Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member


(45,251 posts)
109. What utter ad hom crap. The only thing I "judged," IF ANYTHING, were the statements in a post of
Wed Mar 25, 2015, 11:34 PM
Mar 2015

Last edited Thu Mar 26, 2015, 02:16 AM - Edit history (2)

great white snark to which I was replying.

That post implied that those whose principles will not allow them to vote for the Democratic nominee cause their fellow Americans to suffer. The point of my reply was that voting for, even electing, the Democratic nominee does not automatically prevent suffering.

I cited actions of the Clinton administration simply because it was the most recent Democratic administration before Obama's and I did not want to debate the current administration. My post didn't even fucking mention Hillary or any other woman.

Should I have gone back to the 1970s for the Democratic administration before both Obama's and Clinton's? Is that is what is really necessary these days to avoid a charge of sexism on DU?

Or is any criticism of any Democratic administration at all going to be deemed sexist now because the Democrat who seems to be running for President currently happens to be a woman?

By the way, Sanders, O"Malley and Webb have all made noises about running for President, too. Was my point that voting Democratic does not necessarily prevent Americans from suffering also anti-white male?

I have been the victim of sexism quite a few times, but my reply to great white snark has zero to do with sexism. It's not even in the same universe. If you really thought the post was sexist, you should have alerted, rather than make an ad hom attack on me. That's what the jury system is supposed to be for, to conceal ugly posts for the benefit of all who read DU posts.

And, of course, heaven forbid you should even attempt to address any fact stated in my purely factual post, when you could just ignore everything my post actually said for the pleasure of insulting me for things my post never mentioned at all.

However, let me not do to you what you did to me by totally ignoring the substance of your post, scant and utterly misplaced and ad hom as it was. Besides, I've seen this issue come up before with other posters.

As already stated, my reply to great white snakr was about voting (or not voting) causing our fellow Americans to suffer. It was not about Hillary. However, your reply certainly was, so I will address that.

FYI, the reality is that Hillary does happen to be the wife of a former President who seems to have chosen to run for President herself and certain things do and will inevitably flow from that, especially given the way they have both behaved around that issue and the importance of the office.

First, in 1992, he and she both sold his candidacy as getting two for the price of one. Her supporters tried to sell her 2008 candidacy the same way, with no demurrer whatsoever from her (or him) and her supporters have already been selling her seemingly likely 2016 candidacy the same way.

She has referred to his administration with words like "we" and "us," including while she was running for President in 2008 and since then. For example, when questioned at a 2008 primary campaign event about how her husband had run on equal rights for gays, then signed DADT and DOMA, she replied, "I thought we did pretty well."

Additionally, during her 2008 campaign, she cited her experiences as her husband's first lady as though they added to qualifications to be President.

I have not heard her disavow anything her husband did. To the contrary, she has praised her husband's administration. So, I am not at all sure how associating her with the things he did, good or bad, is sexist. So, neither Hillary nor her supporters can have it both ways.

But, again, that is my response to only hint of substance in your post to me. My reply to great white snark had dealt with none of that. It spoke only to whether voting for one Party or another prevents human suffering. All the other nonsense was in your mind, not mine.

(Obviously, if Hillary had been President first and he behaved about that and his experience as First Gentleman the same way as she has, the exact same realities would obtain. So even in your imagined version of what my post never said, the charge of sexism is wholly unwarranted.)

You really should think twice before you call any DUer bigoted. That is a very serious charges and require grounds other than merely your ability to fling about the term. Speaking as one who has endured sexism, I must add: Do you really think accusing male and female DUers of sexism willy nilly is going to help the cause of any female running for President, now or in the future, or the cause of any female, period?

Sorry, your ad hom reply said a lot more about you than it said about me or about the cause of equality for women.

On edit, this post was probably an overreaction, but no apology or deletion. If you call people bigots willy nilly, you get whatever reaction your charge gets.

No. What is being said is vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is in the general elections. still_one Mar 2015 #1
As to the 2016 Presidential primary, anointee seems more likely that nominee, as the term "nominee" merrily Mar 2015 #59
There is NOT one potential Democratic nominee who WON'T make a better SC choice than any of the still_one Mar 2015 #83
That fact DOES remain! CTyankee Mar 2015 #141
If we want to have a SC that represents the interests of the people, we need to make sure the Dem sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #118
It would help if the President did not represent the interests of the Corporate State. Vincardog Mar 2015 #151
This. Agschmid Mar 2015 #177
As if the only election that mattered was the President's Xipe Totec Mar 2015 #2
Beat me to it!! arcane1 Mar 2015 #6
Who puts forth the nominee for SCOTUS ... 1StrongBlackMan Mar 2015 #27
Who can block the nomination? Xipe Totec Mar 2015 #30
Not true ... 1StrongBlackMan Mar 2015 #32
It's called a Senate Hold. There are no limits. Xipe Totec Mar 2015 #35
I'm still not convinced ... 1StrongBlackMan Mar 2015 #38
Senator Barbara Boxer is not running for re-election next year. Major Hogwash Mar 2015 #53
Republicans have been laser focused on California since Texas went red and California went blue. merrily Mar 2015 #55
I'm not convinced that the "Blue Slip" (or the "Senate Hold") applies to SC Nominees ... 1StrongBlackMan Mar 2015 #86
Senate holds are part of the blue slip process and does not apply to the SCOTUS Gothmog Mar 2015 #153
And what do you want? Scootaloo Mar 2015 #63
Who do I "WANT" ... 1StrongBlackMan Mar 2015 #87
No, you should vote for who ever you want to vote for. leftofcool Mar 2015 #3
Who the hell is stopping Hillary supporters from making their choice? As if anyone could anyway. merrily Mar 2015 #69
AFAIC... Adrahil Mar 2015 #122
I live in Texas where we are dealing with the effects of the Shelby County case Gothmog Mar 2015 #154
I'm sure the intimidation factor will only increase as we get closer to 2016. liberal_at_heart Mar 2015 #4
That's not true and hopefully you know that sharp_stick Mar 2015 #5
Luckily we don't even have to do that. We can vote for whomever we want in the primary and liberal_at_heart Mar 2015 #7
Sure you can sharp_stick Mar 2015 #10
Your vote in an anointing doesn't mean a hell of a whole lot, though. merrily Mar 2015 #67
It helps to have real liberals in congress and the Senate, too. arcane1 Mar 2015 #11
Who nominated Scalia? 1StrongBlackMan Mar 2015 #28
Exactly! The problem there was more than just a republican president. arcane1 Mar 2015 #33
True, but to ignore who does the nominating is 1StrongBlackMan Mar 2015 #36
Agreed! arcane1 Mar 2015 #37
I hope you understand ... 1StrongBlackMan Mar 2015 #40
I do! I think we were both approaching the same thing from opposite ends arcane1 Mar 2015 #41
Yep ... 1StrongBlackMan Mar 2015 #42
I think that's a very astute sharp_stick Mar 2015 #45
Bang On sharp_stick Mar 2015 #44
Worse than him, who nominated Bork? Major Hogwash Mar 2015 #54
Yes, we did ... 1StrongBlackMan Mar 2015 #88
Confirmed UNANIMOUSLY, after very few softball questions. Please see Reply 64. merrily Mar 2015 #68
I know the record on Scalia; but, two points ... 1StrongBlackMan Mar 2015 #97
I'm sticking with Reply 64. merrily Mar 2015 #106
See that is the difference ... 1StrongBlackMan Mar 2015 #107
No, not even a little. merrily Mar 2015 #108
Awesome post!!! U4ikLefty Mar 2015 #114
Thank you. Much appreciated. merrily Mar 2015 #117
Brilliantly said! TorchTheWitch Mar 2015 #134
Thank you. merrily Mar 2015 #135
The Senate was a very different animal when Scalia was confirmed Gothmog Mar 2015 #156
That was my exact point . Thanks. 1StrongBlackMan Mar 2015 #157
Once again, you and I are in agreement Gothmog Mar 2015 #161
Yeah ... 1StrongBlackMan Mar 2015 #163
I already made the only comment about comity I have to make on that subject. merrily Mar 2015 #190
Early on, Scalia wrote some well reasoned opinions Gothmog Mar 2015 #155
Oh absolutely sharp_stick Mar 2015 #43
Please see Reply 59 and merrily Mar 2015 #70
Well, surely you know, no other lefty who runs would ever choose any SCOTUS judges Erich Bloodaxe BSN Mar 2015 #8
No one cares who you vote for. JaneyVee Mar 2015 #9
Surely the Deep Fried Twinkies with Bacon will affect my judgment. NYC_SKP Mar 2015 #12
I'll be to waffle-buzzed to vote Hillary Katashi_itto Mar 2015 #17
This message was self-deleted by its author AtomicKitten Mar 2015 #19
Waffles. Any berries and whipped cream. Side of bacon Autumn Mar 2015 #81
:) Katashi_itto Mar 2015 #98
Mmmm. Waffles AND bacon. merrily Mar 2015 #120
"...a balanced pro-business SCOTUS...." truebluegreen Mar 2015 #13
+1 liberal_at_heart Mar 2015 #15
exact same argument was used to vote for obama in 2012. nt msongs Mar 2015 #14
Pretty sure it was proven to be correct. (n/t) OilemFirchen Mar 2015 #20
By what? He has had no nomination for the Supreme Court since then and has TheKentuckian Mar 2015 #91
I will never "tell" anyone how he or she should vote maui902 Mar 2015 #16
Hillary is electable and a progressive uponit7771 Mar 2015 #18
Part of that statement may be true; part of it almost certainly isn't. Spider Jerusalem Mar 2015 #23
Both are true enough for America to progress... Im not looking perfection that some will rip... uponit7771 Mar 2015 #24
If Hillary is "progressive" then I'm Queen Elizabeth. Spider Jerusalem Mar 2015 #25
I expect that if people said they're not interested in HRC because she's not Queen Elizabeth, winter is coming Mar 2015 #77
Strawman, I typed "progressive enough"... FUD and some .5% of dem voters are looking for perfection uponit7771 Mar 2015 #79
I guess if she's in the general election yes Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Mar 2015 #21
She's got some bad stuff out their lurking about Ukraine..... KoKo Mar 2015 #22
did you see this one? antigop Mar 2015 #26
This.... KoKo Mar 2015 #39
How would any of that impact us concerning SC nominees? Major Hogwash Mar 2015 #51
Who voted for (let alone block) both those confirmations? It sure as hell wasn't only Republicans! merrily Mar 2015 #64
what member of the Democratic party would tell others to shut up? Lordquinton Mar 2015 #29
Cool, cling tightly to those principles while your fellow citizens suffer. great white snark Mar 2015 #31
As if ending welfare "as we know it," signing DOMA and NAFTA and lobbying Democrats to merrily Mar 2015 #61
So, you are judging her on her husband's merits? JTFrog Mar 2015 #89
What utter ad hom crap. The only thing I "judged," IF ANYTHING, were the statements in a post of merrily Mar 2015 #109
What... sendero Mar 2015 #123
thanks for the confirmation on the substance merrily Mar 2015 #125
Gee... JTFrog Mar 2015 #124
As already stated, call someone a bigot without cause and you get what you get (and most likely merrily Mar 2015 #126
No one called you a bigot. JTFrog Mar 2015 #130
You most certainly did. You accused me of sexism and sexism is a form of bigotry. merrily Mar 2015 #131
+1 davidpdx Mar 2015 #175
Having been a victim of sexual harassment at work and sexism, I am certainly not going to be shamed merrily Mar 2015 #180
Mmmmmm. Bacon! A vote for HRC is a vote for the STATUS QUOE we need movement in Vincardog Mar 2015 #34
.... 840high Mar 2015 #46
If you are basing your ire ... NanceGreggs Mar 2015 #47
Okay, you win. Major Hogwash Mar 2015 #56
I stopped worrying about what gets said on DU ... NanceGreggs Mar 2015 #101
Nance, people are so worried about losing that they're going to lose by picking Clinton. NYC_SKP Mar 2015 #90
I'm not even sure what you're getting at. NanceGreggs Mar 2015 #99
BINGO. And very well written, Nance. BlueCaliDem Mar 2015 #128
Great post Gothmog Mar 2015 #159
Thanks! NanceGreggs Mar 2015 #164
Agreed Gothmog Mar 2015 #165
In other words, "vote for Hillary, it's her turn" tularetom Mar 2015 #181
Nance, I've always been nothing but nice to you and shown respect davidpdx Mar 2015 #176
i think depending on the courts to protect abortion rights betterdemsonly Mar 2015 #48
Seems applicable aspirant Mar 2015 #49
Here's the problem, you are already projecting your fear on to SCOTUS nominees. Major Hogwash Mar 2015 #50
one would think a balanced or progressive court would BE a progressive value LadyHawkAZ Mar 2015 #52
If HRC is the nominee, do you stay home on Election Day? longship Mar 2015 #57
What does not voting for a particular nominee have to do with not voting in general? TheKentuckian Mar 2015 #94
The primaries are over? FUCK! I STILL HAVENT FILED MY TAXES FOR 2014!!!!!!!! Warren DeMontague Mar 2015 #58
Due to Nader's stupidity, we have Citizens United and have lost a key section of voting rights act Gothmog Mar 2015 #60
It was also due to the dems who voted for many republican appointments. betterdemsonly Mar 2015 #65
Not exactly. Look at the confirmation hearings and votes re: Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and merrily Mar 2015 #66
Due to Nader, we have Alito and Roberts which is why we have Citizens United Gothmog Mar 2015 #74
Riiight. The unanimous vote confirming Scalia after few questions has nothing to merrily Mar 2015 #111
and don't forget Clarence Thomas ushered in by Joe Biden.... KoKo Mar 2015 #76
If all nominees are blocked, then we will not have a functioning court Gothmog Mar 2015 #160
+1 uponit7771 Mar 2015 #80
No, that was due to Gore's lousy campaign. jeff47 Mar 2015 #102
If all I could offer someone voting for POTUS were SCOTUS nominations--which merrily Mar 2015 #62
Who tells you that? Omnith Mar 2015 #71
Poor little you. randome Mar 2015 #72
I'm reminded this extreme court of present was seated by a Democratic Party majority. mmonk Mar 2015 #73
not if you are a woman losing your rights. it matters. seabeyond Mar 2015 #75
Oh good Lord. Surely you don't think Hillary alone supports womens' rights? Please. NYC_SKP Mar 2015 #82
right cause, that is what i said. .... see. this is the crap i hate, seabeyond Mar 2015 #84
Then maybe you think only she can beat a Republican? NYC_SKP Mar 2015 #85
my whole post.... i should have been way more clear, cause this is important to me. as a woman. seabeyond Mar 2015 #95
None of the Republicans who ran against McCain and Romney would have beaten merrily Mar 2015 #115
Well, of course, if your principles lie with the repiggies rock Mar 2015 #78
I feel like I'm seeing a lot more arguments lately that end with the basic premise hughee99 Mar 2015 #92
Or, "I hope you enjoy your President Cruz" or Bush, or whomever. NYC_SKP Mar 2015 #100
Posts like that are the result of our Party changing its values merrily Mar 2015 #119
I'm beginning to understand treestar Mar 2015 #93
How about stop worrying about voting for Hillary until we actually have a general election where... LynneSin Mar 2015 #96
"electable". Hillary is not in the general. eom Purveyor Mar 2015 #103
No guaranty she's electable, either. merrily Mar 2015 #116
Lie. JoePhilly Mar 2015 #104
Disgusting charge against the OP for expressing his or her political view. merrily Mar 2015 #112
It's already pretty balanced Reter Mar 2015 #105
That would result only in (2) the possiblity of ties and (2) charges of (gasp) "court packing." merrily Mar 2015 #113
Um....the primary hasn't even started yet AgingAmerican Mar 2015 #110
Ya Know RobinA Mar 2015 #121
Only in the general election. Not the primaries. :-) And no, I wasn't one of them who BlueCaliDem Mar 2015 #127
Vote for any dem in your primary gwheezie Mar 2015 #129
That instruction is much less meaningful when the Party tries to discourage primary challenges. merrily Mar 2015 #132
Short sighted of the party gwheezie Mar 2015 #169
Is it really short sighted, though? merrily Mar 2015 #183
Thank you! marym625 Mar 2015 #133
Someone said I will no longer matter on DU if Hillary is elected. merrily Mar 2015 #136
It is very sad to me, that this is going on marym625 Mar 2015 #146
So if you work for/vote for the progressive candidate of your choice, CTyankee Mar 2015 #147
I never stay home, even though, as a practical matter, my vote is irrelevant. merrily Mar 2015 #184
I was curious as to what folks are doing who are Dems and don't want Hillary. CTyankee Mar 2015 #186
..... merrily Mar 2015 #187
You are in a pretty good position, just as I am in blue CT. CTyankee Mar 2015 #188
Well, some Bostonian Rs I heard talking on the bus felt good about McCain, so merrily Mar 2015 #189
First, one must respond with two facts. longship Mar 2015 #137
Here's a hint...we're NOT the U.K. brooklynite Mar 2015 #145
How about let's start with not never ending elections. longship Mar 2015 #148
So, you want Hillary Clinton to automatically win? brooklynite Mar 2015 #150
Obviously I do not want anybody to automatically win. longship Mar 2015 #158
I would love to take money out of politics. I'm saying it's not practical at this point... brooklynite Mar 2015 #162
Well, I suggest that we elect people who will. longship Mar 2015 #167
There will be a vote before the general election. NCTraveler Mar 2015 #138
There's something wrong when people tell you to "set your values aside". Autumn Mar 2015 #139
Who is saying that? I'm not and I will work for Warren and hope she runs and CTyankee Mar 2015 #140
And we have to do that in the primary. That is what a primary is for. Unfortunately the progressive jwirr Mar 2015 #142
The charisma is frightening. NYC_SKP Mar 2015 #143
I was thinking of JFK and President Obama. But you are correct - 1930 and 1980 come to mind. jwirr Mar 2015 #144
How about? Thor_MN Mar 2015 #149
I think it has already had a pretty good effect on Hillary, who now has to CTyankee Mar 2015 #152
What I bristle at is Dems using Right Wing talking points for any purpose. Thor_MN Mar 2015 #166
I don't call those people Democrats. CTyankee Mar 2015 #170
Then I guess the only problem is they do and they are here. Thor_MN Mar 2015 #172
Ah, you see, this is why we have Elizabeth Warren stepping forward! CTyankee Mar 2015 #173
Oh, when did she announce her candidacy? Thor_MN Mar 2015 #174
What you are missing here is the influence she can have on the party by NOT CTyankee Mar 2015 #178
Like I said, it's fantastic people are singing her praises... Thor_MN Mar 2015 #179
I know. It's wearying. CTyankee Mar 2015 #182
I'm voting for the democratic candidate in the general workinclasszero Mar 2015 #168
If HRC is nominated as the candidate for the Dems akbacchus_BC Mar 2015 #171
You should vote for the Democratic Nominee, a year from November. You should. Warren DeMontague Mar 2015 #185
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»I'm told "If you eve...»Reply #109