Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » Hillary and the Rejection from Women Voters

Hillary and the Rejection from Women Voters

+4
Markle
Sal
Wordslinger
knothead
8 posters

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Guest


Guest

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/02/08/hillary-and-friends-are-turning-off-young-women/

Clinton keeps insisting that she is desperately needed to protect women’s gains, but it is her own credibility that is tripping her up. Women, like men, see how cagey she is on releasing her paid speeches. They understand that she keeps insisting her email server set-up was “allowed” — but the FBI keeps investigating. (“She doesn’t have a good answer on why she accepted the money for these speaking fees, I think in part because there isn’t a great answer,” Julie Pace of the Associated Press noted. “It was widely expected that she would run for president and she still went to these banks. We haven’t seen what she said when she spoke to Wall Street executives. And every time that Bernie Sanders brings that up, it reinforces a narrative about her, but also a narrative about him.”) The notion that gender solidarity trumps all is not panning out.

Guest


Guest

Why do we restrict voters to "women" "Black" "Hispanic?"

I'm an American voter. I vote not for race or gender. It's deeper than that. So if women are not backing Hillary I don't think it comes down to a gender thing - they are simply not voting for her stand on issues.


knothead

knothead

[quote="SheWrites"]Why do we restrict voters to "women" "Black" "Hispanic?"

I'm an American voter.  I vote not for race or gender.  It's deeper than that.  So if women are not backing Hillary I don't think it comes down to a gender thing - they are simply not voting for her stand on issues.


I agree SW, message/policy/agenda rules in my world!

Guest


Guest

WHOOOooosh... that's the point zipping over your heads.

Hillary has repeatedly brought her gender into this presidential campaign... including yesterday with albright and steinem. The reason she doesn't have the support of that demographic is beyond the issues as well. It revolves around her character.

knothead

knothead

PkrBum wrote:WHOOOooosh... that's the point zipping over your heads.

Hillary has repeatedly brought her gender into this presidential campaign... including yesterday with albright and steinem. The reason she doesn't have the support of that demographic is beyond the issues as well. It revolves around her character.


pkr, I inadvertently omitted the most important and relevant in the current context and that would be COMPETENCE. I am not voting for Mother Teresa.

Guest


Guest

knothead wrote:
PkrBum wrote:WHOOOooosh... that's the point zipping over your heads.

Hillary has repeatedly brought her gender into this presidential campaign... including yesterday with albright and steinem. The reason she doesn't have the support of that demographic is beyond the issues as well. It revolves around her character.


pkr, I inadvertently omitted the most important and relevant in the current context and that would be COMPETENCE. I am not voting for Mother Teresa.

Then you certainly won't be voting for hillary either. Fair enough.

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

PkrBum wrote:
knothead wrote:
PkrBum wrote:WHOOOooosh... that's the point zipping over your heads.

Hillary has repeatedly brought her gender into this presidential campaign... including yesterday with albright and steinem. The reason she doesn't have the support of that demographic is beyond the issues as well. It revolves around her character.


pkr, I inadvertently omitted the most important and relevant in the current context and that would be COMPETENCE. I am not voting for Mother Teresa.

Then you certainly won't be voting for hillary either. Fair enough.


It's been reported that not a single woman who has turned away from Hillary has gone over to any of the war on women candidates of your party.

I wouldn't be surprised if Carly Fiorina joins them in support of Bernie...

LOL

Sal

Sal

PkrBum wrote:The reason she doesn't have the support of that demographic is beyond the issues as well. It revolves around her character.

Wrong as usual.

The reason they a turning away from Hillary is POLICY.

Bernie has a populist agenda that appeals to a vast swath of the American electorate.

Guest


Guest

Pretty sure we're talking about the same thing... what leftists call "policy" is better known in the real world as corruption.

Hillary Helps a Bank—and Then It Funnels Millions to the Clintons

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/hillary-helps-a-bankand-then-it-pays-bill-15-million-in-speaking-fees/400067/

The Swiss bank UBS is one of the biggest, most powerful financial institutions in the world. As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton intervened to help it out with the IRS. And after that, the Swiss bank paid Bill Clinton $1.5 million for speaking gigs. The Wall Street Journal reported all that and more Thursday in an article that highlights huge conflicts of interest that the Clintons have created in the recent past.

The piece begins by detailing how Clinton helped the global bank.

“A few weeks after Hillary Clinton was sworn in as secretary of state in early 2009, she was summoned to Geneva by her Swiss counterpart to discuss an urgent matter. The Internal Revenue Service was suing UBS AG to get the identities of Americans with secret accounts,” the newspaper reports. “If the case proceeded, Switzerland’s largest bank would face an impossible choice: Violate Swiss secrecy laws by handing over the names, or refuse and face criminal charges in U.S. federal court. Within months, Mrs. Clinton announced a tentative legal settlement—an unusual intervention by the top U.S. diplomat. UBS ultimately turned over information on 4,450 accounts, a fraction of the 52,000 sought by the IRS.”

Then reporters James V. Grimaldi and Rebecca Ballhaus lay out how UBS helped the Clintons. “Total donations by UBS to the Clinton Foundation grew from less than $60,000 through 2008 to a cumulative total of about $600,000 by the end of 2014, according to the foundation and the bank,” they report. “The bank also joined the Clinton Foundation to launch entrepreneurship and inner-city loan programs, through which it lent $32 million. And it paid former president Bill Clinton $1.5 million to participate in a series of question-and-answer sessions with UBS Wealth Management Chief Executive Bob McCann, making UBS his biggest single corporate source of speech income disclosed since he left the White House.”

The article adds that “there is no evidence of any link between Mrs. Clinton’s involvement in the case and the bank’s donations to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, or its hiring of Mr. Clinton.” Maybe it’s all a mere coincidence, and when UBS agreed to pay Bill Clinton $1.5 million the relevant decision-maker wasn’t even aware of the vast sum his wife may have saved the bank or the power that she will potentially wield after the 2016 presidential election.

But even that wouldn’t make accepting the $1.5 million excusable.

If you’re Bill Clinton and your wife has recently intervened, in her capacity as a cabinet secretary, to help a giant corporation avert a significant threat to its bottom-line, the very least you could do, if only to avoid the appearance of impropriety, is to avoid negotiating seven-figure paydays with that same corporation. This is particularly jaw-dropping because ultra-wealthy Bill Clinton has virtually unlimited opportunities to give lucrative speeches to any number of audiences not directly implicated by decisions that his wife made as secretary of state.

But maximizing the Clinton family’s wealth and power requires him to speak before the very wealthiest paymasters. And that’s exactly what the ex-president has done.

As McClatchy noted last month in a more broadly focused article that also mentions UBS, “Ten of the world’s biggest financial institutions––including UBS, Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup and Goldman Sachs––have hired Bill Clinton numerous times since 2004 to speak for fees totaling more than $6.4 million.

Hillary Clinton also has accepted speaking fees from at least one bank. And along with an 11th bank, the French giant BNP Paribas, the financial goliaths also donated as much as $24.9 million to the Clinton Foundation––the family’s global charity set up to tackle causes from the AIDS epidemic in Africa to climate change.”

One needn’t believe that there’s ever been any quid pro quo to see that this matters.

“Any suggestions that Hillary Clinton was driven by anything but what’s in America’s best interest would be false. Period,” a campaign spokesman told The Guardian. Oh, come on. Clinton may well have thought that intervening on behalf of UBS was good for the U.S. There are reports that the Swiss helped our government in various ways in exchange for shielding the bank from a worst-case scenario.

But this campaign flak cannot possibly know––or expect us to take on faith––that Clinton was not at all influenced by knowledge that acting to benefit the bank could mean seven figures for her family and more for their foundation, whereas advocating against the bank would more than likely eliminate the chance of either. Any normal person would be influenced, if only in spite of themselves, unless they resolved from the beginning that having made a decision in government that directly affected a corporation, they’d never take money from it later even if it offered.

It is a discredit to Bill and Hillary Clinton that they behave as if they believe otherwise.

Why are they indulged in doing so?

Democrats are hurtling toward a farce. The coalition that insists on the corrupting effect of Citizens United and the unlimited campaign contributions it permits is poised to nominate a couple that has seen riches flow from big banks to their personal accounts.

Perhaps it would make sense for Democrats to hold their noses and elevate Hillary anyway if she were just beholden to the telecom or nuclear or airline industries, given their substantial agreements with other positions that she has taken. (Although her disastrous vote to give George W. Bush authority to invade Iraq, and the hawkish positions that she took on both Libya and Syria as secretary of state, are reminders that she is not perfectly aligned with her party’s base.) But big, politically active financial firms are, many Democrats believe, huge obstacles to tackling inequality and pursuing economic justice. (Just look at the likely effect of Clinton’s intervention on behalf of UBS: It probably helped some of the wealthiest Americans to hide taxable assets from the IRS.)

Finance is also the global industry most responsible for the financial crash of 2008. And it is the bane of Occupy, the biggest left-wing protest movement in recent memory.

How can mainstream Democratic Party beliefs about the corrupting effects of money in politics and the perniciousness of Big Finance possibly be squared with elevating as their leaders a couple as cozy with Big Finance as anyone in American politics?

Even Democrats who aren’t concerned about the agenda of Big Finance ought to ask themselves if America is best served by a president and first spouse who care so little about preserving the confidence that the public can reasonably have in the integrity of their actions. They are far from the only members of our elite who’ve put a payday ahead of the common good, but it’s hard to think of a more flagrant example.

Guest


Guest

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/voting-begins-in-nh-as-presidential-hopefuls-make-a-final-sprint/2016/02/08/d56162d6-cecf-11e5-88cd-753e80cd29ad_story.html

One stunning figure from the Democratic race: news outlets reported that, among New Hampshire Democrats who told exit pollsters that they wanted a candidate who was “honest and trustworthy,” Sanders won by a margin of 93 percent to 5 percent.

Guest


Guest

Apparently the only demographic hillary won was that of old white people that make more than 200k... lol.

Markle

Markle

SheWrites wrote:Why do we restrict voters to "women" "Black" "Hispanic?"

I'm an American voter.  I vote not for race or gender.  It's deeper than that.  So if women are not backing Hillary I don't think it comes down to a gender thing - they are simply not voting for her stand on issues.

Partitioning voters into pigeon holes is the Progressive way of making sure they are pandering specifically to what their research tells them each group wants.

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

Markle wrote:
SheWrites wrote:Why do we restrict voters to "women" "Black" "Hispanic?"

I'm an American voter.  I vote not for race or gender.  It's deeper than that.  So if women are not backing Hillary I don't think it comes down to a gender thing - they are simply not voting for her stand on issues.

Partitioning voters into pigeon holes is the Progressive way of making sure they are pandering specifically to what their research tells them each group wants.



Who cares?

Markle

Markle

Wordslinger wrote:
Markle wrote:
SheWrites wrote:Why do we restrict voters to "women" "Black" "Hispanic?"

I'm an American voter.  I vote not for race or gender.  It's deeper than that.  So if women are not backing Hillary I don't think it comes down to a gender thing - they are simply not voting for her stand on issues.

Partitioning voters into pigeon holes is the Progressive way of making sure they are pandering specifically to what their research tells them each group wants.

Who cares?

Glad to see that my socialist/communist good friend Wordslinger finally owns up to the fact that Progressives have no desire or intention to treat people equally.

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

Markle wrote:
Wordslinger wrote:
Markle wrote:
SheWrites wrote:Why do we restrict voters to "women" "Black" "Hispanic?"

I'm an American voter.  I vote not for race or gender.  It's deeper than that.  So if women are not backing Hillary I don't think it comes down to a gender thing - they are simply not voting for her stand on issues.

Partitioning voters into pigeon holes is the Progressive way of making sure they are pandering specifically to what their research tells them each group wants.

Who cares?

Glad to see that my socialist/communist good friend Wordslinger finally owns up to the fact that Progressives have no desire or intention to treat people equally.

Right -- bloodsucking corporations that bank offshore and oligarchs who rig the economy will not be treated "equally."

Down with Amerika Inc.! Corporate control of the government through corrupt campaign financing. LOL

Floridatexan

Floridatexan


I have respect for Hillary Clinton, but she is not inspiring me the way Bernie Sanders does. It has much more to do with policy than personality...it's time to reverse the trend that is destroying the middle class of this country.

Sal

Sal

Floridatexan wrote:
I have respect for Hillary Clinton, but she is not inspiring me the way Bernie Sanders does.  It has much more to do with policy than personality...it's time to reverse the trend that is destroying the middle class of this country.

The problem is that both their campaigns are almost purely aspirational, because with a gridlocked Congress nothing they're proposing is going to come to pass.

Hillary is just a little more realistic about the situation.

The DNC should be developing a 50 state strategy to take back state offices with an eye toward redistricting and taking back Congress.

A good first step would be sacking Debbie Wasserman Schultz and bringing someone in who would do a competent job like Howard Dean.

She has been a horrible steward.

Markle

Markle

Salinsky wrote:
PkrBum wrote:The reason she doesn't have the support of that demographic is beyond the issues as well. It revolves around her character.

Wrong as usual.

The reason they a turning away from Hillary is POLICY.

Bernie has a populist agenda that appeals to a vast swath of the American electorate.

Wrong as usual.

Millions are turning away from Hillary Clinton not because of policy, because she has gone so far to the left she is indistinguishable from Bernie.

They are turning away from her because of he illegal activities and the first word that comes to voters mind when they hear the name Hillary Clinton is LIAR.

I don't think a decrepit Bill Clinton is helping here with women either. It brings up Hillary's part in disgracing the VICTIMS of Bill's assaults.

Time for Joe Biden to step up and take her place.

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

Markle wrote:
Salinsky wrote:
PkrBum wrote:The reason she doesn't have the support of that demographic is beyond the issues as well. It revolves around her character.

Wrong as usual.

The reason they a turning away from Hillary is POLICY.

Bernie has a populist agenda that appeals to a vast swath of the American electorate.

Wrong as usual.

Millions are turning away from Hillary Clinton not because of policy, because she has gone so far to the left she is indistinguishable from Bernie.

They are turning away from her because of he illegal activities and the first word that comes to voters mind when they hear the name Hillary Clinton is LIAR.

I don't think a decrepit Bill Clinton is helping here with women either.  It brings up Hillary's part in disgracing the VICTIMS of Bill's assaults.

Time for Joe Biden to step up and take her place.



"Millions are turning away from Hillary Clinton not because of policy, because she has gone so far to the left she is indistinguishable from Bernie." Markle, that's truly one of the dumbest comments you've posted. In fact, literally ALL the democrats who are turning away from Hillary, are turning towards Bernie. Are you insane enough to believe that moderate or progressive democrats would vote for Trump or Cruz or Robot boy? Check your meds kiddo.

Guest


Guest

She has also apparently now been rejected by those democrats that value honesty from their dear leaders.

Luckily for her... only about a third of comrades value honesty... lol.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/10/hillary-clinton-has-a-major-honesty-problem-after-new-hampshire/

The exit poll following Clinton's 22-point drubbing at the hands of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. More than one in three (34 percent) of all New Hampshire Democratic primary voters said that honesty was the most important trait in their decision on which candidate to support. Of that bloc, Sanders won 92 percent of their votes as compared to just 6 percent for Clinton.



Last edited by PkrBum on 2/10/2016, 4:01 pm; edited 1 time in total

Markle

Markle

Wordslinger wrote:
Markle wrote:
Salinsky wrote:
PkrBum wrote:The reason she doesn't have the support of that demographic is beyond the issues as well. It revolves around her character.

Wrong as usual.

The reason they a turning away from Hillary is POLICY.

Bernie has a populist agenda that appeals to a vast swath of the American electorate.

Wrong as usual.

Millions are turning away from Hillary Clinton not because of policy, because she has gone so far to the left she is indistinguishable from Bernie.

They are turning away from her because of he illegal activities and the first word that comes to voters mind when they hear the name Hillary Clinton is LIAR.

I don't think a decrepit Bill Clinton is helping here with women either.  It brings up Hillary's part in disgracing the VICTIMS of Bill's assaults.

Time for Joe Biden to step up and take her place.



"Millions are turning away from Hillary Clinton not because of policy, because she has gone so far to the left she is indistinguishable from Bernie."  Markle, that's truly one of the dumbest comments you've posted.  In fact, literally ALL the democrats who are turning away from Hillary, are turning towards Bernie.  Are you insane enough to believe that moderate or progressive democrats would vote for Trump or Cruz or Robot boy?  Check your meds kiddo.

Please show us all where I said a Socialist would vote for Donald Trump.

Hillary and the Rejection from Women Voters Hole_zps33uizwx6

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

Markle wrote:
Salinsky wrote:
PkrBum wrote:The reason she doesn't have the support of that demographic is beyond the issues as well. It revolves around her character.

Wrong as usual.

The reason they a turning away from Hillary is POLICY.

Bernie has a populist agenda that appeals to a vast swath of the American electorate.

Wrong as usual.

Millions are turning away from Hillary Clinton not because of policy, because she has gone so far to the left she is indistinguishable from Bernie.

They are turning away from her because of he illegal activities and the first word that comes to voters mind when they hear the name Hillary Clinton is LIAR.

I don't think a decrepit Bill Clinton is helping here with women either.  It brings up Hillary's part in disgracing the VICTIMS of Bill's assaults.

Time for Joe Biden to step up and take her place.


Here are your liars, you old goat:

Hillary and the Rejection from Women Voters Eb23de61fca29f86e4e3759f18063555

There's no statute of limitations on murder.

gatorfan



Floridatexan wrote:
Markle wrote:
Salinsky wrote:
PkrBum wrote:





Here are your liars, you old goat:


There's no statute of limitations on murder.


Remember that if you believe it.

Nearly 90 Percent Of People Killed In Recent Drone Strikes Were Not The Target

U.S. drone strikes have killed scores of civilians in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/civilian-deaths-drone-strikes_us_561fafe2e4b028dd7ea6c4ff

Hillary and the Rejection from Women Voters Barack-drone-bomber-obama

Guest


Guest

Not to mention the targeted killing of a known sixteen y/o us citizen in an open cafe while he ate a meal.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/07/18/opinion/the-drone-that-killed-my-grandson.html

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

gatorfan wrote:
Floridatexan wrote:







Here are your liars, you old goat:


There's no statute of limitations on murder.


Remember that if you believe it.

Nearly 90 Percent Of People Killed In Recent Drone Strikes Were Not The Target

U.S. drone strikes have killed scores of civilians in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/civilian-deaths-drone-strikes_us_561fafe2e4b028dd7ea6c4ff

Hillary and the Rejection from Women Voters Barack-drone-bomber-obama

"Scores"????? No comparison whatsoever. The lying scumbags handed over the reins with two ongoing wars and an economy in economic freefall...and you want to talk about drones.





http://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/security-military/us-military-casualty-statistics-costs-war-iraq-afghanistan-post-911

A February 2013 Congressional Research Service report, “U.S. Military Casualty Statistics: Operation New Dawn, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Operation Enduring Freedom,” updates data relating to the post 9/11 conflicts, including the numbers of wounded. (Operation Enduring Freedom refers to the Afghanistan conflict; Operation New Dawn refers to the Iraq War during the final transition phase, which ended in December 2011.)

The report notes the following:

During the Iraq War, 4,475 U.S. service members were killed and 32,220 were wounded; in Afghanistan, 2,165 have been killed and 18,230 wounded through Feb. 5, 2013.
Among service members deployed in these conflicts, 103,792 were diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) over the period 2002 to December 2012. Over that same period, 253,330 service members were diagnosed with a Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) of some kind.
As a result of battle injuries in the Iraq War, 991 service members received wounds that required amputations; 797 lost major limbs, such as a leg. In Afghanistan, 724 have had to undergo amputations, with 696 losing a major limb.
A wide variety of other related research, both academic and government-produced, is available in the veterans section of the Journalist’s Resource database.


Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » Hillary and the Rejection from Women Voters

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum