Why we hate Hillary

[Bast]

Did someone say Monarchy? Some of the greatest leaders in world history have been monarchs. And don't worry you have the constitution to ensure that in practice, no leader could ever come even close to being a monarch.

#3, she appears to have the disconcerting combination of picking whatever side of an issue is more likely to improve her odds of being elected, along with having always sought the White House. Admittedly the latter is just an impression I have, I have no links handy to back it up, but nevertheless it's there for me, and ties into...

I view that as listening to her people.

 

[bathsheba666]

Why dyou suddenly want to cure teh Alz? Didn't seem to bother too many Republicans during his second term.

And it was hugely entertaining in Europe throughout both his terms.

Amazing how what passes for folksy in the US is viewed completely differently here.

 

[aneeshm]

if she's nuts, her gender shouldn't matter. We wouldnt elect an insane guy either.

Isn't that exactly what I said?

OK, let me lay out the chain of reasoning for all to see:

a) Statistics tell us that, in general, there is a higher mean deviation when it comes to men in pretty much all fields
b) However, it is the reverse in politics - women politicians tend to be either really good, or really bad. I am yet to see a "mediocre" woman leader.
c) Hillary is female
d) Hillary is tending towards the insane side
e) Therefore, I do not want Hillary to be elected, and I would not vote for her
f) Had she not been insane, and had her stances been sensible (i.e., agreed with mine the most as compared to other candidates), I would have voted for her



How, precisely, is anything in any of the above "sexist"? I'm simply applying the same standard to her that I apply to everyone else.

I only threw in the fact that she is female because it reminded me of an interesting trend I had noticed among women politicians. I'd have mentioned it even if I were voting for her.

That is, I'm uncomfortable with her being a female only because I'm already against her. Had I been in her favour, I would have said the exact opposite - that it is good that she is a woman.

 

[aneeshm]

That is totally sexist. There is no reason for you to bring her being female into the discussion at all, for any other reason.

I did give a pretty solid reason. Read my last post.

I remember a post where someone complained that they could not get laid, and was trying to do so via a "formula" derrived from books. This is the same type thing.

Funny. I'm not trying to get laid here, I'm trying to learn how to treat other human beings decently.

Listen, (yes, I'm actually Kurt Vonnegut)

A woman is capable of anything a man is (spare me the sophmoric biological retort).

Individually, yes. Statistically, HELL NO.

They are equaly competant leaders. They are equals. They are individuals.

Again, on an individual level, yes.

When I interact with someone, I interact as an individual. I don't judge them based on the statistical trends shown by their group.

But that doesn't negate the fact that statistical differences exist.

The sooner someone realizes this, the sooner they can quit learning modern sociology from books - because women will talk to them.

How ironic. That's precisely what I'm trying to learn - how to talk decently with normal people.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Isn't that exactly what I said?

OK, let me lay out the chain of reasoning for all to see:

a) Statistics tell us that, in general, there is a higher mean deviation when it comes to men in pretty much all fields
b) However, it is the reverse in politics - women politicians tend to be either really good, or really bad. I am yet to see a "mediocre" woman leader.

I know scores of them. If you want I could compile a list, but they are all dutch, so I doubt you'd know them or be able to validate it.

Take it from me, lots and lots of mediocre female politicians. So, a) might be based on statistics, b) is severely hampered by subjectivism, if that's a correct -ism.

 

[Bast]

Isn't that exactly what I said?

OK, let me lay out the chain of reasoning for all to see:

a) Statistics tell us that, in general, there is a higher mean deviation when it comes to men in pretty much all fields
b) However, it is the reverse in politics - women politicians tend to be either really good, or really bad. I am yet to see a "mediocre" woman leader.
c) Hillary is female
d) Hillary is tending towards the insane side
e) Therefore, I do not want Hillary to be elected, and I would not vote for her
f) Had she not been insane, and had her stances been sensible (i.e., agreed with mine the most as compared to other candidates), I would have voted for her



How, precisely, is anything in any of the above "sexist"? I'm simply applying the same standard to her that I apply to everyone else.

I only threw in the fact that she is female because it reminded me of an interesting trend I had noticed among women politicians. I'd have mentioned it even if I were voting for her.

That is, I'm uncomfortable with her being a female only because I'm already against her. Had I been in her favour, I would have said the exact opposite - that it is good that she is a woman.

Are you going to show us these statistics that you're talking about? Because without them your talk is meaningless.

Further to the point, even if you had statistics you need to take into account historical and social factors that might have led to those statistics being skewed in a certain direction. Like for example, how college education had been open to women a lot later than men.

And you keep talking about her being on the "insane side". What is this? What evidence do you have of this? Or is this childish forum joke talk? She is leading the Democratic primary by quite a significant margin. Are you saying that most Americans are insane too for picking her as a potential leader?

 

[Bast]

Again, on an individual level, yes.

When I interact with someone, I interact as an individual. I don't judge them based on the statistical trends shown by their group.

But that doesn't negate the fact that statistical differences exist.

You're not even making sense. The issue here is why you brought up the fact that Hillary is a female and what that has to do with anything but especially with regard to her ability to run a country. You say that you interact with people on an individual level and don't care for statistics. We're dealing with an individual here - Hillary Clinton. We're not talking about whether females would make better presidents than males.

 

[Ecofarm]

I know scores of them. If you want I could compile a list, but they are all dutch, so I doubt you'd know them or be able to validate it.

Take it from me, lots and lots of mediocre female politicians. So, a) might be based on statistics, b) is severely hampered by subjectivism, if that's a correct -ism.

Subjectivism is a word, and you're exactly right. Define good/bad/mediocre politician. Is it based upon public respect? Laws passed? Lack of corruption? Leadership skills in general? Compromising ability? Non-compromising ability?

The entire quantification of good/bad is subjective, and probably has underlying sexist motivations that make the numbers even more worthless. I'm also curious about the sample size and location.

ps. If you want to learn how to talk to decent people, try talking to decent people - as individuals - not as some sexist formula in a book.

pps. Getting laid can be treating people decently, you know... Why would you assume it is not? And if I recall correctly, the term you used in the thread title was "hook up" - do you know what that means?

 

[IglooDame]

Did someone say Monarchy? Some of the greatest leaders in world history have been monarchs. And don't worry you have the constitution to ensure that in practice, no leader could ever come even close to being a monarch.

Yeah, I should have used a more accurate term than monarchy. Two (competing) families essentially occupying the Oval Office, back and forth... Bihereditary rule? Pendulum republic? Biumvirate?

I view that as listening to her people.

There is that. But, fundamentally, running for office should consist of a pol saying "here's what I believe, and here's what I think are the best policies. If you agree, vote for me, and if you don't agree, vote for the other person." A pol starting out with "here's what I think you believe, and I agree" is not what I want running the show. I'd much rather have someone in office that disagrees with me for logical coherent reasons, than someone who agrees with me purely because a majority of the voters do too.

For what it's worth, Giuliani and Romney get pretty low marks for me on that particular complaint as well.

 

[El_Machinae]

What the hell does the free market have to do with educating children about abortion?

Um, duh, that's why it's listed in the series of things that aren't going to provide solutions or failed to provide solutions.

If you quote me in saying "Prayer has clearly failed when it comes to regenerating the limbs of the soldiers, it's time to move onto biochemistry" with

Prayer has clearly failed

Then you're misusing the quotation ('quote-mining') if you're trying to say that I'm an authoritarian anti-religious person.

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

Jesus Christ, they're like moths. Go back to the Let's Bomb Iran thread, we already took care of your quotemining.

Because I don't like our presidential candidates basically quoting Marx when referring to how she will want to run the country, I should leave to go to the let's bomb Iran topic? Here's a longer list of why I don't want her as president, has yet to take definitive stances on many issues (more focused on taking what position is most convenient at the present time), very polarizing figure (it will be just as bad as it is now with Congress fighting over every issue), and as that quote and many of her moves in Congress describe she supports a more pronounced use of government in people's lives which has failed so many times in the past. While she may be the ideal candidate for a borderline socialist nation of Europe, she is not a good candidate for America, and I pray that other American's are wise enough to see that.

By the way I have absolutely no desire to bomb, invade, attack, or do any aggressive move into Iran, but thanks for your stereotype. I'm sure if the popular opinion supported an invasion of Iran, Hilary would jump on board to get whatever political boost she could. Hilary is nothing more than a business as usual politician, no better than the majority of candidates running for office. She's basically Bush on the left side of the aisle. That's why all my support is behind Ron Paul, one of the few politicians who actually takes a stand on an issue and sticks with it, and refers to the supreme law of the land (the Constitution) when determining how our country can best be run. There's a more drawn out way of saying why I think Hilary should never be president, my quote was just an easier way of saying that.

 

[downtown]

Isn't that exactly what I said?

Nope!

b) However, it is the reverse in politics - women politicians tend to be either really good, or really bad. I am yet to see a "mediocre" woman leader.

Honestly, this is crap. Your data set would have almost zero American politicians in it, since you don't know any. Furthermore, I wouldn't say you would be the best person to determine political performance.

d) Hillary is tending towards the insane side

Must be a pretty broad definition of insane you're using. If its true though, THEN THIS IS THE ONLY THING YOU NEED.

Here, let me make you a chart for me and say, Tom Tancredo.

1) Tom Tancredo is leaning towards the insane side
...
Downtown won't vote for him.

See how easy that was!

 

[Masquerouge]

I've got to say it's quite comic to see people in this thread convinced Hillary is a socialist, borderline communist.
They obviously never saw a real socialist/communist...

 

[bhsup]

It's all perspective, Masque! Ol' Gorby, well given his peers, he was practically a populist reformer. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand here in America... Let's just say the sight of a real socialist or communist actually having a chance of winnng the Presidency in this country would probably cause massive coronaries in a large chunk of the population.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

Ib) However, it is the reverse in politics - women politicians tend to be either really good, or really bad. I am yet to see a "mediocre" woman leader.

How can you even back that up? I mean, jeez, you're like an anti-femisist feminist.

I don't like Hilary but you just seem to take her as a women and throw her on some misogynist trip of yours.

 

[R.B.]

I cannot think of any politician in recent memory that inspires as much hate, for as few real reasons, as Hillary Clinton.

Many posters, from the left, right and center, appear to despise her. They write about how she'll ruin the country, how she's a lesbian, a communist, or worse.

I suspect that many of us don't really know WHY we hate her...but thanks to constant media bombarding, we do. So please, vote in poll, for as many reasons as you can think of for hating Hillary Clinton, then tell us why.

Poll Coming,

The word "hate" seems too much of a strong way to put it- I just think that she is not the right person for the job, and she seems too focused on appealing to everyone, and flip-flops more than any pancake I've ever seen. I hope that Obama gets nominated for the Democratic side instead of her, because then, at least, there would be a candidate that didin't flip-flop as much as Hillary. Honestly, why would someone want our first female president to be her?

 

[IglooDame]

It's all perspective, Masque! Ol' Gorby, well given his peers, he was practically a populist reformer. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand here in America... Let's just say the sight of a real socialist or communist actually having a chance of winnng the Presidency in this country would probably cause massive coronaries in a large chunk of the population.

Well, it's patently obvious to the most disinterested observer that her being labelled a communist is the work of a vast right-wing conspiracy.

 

[bhsup]

Ya know, it's really too bad. I always liked you, Igloo, but we can't have people outting us like that. Don't mind those helicopters circling your area.

P.S - Personally, I was pushing "pinko", but I was outvoted.

 

[Elrohir]

I've read reasons on message boards that goes something like we're in such a mess (not talking about Iraq but generally in the US with regard to health and education etc...) that only a woman can possibly solve these issues. I actually agree. I think what America needs right now is a woman's touch and a woman's perspective on running things. And see if a she can do better.

That could be her campaign slogan! "Hillary Clinton: Just what America needs after a long day at the office - the touch of a woman"!

Eew. I think I need to wash. But why should America endure her touch if even Bill won't? But seriously - a woman's touch? What, so we can fight a more sensitive and caring war on terror? Face down Ahmadinejad with cookies and milk? I don't have a problem with a woman being President, but she'd have to be tough as many man, and I don't think you're talking about that.

"A woman's touch and a woman's perspective on running things...." Simply classic.

 

[aneeshm]

That could be her campaign slogan! "Hillary Clinton: Just what America needs after a long day at the office - the touch of a woman"!

Eew. I think I need to wash. But why should America endure her touch if even Bill won't? But seriously - a woman's touch? What, so we can fight a more sensitive and caring war on terror? Face down Ahmadinejad with cookies and milk? I don't have a problem with a woman being President, but she'd have to be tough as many man, and I don't think you're talking about that.

"A woman's touch and a woman's perspective on running things...." Simply classic.

But, of course, I'm the "sexist pig."