Yeah so, I did not expect to have this reaction to a powerful woman running, and I certainly didn't experience anything like it with Hillary, and honestly it is probably toxic at base, but, uh...
Ka-mommy.
Shows that America didn't reject women presidents in 2016 so much as it rejected Hillary. The next step on a carefully laid out career path does not a great president make.
If she had divorced Bill in the 00s, she might have had a chance. Staying with her blatantly cheating former president husband just looked like an old school "divorce is bad optics" decision rather than a more feminist "I don't need a husband that doesn't treat me well". Which didn't work well when she was trying to run as the latter.
Her entitlement didn't help, neither did the Democrat establishment working to prevent the progressive option but being willing to back her. Neither did empowering Trump as an opponent she thought she'd get an easy win for when in reality she was the perfect candidate for him to run against.
Even if she made every right choice, the Republicans had been smearing her name for 24 years before she ran for president. Her attempt to simultaneously be elected most entitled person certainly didn't help. But I think that's why we nominated Biden in 2020. The watch word was electability because we all saw what decades of FUD did to Hillary.
It's hard to separate cause and effect there. Was she unliked because of the FUD or did the FUD stick because she was unliked?
It was a close election so it was a perfect storm of a bunch of things lining up all at once. Given how close it was, if the FUD did cause the outcome, avoiding some of those errors might have been enough to win.
Nah, I understand that sometimes you love people who hurt you. Staying with Bill was not a problem.
Her problem was that she couldn't conceal her contempt for most people (or gave off an aura of self-superiority if you prefer that take).
She particularly gave off an air of scorn towards non-career women, which is pretty dumb when you need them to vote for you.
I voted for her, mind you, but went Bernie in the primary.
I used to know folks who worked in government and I heard several times that Clinton was very unpleasant to all of the secret service staff too. Could be bullshit but when looking at everything else about her, it tracks.
Shows that America didn’t reject women presidents in 2016 so much as it rejected Hillary.
Up until election day Hillary was expected to win. If Trump wins in November, will you say that America rejected women presidents again?
America didn't reject Hillary, the electoral college did. She actually got more votes than Trump did.
Yeah, that's fair, it might be premature still to say that. Also, Trump is more of a known factor this time around.
I'm just being real about what I'm wrestling with. I'm on a knife's edge of shame as it is, don't push me.
If you're on the knifes edge of shame, then keep your creepy fetishes to yourself. Not in a public forum with a very serious topic.
It's not that. I have good parents. For me it's the humanity on display. We're so used to these stoic leaders putting out a highly polished inhuman image and Kamala and her husband are out here making faces at each other on the campaign trail. Doug actively tries to crack her up when they're in front of the cameras but not doing speeches or something.
This is absolutely it. She's so much more human than any of the old croaks that trump hangs out with.
And Donold is so mentally broken that he is unable to genuinely belly laugh at anything. That's really creepy once you notice it.
Yeah, it's refreshing to go back to the tried-and-true boomers after the brief experiment with a silent generation president.
My mom was amazing and died when I was 19, but thank you for your comment.
*Now if you're referring to CHUDS I actually am an expert...
I am sorry for your loss. I was referring to chuds.
Now I'm still talking about chuds but curious why they are now CHUDS, is that significant? I am not steeped in chud (or CHUDS) culture and appreciate the insight.
Well, I personally don't see the appeal, but as long as you aren't hurting anyone, I wish you the best of luck.
I will say, though, just as an aside, that it's odd to me to say "cannibalistic humanoid", because cannibalism can only be committed against the same species, but the term humanoid seems to describe something up to a range of species.
So it's as if we are saying, I don't know what species a CHUDS is, but whatever it is, it is humanoid and that's also the species it preys on.
But surely we must determine the species of both the predator and the prey to determine that they are both the same species, in which case why the generalized term?
It is quite a vexing problem. This is great weed.
