The Laugh is Back! Hillary Clinton cackles like a psychopath during CNN interview


MadeTheSwitch

macrumors 6502a
Apr 20, 2009
827
15,192

FieldingMellish

Suspended
Jun 20, 2010
2,440
3,079
So inappropriate. Not only the hideous cackle, but the buggy, glassy eyes during the bob and weave of that inflated head as she was scoping for the precise point within which to let loose that cackle. Like the practiced defensive weapon it is. Berserk is an adequate word.

Someone needs to make a creative clip pairing that countenance while facing various world leaders. One in which we see Putin's eyes glancing about to ascertain where the exit doors are.

But for now, there's this.

 
Last edited:

maxsix

Suspended
Jun 28, 2015
3,102
3,683
Western Hemisphere
Hillary is bringing out her hideous, lunatic laugh again. What a lunatic!

http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-cnn-interview-bernie-jeff-weaver-2016-4
Hillary is paying the price for decades of living a thugs life, concealed as an ordinary looking white woman.

Bubba looks positively harmless compared to his wicked career criminal spouse.

Yet make no mistake, they're both exemplary examples of the huge financial rewards available to professional political operatives named Clinton.
 

MadeTheSwitch

macrumors 6502a
Apr 20, 2009
827
15,192
So inappropriate. Not only the hideous cackle, but the buggy, glassy eyes during the bob and weave of that inflated head as she was scoping for the precise point within which to let loose that cackle. Like the practiced defensive weapon it is. Berserk is an adequate word.

Someone needs to make a creative clip pairing that countenance while facing various world leaders. One in which we see Putin's eyes glancing about to ascertain where the exit doors are.

But for now, there's this.

Given your comments on transgendered people over the religious freedom laws, I'd say you have said some pretty inappropriate things yourself! Oh the irony.
 

Scepticalscribe

macrumors Sandy Bridge
Jul 29, 2008
45,443
30,703
The Far Horizon
You know, over the years, the vast number of and wide range of things that people (usually male people) find to criticise about a woman in the public space astound me. These complaints invariably take the form of finding fault with the physical appearance, in essence, with the very sight and sound of the woman, rather than what she says, does and stands for.

Historically, many men have had huge difficulty with any woman expressing herself in public, and, in some countries they have still huge difficulty with women even being visible - or having any sort of independent agency - in public.

In public, women were expected to be demure, docile, and above all, silent. Ladylike meant restraint, never being uninhibited, especially in public. Best of all, invisible, and unheard. Women's voices have long been criticised, (the adjectives are almost invariably critical) and now, a woman's laugh is a source of faux concern.

Personally, I always found G W Bush's smirk a source of great unease.

Find fault with Ms Clinton's policies and politics: Then, I would merely disagree with you, but would not only agree with, but defend, your right to argue along those lines.

However, criticising her laugh is on a par with many of the other criticisms: They are the product of a really rancid sexism, pure misogyny, as they are aimed at her person, not what she stands for.
 
Last edited:

jgelin

macrumors 6502a
Jul 30, 2015
898
1,045
St Petersburg, FL
These complaints invariably take the form of finding fault with the physical appearance, sight and sound of the woman, rather than what she says, does and stands for.
I find fault with both her politics and the way that she carries herself and acts towards her very own voters, donors, and volunteers.
If this were a discussion about her merits and a politician and world leader then certainly those positions would have been asserted and said, but rather this is simply one of the many things that I am not particularly fond of her for.
What next, we can't say her nervous cough fits are 'nervous' because that's 'sexist' get real.
Her laugh, cough and words are part of her rhetoric, if you cannot handle her rhetoric being questioned or remarked upon then maybe reading commentary on Clinton isn't for you. She's a politician first, who so happens to be a woman, and when anything directed at her is just blatantly categorized into misogyny I take issue with that gross mischaracterization.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost

hulugu

macrumors 68000
Aug 13, 2003
1,819
10,214
quae tangit perit Trump
You know, over the years, the vast number of and wide range of things that people (usually male people) find to criticise about a woman in the public space astound me. These complaints invariably take the form of finding fault with the physical appearance, sight and sound of the woman, rather than what she says, does and stands for.

Historically, many men have had huge difficulty with any woman expressing herself in public, and, in some countries they have still huge difficulty with women being seen in public.

In public, women were expected to be demure, docile, and above all, silent. Ladylike meant restraint, never being uninhibited, especially in public. Best of all, invisible, and unheard. Women's voices have long been criticised, (the adjectives are almost invariably critical) and now, a woman's laugh is a source of faux concern.

Personally, I always found G W Bush's smirk a source of great unease.

Find fault with Ms Clinton's policies and politics: Then, I would merely disagree with you, but would not only agree with, but defend, your right to argue along those lines.

However, criticising her laugh is on a par with many of the other criticisms: they are the product of a really rancid sexism, pure misogyny.
I disagree.

Even given a lower register, her laugh would still come across as defensive and unhinged.

Bush's smirk, Trump's "Il Duce" chin lift, and Cruz's dead eyes each make me uneasy. And, Sanders tends to snarl.

That's not misandry.
 

Scepticalscribe

macrumors Sandy Bridge
Jul 29, 2008
45,443
30,703
The Far Horizon
I find fault with both her politics and the way that she carries herself and acts towards her very own voters, donors, and volunteers.
If this were a discussion about her merits and a politician and world leader then certainly those positions would have been asserted and said, but rather this is simply one of the many things that I am not particularly fond of her for.
What next, we can't say her nervous cough fits are 'nervous' because that's 'sexist' get real.
Her laugh, cough and words are part of her rhetoric, if you cannot handle her rhetoric being questioned or remarked upon then maybe reading commentary on Clinton isn't for you. She's a politician first, who so happens to be a woman, and when anything directed at her is just blatantly categorized into misogyny I take issue with that gross mischaracterization.
No, it is not a question of 'get real'.

Rather, it is the fact that when a woman practices her profession in - or plys her trade in- or works - or has a presence in - the public space, this is not what she is judged on. Rather, she is judged on the fact that she is a female doing these things, rather than a CEO, or someone who works in politics or the media who happens to be female.

Many, if not most of the criticisms, of a female politician, or journalist, or CEO, are focussed not on how she does her job, but on some of her physical features, such her laugh, her hair, her voice, her weight, all of which are found wanting. None of this would apply to a male, who is not judged in terms of his physical attributes, or as a male, but in terms of his capacity as a politician, lawyer, journalist, CEO and so on.

I repeat, criticise Ms Clinton as a politician, not as a woman. One is legitimate, the other is - frankly - sexist, and cheap. Because, anyone who criticises Ms Clinton on the basis of her laugh s someone who does not like the sound of a woman's voice in the public space.
[doublepost=1460060913][/doublepost]
I disagree.

Even given a lower register, her laugh would still come across as defensive and unhinged.

Bush's smirk, Trump's "Il Duce" chin lift, and Cruz's dead eyes each make me uneasy. And, Sanders tends to snarl.

That's not misandry.
Seriously, society doesn't give women permission to be angry in public, and nor does it condone uninhibited genuine female laughter in public. Indeed, women's voices are barely tolerated in public.

These are deeply rooted prejudices, - it is very instructive to read them - and could do with some examination.

Now, Mr Bush's smirk made me uneasy, but that is because he was George W Bush, prone to starting strange wars without due or just cause, not because he was a man.
 

jgelin

macrumors 6502a
Jul 30, 2015
898
1,045
St Petersburg, FL
None of this would apply to a male, who is not judged in terms of his physical attributes,
I guess the people calling Trump orange, an orangutan, commenting on his tan, size of his hands... just doesn't exist in your world.
I guess people don't say Ted Cruz looks like a lump of pudding, a dog fish, the Zodiac Killer etc....
I guess the people who made fun of Rubio's ears akin to that of Dumbo, are just not real.
I guess no one ever commented on Bernie's hair, his hands, or how he 'yells'
I guess no one ever mentioned that Lindsey Graham has a girls name.
But when it is at Clinton it is 'misogyny', you can sell it, but I'm not buying.
It happens every day, for males and females alike but when it comes to someone saying it about a woman, it is against the rules all the sudden.
 

Scepticalscribe

macrumors Sandy Bridge
Jul 29, 2008
45,443
30,703
The Far Horizon
I guess the people calling Trump orange, an orangutan, his tan, his hands... just doesn't exist in your world.
I guess people don't call Ted Cruz a lump of pudding, a dog fish, the Zodiac Killer etc....
I guess the people who made fun of Rubio's ears akin to that of Dumbo, are just not real.
I guess no one ever commented on Bernie's hair, his hands, or how he 'yells'
But when it is at Clinton it is 'misogyny', you can sell it, but I'm not buying.
It happens every day, for males and females alike but when it comes to someone saying it about a woman, it is against the rules all the sudden.
I'm not American, I'm from Europe, so I view your elections from afar. And yes, (or no) we don't quite do that level of vitriolic debate This Side Of The Pond.

Besides, my own background is somewhat political - I am interested in policy formation, and this is how I judge candidates.

Now, I dislike Donald Trump because I think he stands for policies that - if implemented - would be surreal in their deranged and unexamined insanity. The overt vulgarity of his persona merely disgusts me, while his attitudes to women appal and horrify me.
 
Last edited:

Scepticalscribe

macrumors Sandy Bridge
Jul 29, 2008
45,443
30,703
The Far Horizon
Hillary's shrill, hysterical, lunatic laugh sounds like a psychotic harridan about to castrate her cheating husband.
I get it. You don't like her laugh. I doubt you like the sound of any woman's laugh.

What is the male equivalent of 'harridan'? What is the male equivalent of 'shrill'? These are words that could not be used about a man, and hardly any man would be criticised for laughing in public.

But you agree with some of her policies, - the ones that are thoughtful, sane, intelligent, informed, compassionate - don't you?
 
Last edited:

jgelin

macrumors 6502a
Jul 30, 2015
898
1,045
St Petersburg, FL
I get it. You don't like her laugh. I doubt you like the sound of any woman's laugh.

But you agree with some of her policies, - the ones that are thoughtful, sane, intelligent, compassionate - don't you?
The same thoughtful policies that killed 200,000 civilians in Iraq, and countless others. The same policies that gave 80 fighter jets to Saudi Arabia even amoungst very high protest from the Human Rights Council. The same policies that are thought up by lobbyists and the big business interests that fund her campaign?
The same policies that she as First Lady touted as the best legislation to ever hit the books but now runs on to repeal?
The same policies that saw the deportation of families for 3,5 and 10 years? The same policies that said we needed to send back migrant children to the certain death they were facing in Central America to "send a message"?
The same policies that have taken the wealth from the middle class and turned them into the working poor?
Yeah I don't see much compassion or intelligence there.
 

aaronvan

Suspended
Original poster
Dec 21, 2011
1,349
9,287
República Cascadia
But you agree with some of her policies, - the ones that are thoughtful, sane, intelligent, compassionate - don't you?
Such as NAFTA? Repealing Glass-Steagall? Invading Iraq? TPP? Defense of Marriage Act? Bombing Libya back to the Stone Age?

No, I can safely say that I disagree with every one of her policies.
 

Scepticalscribe

macrumors Sandy Bridge
Jul 29, 2008
45,443
30,703
The Far Horizon
The same thoughtful policies that killed 200,000 civilians in Iraq, and countless others. The same policies that gave 80 fighter jets to Saudi Arabia even amoungst very high protest from the Human Rights Council. The same policies that are thought up by lobbyists and the big business interests that fund her campaign?
The same policies that she as First Lady touted as the best legislation to ever hit the books but now runs on to repeal?
The same policies that saw the deportation of families for 3,5 and 10 years? The same policies that said we needed to send back migrant children to the certain death they were facing in Central America to "send a message"?
The same policies that have taken the wealth from the middle class and turned them into the working poor?
Yeah I don't see much compassion or intelligence there.
Such as NAFTA? Repealing Glass-Steagall? Invading Iraq? TPP? Defense of Marriage Act? Bombing Libya back to the Stone Age?

No, I can safely say that I disagree with every one of her policies.
Aaaah. Excellent. A debate about public policy. Very well done. See, that was easy.