Hating Hillary - a look at some people and their reasons

[swamp]

Aug 1, 2016 23:38:58 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Aug 1, 2016 23:36:04 GMT -5 steff said:

It might be funny if the future of gay rights & a woman's right to choose didn't hang in the balance.  To me those are no laughing matters.  I'm not just voting for Hillary because she's a woman, or just because she's a Clinton & I'm a Bill fan, or just because she's a Democrat.  I'm doing it because of all those things plus, most importantly, the Supreme Court.  I don't feel like stepping back in time so I can live thru the things that women had already fought for & won the right to.  I don't feel like being terrified of the encouragement of hate & violence against gays because my brother is gay.  I don't want to live in Trump's warped America.  I think we're better than that.  I think it's better to be moving forward.  I strongly believe in equal right for LGBT and I'm a rabid defender of a woman's right to choose.  I can't put aside those 2 things ever.  And neither of those things are viable in a Trump/Republican regime. 

I can understand your fears. I'm not a fan of the Pubs point of view on this either but I honestly think trump doesn't care about abortion or gays enough to get involved. If he did, he'd still get overruled. He's hardly religious in any way, shape, or form.

He may not care, but his appointments to the supreme court do.

[Kolt!]

Aug 2, 2016 14:24:39 GMT -5 swamp said:

Aug 1, 2016 23:38:58 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

I can understand your fears. I'm not a fan of the Pubs point of view on this either but I honestly think trump doesn't care about abortion or gays enough to get involved. If he did, he'd still get overruled. He's hardly religious in any way, shape, or form.

He may not care, but his appointments to the supreme court do.

This. As does his Vice President. His Vice President has passed so many anti-lgbt laws in Indiana and a lot of my friends in Indiana are screaming at the top of their lungs that his VP is awful and has made Indiana an AWFUL place to live. He's not popular in Indiana at all. 

Trump even said he'd appoint Supreme Court Judges that will over rule a lot of the LGBT laws. It's not that he's said a lot of awful things in regards to the LGBT...he hasn't, it's that he continues to appoint people that are very against the lgbt. He doesn't care and to me that's a problem. 

And appointing Supreme Court judges like this..means for a LOT of awful things happening to the LGBT or no good happening for the LGBT for longer then eight years...even after the doom of Trump if he were to take Presidency for eight years. They can hold office for the REST of their lives. 

These appointments are more terrifying then even the Presidency in my opinion. 

[Opti]

Aug 2, 2016 14:24:14 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Aug 2, 2016 14:09:12 GMT -5 Opti said:

I get it, you are comfortable with uncertainty and do not care if you are wrong. You are correct, if I had to say this bag in contaminated with feces I'd want more proof than simply it smelled. I'd want at least visual proof in case it was simply feces smelling spray.

Yes there was some weird crap going on with this cattle future stuff. Its not clear however whether Hillary asked for it to be that way or whether Blair or Bone engineered it that way so they could look good. IDK.

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/stories/wwtr940527.htm

I've got to "like" this post for sake of your loyalty (and your living up to your name of "Optimist").

You know where we can agree? I sincerely hope you're right.

I hope I'm right too. My willingness to go for reasonable also *gasp* sometimes involves Trump or in this case, Paul Manafort, and his connections. This articles does not prove anything except Paul seems to have a love of working with dictators.

bipartisanreport.com/2016/08/01/breaking-ny-times-exposes-trump-campaign-manager-for-being-on-russian-payroll-details/

[Deleted]

Aug 2, 2016 11:04:25 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 2, 2016 1:05:20 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

that may be true... but... will the change prove that they are insane (moving to support Clinton) or that they've begun to use their brains (moving support to Johnson)?

knowing me, i am sure you can guess- and far better than most posters, here.

I have an idea... but just in case I'm wrong... I'll keep it to myself.

[Deleted]

Aug 2, 2016 11:05:11 GMT -5 Opti said:

Aug 2, 2016 0:41:29 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

I think she's VERY smart and VERY lucky... and that makes her VERY dangerous.

I don't think she's lucky at all. She's been the target of parts of the right for most of her political life. These people are making a living on making up stuff about her. The Clintons are the political equivalent of Brad & Angelina from a "news" making perspective.

I bet she wishes she was lucky.

She's very lucky that nothing has stuck yet. Everyone is so willing to fall on their sword for her... or to dismiss as irrelevant, things that would be VERY relevant were it anyone else.

Even if she were as pure as the driven snow (she's not... not even close... but ignoring that for now), the law of averages says SOMETHING should have stuck by now just due to defense and/or judge and/or jury error.

The rate for wrongful convictions has been estimated at roughly 4.1% (source) That would equate to (roughly) 1 in 25 cases. That I can find references to, the Clintons have been in AT LEAST 22 scandals.




Ohhh just thought of this perfect example of the aforementioned "dismiss as irrelevant, things that would be VERY relevant were it anyone else.": Martha Stewart lied to the FBI during the investigation about something that pretty much didn't matter to most people (insider trading). She went to prison. Hillary lied to the FBI during the investigation about the e-mails and servers (something much more important that insider trading, by the way)... and she's been nominated the Democratic Party's candidate.

Note how, in BOTH cases, the person lied to the FBI during an investigation... yet one went to Prison and one went to a Convention to be nominated to run for President. Is there something I'm missing?

[Deleted]

Aug 2, 2016 11:18:23 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 2, 2016 11:15:05 GMT -5 Opti said:

I think you are misreading at least some of the articles if that's your takeaway, its about being a girly girl. The articles talk about masses of people not necessarily you or anyone in specific. Those that I've read point out the bias towards women as they seek power. How reaching upwards tends to drag down their favorability ratings.

Some people hate her because they believe the conspiracy theories and the scandals are true. Some because she isn't charismatic enough, feminine enough, etc. For many, it is a combination. If looks weren't considered so important for women we would not see people griping about her pantsuits and calling her old looking while saying nothing about Donald and Bernie.

i think that what we are seeing here are justifications for gender bias, just as we saw justifications for racial bias in the last two elections.  ultimately, it is probably not going to matter, because Trump is such a shitty candidate.  but we'll see.

NO argument on the bolded...

Unfortunately for the Country, Hillary is equally as feces enabled if not more-so.

[les63]

I'm a veteran and I am voting for Donald Trump. I am old enough to remember the first Clinton White House. Never again. Bought politician. Who is funding her campaign? She doesn't give 2 cents about you. Who is she going to owe for putting herself on the "throne" that has become the presidency of the United States Of America?

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

Aug 2, 2016 20:57:15 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Aug 2, 2016 11:05:11 GMT -5 Opti said:

I don't think she's lucky at all. She's been the target of parts of the right for most of her political life. These people are making a living on making up stuff about her. The Clintons are the political equivalent of Brad & Angelina from a "news" making perspective.

I bet she wishes she was lucky.

She's very lucky that nothing has stuck yet. Everyone is so willing to fall on their sword for her... or to dismiss as irrelevant, things that would be VERY relevant were it anyone else.

Even if she were as pure as the driven snow (she's not... not even close... but ignoring that for now), the law of averages says SOMETHING should have stuck by now just due to defense and/or judge and/or jury error.

The rate for wrongful convictions has been estimated at roughly 4.1% (source) That would equate to (roughly) 1 in 25 cases. That I can find references to, the Clintons have been in AT LEAST 22 scandals.




Ohhh just thought of this perfect example of the aforementioned "dismiss as irrelevant, things that would be VERY relevant were it anyone else.": Martha Stewart lied to the FBI during the investigation about something that pretty much didn't matter to most people (insider trading). She went to prison. Hillary lied to the FBI during the investigation about the e-mails and servers (something much more important that insider trading, by the way)... and she's been nominated the Democratic Party's candidate.

Note how, in BOTH cases, the person lied to the FBI during an investigation... yet one went to Prison and one went to a Convention to be nominated to run for President. Is there something I'm missing?

The Martha Stewart comparison is a great example. Also, not everyone at the DNC is happy about the way things have shaped up.

[Virgil Showlion]

Aug 2, 2016 21:57:48 GMT -5 Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger said:

Aug 2, 2016 20:57:15 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

She's very lucky that nothing has stuck yet. Everyone is so willing to fall on their sword for her... or to dismiss as irrelevant, things that would be VERY relevant were it anyone else.

Even if she were as pure as the driven snow (she's not... not even close... but ignoring that for now), the law of averages says SOMETHING should have stuck by now just due to defense and/or judge and/or jury error.

The rate for wrongful convictions has been estimated at roughly 4.1% (source) That would equate to (roughly) 1 in 25 cases. That I can find references to, the Clintons have been in AT LEAST 22 scandals.




Ohhh just thought of this perfect example of the aforementioned "dismiss as irrelevant, things that would be VERY relevant were it anyone else.": Martha Stewart lied to the FBI during the investigation about something that pretty much didn't matter to most people (insider trading). She went to prison. Hillary lied to the FBI during the investigation about the e-mails and servers (something much more important that insider trading, by the way)... and she's been nominated the Democratic Party's candidate.

Note how, in BOTH cases, the person lied to the FBI during an investigation... yet one went to Prison and one went to a Convention to be nominated to run for President. Is there something I'm missing?

The Martha Stewart comparison is a great example. Also, not everyone at the DNC is happy about the way things have shaped up.

Wow. I won't say too much but the guy being interviewed should be "familiar" to most here.

[Opti]

Aug 2, 2016 20:57:15 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Aug 2, 2016 11:05:11 GMT -5 Opti said:

I don't think she's lucky at all. She's been the target of parts of the right for most of her political life. These people are making a living on making up stuff about her. The Clintons are the political equivalent of Brad & Angelina from a "news" making perspective.

I bet she wishes she was lucky.

She's very lucky that nothing has stuck yet. Everyone is so willing to fall on their sword for her... or to dismiss as irrelevant, things that would be VERY relevant were it anyone else.

Even if she were as pure as the driven snow (she's not... not even close... but ignoring that for now), the law of averages says SOMETHING should have stuck by now just due to defense and/or judge and/or jury error.

The rate for wrongful convictions has been estimated at roughly 4.1% (source) That would equate to (roughly) 1 in 25 cases. That I can find references to, the Clintons have been in AT LEAST 22 scandals.




Ohhh just thought of this perfect example of the aforementioned "dismiss as irrelevant, things that would be VERY relevant were it anyone else.": Martha Stewart lied to the FBI during the investigation about something that pretty much didn't matter to most people (insider trading). She went to prison. Hillary lied to the FBI during the investigation about the e-mails and servers (something much more important that insider trading, by the way)... and she's been nominated the Democratic Party's candidate.

Note how, in BOTH cases, the person lied to the FBI during an investigation... yet one went to Prison and one went to a Convention to be nominated to run for President. Is there something I'm missing?

Of course there are things you are missing, but you don't want to see them.

Lying to the FBI is not a crime by itself, so its silly to compare Martha with Hillary. Zimmerman lied to the police. General Petreus lied to the FBI as well. Lying is not a crime so there aren't any caveats either like lying about classified secrets that could get military personnel killed (Petreus) or lying about the lowest form of classified emails, confidential, which the Comey said could not get any personnel killed (Hillary).

I don't know the laws that were studied, but the FBI decided they weren't willing to do more than they did with Hillary because no intent could be proven. The one article said the lawyers actually chose which personal emails to delete. Petreus was a much more serious case, but because of national security and concerns about making the military or FBI look bad, a decision was made to only fine the general. Personally I think Martha was used as an example, but I don't know that to be a fact.

In conclusion, a 4 star general had 8 notebooks of classified info that could have caused death of people in the military and despite that, he did not go to jail. Why are you so surprised that much lesser information found on a server, not in someone else's hands, would get something less?

[djAdvocate]

Aug 2, 2016 22:05:48 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Aug 2, 2016 21:57:48 GMT -5 Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger said:

The Martha Stewart comparison is a great example. Also, not everyone at the DNC is happy about the way things have shaped up.

Wow. I won't say too much but the guy being interviewed should be "familiar" to most here.

he seems totally confused to me.  loves socialism, but he is voting for Trump.  whatevas. 

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

Aug 2, 2016 22:05:48 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Aug 2, 2016 21:57:48 GMT -5 Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger said:

The Martha Stewart comparison is a great example. Also, not everyone at the DNC is happy about the way things have shaped up.

Wow. I won't say too much but the guy being interviewed should be "familiar" to most here.

Yup. Considering he literally knows the players involved.....

Meeting in person was awesome. Working on a plan that is going to the CEO of Innovation Saskatchewan, then onto a larger platform that will be attached to a domestic/foreign policy plan is surreal.

[Virgil Showlion]

Aug 2, 2016 22:36:17 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 2, 2016 22:05:48 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Wow. I won't say too much but the guy being interviewed should be "familiar" to most here.

he seems totally confused to me.  loves socialism, but he is voting for Trump.  whatevas. 

I think you've been "Blazed".

If he is who I think he is (and I'm fairly certain I am), he's definitely not an ex-Democrat (at least not within the past decade) and he's a die-hard capitalist to boot.

Great guy, but not quite "as advertised".

Of course, people claiming to be affiliated with party X and more or less universally reviling everything party X stands for isn't exactly unheard of on YMAM.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 2, 2016 22:43:57 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Aug 2, 2016 22:36:17 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

he seems totally confused to me.  loves socialism, but he is voting for Trump.  whatevas. 

I think you've been "Blazed".

If he is who I think he is (and I'm fairly certain I am), he's definitely not an ex-Democrat (at least not within the past decade) and he's a die-hard capitalist to boot.

Great guy, but not quite "as advertised".

Of course, people claiming to be affiliated with party X and more or less universally reviling everything party X stands for isn't exactly unheard of on YMAM.

i haven't been "Blazed".  i looked the guy up.  he is a financial analyst.  i have no idea what his party affiliation is, but his "ideas" are internally contradictory.  he is all over the web, so it is not hard to research him.

as to your other insinuation, you have mail.

[Opti]

Aug 2, 2016 22:36:17 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 2, 2016 22:05:48 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Wow. I won't say too much but the guy being interviewed should be "familiar" to most here.

he seems totally confused to me.  loves socialism, but he is voting for Trump.  whatevas. 

Were you able to listen to it all? While I loved the reporter's slip up of calling Hillary's server a bathroom server, it kind of sounds like the guy might have race issues. DNC taken over digitally by Obama?

ETA: Sigh. Didn't know people came up with the moniker of digital machine for the use of data mining, etc.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 2, 2016 22:57:05 GMT -5 Opti said:

Aug 2, 2016 22:36:17 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

he seems totally confused to me.  loves socialism, but he is voting for Trump.  whatevas. 

Were you able to listen to it all? While I loved the reporter's slip up of calling Hillary's server a bathroom server, it kind of sounds like the guy might have race issues. DNC taken over digitally by Obama?

i don't want to be more unkind than necessary.  i will just say that the guys ideas are internally contradictory.

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

Aug 2, 2016 22:43:57 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Aug 2, 2016 22:36:17 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

he seems totally confused to me.  loves socialism, but he is voting for Trump.  whatevas. 

I think you've been "Blazed".

If he is who I think he is (and I'm fairly certain I am), he's definitely not an ex-Democrat (at least not within the past decade) and he's a die-hard capitalist to boot.

Great guy, but not quite "as advertised".

Of course, people claiming to be affiliated with party X and more or less universally reviling everything party X stands for isn't exactly unheard of on YMAM.

You're thinking of the right person. 100% a registered Democrat. Like he said, got off the party train when Pres. Obama's digital machine took over. He knows Micah White personally, and yes got involved with the Occupy movement back in 2011. Going back further, the guy help take down Mike "Junk Bond" Milken..

Yes it seems hard to believe a staunch capitalist is also a Dem, but it's like I say, "A capitalist American Democrat is the same thing as a Canadian Conservative."

[Virgil Showlion]

Aug 2, 2016 23:06:47 GMT -5 Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger said:

Aug 2, 2016 22:43:57 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I think you've been "Blazed".

If he is who I think he is (and I'm fairly certain I am), he's definitely not an ex-Democrat (at least not within the past decade) and he's a die-hard capitalist to boot.

Great guy, but not quite "as advertised".

Of course, people claiming to be affiliated with party X and more or less universally reviling everything party X stands for isn't exactly unheard of on YMAM.

You're thinking of the right person. 100% a registered Democrat. Like he said, got off the party train when Pres. Obama's digital machine took over. He knows Micah White personally, and yes got involved with the Occupy movement back in 2011. Going back further, the guy help take down Mike "Junk Bond" Milken..

Yes it seems hard to believe a staunch capitalist is also a Dem, but it's like I say, "A capitalist American Democrat is the same thing as a Canadian Conservative."

OK. Definitely wouldn't have pegged him as a Democrat. Or... ex-Democrat.

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

Aug 2, 2016 23:13:30 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Aug 2, 2016 23:06:47 GMT -5 Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger said:

You're thinking of the right person. 100% a registered Democrat. Like he said, got off the party train when Pres. Obama's digital machine took over. He knows Micah White personally, and yes got involved with the Occupy movement back in 2011. Going back further, the guy help take down Mike "Junk Bond" Milken..

Yes it seems hard to believe a staunch capitalist is also a Dem, but it's like I say, "A capitalist American Democrat is the same thing as a Canadian Conservative."

OK. Definitely wouldn't have pegged him as a Democrat. Or... ex-Democrat.

I know exactly what you mean.

It's also why I know we make it through what's next. No matter the political affiliation, there are good people out there in our part of the world that are ready to step up and lead.

[Deleted]

Aug 2, 2016 22:31:18 GMT -5 Opti said:

Aug 2, 2016 20:57:15 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

She's very lucky that nothing has stuck yet. Everyone is so willing to fall on their sword for her... or to dismiss as irrelevant, things that would be VERY relevant were it anyone else.

Even if she were as pure as the driven snow (she's not... not even close... but ignoring that for now), the law of averages says SOMETHING should have stuck by now just due to defense and/or judge and/or jury error.

The rate for wrongful convictions has been estimated at roughly 4.1% (source) That would equate to (roughly) 1 in 25 cases. That I can find references to, the Clintons have been in AT LEAST 22 scandals.




Ohhh just thought of this perfect example of the aforementioned "dismiss as irrelevant, things that would be VERY relevant were it anyone else.": Martha Stewart lied to the FBI during the investigation about something that pretty much didn't matter to most people (insider trading). She went to prison. Hillary lied to the FBI during the investigation about the e-mails and servers (something much more important that insider trading, by the way)... and she's been nominated the Democratic Party's candidate.

Note how, in BOTH cases, the person lied to the FBI during an investigation... yet one went to Prison and one went to a Convention to be nominated to run for President. Is there something I'm missing?

Of course there are things you are missing, but you don't want to see them.

Lying to the FBI is not a crime by itself, so its silly to compare Martha with Hillary. Zimmerman lied to the police. General Petreus lied to the FBI as well. Lying is not a crime so there aren't any caveats either like lying about classified secrets that could get military personnel killed (Petreus) or lying about the lowest form of classified emails, confidential, which the Comey said could not get any personnel killed (Hillary).

I don't know the laws that were studied, but the FBI decided they weren't willing to do more than they did with Hillary because no intent could be proven. The one article said the lawyers actually chose which personal emails to delete. Petreus was a much more serious case, but because of national security and concerns about making the military or FBI look bad, a decision was made to only fine the general. Personally I think Martha was used as an example, but I don't know that to be a fact.

In conclusion, a 4 star general had 8 notebooks of classified info that could have caused death of people in the military and despite that, he did not go to jail. Why are you so surprised that much lesser information found on a server, not in someone else's hands, would get something less?

Actually, it is... it's called "Obstruction of Justice", and carries automatic penalties (just ask Martha). Whether they choose to pursue the charge is another story (and clearly in Lucky Hillary's case they chose not to... which was kind of my point).

You might find this interesting.

18 U.S. Code § 1001 - Statements or entries generally

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;

(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or

(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;


shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.



ETA: Source

Please note that the bolded (by me) is pretty much the definition of lying.

[Opti]

Richard, I'll have to look at it later. It still stands that General Petrus lied about classified information that could get people killed, high security clearance stuff. He did no jail time. I may not fully agree with the decision in his case, but I understand it.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

I guess it was only a matter of time before the "it's because she's a woman" argument came out to explain people disliking her.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 7, 2016 17:57:21 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

I guess it was only a matter of time before the "it's because she's a woman" argument came out to explain people disliking her.

did it come before or AFTER the time where someone said that her SUPPORTERS like her for that reason?

[Deleted]

Aug 7, 2016 17:57:21 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

I guess it was only a matter of time before the "it's because she's a woman" argument came out to explain people disliking her.

Every single woman that I know IRL that doesn't like her wishes that they could like her because they WANT to vote for a woman!

Admittedly there may be some men, in my circle of IRL friends, that include "she's a woman" in the "cons" column of a "Pros/Cons" list... but it's just one item of many that are "cons"... and not really a deciding factor.

[Opti]

Aug 7, 2016 20:59:09 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Aug 7, 2016 17:57:21 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

I guess it was only a matter of time before the "it's because she's a woman" argument came out to explain people disliking her.

Every single woman that I know IRL that doesn't like her wishes that they could like her because they WANT to vote for a woman!

Admittedly there may be some men, in my circle of IRL friends, that include "she's a woman" in the "cons" column of a "Pros/Cons" list... but it's just one item of many that are "cons"... and not really a deciding factor.

The tough thing is people in general are not fully aware of how their biases manifest. They may think they've accurately accounted for it, but overall many of us are wrong. I often wonder if part of the issue with Benghazi is really some belief that women are not allowed in any way to get someone killed ever, versus if a man was partially responsible he'd be allowed to say he made a mistake, pass the buck, or generally move on like well pretty much most of the sec of states and presidents prior to HRC.

I doubt that will get fully explored ever, but just a reminder how bias works with one of my fave fixes the audition screen for professional musicians. See while there was apparent widespread bias in hiring no one wanted to own up to it because it really wasn't because they were female...

Renowned conductors have asserted that female musicians have "smaller techniques," are more temperamental and are simply unsuitable for orchestras,

Among musicians who auditioned in both blind and non-blind auditions, about 28.6 percent of female musicians and 20.2 percent of male musicians advanced from the preliminary to the final round in blind auditions. When preliminary auditions were not blind, only 19.3 percent of the women advanced, along with 22.5 percent of the men.

Using data from the audition records, the researchers found that blind auditions increased the probability that a woman would advance from preliminary rounds by 50 percent.

www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/01/0212/7b.shtml

So while there are tons of reasons people have they don't like Hillary, I wonder if the root of many is simply the dislike of a woman trying to advance in the world faster than many feel comfortable. JFK was able to appoint his brother to Attorney General with much less grief than Hillary got for choosing to stay away from an appointed position. And honestly I think people want to believe she killed her dear friend Vince Foster because it makes her a bad person instead of an unlucky one to see her friend take his own life because Washington was simply too cruel.

[Deleted]

Aug 7, 2016 22:14:09 GMT -5 Opti said:

Aug 7, 2016 20:59:09 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Every single woman that I know IRL that doesn't like her wishes that they could like her because they WANT to vote for a woman!

Admittedly there may be some men, in my circle of IRL friends, that include "she's a woman" in the "cons" column of a "Pros/Cons" list... but it's just one item of many that are "cons"... and not really a deciding factor.

The tough thing is people in general are not fully aware of how their biases manifest. They may think they've accurately accounted for it, but overall many of us are wrong. I often wonder if part of the issue with Benghazi is really some belief that women are not allowed in any way to get someone killed ever, versus if a man was partially responsible he'd be allowed to say he made a mistake, pass the buck, or generally move on like well pretty much most of the sec of states and presidents prior to HRC.

I doubt that will get fully explored ever, but just a reminder how bias works with one of my fave fixes the audition screen for professional musicians. See while there was apparent widespread bias in hiring no one wanted to own up to it because it really wasn't because they were female...

Renowned conductors have asserted that female musicians have "smaller techniques," are more temperamental and are simply unsuitable for orchestras,

Among musicians who auditioned in both blind and non-blind auditions, about 28.6 percent of female musicians and 20.2 percent of male musicians advanced from the preliminary to the final round in blind auditions. When preliminary auditions were not blind, only 19.3 percent of the women advanced, along with 22.5 percent of the men.

Using data from the audition records, the researchers found that blind auditions increased the probability that a woman would advance from preliminary rounds by 50 percent.

www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/01/0212/7b.shtml

So while there are tons of reasons people have they don't like Hillary, I wonder if the root of many is simply the dislike of a woman trying to advance in the world faster than many feel comfortable. JFK was able to appoint his brother to Attorney General with much less grief than Hillary got for choosing to stay away from an appointed position. And honestly I think people want to believe she killed her dear friend Vince Foster because it makes her a bad person instead of an unlucky one to see her friend take his own life because Washington was simply too cruel.

In your example, the musicians had ability and talent. In the case of HRC, she has NO "good points" in her favor. None. Zero. Zip. Zilch, Nada.

It's not "being female" that is her problem... it's her being HRC that is the problem.
(just like Trump being Trump is his problem... only to a lesser degree because his track record ISN'T politics or breaking the law.)

[Opti]

Aug 7, 2016 22:21:03 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Aug 7, 2016 22:14:09 GMT -5 Opti said:

The tough thing is people in general are not fully aware of how their biases manifest. They may think they've accurately accounted for it, but overall many of us are wrong. I often wonder if part of the issue with Benghazi is really some belief that women are not allowed in any way to get someone killed ever, versus if a man was partially responsible he'd be allowed to say he made a mistake, pass the buck, or generally move on like well pretty much most of the sec of states and presidents prior to HRC.

I doubt that will get fully explored ever, but just a reminder how bias works with one of my fave fixes the audition screen for professional musicians. See while there was apparent widespread bias in hiring no one wanted to own up to it because it really wasn't because they were female...

Renowned conductors have asserted that female musicians have "smaller techniques," are more temperamental and are simply unsuitable for orchestras,

Among musicians who auditioned in both blind and non-blind auditions, about 28.6 percent of female musicians and 20.2 percent of male musicians advanced from the preliminary to the final round in blind auditions. When preliminary auditions were not blind, only 19.3 percent of the women advanced, along with 22.5 percent of the men.

Using data from the audition records, the researchers found that blind auditions increased the probability that a woman would advance from preliminary rounds by 50 percent.

www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/01/0212/7b.shtml

So while there are tons of reasons people have they don't like Hillary, I wonder if the root of many is simply the dislike of a woman trying to advance in the world faster than many feel comfortable. JFK was able to appoint his brother to Attorney General with much less grief than Hillary got for choosing to stay away from an appointed position. And honestly I think people want to believe she killed her dear friend Vince Foster because it makes her a bad person instead of an unlucky one to see her friend take his own life because Washington was simply too cruel.

In your example, the musicians had ability and talent. In the case of HRC, she has NO "good points" in her favor. None. Zero. Zip. Zilch, Nada.

It's not "being female" that is her problem... it's her being HRC that is the problem.
(just like Trump being Trump is his problem... only to a lesser degree because his track record ISN'T politics or breaking the law.)

For you, she has no good points. Because as you've repeatedly posted Benghazi is apparently all her fault.

The email scandal is real real bad even though no proof has come of Hillary emails being leaked out of the US. So there's no proof that anything bad happened because of said emails, but heck *she* has no good points because some folks won't treat her even half as well as other politicians.

Being a man you may not care at all for the work she did to secure women's rights including things like BC coverage when Viagra was covered. Or breaking ground for healthcare coverage if you think American healthcare was perfectly fine the way it was. She is this version of HRC in large part due to the hate of female politicians in general and her personality in specific for at least 30 years. She is cautious and does her best to be precise. But when she fails, the people and the media pick and pick so they can tar and feather her.

We will always disagree on this. I feel you believe most of the crap the truth benders and shit makers have pumped out on the right for the past 30 years or so. I find it interesting that Obama is not in the same level of shitstorm to you, but the feces machine has only had their hooks into him for a decade so he's positively clean compared to the Clintons.

I will agree there are aspects of HRC I find troubling like her war hawkishness, but Trump is scarier in that context for me. He's been in politics for decades. As a donor, behind the scenes. This is at least his second run as a Presidential candidate. It is naïve to think he didn't have a track record at some level of understanding campaigns. What he doesn't have, is a track record as an elected official working inside a government framework. With all the Romanians working for him, your going to have a hard time convincing me he didn't break laws to get them all. Unlike you I am finding zero comfort in the fact he's broken no laws at a governmental level. He's had no opportunity to yet. I'd rather her seem him embroiled in some NYC garbage scandal instead of in charge of the red button. My opinion. I know yours is different.

[billisonboard]

Aug 7, 2016 22:21:03 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

...In your example, the musicians had ability and talent. In the case of HRC, she has NO "good points" in her favor. None. Zero. Zip. Zilch, Nada.

...

When one reads your postings, this should always come to their mind.

[Deleted]

Aug 7, 2016 22:54:41 GMT -5 Opti said:

Aug 7, 2016 22:21:03 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

In your example, the musicians had ability and talent. In the case of HRC, she has NO "good points" in her favor. None. Zero. Zip. Zilch, Nada.

It's not "being female" that is her problem... it's her being HRC that is the problem.
(just like Trump being Trump is his problem... only to a lesser degree because his track record ISN'T politics or breaking the law.)

For you, she has no good points. Because as you've repeatedly posted Benghazi is apparently all her fault.

The email scandal is real real bad even though no proof has come of Hillary emails being leaked out of the US. So there's no proof that anything bad happened because of said emails, but heck *she* has no good points because some folks won't treat her even half as well as other politicians.

Being a man you may not care at all for the work she did to secure women's rights including things like BC coverage when Viagra was covered. Or breaking ground for healthcare coverage if you think American healthcare was perfectly fine the way it was. She is this version of HRC in large part due to the hate of female politicians in general and her personality in specific for at least 30 years. She is cautious and does her best to be precise. But when she fails, the people and the media pick and pick so they can tar and feather her.

We will always disagree on this. I feel you believe most of the crap the truth benders and shit makers have pumped out on the right for the past 30 years or so. I find it interesting that Obama is not in the same level of shitstorm to you, but the feces machine has only had their hooks into him for a decade so he's positively clean compared to the Clintons.

I will agree there are aspects of HRC I find troubling like her war hawkishness, but Trump is scarier in that context for me. He's been in politics for decades. As a donor, behind the scenes. This is at least his second run as a Presidential candidate. It is naïve to think he didn't have a track record at some level of understanding campaigns. What he doesn't have, is a track record as an elected official working inside a government framework. With all the Romanians working for him, your going to have a hard time convincing me he didn't break laws to get them all. Unlike you I am finding zero comfort in the fact he's broken no laws at a governmental level. He's had no opportunity to yet. I'd rather her seem him embroiled in some NYC garbage scandal instead of in charge of the red button. My opinion. I know yours is different.

Taking this point by point...

Benghazi is one issue of many.

"Being a man" has nothing to do with how I feel about anything she did to "secure women's rights". I haven't heard of anything she's PERSONALLY done to "secure women's rights" that some men HAVEN'T also done.

"Breaking ground on American Healthcare by destroying it" (which is what Obamacare has done, and is continuing to do) isn't exactly a point in her favor... you do know that... right?

I don't believe any of the CRAP that  "truth benders and shit makers have pumped out"... but I do believe the facts that point out that she is a pad person, a bad politician and I'd even go so far as to say a bad American.

Obama is EXACTLY in the same "level of shitstorm" to me. (and no that's got nothing to do with him being female either... because... guess what... he's not! It's also got nothing to do with him being black.)

[zibazinski]

How about the spy in Iran that was just hanged? A coincidence, I'm sure.