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

Palin lost because she ran against the first black president that who incidentally beat the 'beast'. When the 'right' woman comes along she will be elected.

 

Thinking that to be fair to woman is electing a woman because she is a woman is stupid. Skilled woman need to be recognized, idiot one don't need that.

 

The problem is that your position has no actual argument TO refute. Misogyny as an excuse as to why Hilla lost is impossible to prove - also unlikely to be true given that there were many, and far more obvious, reasons why she lost. Misogyny as an excuse as to why we haven't had a female (vice-) president is also impossible to prove. Although I see the argument you're trying to make, you have yet to logically prove it. Your argument as it stands right now is in Affective Fallacy mode.

Nonsense. I recall years back a call to draft Condi Rice for prez that got squelched when she repeatedly said she had no interest in it. I would gladly have voted for Christine Todd Whitman, Rebecca Kleefisch, Mary Taylor, Jenene Hampton, Liz Cheney, Carly Fiona, OR Condi for prez this time around had they run (or in Carlys case, had she gotten the nom.) In any event, any of the women I named were and are superior in quality to Trump, and easily light-years ahead of Hilla in terms of professionalism, job performance, likability, and charisma.

 

Not to mention that in my native country, the far right extremist leader is a woman. And on that point, our both countries are not different.

A charismatic woman leader can emerge in the republican, and republican would follow her. Republican are not exactly my cup of tea, they have a lot of flaws, but not the one of being mysoginistic.

 

Ya, over two hundred years to have a black President and over two hundred years and NO woman President....but there is NO racism or sexism in this country, nosirree, not us.... ...gee, we would have if blacks and women could just be as good as any white male (Sarcasm alert for sexist/misogynists)


Actually Palin won but it had to be in the form of a man, Trump...

 

I DID prove it. Our history proves it....YOU are saying that women could've been elected if they were only as good as men...If there was no sexism, no misogyny, there would have been a female president long before now.......did you know other countries have had female leaders for centuries????

 

No. The only thing you've proven so far is that we haven't had a female (vice-) president yet. You have yet to prove the why. Merely saying it's because of misogyny isn't enough; you have to document specifically WHY misogyny is the sole or major reason. So far, your argument is at the "I'm saying it's so, therefore it is so" stage. There is a logical argument to be made, you just haven't made it yet.

Secondly, at no time did I say that women could have been elected if only they were as good as men. Flat-out wrong as I gave you several examples off the top of my head of women I would have voted for had they run or gotten the nom. However, their gender was tertiary to the fact that I can actually list positive accomplishments they have done - as well as agreeing with their stances on key issues. I can't give you any accomplishments on Hillary. Heck, even Hillary herself couldn't tell you what her top accomplishment was as SoS. Meanwhile, I could actually list positive things Trump did as a businessman - and I don't even like him.

To me, it's a given that women could easily be elected to president if they were better than Hillary. I could name a dozen 7th and 8th grade girls in my classes who have more integrity and would make better presidents than Hilla would. Hilla does herself no favors by claiming misogyny was what killed her campaign

 

Kellyanne Conway was the first woman in history to run a successful POTUS campaign. I don't think any man could have done a better job, several tried. I'm sure foxhastings will join us in congratulating her for this great achievement!

 

We the people voted by a 2% margin a woman to be PotUS.

An antiquated mechanism called the Electoral College voted for Donald Dork.

One has to be blind to see the dysfunction of "democracy" in America ...

 

We had a popular vote in this country.

Each state gets it's own popular vote. Trump won 37 of those 50 popular votes.

Please explain why it's an "antiquated" system for each state to receive a choice in governance based on the population within that state?

Tell me more about how you support San Franciso and New York being the only votes that should matter, and how the states other than New York and California should have more taxation without representation.

 

Save the Democrat talking points. You didn't vote for a candidate you voted for electors supporting that candidate. The Electoral College precludes a minority of Geographic America from ruling most of the land. BTW there was no candidate named 'Donald Dork'....Did you even vote?

 

You did not prove it at all or even try.

Your claim that no woman has been elected president is true but that does not prove it is because of misogyny.

You need to show EMPIRICAL evidence not just your closed minded bias

 

Seems we've slid down a long, sad slope... from DeTocqueville to DeTokeville. Pity.

 

By your logic the fact that Palin didn't win the VP is also because of sexism.

Hillary was a terrible candidate and she still nearly won. She won the popular vote and would have won the presidency if she had not ignored key states and if she had a campaign that didn't suck balls. Her gender was an advantage, not a hindrance, and she brought it up so often because she and the people who advised her were well aware of it.

It's 2017. Candidates should be judged on their merit, not their genitals. And when it comes to merit, Clinton is lacking.

 

No misogyny or sexism holding women back ?????

What century was it before women even got to VOTE?

...and WHY did they( specifically women) need a law passed so they could????


Yes, you gave example of women YOU thought might've made it but maybe THEY didn't think so and didn't know they had your "MANLY" approval. Maybe they were SMART enough to know that even if they raised and spent millions they wouldn't get those sexist/misogynist votes, so they didn't waste the money.

What women of the 19th century did you think should've been President and why do you supposed they didn't become president????


Gee, Ya think WHITE MEN didn't have a head start and women were just bashful???:

 

Odd that this "misogyny" only keeps the poor downtrodden women from winning the White House, but meanwhile they win elections for both houses of Congress, Governerships (even in red states), and other positions of power. I guess people are only misogynistic about the Pres and VP. Yeah, that must be it.

Also, as Dems love to point out, she won the "popular vote". And if that was how we selected a president, she would have won. How does that square with your "everybody hates women" narrative?

 

Correct there is no misogyny or sexism holding them back.

The 19th century proves nothing about today

 

See, you're starting to formulate an argument now. You now have the argument covered up to 1920. You now have a century-ish left to make an argument for.

Many of them have already been elected to positions within the government so yes, they have the potential to go even further.

Moving the goalposts. Irrelevant whether they thought they could go further, the point is that they can. Actually, the point I was originally addressing was this statement you made: "YOU are saying that women could've been elected if they were only as good as men." and my response was that these women ARE electable, as well as the refutation that I said women weren't as good as men - something you made up out of thin air.

Ad homenem attack. Kind of odd how you're railing against sexism and misogyny and yet you resort to a sexist attack right there.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Don't know about the first, and the 19th Amendment answers the second.

I dunno, why don't you ask a white male and find out?

 

So FOX just gives away $13 million dollars for some frivolous lawsuits. It's pretty naive to think, that if he was innocent, FOX (and O'Reilly) would have totally ruined these lying women, with their media power.

And of course, the point of all of this, and it's relevance to this thread, is that Trump defended O'Reilly, which is just another slap-in-the-face to women in this country.

 

Not really.

Pretty common to settle out and it proves.......................nothing.

Some women maybe but that is just because of partisan bias

 

Yes, and how long did it take women to get that far? About 150 years after men had all the roles....did you know women didn't even get to vote until the 20th century?


Yes, it took Clinton 250 years to get that many votes or even be considered for the presidency.


YOU are saying that women have always been too stupid or lazy or not worthy enough to be President, no sexism or misogyny was involved...well, that's a pretty sexist opinion...
Sorry, I'm done "discussing" things with those who have NO knowledge of the history of the US....

 

Yes, dear, after women got the vote all misogyny and sexism just disappeared (sarcasm alert, for those who believe that)

 

No one said that.

It was never wide spread to begin with and still is not which is fact you have failed to challenge

 

Yes, dear, after women got the vote all misogyny and sexism just disappeared (sarcasm alert, for those who believe that)

Sorry, I am tired of "discussing" this with posters who have no knowledge whatsoever of the history of their own country....

 

Projecting and running away i you mean.