Why not?
3 Likes
During the second Bush we called George 2nd by his middle name initial “W”.
I feel we should start calling Clinton 2nd by hers, Rodham.
That’s quite the beer belly on her. Do you suppose Donald demanded that she let herself go so he’d look better in comparison?
2 Likes
I disagree with literally all of this.
1 Like
This is why I’m not voting for her. She’s not only made “mistakes” that even I could tell were on the totally wrong side of history, but she never fully owned up to them and never even reached out to progressives beyond the standard “mid-election pivot”. She’s not getting my vote because her side doesn’t even care about my side.
3 Likes
This is the last thing I will say about this, and then I am blocking you, if this is possible. What you did was pretty crappy, and something I think is unacceptable. 1) I informed you that your intententional misrepresentation was in bad taste 2) You went full creep mode, up to and including getting gas-lighty in the process. My post was not off-topic (I complimented the portrait from the article), and you did not bring me ‘back on topic’ by grossly and intentionally misrepresenting my words.
Maybe I am a little sensitive to this type of shit, since I was bullied and gaslighted as a ‘queer’ for many years as a kid, maybe not, but you pulled an asshole move by intellectually shoving yourself down my throat.
2 Likes
Even the part beginning “I would hate…”?
Whether or not it’s fair that all people remember is the mistakes, it is all they remember. Especially when the mistakes are not really mistakes but poor decisions, and sticking by those poor decisions is called being on the wrong side of history. If you’re on the wrong side of history, people will remember that.
Being on the wrong side of history isn’t the end of the world, even if one is repeatedly on the wrong side of history. However, one shouldn’t just let it slide, they have to prove that they will change and that they have changed. Hillary Clinton has offered no such proof of contrition, and hasn’t even attempted to reach out to progressives. Instead, we get told that she won’t roll back our rights and we should vote for her because otherwise the fascist wins. For one, that’s negative reinforcement, for another, it’s not even true, and for yet another, it’s the complete antithesis of the contrition we deserve.
I am not a Democrat, I have never been a registered Democrat, and I even voted against Barack Obama from Ohio, so why in the hell should I start voting Democratic now, for a candidate who is not trying to earn my vote and is instead pushing me away?
This is the first election in over 20 years that I am tempted to sit out, but only the Presidential race. The state and local issues are too important for me to sit out.
So, in short, someone should not be judged entirely on a couple mistakes they made in the past. That’s ridiculous. They should not even necessarily be judged harshly for being on the wrong side of history at times, especially if they have shown that they’re a changed person. On the other hand, if they are repeatedly on the wrong side of history, and just shrug and say deal with it, damn straight I’m not going to vote for that person.
Dan Savage is fond of pointing out, when relevant, that the Republican party wants to shrink the size of government until it will fit inside one’s vagina.
4 Likes
Wow, that’s some resumé! I wasn’t aware that Anna Wintour had ever been in the military, nor that she had a medical degree.
4 Likes
Is she “hot” because she’s wearing almost nothing except stiletto heels? You can’t see her face very well.
Isn’t the photo really about Trump’s possessions, not human beings? And the symbolism of birth within that context? (notice the birth canal with the babe in it)
Ray Mabus spent two years in the navy from 1970-1972. He is barely more qualified than Ms. Wintour. I think the days of appointing qualified and experienced persons to important jobs are a thing of the past.
I bet she would solve the uniform issues they have been having. Our service members would look good.
There’s a huge difference between serving two years and not serving at all.
2 Likes
Not necessarily a good thing.
2 Likes
Well, I can’t disagree that she has or had an obligation to win over the Sanders wing of the party - I repeated this quite often in various threads on this BBS during and immediately after the primaries - and I think the fact that we’re still having these discussions makes it clear she hasn’t done this as well as she might have (and that maybe she has been too enthusiastic about support from slime like Kissinger, though to the extent that that is troubling the continued hostility to her from the GOP leadership provides a nice counterbalance). However, I also believe she has an impressive track record on some genuinely progressive issues, and while in any given voter’s mind her work in one area might not compensate for concerns in another, I would hope that any decision is based on balancing her various actions rather than by simply throwing out one set of them.
It is really hard to find politicians who (a) agree with you on most issues, and (b) don’t have other serious flaws. Nowadays the issues that drive some of us - not only being socially and economically progressive, but also anti-war (not really a core progressive value until the 60s) and small-L libertarian - are nearly impossible to find in one candidate, and even when you think you have then the pressures on the presidency can force later critical reversals (cf Obama on Gitmo). Vogue has apparently decided that for them the most important issues for them are women’s rights issues, and I think it is hard to argue Clinton’s record there, though I agree that for some there are other more pressing issues.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
