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

Try this on for size - Misogyny (from WikiPedia):

Patriarchy:

What more do you need (besides an English-dictionary) to understand when mysogyny is manifested in a voting pattern (of the US presidency) that for almost two and a half centuries has avoided any female PotUS ... ?

 

Hillary almost won despite being a bad candidate, and would have if she had a better campaign. Where is the misunderstanding?

 

You are not providing evidence. You are jumping from A to D and skipping over B and C.

Misogyny is not visible or provable as the reason why there is been no female POTUS. You have no evidence of voting habits or voting decision or voting patterns which would demonstrate why people did not vote for a female president.

You are assuming something you have no evidence for your form of evidence is self defeating.

Someone already asked this but it bears repeating. Did YOU vote for Sarah Palin as VP? If not then you are a misogynist according to your own logic.

You logic fails because your claim is assigning MOTIVE without evidence. You also ignore that women have been voting for almost a century and in large numbers. Therefore if your claim ( and hillary's stupid claim ) is correct millions of women are misogynists.

BTW patriarchy as used by modern third wave feminists is not nearly what you described. It is in fact a faith based non entity which they blame every problem on earth for.

 

Ask the same question and instead of America put in world. It took well over 200 years to get to Margaret Thatcher, UK or even Angela Merkel, GER. So let's be all inclusive.

 

If this thread shows anything, it's that collectivist love playing the victim. It's always some boogie mans fault, and they dream up ways to justify their blame.

 

IGNORAMUS OUTCOME

Hillary was one of the best candidates in decades, if not half a century.

Once again, like a good many on this debate forum, you look at Hillary through jaundiced eyes - first and foremost because she's a woman (and a highly intelligent one) as well as more than competent to assume the job of PotUS.

Far, far more so than Donald Dork (along with his henchmen in crime Bannon & Sessions) who is trying to undo the tiny advance made towards a Social Democracy under Obama that would provide us Yanks with a modicum of a decent living for most of the middle-class and far fewer of those below the Poverty Threshold. This last item is one that I continually bring up on this forum because it is a stark admission that the US is presently incapable of correcting its massive poverty problem (more than 40 million Americans below the poverty threshold) mostly because nobody really gives a damn.

(Except those who followed avidly Bernie Sanders in his try at the TopDog Job.)

You (plural) evidently think that the USA is like a Vegas Casino - "wherever you have winners ya gotta have lots-'n-lots of losers as well".

That Ignoramus Outcome, nobody in their right mind is buying anymore in most advanced countries ...

 

Even if a woman President had been elected, it wouldn't stop the crys of "war on women" coming from the left.

We just elected a black POTUS twice, and to listen to leftists we're still the most racist nation on earth.

So, who cares what the left thinks.

They want to think we're racists, or misogynists or xenophobes or whatever....fine. Go ahead and believe it all you want.

 

What was Hillary Clintons largest accomplishment?

 

I care, that's why I am in this forum. Because people like you refuse to admit what's wrong with America in your blindness of the present condition of the poor.

Here is what's wrong with America in terms of Income when shown by ethnicity:

If MLK ever came back he'd cry himself a river over the above infographic. His people are still the poor and down-'n-out* in one of the wealthiest nations on earth because citizens of that country, like YOU, think the Income status-quo is just fine for everyone in the US ...

*The Poverty Threshold for a family of four in the US is an income of $24K per year.

 

For me personally, it was 1962, when I was in the 2nd grade, and I fell in love with a girl in my class.

I am often not proud of our politicians, and I don't always agree with what my country does, but I am always proud of her.

You don't think women are treated like humans in our country?

My son was on patrol in Anbar Province, Iraq, in 2007, when they came upon a beat-up woman digging her own grave in front of her house. Her husband was watching her from his porch, pistol in hand. My son's squad disarmed him and turned him over to the Iraqi police. It is unknown what became of him or his wife ....

Just sayin' ...

 

Who cares. What was Obama's before he was elected.

What was Dubya's before HE got elected !?!?!?!

 

Oh yes, Uncle Sam just had his sex changed ...

 

It's my country, and I'll call her what I want.

 

It is only your OPINION that Hillary was the best candidate for decades. It is a not a fact you can demonstrate.

Obviously many disagree with you.

 

What does any of this BS have to do with the ludicrous lies about misogyny?

 

So those countries are still ahead of us....and we're far behind :
Hatshpsut, 15th century BC : Sammuramat, 9th Century BC, Eleanor of Aquitane, 12th Century, Golda Meir, 20th century, Indira Ghandi, 20th Century....
and many more.


We don't have a very good record compared to other countries.....and even if we did it's pretty weak to say "well OTHER women from OTHER countries have been in power".....it just [points out that the US has a problem...

 

I like how you deflected to Obama then realized he had never accomplished anything either, so you went to Bush.

Well, unlike the other two, Bush was a successful entrepreneur in the oil business, as well as a very successful governor of Texas who pushed through major education and tax reforms.

I'd think qualifications for President would be important, but that doesn't seem to be the case for democrats.

Hillary's "positive" qualifications were "Wife of Bill", "Got elected to Congress but did nothing", and "I have a vagina".

Her negative qualifications were pretty much everything else she has ever done.

 

SO? If there is still racism and still sexism then we have the right to point it out. Racism didn't disappear because we had a black President and sexism won't disappear if we have a female President.

Why are you protesting so adamantly if you don't care

 

Actually, not even. Many white men didn't get the vote until mid 19th century. Women were voting in many elections across the country long before the Constitution was amended. A fair estimate is that average white men had the vote for 50-60 years before women, unfortunate, but far from the lie narrative LW/Complex/feminists perpetuate. Other necessary context is that voting was often a dangerous risk up into the 20th century. Thousands of blacks and whites were lynched by the KKK arm of the Democratic Party for voting Republican. Fights at polling places were commonplace and physical intimidation common. To reiterate, survival imperatives dictated that the reproductive capacity not be endangered in the way men were throughout history, and the very historical instant this changed, women were given, not fought for, but FREELY GIVEN, all the rights men have and today, far, far more in political gender discriminatory excess.

As you rightly allude, even arguendo, the argument only applies to 100 years in the past and before anyway.

 

Governor of Texas.

 

Oh, the Old Personal One Instance story that changes everything ?

Or is it the "look how lucky American women are that they don't have to dig their own graves so they should be satisfied with what they have "" crap ?

 

I'm not the one with a hundred question marks in each post, that's all you.

That a woman has not been elected president is not evidence of misogyny. If the country were misogynist, women wouldn't be in positions of power at all.

Were you a Rosanne Barr voter?

 

You really can't count the over 200 years of our history. I think it's only fair to only count the years when there was a woman candidate, and there have been many, but Hillary was the first to be nominated by a major party - even if they had to cheat to accomplish it.
Before you ask, I voted for Carly in the primary.
Who you voted for in the primary doesn't matter since the Dem nominating process is a sham. You get the DNC's lap dog, regardless of who you voted for.

 

That's what happens when you drop out of school, join gangs, and start popping out kids at 14.

 

You have the right to do what you want even to deny fact.

No one is trying to deny your right at all but in fact they are correcting you with facts.

You are so consumed with your own ideology that you cannot allow any logic to exist in your own worldview.

You have not pointed out any racism or sexism anywhere or offered any evidence of any sort that it exists.

not voting for a female president is not evidence of misogyny and not voting for a black president is not evidence of racism.

99.9 % of all accusations of sexism, misogyny, homophobia or whatever are lies and merely attacks by people who cannot effectively defend their own position or claim. And that all accurately describes you.

Much the same way I did not vote for trump which is NOT evidence that I am a democrat or liberal