Hillary Clinton and women voters

[ProgressiveCanadian]

So unless you have some sort of real scandal that is actually serious and not her lying about something she said to some random person, then I really, really do not care.

You asked for evidence that Hillary is a "corrupt, pandering liar"; there's plenty of it, and I've provided some examples. Whether or not you or anyone else cares is beside the point...

Lol denying Clnton is corrupt and panders to anything to get ahead in politics is like denying that the world is round. Most people know this.

[Asian Nazi]

Lots of conspiracy theories and little evidence.  Typical of the Sandernista camp.

Meanwhile, the loon himself is literally robbing the American people with his multi-billion dollar shampaign.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Lots of conspiracy theories and little evidence.  Typical of the Sandernista camp.

Meanwhile, the loon himself is literally robbing the American people with his multi-billion dollar shampaign.

Oh yea because American politics is all fair and politicions are looking out for the people and not being bought by anyone and does not influence anyones vote. Go back in your hole you obviously know nothing and spew a bunch of garbage. Also stop with the pointless atacks on Sanders...who is he even robbing from and your the one talking about evidence lol.

[Asian Nazi]

Oh yea because American politics is all fair and politicions are looking out for the people and not being bought by anyone and does not influence anyones vote.

[This account no longer in use.]

I'm sorry, but I'm not taking anybody with an anime character hugging a body pillow in their signature seriously any time soon.

[Virginiá]

So unless you have some sort of real scandal that is actually serious and not her lying about something she said to some random person, then I really, really do not care.

You asked for evidence that Hillary is a "corrupt, pandering liar"; there's plenty of it, and I've provided some examples. Whether or not you or anyone else cares is beside the point...

Quote me where I said that. As I stated before, I was only talking about the Nixon story you posted. I asked for evidence about that, and you bring up a whole bunch of other irrelevant stuff because frankly there is no evidence to support the claim about Nixon/HRC.

You keep trying to change what I said into something you can argue effectively against, when it's just not the case.

[Ogre Mage]

Clinton has 100% name recognition, has been fighting for women's rights for her entire career and is not shy about calling attention to that fact.  Much of her political network and institutional strength is built into the United States feminist establishment.  Her roots are long and deep there and those organizations will go all-out to elect her (note Planned Parenthood's unprecedented primary endorsement of Clinton -- normally the organization always waits until the general election).

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-01072016-htmlstory.html#333

So yeah, Clinton will do very well with women voters, especially since her election would be a historic first and she would be facing a male Republican whose party seems to be going even further backward on women's rights and one candidate (Trump) who goes around making blatantly misogynistic comments.  Perhaps some are confused thinking Republican women are representative of the women who will be voting in the general election.

Admittedly, doing well with women voters does not automatically equal a win general election.  That remains to be seen.

[Asian Nazi]

I'm sorry, but I'm not taking anybody with an anime character hugging a body pillow in their signature seriously any time soon.

lol touche

[Adam Griffin]

The people suffering from Clinton Derangement Syndrome don't realize that they're making the very same mistake that they made with Bill Clinton before the widespread popularity of the internet (and perhaps even more so with Obama after the fact, although Hillary by far has the most "material" out there for any non-President): they go digging up every ten-paragraph conspiracy theory they can find on the first page of Google (a disproportionate share of which seem to be floating around on old Geocities pages), spam them to kingdom come, and show everyone with an analytical mind that they have no idea what they're talking about. If your so-called "proof" is this long:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And doesn't contain actual sources (aka media outlet references, independently verifiable reports), then you're not getting anywhere. If you yourself can't describe the actual "transgression" but instead have to copy and paste - word-for-word - some huge description of a supposed event, then you've shown that you haven't actually even read what you're sharing. In conclusion, most people go "TL;DR" and finally just shut you out completely when you spam one crazy-ass story after another without any proof.

This is why Clinton is so strong: for a quarter of a century, people have been posting conspiracy theories about how she killed her best friend (and countless others), how she's a lizard-person, how she drank the blood of diplomats, how she's really a big ol' lesbian, and hundreds more. After a while, people realize you're just crying wolf, know you're full of s[inks]t, and tune you out forever.

Hillary literally could get away with murder at this point because the dimwits who merely hate her because her last name is "Clinton" and because she is a powerful woman capable of emasculating them have given her that invincibility. Congratulations!

[ProgressiveCanadian]

The people suffering from Clinton Derangement Syndrome don't realize that they're making the very same mistake that they made with Bill Clinton before the widespread popularity of the internet (and perhaps even more so with Obama after the fact, although Hillary by far has the most "material" out there for any non-President): they go digging up every ten-paragraph conspiracy theory they can find on the first page of Google (a disproportionate share of which seem to be floating around on old Geocities pages), spam them to kingdom come, and show everyone with an analytical mind that they have no idea what they're talking about. If your so-called "proof" is this long:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Jesus now this is the worst post i have seen. This post just proves how bias you are towards Clinton that you cant even see the truth. Sad really since it turns out we agree on most issues. All we want is not to have a dynasty and i think thats what the people are getting tired of at least on the Republican side so far.

[Ebsy]

Are you literally 12?

[madelka]

Literally every post in this thread:

[Adam Griffin]

Jesus now this is the worst post i have seen. This post just proves how bias you are towards Clinton that you cant even see the truth. Sad really since it turns out we agree on most issues. All we want is not to have a dynasty and i think thats what the people are getting tired of at least on the Republican side so far.

I have defended Sanders countless times on this board. It's unfortunate that most of his supporters are dips[inks]t cretins that blindly defend him at all costs and chronically attack Clinton regardless of the legitimacy of the claims, and anyone else who doesn't serve up your preferred flavor of Kool-aid 100% of the time.

What an awful post: I know, right!?! Suggesting that spamming and repeating bullsh**t you read on a blog or meme somewhere as fact when there's nothing to back it up not only might not be credible or sensible, but might also be bad form for what you're trying to accomplish. It's all just part of a big, biased conspiracy, maaaan!

You want to know the best thing that Sanders supporters can do to help Sanders? It's called "shutting up". Most of you are absolute embarrassments. Political neophytes who ramble on and are literally Paultards Version 2. Conspiracy theorists. People who circulate untrue memes and believe that internet opinion polls are valid. Completely disconnected from the fact that someone coming along and who doesn't know how to play the game isn't going to beat someone who was considered the front-runner for nearly a decade. Sorry, that's not the way the world works - it's not a "conspiracy". Bernie Sanders is literally the worst possible candidate to go up against someone like Clinton.

[Leinad]

Adam's probably right. That's why I don't go around shilling for Rand/the Libertarian Party--it just makes me look silly, and does nothing to further my candidate's/party's objectives.

Seriously, has anyone, in all history, ever read an internet post and said "hey, you know, you're right--that candidate that I've been supporting is actually a terrible person, and you're candidate has been right all along!" I seriously doubt it's ever, ever happened.

Why? Maybe it is not fair or right but a lot of women would like to see a woman president.

Actually, I'd love to see a woman president, but I have serious problems with this particular woman. But that's just me...

I'm not a woman, but this is basically my opinion, too.

Would a woman president be nice? Sure. A nifty crushing-of-the-glass-ceiling, that'd be great. But what we need is a GOOD president. That's vastly more important. If you think Hillary would be a good president, okay. I disagree, but I firmly believe you have the freedom to think whatever mularkey you want. To me, she's basically Obama but more pander-y, more corrupt, less competent, and more of a neocon. An economic statist/modern "liberal" who voted for the Iraq War and is a member of a shady political family--that checks most of my "would never vote for" boxes.

Really, I could probably only vote for 1 candidate in this election with a clean conscience. (And Rand's not perfect at all, but he's the only one that comes close.) So don't start going "oh, so you'd vote for Trump/Cruz/whatever over her?!?" because I'll probably vote for Gary Johnson over her. I don't play the lesser-of-the-two-evils game, as I find it ridiculous and (for lack of a better term) immoral to vote for any type of evil when there's a perfectly valid non-evil choice on the ballot.

Oh, and my vote probably still won't matter. If Georgia comes into play, which it could, it's probably a Democratic landslide, in which case our 16 EVs are irrelevant. Don't you just love that electoral college system?

[SillyAmerican]

Adam's probably right. That's why I don't go around shilling for Rand/the Libertarian Party--it just makes me look silly, and does nothing to further my candidate's/party's objectives.

Seriously, has anyone, in all history, ever read an internet post and said "hey, you know, you're right--that candidate that I've been supporting is actually a terrible person, and you're candidate has been right all along!" I seriously doubt it's ever, ever happened.

Why? Maybe it is not fair or right but a lot of women would like to see a woman president.

Actually, I'd love to see a woman president, but I have serious problems with this particular woman. But that's just me...

I'm not a woman, but this is basically my opinion, too.

Would a woman president be nice? Sure. A nifty crushing-of-the-glass-ceiling, that'd be great. But what we need is a GOOD president. That's vastly more important. If you think Hillary would be a good president, okay. I disagree, but I firmly believe you have the freedom to think whatever mularkey you want. To me, she's basically Obama but more pander-y, more corrupt, less competent, and more of a neocon. An economic statist/modern "liberal" who voted for the Iraq War and is a member of a shady political family--that checks most of my "would never vote for" boxes.

Really, I could probably only vote for 1 candidate in this election with a clean conscience. (And Rand's not perfect at all, but he's the only one that comes close.) So don't start going "oh, so you'd vote for Trump/Cruz/whatever over her?!?" because I'll probably vote for Gary Johnson over her. I don't play the lesser-of-the-two-evils game, as I find it ridiculous and (for lack of a better term) immoral to vote for any type of evil when there's a perfectly valid non-evil choice on the ballot.

Oh, and my vote probably still won't matter. If Georgia comes into play, which it could, it's probably a Democratic landslide, in which case our 16 EVs are irrelevant. Don't you just love that electoral college system?

Thank you! A voice of reason amongst all the drivel.

And you're right, nobody reads these boards to have their thinking shifted one way or another, so I shouldn't waste my time. (I always wonder about all those silly bumper stickers folks put on their cars. Really? Do you think you're changing people's minds by doing that?)

Thanks again for the input. I myself may end up voting for Governor Johnson yet again, and if I do so, it will be because I judge him to be the best of the people listed on the ballot as the options for president.