“Boys will be boys,” but girls must be goddesses.

[Burning Petard]

Yes, there is a Hillary standard. Yes, women in politics have to dance to a different beat.

SO ? ? ?

Hillary got into this contest voluntarily. She knew, or should have known, where the votes were and what it takes to get those votes.

You dear ladies, Bosox and Guin, seem to be sharing the same reaction as the petulant brats booing every time the name Hillary is spoken:
"The system is rigged. It's not fair!" Of course it is unfair and rigged. You go with what you got. Hillary IS a woman. The key demographic is the white uneducated low income male. And they are gonna vote.

David Brooks says Hillary must play the cards she has. If that means dancing backwards in high heels, DO IT. Certainly the Donald is not someone anybody wants to share a beer with in the backyard. The Donald would not even show up. But if he did he would be bringing not a cold six-pack, but a bottle of his own brand of wine which he never drinks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/26/opini ... inion&_r=0

Is the Hillary campaign gonna be a nationally nuanced version of the GOP in Delaware that nominated a carpet-bagging witch to run for congress, rather than accept the GOP incumbent who actually compromised and got things done?

Take a lesson from the first president Clinton. "I share your pain!" So far the Dems are running on the presumption that the pain of the white un educated male is your own fault, you should have taken the calculus course and got into an Ivy league college like my daughter.

Hillary, Once you learn to fake the sincere humility, you got it made. It is not a matter of standing by your principles. It is winning the election.

snailgate.

[Econoline]

She and her husband - equally repulsive liars
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... ead-broke/

I posted this in another thread:

• A summary from the Politifact Truth-O-Meter:
  
  ........................CLINTON........TRUMP
  True.......................52............8
  Mostly True................62...........20
  Half True..................48...........31
  Mostly False...............33...........32
  False......................26...........76
  Pants on Fire...............4...........36

[MajGenl.Meade]

What does that have to do with it? That's an informal fallacy, by the way.

If you try to justify an act/belief by pointing out in others a similar act/belief, you are committing the fallacy of "two wrongs make a right."

[Econoline]

Ummm...no.

This is not philosophy we're talking about here; this is politics, "the art of the possible". In this particular election there are 2--count 'em--2 possible outcomes:

• one is that someone who lies* 28% of the time becomes President of the United States of America,
  the other is that someone who lies* 71% of the time achieves that exalted office.

On just this (admittedly over-simplistic) basis, it's not a *POLITICAL* fallacy to maintain that the first outcome would be preferable to the second. Of course we can go back and un-simplify by looking at the relative importance of just WHAT each one lies* ABOUT...or introduce many other bases (yes, that's the correct plural for "basis"; I just looked it up to be certain) on which to make a judgement. But on the basis of "lying"--and in the absence of a politician in one of the two major parties who has achieved the party's nomination while lying 0% of the time--it makes sense to say that the one who lies* LESS (much much *MUCH* less!) is preferable.




* for the purpose of this discussion "lies" = ("PANTS ON FIRE") + ("FALSE") + ("MOSTLY FALSE").

[MajGenl.Meade]

This was not a discussion about how many lies anyone has told.

It was to point out the prevalence of millionaires in Congress currently and the claim of being broke by one Hillary Clinton who is far from broke (and was when she uttered it). The point was exactly that they are all the same!

(And incidentally that it's by no means about "rich white men" only - take a look at the rich white women which may be, er, all Dems - so perhaps the Reps keep their female congress-critters few and far between and poor after all)

[Lord Jim]

I'll stipulate that Hillary Clinton is less of a liar then Donald Trump...

Every proto-human in the history of mankind going back more than 600,000 years is less of a liar then Donald Trump...

Not a really high standard...

[Econoline]

Just to be clear: if you're saying "they all lie" I would agree. If you're saying "if one lies AT ALL, it doesn't matter how OFTEN one lies or what one lies ABOUT" then I would strongly disagree.

(I don't think anyone believes that the Clintons are not millionaires: unlike the Trumps they have made public their tax returns.)

[Long Run]

A fair question is whether the false statements and types of false statements are within the normal range of politician exaggerations, prevarications, justifications and outright lies. Trump is clearly beyond the normal range in terms of the amount of falsehoods he is willing to communicate. The question for him, though, is how important are the things he is lying about. For example, if a politician says they are for X, then later says they were never for X, this is frustrating and maybe infuriating and does reveal character; however, it is pretty common and generally does not cause any harm. If a politician says we need to do X or certain bad things will happen, and that is not true, then the lie actually may cause harm.

So Clinton saying that they were broke when they left office, when any fair minded person would say BS (and pretty much everyone said as much), is much more the type of falsehood that does no harm, other than to Clinton's reputation. In the email situation, her misrepresentations and lies drew out the investigation, and did harm to the justice process, but did not cause any more harm to national security than the bad practice of using her personal server had already caused. With Trump, I'm not sure anyone really believes his "facts" and for his supporters it is all about the spirit of what he is proclaiming. The real damage from Trump is the acceptance by a substantial amount of the populace that it is okay for public figures to lie a lot and have a complete disregard for getting things right.

[Lord Jim]

Here's a bumper sticker I could put on my car:

Vote Hillary! She's Not Owned By Russian Oligarchs!

Ordinarily, "not owned by Russian Olicharchs" would seem to be a minimal requirement for the American Presidency...

[Long Run]

It is interesting that the historic nature of having the first woman nominated by a major party is pretty much a non-story. On the one hand maybe this is good because people accept that it makes sense and she is being evaluated as a candidate and not as a woman. On the other hand, it is worth taking a moment and acknowledging that this is a major event.

[BoSoxGal]

A non-story? What convention are you watching?

And as a woman who was a little girl teased by neighborhood boys in the mid 70s for being pro-ERA, I can tell you it's no non-story for me, or for any of the women in my life - and I would assert, there isn't a woman in this country who isn't moved on some level by the nomination of Hillary Rodham Clinton to the Presidency of the United States. Quite possibly, there are women all over the planet who are moved by this historic event.

But so typical of a man to see it as being a non-story.

[Long Run]

I'm not watching the convention (nor did I watch the R convention). NPR ran a story on the lack of coverage of the historical angle. Haven't seen the topic mentioned in my local paper. Go to any of the big collector sites, like Real Clear or Daily Beast, and there are no headlines about the historic angle -- none. Further, there is almost no discussion here, on a board full of many bright, engaged liberals and women, about the historic moment. I thought this lack of coverage/discussion was worth remarking on.

[Guinevere]

I've been in the office but streamed the roll call so I could hear the moment - a moment I've worked for for a long long time. A moment that has had me choked up all day. Tonight we made HERstory.

NPR ran a piece on it tonight and On Point was also discussing it. But it's not job done yet, until she is moving into 1600 Pennsylvania.

Listening to Elizabeth Banks right now talking about women and human rights. And what a schmuck the Trumpanzee is towards women. Cecile Richards is up next.

ETA - I'm not particularly inclined to share more about the depths of what I'm feeling tonight here. I'm traveling Thursday but hope to hell I can watch her accept. One way or the other, I will.

[Big RR]

Savor the moment Guin, you've worked long and hard for it.

I hope you do get to see her acceptance speech, and that we can all see her inauguration speech in January--we cannot have anything less.

[Guinevere]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... ?tid=sm_fb

The video embedded in the link above will give you some sense of how last night was celebrated. 158 years after Seneca Falls, 96 years after the 19th Amendment was ratified, that toughest of glass ceilings has shattered. I'm so glad I'm wide awake and not dreaming.

[oldr_n_wsr]

Most of the people I have talked to (men and women) take it (first woman from major party nomination) as a "ho hum" moment and/or that it was inevitable.

[Scooter]

Just like having the first black presidential nominee was so "inevitable" that it launched an entire movement dedicated to proving that he was ineligible by virtue of not being a natural born citizen.

[rubato]

When their finances were looked into their liabilities exceeded their assets. The had negative net wealth which meets the definition of broke. The statement was literally true and not a lie. It was disingenuous and sophistic and their condition was not the same as a family who is being foreclosed on and about to be homeless. But it was not a lie, hysterical need to invent fault aside.

This example illustrates the cruelty and unfairness of our system to the poor for whom "broke" is a description of catastrophe whereas it is barely an inconvenience to the rich.

Yrs,
Rubato

[rubato]

If it was inevitable then why have the republicans fought against it for so long? Why did the Republicans nominate someone after he made a vile and misogynistic joke about menstruation? Why have they embarrassed themselves with bullshit investigations into Benghazi and emails ( which she admitted and released unlike Bush/Cheney who blocked the public from knowing who they met with to write energy policy).

She did the hard work to be here at this point in history. Nothing inevitable about that.


Yrs,
Rubato

[rubato]

So inevitable that the Houston, Sacrimento,and Buffalo newspapers ran pictures of Her Husband on the cover today whe SHE won the nomination. Now THAT is misogynistic hatred .


Yrs,
Rubato