Essay talk:Hillary's inner Goldwater-girl

The Political Science major at the top of her class knew it was the GOP that provided the votes for passage of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964

And the liberal Dems who made it happen in the first place! <_< Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 21:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Look at the CNN transcript from their show produced just this year, "The Republicans were the party of civil rights" in 1960, even 30 years after the New Deal. Bobby Kennedy supported racists against blacks. Amazing, even if it took CNN and the liberal media 50 years to report the truth. nobs^{Bern baby bern} 21:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm stunned. Yes, conservatives still push this. It's as if people don't understand that until after the Bill, the Dems were "northern liberals plus southern racists", and the Reps stole the southern racist vote. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 00:38, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

To follow that line would be to allege (a) one third of all Democrats are racist, i.e. that one third who voted for Nixon in 1972; (b) those same Democrat racists returned to the Demicratic party to elect Carter in 1976; (c) those same racist Democrats converted from Christisnity to the Christian Right for some other reason than race, presumably abortion, to elect Reagan and Papa Bush in 1980, 84, and 88; (d) those racist Democrats and their voting age children elected a whoremonger in 1992 and 96; (e) those same racist Democrats got religion again and repented of allowing a whoremonger to corrupt their children and elected Baby Bush in 2000 and 04; (f) by 2008 the world had become so confused and secularized, the racist whoremongers and Christians voted for the first muslim and his transgender partner and their adopted children which also happened to make up the first black first family. Yep. It all makes perfect sense. nobs^{Bern baby bern} 09:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

A third of 1960s democrats were racist. That is where that points. We know. It's not absurd to conclude that. It's in fact quite reasonable to conclude that. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 16:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Let's fast forward to today. The common belief is that "liberal" means "anti-racist". Recently I've been in a series of discussions with a neighbor, a traditional Texas Democrat, vehmently anti-Trump, rabidly anti-Bush, hates Reagan, blindly in love with Hillary Clinton, and a sickenly and appalling hardcore racist. Me and him watched the whole 3 hour PBS Nixon show together the other night. Now, how can an alleged liberal Democrat be a racist? Simple. He's among the 47% Romney says pay no taxes, and lives in fear the Republicans want to cut his Veterans disability check. nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 17:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Nah, I don't think that extreme misrepresentation of the position either. The extent of my position on the matter is this: republic policies are more overtly racist in both their assumptions and effect, being liberal is not some inoculation against being a racist. I tend to find arguments to the contrary mendacious at best. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 17:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Then the racist vote is pretty evenly divided between taxpayers who support welfare queens and white racists sucking the government tit for handouts. nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 19:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

And maybe the fact that most welfare recipients are white should give you some kind of hint that maybe welfare isn't a racial thing. But nobs gonna nob. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 20:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Back to the 1964 Civil Rights Act : It was Hillary's Senator from Illinois Everett Dirksen who was the driving force and made it possible, whereas Bill's mentor who got him the Rhodes Scholarship just 5 years later, Sen. Fulbright of Arkansas, was an ardent segregationist and was opposed. The two political geniuses certainly knew and understood these facts when they met in 1971.

Yet in 1992 when Hillary sought to disassociate and distance herself from Goldwater and Nixon, and the Republican party, they played the race card - this is why many Republican's of her generation have difficulty, and will continue having difficulty, forgiving her. She built a successful career on lies, slander, and betrayal. It is totally up to her to mend fences and come clean if she wants continuing Republican support in a successful first term and reelection bid.nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 16:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Ready?

There's a whole lot more that can and should be added, and the whole subject can take.many many different directions. But does anybody think its ready enough for mainspace? Comments?nobs^{Bern baby bern} 03:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

If I didn't know better, I'd say this was plagiarized from Lyndon LaRouche. Plutoniumboss (talk) 03:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

oh shit. Gimme a link and I'll clean it up. nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 16:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

How long have you been working on this?

D1@m0ndD15c1 (talk) 21:42, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

It germinated with the open letter to Trump from GOP national security experts and I began writing after seeing the reaction to Trump's statement on the Baltics and NATO. The issue is to grave to ignore so I felt some context was needed. nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 21:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah.-D1@m0ndD15c1 (talk) 22:09, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Just to demonstrate how open and all inclusive the GOP is, Niall Fergusen - who signed the petition and I greatly admire, isn't even a US citizen. But that didn't stop xenophobic attacks on his person and character from Democrats and Obama supporters.nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 16:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I think you mean Niall Ferguson, who isn't exactly popular here (despite his love for uncle Henry Kissinger). I appreciate that I do have trouble with some of the layers of irony going on here. Annquin (talk) 16:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Interesting so far.-D1@m0ndD15c1 (talk) 22:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

These may be helpful

--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:25, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think I even used some this when I was working on the Hillary hit piece for Andy Schlafly.

^{— Unsigned, by: RobSmith / talk / contribs}

This is another really good video on Hillary's stance on racially issuses. (Skip to 0:32) --Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:36, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

For the first time in a very longtime, we're actually seeing cracks in the solid ediface of black voters. On election day, many I suspect will be as demoralized to vote for Hillary as Republicans are for Trump. Some of my black friends say Hillary will be Obama's third term; I say fat chance. Trump's more likely to be Obama's third term with his inexperience and amatuerishness. And by this time next year, whoever's in charge of the administration, some of the federal subsidies to Obamacare will be trimmed back.nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 06:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment. I just hope that the leftists in media will stop shilling for the neoliberals in power.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Ii missed this, the Washington Times had a three part series on Hillary's Libya fiasco based on released tapes.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 07:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

The Washington Times? Really? I am not the Ombud's man 15:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

"On occasion, they do some bang-up investigative journalism and muckraking" Yes, really.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

As you like it I am not the Ombud's man 17:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I weep for the wiki. Far from embracing rationalism, this site is catnip for cranks from opposite sides of the spectrum (no offense, Owlman) who will believe any source which backs up their preconceptions. Plutoniumboss (talk) 16:21, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Girls and boys

Would RW have an article 'Trump's inner ... boy' (or indeed any male's inner boy)? (And what term would be used for 'other categories including 'not specified'?) If not, and not being mickey-taking, then is it RW-appropriate. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 14:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Not certain; I'm probably not the one to ask as I don't really follow Trump, don't really know anything about Trump's life and career beyond what's readily available, have no interest in learning or knowing more, see him as a rather destructive figure who rose quickly and likely fade in short order. I'm more interested in the wreckage he'll leave behind.nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 15:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Terminology '-girl' being the issue.

'And, oh beloved, this is how 'X of obscure party Y became President of the Us of A, as #everybody# decided to register a protest vote.' 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

There might well be a "Trump's inner manchild": another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 21:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

ooohh, ok. In Trump's case it would be Trump's inner Norman Vincent Peale. Trump attended his church and sermon's regularly. Peale authored, The Power of Positive Thinking which sold 5 million copies and topped the NYT Bestsellers fir 3 1/2 years. But you're probably too late, WP already has Peale trashed in its two sentence intro to his bio.nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 22:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The comment was more 'be careful about usage' - anyone care (whether or not going via [1]) to describe inner-outer person (mis)alignment (cis, trans, furry, plant...)? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

"Goldwater Girl" was a commonly used phrase for a particular group of Goldwater supporters[2]; it reflects the sexism of the 1960s which thought attractive (and generally mute) young women were a good way of winning votes, as much as the sexism of today where the word "girl" is still used to trivialise and infantilise women. If Trump was a keen member of the Boy Scouts or Woodland Folk or Hitler Youth, I'm sure that would be used, but "boy" has different connotations than "girl" because boys are expected to behave differently to girls. Annquin (talk) 16:44, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

'Before my time'/not BritEnglish (so probably some explanation needed). Is Trumpism compatible with Scouting or Woodlanders (does [3] refer to the same group?) 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:22, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Duh, I thnk the whole premise is based on Hillary s words, "I 'm very proud I was Goldwater-girl". Now, if we intend to change it without changing the idea it expresses, do we quote Hillary as saying, "I'm very proud I was a segregationist", or "I'm very proud I was a warmonger"?

I suggest the second answer, which makes more sense. 1996 when she said it, she was very proud to have avoided US involvement in Vietnam when she advocated nuking Vietnam. This would explain her anti-Nixon stance in the Watergate impeachment hearings in 1974. Nixon didn't nuke'em and prolonged the war costing more American lives. Like Johnson, the "peace candidate" before him, Nixon expanded the war into Cambodia. There's an internal consistancy to her thinking here that evades most supporters snd critics. nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 18:41, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Bob Gates remains undecided this late

"Mrs. Clinton has time before the election to address forthrightly her trustworthiness, to reassure people about her judgment, to demonstrate her willingness to stake out one or more positions on national security at odds with her party’s conventional wisdom, and to speak beyond generalities about how she would deal with China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, the Middle East—and international trade. Whether and how she addresses these issues will, I believe, affect how many people vote—including me."[4]

Amen. A prediction: failure of Hillary to address these reservations will result in Gates and others adopting the default position of Donald Rumsfeld. [5]nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 20:03, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

An alternative hypothesis

I have to agree with much of your essay- Hillary has held many conservative positions over the years, and has tended to ignore them entirely during this election (given she needs left-wing youth voters to win, this is unsurprising). But I would not go so far as to label her a dedicated conservative, even in her teenage years. Her mixed views have a lot to do with her upbringing and her mentors- her traditionally conservative father, Hugh E. Rodham, her more liberal mother, Dorothy E. Howell, an anti-communist high school history teacher, and her liberal Methodist youth pastor. It's pretty clear that her role models' positions clashed, and her own positions were never entirely consistent with the Republican Party. She also took a very cautious and intellectual approach towards politics- first getting involved after seeing concerns over electoral fraud in Chicago, then supporting Goldwater for his anti-communist stance while simultaneously being pro-civil rights, and then increasingly ignoring her father and former teachers in college at Wellesley and drifting into Eugene McCarthy's camp, even as she continued as a member of the College Republicans and endorsed Republicans for many other offices. Overall, until the seventies she seemed to be less concerned about her party affiliation than getting people involved in the political process. This New York Times article takes a deeper look into her gradual liberalization.

I would also like to point out that you repeated the Perot spoiler myth in 1992- exit polls showed that most of his voters would have stayed home and the rest were too evenly split to overcome Clinton's 6-point margin of 43%. Kodak (talk) 00:03, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Well thanks for the comments, much appreciated. Her recent comments about occupying the center left to center right are on the mark. But most in the center left to center right adamantly oppose corruption, so what's the net gain there? If you click on the link to video when she returned to her high school to reveal she was a Goldwater girl, turn the volume up and listen closely. When she says, "I was a Goldwater girl", you can hear a camera man or somebody on the film crew mumble, "Oh oh". She, like Trump, went off script, and hasn't lived it down since.nobs 00:28, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Less readable than gamergate

I have to admit I was wrong. I honestly thought the site would never have a less readable article than Gamergate. I was wrong, you have managed the impossible.--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 17:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's all in one place. Much can be split off for background material when the new commander-in-chief assumes the helm at the start of World War III. nobs 19:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)