) but I'll leave you to looking through it.
PS: Yea, I'm not Conservative Anklebiter on this because I don't really care anymore.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some of Trump's supporters are bigots, xenophobes, and some are simply ignorant or naive, but some just don't feel things have improved for them over the last decade and now switching to the republican candidate seems like an option. I'm sure Trump would even be a disaster to them but I can imagine that from their point of view they don't have that much to loose. If you're a white hetero sexual male there [b]probably[b] doesn't seem like much of a difference for you between Clinton and Trump.
Emphasis mine. As a white guy who's straight ~80% of the time (long story), I can safely say I would not be directly targeted by Trump or Pence.
But that doesn't mean I can't see a difference. Similarly to how "Gay Black Woman" can cover a wide range of situations and beliefs, so can "Straight White Guy." Your point about the downtrodden and authoritarian is valid, but please don't lump me in with this guy.
That is all.
EDIT: Damnit, thejeff! :)
thejeff --
Obviously, the parallel lies in the comparison of "Primaries :: Second Iraq War". Done deal.
BNW --
Coulda, woulda, shoulda. There is no practical improvement in anyone's life by wishing bad things never happened. Right?
And I'm not pushing any "ideological purity" here. But I think it's a reasonable conclusion to draw that most of the pro-HRC/anti-Trumpers I've been reading here are.
I didn't know that Jane Sanders used to be a Vermont senator whose husband served as a salesman / surrogate for her misguided policies. Huh. Learn something new everyday.Yes. The article is from February and isn't trying to say that black people should vote for Trump.
However, before Comrade Jeff whipped out his "whitesplaining," I don't believe Citizen Moonrunner was arguing that people shouldn't vote for Hillary, just an honest assessment of the Democrats and the Clintons.
I think this article provides that.
Don't forget the article's inherent sexism.
Cause we see a whole lot of articles blaming men for what their wife did at her previous job....
The article does spend time on Hillary herself, but it also talks about what Bill did an awful lot. Does it talk about Sander's wife at all? Heck, did any article ever? Hyperbole, I'm sure that there was at least one article that talked about her, possibly even a handful. The point is that male candidates are never asked to account for their wife's behavior.
Just to be clear, the best you got is a sarcastic comment framed as a fictional account. That's your proof there's no sexism.
Pardon me if I'm not swayed by this supreme display of eloquence and facts.
Strawman.
I didn't say there was no sexism being levied against HRC. I did use sarcasm to refute your assertion that the particular article in question was "inherently sexist."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Coulda, woulda, shoulda. There is no practical improvement in anyone's life by wishing bad things never happened. Right?
Yes there is. "How did we get here" is a requirement for "how do i not do that again".
But I think it's a reasonable conclusion to draw that most of the pro-HRC/anti-Trumpers I've been reading here are.
Most of the sentiment i see here is Either
1) "i like Hillary's policies"
2) "I have to vote for Hillary to keep out trump
3) Rules lawyer the electoral college
2/3rds of that is not ideological purity, it's a very real recognition of the nature of the beast.
There is an argument to be made that we need to pull the democrats left or they're just republicans. I think the problem with that is that
1)democrats move right towards the center when they lose. I don't think they can be moved left by losing the general election.
2) Going through Mit Romney to get to bernie sanders might be worth it. Going through Trump to get to bernie sanders would not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And yet, the assertion that refusing to back HRC to oppose Trump is "stupid, short-sighted, and selfish" merited no backlash on an infamously active thread apart from one person, so far.
If, as bugleyman has said:
The fact is that it is overwhelmingly likely that either Trump or Clinton will be the next president. Pick one. Or don't. But ultimately, your reasons for doing so don't matter...if you're eligible and able to vote, but choose not to, you own the outcome.
In other words...if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. :P
silence = complicity, can we be certain that Orfamay wasn't just expressing what so many are thinking?
And while I may be convinced that the results of this election cycle will be less about ownership and more about the "horse" being saddled, I don't totally disagree with his declaration.
Opposing Trump isn't worth backing HRC, and vice versa, in my book.
Simply put, if voting for your most preferred candidate (who is vanishly unlikely to win) or withholding your support from a candidate to get some attention to your particular issues is of higher value than the difference between Clinton and Trump times the probability of like-minded voters swaying the election, you can consider yourself rational by opting for the former. I personally find it difficult to believe that enough people see a small enough difference between Clinton and Trump to take that risk, but that's the basis for my political decisions.
I call out the like-minded part because my vote is unimportant and my decisions aren't actually going to make a difference, but if a thousand people go through the same thought process as me and arrive at the same result, that could have some impact.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Opposing Trump isn't worth backing HRC, and vice versa, in my book.
Ok, how do you arrive at the conclussion that opposing trump isn't worth backing clinton?
Simply put, if voting for your most preferred candidate (who is vanishly unlikely to win) or withholding your support from a candidate to get some attention to your particular issues is of higher value than the difference between Clinton and Trump times the probability of like-minded voters swaying the election, you can consider yourself rational by opting for the former. I personally find it difficult to believe that enough people see a small enough difference between Clinton and Trump to take that risk, but that's the basis for my political decisions.
Agreed, on all accounts.
To me (also a white, heterosexual male), the difference is quite stark: Clinton, the career politician -- with whom I agree on more issues than not -- or Trump, the bigoted, ignorant, and genuinely dangerous demagogue with a long (and obvious) history of screwing the people to whom he is now trying to appeal.
Sorry, but abstaining in order to make a point would be short-sighted and selfish. By all means, speak your piece, but if you can vote and choose not to, make no mistake: You're still responsible for the outcome.
Furthermore, BNW, thought exercises may assist in decision-making in the future, but they do not, on their own, dictate that the best decisions will be reached when such points of choice appear.
In regard to the Second Iraq War, look back to Vietnam. The primary driver for our increased military action there was a lie.
Go back to WWII. Australian Intelligence notified the Roosevelt White House of the heading of a Japanese flotilla in the weeks and days prior to 7 December 1941.
Go back to WWI. The Lusitania was a political flashpoint for US involvement in the war; it can be argued that the whole thing was a put-up job.
Have we learned anything at all? Was there anything that could have been learned?
Whether we agree that those past or current wars are justified or not, it is impossible to deny the lasting impact they have had on our way of life. I would say that the madness of war has become self-sustaining in the American model. Our "Great Experiment" has devolved to the "Great War Machine".
That is not liberty. And it assuredly is not democracy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you think you'll get a fair deal with Trump as president, I have a bridge to sell you.
You'll probably get a better deal. :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In other words...if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. :P
I will choose free will!
In other words...if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. :PI will choose free will!
I choose......Guatemala! Can I get another spin.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We can't have a multi-party system because the founding fathers wanted to avoid parties.too bad the US isnt a democracy, its a republic, where we select the people "smart enough" to make the decisions of who should be running. we vote for people to vote for people.
Is it just me or is that a dumb idea in this day and age?
I know it'll never change but one can always hope and dream right?
Also, why can't the US have a multi-party system like most of Europe?
I'm tired of the 2 parties having exclusive rights to issues. Republicans cant care about the environment, democrats cant care about saving unborn children, liberals hate the death penalty, conservatives hate taxes.
I'd rather mix and match to find a political party!
...
You will have to explain that to me in a way that doesn't sound like "the founding fathers were idiots". Because that's what it sounded like just then.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
too bad the US isnt a democracy, its a republic,
Oddly enough, the US is both.
It's a republic because it doesn't have a king/queen as head of state.
It's a democracy because (most of) the population has the opportunity to vote on major issues.
Specifically, it's a representative democracy because we vote on representatives to make decisions about major issues on our behalf, because direct democracy is basically unworkable.
Is it just me or is that a dumb idea in this day and age?
Actually, representative democracy is the only way that decisions can be made "democratically" for ongoing concerns larger than a few thousand people.
Also, why can't the US have a multi-party system like most of Europe?
First-past-the-post voting system. As long as we elect a single representative from each district, the district representatives will be dominated by two parties. If we switched to proportional representation (e.g., the top 27 vote getters in New York get seated in the House of Representatives, as do the top 2 vote getters in Idaho), there would be much more room for multi-party coalitions, although the president would still probably come from one of the two major parties (because that's also a FPTP election).
We can't have a multi-party system because the founding fathers wanted to avoid parties.You will have to explain that to me in a way that doesn't sound like "the founding fathers were idiots". Because that's what it sounded like just then.
The founding fathers wanted to avoid parties, so they specifically avoided putting any mention of parties or treatment of parties into the US Constitution. Indeed, the original version of the Constitution gave the vice presidency to the runner-up for the presidency. This was changed almost immediately when it became clear that letting your biggest and bitterest rival have a guaranteed position in your cabinet simply made sure that you would never actually allow the VP to do anything useful.
Political theory has improved since 18th century; the name "Duverger's Law" is often given to the insight that " plurality-rule elections (such as first past the post) structured within single-member districts tend to favor a two-party system" (Wikipedia), a fact generally attributed to Duverger's papers of the 1950s and 1960s.
I'm not sure it's fair to criticize the founding fathers because they weren't aware of a set of papers that wouldn't be published for a hundred and eight years. It might be fair, however, to criticize them for not recognizing a natural human trait to group with like-minded people and to cooperate with those people to achieve group goals (possibly at the expense of the goals of the outgroup of unlike-minded people). The founding fathers were were well aware of the existence of state factionalism and took a number of measures to limit that (most notably the Great Compromise), but they didn't think about how political issues could and would be used to create groups.
.... which is unfortunate, because they had the example of the rise of the Whigs and Tories to draw from back in Mother England.
So, yeah, the founding fathers had some blind spots.
I didn't know that Jane Sanders used to be a Vermont senator whose husband served as a salesman / surrogate for her misguided policies. Huh. Learn something new everyday.Don't forget the article's inherent sexism.
Cause we see a whole lot of articles blaming men for what their wife did at her previous job....
The article does spend time on Hillary herself, but it also talks about what Bill did an awful lot. Does it talk about Sander's wife at all? Heck, did any article ever? Hyperbole, I'm sure that there was at least one article that talked about her, possibly even a handful. The point is that male candidates are never asked to account for their wife's behavior.
Just to be clear, the best you got is a sarcastic comment framed as a fictional account. That's your proof there's no sexism.
Pardon me if I'm not swayed by this supreme display of eloquence and facts.
It is however fair to say we've never seen parallel situation, where a man is running for a high office which his wife used to hold and during which he served as a spokesperson for her policies. Certainly not on the presidential level and as far as I know not as a Senator or Governor either.
I think it very likely they would still be treated very differently, but the situation is very different than focusing on Jane Sanders work outside of politics (or any of Trump's wives, for that matter.)
I agree it's an unusual situation.
My complaint isn't that Jane Sanders specifically isn't a target. That's an example. Rather that male candidates aren't judged by their wives. Sure, 1-2% of articles might be about their wives, but I'd wager the % is even lower than that.
Bill is actually mentioned in that article more times than Hillary. I think a strong case could be made against Hillary by looking at HER record (which is included in the article) and mentioning Bill only as a matter of context. Instead, entire paragraphs and sections of it are devoted to Bill.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And yet, the assertion that refusing to back HRC to oppose Trump is "stupid, short-sighted, and selfish" merited no backlash on an infamously active thread apart from one person, so far.
I seem to recall that both Comrade Anklebiter and I had things to say about that stance. And when he and I agree on political stuff, that's news.
In fairness, they were kind of inventing this out of whole cloth without much in the way of working systems to base it on.
They had the Iroquois confederacy as a blueprint if they'd chosen to use more of it, but that was a [5 (or 6) x 9] system as opposed to straight 2-party system.
Syrus Terrigan
Those who do not study history will be doomed to repeat it
A study of history shows that few people in power study history.
Donald Trump teams up with a frog.
Some how I knew Tsathogga would show up in this...