…total idiot, because you’d need to be to think something like that.
12 Likes
I’m sure she will do whatever is convenient for her at the time.
3 Likes
This topic will automatically close in a day which can’t come soon enough.
27 Likes
Um okay…
r/MGTOW/ called; they said they miss you and want you to go back home.
@M_M:
There’s not enough facepalm in existence to express my sentiments at the moment.
The gif bin is going to come in most handy for this one.
24 Likes
[quote=“Nobby_Stiles, post:405, topic:85424, full:true”]
Actually there have been many rumors [/quote]
Well, rumors do make the world go 'round.
Oh you guys with your rumors and your hunches, you’re so adorable. There is strong evidence that Michelle Obama supports Clinton strongly, in particular she says she supports Clinton strongly and is working hard to stump for her.
“I trust Hillary,” Michelle Obama said. Trust is a problem for Clinton; in a CBS News poll last month, sixty-seven per cent of respondents said that they believed she was not honest and trustworthy, a number that included a significant number of people who nonetheless planned to vote for her. The trust question is such a tough one for Clinton that even a simple declarative statement like Michelle Obama’s tends to invite skepticism: Do you really trust her? And how much? Obama answered that, in Philadelphia, by evoking her daughters and saying, in essence, that much.
But, you know, maybe the Obamas are just lying. That’s what the people who post responses to the articles in my local newspaper would say: that Obama has been a liar since his childhood growing up in Kenya, and Michelle is just as bad. Me, I like MO, and prefer to think she’s honest.
6 Likes
So, if I read your posts correctly, you don’t like her because she strongly supports Monster Hillary…but you do like her because she’s honest (MO being Michelle Obama?).
Which is it?
I’ll repeat myself. I really like Michelle Obama, and I would vote for her if possible. If you want to ridicule me for it, it won’t make a difference.
I think you really nailed it. And by nailed it I mean you accurately said everything that nobody else is thinking.
18 Likes
*lmao!
7 Likes
Wow Mick_Price, you just about prove my point for me, don’t you? I’m sure you arrived at your conclusion about what kind of person she is from the long intimate history that the two of you shared together in la-la land. Your post is such a perfect caricaturization of the usual anti-Clinton tripe that if I posted it as my own people would probably think it was brilliant political satire.
7 Likes
First let me give a proper hello and remind everyone that my snarky post wasn’t intended to target any specific individuals. I was completely fascinated by the article and the responses and read as many strings of responses as I could. After hours of reading I had to vent a little. I apologize for having a more judgmental us-vs-them tone in my post then intended. I can only say that sleep deprivation will indeed make you cranky. The majority of posts that I’ve read have been quite intelligently written and insightful.
Second, it really does no good to tell me about what other people have posted on the site in the past, because, as you have pointed out, I am new. You speak to me as if I’ve missed part of the conversation because I haven’t read all the other posts on the site from the last year. The story here on this page speaks for itself, so I saw no reason why I shouldn’t jump in with my two cents, despite having no prior history in this online community. I’m sorry if this offends anyone, but there it is. I’m just as likely to forget about this site and never post here again.
This story was not about people’s justified skepticism of Hillary Clinton. It was about people (not) liking her.
It’s about how much heavier the scrutiny and judgement against Hillary Clinton (and other females in power) has been than it would be against a similar male politician. Perhaps I can explain my annoyance a little better: I think I could look at this issue differently if I had ever seen anyone make an actual personal acknowledgement that her gender is, at least in part, responsible for some tiny bit of their own dislike of her. I’d never expect to find this from people on the right, of course, but it’s rather sad to see that many people on the left are in such obvious denial. What we see is a lot of cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias.
"Well I know all of the perfectly legitimate reasons that I don’t like her, and none of them have to do with her gender. Here’s an article from Brietbart that tells you why!"
or one of my favorites : “I am allowed to dislike a female candidate without being accused of sexism. Its not my fault she’s so horrible!”
The vastly different way that she is treated from President Obama and Bernie Sanders is such a powerful example because she is running as some kind of amalgam of the two now, but then, this is bad because it shows how “inauthentic” she is, right? People don’t like her when she’s trying to be herself, but they don’t like her when she’s trying to be what they want her to be either. For months veryone says how much she needs to reach out to millennials, how its her responsibility to reach out to them . But how can she really when the many who have made up their minds against her simply don’t want to hear it.
I guess my point is that while many acknowledge the existence of this bias, few will own up to it and/or attempt to change. There has indeed been a whole lot of rationalizing by the people who dislike her to make the usual over-the-top negative emotional response to her seem justified. It is not. I am reminded of a study done on gender bias in fields of science, which are dominated by men, where it was shown that not only are the male scientists less impressed by the work of women in their fields, but they are also less inclined to give any credence to studies that suggest that such bias exists at all. That article can be found here: http://www.pnas.org/content/112/43/13201.full
Anyway, sorry for the long post. Blah blah blah politics.
3 Likes
I know its such a cop-out to say 'well they did it too!" but really, you can match every smug Hillary supporter to an equally smug supporter of Sanders. I cant speak for this particular website, but boy were they quick to jump on us “Hillarybots” on other forums and insist that they all knew the truth that us blind sheeple just couldn’t acknowledge. And then when the “truth” came out, they felt like all of their conspiracy theories over the past year had been proven absolutely true. Only they weren’t. The DNC emails weren’t so much a smoking gun as a slingshot with a snapped rubberband. This is really erasing history to try to make it that the patronizing and sarcasm came mostly from Hillary’s camp, and that Bernie’s people were all rainbows and sunshine. There was a point when the Hillary supporters decided we just weren’t going to take it anymore: maybe it was when they started regurgitating the same lies about our candidate that the GOP has been spouting for years, or maybe it was when they started harassing DNC members and superdelegates through every channel they could possibly find. I don’t want to get into a he-said-she-said argument, but this characterization of Bernie supporters, especially at the convention, as somehow blameless, is a huge stretch of the truth. But again, people can pout about it, or they can do something about it. Stop complaining that the system wasn’t fixed over night and that every election was rigged and get out there and work to fix it. It isn’t going to be easy or quick or even fun, but it’s certainly not going to happen by casting a third party vote and then forgetting about it for four years. It would be sad to think him and his supporters did all that for nothing, especially when his number one acknowledge goal, getting his message out there, has succeeded so much.
In my case I like MO and respect her judgment; I also don’t dislike HRC. I was raising questions of those who respect MO’s judgment but despise HRC, as this is not consistent reasoning. It seems that one way some people try to resolve their personal cognitive dissonance arising from this inconsistency is fantasize that MO doesn’t really support HRC, but this is contradicted by the facts.
3 Likes
Sanders is not in the position of needing to convince Clinton supporters to vote for him in the fall. This isn’t rocket science.
4 Likes
But I said that I really like Michelle Obama and would vote for her. I didn’t say a single thing about Hillary (as a statement of opinion about Hillary).
2 Likes
In which case I apologize for the assumption I made about the reason for your post, which was evidently a non-sequiter, not a commentary on Clinton’s likability or an amplification of Nobby’s point.
2 Likes
Thank you. I was not aware. I will refrain from using that term. Often, a word gets thrown around so often that you just don’t think twice about its historical roots.
When it comes to someone like Trump, who dishes out “slurs” and offensive remarks on a daily basis, including veiled threats or insinuation of violence, it’s hard to stop and think about the polite use of certain language.
That’s his fault. His *Unlikable" fault. Otherwise, many wouldn’t feel the need to casually toss around such harsh rhetoric in the first place.
1 Like
Simplistic response. Presidents, believe it or not, rarely do things that are merely convenient. All of their actions have consequences. Big ones. And they have to deal with them all.
1 Like
Ferris Wheeler,
9 Likes
Thanks for that tip from the grocery store gossip rags, Nobby. It sounds very well cut from whole cloth and must be very useful to justify your preexisting beliefs.
I’m sure are Obamas have been promoting her out of fear and disgust. Same with Bernie Sanders, someone must have his dog at gunpoint to preserve the Clinton Death Cult where all are forced to support them or DIE, rather than them being the closest to their political beliefs running for office.
3 Likes
