Hillary Clinton

[tar]

Phi for All,

 

There is still a societal understanding of the roles of women vs the roles of men. These stereotypes are dissolving somewhat, but in a lot of cases, the man takes care of the outside of the home and the woman takes care of the inside, the kids, the curtains, the laundry and the meals. Not exclusively anymore, but it seems to lean in this direction in a lot of homes. It is easier seeing Hilary reading a story to her grandchild, than seeing Trump doing it. Not that either would or could, just what we are used to seeing.

 

When Trump shakes a hand he pulls the other toward him in a macho move. Hilary does not have the strength to do this, nor the testosterone to understand the move's value in terms of signaling dominance.

 

Regards, TAR

she would call the move bullying

Edited September 9, 2016 by tar

[swansont]

"Societal understanding" is an exceedingly kind way to put it.

[Phi for All]

When Trump shakes a hand he pulls the other toward him in a macho move. Hilary does not have the strength to do this, nor the testosterone to understand the move's value in terms of signaling dominance.

 

Regards, TAR

she would call the move bullying

 

Don't you call it bullying too? I do. It's like that shitty move some guys try to pull by turning your hand sideways when you shake hands, putting their hand on top of yours. It's like they're exposing the veins in your wrist. Juvenile, macho, aggressive. All things that are often lauded in men.

 

It also distracts you long enough that you don't notice your wallet missing until you leave the building. Trump class all the way.

[tar]

Phi for All,

 

No, I don't call it bullying and I don't call it juvenile. You are sort of a self-hating male. I think there should be a term we can call you and Hilary for hating men.

 

 

Regards, TAR

What I mean by that, Phi for All, is that there is a tendency in our society to make things even. To make the weak strong, and the strong weak. I get it, that physical strength should not be used to get your way, but it is still a reality of the world. ISIS has tanks, in some cases very good tanks as they were our Abrams, but they still have them.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

 

Phi for All,

No, I don't call it bullying and I don't call it juvenile. You are sort of a self-hating male. I think there should be a term we can call you and Hilary for hating men.


Regards, TAR

 

 

Hey hey - criticise the arguments sure; but do not take the leap to making characterisations of other members and judging their argument flawed because of it. That is both against the rules and a logical phallusy

 

Let's move on please

 

[tar]

maybe misterogyny

Sorry Phi, I didn't mean ya no harm

[Phi for All]

Phi for All,

 

No, I don't call it bullying and I don't call it juvenile. You are sort of a self-hating male. I think there should be a term we can call you and Hilary for hating men.

 

It's interesting that the Donald seems to have given you permission to get nasty and personal. I don't know how it helps.

 

I stopped working sales for other companies because of men like Trump. They've turned the profession into pure aggressive greed by rewarding the kind of juvenile, pushy, bullying behavior we're talking about here. The only women they reward are the ones who can be just as aggressive and ruthless as the guys, and also don't mind having their asses grabbed by the boss.

 

Do you think it's necessary for me to hate myself before I can notice injustice and cruelty?

[tar]

Phi,

 

No, when you put it that way, it is OK.

 

I was not allowed to hit girls when I was growing up. My sister could hit me, but not me her. Never thought that was very fair, but throughout my life I have not used my superiority over others, either by intellect or by size and strength, to the other person's disadvantage. 'cause I am a nice guy.

However, that does not mean I am not stronger than Hilary.

 

It is sort of a strange contradiction to insist that women will only be equal to men when men let them be equal.

 

So sure, you can make a law that says women must be paid more...but how do you enforce it? From who's hide do you extract the additional money, and by what bullying power do you make the law stick?

 

Regards, TAR

Consider Hilary as commander in chief. She will keep ISIS strongmen from trafficking in sex slaves, targeting them with a drone. This a victory for women's rights.

Edited September 9, 2016 by tar

[MigL]

Oh, I don't know Phi.

I think H. Clinton is more of a 'bad-ass' ( that's the correct term ) than any of the others who sought the nomination, Republican or Democrat.

Just ask Bill who he's afraid of more...

An angry Hillary or D. Trump ?

[CharonY]

swansont,

 

No, we still have write in votes. If CharonY would give her real name, we could start a write-in campaign and save the country from Trump, Hilary, Johnson and Stein.

 

Regards, TAR

 

 

 

The F@#ck did I do?

[tar]

CharonY,

 

I was just naming a person whose intellect and knowledge and reasoning, would be consistent with someone who I would be proud to have as my president.

 

You were the best on the board.

 

Regards, TAR

[Delta1212]

Phi for All,

 

No, I don't call it bullying and I don't call it juvenile. You are sort of a self-hating male. I think there should be a term we can call you and Hilary for hating men.

 

 

Regards, TAR

What I mean by that, Phi for All, is that there is a tendency in our society to make things even. To make the weak strong, and the strong weak. I get it, that physical strength should not be used to get your way, but it is still a reality of the world. ISIS has tanks, in some cases very good tanks as they were our Abrams, but they still have them.

It's only man-hating if you believe that petty displays of physical dominance are part of what being a man is about.

 

There are people who think that way, but I am not among them, personally. And your own points rather contradict themselves. The fact that we live in a world of tanks and drones rather does render physical strength fairly superfluous. There are situations where personal muscle power is useful, sure, but on the whole how much force someone can put into the grip of a handshake has very little to do with the amount of force they are capable of wielding, either politically as a leader or even personally simply by carrying a gun. We live in a world where a wimp is just as deadly as a hulking brute, further undermining the relevance of showing off in the way you're suggesting.

 

It's all psychological posturing in a culture that hasn't adapted to the fact that the things that used to be effective proxies for signaling power are no longer relevant.

[Willie71]

On either candidate, I only believe real and unbiased evidence that I have personally reviewed and found trustworthy. Partisan and biased opinions are only interesting for their entertainment value rather than honest information. Based on what I've investigated, I have no illusions or reservations about a Clinton presidency, she will be a great leader. However, you are clearly outraged by Clinton's alleged transgressions. Are there no Trump transgressions you find equally outrageous and disqualifying?

 

What does trump have to do with this? We are talking about Clinton and I've already stated I think trump is worse. This really puzzles me with this manichian view of the world.

 

Where do you find your unbiased reporting? I haven't seen any unbiased reporting regarding American politics in quite a few years.

 

The evidence is the evidence. The analysis and opinion can be discarded.

[tar]

Delta1212,

 

Cars and guns and things that project power have often be associated with manhood. Extensions of the penis, so-to-speak. The shape of a missile is even suggestive of such, the towers that Bin Laden took down was him emasculating us. Men driving powerful cars has been thought to be compensation for lack of power in other ways.

 

I do not agree that signaling power is no longer relevant. It absolutely is. Ones capability is important to a mate. The gorilla that can beat up the rest of the gang gets to pass on his genes. This is important to a male. A female passes on her genes no matter if she can beat up the rest of gang or not.

 

The question is, should the society, and the laws, give power to somebody, and make them the winner, and the other the loser. Should woman's rights include the right to destroy a man's life. I am thinking of the mayor out in California that fired a bunch of police, over sexual harassment. Not natural power unfolding...manufactured power being wielded.

 

There was a study of the playground that showed that girls played cooperative games where there was no winner or loser, and men played team games where leaders were picked and teams choosen and one team would win and the other lose.

 

I theorize that women don't get the testosterone thing, because they do not have it, unless they are on the pill.

 

And my job as a male is to use my testosterone to help my team win. I am not confident that Hilary knows what I am talking about.

 

Regards, TAR

And I wonder if women understand that they are still playing the attractive to mate game. Look at the news shows. Intelligent, powerful, women, in short dresses with revealing necklines. This is freedom from sexism?

[swansont]

she would call the move bullying

How do you know this? This is you projecting behavior onto someone else. Unless you have evidence that this has happened it's just you making something up. Much like a lot of this criticism is made up, being based on projections rather than facts. (And while this can happen with Trump, too, there's a lot more criticism of Trump that can be made without having to project anything at all)

[tar]

swansont,

 

You know Hilary has called Trump a bully and his aggressive behavior bullying. I am not making anything up.

 

Regards, TAR

[swansont]

I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about the presidency of the US, whose power is defined in the Constitution. Which says nothing about mating, or testosterone or "natural power".

Delta1212,

Cars and guns and things that project power have often be associated with manhood. Extensions of the penis, so-to-speak. The shape of a missile is even suggestive of such, the towers that Bin Laden took down was him emasculating us. Men driving powerful cars has been thought to be compensation for lack of power in other ways.

I do not agree that signaling power is no longer relevant. It absolutely is. Ones capability is important to a mate. The gorilla that can beat up the rest of the gang gets to pass on his genes. This is important to a male. A female passes on her genes no matter if she can beat up the rest of gang or not.

This isn't a biology class.

The question is, should the society, and the laws, give power to somebody, and make them the winner, and the other the loser.

Should it? Good question. Does it? Absolutely it does. It's been that way in the US for more than 200 years. Maybe you could take notice that we already have a president, who was a winner of the election, and the opponent was the loser?

Should woman's rights include the right to destroy a man's life. I am thinking of the mayor out in California that fired a bunch of police, over sexual harassment. Not natural power unfolding...manufactured power being wielded.

WOW.

There are no men's rights and women's rights when you get down to it. The issue is NOT that women should have more rights, it's that they should have the same rights as men have. It may not seem that way, because when the bias is in your favor, a leveling of the playing field seems like oppression.

So yes, woman's "rights" should include the "right" to destroy a man's life, because men's "rights" have included the "right" to destroy a woman's life for the entirety of rights. And you don't really mean rights here, since you are talking about legal authority and acting in accordance with the law.

BTW, men get sexually harassed, too. In some circumstances, almost as often as women are. It's wrong no matter who does it. (sexual assault, OTOH, is more asymmetrical)

There was a study of the playground that showed that girls played cooperative games where there was no winner or loser, and men played team games where leaders were picked and teams choosen and one team would win and the other lose.

I theorize that women don't get the testosterone thing, because they do not have it, unless they are on the pill.

And my job as a male is to use my testosterone to help my team win. I am not confident that Hilary knows what I am talking about.

I'm confident that if it were the president's job to be involved with playground games, she would listen to peoples' feedback on this. But as that's not currently the case, this is moot.

include the right to destroy a man's life
And I wonder if women understand that they are still playing the attractive to mate game. Look at the news shows. Intelligent, powerful, women, in short dresses with revealing necklines. This is freedom from sexism?

How many of these intelligent, powerful, women, in short dresses with revealing necklines dress that way because there's a sexist hierarchy in place that drives that expectation upon them? (Even ones not formerly under the control of Roger Ailes)?

swansont,

You know Hilary has called Trump a bully and his aggressive behavior bullying. I am not making anything up.

Regards, TAR

 

In response to a handshake? Context matters here.

 

But Trump is a bully. There's really no question in my mind about that. He wimped out when he went to Mexico and claimed they didn't discuss paying for the wall. Why didn't he bring it up? But then he bragged later on when he was back on his own turf. Just like a bully.

[DrmDoc]

What does trump have to do with this? We are talking about Clinton and I've already stated I think trump is worse. This really puzzles me with this manichian view of the world.

 

Where do you find your unbiased reporting? I haven't seen any unbiased reporting regarding American politics in quite a few years.

 

The evidence is the evidence. The analysis and opinion can be discarded.

 

Since we are discussing Mrs. Clinton and if you genuinely consider her the better candidate, shouldn't you be arguing here in favor of her candidacy since she is likely the better alternative? Also, it isn't unbiased reporting I recommend, it's unbiased evidence that is public record and provided independent of partisan commentary unlike the video you posted.

[tar]

swansont,

 

Leaders are chosen for their capability and trustworthiness. So capability matters. When standing next to Putin, will Hilary project the power of the U.S. or will Putin see a frumpy grandma who will flinch if he feigns a blow? That is were I am talking about natural power and biology. Not what our society feels about women after they burned their bras in the 70s but how the majority of our foes feel about women.

 

Will she melt, and wish Bill was by her side, or will she stand proud? That is my concern.

 

I saw that picture of her in the situation room during the Bin Laden operation, and she looked petrified.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited September 9, 2016 by tar

[swansont]

swansont,

 

Leaders are chosen for their capability and trustworthiness. So capability matters. When standing next to Putin, will Hilary project the power of the U.S. or will Putin see a frumpy grandma who will flinch if he feigns a blow? That is were I am talking about natural power and biology. Not what our society feels about women after they burned their bras in the 70s but how the majority of our foes feel about women.

 

Will she melt, and wish Bill was by her side, or will she stand proud? That is my concern.

 

I saw that picture of her in the situation room during the Bin Laden operation, and she looked petrified.

 

Regards, TAR

 

 

So your argument here is that Putin, or any other adversarial leader, will see Clinton as weak, and so ignore the strength of our military or our economy (whichever one applies)? Because that's how it comes a cross. And it's idiotic. I doubt most foreign leaders are that clueless or stupid (and I doubt she will ever meet with the one who might be).

 

It is completely unsurprising to me that you'd interpret the picture that way. You've made it clear how you filter incoming information and how you view women. But as before, this is you making a projection onto someone else. It's certainly not based on any evidence of her performance as Secretary of State and as senator and her prior work. It also smacks of someone who really hasn't processed that other countries have or have had women at the head of their governments, and the scenario you have described hasn't come to pass.

[tar]

Swansont,

 

I don't get the same feeling looking at Angela Merkel as I get looking at Hilary. I still have the image of her as first lady. Capable, but not imposing. Perhaps I missed her imposing appearance as Secretary of State. Do you have any I could take a peek at?

 

Regards, TAR

[Delta1212]

The gorilla who beats up the rest of the gang may get the mate, but we are not gorillas. That's rarely how human mating happens, and in any case, while a male gorilla displaying raw strength is a sign that he will be able to adequately protect his mates and children from threats, strength in human males does not signal anything similarly important to survival in modern human society.

 

Violence is not a daily occurence for much of our society, and even for people who do live in more violent areas, access to technology is far more important than physical strength. As you say, we live in a world of tanks. Who has a stronger grip doesn't matter one whit in determining who is more capable of devastating violence.

 

We once, not too long ago, lived in a world where brute strength did play a significant role in determining who was going to be able to survive and thrive, but in terms of personal defense and physical labor. We don't live in that world anymore, and the social conventions have not entirely caught up to that fact yet.

 

The traits that most physical displays of dominance are meant to show off are no longer necessary to perform the roles that those displays were once meant to signal fitness for. It's all become just so much sound and fury signifying nothing.

[swansont]

Swansont,

 

I don't get the same feeling looking at Angela Merkel as I get looking at Hilary. I still have the image of her as first lady. Capable, but not imposing. Perhaps I missed her imposing appearance as Secretary of State. Do you have any I could take a peek at?

 

Regards, TAR

 

 

What's the point? You're judging her on her looks, and have made up your mind. This is the nonsense we were discussing a few posts back. It's your prerogative to use any criteria you want to decide on your candidate, but don't pretend you're making the decision on merit or demonstrated ability.

[Delta1212]

 

Swansont,

 

I don't get the same feeling looking at Angela Merkel as I get looking at Hilary. I still have the image of her as first lady. Capable, but not imposing. Perhaps I missed her imposing appearance as Secretary of State. Do you have any I could take a peek at?

 

Regards, TAR

I don't know if it will qualify for you, but the Benghazi hearing last Fall is the thing that sold me on Hillary. Watched the live stream from start to finish at work.

[tar]

a picture is worth a thousand words

Delta1212,

 

I saw the same hearing, but it did not give me a good feeling about her. She did not take responsibility for lying to the families about the cause of the attacks. She said it was a confusing time and things and information kept changing. I did not believe her recharacterization.

 

Regards, TAR