I never said, "rigged".... Welcome back, Wonkers! We hope you got some sleep this past weekend! Here's some of the stories a full complement of Wonkette writers may be talking about today! Donald Trump is full of butthurt about election (so are we), so
I wish to hell the media would seriously call him out. If in fact "millions" of votes were cast fraudulently, then we have a major problem - if he's got proof of it, he has a duty to provide it, all of it. And if he doesn't (and of course he doesn't), the media need to forcefully tell him to STFU.
first, i wouldn't say worse. both have been accused of rape by people who retracted and then reinstated their accusations. whatever you think of either case, both are believable based on the sexual abuse history.
hillary clinton basically suffered from being a woman in anti-feminist times. she knew that she had to control the damage of his actions and divorce would not help her prospects in running for any office. she was too active as first lady and had to back off and pretend to be a doting wife. she learned that lesson and was strategic from there on out. unfortunately, her strategy didn't win anyone over - we're more used to strong women in some ways - that is, those of us who admire Michelle Obama also admire that Barack Obama considers her his intellectual equal or even superior and those who hate her hate Hillary as well. But the point is, she played the game she learned in the 90s and it didn't work.
I would also like to say that when I talk to men in their 60s or 70s, it doesn't matter how liberal they are, they are still fairly sexist for the most part. So I can kind of understand that Hillary would stick with someone like that because, really, the alternatives are not much better. And yes - not every sexist man rapes women, but if you don't see women as being as human as you are and you are put in a position of extreme power, exploitation of that power is common and commonly exercised on those you don't see as human. We all know about Kennedy, but even FDR, the liberal saint, cheated on his wife. Power brings out the worst in people. I don't hate Hillary for sticking with him, but it's either a) a strategic move that backfired or b) women of that generation couldn't demand that men be feminists to the degree we expect today.
One last thing to point out - we don't usually judge men by the actions of their wives. The few times it's been tried - teresa heinz and melania's illegal immigration - it hasn't gotten much attention. we're generally happy focusing on the candidate. Bill Clinton was not running for president. And really, he'd be great as president's spouse. He always loved schmoozing and she always loved policy.
I would argue that the Turks have been assimilated better in Germany than any other primarily Muslim displaced population anywhere, and in large numbers. Prior to Erdogan, Turkey had a fairly reasonable society, which probably helps.
I'm not big on austerity, but the Greeks need to at the very least collect the revenue (taxes) that is due to the government. Many wealthy Greeks don't even bother to file taxes because there is no enforcement.
I can't mentally separate A. Merkel from the CDU/CSU party, but I feel like the country is doing pretty well under them. Here's how I rank them.
That phrase right there tells me that you have no clue HOW "scandals" are generated, and you appear to believe anything, as long as you don't have to examine the charges.
Trying to get out of your irresponsible position by claiming that your point was that she has SOME baggage is just douchebag defensiveness. Try reading up on those "scandals" - and find out where they originated and for what advantage.
How about some REAL evidence that Hillary "attacked" women making charges against Bill? As far as I have seen ( and I lived through the Clinton admin ), these claims of "attacks" have only come in recent years, from assholes relying on people like you to not bother looking into them. Hindsight is 20/20 - but you aren't even exercising that.
The irony of speaking of douchebag defensiveness with that tantrum of a comment comes off as more than slightly oblivious.
It's understandable that you're having some angry feelings. Why don't you take a minute for yourself instead of making me the target of your angry, misguided feelings about Hillary Clinton and what a terrible candidate she was.
At first, I thought you were just a gullible, memory-challenged "American voter" - but, especially with the condescension just droppong from this latest post, I realize that you're just another troll - determined to outrage others for the fun of it.
This is not fun for me. It's rather upsetting actually. I have maintained a measured tone while being the subject of repeated insults from you. I get that you're angry and you want to project me as the villain for having a differing opinion. It doesn't excuse your behavior, but it certainly might explain it. Maybe you're incapable of engaging in a debate without resorting to ad hominem? I don't know, but this is certainly not a productive engagement.
I hope for your sake that you learn how to deal with your anger more productively.
"...because her own husband has committed potentially worse cases of sexual assault..."
Sounds like you've bought into the whole right-wing anti-Clinton schtick. You treat all those allegations as if they're proven fact ( despite only the Lewinski thing being admitted to - but not tried ) - and not just the product of the VRWC against them.
Hint: "Counties" is code for rural white enclaves. Nobody talks about New York, Kings, Queens, Richmond, and Bronx "counties" - which probably have the population of a few hundred Mid-West "counties"....
Maybe it's just me, but I don't think she looks creeped out. More like "not here, Dad."
I wish to hell the media would seriously call him out. If in fact "millions" of votes were cast fraudulently, then we have a major problem - if he's got proof of it, he has a duty to provide it, all of it. And if he doesn't (and of course he doesn't), the media need to forcefully tell him to STFU.
What baggage does Hillary have? BenghazI?
Beer Spewed on the Keyboard Award
first, i wouldn't say worse. both have been accused of rape by people who retracted and then reinstated their accusations. whatever you think of either case, both are believable based on the sexual abuse history.
hillary clinton basically suffered from being a woman in anti-feminist times. she knew that she had to control the damage of his actions and divorce would not help her prospects in running for any office. she was too active as first lady and had to back off and pretend to be a doting wife. she learned that lesson and was strategic from there on out. unfortunately, her strategy didn't win anyone over - we're more used to strong women in some ways - that is, those of us who admire Michelle Obama also admire that Barack Obama considers her his intellectual equal or even superior and those who hate her hate Hillary as well. But the point is, she played the game she learned in the 90s and it didn't work.
I would also like to say that when I talk to men in their 60s or 70s, it doesn't matter how liberal they are, they are still fairly sexist for the most part. So I can kind of understand that Hillary would stick with someone like that because, really, the alternatives are not much better. And yes - not every sexist man rapes women, but if you don't see women as being as human as you are and you are put in a position of extreme power, exploitation of that power is common and commonly exercised on those you don't see as human. We all know about Kennedy, but even FDR, the liberal saint, cheated on his wife. Power brings out the worst in people. I don't hate Hillary for sticking with him, but it's either a) a strategic move that backfired or b) women of that generation couldn't demand that men be feminists to the degree we expect today.
One last thing to point out - we don't usually judge men by the actions of their wives. The few times it's been tried - teresa heinz and melania's illegal immigration - it hasn't gotten much attention. we're generally happy focusing on the candidate. Bill Clinton was not running for president. And really, he'd be great as president's spouse. He always loved schmoozing and she always loved policy.
I would argue that the Turks have been assimilated better in Germany than any other primarily Muslim displaced population anywhere, and in large numbers. Prior to Erdogan, Turkey had a fairly reasonable society, which probably helps.
I'm not big on austerity, but the Greeks need to at the very least collect the revenue (taxes) that is due to the government. Many wealthy Greeks don't even bother to file taxes because there is no enforcement.
I can't mentally separate A. Merkel from the CDU/CSU party, but I feel like the country is doing pretty well under them. Here's how I rank them.
Civil/human rights: Good.Civil safety net: Good.International relations: Good.Abortion rights: Poor.Drug policy: Fair.
In contrast, my birthplace (USA) today:
Civil/human rights: Fair.Civil safety net: Fair.International relations: Fair.Abortion rights: Fair.Drug policy: Poor.
(USA) in two years:
Civil/human rights: Fair.Civil safety net: Poor.International relations: Fair.Abortion rights: Poor.Drug policy: Poor.
"...constantly embroiled in some scandal..."
That phrase right there tells me that you have no clue HOW "scandals" are generated, and you appear to believe anything, as long as you don't have to examine the charges.
Trying to get out of your irresponsible position by claiming that your point was that she has SOME baggage is just douchebag defensiveness. Try reading up on those "scandals" - and find out where they originated and for what advantage.
How about some REAL evidence that Hillary "attacked" women making charges against Bill? As far as I have seen ( and I lived through the Clinton admin ), these claims of "attacks" have only come in recent years, from assholes relying on people like you to not bother looking into them. Hindsight is 20/20 - but you aren't even exercising that.
The irony of speaking of douchebag defensiveness with that tantrum of a comment comes off as more than slightly oblivious.
It's understandable that you're having some angry feelings. Why don't you take a minute for yourself instead of making me the target of your angry, misguided feelings about Hillary Clinton and what a terrible candidate she was.
At first, I thought you were just a gullible, memory-challenged "American voter" - but, especially with the condescension just droppong from this latest post, I realize that you're just another troll - determined to outrage others for the fun of it.
Go fuck yourself
This is not fun for me. It's rather upsetting actually. I have maintained a measured tone while being the subject of repeated insults from you. I get that you're angry and you want to project me as the villain for having a differing opinion. It doesn't excuse your behavior, but it certainly might explain it. Maybe you're incapable of engaging in a debate without resorting to ad hominem? I don't know, but this is certainly not a productive engagement.
I hope for your sake that you learn how to deal with your anger more productively.
that's awesome.
You asked but you may regret it...https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
Three devil babies.
"...because her own husband has committed potentially worse cases of sexual assault..."
Sounds like you've bought into the whole right-wing anti-Clinton schtick. You treat all those allegations as if they're proven fact ( despite only the Lewinski thing being admitted to - but not tried ) - and not just the product of the VRWC against them.
Talk about lack of intellectual honesty.
His girlfriend went as Madame Ovary, by Ballsack.
Hint: "Counties" is code for rural white enclaves. Nobody talks about New York, Kings, Queens, Richmond, and Bronx "counties" - which probably have the population of a few hundred Mid-West "counties"....