When in doubt, play the victim

[RUlookingup]

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/02/0...ers.html?_r=0&referer=https://www.google.com/


Gloria Steinem would.like to remind all you women that you are victims.

 

[JackLuis]

I think you misinterpret the lesson from this. Hillz is failing with young women, so she drags out her contemporaries, who are old women, and has them berate the girls for not lock stepping with Hilz.

Hillary has nothing that sticks against Bernie, so she brings out her trump card. I'm sure she hopes that Bill will push, "How badly Bernie has slandered Hillary, my angel" And try to hang a misogynist rag on Bernie, but Bernie is calm, and deflects by discussing the issues. The Economy and how badly the "Establishment" has been fucking the average citizen, and there by let people draw the conclusion that Hillary is of the "Establishment" and not an outsider who will shake up the grip of the Corporate Overlords over our government.

SO Hillz draws out the Feminist Establishment to help her.

Double Fucked I believe is the term when you draw out your opponents last trump card with five more tricks to play.

 

[sr71plt]

In CNN coverage of this yesterday, I thought a guest Republican strategist had a good comment on this. He said if Hillary's old girls club was going to hold that women are obligated to vote for a woman simply because she's a woman than why aren't they advocating for Carly Fiorina as well?

 

[SlightlyGone]

In CNN coverage of this yesterday, I thought a guest Republican strategist had a good comment on this. He said if Hillary's old girls club was going to hold that women are obligated to vote for a woman simply because she's a woman than why aren't they advocating for Carly Fiorina as well?

I don't know shit about politics, but my guess is that since Clinton is at the top of the food chain, everyone likes a winner and honestly, I don't think most people in the world think it's going to change in their lifetime, at least not like pre 80s. They see it as a continuous incline, with minor threats, but nothing that is not going to bring their world crashing down.

Edits: Been drunk since last Monday, fixing small stuff.

 

[Hard_Rom]

Women are the largest marginalized group in the world. Even in civilized western countries it is unsafe for them to walk alone at night. They earn less then men, even for the same work. Over 50% of the world's population! Thousands of women every year are beaten, raped and abused by family, husbands and acquaintances.

We're not talking about some tiny ethnic minority or an alien population we may be at war with. We are talking about our daughters, wives and mothers.

 

[SlightlyGone]

Women are the largest marginalized group in the world. Even in civilized western countries it is unsafe for them to walk alone at night. They earn less then men, even for the same work. Over 50% of the world's population! Thousands of women every year are beaten, raped and abused by family, husbands and acquaintances.

We're not talking about some tiny ethnic minority or an alien population we may be at war with. We are talking about our daughters, wives and mothers.

The world will never be based on fairness. Don't argue it and don't act like it should be.

 

[Iceprincess12]

Victims? No, here on lit we are all sluts!

Now some of us like to go beg for sex, sending pm's to "newbies" offering slobbering devotion as well as a "good time" on kik. After that we move on to the next one.

Others love posting in threads to get attention, hoping our "cute, girly ways" will get the attention we deserve. This does draw both positive and negative attention, but bad press is still press.

Still others like to make an alt, if we can't get you to say yes on one hand, then let's try another.

All in all, sluts! Not to leave the men out of this, doesn't say much about you either (male slut)

*disclaimer: I didn't read or click and am fervently hoping this is completely off topic.

 

[sr71plt]

Yep, none of the last four posts addressed the issue posted by the OP or, apparently, were written from having read the article cited. Albright's take in the article (given at a rally for Hillary yesterday) is that women were obligated to vote for Hillary Clinton simply to get a woman elected and Steinem's take was that young women were going to Sanders simply because young men did (which is "off" for a feminist to say in so many ways that I think she must have been having a deep senior moment--she's 81).

Clinton's take has been that she should win simply because she's the most prepared of all those contending to be president--not because she is a woman. I buy her argument without necessarily loving all aspects of her.

 

[Hard_Rom]

The world will never be based on fairness. Don't argue it and don't act like it should be.

So you are complacent with spousal abuse and rape? It's, what, the natural order of things. Women should get used to it? Accept that they will never be truly equal in the eyes of society?

Blacks and other minorities should also just accept their lot, stop their bitching and just accept low paying jobs?

CEOs are entitled to golden parachutes when their incompetence forces thousands out of work?

I think righties call that a 'sheeple' attitude.

America should have accepted it's role in the British Empire and stilled any revolutionary talk? So their government was fucking them over. Suck it up sunshine. Life isn't fair and we have no right to expect to be treated fairly.

You don't like the POTUS. But you don't have any right or reason to complain. Life is not fair and you have no cause to bitch except to hear the sound of your own voice.

Sheep!

 

[JackLuis]

Yep-

Clinton's take has been that she should win simply because she's the most prepared of all those contending to be president--not because she is a woman. I buy her argument without necessarily loving all aspects of her.

Yes I agree with your that she is the most experienced woman who deserves to be considered for the Presidency, however, I also consider her lack of ability to see beyond tactics and think beyond the next touchdown. Her support for the Iraq War, Libyan War and the arming of dissident Syrians, all make her judgment suspect.

"J'st 'cause she's been a whore a long time, don't mean she know how to fuck!"

 

[RUlookingup]

Yes I agree with your that she is the most experienced woman who deserves to be considered for the Presidency, however, I also consider her lack of ability to see beyond tactics and think beyond the next touchdown. Her support for the Iraq War, Libyan War and the arming of dissident Syrians, all make her judgment suspect.

"J'st 'cause she's been a whore a long time, don't mean she know how to fuck!"

All this left on left crime is making me " feel the Bern".

 

[Iceprincess12]

Yep, none of the last four posts addressed the issue posted by the OP or, apparently, were written from having read the article cited. Albright's take in the article (given at a rally for Hillary yesterday) is that women were obligated to vote for Hillary Clinton simply to get a woman elected and Steinem's take was that young women were going to Sanders simply because young men did (which is "off" for a feminist to say in so many ways that I think she must have been having a deep senior moment--she's 81).

Clinton's take has been that she should win simply because she's the most prepared of all those contending to be president--not because she is a woman. I buy her argument without necessarily loving all aspects of her.

Ooh that's a great reason to vote for president! What if I prefer accents or sexy suits though? This whole country is starting to feel so oppressive by trying to make my stereotypes and prejudices less than theirs! No one has written an article on which guy looks best in a suit (hillary has the correct parts but doesn't want to be a woman, so she is included with guys).

My reasons for voting are just as invalid as Gloria "not as bright as the daylight 100 Led bulbs I buy that cost twice as much giving off a slight blue tone but are less harmfull to the spiders that like to draw my blood at night for nefarious purposes and make reading by nightlight much easier for the voices in my head", so there!

 

[sr71plt]

Yes I agree with your that she is the most experienced woman who deserves to be considered for the Presidency, however, I also consider her lack of ability to see beyond tactics and think beyond the next touchdown. Her support for the Iraq War, Libyan War and the arming of dissident Syrians, all make her judgment suspect.

"J'st 'cause she's been a whore a long time, don't mean she know how to fuck!"

My last eight years with U.S. intelligence had me up to my neck in Middle East policy and terrorism, and I'm not wild about much of anything the Obama administration did in the Middle East (I retired much before the Obama administration). Neither you nor I know what slice of the Middle East policy was Hillary Clinton's personally, though. The Secretary of State is just one adviser on foreign policy. I do think that Clinton was the most hawkish of the Obama foreign policy advisers--which doesn't exactly mean that she won out on what the Obama administration did in all venues.

As one who's been on the ground in situations like Benghazi, I think those who either fault the State Department/SecState or think there was help to get to the consulate in time or even a level of security they could have gone up to to save themselves doesn't have a clue about the reality of the U.S. presence and what U.S. employees face overseas. That's just a witch hunt. (The truth of the matter is that State didn't know all that was going on at the consulate that made it a target and that the ambassador only went there because he had in inkling more was going on than he--and Hillary Clinton, certainly--knew about. And I say that from having worked for the Agency that kept State in the dark about some stuff--mainly because they blabbed about everything they were told was going on.)

I think that the whole administration policy toward the Mideast Spring sucked, and I'd be extremely surprised if Hillary backed the dumping of Mubarak, for instance. It just didn't match the Clinton approach I knew from being in the administration during the Clinton years.

But must of all, the Iraq vote (like Bernie's votes on guns) criticism just sets my teeth on edge. They were representing the clear preferences of their constituents. Besides what Hillary points out about the Bush administration not giving Congress the full picture of Iraq (the Bush administration didn't have a clue what the picture was of Iraq), she was the senator from the state of the Twin Towers. No matter what her personal preferences would have been, she was being responsive to her constituents to vote as she did. I wish that both she and Sanders would make that point more strongly. I consider it a good thing when a representative votes the clear preferences of an overwhelming majority of their constituents. They aren't representative otherwise. With only a couple of exceptions (Bush and Kasich), I don't see any of the Republican candidates as capable of (or even slightly interested in) representing the majority of Americans.

I'll add that, although Hillary Clinton is quicker on the draw on military issues than I'd be, I can't see anyone else running for president who has even a fourth of the experience and knowledge on U.S. foreign policy--both diplomatic and military--that she does, and the last I looked foreign policy was a huge slice of a U.S. president's job.

 

[SlightlyGone]

Yes I agree with your that she is the most experienced woman who deserves to be considered for the Presidency, however, I also consider her lack of ability to see beyond tactics and think beyond the next touchdown. Her support for the Iraq War, Libyan War and the arming of dissident Syrians, all make her judgment suspect.

"J'st 'cause she's been a whore a long time, don't mean she know how to fuck!"

Nope. I'm understanding that's it's going to happen, but that's an extreme example that has no place in the US, because most citizens don't do it. The rest of the world? Not our problem.

Clinton has advisers. Specialists who have studied for half their lifetime. Each president does or 'next president.' They may have the final decision, but they aren't ignorant.

Our war should be over. We should have laid waste to it like we did Germany at the end. Today's people are just impractical.

 

[SlightlyGone]

Thinking on war: Grant, Jackson, Rommel (Hitler) Roman's I don'know. ... you have to do it. You have to whatever it takes and get it done as soon as possible, more so today because of media. That US General I can't remember, did tanks, slapped a soldier who was shell shocked.

Just do it.

 

[JackLuis]

My last eight years with U.S. intelligence-

But must of all, the Iraq vote (like Bernie's votes on guns) criticism just sets my teeth on edge. They were representing the clear preferences of their constituents. Besides what Hillary points out about the Bush administration not giving Congress the full picture of Iraq (the Bush administration didn't have a clue what the picture was of Iraq), she was the senator from the state of the Twin Towers. No matter what her personal preferences would have been, she was being responsive to her constituents to vote as she did. I wish that both she and Sanders would make that point more strongly. I consider it a good thing when a representative votes the clear preferences of an overwhelming majority of their constituents. They aren't representative otherwise. With only a couple of exceptions (Bush and Kalish), I don't see any of the Republican candidates as capable of (or even slightly interested in) representing the majority of Americans.

I don't blame Hillary for Benghazi, except that she advocated bombing Libya when the French were so ill equipped to take on a complex air defense system and it resulted in the fucking shit pot breeding more radical assholes.

Her vote for Iraqi Freedom, was perhaps representative of her constituency, but the reason she was elected was to give reasoned council and do what is in the best interests of her constituency. Starting an unnecessary War is a crime against humanity, how can she explain the necessity? If she wants to blame the NeoCon leadership for deceiving her, that just makes it worse! Many people knew that Cheney was lying, that Rumsfeld was a dupe, yet she believed them!

She lacks the foresight to be a President, IMHO.

 

[sr71plt]

I don't blame Hillary for Benghazi, except that she advocated bombing Libya when the French were so ill equipped to take on a complex air defense system and it resulted in the fucking shit pot breeding more radical assholes.

Her vote for Iraqi Freedom, was perhaps representative of her constituency, but the reason she was elected was to give reasoned council and do what is in the best interests of her constituency. Starting an unnecessary War is a crime against humanity, how can she explain the necessity? If she wants to blame the NeoCon leadership for deceiving her, that just makes it worse! Many people knew that Cheney was lying, that Rumsfeld was a dupe, yet she believed them!

She lacks the foresight to be a President, IMHO.

No. You're ignoring the time. If she had voted no, NYC would have lynched her. And I've already agreed that she's basically a hawk on military action anyway--not to the degree that most of the Republican candidate's are, though, and Bernie is just a know nothing on foreign/military affairs, which is not a good mark for him as long as he's been in Congress and should have been dealing with foreign/military affairs. In addition to not having a chance in hell of passing his program promises, he isn't broad based enough for the job (And neither are most of the Republican candidates--certainly none of them who haven't been governors at least).

You're not going to get your perfect choice for president. If you are going to be responsible, you're going to have to weigh the pros and cons of what is on offer. I really think it's you who are lacking foresight here (and also understanding of the realities of the political sphere).

 

[JackLuis]

Nope. -
Our war should be over. We should have laid waste to it like we did Germany at the end. Today's people are just impractical.

Yes it's true when you unleash the dogs of war you should go all out. However as in the case of Germany, Italy, and Japan you need to create an efficient government quickly from all the constituents of the country you just devastated so as to make them more or less self suffecient so you can get the fuck out and not be caught up in a quagmire, ala Viet Nam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Plus you must pay off the debts for such a crusade, which W was loathed to do.

It was Patton, in Sicily, who slapped a shell shocked trooper. Big mistake by "Ol' Blood and Guts."

 

[JackLuis]

No. You're ignoring the time. -
You're not going to get your perfect choice for president. If you are going to be responsible, you're going to have to weigh the pros and cons of what is on offer. I really think it's you who are lacking foresight here (and also understanding of the realities of the political sphere).

We shall disagree, shall we?

Yes, yes the choice is a compromise either way you go. It is my choice to vote for the one who is least likely to get us involved in another fucking war, and perhaps pull our troops out of Afghanistan after 14 years of unnecessarily pouring treasure down the rat hole of Central Asia.

 

[RUlookingup]

No. You're ignoring the time. If she had voted no, NYC would have lynched her. And I've already agreed that she's basically a hawk on military action anyway--not to the degree that most of the Republican candidate's are, though, and Bernie is just a know nothing on foreign/military affairs, which is not a good mark for him as long as he's been in Congress and should have been dealing with foreign/military affairs. In addition to not having a chance in hell of passing his program promises, he isn't broad based enough for the job (And neither are most of the Republican candidates--certainly none of them who haven't been governors at least).

You're not going to get your perfect choice for president. If you are going to be responsible, you're going to have to weigh the pros and cons of what is on offer. I really think it's you who are lacking foresight here (and also understanding of the realities of the political sphere).

Agreed with your New York City comment. History must always be viewed through the lens of the moment. So many historians fail to do this while skewering those of the past's errors. Hindsight is always 20/20.

 

[SlightlyGone]

Yes it's true when you unleash the dogs of war you should go all out. However as in the case of Germany, Italy, and Japan you need to create an efficient government quickly from all the constituents of the country you just devastated so as to make them more or less self suffecient so you can get the fuck out and not be caught up in a quagmire, ala Viet Nam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Plus you must pay off the debts for such a crusade, which W was loathed to do.

It was Patton, in Sicily, who slapped a shell shocked trooper. Big mistake by "Ol' Blood and Guts."

You don't need to create a government, you implement your own. People became nice, perhaps it's evolution of the mind, the horror of war, not enough people to occupy without extreme violence.

You don't conquer a people and give everything back to them. You conquer them, you make them yours, you let them be them, you implement your own laws ... the list can go on. It might take 2 generations, but better that than having to do it all over again.

 

[NeonSubtlety]

There's a special place in hell for literotica'ers who don't support literotica'ers.

 

[JackLuis]

You don't need to create a government, you implement your own. People became nice, perhaps it's evolution of the mind, the horror of war, not enough people to occupy without extreme violence.

You don't conquer a people and give everything back to them. You conquer them, you make them yours, you let them be them, you implement your own laws ... the list can go on. It might take 2 generations, but better that than having to do it all over again.

Given our experience in Iraq the worst thing you can do is let a retard NeoCon like Bremmer establish a government that conforms to his delusional ideals. He completely demolished the possibility for a secular government and lead to the sectarian clusterfuck we see today.

People who are broke, starving and hopeless do not become nice. The become angry and larcenous.

 

[RUlookingup]

There's a special place in hell for literotica'ers who don't support literotica'ers.

Thank you Ms. Albright....or not so bright