Hillary Clinton: misogyny 'certainly' played a role in 2016 election loss

"Only sexist do this, only sexists do that" is your response to everything on this thread. Well I've got news for you, everything you are saying "only sexist do" is not accurate. You don't have to (but may be) sexist if you do any of it. The only thing exclusive that "all sexists" do is hold people of one sex to a different standard or value than people of another sex, period. Racists do it to people according to race, Calvinists do it to people according to their financial status, elitists do it to people according to their realm of influence. You cannot ever change your way of thinking if you never take a moment to think in the first place.

 

That's the only valid reason for this thread that I can see.

 

True. We always get the government we deserve regardless of which way it goes. As far as I was concerned this last election was a lose, lose election. To beat Trump, all one needed to do was nominate a decent candidate. That didn't happened and because of that, we have what we have. Plain and simple.

 

And the strength, action, and accomplishment of Trump compared to the inaction of Obama is striking.

 

How is referring to all men as "men" sexist?

 

I knew you would have no answer to my post:Wah, wah, wah...do please prove your little opinion that I displayed "victimization and sexism" in my posts....you can't..you didn't ..you don't even know what sexism is.

 

I posted ""To refer to all women as "lady" but refer to all men as "men"...is sexist.""

I did NOT say referring to men as men is sexist . I said referring to women without referring to men with an equivalent word is sexist.

Why do women need a special word to describe them ...."women/woman " is fine......


But I do enjoy how all the "sexists but I'm not sexist" on here are using that word like a drowning person grasps at a lifesaver rather than address the bigger issue....they must've known they were losing

 

You: ""The only thing exclusive that "all sexists" do is hold people of one sex to a different standard or value than people of another sex, period.""

YOU GOT IT! Finally!

It IS the only thing.....and it affects the way they judge candidates for office as it affects everything they do in relation to the opposite sex...

...

 

Do you honestly believe that your message about Hillary losing is a reflection of sexism is the argument that's winning on this thread?

 

Finally, I got it? No, I've understood that point well before this thread was even a thought. But there is no connection to sexism preventing women from becoming President of the US while allowing so many women to successfully attain every other political office (either by election or appointment). Becoming president of the United States is not an easy accomplishment for any "individual". The only reason Trump was able to achieve it is because the DNC offered up the softest competition in their arsenal for him to compete with.

 

We'll see how it goes. Almost three months on the job compared to 8 years is not enough time for a valid comparison. After 3 months on the job most people thought Obama was the best thing since sex and peanut butter. Now, quite a lot think of him as a below average president. Give it time.

 

The biggest difference is that Obama was on an apology tour. Trump is on a 'no excuses' tour.

 

Like I said, we'll see. I think Obama ended up as being below average. I had 8 years to make that judgement. Trump has been in office less than three months. For me, that isn't enough time to get a good grasp on the man. Most who liked Trump before the election and those who hated him still do regardless of what he has done. Those folks probably will never change their mind whether Trump ends up as a good or bad president. Then there are those of us in the middle, not sure what to think. Perhaps liking somethings Trump had done or tried to do and disliking some.

It's very hard for those who already took sides to understand how someone can still be uncertain. Giving the man time to establish himself. I think Trump has changed some with the added responsibilities he now has. Once again, is that good or bad, I don't rightly know. Perhaps Trump is a work in progress. I think launching 60 tomahawk missiles at the airbase was kind of stupid, but fully support the use of the MOAB. I think an experienced politician sitting in the White House would have first made sure he had enough votes on repeal and replace before it being voted on. But maybe he learned some from that. Time will tell. But for me, it is way too early to either praise or condemn. That time will come depending on the job he does for America as a whole. Not for the man, not for his party, but for America as a whole.

 

As a result China voted "abstain" in the UN security council vote to sanction Assad's use of sarin gas. That's huge because it isolates Russia. I'll continue to be encouraged by actions as opposed to the endless indecision and inaction of the Obama administration.

 

Nothing wrong with being encouraged, some will be, others not. Probably base on whom they supported for the presidency. I am very leery, I don't trust Trump. Until I get a feel for him, one way or the other, I am up in the air about him.

 

Fair enough.

 

No, because that's not my message...although I do have a message for all the English teachers who failed to teach some people to comprehend English(although the poor teachers didn't have much to work with)....Please, teachers, hold back the dolts who can't comprehend simple sentences like my oft repeated ,

" I NEVER said the only reason or sole reason Clinton lost was because of sexism and those that say I said that can ONLY be LIARS or are UNable to comprehend English because I never said that".


There, if it's big enough maybe some readers won't have to use their bifocles with the little wire frames.....or have their great, great grandkids read it for them..

 

Oh, darn, here when I think you had a breakthrough you throw the blanket over your head again.


How ridiculous to think you know what sexism is and then NOT offer ONE reason why NO women have run for President in over 200 years. You pull the blanket over your head so you don't have to see the blatant sexism in that simple fact...

It was sexism that kept women from voting.

It was sexism that kept women out of medical school and higher education in general.


It was sexism when women were scorned and shamed for having sex while men were admired for their sexual exploits.

It was sexism that kept women testing jet aircraft instead of flying them in combat.

It was sexism that kept women form holding patents.

It was sexism when the law and neighbors turned a blind eye to abused wives.

It was sexism that kept women ignorant of business matters and why they weren't allowed to read newspapers..


AND it was sexism that KEPT WOMEN FROM RUNNING AND HOLDING OFFICE AS MUCH AS MEN DID......

















...and to think sexism disappeared the second Clinton ran for President is as stupid as thinking racism disappeared the minuet Obama ran for office..













OH WAIT! I just though of something!

Are you one of those people who think NOTHING HAPPENED BEFORE THEY were born and if something did happen before they were born it's not important?

 

I disagree.

So you can read my mind and have decreed that I hate my own gender so deeply I base my political opinions around it? There is just no way anyone could have legitimate criticisms of female politicians in your eyes?

It is your vision that is jaundiced and blinded by gender, not mine.

Apparently a "good" candidate in your eyes is someone who is presumably better than someone else. And not just anyone else, but someone that American leftists have demonized as Hitler returned. Now that's a high standard.

By the way, a President who backed out of nearly all his progressive promises and expanded on Bush policies is not a proponent of "Social Democracy."

What I think is that the US is the most conservative country in the industrialized world and would benefit from a move towards fiscal and social progressivism. Especially considering that the last time Americans decided to not impose govermental regulations for the shake of greed and the free market, the rest of us were ****ed too.

Which is exactly why I was disgusted when US libs vanquished any possibility for substantial change by chosing a centrist, elite-pandering politician who has, for decades, been a part of a political establishment that would have been charged with war crimes in most advanced countries.

 

It is a straightforward question though. There are plenty of man-haters out and about in the world today. Partly do to what their experiences with males has been and partly do to the recurring theme of bashing males and men.

 

I call it a Jedi MindFuck. Others call it political mind manipulation.

 

Nope, Hilter could have got in. Has nothing to do with gender.

The ignorant, fascist dems tried to force-feed Hil on America. That is the problem.

Can you imagine what a POS Hil must have been to have lost to someone like Trump...or Hilter?

No doubt she will still be stewing in her own juices how on how this could have ever hap when she takes her last, dying breath.

...and it could not have hap to a more deserving person than Hil!

 

Don't worry the leftness and the Cult of Hillary has endless excuses for their Idol. Its to be expected. Its not like the leftness can handle reality.

I figure they will trot out at least another 50 to get this thread up to 900 posts.

 

Hillary lost the election because of Hillary. Her over-inflated entitlement driven ego, lack of success had nothing to do with it right? (note to those that tout her experience: her many bad results do not equal a positive "experience" attribute). Aside from Hillary running a "it's my turn" campaign that in reality was just a pit of despair and denial propped up by artificial favorable polling and people who were afraid to ever tell her the truth, all was peachy in Clintonville...

Sure, Hillary...the Russians and misogyny did it! *eye roll*

 

I think it wasn't too late for her to pick them up. A lot of independents were looking for reasons to vote FOR either candidate, and that includes a lot of the people inside the Rust Belt. She never gave them one, and oddly enough, Trump did. It didn't seem to me that Comey et al had any real effect on anyone as the partisans on both sides were not affected by it, and it's quite possible that Trump benefited from all his negative coverage. Bottom line is that she could have gone to the Rust Belt and she COULD have offered them some kind of hope, but - she's not exactly the inspirational type. She has no hope to give. Knowledge of the government, sure - but a politician needs a vision, and she was sorely lacking.

I can see your point, but I think the better question to ask is, "Why was Hilla running at all?" Trump, I can actually answer that question - whether he should have is immaterial, but I can definitely answer the why. Hilla, well as I've said previously, even her own supporters could never tell me beyond She Has a Vagina and She's Not Trump.

I've said this elsewhere, but (oversimplifying myself) Trump ran a marketing campaign, while Hilla ran a Hollywood-based campaign - and that made all the difference. Trump, whatever else you can say about the man, had a vision - granted, a poorer one than Morning in America, but it still promoted a vision - while Hilla, if she did have a vision, was about her in the White House. It was Hilla-Centric. I also don't think you can underestimate her "Deplorables" line. That was a terrible, TERRIBLE mistake, right up there with The Dean Scream, Muskie crying, and Romney's 47% in that it ultimately drove away a lot of independants who were sitting on the fence at that point.

Also, and it really does pain me to say this because it shouldn't be so, but: A campaign really is a good judge of how well a president is going to do. If they can't even manage a run at an office, how can they do any better while IN the office? That's not a compliment towards Trump, because his campaign was pretty weaksauce. But I would definitely have expected better from Hilla who had all the guns and didn't have a clue as to how to use them - and in retrospect, didn't seem to know she even had them.