• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

OT: American Politics

JaysCyYoung said:
Pardon me? Based on what?

I don't doubt that sexism may prevent some voters for voting for Hillary, but that would be more than off-set by the proportion of female voters (who make up a statistical majority of eligible voters) who view her as some sort of role model or want to support a female candidate.

And she never would have attained all of the various high-ranking political and diplomatic positions that she has held to date were her sex the impediment that the article seems to imply.
Click to expand...

You have repeatedly stated how "awful" she is, and whenever called out on it can't produce any evidence. As for your last statement, this was discussed in detail in the Facebook post that Mbow put up a while back. Her "approval" numbers go down every time she's up for election, then go back up afterwards. Lots of men are uncomfortable with strong women, especially when they seek "power" ... and as mentioned, I do think this is subliminal for a lot of people.
 
I'm not going to discuss American politics in depth. It's purely opinion. For every article or piece of evidence that has been provided about her behaviour on here or a multitude of other forums, her supporters just excuse it all away or attack the sources.

There's literally no point in me doing so. You know exactly what the criticisms of her have been. I don't need to rehash that for my stance to have validity. So there.

Of course, it ignores the fact that I've actually used votes throughout my voting career primary in favour of female candidates in a Canadian context (i.e. one in which my decision directly impacts me), as opposed to disliking an American politician - who I cannot vote for - but who I have admitted to preferring over the alternative.

I walk the walk.

But if you want to be intellectually lazy and toss the sexism card because you think it wins you some sort of points, go ahead. You're wrong, but go ahead.

Lots of men are uncomfortable with strong women, especially when they seek "power" ... and as mentioned, I do think this is subliminal for a lot of people.
Click to expand...

Except Clinton was actually faring statistically worse amongst women when she was going up against Bernie Sanders than men. It was working class middle American men and men living throughout the rust belt that were giving her her biggest support.

Hillary struggles in gaining female support to some extent, so it's not a purely gendered division. That's honestly the laziest explanation imaginable, aside from being wrong.
 
Clinton is as much a woman as Margaret Thatcher was..basically, not that much of a woman. The fact that they have vaginas doesn't really matter here..their personalities are in line with the average male much more-so than the average woman. People fear women because there is the stereotype that they'll be naive and weak, and other countries will take advantage of that. People think Clinton KILLS people when they get in her way..so this is not a problem for her.
 
Margaret Thatcher was awesome. Between Elizabeth I, Victoria, Elizabeth II, and Thatcher the UK has a lengthy history of powerful female politicians probably unmatched by any other Western power.
 
Leafovic said:
Clinton is as much a woman as Margaret Thatcher was..basically, not that much of a woman. The fact that they have vaginas doesn't really matter here..their personalities are in line with the average male much more-so than the average woman. People fear women because there is the stereotype that they'll be naive and weak, and other countries will take advantage of that. People think Clinton KILLS people when they get in her way..so this is not a problem for her.
Click to expand...

so you get to define what constitutes the primary traits that make up a woman's personality? too funny.

did you ever stop to think that some women strategically project a more masculine persona to compete in male dominated institutions?
 
Last edited:
HRC is a career politician in the most mainstream 20th C way possible. People are tired of that. Part of Trump's appeal is his outsider, anti-status quo message. However, he's the WRONG guy to pull that off successfully.
 
CH1 said:
HRC is a career politician in the most mainstream 20th C way possible. People are tired of that. Part of Trump's appeal is his outsider, anti-status quo message. However, he's the WRONG guy to pull that off successfully.
Click to expand...

Agreed on both points.
 
worm said:
Kim Campbell >>>>
Click to expand...

17-v3.jpg


I'd rather stop at the 7/11 and take home a copy of Swank.
 
JaysCyYoung said:
Margaret Thatcher was awesome. Between Elizabeth I, Victoria, Elizabeth II, and Thatcher the UK has a lengthy history of powerful female politicians probably unmatched by any other Western power.
Click to expand...

In all fairness, three of the four you mentioned got the job by birth. Iron Lady earned her spot but the others got just by luck of birth
 
CH1 said:
so you get to define what constitutes the primary traits that make up a woman's personality? too funny.

did you ever stop to think that some women strategically project a more masculine persona to compete in male dominated institutions?
Click to expand...

well in fairness, he is a gay male so probably understands the female side better than most ;)

:couch
 
JaysCyYoung said:
I'm not going to discuss American politics in depth. It's purely opinion. For every article or piece of evidence that has been provided about her behaviour on here or a multitude of other forums, her supporters just excuse it all away or attack the sources.

There's literally no point in me doing so. You know exactly what the criticisms of her have been. I don't need to rehash that for my stance to have validity. So there.

Of course, it ignores the fact that I've actually used votes throughout my voting career primary in favour of female candidates in a Canadian context (i.e. one in which my decision directly impacts me), as opposed to disliking an American politician - who I cannot vote for - but who I have admitted to preferring over the alternative.

I walk the walk.

But if you want to be intellectually lazy and toss the sexism card because you think it wins you some sort of points, go ahead. You're wrong, but go ahead.



Except Clinton was actually faring statistically worse amongst women when she was going up against Bernie Sanders than men. It was working class middle American men and men living throughout the rust belt that were giving her her biggest support.

Hillary struggles in gaining female support to some extent, so it's not a purely gendered division. That's honestly the laziest explanation imaginable, aside from being wrong.
Click to expand...

I voted for Notley, and would again, I would probably vote for rona Ambrose if Justin Trudeau wasn't around but I'm a misogynist because I hate Hillary Clinton and trump in equal measure?

OK.
 
CH1 said:
so you get to define what constitutes the primary traits that make up a woman's personality? too funny.

did you ever stop to think that some women strategically project a more masculine persona to compete in male dominated institutions?
Click to expand...

No. That wasn't the point. It's perception that matters, not what the male or female personality traits actually are. Would you really disagree with the notion that a lot of men see women as weak and naive? I was suggesting that Clinton doesn't appear that way, so she really isn't the type of woman candidate that have issues.
 
TheCountofMonteCristo said:
In all fairness, three of the four you mentioned got the job by birth. Iron Lady earned her spot but the others got just by luck of birth
Click to expand...

Actually, none of the royals were supposed to be queen either:

Elizabeth I was the first child of Anne Boleyn and Henry VIII, but she had a brother (Edward VI) who ended up passing away after only six years in power as a child king, thus resulting in a succession crisis which she had to win over her half-sister Mary.

Victoria was the daughter of George III's FOURTH son. The fact that she ever received the crown despite being so far down the succession list is one of the most unlikely outcomes in monarchical history. She was fifth in line for the queenship.

Elizabeth II's uncle (Edward VIII) abdicated when she was 10 years old, so she was never in line for the throne until her father had to take over the position out of necessity.
 
Habitants87 said:
I voted for Notley, and would again, I would probably vote for rona Ambrose if Justin Trudeau wasn't around but I'm a misogynist because I hate Hillary Clinton and trump in equal measure?

OK.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's just such a ridiculous, dishonest argument. Like I said, I'm sure that a lot of Hillary's detractors have sexist intentions, but it's not exactly like she hasn't provided her doubters/opponents with plenty of non-gendered ammunition to use against her.

And she's going to win the presidency anyways, so what's the point of all the complaining?
 
JaysCyYoung said:
Yeah, it's just such a ridiculous, dishonest argument. Like I said, I'm sure that a lot of Hillary's detractors have sexist intentions, but it's not exactly like she hasn't provided her doubters/opponents with plenty of non-gendered ammunition to use against her.

And she's going to win the presidency anyways, so what's the point of all the complaining?
Click to expand...

Why waste a opportunity to tell men they are horrible creatures?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top