Chelsea goes rocketing past full retard to potato.

[Scout26]

Seriously, as Twitchy states: "What fresh Hell is this ?!?!"

I've not read the article Chelsea links to, but perhaps someone here can give us the TL;DR version.....or not.


 http://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2017/05/29/what-fresh-hell-is-this-chelsea-clinton-tweets-about-world-menstrual-hygiene-day-gagging-ensues/

[Perd Hapley]

Tangential, I know, but this "women and girls" nonsense is really tired. It's the usual Lefty language-policing. They could just say, "females," of course.

[Hawkmoon]

Seriously, as Twitchy states: "What fresh Hell is this ?!?!"

I've not read the article Chelsea links to, but perhaps someone here can give us the TL;DR version.....or not.


 http://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2017/05/29/what-fresh-hell-is-this-chelsea-clinton-tweets-about-world-menstrual-hygiene-day-gagging-ensues/

One vote for "not."

[230RN]

Two.

[DittoHead]

Can I vote for ignoring her instead of talking about her? Last month it was National Review complaining about her being "everywhere" and I didn't want it then because I had effectively avoided her - except for there. I don't follow her on twitter and I don't understand why anyone does, especially conservatives who complain about her. If the theory is "keep an eye or your enemy" I would suggest a different approach because she'll be irrelevant as soon as the vast right wing conspiracy can let go of her.

[MechAg94]

Can I vote for ignoring her instead of talking about her? Last month it was National Review complaining about her being "everywhere" and I didn't want it then because I had effectively avoided her - except for there. I don't follow her on twitter and I don't understand why anyone does, especially conservatives who complain about her. If the theory is "keep an eye or your enemy" I would suggest a different approach because she'll be irrelevant as soon as the vast right wing conspiracy can let go of her.

Only a few people might follow her, but once a bonehead tweet is retweeted a few times, it gets around pretty quick.  It doesn't mean a bunch of people are wasting any time.  I just see it on Twitchy. 

She apparently has publicists or supporters or both trying to keep her in the news.  I am okay with ignoring her, but ridicule works well for people like her who intentionally put themselves in the public eye. 

[Scout26]

Can I vote for ignoring her instead of talking about her? Last month it was National Review complaining about her being "everywhere" and I didn't want it then because I had effectively avoided her - except for there. I don't follow her on twitter and I don't understand why anyone does, especially conservatives who complain about her. If the theory is "keep an eye or your enemy" I would suggest a different approach because she'll be irrelevant as soon as the vast right wing conspiracy can let go of her.

They are pushing her as the "next big thing" to take on Hillary's mantle, and Lead The Party Forward to Greatness. ^tm  I suspect there will be a run for office in the near future, perhaps Anthony Weiner's old seat (I'd hit with some Clorox first if I were her)*, perhaps Mayor of New York, or even NY Governor, or NY Senator.   But the D's have big plans for her. 

So that's why they keep posting her inane mutterings, to keep record, so that if and when she does run, "everything you say can and will be used against you.."




*- And she'd just be another Hank Johnson or Maxine Waters, but giving both or them a run for their money on "I'm gonna say some really, really, stupid *expletive deleted*it on C-Span."

[Angel Eyes]

They are pushing her as the "next big thing" to take on Hillary's mantle, and Lead The Party Forward to Greatness. ^tm 

[DittoHead]

So that's why they keep posting her inane mutterings, to keep record, so that if and when she does run, "everything you say can and will be used against you.."

If they want to keep a file of her stupidity that's great but I still don't think it needs to be regurgitated into my safe spaces. 

[Hawkmoon]

As if we needed more proof that Chelsea is trying just a leeeetle bit too hard to be relevant ... now she wants girls to aspire to be immortal Amazonian princesses:

http://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2017/06/02/did-chelsea-clinton-just-compare-wonder-woman-to-sally-ride/

[mtnbkr]

No, I think people are trying to hard to find fault in Chelsea in this case.

Nowhere in that tweet did I see that she was claiming girls should aspire to be Amazonian princesses, nor was she comparing Sally Ride to Wonder Woman.

My takeaway is that she's supporting the thought that girls need to *see* representations of strong role models or goals to aspire to.  Simply telling them "you can be great!" isn't enough, there need to be examples to point to.  The quote from Sally Ride underscores that:

"Young girls need to see role models...so they can picture themselves doing those jobs someday. You can't be what you can't see."-Sally Ride

You people complaining about Chelsea's stupidity need to stop trying so hard.  If you feel she's invading your "safe space" (there are no safe spaces!), then maybe you should stay off Twitchy, a site that seems to have a Chelsea fetish. 

Chris

[Perd Hapley]

I agree she wasn't comparing WW to Sally Ride, but:

Nowhere in that tweet did I see that she was claiming girls should aspire to be Amazonian princesses...

"Young girls need to see role models...so they can picture themselves doing those jobs someday.

Sure, you could argue that CC meant it in a more general way, that Wonder Woman's "job" is standing up against bad guys. That doesn't make the more literal interpretation less valid.