Hillary Clinton 'convinced' Trump associates colluded with Russia

[Snarky Oracle!]

Nina Turner, Jill Stein, and even Susan Sarandon have received a ton of hate from female Hillary supporters. But you don't hear them calling that misogyny, do you?

Well, Sarandon did imply that Bette Davis and Joan Crawford were only bitches because men a the studios pitted them against each other.

So you get to be misogynist if you disagree with the woman I like, and not a misogynist if you agree with the woman I like.

And I think that's nice.

 

[Frank Underwood]

Well, Sarandon did imply that Bette Davis and Joan Crawford were only bitches because men a the studios pitted them against each other.

Oh, I didn't know about that. I only knew that she's not well liked by establishment Dems for supporting Bernie.

So you get to be misogynist if you disagree with the woman I like, and not a misogynist if you agree with the woman I like.

And I think that's nice.

That's how it works. Unfortunately, they are enabled by sycophants who refuse to acknowledge the double standard.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

You know the old saying: 'a misogynist is a man who hates women as much as women hate women'.

And if we don't say Hillary's "right" 100% of the time, then we're just barely disguised "unhinged Trump fiends." And, of course, misogynists. Who hate women.

But when I point out that I've voted for Hillary more than once, it's met with the response, "if you say so" -- like I'm lying, or, if I'm telling the truth, then it has no relevance because I won't support every word she utters.

But what if you're a leftist trans woman who has a problem with some of Hillary's stories?

It's all so confusing.

Do Black Lives Matter care when black people are killed by other black people? I haven't followed it.

 

[SueEllenRules!]

And neither BD Calhoun nor myself said sexism/misogyny "played no role" in the campaign.

No, you just minimized and/or trivialized it.

Lots of sexist slurs were thrown her way, and we said so.

That admission must have been excruciating.

But how does someone claim misogyny cost her the election when she won more votes that anybody ever has??

I don't recall her claiming that misogyny cost her the election. In fact, she didn't even assert that it was the primary reason she lost. It was, however, one of several factors.

It's the electoral college that's the problem.

Careful, you may actually admit that Hillary made another valid point.

And you think only women can make observations about sexism and misogyny? Really?

No, but they certainly have a perspective no man could possibly have. Or apparently even appreciate.

And you think your childbirth analogy works?

Perfectly.

I don't doubt childbirth hurts, but am I, as a guy, qualified to say she experienced no pain in childbirth when she wasn't pregnant to begin with?

She's experienced both pregnancy and childbirth before, which puts her two up on you.

Do you really think women are always right and always truthful?

No and neither are you.

Or that it's sexist to even ask such a question?

Coming from you, it's debatable.

That's because you're obviously not even reading what @BD Calhoun and I have been posting.

I'll admit that at best I've skimmed most of your recent posts. After you've read the perpetual harping on Hillary once, there's no point in reading the same thing the second, third, and fourth times.

There's a million miles of difference between what we post and the "average unhinged Trump fiend post" you see elsewhere--- for one thing, we both hate Trump.

Almost as much as you hate Hillary. Although, I wouldn't bet on it.

But you seem to be too PC, too much about team colors.

The real world doesn't work that way.

Just because we call out Hillary on her lies about Bernie Sanders (and her inaccurate analysis of why the White House was snatched from her, and indeed it was) doesn't make us part of "the other side" -- even if your prefer that simplistic narrative.

Sorry, I fell asleep. What was that again? Oh, wait, never mind...I've heard it all before. Boy, have I heard it all before.

What makes you the liberal equivalent of McGarrett (and not me) is that you both view things from an extremist perspective.

If you say so.

Not all my opinions are tame, but I would never say you were comparable to an unhinged Trump fiends just because you criticized Hillary over something (although I'm unlikely to be tested on that, as I don't see you criticizing her on any point ever -- but feel free to prove me wrong).

I know who the real enemy is here. And it ain't Hillary.

That's like saying McGarrett is a"libtard Hillary fan" just because he criticized the GOP on something.

Making a derogatory statement once is expressing an opinion. Making essentially the same derogatory statement 10 times about someone you claim you don't detest is another thing entirely. Especially when you obviously relish turning the screws.

What does that even mean??

Primarily, that you consider your opinion superior to all.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

No, you just minimized and/or trivialized it.


That admission must have been excruciating.


I don't recall her claiming that misogyny cost her the election. In fact, she didn't even assert that it was the primary reason she lost. It was, however, one of several factors.


Careful, you may actually admit that Hillary made another valid point.


No, but they certainly have a perspective no man could possibly have. Or apparently even appreciate.


Perfectly.


She's experienced both pregnancy and childbirth before, which puts her two up on you.


No and neither are you.


Coming from you, it's debatable.


I'll admit that at best I've skimmed most of your recent posts. After you've read the perpetual harping on Hillary once, there's no point in reading the same thing the second, third, and fourth times.


Almost as much as you hate Hillary. Although, I wouldn't bet on it.


Sorry, I fell asleep. What was that again? Oh, wait, never mind...I've heard it all before. Boy, have I heard it all before.


If you say so.


I know who the real enemy is here. And it ain't Hillary.


Making a derogatory statement once is expressing an opinion. Making essentially the same derogatory statement 10 times about someone you claim you don't detest is another thing entirely. Especially when you obviously relish turning the screws.

Thank you for admitting that you didn't read our posts because we are "perpetually harping on Hillary once" and that's enough.

"Perpetually once"?

It's explains why you seem to be yelling at people who aren't saying what BD Calhoun and I are saying.

And why would I "hate Hillary" more than Trump if I voted for Hillary more than once??

Primarily, that you consider your opinion superior to all.

Heel, physician thyself.

 

[SueEllenRules!]

Who the hell said it played no role?

Unless I've gone insane, you and Snarky have spent the better part of 5 threads minimizing and/or trivializing the role of misogyny in the election. And misogyny wasn't even the topic of 4 of those threads.

What we're saying is that it wasn't the defining role.

That's funny. Hillary Clinton has been saying the exact same thing. In her opinion, the defining role was Comey's letter to Congress 11 days before the election.

And as far as knowing "all there is to know on the subject," I do know that Hillary and her supporters will cry sexism when criticized, but have no problem trashing their female detractors. Nina Turner, Jill Stein, and even Susan Sarandon have received a ton of hate from female Hillary supporters. But you don't hear them calling that misogyny, do you?

As I've said before, it's only misogyny when an old Jewish socialist attacks neoliberal women on policy and Wall Street.

Gee, I haven't heard any of that before. Over and over and over again.

I also remember you accusing me of not liking "highly capable women," even though I voted for a woman who is a Harvard educated doctor.

And not remotely qualified to be president. But at least you didn't vote for a woman who was. And, in fact, the only candidate who was qualified.

So yeah, misogyny is often used disingenuously.

Tell me about it.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Unless I've gone insane, you and Snarky have spent the better part of 5 threads minimizing and/or trivializing the role of misogyny in the election. And misogyny wasn't even the topic of 4 of those threads.

You've gone insane.

 

[Frank Underwood]

Unless I've gone insane, you and Snarky have spent the better part of 5 threads minimizing and/or trivializing the role of misogyny in the election. And misogyny wasn't even the topic of 4 of those threads.

It's made its way into other threads because she continues making that assertion in the media and on shows like Colbert. She's allowed it to overshadow everything else she said.

If anything, it's Hillary who is "minimizing and/or trivializing" misogyny by using the term incorrectly.

How can you take someone seriously when she equates policy attacks with sexism, implies female Bernie supporters are internalized misogynists, and complains about Putin "manspreading?" Of all the things to criticize him for, that's what she chooses? Tell me she isn't pandering to SJWs with shit like that. And her view of "Bernie gals" is a backwards view of feminism. She even complains in the book about young women who don't believe gender is a "motivating factor" when voting. That's right ladies, vote for me because we all have a vagina!

That's funny. Hillary Clinton has been saying the exact same thing. In her opinion, the defining role was Comey's letter to Congress 11 days before the election.

I've heard her mention the Comey letter, but she brings up misogyny just as much. Even if she believes the Comey letter was more damaging, it's obvious she thinks misogyny still had a big impact on her loss. Of course, in Hillary land, disagreeing with and criticizing a woman over her policy record and ties to Wall Street equals misogyny, so she's still using it disingenuously.

Blaming Bernie for Trump's "crooked Hillary" attack is also stupid. Trump called all of his opponents names. Nobody holds Hillary responsible for Trump calling Sanders "crazy Bernie."

Gee, I haven't heard any of that before. Over and over and over again.

So what? Does hearing something repeatedly mean it has no merit?

And not remotely qualified to be president. But at least you didn't vote for a woman who was. And, in fact, the only candidate who was qualified.

So now it's about her qualifications? I thought it was about me not liking "highly capable women?" Are you changing course because you realize your theory doesn't hold water?

And Stein's not qualified based on what? The fact that she hasn't held office before? She was the only candidate in the general election that supported a platform I agree with.

If supporting anti gay legislation, signing off on the Iraq, Libya, and Syrian wars, signing off on the Patriot Act, and reversing her position on healthcare and bankruptcy law because of donor money is indicative of her "qualifications," I'm glad I went with an "unqualified" candidate. True leftists who aren't afraid to challenge the faux leftists are under attack. Not only are we under attack by the establishment media and politicians, we also have to deal with their sycophants who've been brainwashed into believing that neoliberals care about them. Dems like you accuse progressives of being like Trump voters when you're the ones who support establishment elites like Hillary, regardless of their lies or neocon positions.

I respect Hillary voters like Snarky because I know they're pragmatists. But as he correctly pointed out, he's a true leftist, while Hillary is indeed a faux leftist.

Tell me about it.

At least you admit it. I'm sure that's not a desperate attempt to try and turn what I said against me. You would never do that, especially since it's not true. I know you value integrity.

 

[SueEllenRules!]

You've gone insane.

And as per usual, she's laying blame on someone else. She always acts like she's the victim of sexism, despite using the sexist term "Bernie bros" in regards to Bernie supporters.

Here's a woman who's been first lady, senator, Secretary of State, and won the presidential popular vote by three million votes, yet she always acts like the victim of sexists.

This book is turning out to be a gold mine of bullshit. Hillary claims that white women were pressured by the men in their lives not to vote for "the girl," and specifically calls out Bernie supporters for being sexists. So now we're supposed to believe that a "strong, independent woman" like Hillary attracts doormats? This sounds like the deluded ramblings of someone who can't stand the fact that not all Bernie supporters are "bros."

And, if there was ever any doubt, her book proves she's a dirty lying whore.

But then, most politicians are -- she just doesn't want to be accused of it because of "misogyny".

"Misogyny" is now used to insulate a woman from any blame, claiming that "they always blame the woman" as an excuse to never blame the woman.

Her problem is that she's not just blaming others who deserve it. She's also blaming people who don't deserve it. (Like Sanders). But she doesn't want to ever be blamed when she herself deserves it.

And when she is, she calls it "misogyny."

Last night, Hillary Clinton repeats "misogyny" assertion and discusses Putin:

And since Hillary won the popular vote by more than 3 million ballots and received more votes than anyone who's ever run for president, then where is the 'misogyny' in that??

Just because some of her detractors said sexist things, doesn't mean her being denied the White House was sexist.

And as a leftist who voted for Hillary twice and would likely do so again, it's interesting to be posting these conservative memes:

Those are some of the posts from just 2 of the 5 threads I mentioned that minimize, trivialize, outright dismiss, and/or mock the role of misogyny in the election. If necessary, I can comb through the other 3 threads to further support my sanity. Frankly though, I'd prefer not to swim in that sewer again.

 

[Frank Underwood]

By the way, I love how the defense of criticism is to say "I've heard it all before."

I guess I made a mistake by refuting the bullshit said about me. The next time I'm accused of misogyny, hating Hillary more than Trump, and being the same as an unhinged Trump supporter, I'll just say "I've heard it all before." Boy, have I heard it all before. Over and Over again. Ad nauseam.

By the way, aren't Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman great because they have a vagina? I would never want to be one of those sexists that criticizes them for being uniformed dolts.

 

[Frank Underwood]

Those are some of the posts from just 2 of the 5 threads I mentioned that minimize, trivialize, outright dismiss, and/or mock the role of misogyny in the election. If necessary, I can comb through the other 3 threads to further support my sanity. Frankly though, I'd prefer not to swim in that sewer again.

When I think of a sewer, I think of posts that rely on righteous indignation, strawman arguments, and projecting knee jerk reactions on other people.

But I suppose that's easier than trying to refute your beloved's neocon policy positions and disingenuous attacks of her opponents.

Again, nobody is saying there aren't misogynists who refuse to vote for a woman. What's being disputed is the characterization of Sanders and his supporters as sexists, the accusation that female progressives were "pressured" to support Sanders by men, and that sexism played a significant role in her loss. Again, she's trivializing the role of misogyny by using it against anybody who didn't support her or dared to criticize her corporate shilling, militaristic self. Did sexism also prevent her from campaigning to the working class? Of course not.

I don't know why I'm even writing this since it's a waste of time. You have a rose colored view of Hillary, and no amount of substantive criticism will ever change that.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

By the way, I love how the defense of criticism is to say "I've heard it all before."

I guess I made a mistake by refuting the bullshit said about me. The next time I'm accused of misogyny, hating Hillary more than Trump, and being the same as an unhinged Trump supporter, I'll just say "I've heard it all before." Boy, have I heard it all before. Over and Over again. Ad nauseam.

By the way, aren't Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman great because they have a vagina? I would never want to be one of those sexists that criticizes them for being uniformed dolts.

When I think of a sewer, I think of posts that rely on righteous indignation, strawman arguments, and projecting knee jerk reactions on other people.

But I suppose that's easier than trying to refute your beloved's neocon policy positions and disingenuous attacks of her opponents.

Again, nobody is saying there aren't misogynists who refuse to vote for a woman. What's being disputed is the characterization of Sanders and his supporters as sexists, the accusation that female progressives were "pressured" to support Sanders by men, and that sexism played a significant role in her loss. Again, she's trivializing the role of misogyny by using it against anybody who didn't support her or dared to criticize her corporate shilling, militaristic self. Did sexism also prevent her from campaigning to the working class? Of course not.

I don't know why I'm even writing this since it's a waste of time. You have a rose colored view of Hillary, and no amount of substantive criticism will ever change that.

Ditto. Apparently only Hillary (and certain posters) are allowed to repeat themselves, and the misogyny accusation. But we can only refute it once, and then even that's once too many.

But SJW's are not, in fact, progressives. Progressives are focused on the realities of actual policy, while the SJWs seem caught up in this wild, endlessly righteous (if not right) identity politics, insisting your agreeing with them 90% of the time just simply isn't enough and therefore makes you a traitor and a mole, and they are mostly unconcerned with policy unless it involves what bathrooms you're allowed to use.

And when I say I voted for Hillary twice (actually three times) it's met with an "if you say so" followed by the assertion that I "hate her Hillary more than Trump" because I can't support 100% of what she says or does. Or the people who do. Voting for her, and defending her when it's warranted, simply isn't good enough.

SJWs, in their way, aren't really even leftists. Their goosestepping P-C shrillness seems like a very fascistic way to be on the left, very narcissistic, really, and just serves to alienate and divide real leftists (to say nothing of the trailer park cadre, who've never really understood that conservative policy and politicians don't help them).

And, as despicable and disgusting as he is, Steve Bannon has said that as long as the Democrats keep campaigning on identity politics, the Republicans will continue to win.