Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The 2016 Presidential Election Trainwreck

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Moliere View Post
    Not sure I could vote for Hillary after seeing that picture :gross:
    That is a bit harsh. Remember this is a 67 year old woman.

    From the waste up she was not that bad in her younger years.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by byu71 View Post
      TFrom the waste up she was not that bad in her younger years.
      If you say so

      PLesa excuse the tpyos.

      Comment


      • The 2016 Presidential Election Primary Thread

        Originally posted by byu71 View Post
        That is a bit harsh. Remember this is a 67 year old woman.

        From the waste up she was not that bad in her younger years.
        I'm surprised to see you admit she's anything more than that. Progress.
        Prepare to put mustard on those words, for you will soon be consuming them, along with this slice of humble pie that comes direct from the oven of shame set at gas mark “egg on your face”! -- Moss

        There's three rules that I live by: never get less than twelve hours sleep; never play cards with a guy who's got the same first name as a city; and never go near a lady's got a tattoo of a dagger on her body. Now you stick to that, everything else is cream cheese. --Coach Finstock

        Comment


        • You guys are pigs.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by creekster View Post
            If you say so

            Can you tell me you haven't ever seen a nerdy looking girl and the more you look at her the more you realize she actually is pretty sexy?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Donuthole View Post
              I'm surprised to see you admit she's anything more than that. Progress.
              I am glad you at least catch the nuances. Others on here just pass it off as I am illiterate.

              Comment


              • It's such a double standard in politics that women have to look good and have policy you agree with while men just have to have policy you agree with. If you don't like Hilary's policy, fine, but where are the less than flattering pictures of the male presidential candidates?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by GeoArch View Post
                  It's such a double standard in politics that women have to look good and have policy you agree with while men just have to have policy you agree with. If you don't like Hilary's policy, fine, but where are the less than flattering pictures of the male presidential candidates?
                  It is also such a double standard that Republican candidates have to have policy you agree with but they have to be considered smart and not dumb.

                  If women have to look good then how do you explain, Barbara Boxer, Pilosi, Hillary (she got elected) Elizabeth Warren, Patti Murray and Eleanor Roosevelt?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by byu71 View Post
                    It is also such a double standard that Republican candidates have to have policy you agree with but they have to be considered smart and not dumb.

                    If women have to look good then how do you explain, Barbara Boxer, Pilosi, Hillary (she got elected) Elizabeth Warren, Patti Murray and Eleanor Roosevelt?
                    The difference is that when a disagreement arises, people attack women's appearance in addition to their policy, not just their policy. I've seen interviews with female politicians from both parties where one of the interview questions is about their clothes. They never ask the male politicians about their clothes. When people get mad with a women's policies, the appearance-based insults come out (fat cow, cankles, etc.). I just compare the criticism of Colin Powell vs. Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State. A lot of times the criticism of Condoleeza Rice included appearance-based insults.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by GeoArch View Post
                      The difference is that when a disagreement arises, people attack women's appearance in addition to their policy, not just their policy. I've seen interviews with female politicians from both parties where one of the interview questions is about their clothes. They never ask the male politicians about their clothes. When people get mad with a women's policies, the appearance-based insults come out (fat cow, cankles, etc.). I just compare the criticism of Colin Powell vs. Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State. A lot of times the criticism of Condoleeza Rice included appearance-based insults.
                      OK. I don't quite get the women are picked on thing, but I also don't understand why old people don't get more respect.

                      Our experiences though just may be different. Like Saturday when we talked about playing another 9 holes and the two married guys said they had to get home or their wives would kick their butts.

                      Comment


                      • I think it's dumb to include jabs at a person's appearance when contemplating their viability as a candidate. However, it has always been part of my fool-proof formula for predicting the winner of the Presidential election. That formula is: "The Better Looking Candidate= Election Winner." Go ahead and trace that back to the beginning of television, when Nixon took on JFK and lost because he's obviously not Jack Kennedy looks-wise. (In post-debate polls, those who saw the TV debate crowned JFK the winner while radio listeners sided with Nixon. I understand that this doesn't take into account the respective divide in choice of media among Republicans/Democrats, but is yet remarkable).

                        Romney was a worthy contender in this last one with his dashing good looks, but Obama matched those good looks and added an easy going manner and disarming smile. McCain had no shot. W was better looking and more charming than Kerry and Gore by far. Clinton was more charming than Dole and George Sr., who beat out fugly Dukakis. Reagan killed Carter and Mondale, etc. The formula holds up pretty well. I think Mitt would take Hilary going away.
                        "I'm anti, can't no government handle a commando / Your man don't want it, Trump's a bitch! I'll make his whole brand go under,"

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by GeoArch View Post
                          It's such a double standard in politics that women have to look good and have policy you agree with while men just have to have policy you agree with. If you don't like Hilary's policy, fine, but where are the less than flattering pictures of the male presidential candidates?
                          have you not seen the glory that is the corn dog meme? Those are really pretty ingenious pieces of smear campaigning that are pretty destructive.
                          "I'm anti, can't no government handle a commando / Your man don't want it, Trump's a bitch! I'll make his whole brand go under,"

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Commando View Post
                            I think it's dumb to include jabs at a person's appearance when contemplating their viability as a candidate. However, it has always been part of my fool-proof formula for predicting the winner of the Presidential election. That formula is: "The Better Looking Candidate= Election Winner." Go ahead and trace that back to the beginning of television, when Nixon took on JFK and lost because he's obviously not Jack Kennedy looks-wise. (In post-debate polls, those who saw the TV debate crowned JFK the winner while radio listeners sided with Nixon. I understand that this doesn't take into account the respective divide in choice of media among Republicans/Democrats, but is yet remarkable).

                            Romney was a worthy contender in this last one with his dashing good looks, but Obama matched those good looks and added an easy going manner and disarming smile. McCain had no shot. W was better looking and more charming than Kerry and Gore by far. Clinton was more charming than Dole and George Sr., who beat out fugly Dukakis. Reagan killed Carter and Mondale, etc. The formula holds up pretty well. I think Mitt would take Hilary going away.
                            The only reason the Republicans have a prayer in '16 is because the press doesn't particularly like Hillary. They won't put their energy into getting her elected. If they get an Elizabeth Warren to run instead of Hillary, all bets are off even though Warren isn't exactly a pretty face.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by creekster View Post
                              If you say so

                              71:

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by GeoArch View Post
                                It's such a double standard in politics that women have to look good and have policy you agree with while men just have to have policy you agree with. If you don't like Hilary's policy, fine, but where are the less than flattering pictures of the male presidential candidates?
                                7a7f7354b18fe1e86d544d95740142e4d3879b831a171f46c80e5b603291ab0f.jpg
                                "I think it was King Benjamin who said 'you sorry ass shitbags who have no skills that the market values also have an obligation to have the attitude that if one day you do in fact win the PowerBall Lottery that you will then impart of your substance to those without.'"
                                - Goatnapper'96

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X