Democratic Election Thread

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

 

I f'ing hate how much attention is given to female politicians' looks.

If they're too pretty they're considered shallow bimbos.

If they wear pants suits and try to dress serious they're bitches or they're not trying.

I don't care if the comment about her not looking nice as a senator is from a woman. It's the type of comment that is rarely ever made about men. Women shouldn't be held to a higher standard for looks or a higher standard for the effort they have to go to to look nice. Also, do you dress as nice for work every day as you did for your job interview?

Well...you brought up Rubio's looks the other day (so did I)...and JFK and Obama...

I don't think I did. I replied to someone saying Rubio isn't handsome. Then I said something about wishing I wasn't discussing it.

I could be remembering wrong.

I thought you said...Rubio is the best choice for the republicans, he is well spoken and attractive...

 

I replied that I did not understand why people thought he was attractive and said Brad Pitt was a good looking guy...you said Brad Pitt was basically the bomb (which he is! Ha)...

 

I bet you loved him in Legends of the Fall!

K, thank you. I mentioned his attractiveness because being attractive helps candidates win elections. I voted for Ralph Nader so I'm clearly not guilty.

 

The topic at hand is about people (from the media to the public) commenting on a woman's looks a disproportionate amount of time to her qualifications/policies as compared to men.

 

So there.

 

I'm pretty dang sure Clinton's "qualifications" have been commented on WAY more here than her looks. There have been multiple threads over years talking about her. This is the first time I can ever remember her looks coming up.

[Hedley Lamarr]

How the hell is the majority of this country voting for Trump and Hillary? Literally the faces of what's wrong with our country.

[Saunders]

How the hell is the majority of this country voting for Trump and Hillary? Literally the faces of what's wrong with our country.

Failures in education.

 

Also, Idiocracy.

[Moiraine]

 

 

 

 

 

 

I f'ing hate how much attention is given to female politicians' looks.

If they're too pretty they're considered shallow bimbos.

If they wear pants suits and try to dress serious they're bitches or they're not trying.

I don't care if the comment about her not looking nice as a senator is from a woman. It's the type of comment that is rarely ever made about men. Women shouldn't be held to a higher standard for looks or a higher standard for the effort they have to go to to look nice. Also, do you dress as nice for work every day as you did for your job interview?

Well...you brought up Rubio's looks the other day (so did I)...and JFK and Obama...

I don't think I did. I replied to someone saying Rubio isn't handsome. Then I said something about wishing I wasn't discussing it.

I could be remembering wrong.

I thought you said...Rubio is the best choice for the republicans, he is well spoken and attractive...

 

I replied that I did not understand why people thought he was attractive and said Brad Pitt was a good looking guy...you said Brad Pitt was basically the bomb (which he is! Ha)...

 

I bet you loved him in Legends of the Fall!

K, thank you. I mentioned his attractiveness because being attractive helps candidates win elections. I voted for Ralph Nader so I'm clearly not guilty.

 

The topic at hand is about people (from the media to the public) commenting on a woman's looks a disproportionate amount of time to her qualifications/policies as compared to men.

 

So there.

I'm pretty dang sure Clinton's "qualifications" have been commented on WAY more here than her looks. There have been multiple threads over years talking about her. This is the first time I can ever remember her looks coming up.

O.o

 

Why are you assuming I'm talking about Huskerboard? I'm talking about the media and society and how we talk about female candidates (and other females) in general.

[Saunders]

 

 

 

 

 

 

I f'ing hate how much attention is given to female politicians' looks.

If they're too pretty they're considered shallow bimbos.

If they wear pants suits and try to dress serious they're bitches or they're not trying.

I don't care if the comment about her not looking nice as a senator is from a woman. It's the type of comment that is rarely ever made about men. Women shouldn't be held to a higher standard for looks or a higher standard for the effort they have to go to to look nice. Also, do you dress as nice for work every day as you did for your job interview?

Well...you brought up Rubio's looks the other day (so did I)...and JFK and Obama...

I don't think I did. I replied to someone saying Rubio isn't handsome. Then I said something about wishing I wasn't discussing it.

I could be remembering wrong.

I thought you said...Rubio is the best choice for the republicans, he is well spoken and attractive...

 

I replied that I did not understand why people thought he was attractive and said Brad Pitt was a good looking guy...you said Brad Pitt was basically the bomb (which he is! Ha)...

 

I bet you loved him in Legends of the Fall!

K, thank you. I mentioned his attractiveness because being attractive helps candidates win elections. I voted for Ralph Nader so I'm clearly not guilty.

 

The topic at hand is about people (from the media to the public) commenting on a woman's looks a disproportionate amount of time to her qualifications/policies as compared to men.

 

So there.

I'm pretty dang sure Clinton's "qualifications" have been commented on WAY more here than her looks. There have been multiple threads over years talking about her. This is the first time I can ever remember her looks coming up.

O.o

 

Why are you assuming I'm talking about Huskerboard? I'm talking about the media and society and how we talk about female candidates (and other females) in general.

 

One possibility could be that while men only care how women look, women care how both men and women look. I've also heard it stated many times that women are much harsher judges of other women than men are.

[Moiraine]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I f'ing hate how much attention is given to female politicians' looks.

If they're too pretty they're considered shallow bimbos.

If they wear pants suits and try to dress serious they're bitches or they're not trying.

I don't care if the comment about her not looking nice as a senator is from a woman. It's the type of comment that is rarely ever made about men. Women shouldn't be held to a higher standard for looks or a higher standard for the effort they have to go to to look nice. Also, do you dress as nice for work every day as you did for your job interview?

Well...you brought up Rubio's looks the other day (so did I)...and JFK and Obama...

I don't think I did. I replied to someone saying Rubio isn't handsome. Then I said something about wishing I wasn't discussing it.

I could be remembering wrong.

I thought you said...Rubio is the best choice for the republicans, he is well spoken and attractive...

 

I replied that I did not understand why people thought he was attractive and said Brad Pitt was a good looking guy...you said Brad Pitt was basically the bomb (which he is! Ha)...

 

I bet you loved him in Legends of the Fall!

K, thank you. I mentioned his attractiveness because being attractive helps candidates win elections. I voted for Ralph Nader so I'm clearly not guilty.

 

The topic at hand is about people (from the media to the public) commenting on a woman's looks a disproportionate amount of time to her qualifications/policies as compared to men.

 

So there.

I'm pretty dang sure Clinton's "qualifications" have been commented on WAY more here than her looks. There have been multiple threads over years talking about her. This is the first time I can ever remember her looks coming up.

O.o

 

Why are you assuming I'm talking about Huskerboard? I'm talking about the media and society and how we talk about female candidates (and other females) in general.

One possibility could be that while men only care how women look, women care how both men and women look. I've also heard it stated many times that women are much harsher judges of other women than men are.

Could be. Both are definitely guilty of doing this.

 

I guess another thing that's been on my mind is Clinton beats Sanders in almost every Democrat demographic but she either loses to him on men or her margin of victory with men is much smaller. I don't even like her but this bothers me.

[teachercd]

What? Women never judge other women!

 

 

I remember in college...me and a group of friends walking to the bars on O street...One of the girls we were with (smoking body) had on a shirt that was basically just a bandana...it was super hot on her. There we were waiting to cross the street when a group of girls drives by and one yells out "Put on some clothes you slut"

 

Classic stuff

[Moiraine]

What? Women never judge other women!

 

 

I remember in college...me and a group of friends walking to the bars on O street...One of the girls we were with (smoking body) had on a shirt that was basically just a bandana...it was super hot on her. There we were waiting to cross the street when a group of girls drives by and one yells out "Put on some clothes you slut"

 

Classic stuff

No one is saying that. Butthead.

 

And she was a slut. Just like you are a slut.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

 

 

 

I f'ing hate how much attention is given to female politicians' looks.

If they're too pretty they're considered shallow bimbos.

If they wear pants suits and try to dress serious they're bitches or they're not trying.

I don't care if the comment about her not looking nice as a senator is from a woman. It's the type of comment that is rarely ever made about men. Women shouldn't be held to a higher standard for looks or a higher standard for the effort they have to go to to look nice. Also, do you dress as nice for work every day as you did for your job interview?

Well...you brought up Rubio's looks the other day (so did I)...and JFK and Obama...

I don't think I did. I replied to someone saying Rubio isn't handsome. Then I said something about wishing I wasn't discussing it.

I could be remembering wrong.

I thought you said...Rubio is the best choice for the republicans, he is well spoken and attractive...

 

I replied that I did not understand why people thought he was attractive and said Brad Pitt was a good looking guy...you said Brad Pitt was basically the bomb (which he is! Ha)...

 

I bet you loved him in Legends of the Fall!

K, thank you. I mentioned his attractiveness because being attractive helps candidates win elections. I voted for Ralph Nader so I'm clearly not guilty.

 

The topic at hand is about people (from the media to the public) commenting on a woman's looks a disproportionate amount of time to her qualifications/policies as compared to men.

 

So there.

I'm pretty dang sure Clinton's "qualifications" have been commented on WAY more here than her looks. There have been multiple threads over years talking about her. This is the first time I can ever remember her looks coming up.

O.o

 

Why are you assuming I'm talking about Huskerboard? I'm talking about the media and society and how we talk about female candidates (and other females) in general.

 

Hmmm...Probably because your comments are on Huskerboard and posted after a few comments about her looks on this board.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I f'ing hate how much attention is given to female politicians' looks.

If they're too pretty they're considered shallow bimbos.

If they wear pants suits and try to dress serious they're bitches or they're not trying.

I don't care if the comment about her not looking nice as a senator is from a woman. It's the type of comment that is rarely ever made about men. Women shouldn't be held to a higher standard for looks or a higher standard for the effort they have to go to to look nice. Also, do you dress as nice for work every day as you did for your job interview?

Well...you brought up Rubio's looks the other day (so did I)...and JFK and Obama...

I don't think I did. I replied to someone saying Rubio isn't handsome. Then I said something about wishing I wasn't discussing it.

I could be remembering wrong.

I thought you said...Rubio is the best choice for the republicans, he is well spoken and attractive...

 

I replied that I did not understand why people thought he was attractive and said Brad Pitt was a good looking guy...you said Brad Pitt was basically the bomb (which he is! Ha)...

 

I bet you loved him in Legends of the Fall!

K, thank you. I mentioned his attractiveness because being attractive helps candidates win elections. I voted for Ralph Nader so I'm clearly not guilty.

 

The topic at hand is about people (from the media to the public) commenting on a woman's looks a disproportionate amount of time to her qualifications/policies as compared to men.

 

So there.

I'm pretty dang sure Clinton's "qualifications" have been commented on WAY more here than her looks. There have been multiple threads over years talking about her. This is the first time I can ever remember her looks coming up.

O.o

 

Why are you assuming I'm talking about Huskerboard? I'm talking about the media and society and how we talk about female candidates (and other females) in general.

One possibility could be that while men only care how women look, women care how both men and women look. I've also heard it stated many times that women are much harsher judges of other women than men are.

Could be. Both are definitely guilty of doing this.

 

I guess another thing that's been on my mind is Clinton beats Sanders in almost every Democrat demographic but she either loses to him on men or her margin of victory with men is much smaller. I don't even like her but this bothers me.

 

OK....so you don't like her but you don't like it that men don't like her.

 

To make you happier, you will still not like her but you want more men to like her.

[Moiraine]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I f'ing hate how much attention is given to female politicians' looks.

If they're too pretty they're considered shallow bimbos.

If they wear pants suits and try to dress serious they're bitches or they're not trying.

I don't care if the comment about her not looking nice as a senator is from a woman. It's the type of comment that is rarely ever made about men. Women shouldn't be held to a higher standard for looks or a higher standard for the effort they have to go to to look nice. Also, do you dress as nice for work every day as you did for your job interview?

Well...you brought up Rubio's looks the other day (so did I)...and JFK and Obama...

I don't think I did. I replied to someone saying Rubio isn't handsome. Then I said something about wishing I wasn't discussing it.

I could be remembering wrong.

I thought you said...Rubio is the best choice for the republicans, he is well spoken and attractive...

 

I replied that I did not understand why people thought he was attractive and said Brad Pitt was a good looking guy...you said Brad Pitt was basically the bomb (which he is! Ha)...

 

I bet you loved him in Legends of the Fall!

K, thank you. I mentioned his attractiveness because being attractive helps candidates win elections. I voted for Ralph Nader so I'm clearly not guilty.

 

The topic at hand is about people (from the media to the public) commenting on a woman's looks a disproportionate amount of time to her qualifications/policies as compared to men.

 

So there.

I'm pretty dang sure Clinton's "qualifications" have been commented on WAY more here than her looks. There have been multiple threads over years talking about her. This is the first time I can ever remember her looks coming up.

O.o

 

Why are you assuming I'm talking about Huskerboard? I'm talking about the media and society and how we talk about female candidates (and other females) in general.

Hmmm...Probably because your comments are on Huskerboard and posted after a few comments about her looks on this board.

Well, Buster, we are on Huskerboard, right? Is every post on all of HB about just things that happen on HB? Do posts on HB even tend to be about HB? Pretty sure this is a place where people like to talk about what's going on in the world. I posted about it because I was reminded about it in this thread. Mostly because of knapp's reply.

 

As for your weird reply about me not liking Clinton and being upset about men not liking her, you're again not getting it. Men voting for her far leas than the norm makes me wonder why they're not voting for her. I.E. Is it only because of her qualifications/policies? Is it possible that it's partially because she's female? We can't know that just from looking at polls for one candidate but it's a thought I've considered.

 

And please don't give me an anecdote about how 2 years ago you voted for a woman. She gets lots of male votes. Just a lot less proportionally compared to other demographics other than youth.

 

One thing I'd be interested in researching is whether there are any female candidates that get as much of the male vote as they get from other demographics, when they're running against a male.

 

Conversely, Sanders is getting less of the female vote. I think it'd be hard to study this. The telling thing would be what happened in the general election with the M/F votes but obviously we can't test that with 2 nominees.

 

 

I also find it weird that Clinton is destroying Sanders with the Black vote considering his history. I know Bill employed lots of Blacks when he was president but outside of that I don't understand the appeal.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I f'ing hate how much attention is given to female politicians' looks.

If they're too pretty they're considered shallow bimbos.

If they wear pants suits and try to dress serious they're bitches or they're not trying.

I don't care if the comment about her not looking nice as a senator is from a woman. It's the type of comment that is rarely ever made about men. Women shouldn't be held to a higher standard for looks or a higher standard for the effort they have to go to to look nice. Also, do you dress as nice for work every day as you did for your job interview?

Well...you brought up Rubio's looks the other day (so did I)...and JFK and Obama...

I don't think I did. I replied to someone saying Rubio isn't handsome. Then I said something about wishing I wasn't discussing it.

I could be remembering wrong.

I thought you said...Rubio is the best choice for the republicans, he is well spoken and attractive...

 

I replied that I did not understand why people thought he was attractive and said Brad Pitt was a good looking guy...you said Brad Pitt was basically the bomb (which he is! Ha)...

 

I bet you loved him in Legends of the Fall!

K, thank you. I mentioned his attractiveness because being attractive helps candidates win elections. I voted for Ralph Nader so I'm clearly not guilty.

 

The topic at hand is about people (from the media to the public) commenting on a woman's looks a disproportionate amount of time to her qualifications/policies as compared to men.

 

So there.

I'm pretty dang sure Clinton's "qualifications" have been commented on WAY more here than her looks. There have been multiple threads over years talking about her. This is the first time I can ever remember her looks coming up.

O.o

 

Why are you assuming I'm talking about Huskerboard? I'm talking about the media and society and how we talk about female candidates (and other females) in general.

Hmmm...Probably because your comments are on Huskerboard and posted after a few comments about her looks on this board.

Well, Buster, we are on Huskerboard, right? Is every post on all of HB about just things that happen on HB? Do posts on HB even tend to be about HB? Pretty sure this is a place where people like to talk about what's going on in the world. I posted about it because I was reminded about it in this thread. Mostly because of knapp's reply.

 

As for your weird reply about me not liking Clinton and being upset about men not liking her, you're again not getting it. Men voting for her far leas than the norm makes me wonder why they're not voting for her. I.E. Is it only because of her qualifications/policies? Is it possible that it's partially because she's female? We can't know that just from looking at polls for one candidate but it's a thought I've considered.

 

And please don't give me an anecdote about how 2 years ago you voted for a woman. She gets lots of male votes. Just a lot less proportionally compared to other demographics other than youth.

 

One thing I'd be interested in researching is whether there are any female candidates that get as much of the male vote as they get from other demographics, when they're running against a male.

 

Conversely, Sanders is getting less of the female vote. I think it'd be hard to study this. The telling thing would be what happened in the general election with the M/F votes but obviously we can't test that with 2 nominees.

 

Or....is it that many women vote for her because she is a woman?

 

My suspicion is that both your assumption and my statement here are both true.

So, are you as outrages at women who vote for her because she is a woman as you are about men who don't vote for her because she is a man?

 

Sorry, this conversation is eerily similar to statements that I received about Obama claiming I didn't like him because he was black and I'm racist. Yes, there were racists that didn't vote for him for that reason. But, there were also black people that voted for him BECAUSE he was black.

 

In actuality, I didn't like him because I didn't like his politics. I couldn't care less if he is black or if Clinton is a woman.

[Moiraine]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I f'ing hate how much attention is given to female politicians' looks.

If they're too pretty they're considered shallow bimbos.

If they wear pants suits and try to dress serious they're bitches or they're not trying.

I don't care if the comment about her not looking nice as a senator is from a woman. It's the type of comment that is rarely ever made about men. Women shouldn't be held to a higher standard for looks or a higher standard for the effort they have to go to to look nice. Also, do you dress as nice for work every day as you did for your job interview?

Well...you brought up Rubio's looks the other day (so did I)...and JFK and Obama...

I don't think I did. I replied to someone saying Rubio isn't handsome. Then I said something about wishing I wasn't discussing it.

I could be remembering wrong.

I thought you said...Rubio is the best choice for the republicans, he is well spoken and attractive...

 

I replied that I did not understand why people thought he was attractive and said Brad Pitt was a good looking guy...you said Brad Pitt was basically the bomb (which he is! Ha)...

 

I bet you loved him in Legends of the Fall!

K, thank you. I mentioned his attractiveness because being attractive helps candidates win elections. I voted for Ralph Nader so I'm clearly not guilty.

 

The topic at hand is about people (from the media to the public) commenting on a woman's looks a disproportionate amount of time to her qualifications/policies as compared to men.

 

So there.

I'm pretty dang sure Clinton's "qualifications" have been commented on WAY more here than her looks. There have been multiple threads over years talking about her. This is the first time I can ever remember her looks coming up.

O.o

 

Why are you assuming I'm talking about Huskerboard? I'm talking about the media and society and how we talk about female candidates (and other females) in general.

Hmmm...Probably because your comments are on Huskerboard and posted after a few comments about her looks on this board.

Well, Buster, we are on Huskerboard, right? Is every post on all of HB about just things that happen on HB? Do posts on HB even tend to be about HB? Pretty sure this is a place where people like to talk about what's going on in the world. I posted about it because I was reminded about it in this thread. Mostly because of knapp's reply.

 

As for your weird reply about me not liking Clinton and being upset about men not liking her, you're again not getting it. Men voting for her far leas than the norm makes me wonder why they're not voting for her. I.E. Is it only because of her qualifications/policies? Is it possible that it's partially because she's female? We can't know that just from looking at polls for one candidate but it's a thought I've considered.

 

And please don't give me an anecdote about how 2 years ago you voted for a woman. She gets lots of male votes. Just a lot less proportionally compared to other demographics other than youth.

 

One thing I'd be interested in researching is whether there are any female candidates that get as much of the male vote as they get from other demographics, when they're running against a male.

 

Conversely, Sanders is getting less of the female vote. I think it'd be hard to study this. The telling thing would be what happened in the general election with the M/F votes but obviously we can't test that with 2 nominees.

Or....is it that many women vote for her because she is a woman?

 

My suspicion is that both your assumption and my statement here are both true.

So, are you as outrages at women who vote for her because she is a woman as you are about men who don't vote for her because she is a man?

 

Sorry, this conversation is eerily similar to statements that I received about Obama claiming I didn't like him because he was black and I'm racist. Yes, there were racists that didn't vote for him for that reason. But, there were also black people that voted for him BECAUSE he was black.

 

In actuality, I didn't like him because I didn't like his politics. I couldn't care less if he is black or if Clinton is a woman.

For whatever reason these conversations often end up with you feeling personally affronted and becoming defensive about something. Obviously if men are voting for her in lower numbers, women are voting for Sanders in lower numbers. Data and statistics interest me. I'm not trying to threaten the goodness of men. More specifically I'm not saying that you, BigRedBuster, are a sexist monster because in SC Clinton got a small proportion of the male vote compared to other demographics.

 

Somehow because 4-8 years ago someone accused you of being racist you've jumped to this crazy conclusion about what my post means. I specifically asked you not to give me an anecdote because I knew you would do just that. And you did.

[Saunders]

Personally, couldn't care less that she's a woman, or how she looks. I care that she bases her opinions on public polling and isn't consistent in her stances, while also opposing free speech (video game bans), is an opponent of the 2nd amendment, and is in the pockets of the banks. And that's just for starters.

[Moiraine]

Personally, couldn't care less that she's a woman, or how she looks. I care that her she bases her opinions on public polling and isn't consistent in her stances, while also opposing free speech (video game bans), is an opponent of the 2nd amendment, and is in the pockets of the banks. And that's just for starters.

 

This is very off topic, but what does being an opponent of the 2nd amendment mean to you? I looked Clinton up and she has held pretty steady (which is surprising) on wanting an assault rifle ban and required registration. But I haven't found anything saying she opposes the 2nd amendment. At least not by my definition.

 

http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/Secretary%20Of%20State/New_York/Hillary_Clinton/Views/The_Second_Amendment/

 

If by "opponent of the 2nd amendment" you mean adding any kind of restrictions at all, then yes she opposes it. If by "opponent of the 2nd amendment" you mean she wants to repeal it, then no she doesn't oppose it.