Demonrat spin, why can't we complain about the bad behaviour of women?
|
Demonrat spin, why can't we complain about the bad behaviour of women?
Because then, to be perfectly fair, we'd have to talk about the bad behavior of men. And the room would continue to spin.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Yes but it would be fairQuote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Being fair gets you a few nights on the couch, or in the dog house, if the dog lets you in.
My point exactly
to be fair ;I am not blaming anyone . it is what it is . I was in fact one of the original feminists . I don't think anyone should get special treatment based on gender .
But with intersectionalism and wokeness ;Feminists have turned on each other creating new oppressors and victims (.and I dont even want to bring up the transformer factor where anyone can be any gender they "feel " they are . Imagine that conflict ! . You see it all the time now with men who feel they are women winning women sports events ) . The experiences of white feminist women are different from non-white . The 'Metoo' movement is too white privileged . This is where Kristen Gilibrand's campaign backfired .She tweeted "The Future is Female ,Intersectional Powered in our belief in one anotherAnd we’re just getting started "
But that had been the rally cry of the lesbian movement and Gilibrand had no business claiming such oppression . So the responses to the tweet were overwhelming negative . She knew she stepped in it . In an effort to salvage something out of it ,she went to CNN and said she was misunderstood ;that all she meant was“Please include the ladies in the future, because they’re not really included today.” To the intersectional audience ,women of privilege like Gilibrand were already included . Her husband was a successful venture capitalist How could she share the same experiences with minority or lesbian or transformer feminists ?There isn't even any glass ceilings for her to break except one . There hasn't been a female President . So of course her big complaint to CNN was that the top Dem candidates for President were white men.
The problem is that she is demonstrably a phoney. Before her born again wokenss she was a gun loving ,big tobacco supporting ,stepford wife until she became a political opportunist . She centered her campaign on racial justice and the fight against sexual assault. Fluent in wokeness, Gillibrand hoped to win over the most progressive, social justice minded Democrats. But she never broke away from the pack because .....well she was the victim .
More like fake empathy for real victims Tom, because that's what turned people off the most. True politician looking for a raise.
A somewhat confused statement there, you are for feminists who are bent on the domination of men and yet you don't think women should have special treatmentQuote:
to be fair ;I am not blaming anyone . it is what it is . I was in fact one of the original feminists . I don't think anyone should get special treatment based on gender .
I said feminist not femiNazi
Maybe some women are bent on dominating men, just as some men think they are entitled to dominate women, but that's a small group on either side since most of us can agree females have the same rights as men within their own responsibilities. It can get confusing whose who and what's what sometimes even to the point of SHOCKING, but all humans are equal under the law regardless of that other stuff, so what's the problem?
Don't forget this whole notion of wokeness and intersectionalism is a liberal fad that is hot in college studies . What I say on this issue is pure mockery . But my point is also sound . Gillibrand thinks she is a woke person . But intersectionalism; dissecting the population into ever smaller interest groups, by definition creates more victims and oppressors .
Point taken but does that also innclude the real vicyims of oppressors that happen to be women? Mockery or not using just one small narrow example such as your senator and her failed attempts to gain traction on her bid for president doesn't make your broader case for liberal ideas or intersectionalism. Re victimize maybe, but oppresors may be a stretch.
I have brought up Gillibrand . I also brought up the Harris v Mayor Pete feud . Now we have Evita v Sanders redux Evita recently made the claim that Bolshevik Bernie's supporters and a bunch of testosterone induced misogynistswho spend all day trolling his opponents online. “It’s his online Bernie bros and their relentless attacks on lots of his competitors, particularly the women,” Now does anyone seriously think that Bernie is some kind of woman haters ;or that his supporters are Neanderthal members of the he-man woman haters club ?
https://cdn11.bigcommerce.com/s-da66...278255.jpg?c=2
Evitaimplied there’s some equivalence between Sanders and Trump, saying: “We want, hopefully, to elect a president who’s going to try to bring us together, and not either turn a blind eye, or actually reward the kind of insulting, attacking, demeaning, degrading behavior that we’ve seen from this current administration.” But yeah . Bernie is not woke enough or he would reign in any of his supporters who attack his women opponents .
woke I ain't, awake I is
Sen Warren held a pow wow and announced that she promises tofill half of her Cabinet with "women and 'nonbinary 'people" . Classic intersectional wokeness .During December's debate she promisedRecently Evita joined the attack Joe Biden campaign that Warren and Sanders have been tag teaming . Well actually Sanders was saying there was someto "go to the Rose Garden once every year to read the names of transgender women, of people of color, who have been killed in the past year."
corruption " in the Biden clan. But as the wet noodle that he is ;he backed down when Biden challenged him. So he and Warren must've added a pretty shekel or two the the Clintoon Foundation to enlist Evita .
You know the rules Tom, one man one vote, so guess what, one woman one vote applies, and there are more women than men so just do the math. Men have always done whatever it takes to get elected so why are you surprised that women would not adopt the same strategy. Seems to work.
I'm a late comer to this thread having just read Tom's opening post. You absolutely nailed it. The Kavanaugh hearing was a travesty. This business of female worship has become the new national religion. When Warren pledges to read the names of women and the "non-binaries" who have been killed, but then leaves out the men, it's a classic liberal "feel-good" moment, and yet is actually gender prejudice cloaked in morality. What's amazing is to think of how many brain dead democrats will actually pony up good money to help this woman get elected. She's just another HC in that she's an incompetent pol who would never make it if she was a man. She can only appeal to her gender. She has no other electable quality.
So what? Any dem but the dufus. He cheated the last election, and is trying to cheat on the next one.
Rumor mill.Quote:
He cheated the last election, and is trying to cheat on the next one.
He cheats at everything even golf.
The sad thing is back in the day before she decided to run ,she had some reasonable economic positions worth debate and consideration .Her book ' The Two Income Trap'was a rejection of a “quasi-socialist safety net to rival the European model.” She was a true believer in Reaganomics . She was in fact a registered Republican until 1996 .
Her early academic work emphasized the efficiency of free markets .One of her first papers as a full-time professor at the University of HoustonHer 'road to Damascus ' conversion came hen she was on a commission to reform bankruptcy laws. It was there that she concocted the blue print that became the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.she argued that utility companies were over-regulated. She would never take that position today.
I guess she evolved about the money thing in America Tom. Why hold that against her?
"conversions " happen . She went from sound economic theory to a Marxist kook who is probably more extreme than Bolshevik Bernie. She has a history of being a phony who abused Afirmative Action admission policies by making the false claim of minority status . Anyone who legitimately could qualify should be offended by her abuse of the system .
No doubt that during an election year everybody is dealing with everything they have ever done being magnified and amplified. The longer you've been around the more stuff you have to get smeared with. I mean the small case of POSSIBLE neopotism by old Joe is sucking a lot of oxygen from the room while the dufus is defending himself on the national stage.
Just saying there's plenty of election stuff to talk about and who knows what will stick or not, and what will come next? Personally I think the Bloomberg effect will be the biggest story for the dems because socialist Bernie is still socialist Bernie and the young dems revel in it, even as Warren and Saunders are stuck in DC, sipping milk.
Demo POTUS candidates are all radical leftists. America doesn't need communism cloaked as idealism: Its the same old Marxist song: The Demo candidate watermelon is green on the outside and red as hell on the inside.
The dufus didn't win the popular vote last time and barely squeaked by in the EC. Now everybody knows what they're getting and to be REAL, those communist lefty radicals don't look as bad standing next to the dufus.
So you're perfectly willing to vote for "those communist lefty radicals"?
YUP, without hesitation or remorse. Whoever wins the dem nomination. If the plan A works we impeach the dufus, send Pence back to Indiana and anoint Pelosi to fill out the term.
There is talk of exiling the dufus and his whole administration to Russia, but Vlad may not stand for that!
You do realize that Pence would become pres if Trump is impeached?
I am beyond amazed to hear any American admit a willingness to vote for a communist, and even shocked to consider that it is you saying it.
Maybe I don't put much stock into right wing talking points. Not like I haven't heard it all before you know. Or maybe I am old enough to tell the difference between reality and BS!
Either way you righties gave us the dufus in the first place so maybe your credibility ain't all that reliable.
I'm not sure I believe that the words "credible" and "politician" can go together. I think all you can go on are past performance and what they say they will do, realizing that part of what they say they will do will never get done. Honesty seems to be put way back on the rear burner.Quote:
Either way you righties gave us the dufus in the first place so maybe your credibility ain't all that reliable.
Trump HAS BEEN impeached. Whachu bin watchin' on TV, Willis?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Trump HAS BEEN impeached. Whachu bin watchin' on TV, Willis?
Well, go ahead and relish the Impeachment of Trump because you won't be laughing long: Trump will become the FIRST IMPEACHED PRESIDENT TO WIN ANOTHER PRESIDENTIAL TERM!
The left is petty: SO PETTY!
I'm not left; I'm a Republican. Trump will lose the election if he hasn't had a psychotic break yet. He makes less and less sense every day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vacuum7
If your comments on this board genuinely reflect who you are, then you're thoroughly left. You're to the left of anyone else on this board I can think of, and that's really saying something. Your unending praise of Obama and HC speaks volumes.Quote:
I'm not left;
I have never praised Hillary and only once or twice have mentioned Obama, mostly in defense of lies about him by others.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
As far as required vasectomies, I never said they'd be demanded by the government. You added that tidbit.
Yeah. It would be a voluntary program? So who would "require" (your word) them to be done? Come on. It was an outrageous, extreme left-wing suggestion. Like I have said, I most fervently hope that the dem nominee will pick it up and run with it. You can be sure that no conservative will.Quote:
As far as required vasectomies, I never said they'd be demanded by the government. You added that tidbit.
It would be required by the adults in a family who realize how out of control young men can get. Those adults would be backed by the AMA, APA, and most religious groups. Just think of the angst you'd be spared! No more pregnancies out of wedlock, thus no more abortions!Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:00 PM. |