Question for females...& hrc supporters/defenders....

How does it play and or make you feel hearing the comments of former Sec of State Albright and 90's Feminist Icon Steinem's comments over the weekend.

    Albright said...we have to stand with and support hrc because she'll always be there for us and "there's a special place in hell for women" that don't help each other....

    Steinem attempting to explain why younger women were supporting Bernie over hrc....because that's where all the boys are....Even bill maher when interviewing Steinem said...If I'd have said that you'd have slapped me....

     hrc did defend Albright's comment on Sunday saying that she [Albright] has said this for a long time....the comments were done in a "lighthearted way" and my favorite...my goodness it seems that everyone is offended by something these days....

The "offended" comment is hilarious coming from Ms VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY!!!!! She is offended by anyone who questions her honesty........especially when she is trying to avoid sniper fire.....

nochain wrote:

The "offended" comment is hilarious coming from Ms VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY!!!!! She is offended by anyone who questions her honesty........especially when she is trying to avoid sniper fire.....

Karma: Perhaps political correctness has found her butt and is biting it.....

Oh, yeah not only did she attempt to join the Marines....but as flotus she took sniper fire in Bosnia....remember a tv anchor was run outta town for lying [he's returned and been sentenced to msnbc].... and yet hrc thrives on lies...

mediawatcher wrote:

How does it play and or make you feel hearing the comments of former Sec of State Albright and 90's Feminist Icon Steinem's comments over the weekend.

    Albright said...we have to stand with and support hrc because she'll always be there for us and "there's a special place in hell for women" that don't help each other....

    Steinem attempting to explain why younger women were supporting Bernie over hrc....because that's where all the boys are....Even bill maher when interviewing Steinem said...If I'd have said that you'd have slapped me....

     hrc did defend Albright's comment on Sunday saying that she [Albright] has said this for a long time....the comments were done in a "lighthearted way" and my favorite...my goodness it seems that everyone is offended by something these days....

It makes me feel a little bit sick to my stomach. I don't "have to" stand by anybody, male or female. I certainly don't "have to" stand by somebody because they happen to also be a woman. If someone has done something that's wrong, they are wrong. No amount of wishing it wasn't so or fabricating alliances isn't going to make it right. You could build a standing army. That still wouldn't make it right.

I will gladly go to hell before I stand up for something or stand by someone I don't believe in.

Nicely put Ricey.

[quote="riceme"]

mediawatcher wrote:

How does it play and or make you feel hearing the comments of former Sec of State Albright and 90's Feminist Icon Steinem's comments over the weekend.

    Albright said...we have to stand with and support hrc because she'll always be there for us and "there's a special place in hell for women" that don't help each other....

    Steinem attempting to explain why younger women were supporting Bernie over hrc....because that's where all the boys are....Even bill maher when interviewing Steinem said...If I'd have said that you'd have slapped me....

     hrc did defend Albright's comment on Sunday saying that she [Albright] has said this for a long time....the comments were done in a "lighthearted way" and my favorite...my goodness it seems that everyone is offended by something these days....

It makes me feel a little bit sick to my stomach. I don't "have to" stand by anybody, male or female. I certainly don't "have to" stand by somebody because they happen to also be a woman. If someone has done something that's wrong, they are wrong. No amount of wishing it wasn't so or fabricating alliances isn't going to make it right. You could build a standing army. That still wouldn't make it right.

     It's crazy that in 2016 there are still some that think that all of any group are of the same opinions and actions...

mediawatcher wrote:

riceme wrote:

mediawatcher wrote:

How does it play and or make you feel hearing the comments of former Sec of State Albright and 90's Feminist Icon Steinem's comments over the weekend.

    Albright said...we have to stand with and support hrc because she'll always be there for us and "there's a special place in hell for women" that don't help each other....

    Steinem attempting to explain why younger women were supporting Bernie over hrc....because that's where all the boys are....Even bill maher when interviewing Steinem said...If I'd have said that you'd have slapped me....

     hrc did defend Albright's comment on Sunday saying that she [Albright] has said this for a long time....the comments were done in a "lighthearted way" and my favorite...my goodness it seems that everyone is offended by something these days....

It makes me feel a little bit sick to my stomach. I don't "have to" stand by anybody, male or female. I certainly don't "have to" stand by somebody because they happen to also be a woman. If someone has done something that's wrong, they are wrong. No amount of wishing it wasn't so or fabricating alliances isn't going to make it right. You could build a standing army. That still wouldn't make it right.

     It's crazy that in 2016 there are still some that think that all of any group are of the same opinions and actions...

You know, I wrote this in my response, then I deleted it... It is the same as being asked to stand by someone because of the color of their skin.

riceme wrote:

mediawatcher wrote:

riceme wrote:

mediawatcher wrote:

How does it play and or make you feel hearing the comments of former Sec of State Albright and 90's Feminist Icon Steinem's comments over the weekend.

    Albright said...we have to stand with and support hrc because she'll always be there for us and "there's a special place in hell for women" that don't help each other....

    Steinem attempting to explain why younger women were supporting Bernie over hrc....because that's where all the boys are....Even bill maher when interviewing Steinem said...If I'd have said that you'd have slapped me....

     hrc did defend Albright's comment on Sunday saying that she [Albright] has said this for a long time....the comments were done in a "lighthearted way" and my favorite...my goodness it seems that everyone is offended by something these days....

It makes me feel a little bit sick to my stomach. I don't "have to" stand by anybody, male or female. I certainly don't "have to" stand by somebody because they happen to also be a woman. If someone has done something that's wrong, they are wrong. No amount of wishing it wasn't so or fabricating alliances isn't going to make it right. You could build a standing army. That still wouldn't make it right.

     It's crazy that in 2016 there are still some that think that all of any group are of the same opinions and actions...

You know, I wrote this in my response, then I deleted it... It is the same as being asked to stand by someone because of the color of their skin.

Another correct/accurate observation....During the coverage of her loss there were talking heads attempting to spin the Clinton defeat in NH by saying like Iowa the states are white and do not reflect other states...they continued saying that Clinton needed to get to states like SC where there is an "African-American firewall"....Is that more or equally offensive?...

LOL. What's funny is that everyone that answered the question so far wouldn't vote for HRC anyway. Since I definitely would, here's my answer. Those were incredibly stupid comments that both Albright and Steinem made. Candidates don't always pre-approve what their supporters say. If they could, I'm sure that Bernie Sanders would shut up all the Bernie Bros that are savagely attacking HRC online. He said he doesn't want them as supporters, but they're still operating.
No one should vote for Clinton only because she is a woman. They should vote for her because she is by far the most competent person in the field to be President of the United States.
I may still vote for Sanders but right now he's going to have to answer some questions about foreign policy for me.
It's about issues and not about whether your supporters are a bunch of dumb arses, IMO.


Both of those 2 are old, old women. I looked it up. Steinem is 82  and Albright is 78. Steinem is not a 90's feminist icon. She made her rep way back in the 60's and 70's.  It would have been rude of Hillary to tell them what they said was wrong on the spot.  And I think Her saying she believed it was said in a joking way was about the only defense she could make. She did okay. She didn't insult the older women.

Eddard wrote:

LOL. What's funny is that everyone that answered the question so far wouldn't vote for HRC anyway. Since I definitely would, here's my answer. Those were incredibly stupid comments that both Albright and Steinem made. Candidates don't always pre-approve what their supporters say. If they could, I'm sure that Bernie Sanders would shut up all the Bernie Bros that are savagely attacking HRC online. He said he doesn't want them as supporters, but they're still operating.
No one should vote for Clinton only because she is a woman. They should vote for her because she is by far the most competent person in the field to be President of the United States.
I may still vote for Sanders but right now he's going to have to answer some questions about foreign policy for me.
It's about issues and not about whether your supporters are a bunch of dumb arses, IMO.


Both of those 2 are old, old women. I looked it up. Steinem is 82  and Albright is 78. Steinem is not a 90's feminist icon. She made her rep way back in the 60's and 70's.   It would have been rude of Hillary to tell them what they said was wrong on the spot.  And I think Her saying she believed it was said in a joking way was about the only defense she could make. She did okay. She didn't insult the older women.

You don't speak for me and you don't know who I would or wouldn't vote for.

mediawatcher wrote:

      Another correct/accurate observation....During the coverage of her loss there were talking heads attempting to spin the Clinton defeat in NH by saying like Iowa the states are white and do not reflect other states...they continued saying that Clinton needed to get to states like SC where there is an "African-American firewall"....Is that more or equally offensive?...

Well it's pretty hard to offend ME, but I think it is certainly more offensive to the majority of the population to treat any stereotyped group as a token, particularly an oppressed group. Or even a group that is perceived to be oppressed, for that matter. Perception is reality.

riceme wrote:

Eddard wrote:

LOL. What's funny is that everyone that answered the question so far wouldn't vote for HRC anyway. Since I definitely would, here's my answer. Those were incredibly stupid comments that both Albright and Steinem made. Candidates don't always pre-approve what their supporters say. If they could, I'm sure that Bernie Sanders would shut up all the Bernie Bros that are savagely attacking HRC online. He said he doesn't want them as supporters, but they're still operating.
No one should vote for Clinton only because she is a woman. They should vote for her because she is by far the most competent person in the field to be President of the United States.
I may still vote for Sanders but right now he's going to have to answer some questions about foreign policy for me.
It's about issues and not about whether your supporters are a bunch of dumb arses, IMO.


Both of those 2 are old, old women. I looked it up. Steinem is 82  and Albright is 78. Steinem is not a 90's feminist icon. She made her rep way back in the 60's and 70's.   It would have been rude of Hillary to tell them what they said was wrong on the spot.  And I think Her saying she believed it was said in a joking way was about the only defense she could make. She did okay. She didn't insult the older women.

You don't speak for me and you don't know who I would or wouldn't vote for.

riceme wrote:

mediawatcher wrote:

      Another correct/accurate observation....During the coverage of her loss there were talking heads attempting to spin the Clinton defeat in NH by saying like Iowa the states are white and do not reflect other states...they continued saying that Clinton needed to get to states like SC where there is an "African-American firewall"....Is that more or equally offensive?...

Well it's pretty hard to offend ME, but I think it is certainly more offensive to the majority of the population to treat any stereotyped group as a token, particularly an oppressed group. Or even a group that is perceived to be oppressed, for that matter. Perception is reality.

Divisiveness from the party that lectures others on 'dividing'....if the democrats haven't taken groups for granted then they certainly wouldn't or shouldn't be making statements like this....

mediawatcher wrote:

riceme wrote:

mediawatcher wrote:

      Another correct/accurate observation....During the coverage of her loss there were talking heads attempting to spin the Clinton defeat in NH by saying like Iowa the states are white and do not reflect other states...they continued saying that Clinton needed to get to states like SC where there is an "African-American firewall"....Is that more or equally offensive?...

Well it's pretty hard to offend ME, but I think it is certainly more offensive to the majority of the population to treat any stereotyped group as a token, particularly an oppressed group. Or even a group that is perceived to be oppressed, for that matter. Perception is reality.

     Divisiveness from the party that lectures others on 'dividing'....if the democrats haven't taken groups for granted then they certainly wouldn't or shouldn't be making statements like this....

In my life I have found the people who lecture the most passionately about tolerance to be the most intolerant of all.

riceme wrote:

mediawatcher wrote:

riceme wrote:

mediawatcher wrote:

      Another correct/accurate observation....During the coverage of her loss there were talking heads attempting to spin the Clinton defeat in NH by saying like Iowa the states are white and do not reflect other states...they continued saying that Clinton needed to get to states like SC where there is an "African-American firewall"....Is that more or equally offensive?...

Well it's pretty hard to offend ME, but I think it is certainly more offensive to the majority of the population to treat any stereotyped group as a token, particularly an oppressed group. Or even a group that is perceived to be oppressed, for that matter. Perception is reality.

     Divisiveness from the party that lectures others on 'dividing'....if the democrats haven't taken groups for granted then they certainly wouldn't or shouldn't be making statements like this....

In my life I have found the people who lecture the most passionately about tolerance to be the most intolerant of all.

Ain't that the truth......

Riceme, I'm sorry if I offended you. I don't think I've ever read any comments you've made about HRC but I know that neither mediawatcher or pkrbum or nochain would ever vote for a Clinton. As for the African American firewall I think that whether it's offensive to use those words or not, on the 27th of February it will be a big factor in the election.
Polls have shown for years that a big percentage of African Americans still like the Clintons. They don't say that if you are an African American you have to like the Clintons. They don't say that all African Americans like the Clintons. But statistically, if you are an African American the chances are that you're more likely to like the Clintons than if you are a white person. Statistically, if you're a Democrat you are also more likely to like the Clintons than if you're a Republican. That's not pigeon holing anyone or saying they have to think a certain way. It's what polling shows, that's all.
Madeline Albright is a very old lady and has a right to her opinion. She just expressed it and the crowd laughed. I saw the clip. Hillary Clinton didn't put her hand up Albright's backside and use her like a puppet to talk from. She said Albright always expressed that opinion, for years now. She did not say it was her own opinion.

It's this nitpicking that has gone on about the Clintons since 1992 that makes me think I'll vote for Hillary.
I get so sick of listening to it.

The only demographic hillary won in nh is the old, white, rich voter.

But the good news for her is that the establishment democrat machine has put the fix in. Despite the huge win for bernie... the super delegates fell in behind hillary like dominoes. Why there's no outrage towards the dnc is beyond me.

Eddard wrote:

Riceme, I'm sorry if I offended you. I don't think I've ever read any comments you've made about HRC but I know that neither mediawatcher or pkrbum or nochain would ever vote for a Clinton.

...and you lumped me in when you made the sweeping statement, "LOL. What's funny is that everyone that answered the question so far wouldn't vote for HRC anyway." The question was addressed to females and HRC supporters / defenders. As you are aware I am female, so there is nothing funny about it. Also, I never said I was offended. In fact, I did just say that it's pretty difficult to offend me. You should pay closer attention.

PkrBum wrote:

The only demographic hillary won in nh is the old, white, rich voter.

But the good news for her is that the establishment democrat machine has put the fix in. Despite the huge win for bernie... the super delegates fell in behind hillary like dominoes. Why there's no outrage towards the dnc is beyond me.

Good observation. I didn't know about the superdelegates until yesterday. I find that disgusting because it undermines the primary voting process with results that don't reflect who the voters selected.

I said I was sorry. That's the best I can do.
Whether you decide to accept it or reject it is 100% up to you.

The whole thread topic relates to what 2 HRC supporters said. Clinton herself has never spoken those words.

She didn't even come on and say "I approve this message."

By the way, the Republican party doesn't have super-delegates but last election and this one too at least 123 members of the Republican National Committee can vote anyway they decide to vote at the convention. They are not elected by the people of any state, they're just party big-wigs just like the Democratic party super-delegates are. They have exactly the same power to influence the choosing a candidate as the super delegates on the other side do.

If Democrats ought to be angry at the selection process then so should Republicans.

It's surprising how often those pots and kettles both turn out to be black, isn't it?

Eric wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

The only demographic hillary won in nh is the old, white, rich voter.

But the good news for her is that the establishment democrat machine has put the fix in. Despite the huge win for bernie... the super delegates fell in behind hillary like dominoes. Why there's no outrage towards the dnc is beyond me.

Good observation.  I didn't know about the superdelegates until yesterday.  I find that disgusting because it undermines the primary voting process with results that don't reflect who the voters selected.

So the self-proclaimed socialist got out done by the criminal socialist and the rigged democrat primary process...This is typical democrat and another example of Clinton politics...Bernie won...but really didn't win...

I wonder how bernie liked having his success redistributed to the loser?

Once more, blame the Democrats for doing an almost identical thing the Republicans do. Republicans just don't call theirs super-delegates. That's the only difference.

It's a possibility that the Republicans who are party big wigs will decide the Republican nomination at their convention too. That party does not want Donald Trump as a candidate. If he doesn't have a clear majority the party elite will choose the nominee.

Like I said, Kettle meet pot.

One thing I'm sure of is that if something like that happens to either Bernie or Hillary, they'll be a hell of a lot more civil about it than those rampaging chimpanzees I saw in the Republican debate last night. It's a good thing none of them had a gun on stage or there would be less of them able to run today.