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

Exit polls say people didn't vote for her because she smells like farts, according to John Podesta.

 

Alleged sexual misconduct that FOX and Friends paid $13 Million to settle. Is somebody wearing blinders?

 

That's not logic, that's a logical fallacy.

It's also an example of why you can't have a discussion with SJW's, because their applied "critical theory" arguments are based on those logical fallacies.

Your critical theory based arguments are the opposite of the socratic method....and logic itself.

Of course we have your position...then we have reality.

The reality that there have only a few women (hell, few people) who have even tried to become President, and most have dropped out for monetary reasons.

No one is falling for leftist stupidity anymore

Call me a racist, call me a xeno-flavor of the day, call me a misogynist. I don't care, and neither does the rest of the country.

I HIGHLY encourage you to keep flailing around with this argument though.

 

See here's why your posts to this forum aren't taken seriously. You make an outrageous claim in one post, that (para) "no woman President in US history proves misogyny." Then when the absurdity of that is highlighted by a not so subtle reference to "Palin derangement syndrome," REAL, brutal misogyny reserved by the left for the most unthinkable, heretical apostates, women who don't toe the line, who run off the plantation, you back off to the plainly shifted goalpost "do you really think... no misogyny exists?"

Remember folks, -never- ever have any discussion with a leftist, especially a feminist, without a written record of what was said.

Of course misogyny exists. In a country of 320 million people every possible type of attitude and behavior exists from bigfoot worship to cannibalism to misogyny. Does the fact that there has never been a woman President prove some -pervasive- misogyny culture in the US? No, absolutely not, because there is no culture of misogyny and NEVER F-ING HAS BEEN. Is the fact that only a handful of women have ever RUN for President defused by the weak-ass rationalization that misogyny has kept them from running? No, not a bit. The only people who would agree to that are dudes in bars trying to suck up and get laid. Everyone else knows it's crap.

Pre modern technology, women were not allowed to do certain things because HUMAN SURVIVAL dictated that they not be. There may be civilizations of the past where women went off to dangerous backbreaking work like men, fought in wars and were impressed, conscripted and hacked up in bloody trenches like men, physically defended their families, personal and real property with their lives like men, did all the things that men did, thus exacerbating the shortness of their and their children's lifespans. There could have been hundreds or thousands of such tribes and cultures.

Why don't you give a shout out to them and tell them to enlighten us with their egalitarian ways? Just cup your hands and shout, surely they will answer. Oh, they aren't answering? Well that's because they, unlike we less enlightened ones, ARE F-ING E-X-T-I-N-C-T because they didn't protect the reproductive capacity like we did.

The very instant, the very toenail of historical time (the last 100 years in let's say 10,000 years of human history) that the convergence of tech (medical, sanitation, household, electricity, refrigeration, transportation etc. ALL aimed at making women's lives better, at making their reproductive burden less onerous), enlightened governing forms including the rule of law and localized protection of property rights against aggressors, removal of church from state, and a whole list of other advancements designed to benefit mostly WOMEN and FAMILIES, the red carpet was rolled out and over the last 50 years, our whole corporate structure has been (to a very unwise degree) MODIFIED FOR WOMEN, for THEIR COMFORT AND FEELINGS.

There will be a woman President, this atheist thanks GOD that it won't be Hillary Clinton. That there hasn't been one yet proves -nothing- about any kind of gender dynamics other than not enough women have run. Women, you see, are different from men. A very large proportion of them seek work that is more comfortable, easier than men seek, they leave the workforce when THEY CHOOSE to have children... matters of well-documented fact, not opinion.

Finally calling a culture or individual "misogynist" as a panacea victim's answer to everything one thinks is wrong in the world is one of the primary things that is wrong with the world... irony.

Identity politics is and will go down as the most vile, socially destructive, solipsistic, deranged and costly mistake of 20th -21st century intellectual history. It is the discriminatory substitution of bullshit categories, political factions in the place of actual reason and thought. The Framers saw the evil in this 100s of years ago and we have the catastrophic social results of the last 50 years to prove it. Sure you want to stay on the evil side of history?

 

that's a women ? Yikes !!!

 

Let's examine her logic, shall we?

GIVEN: Hillary didn't win because of misogyny.
GIVEN: The fact that no serious female prez or veep candidate has won is because of misogyny.
GIVEN: Palin was not elected veep.
THEREFORE: Palin lost because of misogyny.
SAYETH THE LIBERAL: Can't be at all true in her case because we hate her. So it must be because she's a dingbat. Not because of misogyny. Because we voted against her, and if we were consistent in our beliefs, then we would have to accuse ourselves of misogyny as well. And we lack the self-awareness to accept that conclusion.
THEREFORE: If it is a given that there are reasons besides misogyny as to why Palin lost, there might also be other reasons why Hilla lost. Issues such as trustworthiness, a failing campaign, a lack of electoral college strategy, numerous scandals, health issues, and the like.
SAYETH THE LIBERAL: Hillary is our heroine. Therefore, it must be misogyny in her case. It certainly couldn't be her fault, after all.

You know, there's a thread HERE in which a teacher asked his class to present an argument for the Third Reich. It's being defended because of the need to build critical thinking skills, but also to build up skills understanding what the other side in an argument is thinking - after all, how can you debate points with someone you disagree with if you don't know beforehand what they even stand for and more importantly, why? For the record, I've stated several times (in two different threads yet!) that I think the example - the Holocaust - they're using to do so is wildly inappropriate to use, but the intent to have kids argue a position they don't agree with is a good one.

I'm thinking that ultimately what defeated Hillary was that intellectual conceit; that it didn't really matter what Trump and his followers believed, what their concerns were, that it wasn't even important to try to understand what was driving them, what his argument was or what they wanted that defeated Hilla. Because neither Hilla nor her election team, nor anyone in the DNC bothered to try to understand what was driving Trump's candidacy. So far as I can recall the only one who got it was Michael Moore and no one on the Dem side listened to him after that point because the moment he said Trump was going to win and why, they tuned him out - even when he wrote about how the Dems COULD counter him, they didn't listen, and he was absolutely right. According to the Dems, Hilla was going to win and that was that. They believed Hilla was going to win because they said Hilla was going to win therefore she was going to win. Pure circular logic. But they never bothered to find out why anyone would disagree with that logic because A) anyone who was voting for trump was a racist, bigot, homophobe, etc and thus not worth listening to, and B) Most if not all of the Hilla voters lived in a bubble where none of them even knew what a Trump voter was, much less had any friends who were Trump supporters. THIS quote said it best:

How do you counter Trumps argument when you don't really know what it is? They didn't know, so they couldn't counter it. And because they couldn't articulate it, couldn't counter it, and didn't counter it, they lost. No wonder Dems were surprised and shellacked come November 9th. They didn't know what hit them as they ran to their safe spaces and reached for their Play-doh.

Trump supporters, though? Oh, they knew what Hilla stood for. They knew it because it was on their TV's, in their papers, articulated by the media, by Hollywood, by just about everyone in the Elite out there. And that, just as much as the Dems NOT knowing what Trump and his supporters wanted, is ultimately what cost Hilla the election. NOT some misogyny monster hiding under the bed, that's just a poor excuse so that Hilla doesn't have to accept responsibility for running a poor campaign that she should have won. No - it was her own arrogance in thinking that she could win without even needing to convince the voters on the other side that she was right that cost her the win.

 

Perfect example of ingrained sexism.

Saying women can't be corrupt ( but it's OK if men are, we elect them anyway).

Saying that in over two hundred years there simply was no woman who could "inspire" people and that's why no woman has been President .

 

....and misogynists and sexists , like racists, insist there is no misogyny or sexism because they are being accused of it...no, they're being accused of it because they are misogynistic and sexist and have no other defense....

To say misogyny and sexism don't exist is just being willfully ignorant of the facts..

 

And you can call my post anything you want but you couldn't refute a word of it :

""Perfect example of a righty not being able to address a post with any logic...:

Yes, and people who vote for men because they aren't women are sexist,too.

""It's quite ignorant for anyone to think women can't be misogynists....in fact that is ANOTHER sexist stereotype...

The FACT that NO woman has been President or Vice President is proof enough of misogyny playing a role in who is or who isn't elected..."""

Righties INSIST no women exist who are as good as a man....""""





At least you're proud of your sexist, misogynistic (fear of and hate for women) attitudes..

....and claiming that the rest of the country feels that way BUT women didn't get to be President because they didn't try or didn't have the money is an oxymoron that YOU will never see.....

 

I didn't read all of that sexist rant just enough to recognize preconceived sex stereotyping ( SEXISM) ................

and the usual "I have to denigrate women to feel better about myself and how crappy men have made the world".....

 

Settlements mean nothing. Lawsuits are often filed for no other reason than to get money.

 

Wrong there is no evidence of it.

You make idiotic accusations without a speck of evidence much as Hillary did and that is stupid.

the claims being made about misogyny are illogical and baseless and cowardly.

No defense is needcd because the accusation is an out right lie

 

This misogyny of the 42% of women who voted for Trump? Seriously?

You know what played a part in Hillary's defeat? Her ****ing pathetic showing. She let Donald Trump win the Presidency. Her legacy has been obliterated by this fact, and from it she will never recover.

Like most good liberals, defeat is the fault of the other guy. Never question your own tactics.

[hr][/hr]

The only person who could have lost to Trump was Clinton, and the DNC defrauded their elections to appoint her. That's their fault, nobody else's.

 

...but you haven't proven it's a lie and I gave evidence that it's true....

 

No you have not provided any evidence at all.
Accusations without evidence are in fact lies.

Not one post of yours has any evidence of any kind whatsoever and all you have posted is baseless assertions.

Learn the difference between evidence and partisan opinion the latter of which is all you have posted.

You have not even TRIED to back up any of your crap

 

Is it a lie that in over 200 years there hasn't been a woman President? No, that is not a lie......it's not a baseless assertion.

Learn the difference between your blind hate and facts....

 

No one denies it is true. There has never been a woman president.

What is an outright baseless assertion is that this is evidence of misogyny.

I do know the difference you lack comprehension. Your talking points are not evidence of your conclusion.

 

Hillary can write as many books as she likes and she still won't understand why she lost the election. If she was capable of understanding that she would have won.

 

So why do YOU think there has been no female President?

Women are not as smart as men? Not as good as men?

No, a history as long as ours with no female President is a sign of a mixture of sexism and misogyny.

You can whine and deny it and blame women but that won't cut it.....I have the biggest fact on my side.

 

Because few have tried to run and few wish to vote for the individuals who have

No a history ten thousand years long is NOT a sign of sexism or misogyny it is a sign of nothing.

The fact is not on your side and does not support you.

 

I didn't say a history 10,000 years long, I said OUR , the history of the US (as I have been referring to all along!)


You: ""Because few have tried to run and few wish to vote for the individuals who have"""

Baloney....prove it..


You are correct that few have tried to run BECAUSE they know with the sexism and misogyny they have to fight (which MALE politicians do NOT even have to consider), it will be too big of a battle. Sexism and misogyny keep them from getting the support and finances.


Yup, you sure seem to be saying women are too stupid to have that office...

 

I know you did not say that I did. Perhaps I was unclear. It is irrelevant whether a history is two hundred years old or 3000 years old.

We know how many people have run for president over the years it is not hard to look up. You have no evidence whatsoever that this history is the result of misogyny and you are creating circular argument which is self defeating.

Fewer women then men go into politics and that is a self evident fact.

Another fact is that winning any office is extremely competitive and no evidence of any form exists that people vote against women due to misogyny.

Such as the case of Hillary. She was viewed as corrupt, felt entitled, and embraced SJW BS much as you do. People vote for or against individuals less so than feminist theory which is all you have and which is not theory at all but merely religious belief.

There is no poll no survey no data and no empirical evidence of any kind whatsoever which shows people voting against Hillary because she is a woman.

And that sort of evidence is required for your claim

 

Yep, we sure dodged a bullet there. What we didn't need was a corrupt woman that lives by the pay to play rule and has serious issues with national security. All I can say is WHEW!!!

 

The head misogynist is non other than Bill. And I think I know the reason. She failed because she's corrupt to the core.

 

Hillary certainly proves your point, look at all the women she tried to destroy because her misogynistic husband couldn't keep his filthy hands off.