The Hillary Clinton thread

Ralph-Wiggum · Post by **Ralph-Wiggum** » Tue Sep 27, 2016 2:13 pm

Obviously Huffington Post isn't a neutral site, but this article still brings up legitimate points about why people hate Clinton:

We list so very many explanations, all of them complete bullshit.

In truth, the Hillary haters seem to resent her more than disagree with her. They demand to be humored and catered to. They hold her to wildly different standards than her male counterparts. They regard her with an unprecedented degree of suspicion. Above all, they really, really want to see her punished. And an aggressive male presence—even if dangerously incompetent—seems to comfort a great many of them.

Everyone but them knows damn well why.

Bad news for the haters: History is decidedly unafraid of “the woman card.” It doesn’t care how many people will stand on tables today and swear they’d feel the same if she were a man. It will see us for what we are—a sick society, driven by misogyny and pathetically struggling to come to terms with the fact that women do not exist solely to nurture.

If that answer isn’t as nuanced as the average thinkpiece, that’s because we, as a people, are not. No matter how many branches have formed, they all emerged from the same seed, planted way back when Bill Clinton first ran for governor. She wouldn’t be so suspicious of the press, or so measured in her presentation, or so any one of a thousand other things, if she had been born a man.

The lengths we go to in order to rationalize this all will be seen, in retrospect, as extraordinary.

When the Bush administration was discovered to have erased millions of emails illegally sent by 22 administration officials through private, RNC-owned accounts, in order to thwart an investigation into the politically motivated firing of eight US attorneys, just one talk show covered it that Sunday.

When Mitt Romney wiped servers, sold government hard drives to his closest aides and spent $100,000 in taxpayer money to destroy his administration’s emails, it was barely an issue.

YellowKing · Post by **YellowKing** » Tue Sep 27, 2016 2:29 pm

Breaking Bad did a great job of exposing misogyny, and it was one of the first times that I realized how deeply ingrained it can be. A lot of people (including myself) HATED Walter White's wife Skyler. And it's all because the show skillfully manipulated us into caring about the bad guy and disliking anyone who got in his way.

It was only when I read an article pointing it out that I realized that the character I hated the most on the show, was one of the few decent people. This poor lady was just trying to hold her family together, but it was all too easy to paint her as the "meddling shrew."

I'm totally guilty as charged for being sexist in a LOT of ways, Hillary certainly being a prime example. It's something I've tried to curb, though it still shines through now and then (see the Worst Job Thread....though in my defense, my use of the word "bitch" in that post could be directly translated to "girl asshole" because that's what they were - and if they had been guys I'd have felt the same way).

Having a daughter has definitely been the biggest game-changer for me. The next President is going to see my daughter go from age 7 to 11. My choice is the first female President in US history, or a guy who demeans women at every opportunity. It's why it's so frustrating when my mom tells me by voting for Hillary I'm not thinking of my kids. It's ALL I'm thinking of.

hitbyambulance · Post by **hitbyambulance** » Tue Sep 27, 2016 2:35 pm

YellowKing wrote:Breaking Bad did a great job of exposing misogyny, and it was one of the first times that I realized how deeply ingrained it can be. A lot of people (including myself) HATED Walter White's wife Skyler. And it's all because the show skillfully manipulated us into caring about the bad guy and disliking anyone who got in his way.

It was only when I read an article pointing it out that I realized that the character I hated the most on the show, was one of the few decent people. This poor lady was just trying to hold her family together, but it was all too easy to paint her as the "meddling shrew."

Edith Wharton's _Ethan Frome_ also accomplished this (quite well)

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Tue Sep 27, 2016 2:40 pm

hitbyambulance wrote:
YellowKing wrote:Breaking Bad did a great job of exposing misogyny, and it was one of the first times that I realized how deeply ingrained it can be. A lot of people (including myself) HATED Walter White's wife Skyler. And it's all because the show skillfully manipulated us into caring about the bad guy and disliking anyone who got in his way.

It was only when I read an article pointing it out that I realized that the character I hated the most on the show, was one of the few decent people. This poor lady was just trying to hold her family together, but it was all too easy to paint her as the "meddling shrew."
Edith Wharton's _Ethan Frome_ also accomplished this (quite well)

Although I think that's a function not only of sexism but also that Walter White was the main character, and it's hard to avoid rooting for main character antiheroes, even when they're objectively assholes.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Wed Sep 28, 2016 7:44 am

killbot737 · Post by **killbot737** » Wed Sep 28, 2016 8:22 am

Defiant wrote:

That keeps her safe from the Hounds of Tindalos, you Killary-shillary!

Scraper · Post by **Scraper** » Wed Sep 28, 2016 9:19 am

El Guapo wrote:
hitbyambulance wrote:
YellowKing wrote:Breaking Bad did a great job of exposing misogyny, and it was one of the first times that I realized how deeply ingrained it can be. A lot of people (including myself) HATED Walter White's wife Skyler. And it's all because the show skillfully manipulated us into caring about the bad guy and disliking anyone who got in his way.

It was only when I read an article pointing it out that I realized that the character I hated the most on the show, was one of the few decent people. This poor lady was just trying to hold her family together, but it was all too easy to paint her as the "meddling shrew."
Edith Wharton's _Ethan Frome_ also accomplished this (quite well)
Although I think that's a function not only of sexism but also that Walter White was the main character, and it's hard to avoid rooting for main character antiheroes, even when they're objectively assholes.

Driving to work today I saw a "Trump that BITCH" yard sign. It wasn't a crudely made one either it looked like any normal political yard sign. That sign alone tells me who is on the wrong side of this election.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Fri Sep 30, 2016 11:51 pm

San Diego Union-Tribune endorses a Democrat for the first time in it's 148-year history.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Sat Oct 01, 2016 11:36 am

Clinton has her own 3:AM tweetstorm

noxiousdog · Post by **noxiousdog** » Mon Oct 03, 2016 2:40 pm

Though I'm not a fan of free college, I would totally be on board with taxpayer funding of a (reasonably priced) university education in exchange for national service.

msteelers · Post by **msteelers** » Mon Oct 03, 2016 2:56 pm

You mean the GI Bill?

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Mon Oct 03, 2016 3:00 pm

The CDC has provisions for student loan forgiveness as well, up to $10,000 a year, $60,000 maximum per person. I'm all for providing loan paybacks if you're in specific service jobs, absolutely.

noxiousdog · Post by **noxiousdog** » Mon Oct 03, 2016 3:04 pm

msteelers wrote:You mean the GI Bill?

Well, yes, but I would expand it beyond military service including the two programs Clinton mentioned.

Smutly · Post by **Smutly** » Mon Oct 03, 2016 5:14 pm

Sounds like Hillary wanted to kill Assange. I wonder what goodies the October Surprise will bring.

coopasonic · Post by **coopasonic** » Mon Oct 03, 2016 5:18 pm

That's disturbing.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Mon Oct 03, 2016 5:29 pm

Snopes says nope.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Mon Oct 03, 2016 5:29 pm

Meh, it's a joke if Trump says things like that. But I guess a woman doesn't get the benefit of the doubt.

coopasonic · Post by **coopasonic** » Mon Oct 03, 2016 5:36 pm

Holman wrote:Snopes says nope.

hmmm...

Unless "public diplomacy" is reasonable code for "drone strike,"

Sounds legit.

geezer · Post by **geezer** » Mon Oct 03, 2016 5:36 pm

Smutly wrote:
Sounds like Hillary wanted to kill Assange.

Do you really think that?

Enough · Post by **Enough** » Mon Oct 03, 2016 5:43 pm

Smutly wrote:
Sounds like Hillary wanted to kill Assange. I wonder what goodies the October Surprise will bring.

There's not a person alive or dead who some righty conspiracy enthusiast hasn't suggested the Clintons tried to kill, heh. Oh and did you see this breaking news?

The debate is over: Donald Trump’s mystery hairdo is not a badly constructed wig nor is it a desperately coiffed comb over. It’s an alien spider that has woven a dense, messy web as camouflage as it sucks intelligence out of The Donald’s brain.

Although it’s been rumored by conspiracy theorists for years, The Scooper has obtained an exclusive photo of The Donald’s spider wig roaming the nighttime corridors of a luxury hotel while the billionaire psychopath and would-be president sleeps deeply, drugged by hubris and greed.

No one knows what the alien spider wig is looking for in the hours before dawn. Perhaps a mate, perhaps a better anti-dandruff shampoo. Most of those who have seen it have been too frightened to approach the menacing creature.

“I was so afraid,” admitted hotel night janitor, Delwood Frater. “It hissed at me. It ran one way, and I ran the other. I was afraid of an anal probe. You know those aliens.”

If anyone really thought about taking him out, it would most likely be, as the Snopes article correctly pointed out, the CIA.

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Mon Oct 03, 2016 6:07 pm

Enough wrote:If anyone really thought about taking him out, it would most likely be, as the Snopes article correctly pointed out, the CIA.

And it wouldn't be a freaking drone strike when he's in the UK or raping it up in Sweden. It isn't like Assange was hanging out in the Khyber Pass back in Nov 2010, when the plot allegedly unfolded.

Hopefully the Russians cooked up something more plausible than this for the big event tomorrow.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Mon Oct 03, 2016 6:25 pm

Holman wrote:Snopes says nope.

Doesn't say it isn't true, just that it is "unproven".

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Mon Oct 03, 2016 6:31 pm

Rip wrote:
Holman wrote:Snopes says nope.

Doesn't say it isn't true, just that it is "unproven".

Kind of like how Glenn Beck murdered that woman back in 1990.

Smutly · Post by **Smutly** » Mon Oct 03, 2016 7:11 pm

geezer wrote:
Smutly wrote:
Sounds like Hillary wanted to kill Assange.
Do you really think that?

I think it is much easier for me to defend that "this is true" than it is for people to say that Trump is advocating violence against Hillary...which many of you have done.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Mon Oct 03, 2016 7:15 pm

Smutly wrote: I think it is much easier for me to defend that "this is true" than it is for people to say that Trump is advocating violence against Hillary...which many of you have done.

We all have our own filters, I guess.

Enough · Post by **Enough** » Mon Oct 03, 2016 7:19 pm

GreenGoo wrote:
Smutly wrote: I think it is much easier for me to defend that "this is true" than it is for people to say that Trump is advocating violence against Hillary...which many of you have done.
We all have our own filters, I guess.

Riiiight. He just blows his silent dog whistle and has absolutely no control over the folks who show up for the call at his rallies and sell hang the bitch t-shirts, Hillary gun targets and on and on. I mean, Trump would have ZERO power to control what's sold at his rallies or to police the crowd. That would be downright unAmeriKAN!

Some Guy Running for POTUS wrote:If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do folks, although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Mon Oct 03, 2016 7:30 pm

Lol, Candidate in a democracy suggesting in public that his opponent might/should get whacked if she didn't have publicly funded protection is exactly the same as an unsourced email suggesting a (potential) enemy of the state get droned.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Mon Oct 03, 2016 8:14 pm

GreenGoo wrote:Lol, Candidate in a democracy suggesting in public that his opponent might/should get whacked if she didn't have publicly funded protection is exactly the same as an unsourced email suggesting a (potential) enemy of the state get droned.

The dialogue attributed to Clinton comes from nowhere, BTW. Not even Wikileaks pretends that Clinton is on official or unofficial record saying anything of the sort.

As Snopes points out, the whole conspiracy theory seems to derive from language in a pair of Clinton staff emails that ask about possible "legal and nonlegal" responses to Wikileaks. Nowhere is any violence suggested in any form, but the conspiracy theorists seem to believe that "nonlegal" must mean "illegal" (e.g. murder).

It means no such thing. The distinction between "legal" and "nonlegal" responses is the distinction between using lawyers and using other means like public relations, official statements, interviews, etc.

There's literally nothing to this story.

EDIT/Correction: There's literally nothing to this story except Clinton Derangement Syndrome.

Zarathud · Post by **Zarathud** » Mon Oct 03, 2016 8:20 pm

Worst made up story ever.

YellowKing · Post by **YellowKing** » Mon Oct 03, 2016 8:34 pm

The explanation is simple.

1. She didn't say that.

2. If she did say that, she was joking.

3. If she wasn't joking, she just meant that they were going to bore him into complacency by "DRONING" on and on and on

4. Rosie O'Donnell is a fat pig

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Mon Oct 03, 2016 8:48 pm

Speaking of Clinton conspiracy theories... Remember that Whitewater thing?

Twenty years ago, Michael Chertoff was near the top of the Clintons’ enemy list. He was the lead Republican counsel on the Senate Whitewater Committee, one of the first of many congressional investigations into Hillary Clinton.

Clinton later cast the only vote in the Senate against him when he was nominated in 2001 to head the Justice Department’s criminal division. She was also the lone no vote against Chertoff in 2003, when he was nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the third circuit.

All of this, though, was before the Republican Party nominated Donald Trump as its presidential candidate. This has shaken the party of Reagan. Chertoff, a lifelong Republican, will now be voting for the Democrat in November.

Over the weekend, Chertoff -- the former secretary of Homeland Security -- told me his decision came down to national security. “I realized we spent a huge amount of time in the ’90s on issues that were much less important than what was brewing in terms of terrorism,” he said. For Chertoff, Clinton “has good judgment and a strategic vision how to deal with the threats that face us.”

Whitewater has not come up much in this election season. But it was the Benghazi of the 1990s. Just as the Benghazi investigation begat a congressional probe into Clinton’s e-mail server, the Whitewater investigation led Congress to President Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky. So it’s significant that an investigator from that era is now in Hillary Clinton’s corner.

“People can go back decades and perhaps criticize some of the judgments that were made,” Chertoff said. “That is very, very insignificant compared to the fundamental issue of how to protect the country."

Just as Chertoff doesn’t think Clinton’s dodgy friendships from her Arkansas days disqualify her from the presidency, he says the same thing about Clinton’s use of a private e-mail system. It was a mistake, he said, but “she did not intentionally endanger national security.”

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Mon Oct 03, 2016 9:37 pm

Holman wrote:
GreenGoo wrote:Lol, Candidate in a democracy suggesting in public that his opponent might/should get whacked if she didn't have publicly funded protection is exactly the same as an unsourced email suggesting a (potential) enemy of the state get droned.
The dialogue attributed to Clinton comes from nowhere, BTW.

That's what "unsourced" means.

I think I played this one too straight for the ravening masses.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Tue Oct 04, 2016 9:09 am

The Wkileaks announcement is that they are going to release a million documents a week "related to the US" for the next 10 weeks. The documents won't necessarily relate to Clinton / Trump, and Assange downplayed reports that they would "destroy" Clinton.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Tue Oct 04, 2016 9:38 am

Yeah, Assange pulled a Trump and invited everyone to a bombshell announcement...but ended up just talking about his business.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Tue Oct 04, 2016 11:06 am

:sigh:

The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee is pressing Attorney General Loretta Lynch to explain the circumstances surrounding the immunity deals given to two of Hillary Clinton’s lawyers.

Republicans have seized on the deals to question whether the FBI's investigation into Clinton's use of a private email server while secretary of State was mishandled.
...
Goodlatte demanded written answers from Lynch to a series of questions and a briefing with Justice staff no later than Oct. 10.

Among other things, the chairman wants to know why the FBI agreed that Mills’s and Samuelson’s laptops — turned over under the immunity deal — were to be destroyed after a search was completed.

He also demanded to know why the DOJ agreed to limit its search to documents no later than Jan. 31, 2015, “and therefore give up any opportunity to find evidence related to the destruction of evidence or obstruction of justice.”
...
The immunity deal promised that the Justice Department would not prosecute Mills or Samuelson based on information obtained from the laptops, according to Oversight Committee Democrats, who have also reviewed the deal.

Wilkinson has said that she advised them to take the deal "because of the confusion surrounding the various agencies’ positions on the after-the-fact classification decisions."

"As the government indicated in these letters, the DOJ and FBI considered my clients to be witnesses and nothing more. Indeed, the Justice Department assured us that they believed my clients did nothing wrong," Wilkinson said in a statement when the news of the immunity deal broke last month.
...
Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) has hammered the Justice Department for “handing out immunity agreements like candy.”

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Tue Oct 04, 2016 2:13 pm

Clinton has led in 23 of 24 post debate swing state polls. Of the swing states only still behind in Ohio. Up to 74% in 538 polls only.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Tue Oct 04, 2016 2:15 pm

It's too soon for polls to matter...again.

Unagi · Post by **Unagi** » Tue Oct 04, 2016 2:18 pm

Clinton has led in 23 of 24 post debate swing state polls. Of the swing states only still behind in Ohio. Up to 74% in 538 polls only.

But didn't you hear the FBI is handing out immunity like candy!

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Tue Oct 04, 2016 2:41 pm

Unagi wrote: But didn't you hear the FBI is handing out immunity like candy!

But I have it on good authority that the FBI does not hand out candy.

Not to self: Don't visit the FBI when trick-or-treating.

Unagi · Post by **Unagi** » Tue Oct 04, 2016 6:55 pm

YellowKing wrote:The explanation is simple.

1. She didn't say that.

2. If she did say that, she was joking.

3. If she wasn't joking, she just meant that they were going to bore him into complacency by "DRONING" on and on and on

4. Rosie O'Donnell is a fat pig

5. She was talking about castrating him.