Clinton Coverup Queen

Intended for constructive conversations. Exhibits of polarizing tribalism will be deleted.
User avatar
jennypenny
Posts: 6851
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm

Re: Clinton Coverup Queen

Post by jennypenny »

YoungAndWise wrote: (I'm feel like I am going to be persecuted for this on the thread, but I voted for Clinton. Her resume seems better than anyone else on the ballot.)
I won't persecute you. At least you were able to decide. I'm still undecided with less than a week to go. I won't vote for Clinton, but I'm up in the air about the other three. It's like choosing between lethal injection, the electric chair, or a firing squad. ;)
CS wrote:I'd say that's deep seated misogyny. "Any woman but THAT woman." Clinton's approval ratings were extraordinarily high as Secretary of State but the moment she shows some ambition (a huge no-no for women), then they drop. Make no mistake, Michelle's ratings would drop the same way too, for the exact same reason.
I don't think the discussion of female alternatives is misogynistic because Clinton herself has framed this election as the one where we should elect a woman. If one of her main arguments is that it's time to shatter the glass ceiling (which I think most people -- conservative and liberal --agree with including me), then it's not surprising that when people don't like Clinton they suggest other women who seem better suited for that role in history.

I'm a little disappointed that Clinton chose to use her gender that way. I know it's tempting, but IMO it reduces her election to token status. True equality is when people vote for someone regardless of gender, not because of it.

Spartan_Warrior
Posts: 1659
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:24 am

Re: Clinton Coverup Queen

Post by Spartan_Warrior »

She is effective and she gets things done. The problem is they're things like regime change and resource wars, corporate cronyism, fracking, mass incarceration and criminal injustice, etc. It's not the "mistakes" she's made--if you actually believe deliberately setting up a private server, etc, qualifies as a mistake--but her "accomplishments", the very resume that some apparently find so glowing. It's not that she's a Democrat. I used to be a Democrat and I'm as left as you can get. It's that she's another corporate-owned right-of-center Dempublican and has been her entire career. It's just a fact. I'm done with "public opinions" for the sheeple and "private opinions" for Wall Street.

So if the corresponding argument against Trump is that he's not effective and he won't get things done, my God, sign me up for that any day. Not that I plan to vote for that bigoted moron either, but I certainly don't fear him, by contrast.

"I would rather vote for what I want and not get it than vote for what I don't want and get it." -- Eugene Debs

Spartan_Warrior
Posts: 1659
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:24 am

Re: Clinton Coverup Queen

Post by Spartan_Warrior »

Video very related to my previous post. I'm not going to lie, frankly, I have lost respect for many people voting for Clinton, the latest being Louis CK. A lot of it has to do with their reasoning and/or level of smugness.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2Ljvgy74as

BRUTE
Posts: 3797
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Clinton Coverup Queen

Post by BRUTE »

brute doesn't mind humans voting for Clinton per se, if they think it's the better choice. but the shaming of even thinking about not-Clinton, or the shaming of thinking Trump, excite brute's little troll mind.

and yea that Louis CK clip is pretty dumb. well, he's a comedian. brute has learned long ago to appreciate humans for their talents and ignore their less talented sides where possible.

@CS:

any criticism of Clinton is misogyny? lol. want to take a guess which word will be meaningless in 5 years then?

Riggerjack
Posts: 3183
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: Clinton Coverup Queen

Post by Riggerjack »

:lol: :lol: :lol:
I'd say that's deep seated misogyny. "Any woman but THAT woman." Clinton's approval ratings were extraordinarily high as Secretary of State but the moment she shows some ambition (a huge no-no for women), then they drop. Make no mistake, Michelle's ratings would drop the same way too, for the exact same reason.
I would say that is some deep seated preprogrammed thinking.

Feel free to read through my posts here. I haven't been shy about my reasoning for opposing Clinton. Genitalia wasn't on the list, but like most who oppose her, integrity was.

I've been pretty vocal in my criticism of Obama.

I've also pointed out that he has been better than his predecessor (bush 43, in case you are too young to remember).

It's funny, because, I wasn't thinking of her as "any woman but that woman", I was thinking of her as an extension of Obama. Now, that is some deep seated unconscious misogyny.

Riggerjack
Posts: 3183
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: Clinton Coverup Queen

Post by Riggerjack »

Ffj, I disagree. Shaming is a very effective tactic. It keeps the flock herded up right. It's not like she has charisma or leadership skills to fall back on. Queue the howling wolf track, please.

And, as recent elections have shown, popular vote doesn't elect a president. So alienating half, to keep half, is just fine.

And this is the Clinton Crime Family. We know it's not the votes that count, but who counts the votes.

And on that thought, I'm going to mail in my ballot today, one more for Johnson.


BRUTE
Posts: 3797
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Clinton Coverup Queen

Post by BRUTE »

Riggerjack wrote:Shaming is a very effective tactic.
short term. shaming leads to suppression, slow cooking, eventual boiling over in an explosive fashion.

brute knows humans who, after 5-10 years of being shamed for everything, respond to "racist!" with "so what", and to "misogynist!" with a shrug. not sure if desired effect by perpetrators of shaming.

Riggerjack
Posts: 3183
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: Clinton Coverup Queen

Post by Riggerjack »

brute knows humans who, after 5-10 years of being shamed for everything, respond to "racist!" with "so what", and to "misogynist!" with a shrug. not sure if desired effect by perpetrators of shaming.
Yes. But they weren't part of the flock to begin with, or periphery members.

The progressive flock, by capturing the education and indoctrination of our youth has at it's core, 99% of the youth. It is losing at it's periphery a constant stream to experience and disillusionment. The input is out of their control, but they are all about controlling the output.

That is the point of shaming. Outcast a periphery member who was likely lost soon anyway, to cause those nearby, to try harder to stay within the flock, rather than join the nearby wanderer. The constant inward pressure of those trying to escape the shaming on the periphery comforts those already inside the flock. (Everyone wants to be where I am, I must be doing things right. I should go get the newest i-phone and vote sensibly...)
Most people can discern, unless they choose not to evaluate the evidence, that Clinton lying to Congress and the FBI to coverup crimes and incompetence is more significant than Trump's general piggishness and demeanor. Most people can discern which is worse and it galvanizes them when someone calls them deplorable for having enough sense to differentiate important issues.
I think you are overestimating how much most people care about these things.

Most people, most of the time, are putting most of their energy into social positioning. And, oddly enough, not even necessarily into trying to gain social status, often, just in maintaining their current status. This is where they find comfort. Watching the right shows, so they can talk to coworkers about them. Driving the right car, balancing being seen staying late after work, against being seen at the church talent show.

This is why 40% on each side can just be assumed, regardless of candidate. People will do as they think their social group does, or in reaction to what their social group does. Being a known republican in a group of democrats, means you will vote republican, regardless of candidate, just to maintain your outsider position in your social group. You would have to overcome your habit of social positioning, to even really consider whether Hillary is falsely accused (over, and over, and over) or the personification of corruption; whether Trump is an obnoxious Oompa-Loompa, or the Anti-Christ.

This election will come down to who shows up, because it is much easier to discourage people from voting, than to change their minds. That is the reason for the negative campaigns. Outraged electorate show up. Each side needs us to vote against the other, because neither side could get us to vote them in on their own merits.

Dragline
Posts: 4436
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:50 am

Re: Clinton Coverup Queen

Post by Dragline »

Riggerjack wrote:
Most people, most of the time, are putting most of their energy into social positioning. And, oddly enough, not even necessarily into trying to gain social status, often, just in maintaining their current status. This is where they find comfort. Watching the right shows, so they can talk to coworkers about them. Driving the right car, balancing being seen staying late after work, against being seen at the church talent show.

. . .

This election will come down to who shows up, because it is much easier to discourage people from voting, than to change their minds. That is the reason for the negative campaigns. Outraged electorate show up. Each side needs us to vote against the other, because neither side could get us to vote them in on their own merits.
Yeah, I have to agree -- copying one's peers generally takes precedence over thinking about policies. As for the election, I read an article recently that indicated that over 90% of the people made up their minds months ago, which I think is pretty typical (and probably why this whole thing seems so tiring). At this stage, it's all about getting your supporters to the polls on Tuesday if they haven't voted early or absentee yet. Looks like its coming down to FL, NC, NV and NH, though -- if Trump sweeps those, he wins, if not he loses.

As for shaming, it's really all just theater, with each side more than happy to wear the imputed shaming as a badge of honor among their own tribe. "Nasty Woman" or "Deplorable" t-shirts anyone?

More on the attraction of Shaming Theater from the archive: http://www.prospectingmimeticfractals.c ... ary-people

User avatar
jennypenny
Posts: 6851
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm

Re: Clinton Coverup Queen

Post by jennypenny »

Trump will pardon her if Obama doesn't do it first. Fair or not, it's an olive branch he can offer democrats in exchange for their cooperation on legislation. Schumer would probably be willing to work that deal since it would make him look good as minority leader.

Spartan_Warrior
Posts: 1659
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:24 am

Re: Clinton Coverup Queen

Post by Spartan_Warrior »

I think executive pardons would be pretty tone-deaf on the part of everyone involved, Republican or Democrat. That's exactly the kind of thing that Americans are protesting. If I were a legislator right now and I wanted to start actually paying attention to the populism taking hold, I probably wouldn't be eager to be seen as trading pardons for political expedience. Not that I don't think it could happen, mind you.

@FFJ: "That she was defeated rather handily gives me faith that Americans will not stand for such levels of utter corruption."

Technically, according to Google's latest counts, she still won about 200,000 more of the popular vote. ;) Otherwise I find myself in remarkable agreement. I am relieved that she didn't win. Unfortunately, my relief is offset by my dread that Trump did win. Maybe I would have felt the same either way. Then again, I must say that Trump having both House and Senate now worries me, and was an outcome I hadn't even considered. I was coming around to the idea that he was the lesser evil in large part because I assumed he would be an ineffective lame duck whose insane policies would be mostly blocked. This could change things.

Dragline
Posts: 4436
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:50 am

Re: Clinton Coverup Queen

Post by Dragline »

Here are some stats by county on some of the demographics of Trump vs. Clinton voters:

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graph ... trump-won/

And some others comparing to 2012:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11 ... emale-vot/

Locked