Like if someone is going to be 'the first' at something, you want that person to be among the best and brightest of their group. I feel that in 2008, Barack was among the finest men of his background they could have voted for. In 2016, women didn't exactly have their finest representative on the ballot, far from in it fact. So it's good she lost. The first woman president should be a woman of perfect reputation. Someone who isn't shady or corrupt in any way, without any sketchy foundations backing her and foreign interests paying for her campaign.
[–]Lethn 5 points6 points7 points (1 child) | Copy Link
As expected, spammed to hell by anti-trump posters.
[–]nouniquenamesleft300 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
What? there's zero anti trump posts in this thread.
Edit, missed that it was relink from unpopular opinions
[–]ThePigmanAgain 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
Indeed. The last thing American women need is their own Julia Gillard!
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
I especially hated the part where treating Hillary like a male candidate was a sexist conspiracy. John McCain was constantly hounded over his heart. Every politician gets called corporate whore, but somehow it was slut shaming against Hillary. The constant victim narrative pushed by feminists in the media would make any female president look absolutely pathetic.
[–]iainmf 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
We are on our third female Prime Minister. This one's doing pretty well and the previous one is remembered with fondness as "Aunty Helen'.
But even so, their performance is not a reflection on all women.
[–]perplexedm[S] 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
India had few famous female Chief Ministers, one female Prime Minister. First time in India, emergency declaration and associated brutality was enforced by her, Indian political system at that time briefly thought India will slip down to dictatorship. There was so much good about that lady, but her authoritarian antics will never be forgotten by Indian politics ever.
Other CMs were more brutal, corrupt to the core to comic levels.
[–]EsraYmssik 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
I remember a comment from the 2008 primaries, to the effect that the problem was that Hillary wanted to be the first female president whereas Obama simply wanted to be the 44th president.
Comparing 2008 vs 2016, Obama/McCain seemed to a challenge to find the better of two excellent candidates but Clinton/Trump seemed to be about finding the least sucky.
[–]billybones11 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
Obama and Clinton are the same, neoliberal, neocon coporate puppets. And McCain's even worse.
[–]perplexedm[S] 0 points1 point2 points (5 children) | Copy Link
u-ImpressivePhotograph
[–]nouniquenamesleft300 4 points5 points6 points (4 children) | Copy Link
I was actually going to say imagine how a lot of black people may have felt after the "honeymoon" stage for Obama. At least one prominent celebrity, Morgan Freeman, refused to even acknowledge him as black, calling him the first mixed race president. I would think many did not get overall what they would have expected if race or the idea of "firsts" influenced their voting. While Obama's presidency didn't result in any massive disasters due to politcial events, a lot of shady shit was done in the miltary-intelligence communities. Some of which has yet to fully come out. Presidential power was expanded and some of the same reveling in it 5 or so years ago now decry it that Trump is president.
[–]perplexedm[S] 2 points3 points4 points (3 children) | Copy Link
Rightly said, the term 'deep state' comes very valid with how DNC works. Not whitewashing t_d, but at least his antics knowing or unknowingly exposed lot of such involvement to common man and the world should be thankful for that.
Also ironic to see when t_d wanted soldiers to come back and avoid unnecessary lose of life on wars when HRC would've sent more to fight all over the world.
[–]nouniquenamesleft300 2 points3 points4 points (2 children) | Copy Link
It does baffle me that the same pundits saying or implying that most of our miltary deployments were unnecessary or at the behest of others who could do it themselves, suddenly think we should be deployed everywhere. The implicit approval jump from the media for the token missile strike on Syria was insane. The exact same people shrugged at the argument of deposing hussein for being a dictator alone.
[–]perplexedm[S] 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
The biggest injustice done in Obama's time was war against Libya. There was no reason for that, the country was going fine, after war lot of information about brutality done was hidden. Even BBC exposed brutal violence which was done there, that single case should've been considered as war crime against USA leaders, sorry to say that. Entire region suffered uselessly, Syria is lost case without any reason now.
[–]nouniquenamesleft300 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
Obama is responsible for the most deaths under a u.s. President since the last actual declared u.s. war, Vietnam. Not of just Americans I mean; his goto move seemed to be drone striking and bombing civilians when Bush era roe prevented shooting known combatants fleeing into mosques known to be empty of civilians. Syria isn't and never was u.s. business, their allegiance with Russia automatically precludes us from having a say as wwiii over sand would be the most stupid thing possible. Obama indirectly funneled weapons to isis by arming "moderate" rebels, as if any rebel is moderate. The various factions of the Syrian civil war only really agree on not wanting us there, just our funding and munitions.
Make no mistake though, plenty of neoconservatives supported those positions too as it was not their criticisms of Obama until it was useful politically.
[–]CrookedHillaryShill -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
shit reasoning.. From a purely outsider perspective, trump makes us look far far worse.