2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumShould Thatcher have been supported because she was a woman?
Policy positions and the candidate's integrity should matter more than one's gender, or even a desire to make a political statement. Obama is the first black American president but what good has that done to black people? The net effect hasn't been positive.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)"Should Thatcher have been supported because she was a woman?"
merrily
(45,251 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)But Thatcher was much more of a feminist role model than Hillary, ironically. Thatcher didn't get where she did because of who her husband was, she did it herself; Hillary? Appointed a partner in the Rose Law Firm after Bill was elected Arkansas Attorney General; apppointed to the board of directors of Wal-Mart after Bill was elected governor; elected to the Senate after carpetbagging to NY and running on the Clinton name. It honestly makes me laugh when people act as though Hillary is any kind of feminist role model.
BootinUp
(47,197 posts)Successful people who have successful spouses cannot be good role models! Gotcha.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)"Appointed to partner of the Rose Law Firm".
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)"But Thatcher was much more of a feminist role model than Hillary, ironically."
No self respecting woman would type that putrid shit. For the jury, hide if you must. Calling Thatcher moe of a feminist role model than Clinton isn't something that is written at a place I want to be anyway.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)thanks.
Metric System
(6,048 posts)law school.
MADem
(135,425 posts)They liked her schtick, they voted her in. They got what they bargained for--they wanted austerity, they wanted privatization, they wanted tax structure changes and they got all of it.
She had an eleven year run, so they apparently LIKED what they got, for a decade or so, anyway. It wasn't trolls and gremlins keeping her in office--it was the majority of the population.
Oh, those last two sentences? Ugly, ugly, ugly.
Are you in a position to judge? I don't think you are. You might consider just walking away from that kind of schtick.
hlthe2b
(102,387 posts)US teabaggers or conservatives--here or in Britain.
If you think otherwise, this is going to get ugly.
AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)From an article talking about the 2008 election:
- http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2013-04-08/what-margaret-thatcher-taught-hillary-clinton
hlthe2b
(102,387 posts)truebrit71
(20,805 posts)... regardless of her gender.
Seriously, fuck Thatcher. Twice. Sideways.
Bad example.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Yeah, and Sanders supporters point to one or two posts from Hillarysupporters.com or whatever website that is as if there isn't a mountain of ugly crap right here on DU.
MeNMyVolt
(1,095 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)shafted in our system, Gender and race are a factor in my decision. If all other factors are equal between two candidates, I would vote for a woman. Men have controlled the system for too long.
Being a woman gives Clinton an advantage, a checkmark on positive side of my list.
There are many other factors, and the person with the most positive checkmarks gets my vote.
If I were British, my political philosophy would fall in the Labor Party. The Liberal Democratic Party, which was a merger of the old Liberal Party and the Social Democratic party (which was formed by centrist members of the labor party) is not a good fit. As a member of the Labor Party, I would not have voted for the Conservative Party, and thus would not have voted for a Thatcher led government.
This OP is a very poor analogy, since we have very different election systems.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)What then? Would your voting for someone who is Not A Woman be sexist? Or just.... voting?
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)representative.
If you read my post, you would have got that. Also I said nothing about sexist.
Don't read between my lines, I put nothing there.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)And so we are in accord.
All is harmonious.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)question everything
(47,539 posts)This is what happened in 2008. Hillary supporters are derided because many like you think that this is why she is chosen. Yet, no one ever had a problem with many blacks, including the Black Congressional caucus who said they supported Obama because he was black.
But, oh the double standard and misogyny on these page. Nothing new under the sun.
AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)So I guess Obama was our best choice back then.
question everything
(47,539 posts)when Hillary Clinton takes the oath of office.
Obama disappointed many of his supporters, but not those of us who were ready for this. He was a blank card that everyone imagine their wishes. We knew where Hillary was standing then and we know where she stands now. OK, there are bound to be changes but I doubt that many will be so much disappointed.
The point is. Those of us who supported Hillary did vote for Obama. Most of us. And if, by a cheer chance, Bernie will be the nominee we will do the same. Will you vote for Hillary if she is the nominee? Or would you rather have President Ted Cruz.... OK, waiting, no lightening strike. But the thought of Cruz is still depressing..
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)moobu2
(4,822 posts)Nobody is supporting Hillary Clinton just because she is a woman.
AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)emsimon33
(3,128 posts)or called out for treason!
2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)It is far more treasonous to vote for someone that will continue the downward slide of our country than to ask this simple question.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,714 posts)Have you polled them?
Have you met many who have told you that?
Pray tell, where did you get that notion ?
BTW, I am white and I don't speak for all whites and I damn sure don't believe I speak for all African Americans.
What a toxic thing to say.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)are in such a bubble here they will be utterly unprepared when their candidate CRASHES & BERNS
emsimon33
(3,128 posts)TSIAS
(14,689 posts)Neither would I have supported Bachmann or Fiorina.
TSIAS
(14,689 posts)On Sat Nov 21, 2015, 02:52 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
Should Thatcher have been supported because she was a woman?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251835271
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Divisive flamebait.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Nov 21, 2015, 03:13 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Stupid alert.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Over the top flamebait
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It is a sad state of affairs when someone tries to shut down discussion like this. Deal with it.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: " Divisive flamebait." Doesn't that describe a great portion of GDP?
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I'm torn, support Sanders, don't like Sec. Clinton, hate Thatcher. The o.p. does seem to be trying to cause division, though.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Criticizing a political figure isn't an offense that requires hiding, even while the statement is mildly offensive.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Flamebait? Hardly.
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
I was juror #4.
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)/s/
Juror #3
tularetom
(23,664 posts)leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Samantha
(9,314 posts)Greed is good.
And from that point on, you know the rest.
Sam
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)I'd have enough to retire. Give it a rest.
BainsBane
(53,072 posts)The assumption that women are supporting Clinton solely because of her gender is ignorant and sexist. The rest of you have voted exclusively for male presidents your entire lives, yet you have the nerve to suggest the one woman who might be elected is supported solely because of her gender? Clearly you have no concept how ludicrous that is, but it is clear that too many of you are so desperate to cling to uncontested male privilege that you cannot help but insult women who have the nerve to vote in defiance of your instructions.
Times are changing. Women will be elected to the presidency, and the US will catch up with the rest of the world. Deal with it.
BootinUp
(47,197 posts)I don't think they are going to have a choice, lol.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Every diversity group that has been polled prefers Hillary to Sanders.
I'm waiting to see polls of Asians, Muslims, Jews, LGBT and various others but I am sure they will say the same thing.
The issue is not why women support Sanders. The issue is why Sanders can't broaden his support beyond young white straight males.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)while folks like Barack Obama and Charles Rangel get support. Hillary's supporters would not support Sarah Palin or Phyllis Shlafly.
Your post is yet another example of a Sanders supporter posting something that you/they clearly think will help Sanders somehow, but will instead change no ones mind and will help turn a number of people off to even consider supporting him.
The attacks on BLM in the wake of the protest of Sanders in early August is another example.
This is going to be the epitaph of Sanders' campaign. He and his supporters couldn't find a way to change people's minds. And many folks will write about how instead of changing minds, his supporters turned people off.
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)I wouldn't let someone on du change my mind.