Elixir Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 Hopefully Clinton wins purely because the Republicans are a bunch of utter fucking weirdos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MONKMAN Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 It will be between Hilary and Jeb, with Hilary heading back to the Whitehouse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fotbawmad Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 Lesser of two evils Hopefully someone emerges from the Democrats to challenge her O Malley looks a good bet on that score She's an even bigger war hawk than Bush was. The thought of her sparking a war with Iran. Just for the sake of appearing tough is pretty terrifying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zetterlund Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 She's an even bigger war hawk than Bush was. The thought of her sparking a war with Iran. Just for the sake of appearing tough is pretty terrifying. Absolutely. Whoever gets in, they will still be answering to the warmongering neocons and private interests as previous administrations. The American economy could be in a shaky state in a year's time too which will only make them more desperate and dangerous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banana Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 Banana normally seems quite sensible until he starts going on about this nonsense. What nonsense is that? And thank you, I do indeed prefer the sensible approach of an open, curious and critical mind. You and other ad hominemers are of course free to value your own ignorance over sources, studies, data and quotes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P45 Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 She's an even bigger war hawk than Bush was. The thought of her sparking a war with Iran. Just for the sake of appearing tough is pretty terrifying. Completely incorrect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fotbawmad Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 Completely incorrect. Prove it then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YassinMoutaouakil Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 Hillary is a bit of a c**t but Bill Clinton is a lad and a half so it balances out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thumper Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 What nonsense is that? And thank you, I do indeed prefer the sensible approach of an open, curious and critical mind. You and other ad hominemers are of course free to value your own ignorance over sources, studies, data and quotes. "Studies" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherrif John Bunnell Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 "Studies" Watch yourself. He'll call you a mangina next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 Hillary Clinton may be a hawk, a realist, an interventionist, a person who believes America is the world's only "indispensable nation". But she is not a pornstar lunatic who will spark a war with Iran. FWIW, I'd like to O'Malley become President. Seems like an interesting guy who has done very well for himself at mayoral and governor level. Mind you, I'm not sure if I'm biased due to the "Carcetti connection". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thumper Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 It's going to be Hillary. I genuinely don't think she could be much worse foreign policy-wise than Obama has been (i.e. another eight years of Bush), which is unfortunately still about as hippieish as you'll get in the modern US. Any of the Republicans would bring a genuine threat of imminent nuclear apocalypse, and I'd really rather not have that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryptonite Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 Bush vs Clinton won't exactly set the pulse racing. Tough act to follow Obama, who has done a fantastic job in difficult circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 What nonsense is that? And thank you, I do indeed prefer the sensible approach of an open, curious and critical mind. You and other ad hominemers are of course free to value your own ignorance over sources, studies, data and quotes. Other ad hominemers. How does your simply awful "mangina" patter sit beside this supposed approach you adopt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperCaleyGoBallistic Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 It's going to be Hillary. I genuinely don't think she could be much worse foreign policy-wise than Obama has been (i.e. another eight years of Bush), which is unfortunately still about as hippieish as you'll get in the modern US. Any of the Republicans would bring a genuine threat of imminent nuclear apocalypse, and I'd really rather not have that. She was one of the main proponents of intervention in Libya, I doubt her foreign policy will be anything other than business as usual. Already sick of Guardian types writing fluff pieces about her, her winning isn't going to be some brilliant victory for feminism just as Thatcher's victory wasn't, having someone implementing the same old neo-con policies isn't going to change things. She was on the board of directors at Walmart ffs, no chance is she going to improve the lot of marginalised women. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banana Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 "Studies" Aye, studies Again, can you explain in detail what you were getting at by "That's because outside of you knicker-wetting anti-feminists ... no such group exists."? Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thumper Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 Again, can you explain in detail what you were getting at by "That's because outside of you knicker-wetting anti-feminists ... no such group exists."? Thanks. The only place that a demographic which would never vote for a man exists is inside the fevered imaginations of the meninists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banana Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 The only place that a demographic which would never vote for a man exists is inside the fevered imaginations of the meninists. Source other than (more) cartoons and your opinion? It'd be great to see some actual stats ("stats!" ) as, as noted in the first post of mine you quoted: It'd be interesting to see stats of the % of people who say they wouldn't vote for a man (or a white person, or a Christian) - as far as I can find this question has never been polled. What has however been polled by the politics and policy oriented Pew Research Centre is how more or less likely certain groups are to vote for a woman. With 24% of women taking the sexist route of being more likely to vote for a woman than a man, it seems a fair speculation that a fair percentage of those 24% wouldn't vote for a man outright (just as a fair percentage of the sexist 14% of men less likely to vote for a woman than a man would also not vote for a woman outright). Unless of course you have a considered argument citing credible sources to speculate otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oddly optomistic Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 Source other than (more) cartoons and your opinion? It'd be great to see some actual stats ("stats!" ) as, as noted in the first post of mine you quoted: What has however been polled by the politics and policy oriented Pew Research Centre is how more or less likely certain groups are to vote for a woman. With 24% of women taking the sexist route of being more likely to vote for a woman than a man, it seems a fair speculation that a fair percentage of those 24% wouldn't vote for a man outright (just as a fair percentage of the sexist 14% of men less likely to vote for a woman than a man would also not vote for a woman outright). Unless of course you have a considered argument citing credible sources to speculate otherwise. I don't think it's a fair speculation at all given that most candidates are men. Obviously Hilary has thrown her hat in the ring this year. Also,it doesn't take into account other factors. Perhaps they are more likely to vote for a woman, but if that woman is also representing a party they are less likely to vote for then they would be weighing up what they deemed more important. You can't just look at one figure in isolationAnd vice versa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banana Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 I don't think it's a fair speculation at all given that most candidates are men. Obviously Hilary has thrown her hat in the ring this year. Also,it doesn't take into account other factors. Perhaps they are more likely to vote for a woman, but if that woman is also representing a party they are less likely to vote for then they would be weighing up what they deemed more important. You can't just look at one figure in isolation And vice versa A-ha, someone with some intellectual curiosity. I do think it's a fair speculation, the question is the degree that different factors have an effect one way or the other. Indeed you can't just look at one factor, which goes the same for the men not/less/more voting for a woman the same as a woman not/less/more voting for a man. The Hillary Factor is also likely to have an effect, the question is to what extent. Again, ultimately it'd be nice if the reverse question was actually polled and we'd have a base figure to work with. EDIT: delightful to see a rage downvote from Thumper Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.