Yoink.
1 Like
not to get too far off topic, but time and time again media, pundits, and campaigns refer to “total vote.” they did this most recently with sanders, precisely to paper over issues in swing state vote counts. the republican candidate, when he wins, will do precisely the same to claim a “mandate.”
your vote matters no matter where you live, even if your state goes to the opposite side.
1 Like
My guess would be there’s been some real misogyny thrown in Stein’s direction too.
And when deciding which of the two to vote for, I place the number of oak leaf clusters on the Misogyny Campaign Ribbon below a number of other considerations.
3 Likes
Sure! Regardless of whether we have a Republican or Democratic president, just buy into the nastiest petroleum producers you can find - for instance, the ones that have been involved in human trafficking. You can find them in the lists of campaign contributors, I’m guessing. They are guaranteed to prosper under either regime.
But if the Republicans win, buy into makers and developers of autonomous death robots. I am completely, one hundred percent serious. I have a friend on the inside.
Well, I’m not in those categories, but anyone who wants to harm the people I love who are in those categories will have to go through me to get them. Does that count? My daughter, who is black, is frequently mistaken for Mexican. Sometimes by actual Mexicans - apparently she speaks Spanish with a mexamerican accent.
That is a very strong argument, and I respect it far more the fear mongering. Rest in peace Danny Peak, and much love to Miranda and Julie Nishimura, our hearts are with you.
Agreed. And I feel the same way about Hillary Clinton and Gary Johnson, frankly. I am embarrassed by and ashamed of my fellow citizens who can’t see the larger issues of human responsibility for the future of our species.
This is absolutely 100% correct. People here are claiming they know what he-who-must-not-be-named would do in office - that is utterly laughable. Nobody knows what he would do, because he has a long history of saying whatever he needs to say to get where he wants to be, and then doing whatever strikes his fancy with no regard for his prior claims and promises. It’s entirely possible that he’ll have a 4-year-long hookers’n’blow party in the Oval Office and leave the entire government up to the various undersecretaries, or then again he might try to annex Canada. It’s totally Russian roulette.
Unfortunately, we know from the “Brexit” fiasco that if a vote goes in favor of someone who engages in racist demagoguery, the racist underculture feels empowered and their violence goes up dramatically. So when I say I sincerely doubt that a Republican president would actually enact any policies more explicitly racist than those of Bill “crack baby superpredator” Clinton - don’t misunderstand me. I understand a Republican win would be bad for members of minority religions and people of color, and could easily lead to rioting or even civil war. If that happens, I won’t be fighting on the side of bigots (of any persuasion).
However, my concerns are larger than that. I’m worried about retaining a breathable atmosphere and a human habitable climate. The Democrats - other than Bernie, of course - are not going to deliver what I need, so I will help build the opposition. Nothing can change until people give up on the Republicrat/Demolican death spiral and start voting for candidates like Jill Stein (or, admittedly, Bernie Sanders.) And if nothing changes, we all lose.
11 Likes
It is the intangible quality of media presence. The ability to project authority and competence to the public. I can’t imagine of Sanders doing the State of the Union Address where it won’t sound like my cranky uncle trying to lecture people at Thanksgiving. Yes, it is entirely superficial nonsense on my part. But if we had a uniformly intelligent and reasonable electorate, our current election would be much different.
FDR and Truman had both bearing and the ability to get things done. JFK had bearing but couldn’t get much done. LBJ and Nixon got stuff done but had no bearing. Carter had neither bearing nor got things done.
Old people, people who wanted hippies off their lawns, former segregationists, cocker spaniel afficionados.
For instance?
Agreed and it’s likely been ignored since she’s not really been on the radar for the political conversation (except to spread the sort of misinformation about her being an anti-vaxxer, which she’s clearly not).
And, once again, as I’ve said several other times, no one is claiming that all criticism of clinton (or Stein, for that matter) is misogynistic, just that some of if it is. I don’t really understand why acknowledging that fact, the fact that women struggle to be heard in our culture and when they are heard, they often face a lot more criticism that’s probably undeserved is such a problem for some people.
As we discussed before, you vote for who you think you should. I wish that we had viable third parties and I’ve been voting third party in the presidential campaigns for many years now. The current situation and the fact that the state is in play has changed my thinking a bit, though. I haven’t decided what to do quite yet, though.
11 Likes
“Brexit” was the other way round; Farage tapped into existing racism in order to increase the “Leave” vote, and got them stirred up. Bizarrely at first sight there is evidence that British Asians born here mostly voted Remain while Asian immigrants voted Leave - because they did not want more immigrants arriving and undercutting them for jobs.
The UK referendum was such a fustercluck of futtwickery that drawing any conclusions about politics in general would be unwise except for one glaringly obvious conclusion - unless, like the Swiss, you have a population of intelligent, sensible, law abiding people, don’t hold referendums. And, if you happen to be Switzerland, still don’t.
2 Likes
No, I disagree: for example, Laurier—Sainte-Marie one year, the Rhino party came in second, ahead of the Progressive Conservatives. It was so much fun to watch the PC candidate have a conniption on the newscasts.
1 Like
Many of the current defenders of Clinton (especially in this thread) were Sanders supporters in the primary. By primary standards Clinton was on the right, and Sanders was on the left. However, by the broader standards of the general election, there is very little difference between the two. Yes, Clinton voted wrong on Iraq, and supported action in Libya (though the latter was a direct response to calls from our allies in France and Germany and is better interpreted as support for international consultation and cooperation than for American imperialism), but overall she is mildly progressive on domestic issues and moderate-internationalist on foreign affairs. As much as I attacked her during the primary (cf various threads here) I will vote for her enthusiastically in November.
What I find puzzling is the degree to which people laud Sanders and Warren for their perspicacious judgment, but now that these two are aggressively advocating for Clinton suddenly they’re wrong or even sellouts. If you admire someone but then they disagree with you on an issue, doesn’t it make sense to dispassionately consider their arguments and rethink your own position? (This is a little like the Amy Schumer thing that was discussed here recently.)
7 Likes
Do you really want an honest answer to that question?
4 Likes
ANYHOO
Getting back to the article. I agree it’s annoying when people paint with the “if you don’t support Hillary then you must be sexist” brush, but I think the claims that her crazily low approval statistics seem disproportionate have some solid data behind them.
In other words, it is unlikely a male politician with the exact same personality and positions on issues would be getting such record “dislike” ratings. Pick some really milquetoast Democrat candidate that nobody was excited about like Kerry or Dukakis – were they this disliked?
It’s not the kind of thing you can prove, because how could you even do that, but it’s certainly credible to look at the extreme data and say “some of this is simply because she’s a woman”.
Also, I wonder if she gets elected (and I hope she does, because Drumpf is not an option), will it be easier for the next woman? I hope so too.
14 Likes
Just meeting with them is wrong. When the republicans call this “selling access” they’re not wrong. Even if she didn’t do any favors for them.
1 Like
There definitely are some people who won’t vote for her because she’s a woman, but the implication of the article is that most of the 70% of Americans who dislike her, dislike her because she’s a woman and that there aren’t legitimate things to dislike her for.
1 Like
When it comes to her smile that MAY have a little to do with what the article was talking about but the feeling I get from her mouth-open-smile feels more like the uncanny valley than internalized misogyny. Pic related.
3 Likes
Dude, at this point in the argument you’re not even dealing with reality. Hillary says to some gazillionaire, “Sure, give me a million dollars and I’ll sit and have coffee with you. You can dine out on our conversation and I can vaccinate a bunch of kids.” And this is wrong because . . . ? Because that guy’s got a million dollars to spare? Fuckin A! Of course it’s wrong he’s got all that money! But here’s what you can do to fix it: run on raising taxes on millionaires. Right now Trump is proposing cutting taxes for millionaires, and he’s closing on Hillary in the polls. But you’ve got the savoir-faire to propose doing it better than commies like me or Hiillary. Why are you talking on boingboing? Get out there and fix the country. Your fortune awaits you!
7 Likes
Why has this gotten you so defensive? If donors wanted to meet with someone they should have met with Bill since he’s not in public office. No matter how many vaccines corruption pays for, it’s still corruption.
1 Like
Would you blame Clinton for the electoral college, the two-party system, etc.?
As long as there’s a concentration of political power, as long as there’s insiders and outsiders, here’s going to be some of that.
I think I can blame Trump for bribing an attorney general.
Because there’s a difference between built-in corruption, where reducing it will require better pollicies, and personal corruption, where adding to it is a sign of worse character.
8 Likes
Actually, voting for three of these was also throwing your vote away… until it wasn’t.
The recent election of an NDP (sorta kinda socialist, but not really) to Alberta (Alberta!) indicates that substantial political party change can happen if it’s not blocked by near monopolies.
2 Likes
