No, you're putting some kind of bizarre spin upon my argument. I didn't say anything about "purity."
It’s in the article— or didn’t you read it?
You are clearly making purity arguments. Hilary’s feminism isn’t pure enough. Her marriage isn’t pure enough. Her accomplishments aren’t pure enough.
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.
How do you know it’s not? Personally, I don’t see why her motives matter. More purity requirements from you.
If Her decision to stand by Bill was in part motivated by political ambitions, so what? That is not corruption.
If that's what you think my "entire argument" was, then I KNOW you're not paying attention.
Hillary staying with Bill and betraying her feminism ideas is the only argument you’ve offered to indicate hypocrisy. If you’ve got another feel free to add.
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.
What’s your point then? Is it hypocritical for a feminist to stay with her cheating husband or not?
If you think it’s hypocritical, as you clearly do, then that means her actions do not align with feminist requirements. What feminist requirement has she broken?
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.
I don’t see you talking about how it’s corrupt for all these male politicians to have political ambitions or to take advantage of their personal connections.
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.
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.
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.
You presented these things as evidence for her corruption.
Again, I quote you:
“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.”
Last I checked, “She had help getting where she got” doesn’t equate to “corruptions”. So what did you mean when you linked her corruption to her ”deference” to Bill?
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.
You seemed to be presenting your own views and now seem to be retreating under the guise of “some people think...”
Do you consider your insincerity to be corruption too?
Such a loaded question, right? I do not believe Clinton was a “sham”. I do not believe she was particularly insincere. Your beliefs do not prove either— I find the former to be simple prejudice and the latter to be an unfounded supposition on your part.
Political opportunism is not corrupt in and of itself. Is kissing babies corrupt? That’s simply not what the word means.
"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.
You claimed that people disliked Clinton because they viewed her marriage as a sham. If this isn’t a double standard for women I don’t know what is. Men are not held to such a purity standard in regards to marriage.
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.
Has Clinton passed herself off as a “paragon of virtue”? Not that I know of.
Or maybe it's just that woman they find wrong.
I guess it’s just a coincidence that the one woman they hate is one who is bucking their social norms.
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.
It’s funny— I see you as the black and white person here.
I really don’t think you’ve presented a case as to why you find Hillary corrupt.
The arguments you made is:
1) hypocrisy for betraying feminism ideas by remaining with Bill.
2) not being personally responsible for every aspect of her accomplishments.
3) Being politically ambitious and making a calculated move to stay with Bill.
4) having a sham marriage.
None of those things indicate corruption. (1) is a complete misreading of feminism. (2) is true of basically everyone. (3) is not corrupt and (4) is misogynistic swill.
