Can you explain why Hillary sucks?

[Aroura]

I'm sorry I upset you so Thump, I really am. Your reasoning, about the cuckold thing, seemed to fit the bill in my estimation, and I would have felt the same if it had been reverse, as in if you were judging a man for being cukolded I would have found that a little bit subconsciously sex ist. This Inherent bias is against males in many situations, not just about females. And guess what, it turns out we ALL do it sometimes. The 90% was the number found in judging conversation interruptions and amount spoken. 100% of humans have flawed judgement based on gender reasoning sometimes, in some situations. And it turns out we are super shitty at telling if we are doing it or not. No one is perfect, and our societies tune us this way.


If you disagree that this was one of those times, fine. My opinion is that it seemed that way to me, because I found the issue of her staying with a cheating husband to bensure, well, a little bit sexest, when used to judge her fitness for president. You didn't list issues or stances or policies or actions, as others have, but her (would be personal and private) sex life. All the same, perhaps in this instance I am wrong. I won't, however, withdraw what I expressed as an opinion of your opinion.

If you disagree that you occasionally have a subconscious gender based bias (negatively affecting both males or females, depending on the situation), then yes, I'm going to have to disagree with you fully, as multiple studies have shown.

I know you'll ask, so yes I'll link some studies in about 10 minutes, I need to reach my laptop,.

tlr. I'm not saying you are sexist, I'm saying everyone is at least a little bit, sometimes, towards both genders. Please don't take it as a personal attack.

[Aroura]

I also accept political reasons for disliking her, such as acations she took while so, and positions she has taken through her political carear, as good solid reasons for disliking her. Those are the answers I'm looking for, facts and reasons. You don't need to back it up with female politicians you like when your are listing real reasons for disliking her.  

She's hawkish, bitchy, power hungry, or things about her personal life etc, are not very good reasons imho, though of course everyone is entitled to their opinions. These are the reasons I often see on social media, and they seem more gut feel than logic. Which is fine for personal reasons why a person doesn't like her, but isn't much in the way of convincing others, which is what I was asking for.

Perhaps you don't find it convincing, but have you considered the prospect that you are part of the 90% who has unrecognized biases in your views?

I dislike hawkishness no matter the gender; I think American foreign policy has for too long been too expansive and intrusive upon the affairs of other nations, and too wasteful of the lives of GIs, American prestige, and our limited budget. That is not about her personal life; that is about her policy positions. And I've listed a couple here, and more elsewhere.

I never have called her "bitchy", so tossing that at me is bullshit.

As for matters of personal life, they damned sure speak to character, and are fair game. I don't see you defending Trump against his attitudes about women or minorities on this basis of "that's personal". I wonder why?

I never said you called her bitchy. Someone else did that, not every comment I made responding to other people is about you.

And your initial responses to my I query were not about policy, but about her lying and her personal life. So I responded to those. You didn't say anything about any of that other stuff you just listed, so don't move the goalposts now. I mean, great, if you also feel that way, but we were talking about your initial comment and my initial response.

I'm not in this thread to talk about Trump, why even bring that up? Can we not talk about Clinton without always bringing him UP? This is a thread about Clinton, so I'm in this thread to talk about why people hater her. And I've never defended her on anything except personal attacks, nor would I Harang anyone who isn't voting for her. Your vote your choice. I'm not even a fan of hers, I just asked a question!

I asked why people don't like her, requested good policy reasons. I'm honestly curious, and a few people have given me good answers. So I do appreciate that.
I don't really appreciate you flipping out, but I see you felt attacked, so you went on the attack. I'll try not to take it personal.

[Aroura]

Maybe I should just stop trying to interact with people. Honestly, I'm apparently terrible at just having what I thought was a pretty casual discussion. Like always. Talk about eating less meat, next thing I'm in tears. Point out I think your reasoning might be bias, I'm a sex ist pig who's smearing your good name.

If you really give two shits about inherent gender bias and how it affects all of us, including you and me, you can go look it up yourself, because honestly, trying to have a civil conversation isn't worth it, no one listens, they just act like cats in a fucking sack. Throw the kitchen sink at me while your at it.

Your responses to me, Thump, have been way out of proportion. If you need to vilify me some more, I won't be around. I admit I'm too thin skinned, and apparently, a total bitch as well.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I never said you called her bitchy. Someone else did that, not every comment I made responding to other people is about you.

Then you should consider making that a separate section of your reply, or a separate post altoghter, instead of quoting me and then putting that into that specific reply.

And your initial responses to my I query were not about policy, but about her lying and her personal life. So I responded to those. You didn't say anything about any of that other stuff you just listed, so don't move the goalposts now. I mean, great, if you also feel that way, but we were talking about your initial comment and my initial response.

Of course, and that's because even though I find some of her policies unpalatable, my biggest objection to her is a matter of character. It's not "moving the goalposts" -- which fallacy you're deploying wrongly, because I'm not asking you to prove something and then raising the bar -- but rather, fleshing out my response.

I'm not in this thread to talk about Trump, why even bring that up? Can we not talk about Clinton without always bringing him UP? This is a thread about Clinton, so I'm in this thread to talk about why people hater her. And I've never defended her on anything except personal attacks, nor would I Harang anyone who isn't voting for her. Your vote your choice. I'm not even a fan of hers, I just asked a question!

I'm not asking you simply about this thread. Can you link to any post of yours at all wherein you defend Trump by asserting that folks are attacking his character rather than his policies?

My point, since you obviously missed it, is that you're applying a double-standard. It's okay, apparently, by your lights, to attack Trump on grounds of character, but should someone be cautious of Hillary on the same grounds, suddenly that's not a good reason.

I asked why people don't like her, requested good policy reasons. I'm honestly curious, and a few people have given me good answers. So I do appreciate that.
I don't really appreciate you flipping out, but I see you felt attacked, so you went on the attack. I'll try not to take it personal.

I didn't feel attacked -- I was attacked. You treated me as a statistic and not a person, making a negative assertion about me, and when I defended my own character, you call it "flipping out". No, I'm not "flipping out" -- I'm standing up against an attack on my individual character, a baseless attack that you cannot support with any post of mine. Hopefully next time you'll know better than to put someone into a box based on a study you've read and an opinion you don't like.

You shouldn't take any of this personally ... but you should think about this exchange, and ponder what you yourself can do better next time in order to abet the conversation better. Not making baseless assumptions about people might be a good start. Give it a try!

[ReptilianPeon]

Nothing really interesting int he wikileaks that I saw, though.

I haven't had the time to examine them yet so I will withold judgement. More non-Wikileaks related leaks today. Guccufer 2.0 had some new leaks and they appear show how much the mainstream media is controlled/manipulated by Democrats (and some Republicans I suppose) who are in love with Hilary. Apparently some media outlets are going so far as planting (fake) pro-Hilary stories, I guess to make her out to be better than she is, and favouring pro-Clinton journalists to report stories about her.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Nothing really interesting int he wikileaks that I saw, though.

I haven't had the time to examine them yet so I will withold judgement. More non-Wikileaks related leaks today. Guccufer 2.0 had some new leaks and they appear show how much the mainstream media is controlled/manipulated by Democrats (and some Republicans I suppose) who are in love with Hilary. Apparently some media outlets are going so far as planting (fake) pro-Hilary stories, I guess to make her out to be better than she is, and favouring pro-Clinton journalists to report stories about her.

No link available?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Point out I think your reasoning might be bias, I'm a sex ist pig who's smearing your good name.

You should perhaps link and quote where I called you "sexist", Aroura.

If you really give two shits about inherent gender bias and how it affects all of us, including you and me, you can go look it up yourself, because honestly, trying to have a civil conversation isn't worth it, no one listens, they just act like cats in a fucking sack. Throw the kitchen sink at me while your at it.

I haven't insulted your character, now have I?

Your responses to me, Thump, have been way out of proportion. If you need to vilify me some more, I won't be around. I admit I'm too thin skinned, and apparently, a total bitch as well.

Go on, stick more words in my mouth. I never called you a "bitch", and you're clearly trying to impute that to me.

All I've done is defend myself against an unwarranted attack. If you're too thin-skinned to take my defense, perhaps you shouldn't run your mouth without engaging your brain first. It's got nothing to do with what's between your legs, and everything to do with what's between your ears ... that you clearly aren't using, in this case. Don't play the victim card when you took the first swipe.

It's a shame a simple apology is beyond your scope. That could have solved it all.

[Aroura]

Please point out where I said your sex ist Thump? Oh yeah, I didn't do that either. You jumped right to it.

I said it "seems to be like judgement because she's female, and power hungry females seem off to most people, even other females." I qualified that I was NOT accusing you of mysogony, at which point you have continuously behaved as if I did.


I figured since you were shoving words into my mouth, then touche. But yeah, as long as we are being straightforward and shit, I think you judging her negatively over staying with a cheating husband, when you know fuck all else about their relationship, is SHALLOW and Sexist. But only in my opinion.

I'm still not saying You are, just this particular notion is. But since you seem to think so little of my opinion, why are you still going on and on about it?

[Aroura]

Point out I think your reasoning might be bias, I'm a sex ist pig who's smearing your good name.

You should perhaps link and quote where I called you "sexist", Aroura.

If you really give two shits about inherent gender bias and how it affects all of us, including you and me, you can go look it up yourself, because honestly, trying to have a civil conversation isn't worth it, no one listens, they just act like cats in a fucking sack. Throw the kitchen sink at me while your at it.

I haven't insulted your character, now have I?

Your responses to me, Thump, have been way out of proportion. If you need to vilify me some more, I won't be around. I admit I'm too thin skinned, and apparently, a total bitch as well.

Go on, stick more words in my mouth. I never called you a "bitch", and you're clearly trying to impute that to me.

All I've done is defend myself against an unwarranted attack. If you're too thin-skinned to take my defense, perhaps you shouldn't run your mouth without engaging your brain first. It's got nothing to do with what's between your legs, and everything to do with what's between your ears ... that you clearly aren't using, in this case. Don't play the victim card when you took the first swipe.

It's a shame a simple apology is beyond your scope. That could have solved it all.

Run my mouth without engaging my brain? Really? How very mature.

Yes, I am thin skinned and I tried to back off, but you wouldn't let me. Now I won't. You are wrong, and I believe you owe me an apology for that commenting without a brain comment. I still stand by what I said, it seemed to other people to be a perfectly understandable and reasonable comment. You freaked out like I'd come at you mouth frothing.

I still believe your comment was a bit subconciouly sexist, I'd dont believe You are sexist. What about that was running my mouth off without thinking?

ps, I apologized for upsetting you...twice. Which is twice as much humility and contrition as you've shown for insulting me in supposed self defense. I will not apologize for what I said in itself though, as I don't think I said anything wrong or particularly insulting, as I've said multiple times that every person has the unconscious biases. Certainly nothing you've said in response has convinced me otherwise. As a matter of fact, your extreme overreaction makes me wonder if I've maybe hit on something deeper.

[Aroura]

I never said you called her bitchy. Someone else did that, not every comment I made responding to other people is about you.

Then you should consider making that a separate section of your reply, or a separate post altoghter, instead of quoting me and then putting that into that specific reply.

And your initial responses to my I query were not about policy, but about her lying and her personal life. So I responded to those. You didn't say anything about any of that other stuff you just listed, so don't move the goalposts now. I mean, great, if you also feel that way, but we were talking about your initial comment and my initial response.

Of course, and that's because even though I find some of her policies unpalatable, my biggest objection to her is a matter of character. It's not "moving the goalposts" -- which fallacy you're deploying wrongly, because I'm not asking you to prove something and then raising the bar -- but rather, fleshing out my response.

I'm not in this thread to talk about Trump, why even bring that up? Can we not talk about Clinton without always bringing him UP? This is a thread about Clinton, so I'm in this thread to talk about why people hater her. And I've never defended her on anything except personal attacks, nor would I Harang anyone who isn't voting for her. Your vote your choice. I'm not even a fan of hers, I just asked a question!

I'm not asking you simply about this thread. Can you link to any post of yours at all wherein you defend Trump by asserting that folks are attacking his character rather than his policies?

My point, since you obviously missed it, is that you're applying a double-standard. It's okay, apparently, by your lights, to attack Trump on grounds of character, but should someone be cautious of Hillary on the same grounds, suddenly that's not a good reason.

I asked why people don't like her, requested good policy reasons. I'm honestly curious, and a few people have given me good answers. So I do appreciate that.
I don't really appreciate you flipping out, but I see you felt attacked, so you went on the attack. I'll try not to take it personal.

I didn't feel attacked -- I was attacked. You treated me as a statistic and not a person, making a negative assertion about me, and when I defended my own character, you call it "flipping out". No, I'm not "flipping out" -- I'm standing up against an attack on my individual character, a baseless attack that you cannot support with any post of mine. Hopefully next time you'll know better than to put someone into a box based on a study you've read and an opinion you don't like.

You shouldn't take any of this personally ... but you should think about this exchange, and ponder what you yourself can do better next time in order to abet the conversation better. Not making baseless assumptions about people might be a good start. Give it a try!

pps, I have a hard time with the quote system on my tablet. That being said, my comment about people calling her bitchy and such was NOT in a response to any quote from you. Go back and read it. It's a stand alone comment with no quote at all. A separate post altogether is what I made, just as you suggest here, so why are you saying it was in response to you.

Also, I do think it's fine to attack Hillary on grounds of character. Character matters. I just personally found her sticking with Bill to be a really strange thing to pick out, as I don't see how it demonstrates any negative character attribute. In and of itself, it seems ballsy to me if anything. Power hungry is what all presidential candidates are, so I was confused as to why you were attaching one to the other in a negative way.

Where you equally upset when Bill didn't leave her even though he doesn't care enough about her to be Faithful? It's ok for him to stay with her, but not the other way around? This is a question, not an assumption!

Her basket of deplorable comment, or her reputedly telling security to fuck off seems more relevant to negative character.