To find Hillary Clinton likable, we must learn to view women complexly

[nemomen]

@thaumatechnicia

So, are you saying that your country doesn’t have a working, credible system of checks and balances? That the president is, for all intents, a king? Really?

It seems like you think that me saying that supporting an open racist promising a racist regime of persecutions and deportation of non-whites is an issue because they’ll be effective at it, but really, no, that’s absolutely bad, regardless of how effective they are.

There was a mosque burned today by Trump supporters, there’s been violence against minorities already by Trump supporters, there was a report today about Trump supporters discussing how excited they will be to be able to murder “n*ggers” again on a CB channel. Emboldening, validating, and empowering those people is a terrible and very serious thing, regardless of what Trump is actually able to accomplish.

The country does have a Congress, though one with parliamentary rules that are easily abused. A Trump win is likely to spell a GOP win if Trump wins, as well, further eroding a check. The House of Representatives is also designed by the Constitution to over-represent rural conservative districts (and has been gerrymandered into even more over-representation), and the House is currently laden with Tea Party extremists who say overtly racist things all the time and are cut from the same cloth as Trump xenophobia-wise, which is why immigration reforms never happen. You should hear the things those guys say about Muslims, ethnic profiling, and deportation. A Trump presidency would embolden them to pass even more egregious laws.

The SCOTUS is currently evenly split, and whoever wins will be immediately appointing the tie-breaking justice. Those Justices are not purely disengaged Constitutionalists, but in fact are highly partisan. There’s a currently a shortage of cooler heads to prevail among conservative Justices and the next president will have tremendous power since they’ll immediately appoint a tiebreaker in their favor.

The administrative branch isn’t a pure embodiment of power, but as we’ve seen in the past, an administration interested in harming minorities has many powers to do so, both by sins of omission and sins of commission, and it can sometimes take years to undo a bad decision by the admin. Having the SCOTUS in the pocket of the next pres. will further empower them.

Please don’t minimize the risks here, this actually is a very serious election, and the outcome if Trump wins will unquestionably cause harm to minorities, even if he isn’t allowed to harm them as much as he’d like.

[Jim_Kirk]

Like how she’s so far been silent on the Standing Rock Sioux struggle, yet the platform has more on “Honoring Indigenous Tribal Nations” than any other single issue…

[Sagoli]

@Lexicat

Fuck Clinton’s platform: she will be less of a racist facist than Donald, but be far more rapid and efficient at killing lots of people around the world

How do you figure?

[codinghorror]

@Lexicat

That is literally untrue: Gayle McLaughlin was elected mayor of Richmond, California

Green Party of the United States | Electoral results

Well, I guess in theory a green party candidate might have been elected local principal of a school, or perhaps employee of the month at a local automobile dealer. But as far as President, House of Representatives, or Senate, that’s … a big fat goose egg to date.

@Lexicat

You seem quite happy to vote for Hillary Clinton. That’s you. “Throwing my vote away” would be voting for someone else’s agenda. That’s me.

Welcome to a Trump presidency, my friend:

Lots of third-party voters assume Clinton will win. That could throw the race...

[daneel]

This is what this election should resemble, but won’t.

French presidential election, 2002

[erroneus]

Voting third party this cycle has become an practice of “plausible deniability”, just like in 2000. “Sure, Bush got elected, but it’s not my fault! I voted with my conscience”. It’s true that they didn’t vote for Bush, but they didn’t really vote for anyone.

The truth is most people don’t really care nor put much value in the moral currency of “not voting for the lesser of two evils”, and history certainly doesn’t give a rat’s tuchus. US elections are practices in game theory: you either get it or you get to feel like you’re better than everyone else.

[Medievalist]

I don’t dislike Hillary Clinton. Nor do I care if she is likable.

But I won’t vote for her because of her record of fervent support for foreign military adventures and because of her anti-human energy policy. The latter being a bigger deal, but both of these things matter to me.

Check your link - She’s all in for supporting any level of belligerence concerning Israel, China or Russia (presumably with the usual proxy wars raining death on uninvolved brown people, but I digress). Her platform includes the Cheney “all of the above” Energy Policy that Obama also pursued. I simply cannot vote for that.

I actually agree that she has more governing experience than any other candidate, but no candidate has any experience doing the things I want done. Like permanently stopping deep-sea oil drilling… or getting the USA out of the Middle East…

[drunken_oranget]

@Medievalist

She’s all in for supporting any level of belligerence concerning Israel, China or Russia

Where? Where does her campaign say that?

[Medievalist]

@Lexicat

That is literally untrue

Don’t expect a retraction. People seem to be totally comfortable getting caught lying about the Green Party. It continually amazes me.

@codinghorror

Welcome to a Trump presidency, my friend:

I am not afraid of the Orange Boogeyman. We’ve had far worse presidents; the idea that I should run to the voting booths quivering in fear is pretty laughable to me.

@drunken_oranget

Where? Where does her campaign say [she’s all in for supporting any level of belligerence concerning Israel, China or Russia]?

National security - The Office of Hillary Rodham Clinton is pretty clear, despite the political doubletalk. Oh, and also I forgot she’s warmongering against Iran on the same page.

[erroneus]

@Medievalist

I am not afraid of the Orange Boogeyman. We’ve had far worse presidents; the idea that I should run to the voting booths quivering in fear is pretty laughable to me.

Yeh, and I bet there’s a small dog that follows you around, nipping at your heels.

[Medievalist]

@Mal_Tosevite

BTW, what’s everyone’s take on everyone calling her “Hillary” instead of “Clinton” or “Mrs. Clinton” or anything else like that?

It’s something her campaign has encouraged (their logo is an “H” pointing towards the right*, not a “C”) but personally I try to use her full name or a respectful title like Ms. Clinton.

But I don’t mention her opponent by name, and refer to him as little as possible. It’s stupid and self-defeating to give him so much free advertising.

Gotta go now, but I already said all I have to say anyway.

 

* I encourage my Dem friends to paste their H stickers upside down so the arrow points in the political direction they think Ms. Clinton ought to be traveling.

[Melizmatic]

@nemomen

I’d recommend you not identify with Jabba the Hutt

Solid advice,considering how that story ended:

( I swear, there’s a Wayne Brady-esque “Is Leia Gonna Have to Choke a Bitch?” joke in there, somewhere.)

@Medievalist

But I don’t mention her opponent by name, and refer to him as little as possible. It’s stupid and self-defeating to give him so much free advertising.

Fuckin’ A; we seriously need to stop giving Douche-lini free ‘air-time.’

[pyramus]

Hillary Clinton canvassed in Chicago following the 1960 presidential election: she was 13. She worked on political campaigns throughout her teens and all throughout her college years, she was First Lady of Arkansas for twelve years and of the United States for another eight, she was a sitting senator for a further eight, and then Secretary of State for five. She’s been a political animal for 55 years and in the vicinity of the highest offices for over twenty of those.

She’s astonishingly experienced. Whether she’s the most qualified is a matter of opinion, because experience and qualification are not the same thing. But it is hard to imagine another living American who has her breadth of experience.

[Mal_Tosevite]

@LapsedPacifist

But more to the point, in fact, is that there’s absolutely tons and tons of stuff that says that we must like Hillary and that, if you are a woman, it is mandatory on pain of hell, as Albright was so kind to spell out.

It’s not as if the campaign has played up her gender or anything.

---

Having pointed that out, yes, I’m sure sexism plays a large role in why she and Donald Trump, of all people, are so close in the race.

[Mal_Tosevite]

@nixiebunny

Too bad that it turned out that he was either lying or discovered that the President doesn’t get to make the decisions.

That’s one of the things that amazes me about Trump’s campaign, and how effective it seems to be. He makes bigger promises than Obama, and Trump’s followers seem to think he can follow through on them, even the ones who are angry at Obama for overstepping his bounds.

[drunken_oranget]

@Medievalist

I am not afraid of the Orange Boogeyman. We’ve had far worse presidents

Hey, that’s pretty cool that you can visit the future and tell us how President Trump’s incumbency worked out. Any stock tips you’re willing to share?

[Melizmatic]

@Medievalist

I am not afraid of the Orange Boogeyman. We’ve had far worse presidents…

Spoken just like someone who doesn’t stand to lose nearly as much as say, Blacks.

Or Latinos.

Or Muslims.

Or Women.

Or Gay people.

Or… hopefully you get the point.

(Perhaps I’m wrong, and you might actually be included in one of those categories; but if that’s the case, then it’s even more disheartening.)

Since I turned 18, I’ve been voting for “the lesser of two evils” because pretty much all career politicians suck; and my main determining factor has always been:

Who will fuck it up the least?

[bobzwrz]

@nemomen

suggests you might have a racist preconception

Suggest away.

If your position is “many Trump voters are racist” you’ll get no argument from me.

If your position is “anyone who is voting for someone other than Clinton needs to reexamine their racist preconceptions”, there just isn’t a whole lot for us to discuss here.

[A11]

Complexity is a refuge for elitist scoundrels.

[Max_Blancke]

It is entirely possible to oppose Clinton for reasons other than sexism. I would happily have voted for Ann Richards for president, had that been possible. Or someone like Golda Meir.