Discussion » Statements » Rosie's Corner » If the Dem candidate were a man would PET have been as effective at attacking his health? Some won't ever vote for a woman for prez. WHY?

If the Dem candidate were a man would PET have been as effective at attacking his health? Some won't ever vote for a woman for prez. WHY?

Posted - December 2, 2016

Responses


  • Many people wouldn't have a problem voting for a woman. I myself would vote for a woman. I just didn't want that woman to be Hillary Clinton. When the right woman comes along and runs on a decent platform without the corruption, she will get her chance in the White House.
      December 2, 2016 10:43 AM MST
    4

  • 113301
    That's good to know Corey. So you don't have any gender bias. Thank you for your reply and Happy Saturday! :)
      December 3, 2016 1:35 AM MST
    0

  • Happy Saturday to you as well, my friend! :D
      December 3, 2016 4:18 AM MST
    1

  • 113301
    Thank you very much. I appreciate that m'dear! :)
      December 3, 2016 4:23 AM MST
    0

  • While i am not sure it's true myself i have heard a lot of Trumpeters say they didn't have a problem with Hilary being a woman, they just didn't like what she stood for. I am sure there are still many who couldn't even consider the idea of a woman prez.. which is a real shame.  There seems a lot more sexism there in many ways.. 

    We are on our second woman prime minister... I never liked the first.. she was evil imo
      December 2, 2016 12:56 PM MST
    1

  • 113301
    I think many men would NEVER vote for a woman though they may say otherwise. A lot of men don't want a woman supervisor either. But I also believe that some/many women would not vote for a woman. They feel safer with a "daddy" to protect them. A "mommy" is supposed to love them but "Daddy" is the family protector. I have no doubt it's how they are raised. Very early on our parents teach us how to value other people and ourselves.Thank you for your thoughtful reply Ddb TD. Your second paragraph begs to be expanded upon and explained if you have the time and the inclination! :)
      December 3, 2016 1:43 AM MST
    0

  • 1615
    If the right one comes I would vote for her but like a lot of people NOT HILLARY!
      December 2, 2016 1:52 PM MST
    1

  • 113301
    That's very good Tom. You have no gender bias. Thank you for your reply and Happy Saturday! :)
      December 3, 2016 1:43 AM MST
    0

  • 1233
    He would have been MORE effective at attacking his health because no one would have said that he "hates men" for doing it.

    Since women are special little snow flakes protected from criticism by political correctness, he got smeared as misogynist and lost the dumb feminist vote. Most of them are leftists who would never have voted for him anyway, but it still hurt him.

    America will have a female president someday but she will be the kind of woman who doesn't expect gentle treatment because she's a woman. She won't play the victim. She won't flip strangely between pathetic weakness and ugly butch strength. Women who really have what it takes, like Margaret Thatcher, have no time for that hypocritical feminist sh*t.

    I guarantee the first female president will be a right winger and you will hate her. ;-) This post was edited by Zeitgeist at December 3, 2016 1:47 AM MST
      December 2, 2016 2:41 PM MST
    1

  • SO you are admitting men and women are equal then..  they dont need or deserve any special consideration.. but then you start talking about feminists... but there's no need for feminism if everyone's like you all nice and for equality.. and she wouldn't be criticised for what she wears, cos it doesn't matter right? And she doesn't have to be attractive, cos Trump sure isn't....well this is all cool stuff.. good to see you don't buy into the women should stay home and make babies rubbish...

    I happen to know a thing about Margaret THatcher.. she was the kind who most right wing thinking men hate.. a strong woman, a total bitch who manipulated and got what she wanted BY ACTING LIKE A MAN... most people hated here here and most do NOT remember her fondly... but hey I am impressed you feel women shouldn't be women and that in order to compete in the arena of politics they have to BE LIKE MEN.. so in other words you mean they have to be foul mouthed and hateful? Selfish, narcissistic? 

    I see you are still suffering from your paranoia over lefty's .. many people have conspiracy theories but you have leftist conspiracies lol where you see leftism in everything you don't agree with  :P

    PS Margaret Thatcher was a conservative..  yes.. as was David Cameron, as is Teresa May
      December 2, 2016 3:26 PM MST
    1

  • 113301
    I had asked for you to expand on your feelings about your Prime Minister m'dear on your reply to the question but you did so very nicely here for which I thank you! :) Thatcher and Reagan were best buddies apparently.  Emphasis on the "buddies". So the folks she "served" didn't much like her. Well folks here don't much like the second-place loser who will  be prez come January 20. And so it goes! :(
      December 3, 2016 1:53 AM MST
    0

  • 1233
    The word "equality" means different things to different people. Left and right have a completely different definition of it.

    The left like to pretend that men and women are the same in every way. This is completely false. We have massive psychological differences that are not social constructs. The psychology is in our DNA to a large extent. It can't be changed. (Things like a woman's appearance mattering more than a man's are hardwired. It's just the way it is. It's like the sky being blue.)

    The right believe that men and women are equal in the sense that we have equal rights under law and neither is inherently superior or inferior to the other. Though we don't believe men and women are the same, or should be treated the same by the culture. We believe that some gender roles are essential. Everyone should be free to do as they want, though to be successful a culture must encourage men and women to step into certain roles.

    The right believe in a meritocracy. If a woman can compete at the highest level in a particular field, great. If she can't, tough. More men than women can compete at the highest levels and any attempt to impose equality will just weaken society.

    Feminism is a far left ideology that is completely destructive. All the countries that obsess over feminism have very low birth rates. They are weak dying cultures. Soon they will be replaced by strong cultures like Islam. This post was edited by Zeitgeist at December 3, 2016 4:22 AM MST
      December 3, 2016 4:00 AM MST
    0

  • So much to disagree with there I wouldn't know where to start.. well I would but it would take a very long post to do so.. however, just a few points...
    >>The left like to pretend that men and women are the same in every way. This is completely false. We have massive psychological differences that are not social constructs. The psychology is in our DNA to a large extent. It can't be changed. (Things like a woman's appearance mattering more than a man's are hardwired. It's just the way it is. It's like the sky being blue.)>>

    There is actually no proof of that and what evidence there is demonstrates that most of the differences, aside from the physical ones are nurture rather than nature.. many of the brain differences have been hyped up and when you look into them the studies were not at all what we were led to believe.. for instance some of the brain differences, as in how a male or female reacts to an emotional stimuli were carried out on dead FISH.. or dead people!  Other studies were carried out on ONLY Men or ONLY women and/or very, very few samples and are not scientific at all... 

    Yes there are differences but it's not proven that just because women have a larger this part and a man a smaller that part of the brain that the brain works differently - it might be that men need fewer neurons in one area to get the same result or that women need fewer neurons in another part to get same results.. there is no proof that men are actually less sensitive to emotions than women.. 

    It's a myth that there is or even can be gender neutral parenting and it starts before they are even born and continues at a pace after.. boys are given x toys, and discouraged from playing with y toys.. etc. and this IS proven.. scientifically..

    However, even without that.. we have evidence, real evidence that things are changing.. for instance. men didn't used to be nurses.. now they can and do.. and are JUST as caring and attentive as women.. At one time women were thought to be less intelligent than men... because they had a smaller brain... now we know that isnt true.. it's smaller cos women are generally smaller... it doesn't imply less intelligence.. and at one time it was thought women were incapable of becoming doctors... now we know they can.. and indeed women now outnumber men in terms of studying to become doctors.. 

    And look at stereotypes.. it has long been believed that women aren't as good at maths as men.. well in some countries there is no difference... and what's more.. there is now evidence that for example in the UK girls are beginning to be able to be equal or sometimes out perform  boys in studying higher level maths..
    SO you have to question our belief that women are in some way less good at certain things.. or that men are less good at certain things.. If women were intrinsically less able to DO maths then they wouldn't suddenly be able to study the higher levels and compare favourably with men... 

    Your point that men are in the top whatever it was ... ahh but there are very real social and cultural constraints on women that explain why this is.. including that child birth, something restricted to women, does significantly count against women and it's been shown that where two parents could share childcare equally it does still get left to women largely.. and there is NO reason why it should. there is NO reason why men cannot do just as good a job.. that was known back in the 60s read attachment theory psychology.. it doesnt have to be a woman the baby attaches to... 

    I actually agree men and women are different.. but not for the reasons we have been led to believe. not because of supposed limitations... those are very largely in the mind and culture.. 

    FWIW tho there is NO WAY women's appearance is more *important* than mens.. nope.. only in limited minds.. it doesn't matter at all .. and women mostly DONT take care of their appearance because of men :P

    The mistaken idea that we NEED higher birthrates is actually very outdated.. we are over populated as it is.. population has grown.. and continued to grow. the idea we need to have large families went out with scientific advances which meant lower mortality rates.. In many muslim countries there is still high death rates among mothers and children, not helped by practices such as child brides... 

    Intelligent people believe men and women should have equal status... extremists believe some very questionable ideas.. enough said.. 

    THis started when you said Hilary should be treated equally as in not treated gently.. but illogically you say that then say something like that women's appearance is important. you cant have both.. if a woman is accepted as being able to stand in that arena then she is no diffrent in terms of how she looks.. there are many unattractive male and female politicians.. 
      December 3, 2016 11:54 AM MST
    0

  • 1233
    The science on the matter is controversial as politically loaded questions always are. Believe what you will.

    I never said we needed high birthrates. I said we can't have low birth rates. Any country under a birth rate of 2 is dying. The E.U. average is 1.6 and even that number is largely because of immigration from high birth rate cultures. The western world is dying. It has serious economic consequences. Society, especially in more left wing countries, is a ponzi scheme that relies on enough young people paying into the system to avoid collapse. 

    "This started when you said Hilary should be treated equally as in not treated gently.. but illogically you say that then say something like that women's appearance is important. you cant have both".

    Communication with you is very difficult because you don't really listen, ignore subtle differences, and misrepresent my opinions. No, I didn't say that a female politician's appearance is important. I said that people care about it more than male politician's appearance. I didn't say that I care. I'm saying that society in general does care, at least enough for it to influence the outcome of elections. I think that's part of human nature and there is little we can do. 

    Women's sense of entitlement to gentle treatment runs deep. Men (including myself) feel that women should be treated gently even when they don't deserve it. This makes it very difficult for a male and female candidate to have a fair fight. This is also part of human nature and can't easily be set aside. I think it should be set aside if women are to participate in politics, though I'm skeptical that it can be.
    This post was edited by Zeitgeist at December 3, 2016 2:58 PM MST
      December 3, 2016 2:25 PM MST
    0

  • 113301
    Thank you for your reply TZ and Happy Saturday to thee. Suggestion. Get a better picture to represent you. That one is not flattering at all.
      December 3, 2016 1:45 AM MST
    0

  • 739
    Comments on Hillary's health from that fat b*stard walking heart attack were about as believable as the crap about her being "corrupt." Now, he says he ain't gonna prosecute her after all. Of course he ain't. He, and the rest of the Republitards, ain't got diddly squat on her, and they know it. They have always known it. If Hillary was anymore innocent she would be Mother Teresa of f*ckin' Calcuta. They tried to blame her for the Bengazi embassy; the policy to deal with embassies was laid down by George W Bush. Colin Powell had a similar e-mail account. Hillary made mistakes there, but the FBI could find nothing to prosecute her for. They tried to suggest there was something corrupt about the Clinton foundation, and talked about what Wikileaks published about it. The Wikileaks material can be viewed by any member of the public. All that material shows is that the Clintons run a charitable foundation, and there are no doners to it who you would consider innapropriate if they gain access to the Clintons.
    Trump, on the other hand, has not put his own money into his own charitable foundation since 2008, and used a masked payment through it to bribe Bondi into not prosecuting his fake "university" scam, which did not stop the prosecutors of other states from pursuing it, hence all those out of court settlements. Wonder how he will deal with all the women who claim they were groped by him? More out of court settlements? Maybe some of them won't be bought. They called Hillary a criminal? Has anyone ever been elected to the White House who had so many cases hanging over him? I doubt it. We all know which one should REALLY be in jail!
    One final thought. In my country, where we don't have an electoral college system, Hillary would have won. America has a system where the person who gets the most votes doesn't win, but considers itself a shining example of democracy. America has elected a President who politicians around the world, whether on the left or the right, have contempt for. They don't just dislike and distrust the guy, they hold him in contempt. As William Blake said, "as air to the bird, as sea to the fish, so is contempt to the contemptible." The only politicians who like Chump are Farage, and some woman on a far-right party in Australia. His policies will shrink the US economy by 5%, lose jobs, allow China to become the dominant power in the area covered by the Trans-Pacific Partnership. It took Obama seven years to negotiate that deal, and President Elect Dumb As F*ck wants to tear it up! Part of the reason Obama wanted it was to curb the growing influence of China in the region. Ronald Macdonald said he was worried about the USA losing jobs to China. So why tear up the TPP? America's economy will get worse under Trump, its military and political influence will be decreased, in short, he won't put America first, but instead, under him, it will finish up last, unless he listens to the advice of wiser heads and abandons most of the sh*te the idiots who voted for him, voted for him for. Just saying. This post was edited by HarryDemon at December 16, 2016 7:57 AM MST
      December 2, 2016 2:58 PM MST
    2

  • 113301
    For some reason parts of your reply are missing HarryD. Thank you for your thoughtful reply and Happy Saturday to thee!  Do you have any clue as to what might have happened to the rest of your answer?
      December 3, 2016 1:47 AM MST
    0

  • 739
    I can see it all on my phone, Rosie! Perhaps there is something wrong at your end?
      December 7, 2016 12:59 PM MST
    0

  • 739
    HMMM. When I looked at that last post on the computer, as opposed to the phone, it ran off the page. I think I have it sorted now. It looks OK on the computer. I don't know what went wrong.
      December 16, 2016 8:00 AM MST
    0

  • 46117
    Some need to be culled from the herd.   These dinosaur mouth-breathers  must follow the path of extinction before we are all extinct. 
      December 16, 2016 8:03 AM MST
    0