This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
You parroted the same "subconscious" line Bill Clinton used on Bernie. But, you believe Bernie is not operating from some deep dark place of sexism in his sub-conscience? Why does he get a pass, but everyone else is just being a sexist zombie?
Bill was very likable and came across as much more sincere. It is more Hillary being a complete phony and so damn condescending.
Tim can read minds and hearts. People that disagree with him have evil motives. People who mostly agree with him have good motives and pure hearts. It would be an amazing ability if he was even close to being right.
I will say, I think being a woman hurts Hillary in the sense that women in our society simply don't learn to lie as well as men do. Men lie constantly about everything and nothing. We learn how to keep a lie as close to the truth as possible and how to sell it. And particularly Bill. He's one of the greats.
It's not "everyone else", but Dana Milbank and several others have offered up numerous examples of statements and attitudes about Hillary in which in their opinion, and mine, sexism is clearly at play. I haven't heard that from Bernie Sanders.
Hmmm, an expedited closed meeting with Board of Governors of the FED at 11:30am then another meeting with Obama and Joe Biden at 3:00pm. I hope Yellen is not moving ahead with bank stress tests for negative interest rates or something...Hillary is the least charismatic person in the race from the very start.
BTW, I get a nagging feeling that something is coming down tomorrow
There have been some anti-Semitic issues the Sanders campaign has faced as well. I think it's good for everyone to keep an eye out for such things, but I don't believe they are going to decide the election, for either one.
Ok, then I suggest you stay in that lane. Let's put up the examples of statements and attitudes attributable to specific individuals where sexism is clearly in play. What you probably want to avoid is making blanket statements about everyone else.
Particularly Sanders supporters, most of whom really wish Warren were running instead.
I have known some pretty good women liars though. And I do think Hillary is a pretty good liar, but Bill was extremely good.
What a crock of ####. I work with many incredible women that are very passionate about their work and life. She comes off as yelling because she's not genuine. Bernie comes off passionate because he's genuine.
I remember when we were discussing Warren as a Presidential candidate and I said that I like her but didn't think she had a chance. Now I'm pissed she didn't run because I think she would have done better than Bernie. Hillary's primary advantage is that she is a woman and Warren would have negated that.
I'm a huge Warren fan, but I'm not sure she would have been able to campaign as well as Bernie has. She's still a relative newcomer to public office and campaigning does not come natural to her, whereas Bernie has been campaigning for decades and has his message dialed in.
It is probably a net positive for her. It is not like a bunch of strong women have run for office and have been rejected by the public. Hillary would have worse support as a man. Woman fair well when they run. If any woman has faced discrimination it was Palin and I am not sure even that was sexism.
This reminds me of something we heard a lot back in 2008.Sinn Fein said:
Yep. Not surprised jon mx would peddle this nonsense, but disappointed by Sinn Fein.
Is it totally inconceivable that a large portion of the democratic electorate is quite satisfied with the Obama presidency and wants the greatest probability that it's policies are continued or for the sake of argument that they don't like the policies Bernie is selling?Sinn Fein said:
I have no idea if she is or is not. But IMO if she is "gearing up" it's only for public perception purposes, not because she truly has anything to hide.
All those cases have been discussed here, Petraeus, Gonzales, Berger, Deutch.
People don't voluntarily talk to the FBI or do it for pr. - Then why grant Pagliano immunity? A: because he has provided information about conversations with Hillary, among other technical details. When Hillary speaks with the FBI she wouldn't tell them something different from what Pags said, right?
Based on primary results - I think, yes, it is inconceivable that a "large portion" of the democratic voters want Clinton.
I haven't read about it specifically. But if it's a case that involves an indictment, it's not analogous.
Yeah, but that's just academic because obviously Hillary will be completely honest and forthright when interviewed.SaintsInDome2006 said:
That's also treated in the article:
Bottom line of the article is that there has to be some sort of aggravating factor to warrant prosecution, and there isn't one in Clintons' case. It is telling that they spoke to a number of experts and the only person who thinks there should/will be charges is former mayor and current Fox News caricature Rudy Giuliani. One gets the feeling that they reached out to him only because they needed some "balance" and knew he'd be willing to parrot whatever line of BS that anti-Clinton forces are running with these days.
Of course. I guess my point is one reason to immunize Pags is to validate what Hillary tells them. If they weren't serious or had no concerns Hillary could have committed a crime they would not have done that.
I do think the Politico article is good but those cases have been discussed.
Yeah because she isn't leading Bernie 56%-42% in votes cast so far. What would the percentage have to be to qualify as a "large" percentage?
90% of stats are made up on the spot.
"Here, let me just make up a bunch of statistics."
So now we're back to the world where "Probably not quite flagrant enough to warrant prosecution" is the standard to which we hold our candidates.
