Hillary Clinton Fan Club

[Helz]

I wouldn't vote for her because she feels too fake to me. She avoids questions and plays a scripted role. I think a large part of why every presidents approval ratings fall to hell is because whatever fake image they built to get elected falls apart over time and people get to see what they actually elected.

The one thing I like about her is when her husband was elected that was the last presidency that did not blow money like a 16 year old girl with a credit card. Its kind of funny that we can stack the government with loads of educated people yet they have manage its finances with such short term mindsets.

[Cryptonic]

I wouldn't vote for her because she feels too fake to me. She avoids questions and plays a scripted role. I think a large part of why every presidents approval ratings fall to hell is because whatever fake image they built to get elected falls apart over time and people get to see what they actually elected.

The one thing I like about her is when her husband was elected that was the last presidency that did not blow money like a 16 year old girl with a credit card. Its kind of funny that we can stack the government with loads of educated people yet they have manage its finances with such short term mindsets.

I didn't really care for her nor dislike her. Then she said she's reveal the truth about aliens and Area 51, and I lost all respect for her.

And you're totally right, there is a self-image that she is struggling so hard to preserve.

[Slaol]

I didn't really care for her nor dislike her. Then she said she's reveal the truth about aliens and Area 51, and I lost all respect for her.

And you're totally right, there is a self-image that she is struggling so hard to preserve.

Which one is it today?

[Cryptonic]

Which one is it today?

?? What do you mean

[Yukitaka Oni]

I didn't really care for her nor dislike her. Then she said she's reveal the truth about aliens and Area 51, and I lost all respect for her.

And you're totally right, there is a self-image that she is struggling so hard to preserve.

v)x.o)>> v(o.o(v Hand Over The Information About Area 51 And No One Get Hurt! This Is Commie Spy!

[Frog]

after New Hampshire and Iowa, Hillary is going to steamroll.

[Orpz]

I wouldn't vote for her because she feels too fake to me. She avoids questions and plays a scripted role. I think a large part of why every presidents approval ratings fall to hell is because whatever fake image they built to get elected falls apart over time and people get to see what they actually elected.

IMO, the reason approval ratings fall is because the average American vastly overestimates the power the president has. Yes, executive orders are a thing, but when it comes to keeping major campaign promises, the President has to run through Congress as well as make sure he doesn't violate constitutional rights. It's a huge obstacle course and candidates willingly exaggerate their promises just for the votes, knowing full well they can't keep them. So yeah, I see what you mean by their personality "falling apart", but I'd say it's more of the checks and balances working as intended

EDIT: I highly doubt Bernard will keep most of his promises, but any minor improvement in the liberal area is a success to me. He also will veto a lot of the Republican Congress's shitty bills, like defunding Planned Parenthood.

[secondpassing]

America is not a democracy. Its a republic. And due to lobbying, Congress does not represent the public's ideas. Can the same be said about the president? Probably.

I read DarknessB's post, props to me.
Lots of good points. Should men and women have the same rights? Yes. Should they be treated equally? No.

Republics were meant to pick the most qualified representatives right? Just because Hillary is a woman doesn't mean she should get an advantage.

She's also miles deep in the political system just like all of them. Makes me distrust her.

Would have typed more but I can't seem to find the words.

[Tossangel]

She has a fan club? Repubs FTW!

[DarknessB]

America is not a democracy. Its a republic. And due to lobbying, Congress does not represent the public's ideas. Can the same be said about the president? Probably.

I read DarknessB's post, props to me.
Lots of good points. Should men and women have the same rights? Yes. Should they be treated equally? No.

Republics were meant to pick the most qualified representatives right? Just because Hillary is a woman doesn't mean she should get an advantage.

She's also miles deep in the political system just like all of them. Makes me distrust her.

Would have typed more but I can't seem to find the words.

Wow, you read my post -- nice! That's one more person than I expected to get through it.

[Slaol]

She has a fan club? Repubs FTW!

President Trump, amiright guys?

[Sen]

Can't expect good things to come out from such a shitty system.

[Orpz]

Cruz was stumping Trump tonight until he implied New Yorkers were unAmerican and then Trump pulled MUH NINE ELEVEN

Rubio was "B-B-BUT OBUMMER DID THIS!!!"

Jeb had some good points on defending Muslims but pretty much got blown out by Trump's "We don't need a weak leader like Jeb"

Trump remained unstumped after the international trade bit

Carson is still asleep

[Tossangel]

I will vote for him (Trump), if he wins the nomination. However, I will not vote for him in the primary.

[Frog]

Wow, calling for a civil, thoughtful argument on the topic? I'll bite.

I don't think many people can seriously argue with the premise that "men and women have equal rights". Perhaps, some very traditional religious folks might believe, for example, that women should be subservient to men per the tenets of their beliefs, and therefore, feminism is incompatible with their religious code and for that reason, problematic. Can't really do anything about that, other than hope their beliefs evolve with time or die out with their generation. Moving on.

/Thread Finished. Lol.

Second category of anti-"feminists" are those who view current public policy as advantageous to women vs. being equal -- i.e. those who disagree with affirmative action, bemoan the fact that women are typically allowed to have their own groups in society, but most men's groups have been forced to become co-ed, etc. This is at least a little bit of a better argument than #1, in the sense that you can debate this. Another example might be the fact that women are not required in the U.S. to register for Selective Service (which for those not familiar, is how the U.S. would organize a military draft in the extreme unlikelihood it deviates from a volunteer army in the future).

Valid point about progressive social inclusion being seen as unequal. But even that is a very weak argument imo.

Third, are people who associate feminism with liberalism generally and who may not support the latter in terms of their personal or political beliefs. For example, things like abortion, affirmative action, and the like. This is a bit different from #2 because it's more about the political beliefs vs. their impact on you. In contrast, #2 is more likely some guy who got narrowly rejected from an engineering school and blames affirmative action because there might have been female applicants with lower raw test numbers who got in (whole other discussion there).

But you even frame the argument as misguided... :-P

Finally, there are just the people uncomfortable with women being in a position of power and view feminism as eroding their advantage or masculinity in some way. This might be the most common reason for posters here. I.e. the whole "it's not cool to be nice to women" mentality among younger males, either because you feel like you don't understand them well or find them threatening for some reason (either in a hostility "stay off my turf" sort of a way or in a "let me pull your hair because I secretly like you" sort of a way). Basically, if you're not comfortable with women in general, you're probably not likely to want them to become more empowered in society.

^ You hit the nail on the head.

And yes, I realize this was way too long -- props for anyone who actually reads this, lol.

I think you must be an FM player because it seems as though you enjoy arguing for argument's sake.

[thedougler]

I will vote for him (Trump), if he wins the nomination. However, I will not vote for him in the primary.

Curious. Are you by any chance a Cruz supporter? The only possible reasoning behind your plan, that I can see, is that you want someone you view as even more of a hardliner on immigration, and would only vote Trump as your second choice.

[Frog]

Everyone who posts here is officially Pro-Hillary

[DarknessB]

/Thread Finished. Lol.



Valid point about progressive social inclusion being seen as unequal. But even that is a very weak argument imo.



But you even frame the argument as misguided... :-P




^ You hit the nail on the head.



I think you must be an FM player because it seems as though you enjoy arguing for argument's sake.

LOL, big time props for actually reading my tome of a post. They weren't arguments for why someone should objectively not agree with feminism (i.e. that men and women shouldn't have equal rights), but why people might subjectively reach that conclusion (that they do not believe in gender equality) for different reasons, albeit specious ones in most cases. In other words, more of an explanation of how people reach that place than a justification of why it is right, given it is obviously isn't.

And yes, you correctly read me as an FM player who approach these posts like putting together a read and forming an argument for argument's sake.

[Sen]

The only possible reasoning behind your plan, that I can see, is that you want someone you view as even more of a hardliner on immigration, and would only vote Trump as your second choice.

I'm in no way trying to say this is Tossangel's case, but from what I gather from the endless internet debate that raises around elections, many will vote for a given party, no matter how bad the candidate might be, and others will simply vote against whoever they dislike the most.
Using your Cruz example, there's many people around who might want to vote Cruz, but will vote Republican regardless of who ends up winning the primaries, and then there will be people who think that Hilary is the worst candidate, and thus will vote for whoever goes against her.

Furthermore, it seems like people vote according to party loyality, and not based on their individual views and needs. This is exemplified when someone tries to belittle others by using their stance on the national political spectrum (Democrat or Republican) as an insult, as if everything was either black or white, and the entirety of a party's voters were an uniform mass with the exact same political views and the same reasons for choosing that party.

This is one of the multitude of things that result from the shitty system I mentioned earlier, and nothing will change as long as the political duopoly and the voting system that feeds it remain unchallenged:
You have people having to pick between a party that doesn't reflect their views and another which is openly against them, others voting for some guy because they agree on one subject, even when they might disagree with their stance on everything else. Independents forcing to become weak followers and eventually devolving into borderline fanatics because of biases, then some more not voting at all because they are only given two options, none of which represent them in any way...

The power of picking the lesser of two evils is no power at all, and it will never cease to amaze me how the American population -who never miss a chance to talk about freedom- don't seem to give a single fuck when every 4 years they're told that their only options are two varieties of the same brand of shit.

[Slaol]

Everyone who posts here is officially Pro-Hillary

Thats not how threads work.

[Frog]

A few excerpts I found interesting from the NYT today:

At no time in Reagan’s eight years was the unemployment rate lower than it is today, at 5 percent — and this after Obama was handed the worst economic calamity since the Great Depression. Reagan lauded a federal deficit at 3.4 percent of gross national product. By last fall, Obama had done better than that, posting a deficit of 2.5 percent of G.D.P.

Much of the country is now more openly intolerant, quick to hate and nasty. One reaction to Obama has been the rise of an opposition party that is a home for xenophobes, defeatists and alarmists. They are the Eeyore Party with a snarl. As we heard again during the Republican debate on Thursday, Obama’s opponents are drawn to the “siren call of the angriest voices,” as Gov. Nikki Haley of South Carolina artfully put it. If the majority follows those voices, the Obama presidency will shoulder a sizable amount of the blame.

Is that really his fault? Did his presidency give rise to a bigoted billionaire with know-nothing followers? Part of the ugliness seems a reaction to the straitjacket of political correctness, which preceded Obama, and got worse in some corridors, mainly academia. But it may also be that the country was not ready for a transformational president; rather than sweep away the last racial barrier, his years in office showed just how deep-rooted the sentiment behind those barriers remains.

Republicans who would not applaud the creation of 14 million jobs, an unemployment rate cut in half, 17 million people given health care, a global climate change pact, the strongest military in the world and a rousing call for a “moonshot” to cure cancer are incapable of taking a fair measure of Obama’s achievements.

[Cryptonic]

A few excerpts I found interesting from the NYT today:

At no time in Reagan’s eight years was the unemployment rate lower than it is today, at 5 percent — and this after Obama was handed the worst economic calamity since the Great Depression. Reagan lauded a federal deficit at 3.4 percent of gross national product. By last fall, Obama had done better than that, posting a deficit of 2.5 percent of G.D.P.

Doesn't that really prove nothing, since the GDP is like 3x what is was back then? So 2.5% is much more than 3.4% lol.

[Frog]

Doesn't that really prove nothing, since the GDP is like 3x what is was back then? So 2.5% is much more than 3.4% lol.

I think you're suggesting a non-scaling comparison makes it apples to apples. It doesn't. This is why most economists scale to 2000 when discussing national stats and figures. Others scale to present.

[Cryptonic]

I think you're suggesting a non-scaling comparison makes it apples to apples. It doesn't. This is why most economists scale to 2000 when discussing national stats and figures. Others scale to present.

I just didn't know how the % of which GDP was taken, ect.
If it was % deficit @ the GDP in their time, then Obama had a deficit more than double in value. Not saying anything wrong in that, as a country obviously grows. But it just seems like a faulty argument used to convince people who don't second guess facts given to them.

But if it is % of the current GDP for both of them, ect, then it's a fine argument.

[Tossangel]

Curious. Are you by any chance a Cruz supporter? The only possible reasoning behind your plan, that I can see, is that you want someone you view as even more of a hardliner on immigration, and would only vote Trump as your second choice.

I haven't decided who I will be voting for in the primary yet. I can say not Trump and not Jeb for sure. Trump is not my 2nd, 3rd, 4th or even 5th choice out of the candidates running for the Republican ticket.

[Tossangel]

I'm in no way trying to say this is Tossangel's case, but from what I gather from the endless internet debate that raises around elections, many will vote for a given party, no matter how bad the candidate might be, and others will simply vote against whoever they dislike the most.

The Republicans have a lot of good candidates to consider unlike the Dems who can barely carve out 2.

[SuperJack]

-vote Boris Johnson

[SuperJack]

Reason: https://youtu.be/8Kr6RGpmxtA
https://youtu.be/HuIfwY_jzz8

[Orpz]

The Republicans have a lot of good candidates to consider unlike the Dems who can barely carve out 2.

Unfortunately, DNC was all-in for Hillary. Then came Bernard, a lifelong Independent who understood that third parties stand virtually no chance, and so he decided to change parties just to have a viable shot. Clearly you wouldn't be eager to welcome someone like that, so they started spending their efforts on pushing Hillary as well as discrediting Bernard.

Basically Bernard cucked Hillary

[Cryptonic]

The Republicans have a lot of good candidates to consider unlike the Dems who can barely carve out 2.

As an unbiased Canadian, I can tell you that neither party has any decent candidates lol. I don't see any of them getting a second term unless a major war breaks out.

I have a favorite in the races, but it should be obvious who it is since I'm Canadian lol.

[Orpz]

As an unbiased Canadian, I can tell you that neither party has any decent candidates lol. I don't see any of them getting a second term unless a major war breaks out.

I have a favorite in the races, but it should be obvious who it is since I'm Canadian lol.

Is it Cruz?

How is Trudeau being received in Canada right now? I'm a fan but I heard he already reneged on his promise for decriminalized weed

[Cryptonic]

Is it Cruz?

How is Trudeau being received in Canada right now? I'm a fan but I heard he already reneged on his promise for decriminalized weed

No, it's not Cruz. I like Bernie's socialism lol.


Trudeu is a mixed bag in the West. People over here buy into the fear mongering like crazy (aka hating on refugees), and Alberta also changed leadership to NDP recently. NDP + Liberal in combined with low oil prices = everyone who voted the Conservatives out caused global oil prices to drop!!! That's their logic, somehow.

I'm not sure how the East sees him, but I'm guessing they think highly of him as they are always Libs over there. Far East probably despises him.

He's also planning to legalize, not decriminalize. In the Queen's address, he had stated that he will be legalizing it, ect. Problems are arising due to International Treaties that we are a part in that says it needs to remain illegal. We'll see in 4 years, I guess lol.

[Cryptonic]

Also, I just got the Cruz thing XD
He's actually from where I live lol.

[Sen]

The Republicans have a lot of good candidates to consider unlike the Dems who can barely carve out 2.

Would you say Trump is a good candidate?

You said he's not among your top 5, but will vote him anyway if he's selected as the Republican candidate.
Is that out of party loyalty, or do you think Trump is a good candidate (or at least better than any of the Dem options)?

[Cryptonic]

Would you say Trump is a good candidate?

You said he's not among your top 5, but will vote him anyway if he's selected as the Republican candidate.
Is that out of party loyalty, or do you think Trump is a good candidate (or at least better than any of the Dem options)?

I know this wasn't directed to me, but I actually bet you Trump would be decent. The guy is actually very smart, and I truly believe he is just saying shit that he knows will get attention and votes lol. That being said, if he followed thru with his platform, it would be fucking terrible and many people would die lol.


Also, I never understood party loyalists in USA. I've probably voted for almost every major party at least once for Provincial/National elections.

[Slaol]

I haven't decided who I will be voting for in the primary yet. I can say not Trump and not Jeb for sure. Trump is not my 2nd, 3rd, 4th or even 5th choice out of the candidates running for the Republican ticket.

Who are the 5 you put above him? He's my Numero Uno Republican for purposes of entertainment mostly. He gives great speeches, has great hair. Also he'll make us great again and killdeport all the people that follow the religion he doesn't like.

[Tossangel]

Would you say Trump is a good candidate?

You said he's not among your top 5, but will vote him anyway if he's selected as the Republican candidate.
Is that out of party loyalty, or do you think Trump is a good candidate (or at least better than any of the Dem options)?

When I say the Dems have 2 "good" candidates, I mean from their perspective...not mine. Now onto your question...yes, he is better than any of the Dem options.

[Orpz]

When I say the Dems have 2 "good" candidates, I mean from their perspective...not mine. Now onto your question...yes, he is better than any of the Dem options.

I understand Hillary but what dont you like about Bernard?

[Tossangel]

Who are the 5 you put above him? He's my Numero Uno Republican for purposes of entertainment mostly. He gives great speeches, has great hair. Also he'll make us great again and killdeport all the people that follow the religion he doesn't like.

Wow, good reasons ;) I would vote Cruz, Rubio, Fiorina, Carson, Paul and prob a few more before Trump.

[Toadette]

lol Carson and Cruz are both almost as bad as Trump

[Slaol]

Wow, good reasons ;) I would vote Cruz, Rubio, Fiorina, Carson, Paul and prob a few more before Trump.

A black, a woman, a non-citizen. What is this the DNC

[Tossangel]

A black, a woman, a non-citizen. What is this the DNC

I don't vote based on gender or race and you are incorrect about Cruz.

[Toadette]

A black, a woman, a non-citizen. What is this the DNC

Nawp, if it was the dems the racist, sexist one wouldn't be winning by such a large margin over them.

[Toadette]

Nawp, if it was the dems the racist, sexist one wouldn't be winning by such a large margin over them.

This is not to say that people should vote based on race and gender - but when the racist, sexist one is the one polling higher than anyone else, you know your party has a problem.

[Slaol]

I don't vote based on gender or race and you are incorrect about Cruz.

How so?

[Slaol]

Nawp, if it was the dems the racist, sexist one wouldn't be winning by such a large margin over them.

Didnt you hear. Hes actually from the future, and is winning the nomination to prevent the aliens, robots, and illuminaughty from taking over America. He is the hero we need, but not the one we deserve.

[Sen]

I know this wasn't directed to me, but I actually bet you Trump would be decent. The guy is actually very smart, and I truly believe he is just saying shit that he knows will get attention and votes lol. That being said, if he followed thru with his platform, it would be fucking terrible and many people would die lol.

I agre that he is probably pretty smart, but I seriously doubt he'd make a decent president. I'm not even American, but the idea of that guy ruling the world's biggest powerhouse scares me.

Also, I never understood party loyalists in USA. I've probably voted for almost every major party at least once for Provincial/National elections.

The American political system revolves around convincing the voters that the other side is full of idiots who will destroy the country, instead of gaining votes by being a desirable leader.
The result is that the elections look more like fans of a couple of rival football teams, instead of informed individuals doing what they consider best. Now mix that with a lot of people who are entirelly clueless on how politics work (I've had first-hand experience with people who thought that by affiliating to a party, they were forced to always vote them), and you get the real life political equivalent of an OMGUS.

You see people getting into the most idiotic arguments, trying to convince the other side of how stupid they are for being Republican/Democratic, when the truth is that besides a few wackos out there, most of the Americans simply want what's best for the country, and maybe if they stopped focusing so much trying to convince the opposition of how their party and voters are all imbeciles, and convincing themselves of how their choice is the right one, they could see that they have more in common with a voter from the other party than with any of the candidates that this two-headed beast system offers them.

[Tossangel]

How so?

Naturalization Act of 1790

[Slaol]

Naturalization Act of 1790

Please go on. First things im seeing says you need to be white for that to count, and his name is Rafael Cruz. Im not one to be sexist, but thats most certainly a hispanic canadian. Then it says that naturlizes, which is seperate feom natural born in that you cant be president.

Also, if were trying to secure borders. Hes hispanic AND canadian. Stopping him would prove our commitment to stopping both borders!

[Slaol]

Times up. The answer we were looking for is- his moms from Delaware.

Sorry it didnt work out this time Toss. Did you have fun? Yu do get to walk away with everything else youve won though