The Hillary Clinton thread

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 11:02 pm

If he wants maximum exposure, I'd guess that he will just go ahead and put it on Youtube rather than something like Netflix that is behind a paywall.

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Fri Oct 21, 2016 2:13 pm

Kraken wrote:A factor I forgot to mention before: As the first female president, Clinton might feel undue pressure to act macho.

I disagree that this is a realistic scenario; Trump might be motivated by his underlying insecurities, but I don't see that as being consistent with Clinton's personality. If (when) she engages in some sort of intervention, it is far more likely that it will simply be that she sees it as an acceptable and effective means to an end, not because she needs to prove she's man enough for the job.

Now if we were talking about Trump, I could see him nuking Raqqa for no better reason than to prove his manhood (and Pattonesque military genius). It would be entirely in character.

YellowKing · Post by **YellowKing** » Fri Oct 21, 2016 4:42 pm

I think Hillary's plenty macho enough already. She's basically told Putin to go fuck himself several times in the debates.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Fri Oct 21, 2016 4:46 pm

She talks tough. When she takes command, I believe her gender will cause her extra pressure to act tough. Of course that's not quantifiable and just my hunch.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Fri Oct 21, 2016 5:05 pm

Kraken wrote:She talks tough. When she takes command, I believe her gender will cause her extra pressure to act tough. Of course that's not quantifiable and just my hunch.

I disagree. "Soft" is not among the negatives people (even opponents) associate with Hillary.

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Fri Oct 21, 2016 5:25 pm

Kraken wrote:She talks tough. When she takes command, I believe her gender will cause her extra pressure to act tough. Of course that's not quantifiable and just my hunch.

And that does not in any way sound literally sexist.

tgb · Post by **tgb** » Fri Oct 21, 2016 5:44 pm

Kraken wrote:She talks tough. When she takes command, I believe her gender will cause her extra pressure to act tough. Of course that's not quantifiable and just my hunch.

Depends on the time of the month.

(tgb ducks and runs)

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Fri Oct 21, 2016 8:49 pm

Max Peck wrote:If he wants maximum exposure, I'd guess that he will just go ahead and put it on Youtube rather than something like Netflix that is behind a paywall.

Ooh, bad call...

gbasden · Post by **gbasden** » Fri Oct 21, 2016 9:28 pm

Bummer. I'd probably have watched it, but I don't do iTunes.

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Fri Oct 21, 2016 9:58 pm

Yeah, same here. I'm curious enough to watch it if I could, but I'm not signing up for iTunes and paying for the privilege of consuming a one-time serving of political propoganda.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Fri Oct 21, 2016 9:59 pm

Max Peck wrote:
Kraken wrote:She talks tough. When she takes command, I believe her gender will cause her extra pressure to act tough. Of course that's not quantifiable and just my hunch.
And that does not in any way sound literally sexist.

I suppose it does.

Every president wants to be remembered as a strong leader. The first woman in the job might feel like she's starting with certain cultural presumptions to overcome. Will that affect HRC's decision making? I don't know; she's undeniably a tough woman anyway. I can't say that it will any more than you can say that it won't...but it's going to be there regardless.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Fri Oct 21, 2016 10:00 pm

Ugh. No iTunes for me, either, thank you.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Fri Oct 21, 2016 10:06 pm

Kraken wrote:
Max Peck wrote:
Kraken wrote:She talks tough. When she takes command, I believe her gender will cause her extra pressure to act tough. Of course that's not quantifiable and just my hunch.
And that does not in any way sound literally sexist.
I suppose it does.

Every president wants to be remembered as a strong leader. The first woman in the job might feel like she's starting with certain cultural presumptions to overcome. Will that affect HRC's decision making? I don't know; she's undeniably a tough woman anyway. I can't say that it will any more than you can say that it won't...but it's going to be there regardless.

Right, this is my point. You dislike her, but describe her as "undeniably a tough woman." On the right the view is that she's picking pockets and sending drones and whatnot. I really don't see how she's going to feel pressure to "act tough." At least, not more than any other president.

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Fri Oct 21, 2016 11:07 pm

She's been in politics her entire life, and in positions of significant authority and publicity. This one is a step up, but it is old hat for her. Hell, she's really just moving back into her old house. I doubt she acts any differently than she has in the past - she'll have confronted those assumptions years ago.

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Sun Oct 23, 2016 9:12 pm

Surprising nobody at this point...

The New Yorker Endorses Hillary Clinton

The election of Hillary Clinton is an event that we would welcome for its historical importance, and greet with indescribable relief.

On November 8th, barring some astonishment, the people of the United States will, after two hundred and forty years, send a woman to the White House. The election of Hillary Clinton is an event that we will welcome for its immense historical importance, and greet with indescribable relief. It will be especially gratifying to have a woman as commander-in-chief after such a sickeningly sexist and racist campaign, one that exposed so starkly how far our society has to go. The vileness of her opponent’s rhetoric and his record has been so widely aired that we can only hope she will be able to use her office and her impressive resolve to battle prejudice wherever it may be found.

On every issue of consequence, including economic policy, the environment, and foreign affairs, Hillary Clinton is a distinctly capable candidate: experienced, serious, schooled, resilient. When the race began, Clinton, who has always been a better office-holder than a campaigner, might have anticipated a clash of ideas and personalities on the conventional scale, against, say, Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio. Instead, the Democratic nominee has ended up playing a sometimes secondary role in a squalid American epic. If she is elected, she will have weathered a prolonged battle against a trash-talking, burn-it-to-the-ground demagogue. Unfortunately, the drama is not likely to end soon. The aftereffects of this campaign may befoul our civic life for some time to come.

Fireball · Post by **Fireball** » Mon Oct 24, 2016 5:44 pm

First endorsement of a Democrat for President by the New Yorker in four years!

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Mon Oct 24, 2016 5:47 pm

em2nought · Post by **em2nought** » Mon Oct 24, 2016 6:05 pm

Maybe the membership of the Nobel committee should be "classified", just in case they "don't" give her the Peace Prize.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Mon Oct 24, 2016 6:16 pm

em2nought wrote:Maybe the membership of the Nobel committee should be "classified", just in case they "don't" give her the Peace Prize.

My favorite part of this is the scare quotes around "don't".

Default · Post by **Default** » Tue Oct 25, 2016 8:21 am

When they go low, we go high, or, here's a pattern for a Trump tinfoil hat.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Tue Oct 25, 2016 3:52 pm

tjg_marantz · Post by **tjg_marantz** » Tue Oct 25, 2016 5:03 pm

Defiant wrote:

Cuck!

There. Saved someone a few seconds.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Tue Oct 25, 2016 5:04 pm

Congrats. You're the first person to use that word on the boards.

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Tue Oct 25, 2016 5:09 pm

Isgrimnur wrote:Congrats. You're the first person to use that word on the boards.

He's the second, actually, but apparently the first in the trendy alt-right sense.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Tue Oct 25, 2016 5:10 pm

Max Peck wrote:
Isgrimnur wrote:Congrats. You're the first person to use that word on the boards.
He's the second, actually, but apparently the first in the trendy alt-right sense.

That's the misspelling of a proper name. I didn't count it for a reason.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Tue Oct 25, 2016 5:12 pm

Max Peck wrote:
Isgrimnur wrote:Congrats. You're the first person to use that word on the boards.
He's the second, actually, but apparently the first in the trendy alt-right sense.

In my neighborhood there's an accountant's office where the word "Cuck!" is written in graffiti on the door. The accountant's name is Zuroff or something. Seems potentially anti-Semitic to me (not that the accountant is obviously Jewish, but the name seems potentially Jewish enough that the graffiti-er might think so, even if the accountant isn't).

It's also been there for a few weeks at least, so the accountant's office might be abandoned? It's very weird.

Biyobi · Post by **Biyobi** » Tue Oct 25, 2016 5:21 pm

Those private email server types gotta stick together.

tjg_marantz · Post by **tjg_marantz** » Tue Oct 25, 2016 6:33 pm

Isgrimnur wrote:Congrats. You're the first person to use that word on the boards.

What about Pépé?

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Tue Oct 25, 2016 8:32 pm

Well, this is interesting from 538: Clinton Voters Aren’t Just Voting Against Trump.

Conventional wisdom is that both parties are unhappy with their candidates, but it appears that Democrats' support for Clinton is in line with average levels.

Right now, 56 percent of Clinton voters say they are mainly for her compared to just 42 percent of the same voters who say they are voting against Trump. This 56 percent is the highest it’s been all year in the ABC News poll, and it’s been steadily climbing for Clinton since July. In the same survey, only 41 percent of Trump supporters say they are voting for him, while 54 percent say they are mostly voting against Clinton. Those numbers are about the same as they’ve been all year.

That 56 percent of Clinton’s voters are affirmatively supporting her may not seem like a lot, but it’s about average for a presidential candidate.

Trump's voters, meanwhile, are historically unsupportive of him personally.

The most interesting thing about these numbers is how few of Trump’s supporters are his fans. No candidate since 1980 has had a lower percentage of voters say they plan to cast a vote for their candidate. That includes candidates whose campaigns were viewed as disastrous, including Jimmy Carter in 1980, Michael Dukakis in 1988 and Bob Dole in 1996.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Tue Oct 25, 2016 8:35 pm

By the same token, couldn't it just mean that people just don't hate Trump, since fewer people are voting "against" him, while they do hate Clinton?

...

OK, I'll admit I had to stifle a chuckle to say that, so never mind.

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Tue Oct 25, 2016 8:43 pm

Isgrimnur wrote:
Max Peck wrote:
Isgrimnur wrote:Congrats. You're the first person to use that word on the boards.
He's the second, actually, but apparently the first in the trendy alt-right sense.
That's the misspelling of a proper name. I didn't count it for a reason.

Fair enough.

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Tue Oct 25, 2016 8:47 pm

Defiant wrote:By the same token, couldn't it just mean that people just don't hate Trump, since fewer people are voting "against" him, while they do hate Clinton?

...

OK, I'll admit I had to stifle a chuckle to say that, so never mind.

That actually works, as long as you use Bernie math to analyze the polling.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Tue Oct 25, 2016 9:09 pm

In the same survey, only 41 percent of Trump supporters say they are voting for him, while 54 percent say they are mostly voting against Clinton.

That 41% was also about the same percentage that he won Primaries in. So maybe it's possible for the majority of the party can get over Trumpism (like a bad hangover) if he loses, even though a small minority will miss him?

Skinypupy · Post by **Skinypupy** » Fri Oct 28, 2016 1:59 pm

FBI reopening investigation into Clinton's e-mail server.

Ugh.

Captain Caveman · Post by **Captain Caveman** » Fri Oct 28, 2016 2:15 pm

Is reviewing a few new emails "re-opening the investigation"? The former seems more benign but of course the latter is what's going to be shouted from the hills.

This all seems pretty suspicious to me. Why not review the emails to see if they contain any incriminating material before issuing a statement? Why issue a statement 11 days before the election that you know is just going to generate rampant speculation?

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Fri Oct 28, 2016 2:24 pm

Again, Yawn.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Fri Oct 28, 2016 2:25 pm

Captain Caveman · Post by **Captain Caveman** » Fri Oct 28, 2016 2:30 pm

If they were not withheld by Clinton or her people, does that mean that they are just some that the FBI overlooked during their original investigation that they already had access to? If so, and this was just their screw-up, it's pretty uncool to send out a letter like this right now that's worded so vaguely that anything can be read into it.

And if they're not from HRC, then how is it relevant to her investigation? I'm kind of confused here.

Ralph-Wiggum · Post by **Ralph-Wiggum** » Fri Oct 28, 2016 2:37 pm

Even if they aren't from HRC, they could be from staff members. Or maybe they're from Trump to Putin asking him to hack into her server.

Carpet_pissr · Post by **Carpet_pissr** » Fri Oct 28, 2016 2:42 pm

"Actual Cuckolds Are Pissed Off at the Far Right Using 'Cuck' as an Insult"

Ha! Love it. This election has EVERYthing. Are we not amused?!?!

http://www.vice.com/read/actual-cuckold ... -an-insult