dagblog - Comments for "The children's crusade. Again"

Did people really tell you

ocean-kat — Sun, 13 Nov 2016 21:44:01 +0000

In reply to Agreed.

Did people really tell you that you "hated women?" How often? I saw no one say that here. I read dagblog pretty thoroughly and I don't recall any of the many women posters even suggesting women who don't support Hillary hate women. I didn't see it in the news articles I read. I'd have to see a lot more evidence before I believe that was a common occurrence.

Of course you had no

Flavius — Sun, 13 Nov 2016 21:26:07 +0000

In reply to Agreed.

Of course you had no obligation to vote for Clinton because you are a woman as is she.

You did have an obligation to be sure that your opinion was correct ,that her degree of untrustworthiness and manipulativety was more than that of many of us, perhaps even you. (Certainly can be found in me)

(I've "saving" this- and will continue by using "editing"- because 3 previous attempts somehow disappeared.)

I think your obligation might even extend to wondering whether her years with the Children's Defense

Fund somewhat contradict your view that she is lacking in ethics.

And perhaps whether the way ~~you~~ one could see her on CSPAN during her senate service chatting

with Republicans was somewhat at odds with the descriptions of her by her enemies.

And though it's ancient history perhaps one should reread the Wall St, Journal's editorials

about Vince Foster and compare it with what he was writing in his diary. It was published

in the New Yorker.

Finally since we are all subjected every day to misinformation cleverly packaged by either political

party may I say that we also have duties as citizens to really try hard to prevent it from causing us to

draw unjust conclusions. We will anyway, but we should work against it.

No doubt she had flaws. Everyone (except me) does . But I felt she was a "good enough" human being

understandably lied about by her opponents.

Anyway you made an effort to form a correct judgement. I think you failed but I admire you for making the effort.

Why didnt you groom someone

PeraclesPlease — Sun, 13 Nov 2016 17:38:08 +0000

In reply to Agreed.

Why didnt you groom someone ten years ago then? I dont have time for your slowpoke schedule and picky standards. Yeah, in 100 years it'll be paradise, maybe a woman even elected (though careful, not this, that or the other). maybe decent health care finally, maybe even racism and voter obstruction ended. get a move on - this time *I'm* going to sit on my ass and wait for some new brilliance someone comes up with, someone of "caliber" as you say. LMAO.

Eleanor Roosevelt got some of

Flavius — Sun, 13 Nov 2016 16:48:54 +0000

In reply to It wasn't that Hillary wasn't

Eleanor Roosevelt got some of the same treatment ( and I suspect didn't care) but Hillary had the infuriating

quality of being attractive. Unforgivable.

Agreed.

CFSatACK — Sun, 13 Nov 2016 16:47:38 +0000

In reply to The children's crusade. Again

Agreed.

I personally bristled every time someone said that I "hated women" because I wasn't fawning over HRC, nor did I intend to vote for her.

Women are not sheep. I had no obligation to vote for Clinton just because I am a woman and she is a woman. I didn't vote for her because (in my opinion) she is untrustworthy, manipulative, and lacks the ethics needed to be my candidate of choice. (BTW: Trump didn't deserve my vote, either.)

How about we groom and promote one of the (fabulous) women who were newly-elected to the Senate? No more loose cannons like Sarah Palin. But a sensible, open-minded woman of quality. Maybe even a man of the same caliber.

CFS

Agreed.

CFSatACK — Sun, 13 Nov 2016 16:45:49 +0000

In reply to The children's crusade. Again

Agreed.

I personally bristled every time someone said that I "hated women" because I wasn't fawning over HRC, nor did I intend to vote for her.

CFS

It wasn't that Hillary wasn't

PeraclesPlease — Sun, 13 Nov 2016 10:08:24 +0000

In reply to The children's crusade. Again

It wasn't that Hillary wasn't "perfect" - it's that she was "evil", "criminal", "corrupt", part of the "oligarchy", the "dynasty", "racist", "sexist", guilty of "holocaust", a "warmonger" who'll start a nuclear war with Russia, personally responsible for all effects of Iraq-Libya-Syria and the 1994 Crime Bill and NAFTA and 2008 via Glass-Steagall, a "neoliberal sellout", a "congenital liar", "untrustworthy", "will do anything to win", wants women to "vote their vaginas", "in bed with Wall Street", "destroying the earth", "destroyed Haiti", "took money from Arabs who brutalize women", "is getting rich off her foundation", "attacking Bill's victims", "elitist and only supporting the rich", "Nixon in a pants suit", "Goldwater girl", "pandering to blacks", "shrill/cackling", "insincere", "fake", "uninspiring", "terminally ill", and on and on.

That's from our friends, our fellow Democrats and like-minded Independents. Trump mostly just added "nasty woman" and "lock her up", triple-downed on the criminality of emails, and expanded on the Parkinsons Disease.