So Jon Ossoff lost. It did come as a big surprise to me. With the kind of money he spent and the heavy campaigning he did, like i've never before, I thought he'd easily win. No one has ever spent that much amount on such elections in history, i believe. 

Someone was saying that his campaigning was like 'the fourth burger syndrome'. You enjoy the first burger, somehow gulp in the second one, force yourself to the third, but puke yourself sick with the fourth. His canvassing was like that. By the end, it was too much for anyone to take. The daily numerous text messages, phone calls, knocks on the door had became a big nuisance. There were numerous placards on every street corner. On top of that, he was shoved on to our faces on facebook, youtube, tv and what not! He has a cute face, but still! It was a lot for anyone to bear. I heard that people who didn't even care about these elections before actually went and voted for Karen Handell because of this heavy canvassing. 

As for Karen Handell, we didn't get to see her placards on the street side until maybe two weeks before the elections. I wondered why she didn't even care to canvass. 

Anyway, she took the republican stand on issues, while Ossoff seemed less convinced about taking the democratic stance (A comment: Democrats don't believe in what they stand for. They never were). People didn't even know what his agenda was. He seemed to be parroting about fighting against washington's overspending and doing whatever the people want him to do. He didn't seem convincing. Handell attack on him as an 'outsider', as he doesn't even live in the sixth district seems to have stuck. He's viewed as a carpetbagger. That seems to have hurt him big time. She also cunningly connected him to Nancy Palosi, who ppl hate as much as Hillary. That hurt him too. 

People also got sick of all the money he raised to win this election. The perception is that most of it came from California. So the mood was, 'Those californians are not going to control our elections with their money. No one can buy the elections with the money power'. 'With all the money he's taking from the outsiders, he'll more loyal to them, not us.'

Lessons to Democrats:
1. Don't overcanvass. 
2. Don't overspend (Hillary did that too)
3. Field a candidate who people can feel is their own, who they can connect with.
4. Be convinced about what you stand for and present it clearly to the people (Hillary didn't do this either and that's where she lost. She focused more on negative campaigning and throwing mud on Trump instead of talking about issues)

PS: I voted for Ossoff coz i was sick of Trump's rejection of the Paris environmental deal. I wanted to send a message to that moron that he needs to go. (I voted early, before the fourth burger syndrome kicked in)

I voted for Ossoff coz i was sick of Trump's rejection of the Paris environmental deal. I wanted to send a message to that moron that he needs to go.

Trump said many times during his campaign that he would "cancel" the Paris "deal" and that climate change is a hoax.

Idéfix wrote:

I voted for Ossoff coz i was sick of Trump's rejection of the Paris environmental deal. I wanted to send a message to that moron that he needs to go.

Trump said many times during his campaign that he would "cancel" the Paris "deal" and that climate change is a hoax.

Muslim hatred takes precedence over climate change issue you know.

Idéfix wrote:

I voted for Ossoff coz i was sick of Trump's rejection of the Paris environmental deal. I wanted to send a message to that moron that he needs to go.

Trump said many times during his campaign that he would "cancel" the Paris "deal" and that climate change is a hoax.

He did and despite that, he's a better candidate than Hillary. Looks like if the elections are held today with Trump Vs Hillary, Trump is going to win again, hands down, Russia or no Russia. That doesn't mean Trump is a good Presidential candidate. It just means that Hillary is a worse candidate than Trump. Adi mana daurbhagyam.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

I voted for Ossoff coz i was sick of Trump's rejection of the Paris environmental deal. I wanted to send a message to that moron that he needs to go.

Trump said many times during his campaign that he would "cancel" the Paris "deal" and that climate change is a hoax.

Muslim hatred takes precedence over climate change issue you know.

You love to call it Muslim hatred. Many see it as a fight against the decadence of the American way of life and not going the way of the middle eastern culture.

hillary was just someone who was always hated, especially by republicans, especially down south. Bill Clinton even apparently lost one of his elections coz of that, coz they didn't like her not changing her name after marriage (she did eventually). Coz of her being a sharp nerdy lawyer wearing coke-glasses, and not being your typical glamorous first lady. and that's the sad part of being her. however, she was a better presidential candidate any day. Kinda like some people are bad at interviews, but really good at the job. And some just dazzle you with their BS in interviews, and then not only do nothing once hired, make it miserable for you as well. That would be Trump.

kinnera-temp wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

I voted for Ossoff coz i was sick of Trump's rejection of the Paris environmental deal. I wanted to send a message to that moron that he needs to go.

Trump said many times during his campaign that he would "cancel" the Paris "deal" and that climate change is a hoax.

Muslim hatred takes precedence over climate change issue you know.

You love to call it Muslim hatred. Many see it as a fight against the decadence of the American way of life and not going the way of the middle eastern culture.

Which is what? This country wasn't treating everyone (colored folks) equally till 45 or so years ago, even in this day & age, there are many incidents that raise suspicion of treatment meted out to colored folks. One of the schools in the state you live in had segregated proms & homecomings till couple  of year ago. Majority of conservatives in this country lack guts or don't bother criticizing their past other than glorifying every tom, dick and harry as a patriot (as long as he is a white). So, stop parroting the nonsense spouted by racist folks and ask them to work on overcoming their prejudices.

confuzzled dude wrote:

kinnera-temp wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

I voted for Ossoff coz i was sick of Trump's rejection of the Paris environmental deal. I wanted to send a message to that moron that he needs to go.

Trump said many times during his campaign that he would "cancel" the Paris "deal" and that climate change is a hoax.

Muslim hatred takes precedence over climate change issue you know.

You love to call it Muslim hatred. Many see it as a fight against the decadence of the American way of life and not going the way of the middle eastern culture.

Which is what? This country wasn't treating everyone (colored folks) equally till 45 or so years ago, even in this day & age, there are many incidents that raise suspicion of treatment meted out to colored folks. One of the schools in the state you live in had segregated proms & homecomings till couple  of year ago. Majority of conservatives in this country lack guts or don't bother criticizing their past other than glorifying every tom, dick and harry as a patriot (as long as he is a white). So, stop parroting the nonsense spouted by racist folks and ask them to work on overcoming their prejudices.

American society is not perfect, but it has come a long long way from how it was a centuary ago and it is in the process of getting better. The fact the you and I and millions of people chose this country to migrate and millions dreaming to emigrate here says what kind of a society this is. Why did you choose this and not any of the middle eastern countries as your home, as a country where you wanted to raise your kids? If you don't like it here, would you like to emigrate to the middle east, say Saudi? As for me and many many others: not for a million dollars, not for a million years!

yyt w wrote:hillary was just someone who was always hated, especially by republicans, especially down south. Bill Clinton even apparently lost one of his elections coz of that, coz they didn't like her not changing her name after marriage (she did eventually). Coz of her being a sharp nerdy lawyer wearing coke-glasses, and not being your typical glamorous first lady. and that's the sad part of being her. however, she was a better presidential candidate any day. Kinda like some people are bad at interviews, but really good at the job. And some just dazzle you with their BS in interviews, and then not only do nothing once hired, make it miserable for you as well. That would be Trump.

All that you mentioned probably happened 40+ years ago, not now. America has come a long way since then. No one cares about her last name or her coke glasses in this day and age. There are major issues with her which make ppl not to like her.

kinnera-temp wrote:

yyt w wrote:hillary was just someone who was always hated, especially by republicans, especially down south. Bill Clinton even apparently lost one of his elections coz of that, coz they didn't like her not changing her name after marriage (she did eventually). Coz of her being a sharp nerdy lawyer wearing coke-glasses, and not being your typical glamorous first lady. and that's the sad part of being her. however, she was a better presidential candidate any day. Kinda like some people are bad at interviews, but really good at the job. And some just dazzle you with their BS in interviews, and then not only do nothing once hired, make it miserable for you as well. That would be Trump.

All that you mentioned probably happened 40+ years ago, not now. America has come a long way since then. No one cares about her last name or her coke glasses in this day and age. There are major issues with her which make ppl not to like her.

the narrative just kept on building up... her being ambitious (and not pleasing) was a huge negative against her, then and now.

t w wrote:

kinnera-temp wrote:

yyt w wrote:hillary was just someone who was always hated, especially by republicans, especially down south. Bill Clinton even apparently lost one of his elections coz of that, coz they didn't like her not changing her name after marriage (she did eventually). Coz of her being a sharp nerdy lawyer wearing coke-glasses, and not being your typical glamorous first lady. and that's the sad part of being her. however, she was a better presidential candidate any day. Kinda like some people are bad at interviews, but really good at the job. And some just dazzle you with their BS in interviews, and then not only do nothing once hired, make it miserable for you as well. That would be Trump.

All that you mentioned probably happened 40+ years ago, not now. America has come a long way since then. No one cares about her last name or her coke glasses in this day and age. There are major issues with her which make ppl not to like her.

the narrative just kept on building up... her being ambitious (and not pleasing) was a huge negative against her, then and now.

Yeah, ambitious about grabbing power, not serving the country. The major issue people have with her is the trust issue. Not just the republicans, not just the southerners, but most dems don't like her either. 

What is the one thing you can think of that she achieved as the Secretary of state which she served for six years?

kinnera-temp wrote:

t w wrote:

kinnera-temp wrote:

yyt w wrote:hillary was just someone who was always hated, especially by republicans, especially down south. Bill Clinton even apparently lost one of his elections coz of that, coz they didn't like her not changing her name after marriage (she did eventually). Coz of her being a sharp nerdy lawyer wearing coke-glasses, and not being your typical glamorous first lady. and that's the sad part of being her. however, she was a better presidential candidate any day. Kinda like some people are bad at interviews, but really good at the job. And some just dazzle you with their BS in interviews, and then not only do nothing once hired, make it miserable for you as well. That would be Trump.

All that you mentioned probably happened 40+ years ago, not now. America has come a long way since then. No one cares about her last name or her coke glasses in this day and age. There are major issues with her which make ppl not to like her.

the narrative just kept on building up... her being ambitious (and not pleasing) was a huge negative against her, then and now.

Yeah, ambitious about grabbing power, not serving the country. The major issue people have with her is the trust issue. Not just the republicans, not just the southerners, but most dems don't like her either. 

What is the one thing you can think of that she achieved as the Secretary of state which she served for six years?

like i said, she was a bad interviewee probably, couldn't sell herself well, that's why people can't think of any (just one link below). instead, they chose to believe the loudest gaslighter. The one who goes from 'i will make mexico pay for the wall', to, 'the wall will pay for itself, mexico doesn't have to pay, it's good for all, right?' And STILL gets a loud applause from his followers. I won't be surprised if he himself brings in 15000 (or whatever number of) muslim refugees from Syria or Saudi, something they shouted vehemently she will do. But my suspicion is, he will sell that well too. 

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/09/carly-fiorina-debate-hillary-clintons-greatest-accomplishment-213157

t w wrote:

kinnera-temp wrote:

t w wrote:

kinnera-temp wrote:

yyt w wrote:hillary was just someone who was always hated, especially by republicans, especially down south. Bill Clinton even apparently lost one of his elections coz of that, coz they didn't like her not changing her name after marriage (she did eventually). Coz of her being a sharp nerdy lawyer wearing coke-glasses, and not being your typical glamorous first lady. and that's the sad part of being her. however, she was a better presidential candidate any day. Kinda like some people are bad at interviews, but really good at the job. And some just dazzle you with their BS in interviews, and then not only do nothing once hired, make it miserable for you as well. That would be Trump.

All that you mentioned probably happened 40+ years ago, not now. America has come a long way since then. No one cares about her last name or her coke glasses in this day and age. There are major issues with her which make ppl not to like her.

the narrative just kept on building up... her being ambitious (and not pleasing) was a huge negative against her, then and now.

Yeah, ambitious about grabbing power, not serving the country. The major issue people have with her is the trust issue. Not just the republicans, not just the southerners, but most dems don't like her either. 

What is the one thing you can think of that she achieved as the Secretary of state which she served for six years?

like i said, she was a bad interviewee probably, couldn't sell herself well, that's why people can't think of any (just one link below). instead, they chose to believe the loudest gaslighter. The one who goes from 'i will make mexico pay for the wall', to, 'the wall will pay for itself, mexico doesn't have to pay, it's good for all, right?' And STILL gets a loud applause from his followers. I won't be surprised if he himself brings in 15000 (or whatever number of) muslim refugees from Syria or Saudi, something they shouted vehemently she will do. But my suspicion is, he will sell that well too. 

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/09/carly-fiorina-debate-hillary-clintons-greatest-accomplishment-213157

I think you got much of that right. I think the US political establishment after all these years is simply not yet ready for strong expressive women. I was at a get together this evening of mostly Indians, and an Indian woman was remarking on the shrillness of Elizabeth Warren and how aggressive Kamala Harris was in the recent intelligence committee hearings. Not the actual substance of their comments or the context of the questions we were discussing, but the tone of their voices. Most people still can't get beyond that. I pointed out to her that they hadn't seen said anything actually objectionable and pointed out the really nasty and violent things Republican male politicians had said in the recent past in very polite and quiet voices that largely went without remark. That shut her up, but there you have it.

yeah Sarah Palin might have paid a bigger price for being a woman and saying the things that she did. W Bush and Trump were also mocked for a lot of their content and lack of knowledge, but they didn't meet the same fate as hers. 

Every presidential candidate is ambitious. Has to be. Pretty much anyone who has had a political career must have thought at one point or another if they have a shot at the highest post of this country, or if they can handle it or not. Being a president is not important for serving the country, you can do it in many other ways. But no one else's ambition is questioned. Even slimeballs like Christie or Cruz were not questioned for their 'true intention' i.e. 'grabbing power', for running. But Clinton's motive was questioned in every way, inspite of having decades of history of her serving this country behind her. In comparison, what was Trump's history of 'serving' this country? In this country it's perfectly alright to be aggressively ambitious. You just need to be a white man first, I suppose.

t w wrote:yeah Sarah Palin might have paid a bigger price for being a woman and saying the things that she did. W Bush and Trump were also mocked for a lot of their content and lack of knowledge, but they didn't meet the same fate as hers. 

Every presidential candidate is ambitious. Has to be. Pretty much anyone who has had a political career must have thought at one point or another if they have a shot at the highest post of this country, or if they can handle it or not. Being a president is not important for serving the country, you can do it in many other ways. But no one else's ambition is questioned. Even slimeballs like Christie or Cruz were not questioned for their 'true intention' i.e. 'grabbing power', for running. But Clinton's motive was questioned in every way, inspite of having decades of history of her serving this country behind her. In comparison, what was Trump's history of 'serving' this country? In this country it's perfectly alright to be aggressively ambitious. You just need to be a white man first, I suppose.

Grabbing power by 'hook or crook'. Everyone has seen how she crushed Bernie during the primaries. No wonder people have issues with her integrity. (Bernie may be a socialist, but he's a man with great character. Her personality pales in front of his. This is not because he is a white male)

Much of her cunningness and crookedness was evidenced during her campaigning, which you were all blind to here. Much of America could see through it. I've protested about many of those on these forums during the election times. 

Not liking her has nothing to do with her being a woman. It's to do with her character. 

Supporting her shouldn't be just because she's a woman. That would be such an insult to womanhood. 

PS: Trump isn't a great person either, but ppl saw him as lesser of the two evils.

https://such.forumotion.com/t43130-hillary-clinton-is-not-out-of-the-woods-yet-and-neither-am-i#238956


Why would they want to seal the case? Perhaps because they don’t want the public to see what really happens behind closed doors. Consider this: if a storefront divorce lawyer in Western Maryland had systematically destroyed thousands of items of evidence, is there any doubt that Maryland’s Office of Bar Counsel would file charges? Of course not.  Yet when Hillary’s lawyers commit such crimes, the Office of Bar Counsel turns a blind eye.
A crime is a crime, and there’s no excuse for whitewashing the criminal misconduct of attorneys who happen to represent a Presidential candidate.  As I’ve documented on this blog, however, disciplinary cases against lawyers are usually decided by politics. The greater an attorney’s political prominence, the lower the chance that he or she will be prosecuted by the bar, and that’s true for Republicans and Democrats alike.  http://lawflog.com/?p=1161

kinnera-temp wrote:

t w wrote:yeah Sarah Palin might have paid a bigger price for being a woman and saying the things that she did. W Bush and Trump were also mocked for a lot of their content and lack of knowledge, but they didn't meet the same fate as hers. 

Every presidential candidate is ambitious. Has to be. Pretty much anyone who has had a political career must have thought at one point or another if they have a shot at the highest post of this country, or if they can handle it or not. Being a president is not important for serving the country, you can do it in many other ways. But no one else's ambition is questioned. Even slimeballs like Christie or Cruz were not questioned for their 'true intention' i.e. 'grabbing power', for running. But Clinton's motive was questioned in every way, inspite of having decades of history of her serving this country behind her. In comparison, what was Trump's history of 'serving' this country? In this country it's perfectly alright to be aggressively ambitious. You just need to be a white man first, I suppose.

Grabbing power by 'hook or crook'. Everyone has seen how she crushed Bernie during the primaries. No wonder people have issues with her integrity. (Bernie may be a socialist, but he's a man with great character. Her personality pales in front of his. This is not because he is a white male)

Much of her cunningness and crookedness was evidenced during her campaigning, which you were all blind to here. Much of America could see through it. I've protested about many of those on these forums during the election times. 

Not liking her has nothing to do with her being a woman. It's to do with her character. 

Supporting her shouldn't be just because she's a woman. That would be such an insult to womanhood. 

PS: Trump isn't a great person either, but ppl saw him as lesser of the two evils.

It's just a matter of perception, and unfortunately one can no longer argue with that. Trump had a much more dubious past and a lineup of criminal and legal issues behind him. And it continues to be the way he has integrated his family and not cut off from his business. Not to mention complete chaos. My only hope is that it stops giving the heartburn it's giving currently.

Sarah Palin aka Caribou Barbie says the most ridiculous things. She can't speak a complete sentence and just rambles on. I have no idea how she got elected governor of Alaska. She deserves to be mocked mercilessly. And nobody does mocking better than Colbert:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:Sarah Palin aka Caribou Barbie says the most ridiculous things. She can't speak a complete sentence and just rambles on. I have no idea how she got elected governor of Alaska. She deserves to be mocked mercilessly. And nobody does mocking better than Colbert:

She may not be eloquent, but she has some achievements to talk about as the governor of Alaska. How about that? 
'Caribou Barbie', the derogatory 'the stripper woman' that you used for the first lady says what kind of respect you have for women and what kind of a mysogynist you are. Focusing on how she talks and not on her credentials as the governor also exposes the mysogynistic and hypocritical attitude of the dems. Don't think people are not watching all this.

She didn't even complete a term as governor. Not eloquent? I think the ability to speak a few sentences coherently is a minimum requirement. It's indefensible to criticize people who mock her. She needs to be mocked and mocked mercilessly.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:She didn't even complete a term as governor. Not eloquent? I think the ability to speak a few sentences coherently is a minimum requirement. It's indefensible to criticize people who mock her. She needs to be mocked and mocked mercilessly.

And that's not mysogyny and all the other big things you said ppl are if they criticized dem women? 
Rep women can be treated like crap, and that's all fair. Dem women can't be pointed fingers at coz 'omg! you can't be doing that coz they're so flawless and if you do it, it's all coz you're such a horrible person and can't take in strong women.' 

Puke!!

One needn't complete the term to achieve something. She did very fine as Governor as long as she served, but no, you guys don't want to focus on that. The mysogynists only want to focus everything other than that coz 'she's a woman'.

kinnera-temp wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:She didn't even complete a term as governor. Not eloquent? I think the ability to speak a few sentences coherently is a minimum requirement. It's indefensible to criticize people who mock her. She needs to be mocked and mocked mercilessly.

And that's not mysogyny and all the other big things you said ppl are if they criticized dem women? 
Rep women can be treated like crap, and that's all fair. Dem women can't be pointed fingers at coz 'omg! you can't be doing that coz they're so flawless and if you do it, it's all coz you're such a horrible person and can't take in strong women.' 

Puke!!

It's misogyny if a woman is treated with contempt for things men do as well because of particular characteristics that have to do with their sex, e.g. the tone or pitch of their voice. "Shrillery" is an example of misogyny.

Sarah Palin is constantly ridiculed because she says ridiculous things, not because she is a woman. She is just an extreme example of people who speak incoherently. Other examples are Dubya and Trump. And Dubya too was mocked incessantly. So the mockery is not discriminatory.

When you use words out of the context, they lose all meaning. Then of what use are dictionaries? In this context, misogyny is not an appropriate characterization of the mockery that Sarah Palin is often subjected to by comedians and by the general public. She is not mocked because she is a woman, she is mocked because she is plain cold stupid and incoherent. As was Dubya on many occasions. I don't remember anyone complaining about misandry on those occasions.

I am not saying Republican women politicians are not subjected to real misogyny. They are. Here for example is something that was said about a Republican woman during the 2016 primaries:

Look at that face! Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president.
I mean, she's a woman, and I'm not s'posed to say bad things, but really, folks, come on. Are we serious?

Can you guess who was being referred to in that quote? And can you guess whose quote that is?

kinnera-temp wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:Sarah Palin aka Caribou Barbie says the most ridiculous things. She can't speak a complete sentence and just rambles on. I have no idea how she got elected governor of Alaska. She deserves to be mocked mercilessly. And nobody does mocking better than Colbert:

She may not be eloquent, but she has some achievements to talk about as the governor of Alaska. How about that? 
'Caribou Barbie', the derogatory 'the stripper woman' that you used for the first lady says what kind of respect you have for women and what kind of a mysogynist you are. Focusing on how she talks and not on her credentials as the governor also exposes the mysogynistic and hypocritical attitude of the dems. Don't think people are not watching all this.

What other words do you prefer to characterize this photo shoot? Would "a tastefully disrobed presidential spouse" be more acceptable?

And oh here are two classy guys, one our dear president and the other the senator who is a leading member of the tea party caucus of the GOP, duking it out about their wives:

http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/donald-trump-melania-trump-gq-photo-shoot

It is always a pleasure to watch Il Professore twist himself like a pretzel trying to defend his hypocrisy.

And gasp! all this misogynist people who didn't vote for Shrillery actually voted for another woman - Jill Stein.

And speaking of misogyny, there is no misogyny that causes more actual tangible damage than the Republican healthcare plan:

http://time.com/4829380/health-care-bill-senate-women/

The things Palin was mocked for: (a) ignorance of foreign policy, (b) lack of intellectual curiosity, (c) speaking really bad English, and (d) quitting midway through her term to make money through reality TV.

I don't see what any of this has to do with her gender. When HA calls Clinton "Shrillery," OTOH, it is much more clearly about the higher pitch of women's voices. When Trump mocked Fiorina about her looks, it was much more clearly about the societal expectation that women need to be pretty in order to do well.

Idéfix wrote:The things Palin was mocked for: (a) ignorance of foreign policy, (b) lack of intellectual curiosity, (c) speaking really bad English, and (d) quitting midway through her term to make money through reality TV.

I don't see what any of this has to do with her gender. When HA calls Clinton "Shrillery," OTOH, it is much more clearly about the higher pitch of women's voices. When Trump mocked Fiorina about her looks, it was much more clearly about the societal expectation that women need to be pretty in order to do well.

Yeah. Continue with the libtard delusion that Shrillery lost because she was a woman.

Hellsangel wrote:

Idéfix wrote:The things Palin was mocked for: (a) ignorance of foreign policy, (b) lack of intellectual curiosity, (c) speaking really bad English, and (d) quitting midway through her term to make money through reality TV.

I don't see what any of this has to do with her gender. When HA calls Clinton "Shrillery," OTOH, it is much more clearly about the higher pitch of women's voices. When Trump mocked Fiorina about her looks, it was much more clearly about the societal expectation that women need to be pretty in order to do well.

Yeah. Continue with the libtard delusion that Shrillery lost because she was a woman.

I didn't say that. I was just accusing you of misogyny. Feel free to continue your misogyny though.

Hellsangel wrote:

Idéfix wrote:The things Palin was mocked for: (a) ignorance of foreign policy, (b) lack of intellectual curiosity, (c) speaking really bad English, and (d) quitting midway through her term to make money through reality TV.

I don't see what any of this has to do with her gender. When HA calls Clinton "Shrillery," OTOH, it is much more clearly about the higher pitch of women's voices. When Trump mocked Fiorina about her looks, it was much more clearly about the societal expectation that women need to be pretty in order to do well.

Yeah. Continue with the libtard delusion that Shrillery lost because she was a woman.

You seem confused. Neither I, and reading what Idefix wrote, nor he, said Hillary lost because she is a woman . We are saying your calling her "Shrillery" is misogynistic.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

Idéfix wrote:The things Palin was mocked for: (a) ignorance of foreign policy, (b) lack of intellectual curiosity, (c) speaking really bad English, and (d) quitting midway through her term to make money through reality TV.

I don't see what any of this has to do with her gender. When HA calls Clinton "Shrillery," OTOH, it is much more clearly about the higher pitch of women's voices. When Trump mocked Fiorina about her looks, it was much more clearly about the societal expectation that women need to be pretty in order to do well.

Yeah. Continue with the libtard delusion that Shrillery lost because she was a woman.

You seem confused. Neither I, and reading what Idefix wrote, nor he, said Hillary lost because she is a woman . We are saying your calling her "Shrillery" is misogynistic.

You are welcome to indulge in that delusion as well.

kinnera-temp wrote:
American society is not perfect, but it has come a long long way from how it was a centuary ago and it is in the process of getting better. The fact the you and I and millions of people chose this country to migrate and millions dreaming to emigrate here says what kind of a society this is. Why did you choose this and not any of the middle eastern countries as your home, as a country where you wanted to raise your kids? If you don't like it here, would you like to emigrate to the middle east, say Saudi? As for me and many many others: not for a million dollars, not for a million years!

You couldn't have been more wrong, majority of Indian diaspora lives in muslim countries.

kinnera-temp wrote:
If you don't like it here, would you like to emigrate to the middle east, say Saudi?

Typical chaddi style argument without any critical thinking. I like India & US and want them do well which is why I criticize some of their policies that I deem as detrimental to country's future. That's what takes a country forward not mindlessly toeing the line of right-wing ideology.

Hellsangel wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

Idéfix wrote:The things Palin was mocked for: (a) ignorance of foreign policy, (b) lack of intellectual curiosity, (c) speaking really bad English, and (d) quitting midway through her term to make money through reality TV.

I don't see what any of this has to do with her gender. When HA calls Clinton "Shrillery," OTOH, it is much more clearly about the higher pitch of women's voices. When Trump mocked Fiorina about her looks, it was much more clearly about the societal expectation that women need to be pretty in order to do well.

Yeah. Continue with the libtard delusion that Shrillery lost because she was a woman.

You seem confused. Neither I, and reading what Idefix wrote, nor he, said Hillary lost because she is a woman . We are saying your calling her "Shrillery" is misogynistic.

You are welcome to indulge in that delusion as well.

It's fun watch them twist out of shape mumbling nonsense.

kinnera-temp wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

Idéfix wrote:The things Palin was mocked for: (a) ignorance of foreign policy, (b) lack of intellectual curiosity, (c) speaking really bad English, and (d) quitting midway through her term to make money through reality TV.

I don't see what any of this has to do with her gender. When HA calls Clinton "Shrillery," OTOH, it is much more clearly about the higher pitch of women's voices. When Trump mocked Fiorina about her looks, it was much more clearly about the societal expectation that women need to be pretty in order to do well.

Yeah. Continue with the libtard delusion that Shrillery lost because she was a woman.

You seem confused. Neither I, and reading what Idefix wrote, nor he, said Hillary lost because she is a woman . We are saying your calling her "Shrillery" is misogynistic.

You are welcome to indulge in that delusion as well.

It's fun watch them twist out of shape mumbling nonsense.

Misogyny often thrives because some women encourage it. It is not fun to watch that.

Mysogyny thrives because of hypocrites, the ones who pose like the champions of women, but who in fact are anything but that. It's not fun, but enraging. Learn to respect women, all women first. And Women don't need any patronisation from the hypocritical males. They can do just fine without the psedo champions. Thank you!
You don't vote for anyone just because she's a woman. That is so humiliating to womanhood, as I said. Look at her credentials objectively, not with a 'she's a woman and we got to support a woman, however she is. And if anyone doesn't do that, let's label them as mysogynists and let's take a higher stand than them.' That's so frinkking humiliating to us women. You know who the real mysogynists are? The ones who do that. So you guys quit being these disgusting male chauvinists and mysogynists and hypocrites. Shame on you all!

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

kinnera-temp wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:Sarah Palin aka Caribou Barbie says the most ridiculous things. She can't speak a complete sentence and just rambles on. I have no idea how she got elected governor of Alaska. She deserves to be mocked mercilessly. And nobody does mocking better than Colbert:

She may not be eloquent, but she has some achievements to talk about as the governor of Alaska. How about that? 
'Caribou Barbie', the derogatory 'the stripper woman' that you used for the first lady says what kind of respect you have for women and what kind of a mysogynist you are. Focusing on how she talks and not on her credentials as the governor also exposes the mysogynistic and hypocritical attitude of the dems. Don't think people are not watching all this.

What other words do you prefer to characterize this photo shoot? Would "a tastefully disrobed presidential spouse" be more acceptable?

She was a fashion model and she did the photo shoot as a part of her job. You don't need to demean anyone for doing their job. 
There's nothing to be ashamed about a female body. It's beautiful. If you can appreciate that, do so. Else, move on. 
Demeaning a woman only shows your character. Don't bring in some political brawls and try justify youself. When you pose to take a high ground, at least act on it.

kinnera-temp wrote:Learn to respect women, all women first.

I don't plan to do that any time soon. I don't have to respect a human being for a characteristic they possess as a result of nature, in which their free will did not play a role. I don't have to respect all left-handed people, or those with a mole on their right cheek either.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

kinnera-temp wrote:Learn to respect women, all women first.

I don't plan to do that any time soon. I don't have to respect a human being for a characteristic they possess as a result of nature, in which their free will did not play a role. I don't have to respect all left-handed people, or those with a mole on their right cheek either.

Interesting. It may be tangential to the current discussion but wanted to throw in this. Being human (capable of intelligence - emotional and/or rational) is also a nature given characteristic. We should not respect any outcome of such nature granted intelligence then. And just to make it clear, there is NO free-will in any conditioned thought process  - irrespective of if such conditioning is by ancient traditions, current societal values or even self imposed opinions based on our tastes or limited slice/experience of life). Being Free-willed means we are capable of looking at every moment as if fresh with only the tools of intelligence and none of the accumulated baggage of any of the past up until that moment. Try that for a day and see all our delusions of being endowed with free will will be broken (and for good).

smArtha wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

kinnera-temp wrote:Learn to respect women, all women first.

I don't plan to do that any time soon. I don't have to respect a human being for a characteristic they possess as a result of nature, in which their free will did not play a role. I don't have to respect all left-handed people, or those with a mole on their right cheek either.

Interesting. It may be tangential to the current discussion but wanted to throw in this. Being human (capable of intelligence - emotional and/or rational) is also a nature given characteristic. We should not respect any outcome of such nature granted intelligence then. And just to make it clear, there is NO free-will in any conditioned thought process  - irrespective of if such conditioning is by ancient traditions, current societal values or even self imposed opinions based on our tastes or limited slice/experience of life). Being Free-willed means we are capable of looking at every moment as if fresh with only the tools of intelligence and none of the accumulated baggage of any of the past up until that moment. Try that for a day and see all our delusions of being endowed with free will will be broken (and for good).

That's a fair point. Let me rephrase a little to include my concession of your point -- I extend to every human being basic politeness unless they give me reason not to. However, I refuse to show extra respect to someone who is a woman or an old person having no other knowledge of them other than that they are female or aged.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

smArtha wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

kinnera-temp wrote:Learn to respect women, all women first.

I don't plan to do that any time soon. I don't have to respect a human being for a characteristic they possess as a result of nature, in which their free will did not play a role. I don't have to respect all left-handed people, or those with a mole on their right cheek either.

Interesting. It may be tangential to the current discussion but wanted to throw in this. Being human (capable of intelligence - emotional and/or rational) is also a nature given characteristic. We should not respect any outcome of such nature granted intelligence then. And just to make it clear, there is NO free-will in any conditioned thought process  - irrespective of if such conditioning is by ancient traditions, current societal values or even self imposed opinions based on our tastes or limited slice/experience of life). Being Free-willed means we are capable of looking at every moment as if fresh with only the tools of intelligence and none of the accumulated baggage of any of the past up until that moment. Try that for a day and see all our delusions of being endowed with free will will be broken (and for good).

That's a fair point. Let me rephrase a little to include my concession of your point -- I extend to every human being basic politeness unless they give me reason not to. However, I refuse to show extra respect to someone who is a woman or an old person having no other knowledge of them other than that they are female or aged.

And it is quite ignorant of you to think that people use Shrillery to mock in a misogynistic way, but if that gives you a measure of comfort in defending your loser 'Madam President', so be it.

Hellsangel wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

smArtha wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

kinnera-temp wrote:Learn to respect women, all women first.

I don't plan to do that any time soon. I don't have to respect a human being for a characteristic they possess as a result of nature, in which their free will did not play a role. I don't have to respect all left-handed people, or those with a mole on their right cheek either.

Interesting. It may be tangential to the current discussion but wanted to throw in this. Being human (capable of intelligence - emotional and/or rational) is also a nature given characteristic. We should not respect any outcome of such nature granted intelligence then. And just to make it clear, there is NO free-will in any conditioned thought process  - irrespective of if such conditioning is by ancient traditions, current societal values or even self imposed opinions based on our tastes or limited slice/experience of life). Being Free-willed means we are capable of looking at every moment as if fresh with only the tools of intelligence and none of the accumulated baggage of any of the past up until that moment. Try that for a day and see all our delusions of being endowed with free will will be broken (and for good).

That's a fair point. Let me rephrase a little to include my concession of your point -- I extend to every human being basic politeness unless they give me reason not to. However, I refuse to show extra respect to someone who is a woman or an old person having no other knowledge of them other than that they are female or aged.

And it is quite ignorant of you to think that people use Shrillery to mock in a misogynistic way, but if that gives you a measure of comfort in defending your loser 'Madam President', so be it.

If she weren't a career criminal thug, Hitlary would have been addressed respectfully.

Hellsangel wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

smArtha wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

kinnera-temp wrote:Learn to respect women, all women first.

I don't plan to do that any time soon. I don't have to respect a human being for a characteristic they possess as a result of nature, in which their free will did not play a role. I don't have to respect all left-handed people, or those with a mole on their right cheek either.

Interesting. It may be tangential to the current discussion but wanted to throw in this. Being human (capable of intelligence - emotional and/or rational) is also a nature given characteristic. We should not respect any outcome of such nature granted intelligence then. And just to make it clear, there is NO free-will in any conditioned thought process  - irrespective of if such conditioning is by ancient traditions, current societal values or even self imposed opinions based on our tastes or limited slice/experience of life). Being Free-willed means we are capable of looking at every moment as if fresh with only the tools of intelligence and none of the accumulated baggage of any of the past up until that moment. Try that for a day and see all our delusions of being endowed with free will will be broken (and for good).

That's a fair point. Let me rephrase a little to include my concession of your point -- I extend to every human being basic politeness unless they give me reason not to. However, I refuse to show extra respect to someone who is a woman or an old person having no other knowledge of them other than that they are female or aged.

And it is quite ignorant of you to think that people use Shrillery to mock in a misogynistic way, but if that gives you a measure of comfort in defending your loser 'Madam President', so be it.

I am not objecting to your intense dislike of Hillary or even calling her names. Please do so by all means. But the name "Shrillery" is certainly misogynistic. It is not misogynistic because you dislike Hillary as a politician or that you think she is corrupt, or that you think she is culpable in email-gate. It is misogynistic because it is a moniker that refers to a characteristic often associated with female voices -- an unpleasantly high pitch. What's worse, it is blatantly misogynistic because while Hillary does not have a voice I particularly like, it is anything but shrill. So no cigar, you're still a misogynist when it comes to calling Hillary "Shrillery".

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

smArtha wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

I don't plan to do that any time soon. I don't have to respect a human being for a characteristic they possess as a result of nature, in which their free will did not play a role. I don't have to respect all left-handed people, or those with a mole on their right cheek either.

Interesting. It may be tangential to the current discussion but wanted to throw in this. Being human (capable of intelligence - emotional and/or rational) is also a nature given characteristic. We should not respect any outcome of such nature granted intelligence then. And just to make it clear, there is NO free-will in any conditioned thought process  - irrespective of if such conditioning is by ancient traditions, current societal values or even self imposed opinions based on our tastes or limited slice/experience of life). Being Free-willed means we are capable of looking at every moment as if fresh with only the tools of intelligence and none of the accumulated baggage of any of the past up until that moment. Try that for a day and see all our delusions of being endowed with free will will be broken (and for good).

That's a fair point. Let me rephrase a little to include my concession of your point -- I extend to every human being basic politeness unless they give me reason not to. However, I refuse to show extra respect to someone who is a woman or an old person having no other knowledge of them other than that they are female or aged.

And it is quite ignorant of you to think that people use Shrillery to mock in a misogynistic way, but if that gives you a measure of comfort in defending your loser 'Madam President', so be it.

I am not objecting to your intense dislike of Hillary or even calling her names.  Please do so by all means. But the name "Shrillery" is certainly misogynistic. It is not misogynistic because you dislike Hillary as a politician or that you think she is corrupt, or that you think she is culpable in email-gate.  It is misogynistic because it is a moniker that refers to a characteristic often associated with female voices -- an unpleasantly high pitch. What's worse, it is blatantly misogynistic because while Hillary does not have a voice I particularly like, it is anything but shrill. So no cigar, you're still a misogynist when it comes to calling Hillary "Shrillery".  

Like I said, if it consoles you any bit by calling people who call her Shrillery as misogynistic, continue away in your delusion.

Hellsangel wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

smArtha wrote:

Interesting. It may be tangential to the current discussion but wanted to throw in this. Being human (capable of intelligence - emotional and/or rational) is also a nature given characteristic. We should not respect any outcome of such nature granted intelligence then. And just to make it clear, there is NO free-will in any conditioned thought process  - irrespective of if such conditioning is by ancient traditions, current societal values or even self imposed opinions based on our tastes or limited slice/experience of life). Being Free-willed means we are capable of looking at every moment as if fresh with only the tools of intelligence and none of the accumulated baggage of any of the past up until that moment. Try that for a day and see all our delusions of being endowed with free will will be broken (and for good).

That's a fair point. Let me rephrase a little to include my concession of your point -- I extend to every human being basic politeness unless they give me reason not to. However, I refuse to show extra respect to someone who is a woman or an old person having no other knowledge of them other than that they are female or aged.

And it is quite ignorant of you to think that people use Shrillery to mock in a misogynistic way, but if that gives you a measure of comfort in defending your loser 'Madam President', so be it.

I am not objecting to your intense dislike of Hillary or even calling her names.  Please do so by all means. But the name "Shrillery" is certainly misogynistic. It is not misogynistic because you dislike Hillary as a politician or that you think she is corrupt, or that you think she is culpable in email-gate.  It is misogynistic because it is a moniker that refers to a characteristic often associated with female voices -- an unpleasantly high pitch. What's worse, it is blatantly misogynistic because while Hillary does not have a voice I particularly like, it is anything but shrill. So no cigar, you're still a misogynist when it comes to calling Hillary "Shrillery".  

Like I said, if it consoles you any bit by calling people who call her Shrillery as misogynistic, continue away in your delusion.

It has nothing to with consolation. It's a statement of a rather obvious fact which you continue to deny. I've explained the reasons why I think that particular name is misogynistic.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

That's a fair point. Let me rephrase a little to include my concession of your point -- I extend to every human being basic politeness unless they give me reason not to. However, I refuse to show extra respect to someone who is a woman or an old person having no other knowledge of them other than that they are female or aged.

And it is quite ignorant of you to think that people use Shrillery to mock in a misogynistic way, but if that gives you a measure of comfort in defending your loser 'Madam President', so be it.

I am not objecting to your intense dislike of Hillary or even calling her names.  Please do so by all means. But the name "Shrillery" is certainly misogynistic. It is not misogynistic because you dislike Hillary as a politician or that you think she is corrupt, or that you think she is culpable in email-gate.  It is misogynistic because it is a moniker that refers to a characteristic often associated with female voices -- an unpleasantly high pitch. What's worse, it is blatantly misogynistic because while Hillary does not have a voice I particularly like, it is anything but shrill. So no cigar, you're still a misogynist when it comes to calling Hillary "Shrillery".  

Like I said, if it consoles you any bit by calling people who call her Shrillery as misogynistic, continue away in your delusion.

It has nothing to with consolation. It's a statement of a rather obvious fact which you continue to deny.  I've explained the reasons why I think that particular name is misogynistic.

It is a statement of your confirmation bias, nothing more. Carry on, Il Professore!

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

kinnera-temp wrote:Learn to respect women, all women first.

I don't plan to do that any time soon. I don't have to respect a human being for a characteristic they possess as a result of nature, in which their free will did not play a role. I don't have to respect all left-handed people, or those with a mole on their right cheek either.

'Caribou Barbie' and 'the stripper woman' are pretty demeaning sexist comments. If you think you are a jerk, act like one and don't mind being perceived as one, nobody gives a hoot to what you say (unless it's your workplace where you can get fired for sexual harassment/misconduct). But the problem is, you believe that you are a thorough gentleman who is very intelligent, sauve, sophisticated, open minded, liberal, a champion of women, gays and all and take a high ground while putting down others. Sorry to burst your bubble,  you are anything but those. 

As I said before, if you want to take a high ground, you got to act upon it too. Else, be who you are.

kinnera-temp wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

kinnera-temp wrote:Learn to respect women, all women first.

I don't plan to do that any time soon. I don't have to respect a human being for a characteristic they possess as a result of nature, in which their free will did not play a role. I don't have to respect all left-handed people, or those with a mole on their right cheek either.

'Caribou Barbie' and 'the stripper woman' are pretty demeaning sexist comments. If you think you are a jerk, act like one and don't mind being perceived as one, nobody gives a hoot to what you say (unless it's your workplace where you can get fired for sexual harassment/misconduct). But the problem is, you believe that you are a thorough gentleman who is very intelligent, sauve, sophisticated, open minded, liberal, a champion of women, gays and all and take a high ground while putting down others. Sorry to burst your bubble,  you are anything but those. 

As I said before, if you want to take a high ground, you got to act upon it too. Else, be who you are.

Don't waste your time trying to talk sense into the hypocrite. He repeatedly calls Trump "the leper" oblivious to the fact that leprosy is a deadly disease which makes life miserable for its victims. It is not a word one would use to insult another person.

silvermani wrote:

kinnera-temp wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

kinnera-temp wrote:Learn to respect women, all women first.

I don't plan to do that any time soon. I don't have to respect a human being for a characteristic they possess as a result of nature, in which their free will did not play a role. I don't have to respect all left-handed people, or those with a mole on their right cheek either.

'Caribou Barbie' and 'the stripper woman' are pretty demeaning sexist comments. If you think you are a jerk, act like one and don't mind being perceived as one, nobody gives a hoot to what you say (unless it's your workplace where you can get fired for sexual harassment/misconduct). But the problem is, you believe that you are a thorough gentleman who is very intelligent, sauve, sophisticated, open minded, liberal, a champion of women, gays and all and take a high ground while putting down others. Sorry to burst your bubble,  you are anything but those. 

As I said before, if you want to take a high ground, you got to act upon it too. Else, be who you are.

Don't waste your time trying to talk sense into the hypocrite. He repeatedly calls Trump "the leper" oblivious to the fact that leprosy is a deadly disease which makes life miserable for its victims. It is not a word one would use to insult another person.

oh my! yeah, so true! He's so disgusting! Will try to restrict my interactions.