Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your comments are beyond misogynistic. Who should I believe about the quality of Bill Clinton's devotion to his marriage today? You or Hillary Clinton? Here you are setting yourself above the woman who is actually in the marriage. You're just guessing. You're applying partisan vitriol to craft your assumptions and conclusions. She's considering her own life and that of her child and grandchild. She wins. She's in charge of her life, and her marriage - not you.
Thanks for providing another wonderful example of how the reactionary patriarchy still corrupts the attitudes and behaviors of so many Americans, especially those who oppose having a woman elected POTUS.
Actually I have lots of great woman in my life. Have a great wife, mom, and family and friends full of them of all ages. And good people are good people regardless of their gender. I'm not as obsessed about gender as you are/use it as a main criteria to judge the character of people but hey, that's ok.....your life.
Well of course she's in charge of her life. But since this clown wants to be pres and represent america which includes me, I have every right to judge her just like you do. She's makes her choices in life? Perfect. And as a voter/citizen, I have every right to judge her on these decisions in all aspects of her life as it reflects on her ability and character and I use this judgement to decide to vote or not for such a person. See how that works? If she wants to be private and not be judged? Then she shouldn't run for PUBLIC political office. Period.
So in the end, it's the corrupt, "extremely careless", lying one's, inept "what's C mean", one who defends/sticks with what many say is a sexual predator as a husband and embarrassed her on the world stage by fooling around with an intern in the WH yet sticks with him, etc. and this individual wants to be our president are the one's I have zero respect for. If all these characteristics are the type of people you enable in your own life and hang around with, vote for them, etc., frankly I feel very sorry for you as in my view it sounds like an individual with a badly broken moral compass.
So if this all somehow that makes me "misogynistic" in your bizarro "thinking" world you are addressing me from, well, I am more than happy to accept your definition.
Makes me think that the founding fathers knew more about human nature than we give them credit for.
If our founding fathers saw the ridiculously unqualified circus clown uneducated White men are currently propping up, they might take away THEIR right to vote.
If our founding fathers saw the ridiculously unqualified circus clown uneducated White men are currently propping up, they might take away THEIR right to vote.
Our founding fathers would say the same about you who keeps voting for the same bought off/corrupt/self serving and enabling the 2 party system of corruption. And for you to keep enabling the 2 party system by voting dem/for hil.
"There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution."
-- John Adams, Letter to Jonathan Jackson (2 October 1780), "The Works of John Adams", vol 9, p.511
So take a good look in the mirror ray before casting blame on others. One of our founding fathers would be looking at you square in the face and laugh at your own hypocrisy......enabling exactly what you complain about in others.
This is part of the problem you're having understanding what's going on. It isn't Clinton's stance on abortion that is of-issue to these women - it is the Republicans' stance that is of-issue. If the Republicans became more truly conservative on the matter, i.e., abiding by the libertarian perspective that it isn't the government's place to get involved in what should be a decision between a woman, her God and her doctor, then the Republicans probably wouldn't suffer from the gender gap that has plagued them for forty years. As demonstrated by poll after poll and election after election, the crux of the issue is respecting women to make this moral judgement for themselves rather than the patriarchy imposing it on women.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnywhereElse
Actually, so many women are concerned about this that who is appointed to the Supreme Court is important than defeating ISIS.
You're deceiving yourself if you think it is a black-and-white issue with regard to who will be better with regard to fighting international terrorism and protecting American interests abroad. Women, especially, trend toward support for policy perspectives in this regard that are more reasoned, more measured, less caustically bombastic. That's why they resonate more with the Democrats in this regard (i.e., not because of abortion ). Furthermore, on the far side of the right are folks who also oppose that kind of caustically bombastic attitudes toward foreign policy that Trump espouses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnywhereElse
Did I forget to mention that a lot of women admire Hillary because she stayed with a cheating husband just like they did and some how that made it seem right.
That kind of statement really underscores the Republicans' biggest problem: They claim to be for "family values" but the reality is that they're using that term as a kind of shield against people realizing that they are opposed to family values. In a world where people actually do what they say, support for family values would necessarily have resulted in the GOP proposing universal healthcare decades ago, before ACA was a glint in anyone's eyes. In a world where people actually do what they say, support for family values would necessarily have resulted in the GOP underwriting the absolute-most-effective means of preventing unwanted pregnancy, sex education and birth control. And so on.
And it surely would have resulted in the GOP refraining from the ridiculous hypocrisy of criticizing a woman for valuing and honoring her marriage vows.
The fact that this is a Trumpist talking point shows just how far the right has gone with its "family values" deception.
Quote:
Originally Posted by donsabi
Putin has already declared if Clinton is elected there will be war. Ladies, if you get your wish and Clinton is elected be prepared to bury many of your children and grandchildren.
This is the latest desperation tactic of the right: Working along with their Russian partners, they are trying to djinn up "FUD" (fear, undercertainty, and doubt) to dupe weak-minded sycophants into supporting their corrupt campaign.
I didn't say anything to the contrary, so the question is why are your starting your reply with a deflection away from what I did say and why did you choose instead to reply to my posting by arguing against something no one said and something easier to argue against rather than what was actually directed to you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevek64
I'm not as obsessed about gender as you are/use it as a main criteria to judge the character of people but hey, that's ok.....your life.
On the contrary, you are far more obsessed about gender than I am.
See how pointless it is to make such ridiculously tangential and irrelevant and baseless comments? If you think that people are truly distracted by what you're writing, and therefore forget what comments you're working so hard to avoid replying to, rest assured, I'll make sure that doesn't happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevek64
Well of course she's in charge of her life. But since this clown wants to be pres and represent america which includes me, I have every right to judge her just like you do.
Your judgments about her abiding by her marriage vows have no legitimate standing. Abiding by vows is unequivocally a positive trait according to every moral code that has ever existed. The presumption that you have discretionary purview over a woman's decision to abide by her marriage views is misogyny, even if you continue to deny it.
Stop deflecting. Here's my comment again, to give you another chance to reply to what I actually wrote instead of trying to distract attention from it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
Your comments are beyond misogynistic. Who should I believe about the quality of Bill Clinton's devotion to his marriage today? You or Hillary Clinton? Here you are setting yourself above the woman who is actually in the marriage. You're just guessing. You're applying partisan vitriol to craft your assumptions and conclusions. She's considering her own life and that of her child and grandchild. She wins. She's in charge of her life, and her marriage - not you.
Thanks for providing another wonderful example of how the reactionary patriarchy still corrupts the attitudes and behaviors of so many Americans, especially those who oppose having a woman elected POTUS.
As an aside...
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevek64
-- John Adams, Letter to Jonathan Jackson (2 October 1780), "The Works of John Adams", vol 9, p.511
It is worth noting that John Adams was a member of my religion, not yours, and so on the matters you've raised, would he have lived these last two hundred plus years, he'd share my values, not yours.
This is part of the problem you're having understanding what's going on. It isn't Clinton's stance on abortion that is of-issue to these women - it is the Republicans' stance that is of-issue. If the Republicans became more truly conservative on the matter, i.e., abiding by the libertarian perspective that it isn't the government's place to get involved in what should be a decision between a woman, her God and her doctor, then the Republicans probably wouldn't suffer from the gender gap that has plagued them for forty years. As demonstrated by poll after poll and election after election, the crux of the issue is respecting women to make this moral judgement for themselves rather than the patriarchy imposing it on women.
You're deceiving yourself if you think it is a black-and-white issue with regard to who will be better with regard to fighting international terrorism and protecting American interests abroad. Women, especially, trend toward support for policy perspectives in this regard that are more reasoned, more measured, less caustically bombastic. That's why they resonate more with the Democrats in this regard (i.e., not because of abortion ). Furthermore, on the far side of the right are folks who also oppose that kind of caustically bombastic attitudes toward foreign policy that Trump espouses.
That kind of statement really underscores the Republicans' biggest problem: They claim to be for "family values" but the reality is that they're using that term as a kind of shield against people realizing that they are opposed to family values. In a world where people actually do what they say, support for family values would necessarily have resulted in the GOP proposing universal healthcare decades ago, before ACA was a glint in anyone's eyes. In a world where people actually do what they say, support for family values would necessarily have resulted in the GOP underwriting the absolute-most-effective means of preventing unwanted pregnancy, sex education and birth control. And so on.
And it surely would have resulted in the GOP refraining from the ridiculous hypocrisy of criticizing a woman for valuing and honoring her marriage vows.
The fact that this is a Trumpist talking point shows just how far the right has gone with its "family values" deception.
This is the latest desperation tactic of the right: Working along with their Russian partners, they are trying to djinn up "FUD" (fear, undercertainty, and doubt) to dupe weak-minded sycophants into supporting their corrupt campaign.
Dead on. Thanks for this analysis. Helps get a little perspective on how we got to this situation.
I didn't say anything to the contrary, so the question is why are your starting your reply with a deflection away from what I did say and why did you choose instead to reply to my posting by arguing against something no one said and something easier to argue against rather than what was actually directed to you.
On the contrary, you are far more obsessed about gender than I am.
See how pointless it is to make such ridiculously tangential and irrelevant and baseless comments? If you think that people are truly distracted by what you're writing, and therefore forget what comments you're working so hard to avoid replying to, rest assured, I'll make sure that doesn't happen.
Your judgments about her abiding by her marriage vows have no legitimate standing. Abiding by vows is unequivocally a positive trait according to every moral code that has ever existed.The presumption that you have discretionary purview over a woman's decision to abide by her marriage views is misogyny, even if you continue to deny it.
Judging by your black and white thinking of the underlined statement you made, it sounds like you'd stick by your spouse, or teach your daughter/son to stand by their vows regardless if the character of the individual they have married turns out to be a sexually predator, murderer, rapist, serial cheater, etc and lump it all as a "positive trait" and any couple must stay married with such a person. No gray, just black and white thinking, because abiding by vows is "is unequivocally a positive trait according to every moral code that has ever existed"?
That's priceless. Truly. And most unsettling. And sad.
And let me educate you further on the matter how it's not "unequivocally a positive trait" :
Again, I'm commenting on your generalized statement, that "abiding by vows is a unequivocally a positive trait according to every moral code that has ever existed." . You made the statement, not me. And no, they are definitely not in a gray world, in an evolving world, where situations change, when emotional and/or physical harm can result to a spouse and/or a child.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
Stop deflecting. Here's my comment again, to give you another chance to reply to what I actually wrote instead of trying to distract attention from it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU Your comments are beyond misogynistic. Who should I believe about the quality of Bill Clinton's devotion to his marriage today? You or Hillary Clinton? Here you are setting yourself above the woman who is actually in the marriage. You're just guessing. You're applying partisan vitriol to craft your assumptions and conclusions. She's considering her own life and that of her child and grandchild. She wins. She's in charge of her life, and her marriage - not you.
Thanks for providing another wonderful example of how the reactionary patriarchy still corrupts the attitudes and behaviors of so many Americans, especially those who oppose having a woman elected POTUS.
As for who should you believe, me or hillary clinton. Well let's see now.....on the topic of believing hillary clinton....
Gowdy: Good morning, Director Comey. Secretary Clinton said she never sent or received any classified information over her private e-mail, was that true? Comey: Our investigation found that there was classified information sent. Gowdy: It was not true? Comey: That’s what I said. Gowdy: OK. Well, I’m looking for a shorter answer so you and I are not here quite as long. Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her e-mails sent or received. Was that true? Comey: That’s not true. There were a small number of portion markings on I think three of the documents. Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said “I did not e-mail any classified information to anyone on my e-mail there was no classified material.” That is true? Comey: There was classified information emailed. Gowdy: Secretary Clinton used one device, was that true? Comey: She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as Secretary of State. Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said all work related emails were returned to the State Department. Was that true? Comey: No. We found work related email, thousands, that were not returned. Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said neither she or anyone else deleted work related emails from her personal account.
I rest my case. And there are far more examples on the "trust" angle.
Perhaps you need to hear this. Your view about hil isn't the gold standard as you come off here. As I've stated earlier, this clown is running for president. Public office. I'm free to judge her anyway I want without someone telling me/coming off that their own view is superior and why with non-sequitur generations that don't address anything close to reality. I've seen enough of her character/actions to make a judgement on my own about her as she's a public figure. You don't like my view because it causes insecurity within yourself I would guess as you like her and you don't like others having a negative view of her. Such is life. Deal with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
As an aside...It is worth noting that John Adams was a member of my religion, not yours, and so on the matters you've raised, would he have lived these last two hundred plus years, he'd share my values, not yours.
So the religion of someone who makes a quote can only be understood if it's the same religion of yours, ie "your" religion? And you jump to the conclusion that John Adams would certainly share your "values"? And since you know for sure I'm not the same religion without knowing anything about me........
The world view according to bUU, the views of a hil supporter......wow. And yikes. At least I know why some people are voting for her now.
This isn't black and white thinking - it is black and white thinking regarding a solemn vow and regarding the institution of marriage. Some people may buy into the "I'm done with this spouse I'm going to turn her/him in for a different model," but I do not, and Hillary Clinton apparently does not either.
Stop trying to demonize honoring marriage.
I've never seen anyone - supporter of Democrats or Republicans - so vigorously argue against family values as you are in this thread. Amazing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevek64
As for who should you believe, me or hillary clinton.
Hillary Clinton knows far more about her regard for marriage than you do. Stop being so blatantly patriarchal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevek64
Again, I'm commenting on your generalized statement.
A "generalized" statement about a specific individual "her own life and that of her child and grandchild".
You aren't even using English words properly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevek64
I rest my case.
That sounds like something Trump would say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevek64
I'm free to judge her anyway I want without someone telling me/coming off as their view is superior and why.
Wrong. No one is owed an unrebutted soapbox. You are free to judge her anyway you want. I'm free to tell you what's wrong with your perspective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevek64
So the religion of someone who makes a quote can only be understood if it's the same religion of yours, ie "your" religion.
The meaning of the quote taken in modern context is not what you want it to be. Accept it and move on, and in the future consider being more careful that you quote people who are likely to agree with your use of their words if they were still alive today. Otherwise, you can also just state what you believe in your own words and don't try to use someone else's credibility in the manner you attempted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevek64
The world views according to bUU......wow.
Incredible. Do you think such a statement adds to the credibility of what you've written?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
). Furthermore, on the far side of the right are folks who also oppose that kind of caustically bombastic attitudes toward foreign policy that Trump espouses. 
