US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2948

On February 18 2016 08:43 Plansix wrote:
All the candidates bring up aspects of themselves that their base likes all the time. Unprovoked or otherwise. I really don’t see her saying she is a woman that made it in Washington any worse than Sanders being proud of his voting record on Iraq. Trump claiming he is a good businessman. Rubio talking about his family. Cruz talking about the pod of lizard people he grew up with.

Another way to think about it is this. No woman that supports Clinton is going to be receptive to the argument that Clinton is pandering to her or she supports Clinton because she is a woman. Any woman in any field deals with the implied sexism of them obtaining a job/position/support due to being a woman/attractive. For them, it is like the sun, constant. They cannot be won over with that argument, so why would anyone even make it? Why even make it a topic?

On February 18 2016 08:56 Aquanim wrote:

Nope :p

I do appreciate that the Clinton campaign has the knives out for Sanders at this stage, but that particular accusation sticks so much better to the Republicans than to Sanders.

And when I watched her in that first debate with Bernie Sanders a couple of months ago, after ten minutes I was like, ‘Oh, yeah. This is the woman who was crushing it against Obama in every single debate.’ ”

“I do think I’m a better candidate,” says Clinton.

On February 18 2016 09:03 killa_robot wrote:


Because those are things that they are proud of, whereas her being a woman is simply a factual statement that holds no real meaning.

It's the difference between saying you should get a job based on experience vs your gender/skin tone (I mean, growing up with lizard people has to have given him some sort of edge, right?).

On February 18 2016 09:04 GreenHorizons wrote:


Well that's probably a big reason why it's confusing. But the reason it was obviously directed at Sanders supports comes in the following context



She's doubling down on the concept that it was a significant reason she lost to Obama too.

Other people have noticed a big improvement in Clinton, too

On February 18 2016 09:07 Plansix wrote:

You should get jobs based on your accomplishments within the system that exists. Until racism, sexism and poverty are eliminated from society, peoples backgrounds matter. How much they matter is up to the individual. Claiming these issues are not challenged people face completely unproductive discussion.

Or more importantly, just because you are not impressed doesn't mean everyone holds your opinion.

On February 18 2016 09:10 killa_robot wrote:


So, I should be impressed that she's a woman?

On February 18 2016 09:01 Plansix wrote:
Also social media is a dumpster fire and shouldn't be taken as a reflection of any section of reality. Treading on twitter is like being the smartest kid in a 100 student high school.

On February 18 2016 09:13 Plansix wrote:

The bait is strong this one. You should make up your own mind on how much it matters. Personally, I always consider peoples backgrounds and the challenges they face when considering if I should be impressed or not. Where people grew up and the society they existed in are a huge factor in their background.

On February 18 2016 08:19 Simberto wrote:
But "You should vote for me because i am a woman" is a really bad argument to make. You should not vote for a person based on their gender, the color of their skin, their religion, or anything else. You should vote for the person that you think will make the best president, not for some symbolic statement.

And thus, people get annoyed by Hillary constantly mentioning the fact that she is female. It should not be relevant whether she is female or not.

What you should ask yourself is "Would it change who i prefer as a president if Hillary Clinton were male and Bernie Sanders were female." If that is the case, you are sexist. Elevating such a superficial detail of a person to a defining factor of them is very shallow, and in my opinion you should focus on issues as opposed to gender.

On February 18 2016 09:10 Aquanim wrote:

Having read the article myself, I don't think the second quote was actually meant to give context to the first. The first is in the context of "the environment being better for a woman than previously", the second is in the context of "Clinton being a better candidate than previously". The segue from one to another starts at

and is pretty easy to miss, given the way in which it is written.

On February 18 2016 09:17 oneofthem wrote:
my take on clinton's identity politics is that she is actually being technocratic in doing this.

reason being her campaign research should show that her clear advantage is in the identity groups and like a smart marketer she is trying to press her advantage.

it's sort of a reflection of her limitations in the lack of charisma or 'creative risktaking' but i don't think it reflects her actual politics all that much.

On February 18 2016 09:17 IgnE wrote:


So men are constantly playing a default identity politics where they are implicitly telling men (and women) to vote for them because they are men.

Women hate this, and rightly so, for being sexist.

So Hillary plays the vote for me because I'm a woman card.

And this hypocrisy doesn't bother you?

On February 18 2016 09:25 IgnE wrote:


It reflects her politics insofar as she a technocrat, which is one of my primary objections to her.

On February 18 2016 09:31 Simberto wrote:

I don't vote for people based on their gender.

I also don't think i have ever seen someone say "Vote for me because i am a man!" or anything along those lines. Or do you mean by "implicitly" "They don't actually say that, but some sexist people will prefer a man for being male". In that case, what you should be aiming for is for those people to stop being sexist, as opposed to some sort of "reverse sexism" (And yes, i know that that phrase is overused bei scummy MRA people, but i can't think of a better word to describe what i mean), where you demand that people vote for you only because you are female, and not because of your accomplishments, qualifications, or whatever else might be important.

As i said, a good test is "Would it change my opinion if the genders were reversed" Imagine Bernadette Sanders vs Hugh Clinton. Does that change who you would vote for? If yes, than you are still influenced by the gender of people, which you really shouldn't if you do believe in the equality of man and woman. And for me, a candidate who focussed on that kind of identity as a selling point loses points (Not that they matter, as i obviously don't vote in the US anyways), because they are clearly missing a point that is important to me, namely a true belief in the equality of all persons.

On February 18 2016 09:25 IgnE wrote:


It reflects her politics insofar as she a technocrat, which is one of my primary objections to her.