General Discussion

MohRokTah

(15,429 posts) Tue Apr 22, 2014, 10:09 PM Apr 2014

Any Wingnut that criticizes Hillary's age in 2016 had BETTER be on record criticizing McCain's age..

in 2008.

Hillary Clinton will be 68 in 2016.

John McCain was 71 in 2008.

In fact, if elected, Hillary Clinton would be several months YOUNGER than Ronald Reagan was in 1980 when he was elected.

If they didn't criticize McCain's age in 2008, not to mention Reagan's age in 1980, and they criticize Hillary's age in 2016, it's BLATANT SEXISM!

End of discussion.

4 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Any Wingnut that criticizes Hillary's age in 2016 had BETTER be on record criticizing McCain's age.. (Original Post) MohRokTah Apr 2014 OP

Damn... 3catwoman3 Apr 2014 #1

Those were "man years" jberryhill Apr 2014 #2

Then Hillary will be about 59 in "man years" come 2016. MohRokTah Apr 2014 #3

I don't think it's JUST sexism... Dpm12 Apr 2014 #4

3catwoman3

(23,973 posts)

1. Damn...

Reply to MohRokTah (Original post)

Tue Apr 22, 2014, 11:03 PM

Apr 2014

...straight.

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)

2. Those were "man years"

Reply to MohRokTah (Original post)

Tue Apr 22, 2014, 11:29 PM

Apr 2014

Not at all comparable.

MohRokTah

(15,429 posts)

3. Then Hillary will be about 59 in "man years" come 2016.

Reply to jberryhill (Reply #2)

Tue Apr 22, 2014, 11:44 PM

Apr 2014

My God, Bob Dole was 73 when he ran in 1996!

Dpm12

(512 posts)

4. I don't think it's JUST sexism...

Reply to MohRokTah (Original post)

Wed Apr 23, 2014, 03:19 AM

Apr 2014

...I think they're just fucking stupid and don't know what the heck they are talking about. I use the same argument for the Repugs complaining in '08 that Obama was too inexperienced when he had more years of political experience at the time of his candidacy then "Chimp" Dubya did when he first ran.

Reply to this discussion