Jump to content


Democratic Election Thread

TGHusker

By TGHusker,
in Politics & Religion

Recommended Posts

TGHusker Offensive Coordinator

TGHusker

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Here in Oklahoma the burn was on fire as Bernie defeated Hillary soundly. The dems have an open primary here. It has been reported that many independents voted for Bernie as an anti Hillary vote.

I know the Bernie rally here in Tulsa last week was heavily attended.

Link to comment

Saunders Defensive Coordinator

Saunders

Posted
Posted

 

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.

 

She has stated that she viewed an Australia type of gun control plan (i.e. a ban) as intriguing.

 

“I don’t know enough details to tell you how we would do it or how it would work, but certainly the Australia example is worth looking at,” Clinton said at a New Hampshire town hall on Friday.

 

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/dem-primaries/257172-hillary-australia-style-gun-control-worth-looking-at

 

 

Is "opponent" too strong a word? Perhaps. At least she's consistent on something! But, an Australia type of plan would nullify the 2nd amendment as it is written. I've stated many times that I absolutely thing there are changes and tweaks we can make to current gun laws (or fix the the current check system for starters). Banning "assault weapons" or magazines, or bayonet hooks isn't going to stop gun violence, nor will it fix the underlying problems. I find it wrong that a politician who employs 24/7 gun toting security (paid for by tax payers) tells regular citizens that they cannot protect themselves in the same way that the rich and powerful can.

  • Fire 1
Link to comment
BigRedBuster Legend

BigRedBuster

Posted
Posted

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

I'm not offended or becoming defensive.

 

I'm simply asking questions, discussing and confronting what possibly is an over sensitivity towards comments made here.

Link to comment
Moiraine Head Coach

Moiraine

Posted
Posted

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

I'm not offended or becoming defensive.

 

I'm simply asking questions, discussing and confronting what possibly is an over sensitivity towards comments made here.

 

 

 

It seems like defensiveness when I bring up data and say it makes me curious and you automatically talk about how people called you a racist. Or when I mentioned people talk about women's looks more often than men's, you automatically bring up a couple anecdotes to show that "hay they are mean to men too!!!111" as if to show there is no problem when clearly it happens more often with women.

 

I haven't been sensitive or very offended by any comments in this thread. If it seemed like I was particularly pissed at anyone on here, I wasn't. If it seemed like I think this is a problem on Huskerboard, I don't and I wasn't implying it. I think the comment that made me think of how irritating it is in general (in media and society) was the one about the person's wife who said Hillary looked nice in the White House and on the campaign but not as a senator. That person isn't even a member of HB that I know of but they definitely speak for a lot of people which I think is sad. Literally however Hillary dresses, if she tries to look prettier when campaigning, or if she doesn't, or if she tries to look too serious and not "dolled up" enough, she gets scrutinized. This is the same with any female who runs for office.

 

I don't recall a previous conversation on here where people talked about what Hillary looks like. I was absolutely not talking about Huskerboard.

Link to comment


BigRedBuster Legend

BigRedBuster

Posted
Posted

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

I'm not offended or becoming defensive.

 

I'm simply asking questions, discussing and confronting what possibly is an over sensitivity towards comments made here.

 

 

 

It seems like defensiveness when I bring up data and say it makes me curious and you automatically talk about how people called you a racist. Or when I mentioned people talk about women's looks more often than men's, you automatically bring up a couple anecdotes to show that "hay they are mean to men too!!!111" as if to show there is no problem when clearly it happens more often with women.

 

I haven't been sensitive or very offended by any comments in this thread. If it seemed like I was particularly pissed at anyone on here, I wasn't. If it seemed like I think this is a problem on Huskerboard, I don't and I wasn't implying it. I think the comment that made me think of how irritating it is in general (in media and society) was the one about the person's wife who said Hillary looked nice in the White House and on the campaign but not as a senator. That person isn't even a member of HB that I know of but they definitely speak for a lot of people which I think is sad. Literally however Hillary dresses, if she tries to look prettier when campaigning, or if she doesn't, or if she tries to look too serious and not "dolled up" enough, she gets scrutinized. This is the same with any female who runs for office.

 

I don't recall a previous conversation on here where people talked about what Hillary looks like. I was absolutely not talking about Huskerboard.

 

No....I'm discussing your point by making counter points. That isn't being defensive, it's called discussing the point you tried to make.

 

You get awfully testy if someone counters a comment you make.

Link to comment
Moiraine Head Coach

Moiraine

Posted
Posted

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

I'm not offended or becoming defensive.

 

I'm simply asking questions, discussing and confronting what possibly is an over sensitivity towards comments made here.

 

It seems like defensiveness when I bring up data and say it makes me curious and you automatically talk about how people called you a racist. Or when I mentioned people talk about women's looks more often than men's, you automatically bring up a couple anecdotes to show that "hay they are mean to men too!!!111" as if to show there is no problem when clearly it happens more often with women.

 

I haven't been sensitive or very offended by any comments in this thread. If it seemed like I was particularly pissed at anyone on here, I wasn't. If it seemed like I think this is a problem on Huskerboard, I don't and I wasn't implying it. I think the comment that made me think of how irritating it is in general (in media and society) was the one about the person's wife who said Hillary looked nice in the White House and on the campaign but not as a senator. That person isn't even a member of HB that I know of but they definitely speak for a lot of people which I think is sad. Literally however Hillary dresses, if she tries to look prettier when campaigning, or if she doesn't, or if she tries to look too serious and not "dolled up" enough, she gets scrutinized. This is the same with any female who runs for office.

 

I don't recall a previous conversation on here where people talked about what Hillary looks like. I was absolutely not talking about Huskerboard.

No....I'm discussing your point by making counter points. That isn't being defensive, it's called discussing the point you tried to make.

 

You get awfully testy if someone counters a comment you make.

lol. Not really. And I don't think you've countered any comment I've made. Other than by saying someone called you racist and someone made fun of male candidates a few times.
Link to comment
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Visit the Sports Illustrated Husker site



×
×
  • Create New...