I have. I just don’t think the level of mass violence they had in sri lanka is going to happen here for reasons I alluded to. Also I don’t think the turnover at the dod represents meaningful change in control of the military so much as a cover up of crimes they did.
In short I don’t think the author is accounting enough for the differences between there and here.
lol hope Hillary sees this
Let’s say Bill Clinton just decided to be a lawyer after law school. You think Hillary becomes Senator of New York, SoS and almost president?
It isn’t so much that she was Bill’s wife as that she had the opportunity to entrench herself in the DNC as a result of Bill’s career and took it. I don’t think that is sexist at all. It’s literally what happened. GHWB did that as well and it led to GWB. Is it sexist to say GWB never happens without his dad’s career also?
This is such an astoundingly dumb take I hope it’s some kind of poorly conceived parody.
AOC is in the other 5 percent.
I’m not arguing the point that being the wife of a president didn’t help her. I’m arguing the point that that is 95 percent of politicians and attacking her for it is a bad look.
It is sexist, though. If there was ever a power couple it’s them. She so clearly played a major role in his being governor and president.
Without her he is nobody. Without him she is nobody.
What I said is sexist? How? She took the opportunities she had to advance her career. So what. If some other people are saying otherwise I don’t agree with them.
thus very qualified to be a bad president
lol ok
I agree with that. I’m not attacking her for her opportunism. All of life for all of us is taking advantage of what we have in front of us. The fact she did that doesn’t mean it was unearned. You can simultaneously believe she earned her career and that it wouldn’t have been the same had Bill not become president. She undoubtedly did have something to do with Bill becoming president anyways. So it isn’t like everything was just handed to her, far from it.
Yeah, because everybody in this forum supported handing the Kennedy boy his Senate seat this cycle, oh wait, we called him a delusional entitled scumbag that should go fuck himself … just like Hillary…
Of course Nancy did support and endorse the Kennedy boy… which kind fits with the theory on this forum on how we ended up losing the Presidency to a deranged game show host.
It’s sexist because you are viewing the power balance going one way. She took power from him. It’s clear it was both ways and she isn’t getting credit solely because we tend to view these things through a patriarchal lens.
Agreed she helped Bill a great deal by attacking his credible accusers…
You are saying it’s dumb to rebut obvious sexism because the target doesn’t see it. It’s pretty gross if it’s not some kind of parody.
I never said that at all though. What I said was that she wouldn’t have had the same career without Bill’s career. That’s just a fact. I agree with you that she played a huge role in Bill’s career. Is our society sexist because that was her best path to power? Of course. But me simply acknowledging reality is not in and of itself sexist.
Sorry, this Lean In theory of feminism is complete bullshit. Yes, powerful men get away with behaving badly more easily than powerful women. The solution is not to support powerful women behaving badly!
I don’t really have an appetite today for this discussion but the last 20 posts itt are not a good look for a bunch of supposed progressives.
You do realize that the Clintons are a big reason why the DemE is so terrible and deeply entrenched right? In the other thread you call me patently wrong because I say the progressive cause is doomed though at least 2028 and in this thread you are defending Hillary Clinton.
It’s almost like you woke up on the wrong side of the bed and are just here to argue.
