General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSince 1789, every U.S. President has belonged to the same privileged fraternity.
The male gender.
Maybe that's part of the reason some women really don't appreciate coming to a progressive political website and finding T & A photos reminding them of their "place."
CFLDem
(2,083 posts)And it's also a ginormous strawman. The gender of the presidency has zero to do with T&A offensiveness and all to do with that individual's own insecurities.
The world is not their psychologist and has no obligation to be one.
pnwmom
(109,021 posts)What an odd thing to say.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)what does that even MEAN?
Squinch
(51,075 posts)Response to CFLDem (Reply #1)
Orrex This message was self-deleted by its author.
2banon
(7,321 posts)you said: (emphasis mine)
Are you actually arguing that the person who is offended is actually the person suffering from "insecurity"?
(please say it ain't so)
And who appointed you?
CFLDem
(2,083 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)It made no sense.
CFLDem
(2,083 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Never say did I stutter.
Always say, I never stutter. Works like a charm, nothing they can say to that!
Love, ya!
Captain Stern
(2,201 posts).....instead it's yet some more gender wars bullshit. Thanks a lot.
pnwmom
(109,021 posts)Captain Stern
(2,201 posts)1000words
(7,051 posts)Trash thread
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Until women have a President....WE still don't feel like full fledged card carrying members of this country....as the second group of people that WERE denied franchise in this country....YOU would think more males on DU would be sympathetic to that feeling...
Matariki
(18,775 posts)and no one bats an eye about it.
2banon
(7,321 posts)Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)So does that mean the causes of African-American suffering is now gone because we have a black president (hint: it's not)?
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)The fact that there hasn't been a female president is the RESULT of sexism in this country, not the cause.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)The last woman who ran for president didn't get the support of many because of her politics, not because of her gender.
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)I'm saying that it took a very long time for women to even get the right to vote in this country, and that there must be SOME element in American society that has kept otherwise qualified women from ascending to the highest office in the land, not to mention positions of leadership in corporations and so on. Yes, there are some female CEOs, but those positions disproportionately go to men.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)do you tell Black people what IS or isn't racism too?
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)She ran for president.
That argument is horrible.
Why didn't you vote for Sarah Palin for VP?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)thinking? Are there Black people that deny racism too? Absolutely!
Since we have a President Obama....does that mean that all racism ceases to exist?
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)You're a tired old record player and obviously have no interest in discussing anything.
Ignored.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)pnwmom
(109,021 posts)Common Sense Party
(14,139 posts)would you support her?
pnwmom
(109,021 posts)I can't think of a Democratic politician I've ever heard who was/is as blatantly stupid as Sarah Palin.
Common Sense Party
(14,139 posts)Surely we are free to use those standards to judge whom we will or will not support for elected office.
pnwmom
(109,021 posts)woman who could have been President or Vice President.
AZCat
(8,339 posts)but as I read your post I was thinking about Vice Presidential candidates in the general election. I can think of two who were women - Sarah Palin and Geraldine Ferraro. I can't think of any black (or non-white) Vice Presidential candidates, yet we elected a black (male) President before a woman President. Kind of weird.
pnwmom
(109,021 posts)I remember when Ferraro ran and there was serious discussion about whether women's menstrual periods made them unfit for high office. Too emotional, you know.
AZCat
(8,339 posts)I was young enough in 1984 that I missed a lot of the political discussion regarding the election and Ferraro. I guess I didn't realize enough people in the 1980's still had bizarre beliefs about women like that to make it a serious discussion. I know there are still nutjobs out there now who have those beliefs - I work with a few - but I hope their numbers have dwindled significantly, otherwise it's going to be a wild ride through 2016 (and maybe beyond).
pnwmom
(109,021 posts)of either major party because of sexism.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)there was a segment of Democrats that did not vote for/support HRC in 2008 BECAUSE she is female.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Can't swing a cat without hitting one...
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)Squinch
(51,075 posts)pnwmom
(109,021 posts)T & A photos even in progressive websites, has helped to ensure that we've only had male Presidents and Vice Presidents.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)Good gods.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Oprah said when Barack Obama was elected....she felt like she could finally put down her suitcase and feel at home...
But of course a White Male could NEVER understand that feeling because he has NEVER been disenfranchised in this country
I see London I see France....I see someone's underpants..
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)And I certainly don't need a Sarah Palin in office to make me feel "full-fledged." Or a hawk like Hillary Clinton, for that matter.
RC
(25,592 posts)That should be "Until we have a woman President..."
Remember, not only are Women people, but so are men. Some people around here are in denial about that last part lately. WE are ALL people, deserving of Equal Rights. It would make more sense to be railing against the 1 and 2% and our bought-off politicians of BOTH genders and political parties, as the cause of inequality, not men in general. And especially not the men of DU.
But whatever, nothing will change when we do have a woman President. They will be from the same pool of bought and paid for politicians, regardless of gender.
As mentioned below, having a Black President hasn't helped the poverty level of any minorities, now has it?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Straw man!
Don't dare tell me that there isn't sexual intimidation going on....
Demanding that men be allowed to objectify women in a political forum (when I just discovered there are three thread in a Mens group devoted to nothing else)In the main freaking forum.....
THAT is the epitome of intimidation!
Until today I thought it was just misguided men who just don't believe women are harrassed that much....but NOW.....after today's discovery....there is not a doubt in my mind just WHAT is going on here...
RC
(25,592 posts)Why of course you do. That is how you try to win arguments and derail the subject. Keep throwing things till something sticks then attack with that.
Oooh, "epitome of intimidation!" Impressive!
There is sexual intimidation going on here on DU, alright, and you are part of the problem. Your posts are in themselves evidence.
Those Mens groups are Safe Havens, I assume? Then so what? They don't normally show up on the Home Page. It is another group, one that you support, that is trying to treat General Discussion as their own Safe Haven. And it is not the Mens Group.
I do not go into the Mens groups, so I am not familiar with what goes on there. I don't normally go into the HoF either. But nobody has to. They come to the rest of us by constantly appearing on the Home Page with stuff that would be better left in the Safe Haven of HoF.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)but objectifying women.....that's not dehumanizing AT ALL!!!
that makes perfect sense...
rustydog
(9,186 posts)Blacks have "their" president and this country is still racist as hell. Shit, there are Black Republicans decrying the racism in the Republican party.
simply having a woman as president will not change the gender wars.
Holy shit, Hillary ran and what did the GOP do? They got a Woman to run as a VP. It didn't matter she was an idiot and ignorant, the GOP believed that any female would draw votes from Hillary even if their candidate was brain-dead vacuous as hell and incompetent.
What did they do when Obama ran? Appointed a black man as head of the GOP. When that failed, they put in Reince, the white guy!
This country is far from being over its racist, misogynistic history. Hillary won't change that one bit. That doesn't men women shouldn't run and win offices across the country. Just don't think that will change decades of bigotry and hatred in a term, or decade, or generation.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)disenfranchised....Black people should understand that feeling.Its about feeling like a REAL citizen.
undeterred
(34,658 posts)pnwmom
(109,021 posts)cyberswede
(26,117 posts)Popular legend has it that most American Presidents rose from humble backgrounds.
In ''The Log Cabin Myth,'' Edward Pessen, the author of ''Riches, Class, and Power Before the Civil War'' and other books, argues that the truth is just the opposite. Although Abraham Lincoln was born in a log cabin, his father owned two 600-acre farms and was among ''the richest fifteen percent of taxpaying property owners in his community.'' According to his biographer Doris Kearns, Lyndon Johnson liked to pose as ''a Horatio Alger figure who rose from rags to riches,'' despite his relatively comfortable youth. Ronald Reagan has said his family was ''poor,'' but Mr. Pesser writes that his childhood was ''marked by good times, attractive housing, and solid middle-class comforts.'' Except for Millard Fillmore, Andrew Johnson and Richard Nixon, Presidents have been better off and of ''higher status'' than the majority of the American people, according to Mr. Pessen. He says only seven of our 39 Presidents have come from the lower middle class or below, even though roughly 87 percent of the population today belongs to those classes. Why, then, have Americans clung so tenaciously to a log cabin myth? Because, Mr. Pessen says, it strengthens our self-image as an egalitarian people. ''For most of American history,'' he concludes, ''children born to the rural and urban working classes were simply unable to secure the higher education and the subsequent professional training that were necessary to pave the way to high political office.'' But other than that, Mr. Pessen does not offer much in the way of cogent or detailed analysis of what all the biographical facts he has so diligently gathered say about our political system.
http://www.nytimes.com/1985/02/03/books/in-short-nonfiction-014458.html
...and he was still a male.
pnwmom
(109,021 posts)davidn3600
(6,342 posts)pnwmom
(109,021 posts)It was it's posting on a progressive political site that both women and men come to.
I don't have a problem with people buying the Swimsuit Issue or viewing it on entertainment oriented sites.
And it will take the election of more than one female President before I wouldn't regard a T & A photo as inappropriate on a political website that purports to treat men and women as equals.
In fact, if she is elected, I expect there to be a backlash and a resurgence of sexism, just as there was a backlash and a resurgence of racism after President Obama's election.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Its like talking to a gun-humper!
Any sort of regulation at all means someone wants to "take away precious"!
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)And if busty bikini model and a couple of 20-somethings in thongs really make women question their "place," we have much bigger problems.
Those threads were posted to provoke. And provoke they did. The "usual suspects" took the bait, and one high-profile poster managed to find herself on "vacation" yet again. Well done.
The T&A threads should have been moved to the Lounge, rather than allowed to dominate GD.
pnwmom
(109,021 posts)SMC22307
(8,090 posts)and DU is OBSESSED with SI and boobs-in-space. It's ridiculous.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)SMC22307
(8,090 posts)Some putz posting T&A on a message board has absolutely no impact on how I feel about "my place" as a woman on DU, or out in the real world. Why do you, and so many others, let it get to you? Why let them have any influence on you at all? Especially when you KNOW they did it to, um, get a rise out of DU's "feminists"?
My biggest gripe is that the OPs, along with their numerous spawns, were allowed to dominate GD for so long, to the point that hide/trash/"X" was becoming an exercise in futility. Perhaps the Thong Trio and Miss Space Boobs should have been relegated to the Lounge or Sports group.
And here we are... still talking about it.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Last I checked, we rank 85th in the world for proportion of females in national legislature.
Consider that for a moment.
pnwmom
(109,021 posts)Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)The scariest part is that they aren't.
Fuck the double bind.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)that just don't "get it"
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)I made great strides today in learning about objectification because a couple of posters engaged me like a human being and didn't talk to me in a snarky, condescending, accusatory, or judgmental way.
Here's the subthread if you're interested: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4549705
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)And there are those of us who have explained it, over and over again, often to the same people, who inevitably "forget," that it's hard to keep the smiley face on when laying it out.
Seriously, this is stuff you could get from a basic work on socioloty. Or even just googling "objectification." It's extremely frustrating to have to lead people through liberal kindergarten, often to end up - as you are doing now - being told "I won't listen unless you're super-duper nice to me!"
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)If people don't treat me with respect, I won't listen to them. No, I refuse to listen to them and I get pissed.
Treat me like an adult and I'll do the same.
Simple concept.
You've already lost me.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)by denying their plight.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)maybe because you think women should STFU about their problems you deserve no better than snark and condescension....
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)And making baseless accusations, btw.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)SMC22307
(8,090 posts)Are they bona fide liberals? Many come across like bored Caver Dwellers stirring the pot. It's an open site -- anyone can join with no money down. Why are you falling for it? Or is it just a convenient, and tiresome, way to take yet another swipe at nasty ol' libruls?
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)In places like Sweden, which prides itself on being progressive on gender issues, women make up 45% of the legislature. And the prevalence of rape in Sweden is actually higher than in the United States. The statistics that I have show 1 out of 5 women in the US will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime. In Sweden that number is 1 out of 4 and it's rising at a pretty alarming rate.
The point is that there doesn't seem to be a correlation between women in leadership and how women are treated by the society.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Which is actually an indicator of progressive gender equality politics and laws (Sweden being considered the most gender equal country on Earth).
So your gigantic, and it is truly massive, leap of logic between your initial statement on rape in Sweden and dismissing the importance of female representation in national legislature is extremely ill advised.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)First off, im responding in regards to the claim that if more women were in leadership, or encourgaged to seek leadership positions in government, that it would change how women are viewed in the society. And my point was that even in societies with high female participation in leadership, there exists many of the same problems. No matter what stats you want to look at, rape in Sweden is high. There is a lot of pornography in Sweden. There is a lot of prostitution in Sweden. I'm in no way suggesting women shouldnt be in leadership. I am saying that the correlation that is attempting to be made is not there. You are mixing a political issue with a social issue.
Plus, rape is a crime of violence and power, not sex. Rape tends to mirror other violent crime statistics as far as trends go. So its not necessarily related to how people view women in the media. That is an entirely different problem. There is no proven correlation between rape and racy SI magazine covers.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Or even that Sweden is some sort of feminist utopia because of higher female representation in national legislature.
And when you give up on that I'll then engage you in a discussion on how your dismissal of rape culture is complete and total nonsense.
XRubicon
(2,213 posts)Downwinder
(12,869 posts)Coyotl
(15,262 posts)You can easily find famous people are related too, if you go back enough generations.
Hekate
(90,978 posts)This crap has been nothing less than bizarre. Let it all drain into The Lounge if (some) think the associated topics are worth something.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)Oh good grief.
Well, we will all feel so much better when Margaret Thatcher-lite gets elected in three years, won't we.
Excuse my privilege, but I will take a male Democrat over a female Republican any day of the week.
And I will also take a male progressive over a female DLCer any day of the week.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)rrneck
(17,671 posts)From your link:
Source: In The Arena, by Richard Nixon, p. 54 Nov 30, 1978
Thatcher's economic policy was influenced by monetarist thinking and economists such as Milton Friedman and Alan Walters.[84] Together with Chancellor of the Exchequer Geoffrey Howe, she lowered direct taxes on income and increased indirect taxes.[85] She increased interest rates to slow the growth of the money supply and thereby lower inflation,[84] introduced cash limits on public spending, and reduced expenditure on social services such as education and housing.[85] Her cuts in higher education spending resulted in her being the first Oxford-educated post-war Prime Minister not to be awarded an honorary doctorate by the University of Oxford, after a 738 to 319 vote of the governing assembly and a student petition.[86] Her new centrally funded City Technology Colleges did not enjoy much success, and the Funding Agency for Schools was set up to control expenditure by opening and closing schools; the Social Market Foundation, a centre-left think tank, described it as having "an extraordinary range of dictatorial powers".[87]
You seem to be saying that Hillary Clinton's and Margret Thatcher's political positions are the same. Do you think that's so?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I was responding to him saying someone to the Right of Old Maggie!
rrneck
(17,671 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)there isn't one for Margaret Thatcher...
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)who thinks that Hillary is way to the left on economic issues.
So I think their ruler is kinda faulty.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)If you actually looked at the graph and then at HOW they came up with the figures....you will see where she is economically....
Click here for 30 full quotes on Budget & Economy OR other candidates on Budget & Economy OR background on Budget & Economy.
Government action to tackle recession, not tax cuts. (Feb 2008)
The economy is not working for middle class families. (Jan 2008)
We need immediate relief for home heating & housing crisis. (Jan 2008)
No evidence as to how Obama would pay for new programs. (Jan 2008)
Foreclosure moratorium mitigates agony; doesnt prolong it. (Jan 2008)
90-day moratorium on foreclosures; freeze interest rates. (Jan 2008)
Call for a moratorium on housing foreclosures for 90 days. (Jan 2008)
Freeze mortgage interest rates for five years. (Jan 2008)
Look back to 1990s to see how Id be fiscally responsible. (Dec 2007)
Help people facing foreclosure; dont just bail-out banks. (Aug 2007)
Balanced budget replaced with rising costs & falling wages. (Jun 2007)
2000: Eight years of a great economy is not enough. (Jan 2007)
Last six years were challenging; lets try a new direction. (Oct 2006)
Co-sponsored bills totaling $502B in spending thru 2005. (Oct 2006)
Use tax dollars to upgrade infrastructure, not for stadium. (Oct 2000)
Pay down debt & cut taxes within balanced budget. (Sep 2000)
Stimulate upstate economy by more local decision-making. (Sep 2000)
Supports Niagara casino, but prefers job creation strategy. (Sep 2000)
Protect next generation by paying off national debt. (Aug 2000)
We have outlived the usefulness of Bretton Woods. (Jun 1999)
The economy creates consumers but cannot create citizens. (Jun 1999)
Invest in people instead of smokestack chasing. (Feb 1997)
Voting Record
Voted to limit credit card interest to 30%. (Jan 2008)
FactCheck: Consistently against making bankruptcy stricter. (Jan 2008)
2005 bankruptcy bill was by big credit cards & lenders. (Jan 2008)
Voted YES on $60B stimulus package for jobs, infrastructure, & energy. (Sep 2008)
Voted NO on paying down federal debt by rating programs' effectiveness. (Mar 2007)
Voted NO on $40B in reduced federal overall spending. (Dec 2005)
Require full disclosure about subprime mortgages. (Dec 2007)
they have quantified their opinion.....you are just repeating a lie you have been told...
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)so what link was I supposed to check.
As for a lie, I have been told, I have done my own analysis since I have an education in economics.
for example
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/62
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/65
although Obama, seemed to echo some of what I said there
http://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2618869
tritsofme
(17,422 posts)What will there be left to talk about then?
#Hillary45
pnwmom
(109,021 posts)I expect a backlash against HRC, too.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)ForgoTheConsequence
(4,869 posts)And the death penalty, fracking, keystone xl, drones, etc.....
Don't let those pesky facts get in the way though! More PUMA bullshit already and it's not even election season.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)ForgoTheConsequence
(4,869 posts)It means shit to the dead Iraqis and soldiers. Fact is she listened to and trusted Bush while hundreds of thousands of men and woman took to the streets to say how wrong the war in Iraq was. Her judgement is poor and cannot be trusted.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)ForgoTheConsequence
(4,869 posts)I hoped for a better comeback (or even a defense of Hillary's support for the war) but I guess even you could not stomach defending that vote.
It's all well and good though, fuck all those dead brown people on the other side of the world, it's all about your team winning the political football game, right?
The countless dead Iraqis are just inconveniences getting in the way of what this country owes the Clinton dynasty.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)You don't have to agree....
http://hillary.ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm
There is no safe haven for the terrorists: Favors topic 15
Our troops are stretched; so increase size of military: Favors topic 15
Rated 100% by SANE, indicating a pro-peace voting record: Strongly Opposes topic 15
Extend reserve retirement pay parity back to 9/11: Favors topic 15
Improve mental health care benefits for returning veterans: Favors topic 15
YES on requiring on-budget funding for Iraq, not emergency funding: Opposes topic 15
YES on limiting soldiers' deployment to 12 months: Opposes topic 15
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,869 posts)She voted for the Iraq war "with conviction". She trusted Bush over the anti war left. I don't give a shit about a few quotes from ontheissues I give a shit about the dead children, dead men and dead women (I thought you cared about women?). She sold us out once, she'll do it again.
If your conscience allows you to vote for her, fine. If Hillary being the first female president is a victory for you, fine. It's not a victory for me. I'm done voting for privileged elites who vote for death and destruction and aren't held accountable because they have the right letter after their name.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)ForgoTheConsequence
(4,869 posts)Hundreds of thousands of us were in the streets. Where were you? Supporting the war?
Don't tell me that "no one knew" that's bullshit. Hillary didn't know, that's for god damn sure. Russ Feingold knew, Ron Wyden knew, BARACK OBAMA knew!
Quit making excuses for neo-con war machine politics.
"No one knew"
"Even at the time, it was possible to make judgments that this would not work out well," - Barack Obama.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/02/12/us-usa-politics-obama-idUSN0923153320070212
Was Obama lying?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)the information that was necessary....IN FACT we now know they were given FALSE and incomplete information....
So you can put that where the sun doesn't shine....
http://www.publicintegrity.org/2008/01/23/5641/false-pretenses
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,869 posts)Plenty knew. I just gave you a few. Your candidate fell for Bush's lies instead of listening to the anti war left.
Hundreds of thousands are dead because of it.
Own it.
"No one knew"
Bullshit. Bush was a fucking idiot and didn't fool us. He either fooled Hillary or she wanted the war, either way doesn't reflect well on her.
"no one knew"
What a load of shit.
Cities jammed in worldwide protest of war in Iraq
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/15/sprj.irq.protests.main/
375,000 in New York.
700,000 in London.
500,000 in Germany.
No one knew huh? How did Barack Obama know?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)that was a disinformation campaign and YOU know it.....sorry not buying your malarkey.
Besides...what they agreed to was invasion of Afghanistan....Bush deferred it to Iraq.
Also:
http://mediamatters.org/research/2005/11/08/conservatives-falsely-claimed-white-house-and-c/134180
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,869 posts)And voted for the war "with conviction". Whether she herself could have stopped it is irrelevant. She put her seal on it and gave it her full support. That reflects on her judgement. If she would have been brave like Russ Feingold we wouldn't be having this conversation and I would be totally behind her.
One person alone voting for the anti gay bill in Arizona didn't get it passed, that doesn't mean that whoever voted for it shouldn't be held responsible. Can't make excuses just because one vote wouldn't change things.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)sorry but even Media Matters says your wrong...
http://mediamatters.org/research/2005/11/08/conservatives-falsely-claimed-white-house-and-c/134180
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,869 posts)How did Ron Wyden know? Lucky guess? How did Russ Feingold know? Lucky guess? How did Obama know? Lucky guess?
"The consensus was the same, from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration," "It was the same intelligence belief that our allies and friends around the world shared. - Hillary Clinton.
Busted!
Hillary Clinton: No regret on Iraq vote
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/21/iraq.hillary/
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)What part of INTENTIONALLY Misinformed do you not understand....
Former Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-NE), who served as vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, also made this point during an appearance on the October 8, 2004, edition of CNN's American Morning:
KERREY: The president has much more access to intelligence than members of Congress does [sic]. Ask any member of Congress. Ask a Republican member of Congress, do you get the same access to intelligence that the president does? Look at these aluminum tube stories that came out the president delivered to the Congress -- "We believe these would be used for centrifuges." -- didn't deliver to Congress the full range of objections from the Department of Energy experts, nuclear weapons experts, that said it's unlikely they were for centrifuges, more likely that they were for rockets, which was a pre-existing use. The president has much more access to intelligence than any member of Congress.
http://mediamatters.org/research/2005/11/08/conservatives-falsely-claimed-white-house-and-c/134180
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,869 posts)As I have already proven, lots of people DID NOT fall for it, she did. She exercised poor judgement, own it!
And she admitted that she used intelligence gathered when her husband was in office also, so your point is bullshit either way.
Again, nice try. You cant win this argument, she was either tricked or willingly voted for a bullshit war.
If your defense is that she was "misled", fine. I don't want a president who can be misled by someone as dumb as George Bush. Maybe you have lower standards.
I was opposed to Iraq from the start, Obama said, and I say that not just to look backwards, but also to look forwards, because I think what the next president has to show is the kind of judgment that will ensure that we are using our military power wisely. - Obama.
I agree with candidate Obama.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)She does politics for a living and couldn't tell bush was lying about Iraq and nearly everything else under the sun?
That wasn't leadership, that was jumping on the terror train and blowing with the wind.
Same goes for any other dem candidate (but since she was the one being discussed I mentioned her, not because I hate women and don't want them office).
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)you FAIL to remember that point too...
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)We elect leaders to lead. Not go by what is popular (lots didn't want gays in the military and opposed gay marriage - should she go with the flow on that and other issues?)
Lots of folks were against the war. They were also against the Homeland Security Act, which she also voted for.
She voted well on many issues - but going to war is a huge issue and you don't just trust someone like the bush's when they tell you it is needed. Most liberals seemed rather skeptical about it all.
"This morning on Meet the Press, Hillary Clinton defended her 2002 vote for the Iraq war resolution, saying that she "thought it was a vote to put inspectors back in" so Saddam Hussein could not go unchecked. She insisted that she and others were "told by the White House personally" that this was the purpose of the resolution, and cited President Bush's assurances to defend her position. "
Seriously? Would YOU have believed that?
Marr
(20,317 posts)I remember when that "no one knew" line was just for right-wing loons.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)Go away with that old, worn out, apologist bullshit that was transparently bullshit even when it was new.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Or the many other sources:
In his speech today, President Bush claimed that members of Congress who voted for the 2002 Iraq war resolution had access to the same intelligence as his administration. This is patently false.
Nevermind that much of the intelligence offered to the public and to Congress was inaccurate and misleading, or that according to the Downing Street memo and other documents, such intelligence was likely intentionally fixed. It is simply not true to state that Congress received the same intelligence as the White House:
FACT Dissent From White House Claims on Iraq Nuclear Program Consistently Withheld from Congress:
[S]everal Congressional and intelligence officials with access to the 15 assessments [of intel suggesting aluminum tubes showed Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program] said not one of them informed senior policy makers of the Energy Departments dissent. They described a series of reports, some with ominous titles, that failed to convey either the existence or the substance of the intensifying debate. [NYT, 10/3/04]
FACT Sen. Kerrey: Bush Has Much More Access to Intel Than Congress:
Former Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-NE), ex-Senate Intelligence Committee vice chairman: The president has much more access to intelligence than members of Congress does. Ask any member of Congress. Ask a Republican member of Congress, do you get the same access to intelligence that the president does? Look at these aluminum tube stories that came out the president delivered to the Congress We believe these would be used for centrifuges. didnt deliver to Congress the full range of objections from the Department of Energy experts, nuclear weapons experts, that said its unlikely they were for centrifuges, more likely that they were for rockets, which was a pre-existing use. The president has much more access to intelligence than any member of Congress. [10/7/04]
FACT Rockefeller: PDBs, CIA Intel Withheld From Senate:
Ranking minority member on the Senate Intelligence Committee Jay Rockefeller (D-WV): [P]eople say, Well, you know, you all had the same intelligence that the White House had. And Im here to tell you that is nowhere near the truth. We not only dont have, nor probably should we have, the Presidential Daily Brief. We dont have the constant people who are working on intelligence who are very close to him. They dont release their an administration which tends not to release not just the White House, but the CIA, DOD [Department of Defense], others they control information. Theres a lot of intelligence that we dont get that they have. [11/04/05]
FACT War Supporter Ken Pollack: White House Engaged in Creative Omission of Iraq Intel:
In the eyes of Kenneth Pollack, a Clinton-era National Security Council member and strong supporter of regime change in Iraq, the Administration consistently engaged in creative omission, overstating the imminence of the Iraqi threat, even though it had evidence to the contrary. The President is responsible for serving the entire nation, Pollack writes. Only the Administration has access to all the information available to various agencies of the US government and withholding or downplaying some of that information for its own purposes is a betrayal of that responsibility. [Christian Science Monitor, 1/14/04]
FACT White House Had Exclusive Access to Unique Intel Sources:
The claim that the White House and Congress saw the same intelligence on Iraq is further undermined by the Bush administrations use of outside intelligence channels. For more than year prior to the war, the administration received intelligence assessments and analysis on Iraq directly from the Department of Defenses Office of Special Plans (OSP), run by then-undersecretary of defense for policy Douglas J. Feith, and the Iraqi National Congress (INC), a group of Iraqi exiles led by Ahmed Chalabi. [MediaMatters, 11/8/05]
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2005/11/11/2517/iraq-intel/#
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)https://www.google.com/search?q=global+protests+against+iraq+war+2003&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=gBMKU8GBGaj8yAGk34HoDg&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1366&bih=673
Millions knew we were being lied to. Why didn't you?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)most Americans were itching to go to war over 9/11.....I remember too...
Moderator Tim Russert pointed out that the title of the resolution was the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002." Clinton responded saying, "We can have this Jesuitical argument about what exactly was meant. But when Chuck Hagel, who helped to draft the resolution said, 'It was not a vote for war,' What I was told directly by the White House in response to my question, 'If you are given this authority, will you put the inspectors in and permit them to finish their job,' I was told that's exactly what we intended to do. "
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/13/hillary-clinton-defends-2_n_81261.html
Also see this...
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/21/iraq.hillary/
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)knowing full well we were being lied to, and that using Iraq for revenge of 9/11 was unconscionably wrong. Death, destruction, and trillions of dollars wasted ... too bad no one listened to us.
Hillary is a hawk, and all the blue links in the world won't change that fact.
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,869 posts)She still can't answer how Obama knew and Hillary didn't.
Iggo
(47,586 posts)That's Bush's bullshit excuse.
Now it's Clinton's, too?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Iggo
(47,586 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I guess for your brain I should have said almost no one....because the George Bush Administration sure as hell knew more about it than Congress did...
Iggo
(47,586 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)ForgoTheConsequence
(4,869 posts)You should have known that by "no one" she actually meant.......well I don't know what she meant, and she doesn't either. But apparently "no one" doesn't mean "no one".
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,869 posts)How else is that suppose to be interrupted? Hahahaha. Christ.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)in fact that is not EXACTLY what I said...
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,869 posts)51. No one knew WTF was going on then and you know it....
51. No one knew WTF was going on then and you know it....
51. No one knew WTF was going on then and you know it....
51. No one knew WTF was going on then and you know it....
51. No one knew WTF was going on then and you know it....
51. No one knew WTF was going on then and you know it....
51. No one knew WTF was going on then and you know it....
51. No one knew WTF was going on then and you know it....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4549899
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I was speaking of Congress and you know that.
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,869 posts)Got it.
Hahahaha.
2banon
(7,321 posts)I'm beginning to think this is all about setting the stage for "feminists" to be sure to back HRC for President in our struggle for gender equality with not a thought to actual policy consequences that have destroyed the lives of women and their families in other countries. All in the name in the "war on terror".
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Click here for 59 full quotes on Families & Children OR other candidates on Families & Children OR background on Families & Children.
Grew AR Children's Hospital to one of nation's 10 largest. (Sep 2007)
Struggling families are invisible to Bush administration. (Aug 2007)
1980s: her church founded largest daycare in Arkansas. (Jul 2007)
Family planning & child spacing is international human right. (Jul 2007)
Mothers difficult childhood sparked concern for kids. (Dec 2006)
OpEd: "It Takes A Village" really means big government. (Apr 2006)
Teen abstinence is the right thing to do. (Oct 2005)
"It Takes a Village" implies family as part of society. (Nov 2003)
Even welfare children are better off with their parents. (Nov 2003)
Caution in treating preschoolers with psychiatric drugs. (Mar 2000)
Parents dedication improves kids lives. (Jan 2000)
Boycott violent media and products. (Aug 1999)
Send message: It is the job of children to learn. (Jul 1999)
Help sandwiched parents care for elderly plus kids. (Jan 1999)
More funds for after-school programs. (Nov 1998)
Keep kids busy from 2PM to 8 PM to avoid trouble. (Nov 1998)
Spend more time with kids to prevent violence. (Apr 1998)
Teens not ready for sex; provide havens for alternatives. (Sep 1996)
Change what kids see in the media. (Jun 1995)
Men should be full participants in child-raising. (May 1994)
Improving women's lives improves children's lives. (Sep 1993)
1973: Legal parallels between marriage and slavery. (Aug 1993)
No tea and cookies for her, but no insult intended. (Jul 1992)
Child Law
Support new parents to promote healthy child development. (Sep 2007)
For teens, not about birth control, but about self-control. (Jul 2007)
1970s: I want to be a voice for Americas children. (Jun 2007)
Supported foster care adoptions as First Lady & as Senator. (Dec 2006)
I've spent 30 years worrying about impact of media on kids. (Oct 2005)
Critics misinterpret 70s article on "Children Under the Law". (Feb 2004)
1974 article: put abused children into state care. (Nov 2003)
Leave politics out of Elian decision. (Apr 2000)
Governments cant love child; but it can help families. (Apr 2000)
Decide Elians fate via ongoing INS legal process. (Apr 2000)
Treat kids as child citizens not minors under the law. (Dec 1999)
No dividing line between government vs. parents & children. (Dec 1999)
Early-warning hotlines for homicidal & suicidal students. (Jul 1999)
Expand Family and Medical Leave Act. (Aug 1998)
Raised issues of maternity leave at 1980s Rose Law. (Nov 1997)
Family Leave Act is a good start; paid leave better. (Sep 1996)
Against social service agency interference in families. (Aug 1993)
1970s: Learned child law theory at CDF and at Yale. (Aug 1993)
1973: Researched "Beyond the Best Interest of the Child". (Aug 1993)
1973: Create legal scale of graduated maturity for children. (Aug 1993)
1979: Child's future shouldn't be unilaterally by parents. (Aug 1993)
It Takes a Village
A family is a childs first school. (Oct 2007)
Hillarys village criticized as Big Government. (May 2007)
Chelsea benefited from village & from two parents. (Dec 2006)
It takes a village to raise a child, in interdependent world. (Dec 2006)
It Takes a Village and a president who believes. (Sep 2005)
Leave no child behind; it still takes a village. (Aug 2000)
Community support is key to valuing families. (Dec 1999)
Society is responsible for alienation that causes violence. (Jun 1999)
It Takes a Village is about relationships, not geography. (Oct 1996)
Children are not rugged individualists. (Sep 1996)
Give parents tools to balance work and family. (Aug 2000)
Rated 0% by the Christian Coalition: an anti-Family-Value voting record. (Dec 2003)
Ban high lead levels in children's toys. (Nov 2005)
Sponsored bill against renting violent video games to kids. (Dec 2005)
Call for a White House Conference on Children and Youth. (Mar 2008)
and Civil Rights?
Hillary Clinton on Civil Rights
Click here for 57 full quotes on Civil Rights OR 3 older headlines OR other candidates on Civil Rights OR background on Civil Rights.
1998: Hillary predicted female President in near future. (Oct 2007)
1962: met MLK Jr. preaching a sermon in Chicago. (Jul 2007)
Weve come a long way on race, but we have a long way to go. (Jun 2007)
1995: Politely criticized Chinas human rights. (Jun 2007)
Developmental thread: tragedy of race must be made right. (Jun 2007)
Pushing for privacy bill of rights. (Jun 2006)
1972: Worked with Edelman on school desegregation in South. (Nov 2003)
Professional woman AND hostess; feminist AND traditionalist. (Nov 2003)
Apologize for slavery, but concentrate on civil rights now. (Oct 2000)
Crack down on sex trafficking of women and girls. (Jan 2000)
Human rights are womens rights. (Jan 2000)
Womens rights are human rights. (Dec 1999)
Support National Endowment for the Arts. (Feb 1997)
Sex selection, prostitution & war rape: human rights issues. (Sep 1995)
Women's suffrage was 72-year struggle, but not a shot fired. (Sep 1993)
Affirmative Action
OpEd: "18 million cracks" meant "lingering sexism". (Aug 2009)
Heads movement of women looking to America's true promise. (Aug 2009)
Equal pay is not yet equal. (Jan 2008)
MLK recognized that working within the system was necessary. (Jan 2008)
Compiled Handbook on Legal Rights for Arkansas Women. (Nov 2007)
Hillary wanted Bills cabinet to Look Like America. (Oct 2007)
Founded Vital Voices Initiative with Madeleine Albright. (Sep 2007)
1965: brought black classmates to all-white church. (Jul 2007)
1988: Instituted gender diversity Report Card within ABA. (Jun 2007)
Create a pipeline for more women in leadership. (Oct 2005)
Argued with Bill Clinton about diluting affirmative action. (Oct 2005)
First chair of ABA Commission on Women and the Profession. (Aug 1999)
Raised issues of gender compensation gap at 1970s Rose Law. (Nov 1997)
Affirmative living: involve entire village against racism. (Sep 1996)
Gay Rights
DOMA discrimination holds us back from a more perfect union. (Jun 2013)
I support gay marriage personally and as law. (Mar 2013)
Telling kids about gay couples is parental discretion. (Sep 2007)
Positive about civil unions, with full equality of benefits. (Aug 2007)
Let states decide gay marriage; theyre ahead of feds. (Aug 2007)
GLBT progress since 2000, when I marched in gay pride parade. (Aug 2007)
Supports DOMA, which Bill Clinton signed. (Jul 2007)
Dont ask dont tell was an important transition step. (Jun 2007)
2004:defended traditional marriage; 2006:voted for same-sex. (May 2007)
Federal Marriage Amendment would be terrible step backwards. (Oct 2006)
Gay soldiers need to shoot straight, not be straight. (Nov 2003)
End hate crimes and other intolerance. (Sep 2000)
Gays deserve domestic partnership benefits. (Feb 2000)
Military service based on conduct, not sexual orientation. (Dec 1999)
Voting Record
Co-sponsored bill to criminalize flag-burning. (Jan 2010)
Op-ed: Sposnored flag-burning bill for centrist credential. (May 2006)
Voted NO on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)
Shift from group preferences to economic empowerment of all. (Aug 2000)
Rated 60% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
Rated 89% by the HRC, indicating a pro-gay-rights stance. (Dec 2006)
Rated 96% by the NAACP, indicating a pro-affirmative-action stance. (Dec 2006)
Recognize Juneteenth as historical end of slavery. (Jun 2008)
Provide benefits to domestic partners of Federal employees. (Dec 2007)
Re-introduce the Equal Rights Amendment. (Mar 2007)
Reinforce anti-discrimination and equal-pay requirements. (Jan 2008)
and Abortion
Hillary Clinton on Abortion
Click here for 46 full quotes on Abortion OR other candidates on Abortion OR background on Abortion.
Make abortion rare by supporting adoption & foster care. (Apr 2008)
Potential for life begins at conception, but dont intrude. (Apr 2008)
Opposed Chinas forced abortion & Romanias forced pregnancy. (Apr 2008)
Long-held moderate stance focuses on reducing abortions. (Mar 2008)
Consistently uses Dem. Party line, "safe, legal, and rare". (Mar 2008)
1974: pro-choice fervency not based on any personal abortion. (Jul 2007)
1993 health plan included RU-486 & widely available abortion. (Jul 2007)
1999: keep abortion safe, legal & rare into next century. (Jul 2007)
Lift ban on stem cell research to cure devastating diseases. (Jun 2007)
1993:Early action on abortion rights ended Rights dominance. (Jun 2007)
Personally would never abort; but deeply values choice. (Jun 2007)
Abortion is a sad, tragic choice to many women. (May 2007)
Fought for years to get Plan B contraceptive on the market. (Dec 2006)
Respect Roe v. Wade, but make adoptions easier too. (Nov 2006)
Prevention First Act: federal funds for contraception. (Oct 2006)
Partial birth exceptions for life-threatening abnormalities. (Apr 2006)
Government should have no role in abortion decision. (Oct 2005)
We can find common ground on abortion issue. (Sep 2005)
Alternatives to pro-choice like forced pregnancy in Romania. (Nov 2003)
Advocates birth control but OK with faith-based disagreement. (Nov 2003)
Must safeguard constitutional rights, including choice. (Oct 2000)
Late term abortion only if life or health are at risk. (Oct 2000)
Remain vigilant on a womans right to chose. (Jan 2000)
Keep abortion safe, legal and rare. (Jan 1999)
Being pro-choice is not being pro-abortion. (Jan 1999)
Reach out to teens to reduce teen sex problems. (Jan 1999)
Supports parental notice & family planning. (Feb 1997)
Cairo Document: right to abortion but not as family planning. (Sep 1996)
No abortion for sex selection in China. (Apr 1996)
Voting Record
Voted liberal line on partial birth & harm to fetus. (Oct 2005)
Voted NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)
Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)
Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
Voted NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)
Endorsed Recommended by EMILY's List of pro-choice women. (Apr 2001)
Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003)
Expand embryonic stem cell research. (Jun 2004)
Sponsored bill providing contraceptives for low-income women. (May 2006)
Sponsored bill for emergency contraception for rape victims. (Sep 2006)
Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance. (Dec 2006)
Provide emergency contraception at military facilities. (Apr 2007)
Ensure access to and funding for contraception. (Feb 2007)
Focus on preventing pregnancy, plus emergency contraception. (Jan 2009)
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,869 posts)What a peoples champ.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)no wonder....that explains alot actually
Voted NO on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes.
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,869 posts)After all, it was a confusing time. NO ONE knew what was going on with gay rights.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Voted NO on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes.
Increase Americas commitment against Global AIDS: Favors topic 3
DOMA discrimination holds us back from a more perfect union: Strongly Favors topic 3
I support gay marriage personally and as law: Strongly Favors topic 3
Let states decide gay marriage; theyre ahead of feds: Favors topic 3
2004:defended traditional marriage; 2006:voted for same-sex: Strongly Favors topic 3
Federal Marriage Amendment would be terrible step backwards: Favors topic 3
Gays deserve domestic partnership benefits: Strongly Favors topic 3
Military service based on conduct, not sexual orientation: Favors topic 3
More funding and stricter sentencing for hate crimes: Strongly Favors topic 3
Rated 89% by the HRC, indicating a pro-gay-rights stance: Strongly Favors topic 3
Provide benefits to domestic partners of Federal employees: Strongly Favors topic 3
YES on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes: Strongly Favors topic 3
NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage: Strongly Favors topic 3
Strongly Favors topic 3:
Comfortable with same-sex marriage
(+5 points on Social scale)
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,869 posts)Sounds like Rand Paul.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)No one ever is allowed to "evolve" on the issues right?
I put the score at the bottom for you....or do you not understand how things are scored OVERALL!
Strongly Favors topic 3:
Comfortable with same-sex marriage
(+5 points on Social scale)
Cherry picking does you no service...
Rated 89% by the HRC, indicating a pro-gay-rights stance: Strongly Favors topic 3
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,869 posts)If it's up to me I'll take someone who is anti war and gets an A on civil rights.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)could be worse.....could be a Republican...
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,869 posts)But lucky for me (and pity for you) Hillary isn't a shoe in and we still have time to elect a real liberal democrat. You make it sound like its a sure thing.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)going back decades.......so you are betting against the apparent next Democratic President.
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,869 posts)Look how that turned out. Don't count your chickens before election season. = )
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)could be worse.....could be a Republican...
2banon
(7,321 posts)Hillary ain't no "Populist" anything.
I can just see/hear her now running as fast as her legs could carry her from that charge the moment it was presented to her.
Good grief!
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)by the way....the Ladies of the Senate have endorsed her....so you can take your vomit elsewhere!
2banon
(7,321 posts)2banon
(7,321 posts)ForgoTheConsequence
(4,869 posts)It seems this whole Hillary for president movement branding itself as "feminist" only cares about American women. Women in the third world be damned.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)Some people here have problems with her because of her POLITICS, not because she's a woman.
Yes, she will be put under a microscope, as is everyone that runs for president. Politics is an ugly game.
pnwmom
(109,021 posts)davidn3600
(6,342 posts)I've not seen anyone here suggest Hillary shouldnt be president because she's a woman. I've seen people say she shouldnt be because of some issue they have with her political beliefs or voting history in the Senate.
As for Republicans, I imagine they wont like anyone the Democrats nominate...even a straight, white male.
whathehell
(29,100 posts)ForgoTheConsequence
(4,869 posts)Gotcha.
Ohio Joe
(21,774 posts)Strangely... The OP was amazingly clear so I'm not sure how you could have come up with that non-sense... It must just be part of the explanation on how anyone votes for that idiot.
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,869 posts)Got it. So it really isn't about electing a woman, it's about electing Hillary Clinton......
pnwmom
(109,021 posts)with the greatest chance right now. A lot can change, though , in a year.
This has to do with why women don't need to find T & A photos on a website that is supposed to be a political website supporting the equality of the sexes -- in a country in which it took women more than 100 years to get the right to vote and there has still never been a female President.
Ohio Joe
(21,774 posts)Such backwards logic is astounding... 'I take meds because I'm sick, if I stop taking meds I won't be sick!'
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,869 posts)Classy.
Ohio Joe
(21,774 posts)Perhaps you should develop a bit of class and then perhaps you will be shown some.
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,869 posts)Unless you're that Alec Baldwin type of classy person. Sorry you couldn't handle a tongue in cheek remark, you'll get over it.
Ohio Joe
(21,774 posts)ForgoTheConsequence
(4,869 posts)And voted for the Iraq vote war with "conviction". She's not trustworthy.
pnwmom
(109,021 posts)ForgoTheConsequence
(4,869 posts)Or just complaining on the internet?
pnwmom
(109,021 posts)ForgoTheConsequence
(4,869 posts)So I wouldn't vote for me.
I'm also not trying to connect a few internet trolls that post pictures of boobs on a messageboard (for immature kicks) to the greater problems facing this country. If people would take half their outrage from this message board to the streets this country would be a much better place.
2banon
(7,321 posts)This is all about setting up the stage for voting in a Woman for POTUS, i.e. Hillary Clinton.
The notion that we should ignore policies that negatively impact global populations which include women and children, either for the ideological "war on terror" (to prove her Hawkish Security Creds) or other economic interests which favors the 1% does not advance the cause of socio-economic justice and equality for women anywhere. However, her position as POTUS would certainly benefit Women of the Privileged Class, above any other.
No Thanks.
pnwmom
(109,021 posts)for many women's reactions to the T & A photos in a progressive political site, not an entertainment site or a men's magazine.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Needless to say, they didn't win but they got my vote.
pnwmom
(109,021 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)pnwmom
(109,021 posts)But you didn't comment on the second paragraph, so that's why I asked.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)I vote for the most progressive candidates on the ballot regardless of gender.
pnwmom
(109,021 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Unless you're saying that some women would be less upset about T&A on DU if there was now, or had been a female president.
pnwmom
(109,021 posts)I'm saying that if we lived in a country where women had equal power, then the images wouldn't be rubbing salt into the wounds.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)And, I think that Lord Acton's axiom applies to both genders...equally.
pnwmom
(109,021 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Regardless of gender.
pnwmom
(109,021 posts)2banon
(7,321 posts)deathrind
(1,786 posts)DU is but one of hundreds of progressive web sites. If one is upset about an image posted on this site there are plenty of other sites to visit.
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)I tend to ignore the T&A and "gender war" posts, but this perspective makes sense. It IS kind of ridiculous that there aren't more women in politics. They've managed to make it so corrupt and nasty that women don't even want to get involved.
Feral Child
(2,086 posts)Romulox
(25,960 posts)The solution, of course, is to elect a relative of one of the previously benefitted insiders?
Blue_Adept
(6,402 posts)Won't they just get out of the picture already? The world would be a far better place without them. They are the root of all evil. Everything that is wrong in the world is because of Every Last One Of Them.
It's a good thing white privileged men are starting to feel persecuted. Gives them a taste of what it's been like for everyone else since the beginning of time.
pnwmom
(109,021 posts)when an A.A. President was elected?
Why would progressives who applauded Obama's breaking the racial barrier not applaud a woman for breaking the gender barrier?
Orrex
(63,260 posts)To hell with all the mens!
Crepuscular
(1,057 posts)What is mildly interesting is that for the last 4 presidential elections or so, the majority of votes cast have been by women. In that regard, woman, to a great extent, control the destiny of which gender inhabits the oval office. But gender, like race, is unlikely to be the sole criteria that enough of the electorate uses to make the decision about who to cast their vote for, which is how it should be. I would much rather see a candidate elected on ideological grounds, then simply because of their gender or race.
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)??
pnwmom
(109,021 posts)Lost_Count
(555 posts)Just Kate Upton's...
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Oh, but I suppose that isn't as much of a problem given you're probably heterosexual yourself.
pnwmom
(109,021 posts)Although, like my father for half his adult life, President Buchanan wasn't completely "out."
And I wouldn't be surprised if there were others.
http://www.salon.com/2012/05/14/our_real_first_gay_president/
There can be no doubt that James Buchanan was gay, before, during and after his four years in the White House. Moreover, the nation knew it, too he was not far into the closet.
Today, I know no historian who has studied the matter and thinks Buchanan was heterosexual. Fifteen years ago, historian John Howard, author of Men Like That, a pioneering study of queer culture in Mississippi, shared with me the key documents, including Buchanans May 13, 1844, letter to a Mrs. Roosevelt. Describing his deteriorating social life after his great love, William Rufus King, senator from Alabama, had moved to Paris to become our ambassador to France, Buchanan wrote:
I am now solitary and alone, having no companion in the house with me. I have gone a wooing to several gentlemen, but have not succeeded with any one of them. I feel that it is not good for man to be alone; and should not be astonished to find myself married to some old maid who can nurse me when I am sick, provide good dinners for me when I am well, and not expect from me any very ardent or romantic affection.
Despite such evidence, one reason why Americans find it hard to believe Buchanan could have been gay is that we have a touching belief in progress. Our high school history textbooks overall story line is, We started out great and have been getting better ever since, more or less automatically. Thus we must be more tolerant now than we were way back in the middle of the 19th century! Buchanan could not have been gay then, else we would not seem more tolerant now.
SNIP
2banon
(7,321 posts)Now that Women have made some gains, (not nearly enough) in our struggle for equality, there's one important aspect that many of my Feminists allies seem to ignore and that's regarding the fraternity of Class Privilege.
In the context of Political equality, let's just go straight to the heart of it.
I would no more cast my vote of support for Hillary Clinton, or Dianne Feinstein any more than I would for Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann. For completely different reasons. Palin/Bachmann their stupidity and ideological bat-shit craziness -
But Clinton and Feinstein are women of wealth which feeds off of the oppression of millions of people globally vis a vis investments contracts or capital ventures connected to the Arms and Defense Industry among others..
I don't see the point in our pursuit for socio-economic justice and equality by ignoring Class Privilege.
It simply boggles the mind.
pnwmom
(109,021 posts)on a progressive political site.
We don't live in a country that treats men and women as equals, but could at least attempt that at DU.
2banon
(7,321 posts)The OP subject header points directly to the office, making a point of fact which is irrefutable.
It's also true that T & A photos on a progressive political discussion board should be assumed to be offensive because it is. On that, I have yet to actually see a single one because I have avoided all of the threads with headers which indicated that was the subject matter, simply because I know I would find them offensive, and have been rather astonished that this is going on here.
The fact is though, that Hillary's supporters are riding on the gender issue, and you may not have deliberately set up the argument to make that case, but that's exactly what happened, and it isn't the first time this argument has been floated out there intended to make the case for her to head the ticket, and it won't be the last. But I intend to challenge that, based on her policies which matter to me a great deal more than the gender of the office holder.. with war hawks like her, what's the point in electing a woman in the first place?
pnwmom
(109,021 posts)and many spheres still discriminates against women.
So the T & A photos on this progressive political website have to be viewed in this context -- as reinforcing cultural norms that have long given men a privileged position.
This would be true whether our candidate turns out to be Joe Biden or Al Franken or Hillary Clinton or Elizabeth Warren. The purpose of the OP wasn't to support a particular candidate, but to point out that T & A photos don't belong on what purports to be a progressive website where women and men can participate as equals.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)should have been stated as such.
2banon
(7,321 posts)the points in this discussion are tied together..
pnwmom
(109,021 posts)Not every President came from wealth.
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)deutsey
(20,166 posts)I keep trashing threads like this and they just seem to keep being recycled.
CBGLuthier
(12,723 posts)and after she fucks up as badly and disappoints as thoroughly as all the fucking rest of them maybe we can stop acting like it will make some god damned difference whether or not the leader of the US has to sit to pee.
pnwmom
(109,021 posts)have the chance to be as good as anyone else, a chance which has been denied to any woman since the first President was elected.
Did you have the same snarky attitude when black people were happy to have the first African American president?