A high-tech witch burning.

[calimary]

Last edited Thu Jul 14, 2016, 08:36 PM - Edit history (2)

That's what I'm calling it now. That's how I see it.

First, Hillary Clinton. Then Elizabeth Warren. Now, Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Add in our darling miss Susan Sarandon and her insulting demeaning derisive comments about how we're merely "voting with our vaginas." Hell, even a former Pox Noise anchorette Gretchen Carlson is thrown under the bus for speaking out about being sexually harassed by network CEO roger ailes. Who - or WHAT - is next, I wonder?

To riff off the pathetic clarence thomas and his stated "high-tech lynching", I think what we're seeing now is a high-tech witch-burning.

It is shocking and dismaying to me that prominent, accomplished, and powerful women who've managed somehow to reach the highest heights ordinarily presumed to be Men-Only clubs. The resentment is palpable! Hell, it's practically being smashed into our faces.

Thoughts?

[Hekate]

1. We live in amazing times. KnR

[brush]

2. Agreed! And it's ugly. Hope women voters are paying attention.

[Hortensis]

34. Yes.

[hamsterjill]

3. Well, I'd have to agree.

What always really astounds me, however, is the number of women on this planet who think this is okay. Boys will be boys, etc., etc., etc.

Women, as a whole, cannot enjoy equality when they themselves do not feel that they deserve it.

As a woman myself, I have no problem enjoying it and feeling deserving of it. Anything otherwise simply blows my mind.

[calimary]

4. I'm going to start spreading it around.

That's how I'll be referring to it as frequently as I can. Because that's what it IS. And I think that's how it should be viewed. Might make a few people think.

I swear, it feels like open season on women. As a woman, I feel almost as though I'm under siege.

[niyad]

43. "almost"? you are, no question about it.

[Demsrule86]

5. Very true

I don't know why I am surprised at Sarandon...she is a rich woman who can afford to lose and will be just fine. I think she really believes that should Trump win...the so-called revolution would happen...does she completely forget 2000?

[Hortensis]

35. Sarandon is a left-wing radical. People with

extremist traits react to information differently from mainstream liberals. It's not lack of education or irresponsible privilege. Her thinking is far more similar to that of tea party types on the far right, and it's not something she can or would want to help. She knows she's right and that what she believes to be true is.

[Demsrule86]

41. Sounds kind of arrogant

And the only reason she can think this way is no matter who is elected her life will not change much.

[Hortensis]

62. Yes, but if that's THE reason, how come she would

fit perfectly in GD-P during the primary and that whiny site where many are now, where complaints of personal economic problems were and are common?

Anyway, the MSM targeting Hillary for takedown need their heads handed to them, and that can be done by boycotting the TV networks and publications involved.

[Demsrule86]

63. I agree with that.

Trump is the devil and can not win the presidency...the networks want rating in my opinion. They need a competitive election.

[Hortensis]

64. Yes. The media "need," blast them.

Also the media want. There are all kinds of personal interests advanced by their appallingly unethical behaviors.

[sheshe2]

6. I don't know who will be next...

I do know it will escalate as the race continues, calimary.

[calimary]

7. True. But there WILL be another.

And another.

And another after that.

And when they can't find a new one, they always have their default position. They can, and will, always fall back on Hillary.

I find myself hoping President Obama pardons her as his final act before he leaves office. Clear away any residue so they can't start in on her again after she's inaugurated. Head 'em off at the pass, as it were. If ANYBODY knows what it's like to face nonstop obstruction and persecution on the job, it's President Obama. He might just decide to stick a big sharp pin in their balloon on the way out. It'd be a GREAT way to leave them with a big fat "fuck you!"

I would LOVE LOVE LOVE to see that! I'd love to see him take one last opportunity to make their heads explode!

[Moonwalk]

13. Wouldn't a pardon say that Obama believed she was guilty of something?

If she hasn't been brought up on charges, hasn't been arrested, sent to trail and convicted...how can he pardon her?

[KingCharlemagne]

21. The same way Ford pardoned Nixon. - nt

[bonemachine]

32. I'm not sure that

that sounds like a great precedent to be following....

[calimary]

54. Yeah, point taken.

And yeah, we'd never hear the end of it. Hillary would never hear the end of it.

And whatever anyone did to try to stop it, her enemies are legion and they wouldn't let anything stop them. They'd figure out a way around it anyway, and just find a new way to persecute and torment her.

Because... whateverthefuck.

Because... just for the sheer joy of being complete assholes, I guess.

[SheilaT]

17. I'm pretty sure the President can't pardon someone who hasn't been at least indicted

for some crime. Or is extremely likely to be indicted, probably to go to trial.

Since the FBI, while highly critical of Hillary's email server and how it was used, is not further pursuing this and the Justice Department has likewise decided that it's completely over, no pardon is necessary. Period. It's more or less a not guilty verdict, just not within the context of a trial.

AND, has already been pointed out, it would actually make her look (to quote an old Doonesbury strip) guilty! guilty! guilty!

As it stands, she's not officially guilty of anything, no matter what dissenters may believe or claim.

And for Obama to issue some sort of blanket pardon for anything that might come up in the future, well that would set a genuinely terrible precedent. People, up to and including the President of the United States, needs to know that he or she can be held accountable for wrong-doing.

What's vastly more important is that we collectively put Democrats back in full power by tossing Republicans out of office and electing good Democrats everywhere.

[KingCharlemagne]

22. N.B. Ford pardoned Nixon. - nt

[bonemachine]

31. Is that really a precedent

that we want to lean on?

[SheilaT]

33. I know. And it is probably the main reason

Last edited Thu Jul 14, 2016, 08:09 PM - Edit history (1)

he wasn't re-elected in 1976. (Changing the year in response to King Charlamagne's noting I got the year Ford ran for re-election wrong)

Most of the country sincerely though Nixon needed to be brought to justice. I thought he should have died in jail, but clearly I wasn't consulted. I didn't agree then and I don't agree now with the rationale for the pardon, that it was time for the country to move on. Similarly, the idea that we had to move on after Obama was elected and not indict Bush or any of those around him for the truly criminal things they did, does not cut it for me.

While I think that the email server thing was at best a silly mistake, and might well have been criminal, the FBI and the Justice Department have spoken, and it's quite over, regardless of what dumb investigations the Republicans want to hold at this point.

If something else she's done pops up that turns out to be criminal, then yeah, maybe Obama will need to issue a pardon. But if that happens her candidacy (or if something comes to light after she wins the election her Presidency) will be grievously wounded. If it happens early, I'd say all bets are off on the election. If after November, who knows?

But a preemptive pardon? That would look as if Obama clearly knows of criminal wrong-doing on her part. Which would be very bad on many levels.

The best thing all around is to say the FBI and the Justice Department have said there's not quite enough there to indict and we all just live with that.

[KingCharlemagne]

36. Technical Note: I think you mean 1976 (when Jimmy Carter defeated Ford). I agree there is

no reason why Obama should pardon her; she has done nothing that requires a pardon. Nixon, on the other hand, had pretty clearly obstructed justice (among other high crimes and misdemeanors).

[SheilaT]

37. Thanks for the correction.

I will change the original with an explanation.

[Moonwalk]

39. If she had been indicted and brought to trail, that probably would have been....

...the end of her as a presidential candidate, pardon or not. I'm in agreement with you that something really big and awful would have to be revealed now or after to put an end to her presidency, and no pardon would save it. I'm also in agreement that any pardon issued by Obama beforehand would imply he knows she did something very wrong rather than he thinks/knows her innocent. If such a revelation happened AFTER the election, then her choice of vice president would be the president. That's the way it works (and why Ford was able to pardon Nixon).

RE: saying that the emails "might well be criminal." The justice department is well aware that the burden of proof would be on them, and clearly, they didn't think they could meet it. If they couldn't meet it...nothing criminal was done. So I think we can—and should!--say, "was not criminal, period." Especially given how large the number of emails, and how very, very tiny the number of emails that were questionable—all of which were investigated, and found "sloppy" but not illegal. The other side will doubt and there's no changing that. But our side should at least keep in mind "Innocent until proven guilty." After all those panels, all those investigations...no one has yet proven her guilty. So. Innocent.

[synergie]

8. There seems to a whole lot of people who are just terrified of strong, accomplished

women who refuse to sit back and be silent and abused.

[calimary]

10. Indeed. Because, hey, we women are supposed to know our "proper place."

Mouths closed, but legs wide open.

[840high]

25. Yet we make fun of Sarandon all

because she has an opinion we don't like.

[calimary]

27. She happens to have advocated things we don't like, either.

Things that were reckless, delusional, ill-advised, and bound to fail and hurt America, MASSIVELY. Like pushing ralph nader when the backwash meant bush/cheney.

This isn't the first time she's acted like an ass. And stood for all the wrong things. And helped bring about all the wrong things!

[840high]

44. Maybe so. It's her right.

[JTFrog]

46. And it's our right to call her privileged ass out.

[calimary]

47. Beat me to it.

Yes, it's her right. But we have a right to correct the record, and point out when nonsense is just nonsense.

[synergie]

49. It is not her opinion that is the issue, she, like Palin and Bachmann are out there saying

offensive things, it is the content of what they are saying that us the issue. With the women mentioned, the content is factual and it is correct, the attacks on them are due to the fact that they cannot argue the point. Most of what Palin and Bachmann say are pure word salad and all the silly RW talking points Sarandon was using and the silly things she was saying about people voting with their genitalia that put her right up there with with those two.

We make fun of these women because they say ridiculous things which are not based in fact or reality.

[brer cat]

26. Correct response, imo.

[synergie]

50. Can't argue with that :)

[KMOD]

55. Yep!

[DemonGoddess]

9. I think they'll make the rounds of all high

profile liberal women in power. Then they'll start all over again with Hillary. It's so blatantly obvious what's happening. Sickening.

[kairos12]

11. The glass ceiling is a flaming wall.

[NoMoreRepugs]

12. media holds Democrats to a much higher standard than Repukes...

Democratic or left-leaning women maybe even moreso....

the fake outrage is sickening

[George Eliot]

14. Shift of power brings confrontation for minorities, women, & poor. Martha Stewart?

Poor/middle class were Bernie's attempt to shift power. I'm all for shifting power and can withstand the consequences.

Curious though: Martha Stewart was not jailed for insider trading but for lying about it. Many males did it but a woman was indicted and jailed. I hope that generated equal disgust. Nothing new here.

[ananda]

15. I'm not worried about any of them.

Women belong at the center of seats of power.

[Orsino]

16. Well, we have been voting with our penises for centuries.

If women want to do a little gender-based voting themselves, I not only will not criticize--I will applaud.

[Tobin S.]

19. Me, too.

The best interests of about 90% of women in this country are with Hillary to begin with. If all of them voted in their best interests, it would obliterate the Republican Party. It just so happens that the best interests of 90% of men are also represented by Hillary. It would probably be much harder to convince them of that, though.

- Proud member of the White Guys for Hillary Club.

[KMOD]

56. yay!

[NastyRiffraff]

18. It's sad because a lot of this comes from the liberal side

i'd expect it from conservatives, who largely hate change because they are frightened of it. That goes double for a deep-seated belief that women are supposed to be subservient; after all, the Bible says so!

It seems that some (certainly not all) liberals have bought into the idea that woman can be demonized with impunity. These same people will rightly defend the equality of African Americans, LGBT, Latinos, etc. But women are fair game to them.

[KMOD]

58. It's so conditioned into our society.

But yeah, it's incredibly sad to see it happening on our own side.

[cosmicone]

20. The subconscious misogyny is astronomical

and this election has brought it to the surface.

[calimary]

29. I'm certain of that, cosmicone.

We've already seen the same dynamic play out because a resounding and unspinnable majority of us dared to vote a Black man into the Oval Office - and horror of horrors, he WASN'T the janitor!!! He didn't know his "proper place", either. And look what happened. Look at the Secret Service's reporting that threats against his life went up by something like 400 percent. And right away, too.

I've said this before - how thrilled I was, that wonderful night. Election Night 2008. I thought this was absolute concrete proof that America had grown up. That we'd left that curse of racism behind, we'd gotten over it, we'd gotten beyond it, we'd turned a page. That was officially filed in the round file of history. Yeah, MAN-oh-MAN was I wrong. All it wound up doing was to rip a scab off the wound and let it ooze and fester in the open again. People have been acting out in the most shameful, disgraceful, and detestable ways ever since President Obama's inauguration. The fucking teabagger movement was spawned like an outbreak of a highly virulent disease. We embarrassed ourselves, as a nation, in front of the whole world, what with the poutrage and the poor sportsmanship and the spoiled-brat tantrum-throwing we've seen from sea to shining sea, ever since.

So yeah, I expect far more toxicity to raise its ugly head. Growing pains, I guess. But GOD, they're miserable! Painful as all-get-out. As a nation, we really should collectively be deeply ashamed of ourselves.

[lillypaddle]

23. Excellent points

I am just furious.

[ismnotwasm]

24. I agree completely

[tallahasseedem]

28. You're exactly right...

That's why there needs to be complete UNITY among us all.

[L. Coyote]

30. Agreed.

Except the grammar, witch burning does not need a hyphen.

[calimary]

40. Got it. "Witch-hunt" can be hyphenated, I see. But you're right. Witch burning.

Fixed.

[NCTraveler]

38. White male rule is gradually losing power and some are really fearful of it.

[niyad]

42. k and r +gazillion. and yet, when the sexism and misogyny that is all over these attacks

is pointed out, the denial is instantaneous and vehement.

[L. Coyote]

45. K & R

We are also seeing coup d'etats by media, like Brazil. The neoliberal media agenda has no journalistic ethics, truth is an inconvenience easily scripted over or around.

[Arazi]

48. Yes, even Jill Stein is facing ugly sexist bullshit

She's no threat but suddenly she's the latest idiot. A female Harvard MD

[synergie]

51. To be fair, she us also dishing it out, and did you think that every Harvard student was

was automatically correct? If the content of your uttering a are ridiculous, as many of Dr. Stein's have been this cycle, your alma mater cannot save you from being called out accurately.

Recall that Ted Cruz is also a Harvard alum, but who says truly moronic things often. Also Harvard Medical School offered no political science as part of its basic science or clinical curriculum, nor did Dr. Stein complete rotations, internships, residencies or fellowships in the field, so her MD does not qualify her on much of the things she us saying, which is probably why she cannot seem to speak well when she tries on topics she has not educated herself on.

She is not even at the webMD level of competency, when the woman she attacks personally and ridiculously on her mothering skills, holds qualifications and a CV that includes actually clinical field experience. She is not being calked out due to get position or education, but the ignorance of her statements and the poor politics in her tactics. She is doing what the misogynists are doing and hiding behind her gender. Like the RW warriors who to get same, it backfires on her. We expect better behavior from an educated woman proclaiming herself to be a progressive. Slinging ad hominem attacks that are gendered and uneducated is not terribly progressive.

[pnwmom]

53. Actually, it could be sexist to consider her "no threat." She's doing her best

to draw progressive votes away from Hillary and to herself. And she's as much of a threat as any other Green.

Ralph Nader, for example, who helped swing Florida, and the whole country, in 2000.

[calimary]

57. I actually gave her a try a couple of days ago.

Followed a trail of breadcrumbs to a video clip of her being interviewed by Maria Bartiromo and company. It was about a 14-or-so minute clip. I tried. I really tried. I gave up about eight minutes in. Had to. My eyes were crossing. I started feeling dizzy listening to her. Felt like I needed to go find some Dramamine. All this crazy convoluted babbling about how all we have to do is cancel the national debt and we'll have the economic bonanza of our dreams! HUH????? Seriously??? Yeah, that'll work...

And this was from a Harvard MD?

I haven't heard that level of utterly nonsensical word salad since the last time I had the misfortune of suffering through another round of random yapping from our friend sarah palin (who, I'm starting to think, just might possibly be from Mars).

[synergie]

65. Econ is not a required part of the pre med curriculum, nor is it taught in med school.

An MD from Harvard does not confer any education on things non medical, and any physician will tell you, it is the internship and residency AFTER med school that teaches you actual medicine, but still not much about the healthcare system.

I think I was far more of a expert in my sophomore year in high school than she is now, and that is simply because our debate topic that year was Health Insurance. We ran a Canada plan and kicked some butt, despite creaming other people trying to run single payer plans that were not well thought out.

[KMOD]

59. No, she's facing criticism because of what she says.

She's the green version of the right wingers Dr. Carson.

[Silver_Witch]

52. You forgot the special place in hell

For woman who don't support other woman. When woman throw other women under the bus it is hard for this woman to believe things will ever change.

Or the latest thread post today that two woman running together will be bad and the woman support that post.

When you defend ALL woman I might believe that it is not just concern trolling.

[KMOD]

60. Did you speak up?

[synergie]

66. Out of curiosity, do you support ALL women, including Sara Palin, and that crazy Fox lady who

claimed that women in the miLitary were asking to be raped by enlisting in the military and working around men?

Because if you insist that ALL women must be defended, regardless of the actual things they were saying, you might gave some serious credibility issues.

When you insist that ALL women must be defended, but fail to do so when the attacks are themselves bogus like those unleashed on Secretaries Albright and Clinton, it is a bit disingenuous to pretend you are not concern trolling.

*you is used in a general sense not a 2nd person singular one.

[Cha]

61. Thank you for highlighting this so well, calimary.. they're scared

and desperate.. lashing out like cornered rats.