How to Pimp Chelsea, Episode II (or III)

[Finch]

Chelsea's been working pretty hard for her mother's campaign.  I wonder why?  What's in it for Chelsea?

If your father/mother/significant other was running for President, wouldn't you chip in and help?

My father/mother/significant other all have the good sense not to run for Prez.  And even if they didn't, I certainly wouldn't let myself be used as a fool trolling through gay bars begging for votes.

How is this different from begging for votes on university campi, gun shows, and expensive dinners?

It's not. The only difference is the party.

[The Annoyed Man]

Chelsea's an adult; a grown woman. It appears she has real affection for her parents, so it seems natural she'd campaign for her mother.  The 'pimp' talk is just more disparaging slander that really doesn't belong in national politics.

[Scout26]

The 'pimp' talk is just more disparaging slander that really doesn't belong in national politics.

If she was out there discussing issues and policy, then yes. 

But since she's being paraded around as "Look how cute* I am, vote for my Mom.", then yes, she's being pimped by her mom's campaign.



*I don't think she's very attractive.

[The Annoyed Man]

If she was out there discussing issues and policy, then yes.

But since she's being paraded around as "Look how cute* I am, vote for my Mom.", then yes, she's being pimped by her mom's campaign.

How would you know she doesn't discuss issues and policy unless you've been following her around documenting her speeches and interviews?

[Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas]

If she was out there discussing issues and policy, then yes.

But since she's being paraded around as "Look how cute* I am, vote for my Mom.", then yes, she's being pimped by her mom's campaign.

How would you know she doesn't discuss issues and policy unless you've been following her around documenting her speeches and interviews?

Did you read the article?

Especially:

There was no policy discussion for Chelsea

[Scout26]

There was no policy discussion for Chelsea, who usually fields questions from college students at town hall meetings but does not do interviews with the press.

And from what I've seen/heard/read, the questions are pre-screened, softball questions.

[Perd Hapley]

How is this different from begging for votes on university campi, gun shows, and expensive dinners? 

Well, none of those places are gay bars. 

"But, but, but..."

Yeah, like I said, none of those places are gay bars.  Period

[Jamisjockey]

How is this different from begging for votes on university campi, gun shows, and expensive dinners? 

Well, none of those places are gay bars. 

"But, but, but..."

Yeah, like I said, none of those places are gay bars.  Period

Gimme a break!  Are you serious?  Does it matter where she's being paraded around?  I guess to you religious righters......
The real issue is that she's being paraded around like a poodle.  If they were asking her serious questions in the Gay bars, that would please me.  But she's not being asked anything more than what her wardrobe would be on inauguration day.  WTF?!?

[Perd Hapley]

I wasn't aware that it required religious conviction to know the difference between a university, a gun show, a rubber chicken dinner, and a gay bar. 

[Manedwolf]

I wasn't aware that it required religious conviction to know the difference between a university, a gun show, a rubber chicken dinner, and a gay bar. 

Wait, wait...Let's see. #1 has no guns except for maniacs, #2 has guns, #3 has prank guns with a "bang" flag, and #4 might have guns or not if Pink Pistols is there.

[Perd Hapley]

Fund-raising banquets have gag guns? 

[Jamisjockey]

I wasn't aware that it required religious conviction to know the difference between a university, a gun show, a rubber chicken dinner, and a gay bar. 

Your tone indicated you had a problem with her going into a gay bar to speak to potential voters.  Jis sayin....

[Perd Hapley]

My tone?  What tone?  I don't know what you mean by "had a problem."  Certainly in a sane world, no politician would want to be seen having anything to do with homosexual hang-outs, except perhaps closing them down.  And I'm not saying they should be closed down, either.  Jis sayin...

[Jamisjockey]

My tone?  What tone?  I don't know what you mean by "had a problem."  Certainly in a sane world, no politician would want to be seen having anything to do with homosexual hang-outs, except perhaps closing them down.  And I'm not saying they should be closed down, either.  Jis sayin...

In any world, why would a politican care about the sexual habits of consenting adults?  All politiicans should reach out to all of thier voters and constitutants to find out what thier real world issues are, rather than just meeting with lobbists in thier DC office.   Oh, but the horror, for a politician (or thier representive) to meet with those disgusting soddomites.....
Here's the two real issues as I see them.  YMMV (obviously it does):
1) Rather than do it herself, Hillary is sending her daughter into the controversial places
2) And said daughter is only fielding BS pop culture questions.  No real policy issues.

Any politician that stood for true freedom would not bat an eye at walking into a gay bar nor a church on the same day. 

[Perd Hapley]

So you think they shouldn't care about their sexual habits, yet you want them to go to the places where a tiny percentage of their constituents meet to hook up.  Hmmm. 

We're not going to get anywhere, here, Jamis.  I just get tired of the stupid.  Somebody decided that gay was OK, and now we're all supposed to fall in line, or we're terrible bigots.  Yeah, it annoys me sometimes. 

[The Annoyed Man]

Certainly in a sane world, no politician would want to be seen having anything to do with homosexual hang-outs, except perhaps closing them down.  And I'm not saying they should be closed down, either.  Jis sayin...

There's an example of right wing authoritarianism.  Done equivocatingly, but authoritarianism none the less.  How about a little 'live and let live'?

[Jamisjockey]

So you think they shouldn't care about their sexual habits, yet you want them to go to the places where a tiny percentage of their constituents meet to hook up.  Hmmm. 

We're not going to get anywhere, here, Jamis.  I just get tired of the stupid.  Somebody decided that gay was OK, and now we're all supposed to fall in line, or we're terrible bigots.  Yeah, it annoys me sometimes. 

I never said you had to go into a gay bar.

What I can't figure out is condeming her for going to the gay bar. 

[roo_ster]

So you think they shouldn't care about their sexual habits, yet you want them to go to the places where a tiny percentage of their constituents meet to hook up.  Hmmm. 

We're not going to get anywhere, here, Jamis.  I just get tired of the stupid.  Somebody decided that gay was OK, and now we're all supposed to fall in line, or we're terrible bigots.  Yeah, it annoys me sometimes. 

I never said you had to go into a gay bar.

What I can't figure out is condeming her for going to the gay bar. 

Keep figuring and you might come to the answer

[Matthew Carberry]

Well, since she's campaigning for her mom.

And homosexuals are part of her mom's base¹.

Chelsea going to gay bars to campaign just makes sense. 

Especially noting that Hillary herself can't for political reasons.  Everyone on "her side" knows this and thus wink at her sending her daughter as a proxy to give less of a handle to the "evil right-wing conspiracy".


1: Assumed base, because Dems are married to "identity politics" and are pathologically incapable of comprehending why any homosexual (black / poor person / immigrant) would actually vote for a Republican.  Which is why any who do vote their individual preferences are lambasted as traitors and "Uncle Toms" by the true believers.  They can't fathom dissent from "their" constituencies.

[Perd Hapley]

Certainly in a sane world, no politician would want to be seen having anything to do with homosexual hang-outs, except perhaps closing them down.  And I'm not saying they should be closed down, either.  Jis sayin...

There's an example of right wing authoritarianism.  Done equivocatingly, but authoritarianism none the less.  How about a little 'live and let live'?

No, it's an example of you not knowing how to read.  Or is it not knowing how to think?  As I have implied, I see no reason to prohibit gay bars, or even gay sex.  So there's nothing authoritarian going on here.  Go away. 

[Perd Hapley]

I never said you had to go into a gay bar.

What I can't figure out is condeming her for going to the gay bar. 

I didn't condemn her for going into a gay bar, nor did I think you wanted me to go to one.  Are you reading the same thread that I am? 

[taurusowner]

We're not going to get anywhere, here, Jamis.  I just get tired of the stupid.  Somebody decided that gay was OK, and now we're all supposed to fall in line, or we're terrible bigots.  Yeah, it annoys me sometimes.

AGREED.  I can't stand that somewhere along the line, it seems that it was just decided that there's only 1 acceptable opinion in relation to homosexuality, and that opinion is that it's all fine and dandy.  So much for diversity of thought and idea.  So much for freedom to believe and express your religion.  Or regardless of religion, to simply think and feel and teach your kids what you want.  The Left said gays are OK, and now we all better start thinking like them or else.

Who made the Left the deciders of what opinions people can have and what they can't?

[mtnbkr]

Who made the Left the deciders of what opinions people can have and what they can't?

Not a who, but a what.  It is their ability to turn every question and comment around into an attack on the person asking the questions or making the comments.  I heard this the other day during an on air interview.  Interviewer asked a direct question and the interviewee immediately turned it around into an attack on Republicans.

Chris

[mek42]

My tone?  What tone?  I don't know what you mean by "had a problem."  Certainly in a sane world, no politician would want to be seen having anything to do with homosexual hang-outs, except perhaps closing them down.  And I'm not saying they should be closed down, either.  Jis sayin...

Perhaps said politicians would want to be known to actually care about our founding documents.  The unalienable right for the pursuit of happiness and all that.

Neither the R's, D's, L's or C's fully respect our founding documents.

[Perd Hapley]

Huh?  I think most here would agree with that.  Still, nothing in the founding documents about gay bars all of the sudden being respectable-like places. 

(Or did you think I wanted to close gay bars? )