Speaking conservative

[Stevicus]

Personally, I’m not really sure what was the relevance of your long post attacking Hillary. Just noting that it certainly appears you have strange ideas concerning feminism and a rather chauvinistic view of Hillary’s accomplishments.

I was referring to the article which compared different kinds of corruption. Most of it wasn't even about Hillary, but since the OP article mentioned Hillary, I thought it was relevant to address it in the thread.

As for my supposed "strange ideas" - well, that's your opinion. Either you misread what I wrote or you're just using some worn-out old tactic. Using the same old politically correct manipulations and tricks just doesn't work anymore. You might consider trying a different tack.

 

[Falvlun]

I was referring to the article which compared different kinds of corruption. Most of it wasn't even about Hillary, but since the OP article mentioned Hillary, I thought it was relevant to address it in the thread.

As for my supposed "strange ideas" - well, that's your opinion. Either you misread what I wrote or you're just using some worn-out old tactic. Using the same old politically correct manipulations and tricks just doesn't work anymore. You might consider trying a different tack.

You are seriously arguing that it is corrupt to choose to stay with a husband who cheated?

You claimed that she betrayed feminist ideas by staying with Bill. Explain what feminist ideas require that you leave. The whole point of feminism is that women have the power to choose. Furthermore, you have no clue what their personal relationship agreement was Hint: Feminism doesn’t require a 1950’s approach. Your argument is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of feminism.

You then couple that with extremely chauvinistic claims that her accomplishments were the result of “deference” and “riding the coattails” of Bill. This requires you to completely ignore that she was an accomplished lawyer in her own right, that she was a very involved First Lady, and I don’t know, the incredible amount of hard work she had to put in to get elected, and the work she did while in office.

You seem to have no concept of teamwork within a male-female dynamic relationship. Essentially your argument boils down to “she was married to a powerful man, therefore, anything she did was due to him.” You didn’t bother to consider the possibility that they helped each other get where they got.

And lastly, it rankles to the extreme that Bill’s infidelity is presented as hillary’s Failure. He did something wrong and she must pay. This is, ironically, exactly the sort of thing feminism combats. She was put in a damned if you do, damned if you don’t position— not of her own making. The fact that she was able to survive it is a testament to her strength— and that of her and Bill’s relationship.

But you see none of that. You see a cheating man, and blame the woman for her response. You see a powerful woman and assume a man must have been the cause. It’s all so frustrating.

 

[tytlyf]

You are seriously arguing that it is corrupt to choose to stay with a husband who cheated?

You claimed that she betrayed feminist ideas by staying with Bill. Explain what feminist ideas require that you leave. The whole point of feminism is that women have the power to choose. Furthermore, you have no clue what their personal relationship agreement was Hint: Feminism doesn’t require a 1950’s approach. Your argument is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of feminism.

You then couple that with extremely chauvinistic claims that her accomplishments were the result of “deference” and “riding the coattails” of Bill. This requires you to completely ignore that she was an accomplished lawyer in her own right, that she was a very involved First Lady, and I don’t know, the incredible amount of hard work she had to put in to get elected, and the work she did while in office.

You seem to have no concept of teamwork within a male-female dynamic relationship. Essentially your argument boils down to “she was married to a powerful man, therefore, anything she did was due to him.” You didn’t bother to consider the possibility that they helped each other get where they got.

And lastly, it rankles to the extreme that Bill’s infidelity is presented as hillary’s Failure. He did something wrong and she must pay. This is, ironically, exactly the sort of thing feminism combats. She was put in a damned if you do, damned if you don’t position— not of her own making. The fact that she was able to survive it is a testament to her strength— and that of her and Bill’s relationship.

But you see none of that. You see a cheating man, and blame the woman for her response. You see a powerful woman and assume a man must have been the cause. It’s all so frustrating.

Someone teaches them. Conservatives all repeat the same things.

Donald Trump to get ‘nasty’ at the next debate over Bill Clinton’s ‘infidelities’

There are republicans and there are RW media republicans. Big difference.

 

[Stevicus]

You are seriously arguing that it is corrupt to choose to stay with a husband who cheated?

You claimed that she betrayed feminist ideas by staying with Bill. Explain what feminist ideas require that you leave. The whole point of feminism is that women have the power to choose. Furthermore, you have no clue what their personal relationship agreement was Hint: Feminism doesn’t require a 1950’s approach. Your argument is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of feminism.

You then couple that with extremely chauvinistic claims that her accomplishments were the result of “deference” and “riding the coattails” of Bill. This requires you to completely ignore that she was an accomplished lawyer in her own right, that she was a very involved First Lady, and I don’t know, the incredible amount of hard work she had to put in to get elected, and the work she did while in office.

You seem to have no concept of teamwork within a male-female dynamic relationship. Essentially your argument boils down to “she was married to a powerful man, therefore, anything she did was due to him.” You didn’t bother to consider the possibility that they helped each other get where they got.

And lastly, it rankles to the extreme that Bill’s infidelity is presented as hillary’s Failure. He did something wrong and she must pay. This is, ironically, exactly the sort of thing feminism combats. She was put in a damned if you do, damned if you don’t position— not of her own making. The fact that she was able to survive it is a testament to her strength— and that of her and Bill’s relationship.

But you see none of that. You see a cheating man, and blame the woman for her response. You see a powerful woman and assume a man must have been the cause. It’s all so frustrating.

Okay, well, let's back up a bit.

First, did you read the article linked in the OP? If you had, then you would have understood the context in which my comments were written. Essentially, it was a comparison of different perceptions of corruption, which was the crux of the OP article.

Secondly, I constantly see people complaining about whenever Hillary or Obama are brought up in discussions about contemporary politics, yet the same usual suspects come out like "defenders of the faith" to make impassioned defenses on behalf of these mediocre politicians. They are products of political machines, yet so many people refuse to see this. It's just blind partisanship.

Third, nice job coming up with strawmen and twisting my words around. I did not say that it was corrupt for a wife to stay with her husband who cheated. However, I did say that hypocrisy is a form of corruption. If you disagree with that particular point, then please state your reasons why, but all I would ask is that you address my arguments as I state them, not as you misread them.

I also did not claim that she "betrayed" feminist ideals. However, you can correct me if you think that I'm wrong on this next point. It is my understanding that feminism advocates (among other things) better treatment of women, particularly by the men in their lives. That being the case, it seems clear that a husband who cheats on his wife multiple times would be guilty of mistreatment of the kind feminism has decried many times. I don't know of anyone who would argue against that point, do you?

Yes, she became a lawyer. She came from a privileged background and received all the perks of such. What an accomplishment, to be born into a wealthy family. Her Republican businessman daddy must have been good to her. She married Bill, who became governor of Arkansas, then president. If not for her role as first lady, she would not have been known, nor would she have had the celebrity status required to become a senator or cabinet member.

I don't see how it's "chauvinistic" to point this out. At least give me enough credit to recognize the difference between a self-made woman who reached the top on her own merits - versus one who is carried there on someone else's coattails. Maybe you can't tell the difference; I don't know. But I can.

And yes, I would agree that she did help her husband by supporting him and not divorcing him as a result of his adultery. But it seemed pretty clear at that point that she had political ambitions of her own, and it was also clear that they stayed together as a marriage of opportunity and convenience. She got her reward for her loyalty by being the party favorite for Senate, as well as being named Secretary of State, and being the favored candidate for the Democratic nomination in 2016 (which many observers claim was stacked in her favor and against any other candidate).

Whether you like it or not, a lot of people really did see it as a kind of sham marriage, and as I said, that's something that likely affected her reputation in the eyes of many. You can call it "sexist," "chauvinistic," "misogynistic," or whatever you want, but that doesn't change what people think. Remember, this is in the context of the OP article, which had the following excerpt:

Why were Trump’s supporters so convinced that Clinton was the more corrupt candidate even as reporters uncovered far more damning evidence about Trump’s foundation than they did about Clinton’s? Likely because Clinton’s candidacy threatened traditional gender roles. For many Americans, female ambition—especially in service of a feminist agenda—in and of itself represents a form of corruption. “When female politicians were described as power-seeking,” noted the Yale researchers Victoria Brescoll and Tyler Okimoto in a 2010 study, “participants experienced feelings of moral outrage (i.e., contempt, anger, and/or disgust).”

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't feminism supposed to be about gender equality? If that's the case, then why is it so wrong to use the same standard to judge a female candidate as one would judge a male candidate? Can you answer that?

If a man achieved wealth or power while riding on his wife's coattails, would you praise him as enthusiastically? What's wrong with expecting a politician to "be his own man" or "be her own woman"? (A lot of people made fun of Reagan because they said it was Nancy who was calling all the shots. Some took similar swipes at Bill Clinton, implying that it was Hillary who was really in charge. These were not considered compliments.)

Trump did say something rather cogent during the campaign. I believe he said something to the effect of "if Hillary was a man, she'd only get 10% of the vote." Do you know why he said that? Because she wasn't really as impressive a candidate as many people touted her as. She was certainly puffed up by shills and endless media accolades, but at the end of the day, she wasn't really all that.

Also, I wasn't actually "blaming" her for Bill's infidelity, at least not for that directly. But to overlook it merely as a ploy to gain political office and other such favors might be seen as somewhat hypocritical and disingenuous, which would call into question her ability to carry out the functions of her office faithfully and honorably.

 

[shunyadragon]

Well said. Again, notice how people want to paint a SMALL box about a group of people. The reason behind it is to vilify the whole of the group.

Both parties do it and both are wrong for doing it.

Let's not paint such SMALL boxes.

These are not SMALL boxes of people. Yes, there is diversity to a certain extent, but nonetheless the extreme conservative right is united in certain aspects and vote in a block in elections reflecting their agenda. Evangelical Protestants and other Christians are focused on Supreme Court Nominations to support their agenda regardless of who they have to support to attain their goal. They are ~90% white, and only a few percent black.

. . and yes, Fake News is their code word for anything that doe not fit their agenda.

It is a Big Box ~40%+ of the USA.

 

[Kenny]

These are not SMALL boxes of people. Yes, there is diversity to a certain extent, but nonetheless the extreme conservative right is united in certain aspects and vote in a block in elections reflecting their agenda. Evangelical Protestants and other Christians are focused on Supreme Court Nominations to support their agenda regardless of who they have to support to attain their goal. They are ~90% white, and only a few percent black.

. . and yes, Fake News is their code word for anything that doe not fit their agenda.

It is a Big Box ~40%+ of the USA.

If you want to paint it that way, then it would be equally the same for the Democrats.

But, as has been noted, there are many subgroups within each party so creating a SMALL box fits all, doesn't quite work.

Your Supreme Court Nominations to support their agenda is 90% white is supported by what documentation? Again... it is so easy to paint a SMALL box so that you can vilify the whole of the group which you did so well.

 

[shunyadragon]

If you want to paint it that way, then it would be equally the same for the Democrats.

But, as has been noted, there are many subgroups within each party so creating a SMALL box fits all, doesn't quite work.

Your Supreme Court Nominations to support their agenda is 90% white is supported by what documentation? Again... it is so easy to paint a SMALL box so that you can vilify the whole of the group which you did so well.

If you are concerned about the Democrats, start a thread and I will deal with it, but at present you are dodging the facts of the right conservative movement, which also enjoy the unanimous support of the extreme right political movements encouraged by tRump.

 

[Kenny]

If you are concerned about the Democrats, start a thread and I will deal with it, but at present you are dodging the facts of the right conservative movement, which also enjoy the unanimous support of the extreme right political movements encouraged by tRump.

Evading the reality that you created a SMALL box to vilify all with unsupported documentation (proving my point) doesn't help your position

 

[shunyadragon]

Evading the reality that you created a SMALL box to vilify all with unsupported documentation (proving my point) doesn't help your position

It reflects the facts of the right conservative movement, which you refuse to respond to.

Another ominous symptom of the problem, almost all of the cabinet appointments including Vice-President Pence reject the science of evolution and the history of the earth in one way or another. This is not a coincidence..

 

[Kenny]

It reflects the facts of the right conservative movement, which you refuse to respond to.

Another ominous symptom of the problem, almost all of the cabinet appointments including Vice-President Pence reject the science of evolution and the history of the earth in one way or another. This is not a coincidence..

Supportive documentation... and tell me again why it is you didn't want to support your statements the last time?

 

[Shad]

I don’t know if this is a Debate point so much as just a point of discussion. I just found this interesting article.
Trump supporters define “corruption” differently than the rest of us.

The take-away point is similar to many other discussions on the topic of conservative thought processes. i.e. - Conservatives see things through a ‘retrospectoscope’, with everything being better in the past (good ol’ days).
It is food for thought for anyone trying to speak with a conservative thinker, and particularly if trying to convince that conservative of some new viewpoint. The best approach is to try to convince them that the change you propose will make things better by making it more like the good old days, to bring back the good old days, to “Make America Great Again”. Attempting to present something new as a better way of doing things is doomed to failure, since by definition “new” equals “bad”.
Tribalism seems to be in their blood. Or at least in their brains.

This is a strawman of what conservative covers.

 

[shunyadragon]

Supportive documentation... and tell me again why it is you didn't want to support your statements the last time?

No problem the facts of the conservative right support my statements. The Republican Party as a whole is only about ~8 to 10% Black. The legislative and Court appointment priorities of the Republican Party represent evangelical Christian goals.

Again . . . Another ominous symptom of the problem, almost all of the cabinet appointments including Vice-President Pence reject the science of evolution and the history of the earth in one way or another. This is not a coincidence..

 

[Kenny]

The legislative and Court appointment priorities of the Republican Party represent evangelical Christian goals.

One doesn't equate the other..

Since Christians represent the vast majority on both aisles!!! Thus... you painted a SMALL box based on faulty logic. Why did you do that?

The Republican Party as a whole is only about ~8 to 10% Black.

Ok. So does that mean that the Democratic party is lopsided African American?

Again . . . Another ominous symptom of the problem, almost all of the cabinet appointments including Vice-President Pence reject the science of evolution and the history of the earth in one way or another. This is not a coincidence..

Evidence, please, not just making statements. It looks like you are painting a SMALL box.... again.

 

[shunyadragon]

One doesn't equate the other..

View attachment 23846

Since Christians represent the vast majority on both aisles!!! Thus... you painted a SMALL box based on faulty logic. Why did you do that?



Ok. So does that mean that the Democratic party is lopsided African American?


Evidence, please, not just making statements. It looks like you are painting a SMALL box.... again.

It is not simply which religion or church one belongs to. It is whether one is a right conservative fundamentalist Christian. Your making too broad a categories.

Again . . . Another ominous symptom of the problem, almost all of the cabinet appointments including Vice-President Pence reject the science of evolution and the history of the earth in one way or another. This is not a coincidence.

The make up of the Congress has absolutely no comparison to the make up of the right conservative movement including the Tea Party. and also supports tRump for their political objective..

 

[Falvlun]

Okay, well, let's back up a bit.

First, did you read the article linked in the OP? If you had, then you would have understood the context in which my comments were written. Essentially, it was a comparison of different perceptions of corruption, which was the crux of the OP article.

Your argument does seem to support the article’s argument that conservatives view corruption in terms of “purity” rather than the “law”. Because Trump upholds traditional gender norms and hierarchies he’s seen as less corrupt than Clinton who challenges such norms.

But you seem to have applied that “purity test” logic to feminism, I.e. Clinton’s feminism wasn’t “pure” enough (in your opinion) and therefore she’s corrupt.

Secondly, I constantly see people complaining about whenever Hillary or Obama are brought up in discussions about contemporary politics, yet the same usual suspects come out like "defenders of the faith" to make impassioned defenses on behalf of these mediocre politicians. They are products of political machines, yet so many people refuse to see this. It's just blind partisanship.

And I see people blindly attacking Clinton, the favorite whipping boy of the Right for the last 2 decades.

Third, nice job coming up with strawmen and twisting my words around. I did not say that it was corrupt for a wife to stay with her husband who cheated. However, I did say that hypocrisy is a form of corruption. If you disagree with that particular point, then please state your reasons why, but all I would ask is that you address my arguments as I state them, not as you misread them.

Here’s your exact words:
“I also think that Hillary's tacit acceptance of her husband's extramarital affairs may have also damaged her reputation. After all, she's been quite the feminist icon, yet she can't even stand up and challenge her own husband for his indiscretions. This appeared to be based in corruption, hypocrisy, and political opportunism - since her deference to Bill was rewarded with a seat in the Senate, a cabinet post, and a nomination as a presidential candidate.”

You are directly arguing that choosing to accept her husband’s affairs was based in corruption, hypocrisy, and political opportunism. Exactly how can choosing to stay with your husband be “based in corruption”? Perhaps we are back to those “purity tests”.

I also did not claim that she "betrayed" feminist ideals.

Your entire argument that Hillary is a hypocrite is based on the idea that she betrayed feminist ideals by staying with Bill.

However, you can correct me if you think that I'm wrong on this next point. It is my understanding that feminism advocates (among other things) better treatment of women, particularly by the men in their lives. That being the case, it seems clear that a husband who cheats on his wife multiple times would be guilty of mistreatment of the kind feminism has decried many times. I don't know of anyone who would argue against that point, do you?

Better treatment of women is a goal, sure. But the idea isn’t to trade one cage for another. You are claiming that it is hypocritical for a feminist to stay with a cheating husband. This implies that feminism requires you to leave your husband. There is no such demand, as that would limit a woman’s choices and force her to do something she may not want to do.

In other words, your argument is:
Premise 1: Feminism requires a wife to leave a cheating husband.
Premise 2: Hilary is a feminist
Premise 3: Hilary did not leave her cheating husband.
Therefore: Hilary is hypocritical / betraying her feminist ideas.

Your problem is Premise 1. There is no such requirement. As such, there is no hypocrisy.

Yes, she became a lawyer. She came from a privileged background and received all the perks of such. What an accomplishment, to be born into a wealthy family. Her Republican businessman daddy must have been good to her. She married Bill, who became governor of Arkansas, then president. If not for her role as first lady, she would not have been known, nor would she have had the celebrity status required to become a senator or cabinet member.

I don't see how it's "chauvinistic" to point this out. At least give me enough credit to recognize the difference between a self-made woman who reached the top on her own merits - versus one who is carried there on someone else's coattails. Maybe you can't tell the difference; I don't know. But I can.

You do realize that this scenario could just as easily apply to the majority of politicians? Most come from privileged and/or wealthy backgrounds. Many are intergenerational. Why are you singling out Hillary? Was Mitt Romney or Ted Kennedy “carried” to their positions because their daddies were in politics first? Does their own merit count for nothing simply because they didn’t do it ALL by themselves? Of course not.

How exactly is this corrupt? This is not corruption.

And note how you still downplay Hilary’s own efforts. She still had to put in the work to become a lawyer. She and Bill worked together to get him where he got. She was an active First Lady.

It’s frankly appalling that you believed the only things that really mattered, in terms of her accomplishments, were men: her father and her husband.

And yes, I would agree that she did help her husband by supporting him and not divorcing him as a result of his adultery. But it seemed pretty clear at that point that she had political ambitions of her own, and it was also clear that they stayed together as a marriage of opportunity and convenience. She got her reward for her loyalty by being the party favorite for Senate, as well as being named Secretary of State, and being the favored candidate for the Democratic nomination in 2016 (which many observers claim was stacked in her favor and against any other candidate).

And what is wrong with any of that? Is there a problem with a woman being politically ambitious? Why do you consider “political opportunism” to be a form of corruption?

Whether you like it or not, a lot of people really did see it as a kind of sham marriage, and as I said, that's something that likely affected her reputation in the eyes of many. You can call it "sexist," "chauvinistic," "misogynistic," or whatever you want, but that doesn't change what people think.

More Purity tests. Purity tests that inordinately fall upon women. “That woman’s marriage wasn’t pure enough in my opinion therefore something must be wrong with her”.

Meanwhile, we have a thrice married, cheating man in office and conservatives don’t bat an eye.

Remember, this is in the context of the OP article, which had the following excerpt:
Why were Trump’s supporters so convinced that Clinton was the more corrupt candidate even as reporters uncovered far more damning evidenceabout Trump’s foundation than they did about Clinton’s? Likely because Clinton’s candidacy threatened traditional gender roles. For many Americans, female ambition—especially in service of a feminist agenda—in and of itself represents a form of corruption. “When female politicians were described as power-seeking,” noted the Yale researchers Victoria Brescoll and Tyler Okimoto in a 2010 study, “participants experienced feelings of moral outrage (i.e., contempt, anger, and/or disgust).”

This excerpt hardly helps your cause, though it may illuminate why you’re arguing the way you are. It’s about Americans being unable to accept political ambition in women— they find it wrong.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't feminism supposed to be about gender equality? If that's the case, then why is it so wrong to use the same standard to judge a female candidate as one would judge a male candidate? Can you answer that?

If a man achieved wealth or power while riding on his wife's coattails, would you praise him as enthusiastically? What's wrong with expecting a politician to "be his own man" or "be her own woman"? (A lot of people made fun of Reagan because they said it was Nancy who was calling all the shots. Some took similar swipes at Bill Clinton, implying that it was Hillary who was really in charge. These were not considered compliments.)

You aren’t applying the same standards to Hilary Clinton as you do to male politicians. Because if you did, your arguments would equally apply to the vast majority of them. The fact that you seem to find Clinton an outlier suggests that you simply don’t see men the same way.

Trump did say something rather cogent during the campaign. I believe he said something to the effect of "if Hillary was a man, she'd only get 10% of the vote." Do you know why he said that? Because she wasn't really as impressive a candidate as many people touted her as. She was certainly puffed up by shills and endless media accolades, but at the end of the day, she wasn't really all that.

I disagree with such an assessment. She was one of the most qualified candidates to run in awhile, both in experience and policy knowledge.

Also, I wasn't actually "blaming" her for Bill's infidelity, at least not for that directly. But to overlook it merely as a ploy to gain political office and other such favors might be seen as somewhat hypocritical and disingenuous, which would call into question her ability to carry out the functions of her office faithfully and honorably.

At the end of the day, you are punishing her for Bill’s infidelity.

And “somewhat hypocritical and disingenuous” as reasons someone wouldn’t be fit for office seem hilariously laughable. Hope you like your robot overlords, because you won’t find any human that lacks those characteristics in various areas of their life.

 

[metis]

Let me just say that anyone who supports Trump's tax cuts certainly are not a "conservative" no matter how many times they may claim to say they are because no conservative would be willing to ramp up an additional $1-1.4 trillion dollar deficit over the next 10 years when we're not in a financial or security crisis.

Barry Goldwater lamented this when he said that all too many talk "conservative" only because they want to try and avoid paying their fair share of taxes.

 

[shunyadragon]

Let me just say that anyone who supports Trump's tax cuts certainly are not a "conservative" no matter how many times they may claim to say they are because no conservative would be willing to ramp up an additional $1-1.4 trillion dollar deficit over the next 10 years when we're not in a financial or security crisis.

Barry Goldwater lamented this when he said that all too many talk "conservative" only because they want to try and avoid paying their fair share of taxes.

I am not referring to conservatives in general. I am differentiating the conservative right that supports tRump for an evangelical agenda for their appointment of Supreme Court judges. I am a moderate fiscal conservative from the Grand Old Party of the past, and not I and my uncle who was a Republican Congressman would not support thos gross glutonous budget busting tax breaks for the wealthy.

 

[Kenny]

It is not simply which religion or church one belongs to. It is whether one is a right conservative fundamentalist Christian. Your making too broad a categories.

You are painting a SMALL box again,. Where did you get your info from?

Again . . . Another ominous symptom of the problem, almost all of the cabinet appointments including Vice-President Pence reject the science of evolution and the history of the earth in one way or another. This is not a coincidence.

Again... no supportive documentation... its becoming a habit.

The make up of the Congress has absolutely no comparison to the make up of the right conservative movement including the Tea Party. and also supports tRump for their political objective..

In your Humble opinion.

If 85 % of ALL Congress makes up Christianity, it just blew your statement out of the water. Another SMALL box.

 

[tytlyf]

Again... no supportive documentation... its becoming a habit.

There's more than 1 that denies evolution. That's 1 too many for a government job. There's a lot more climate deniers though. But that's a monetary thing, not science denial.

If 85 % of ALL Congress makes up Christianity, it just blew your statement out of the water. Another SMALL box.

Congress isn't a representation of America. If there's that many christians, that just shows christian privilege when it comes to elections.
America isn't a christian nation, never was. Way back in the day they even banned the celebration of christmas in the NE.

The founders were secular deists, running from religious persecution.

 

[Stevicus]

Your argument does seem to support the article’s argument that conservatives view corruption in terms of “purity” rather than the “law”. Because Trump upholds traditional gender norms and hierarchies he’s seen as less corrupt than Clinton who challenges such norms.

But you seem to have applied that “purity test” logic to feminism, I.e. Clinton’s feminism wasn’t “pure” enough (in your opinion) and therefore she’s corrupt.

No, you're putting some kind of bizarre spin upon my argument. I didn't say anything about "purity."

And I see people blindly attacking Clinton, the favorite whipping boy of the Right for the last 2 decades.

I can assure you that, in my case, my attacks are not blind. My eyes have been wide open for a long time. You might consider trying that yourself.

Here’s your exact words:
“I also think that Hillary's tacit acceptance of her husband's extramarital affairs may have also damaged her reputation. After all, she's been quite the feminist icon, yet she can't even stand up and challenge her own husband for his indiscretions. This appeared to be based in corruption, hypocrisy, and political opportunism - since her deference to Bill was rewarded with a seat in the Senate, a cabinet post, and a nomination as a presidential candidate.”

You are directly arguing that choosing to accept her husband’s affairs was based in corruption, hypocrisy, and political opportunism. Exactly how can choosing to stay with your husband be “based in corruption”? Perhaps we are back to those “purity tests”.

Yes, because there was a political reward in doing so. It clearly wasn't out of some noble "stand by your man" philosophy that you seem to be suggesting.

Your entire argument that Hillary is a hypocrite is based on the idea that she betrayed feminist ideals by staying with Bill.

If that's what you think my "entire argument" was, then I KNOW you're not paying attention.

Better treatment of women is a goal, sure. But the idea isn’t to trade one cage for another. You are claiming that it is hypocritical for a feminist to stay with a cheating husband. This implies that feminism requires you to leave your husband. There is no such demand, as that would limit a woman’s choices and force her to do something she may not want to do.

In other words, your argument is:
Premise 1: Feminism requires a wife to leave a cheating husband.
Premise 2: Hilary is a feminist
Premise 3: Hilary did not leave her cheating husband.
Therefore: Hilary is hypocritical / betraying her feminist ideas.

Your problem is Premise 1. There is no such requirement. As such, there is no hypocrisy.

I don't believe I ever said that feminism "requires" a wife to leave a cheating husband. Obviously, feminism doesn't "require" anything. That's beside the point.

You do realize that this scenario could just as easily apply to the majority of politicians? Most come from privileged and/or wealthy backgrounds. Many are intergenerational. Why are you singling out Hillary? Was Mitt Romney or Ted Kennedy “carried” to their positions because their daddies were in politics first? Does their own merit count for nothing simply because they didn’t do it ALL by themselves? Of course not.

I'm not really singling out Hillary, and yes, I know that most politicians likely come from privileged backgrounds. If you've noticed, I attack both parties and most politicians. Weren't you the one who called me out for "horse****" because I dared to suggest that there's no real difference between the parties? But now you're saying that I'm singling out Hillary. I'm not.

It may only seem that way to you because she is apparently someone quite special in your eyes. That's fine for you, but I don't see her in that way. I honestly don't.

How exactly is this corrupt? This is not corruption.

I didn't say that this, in and of itself, was corrupt, but it's certainly not something that's worthy of praise either. If we're talking about someone's accomplishments and qualifications, along with their ability to hold high office and lead the country.

And note how you still downplay Hilary’s own efforts. She still had to put in the work to become a lawyer. She and Bill worked together to get him where he got. She was an active First Lady.

Okay, so she became a lawyer. There are a lot of lawyers out there. She married Bill, who was an ambitious guy in his own right. I was never that much impressed with him either. I supported Jimmy Carter, I supported Mondale, I supported Dukakis, and I supported Jerry Brown in the '92 primaries - against Clinton. I saw them as phonies right from the start, and the fact that the Democratic Party's membership fell for their line was a tremendous letdown.

It’s frankly appalling that you believed the only things that really mattered, in terms of her accomplishments, were men: her father and her husband.

What do you mean "appalling"? I didn't say those were the only things that mattered, but I think it puts her accomplishments in a more balanced perspective.

I'm not saying that it means she's done nothing, but being in the role of "The Boss' Wife" certainly gave her a huge advantage in pursuing her own ambitions.

And what is wrong with any of that? Is there a problem with a woman being politically ambitious? Why do you consider “political opportunism” to be a form of corruption?

You don't think there's something wrong in presenting a sham before the American people?

And no, I don't have any problem with a woman being politically ambitious. But I also know that, in the realm of politics and our current political culture, there are certain perceptions the public might hold which might affect their voting choices. That's what this thread was originally about, regarding the differences in how voters perceive the candidates they select.

I think political opportunism can be perceived as insincere, which can be seen as corrupt, depending on how one views corruption.

Just as another example, there are a few Republicans running against each other in the various primaries coming up this Tuesday, and a lot of them weren't really Trump supporters during the 2016 campaign. But now, they're coming out with ads touting themselves as Trump's biggest supporters, while slamming their opponents for not supporting Trump enough. They didn't like Trump in 2016, but they saw the writing on the wall and decided to become ardent Trump supporters. That's political opportunism, in my view.

More Purity tests. Purity tests that inordinately fall upon women. “That woman’s marriage wasn’t pure enough in my opinion therefore something must be wrong with her”.

"Pure"? I don't know that anyone is "pure," but again, that's all beside the point. All I'm saying is that you can't deny the realities of how much of the general public actually sees things. I've noticed that you like to delineate political boundaries, putting Republicans and how they think into a certain box, while doing the same with Democrats - as if that somehow tells the whole story.

And really, this whole tack of yours, to make it seem like it's about ambitious women - that's so far off the mark. It's just about one woman, not all women.

Meanwhile, we have a thrice married, cheating man in office and conservatives don’t bat an eye.

Yeah, I know. I'm not denying that a lot of it is rooted in blind partisanship. Not that I'm a prude or anything, but I have noticed a general trend of lecherous, degenerate behavior - particularly among the upper classes. It wouldn't particularly matter to me, except when they try to pass themselves off as paragons of virtue while presuming to hold positions of power and influence in the country.

This excerpt hardly helps your cause, though it may illuminate why you’re arguing the way you are. It’s about Americans being unable to accept political ambition in women— they find it wrong.

Or maybe it's just that woman they find wrong.

What I don't understand is why so many people thought she was so great. Of course, I never could understand the adulation for Bill Clinton - or even Reagan, for that matter. During the Reagan era, one would encounter a great number of Reagan fanatics who seemed absolutely mesmerized by the guy. Some people called them "Ronnie Robots," as if they somehow lost the ability to think.

I noticed a similar phenomenon when the Clintons came on the scene, and they developed a somewhat misguided but rabid following within the Democratic Party.

That may or may not be seen as "corrupt," although it depends on various factors.

I think Americans, even conservative ones, are able to accept political ambition in women. Conservatives will likely support conservative women, while liberals will likely support liberal women. I've seen this happen here in Arizona and elsewhere. A lot of liberals attacked Sarah Palin.

The main reason I'm not that impressed with Hillary (or Bill or Barack or George or Ronnie) is because I see them as products of political machines. Why any thinking individual in this society would see them as anything beyond that is what I find truly astonishing.

These people are really nothing more than puppets and front men/women, and their whole purpose in that role is to present a certain political image. But somehow, that "image" has been tainted and shattered.

It's not necessarily about "purity," although that may be part of it. Corruption, or even the appearance of corruption, can lead to a loss of faith, upon which the political system depends for its own stability.

The other view of corruption as noted in the article was corruption of the law, which views corruption as specific crimes which would require evidence and proof in a court of law before it can be noted as such. However, just the allegations themselves can present the appearance of corruption, which has the same effect of undermining faith in the political system.

But allegations do not automatically mean someone is guilty, and I'm certainly not saying that they're all guilty of corruption. But what mystifies me is the intensely partisan cheerleading and passionate defenses for people who are essentially mediocre, uninspiring politicians who are working for the interests of the corporate elite. You've tried to present it in such black-and-white terms, with this "Democrats good, Republicans bad" stuff, but you and I obviously have very different ways of looking at politics.