AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Jul 11, 2016 13:34:25 GMT
Anybody watch the TV show "Veep"? Julia Louis Dreyfus plays an American vice-president-then-president. (Fabulous acting, btw.) One of my favorite quotes from the show is about the problem of identifying as a woman if you're a candidate: Heh.
|
|
happymomma
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,078
Aug 6, 2014 23:57:56 GMT
|
Post by happymomma on Jul 11, 2016 14:08:40 GMT
If I only stole 10 of the 30,000 things I've brought home from the store, then I'm not a thief? If I only slept with 2 other men of the thousands I've known while married to my husband, I'm not an adulterer? If I only shoot and kill 4 people out of the hundreds of thousands I see in my life, I'm not a murderer?
I'm really not sure where I stand politically yet. I'm still learning and researching. But...the reasoning presented above ( that it's okay because she only oopsied a certain percentage of the time ) doesn't make sense to me. What were/could be the ramifications of those few times? Again, I'm undecided on who'd be the better candidate. They both leave a LOT to be desired. It just puzzles me that HRC's supporters are so willing to justify this and not care about it and so easily dismiss it. Granted, Trump hasn't yet been given the chance to put our country's security in jeopardy, so we can't weigh that against him. We can put his bankruptcies and idiotic ramblings on his "con" list. I'm really struggling to decide who is worse, it's a daunting task.
|
|
|
Post by scrappinheather on Jul 11, 2016 15:05:01 GMT
Great article
|
|
|
Post by ktdoesntscrap on Jul 11, 2016 15:52:07 GMT
Not sure I want to start a thread for this but I thought this was a great and insightful article. It talks about how people who know and work with Hillary, both pro and anti Clinton supporters say her in-person persona is so different from her public persona. Based on what appears to be extensive research.. he says that what does not come through is that she is a great "listener" who follows through on what she hears. I found it fascinating. I don't think it will change any opinions, and that is not my intent but if you are like me and don't get all the Clinton haters maybe this will help you have a deeper understanding of Hillary Clinton. It did me. www.vox.com/a/hillary-clinton-interview/the-gap-listener-leadership-quality
|
|
|
Post by BeckyTech on Jul 11, 2016 16:34:43 GMT
I don't doubt your personal sincerity I just disagree with your viewpoint, and I was not calling you disingenuous.
I also personally would not view PolitiFact as a touchstone for decision making. The bias is evident: One fact is checked four times and all four times are counted as false, thereby upping the false count for Trump. Did they do the same for Hillary?
They don't want to rate Hillary's lies about her e-mail as "pants on fire" as Director Comey spent 12 minutes recounting, so will keep the "partially true" rating because that's what they rated it "at the time." Even before Comey's statements the Inspector General's report had been released and clearly revealed many of her lies. www.allsides.com/news-source/politifact
The bias is further evident in the case of Trump when you look more closely at some of their commentary: "Ultimately, we find that Trump’s sweeping rhetoric about a nation in decline and beset by crime ..." That's not what he said, he said "Crime is Rising." And got a pants on fire rating for that by PolitiFact. The Washington Post disagreed with cause: www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/07/05/fact-checking-politifacts-fact-check-of-trumps-crime-is-rising-claim/
And of course "fact checks" can be completely wrong as documented by the links in this story. www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/06/23/cnns-clinton-cash-fact-check-ends-embarrassment-cristina-alesci-laurie-frankel/
I don't doubt that some people dislike Hillary because she's a woman, I just suspect that is also used as an excuse for her poor performance at times. Things, like her e-mail situation, that she did herself. Now her supporters want to quibble over the ratings on a couple of e-mails. To prove what? Every person in public life has their detractors and plenty of them. That's life.
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Jul 11, 2016 16:59:11 GMT
Not sure I want to start a thread for this but I thought this was a great and insightful article. It talks about how people who know and work with Hillary, both pro and anti Clinton supporters say her in-person persona is so different from her public persona. Based on what appears to be extensive research.. he says that what does not come through is that she is a great "listener" who follows through on what she hears. I found it fascinating. I don't think it will change any opinions, and that is not my intent but if you are like me and don't get all the Clinton haters maybe this will help you have a deeper understanding of Hillary Clinton. It did me. www.vox.com/a/hillary-clinton-interview/the-gap-listener-leadership-qualityI thought the same thing, and fits with what I have read about her for years. She is not a good candidate like Bill was. She is a workhorse, not a show horse, a policy wonk through and through. She is interested in solving problems. I was thinking about the debate as to whether women candidates get different media coverage. I absolutely see a double standard in media coverage of Hillary. She is criticized for her voice, her pantsuits, her hair, her expensive jacket, and more. Articles have been written about her clothing choices. It's absurd.
|
|
|
Post by peano on Jul 11, 2016 17:00:49 GMT
Not sure I want to start a thread for this but I thought this was a great and insightful article. It talks about how people who know and work with Hillary, both pro and anti Clinton supporters say her in-person persona is so different from her public persona. Based on what appears to be extensive research.. he says that what does not come through is that she is a great "listener" who follows through on what she hears. I found it fascinating. I don't think it will change any opinions, and that is not my intent but if you are like me and don't get all the Clinton haters maybe this will help you have a deeper understanding of Hillary Clinton. It did me. www.vox.com/a/hillary-clinton-interview/the-gap-listener-leadership-qualityThanks for that really interesting article. I was captivated by the way the author characterized the difference in approach between Clinton and Obama in of working with political adversaries.
|
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Jul 11, 2016 17:57:55 GMT
Re: disliking Hillary Clinton because she is a woman. Discussion about these kinds of people isn't terribly interesting. They are what they are; few of them will change.
It's much more interesting to explore HIDDEN biases or different expectations based on sex. They exist in most of us, whether we realize it or not. But discussing that can as fraught as discussing white privilege. People become very defensive and the discussion becomes much, much more personal than it should be. I think the same thing happens when discussing hidden sexism - from both men and women, unfortunately.
I heard an author/researcher recently talking about the difference in the way men and women confront problems and take risks - and the advantages of each style. The problem is that BOTH men and women view the male style as better, so "shareholders" (employees, board members, voters, constituents) will criticize a woman's failures much more than a man's. And overall, she claims people are much less forgiving of women - blaming mistakes on inherent weakness or duplicity - resulting in women being demoted, fired, or voted out of office more frequently than men for the same "transgressions."
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 20, 2024 19:57:34 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2016 20:15:04 GMT
I though Ezra Klein article was really well written with a fresh perspective of someone who isn't that big of a Clinton fan.
|
|
|
Post by katieanna on Jul 11, 2016 20:52:19 GMT
If I only stole 10 of the 30,000 things I've brought home from the store, then I'm not a thief? If I only slept with 2 other men of the thousands I've known while married to my husband, I'm not an adulterer? If I only shoot and kill 4 people out of the hundreds of thousands I see in my life, I'm not a murderer? I'm really not sure where I stand politically yet. I'm still learning and researching. But...the reasoning presented above ( that it's okay because she only oopsied a certain percentage of the time ) doesn't make sense to me. What were/could be the ramifications of those few times? Again, I'm undecided on who'd be the better candidate. They both leave a LOT to be desired. It just puzzles me that HRC's supporters are so willing to justify this and not care about it and so easily dismiss it. Granted, Trump hasn't yet been given the chance to put our country's security in jeopardy, so we can't weigh that against him. We can put his bankruptcies and idiotic ramblings on his "con" list. I'm really struggling to decide who is worse, it's a daunting task.
|
|
moodyblue
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,179
Location: Western Illinois
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2014 21:07:23 GMT
|
Post by moodyblue on Jul 11, 2016 21:43:55 GMT
Not sure I want to start a thread for this but I thought this was a great and insightful article. It talks about how people who know and work with Hillary, both pro and anti Clinton supporters say her in-person persona is so different from her public persona. Based on what appears to be extensive research.. he says that what does not come through is that she is a great "listener" who follows through on what she hears. I found it fascinating. I don't think it will change any opinions, and that is not my intent but if you are like me and don't get all the Clinton haters maybe this will help you have a deeper understanding of Hillary Clinton. It did me. www.vox.com/a/hillary-clinton-interview/the-gap-listener-leadership-qualityThanks for the link. This was a really interesting article. It echoed some of the things I've read or heard about her before - the strong relationships with her staff and the ability to work with lots of different people. Interesting reading!
|
|
|
Post by ktdoesntscrap on Jul 11, 2016 22:12:52 GMT
If I only stole 10 of the 30,000 things I've brought home from the store, then I'm not a thief? If I only slept with 2 other men of the thousands I've known while married to my husband, I'm not an adulterer? If I only shoot and kill 4 people out of the hundreds of thousands I see in my life, I'm not a murderer? I'm really not sure where I stand politically yet. I'm still learning and researching. But...the reasoning presented above ( that it's okay because she only oopsied a certain percentage of the time ) doesn't make sense to me. What were/could be the ramifications of those few times? Again, I'm undecided on who'd be the better candidate. They both leave a LOT to be desired. It just puzzles me that HRC's supporters are so willing to justify this and not care about it and so easily dismiss it. Granted, Trump hasn't yet been given the chance to put our country's security in jeopardy, so we can't weigh that against him. We can put his bankruptcies and idiotic ramblings on his "con" list. I'm really struggling to decide who is worse, it's a daunting task. I think the logic is faulty. You are not comparing apples to apples. I think it is more like... If I knew my husband was dead, and I slept with 2 out of the 1,000s of men who asked me, and after the fact, he turns out to actually BE alive, am I an adulterer?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 20, 2024 19:57:34 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2016 0:21:18 GMT
I think the logic is faulty. You are not comparing apples to apples. I think it is more like... If I knew my husband was dead, and I slept with 2 out of the 1,000s of men who asked me, and after the fact, he turns out to actually BE alive, am I an adulterer? I understood happymomma's analogy, but I'm having trouble following yours. I'm not sure how it relates to Hillary and her compromised classified information. Can you elaborate?
|
|
|
Post by katieanna on Jul 12, 2016 20:48:32 GMT
I think the logic is faulty. You are not comparing apples to apples. I think it is more like... If I knew my husband was dead, and I slept with 2 out of the 1,000s of men who asked me, and after the fact, he turns out to actually BE alive, am I an adulterer? Honestly, I have NO idea what you are talking about. If she is not "comparing apples to apples" I'd like to know what fruit you're comparing apples to.
|
|