Donald Trump, the road that might not lead to the White House!

[Yuwipi Woman]

Trump’s misogyny foreshadows the ugly backlash that will hit Clinton if she wins

The thing that astonishes me is that she's knows all this, but is still running. At this point she couldn't have any illusions that her potential stint in the White House is going to be easy going. She's not my favorite person, but I will concede that she's one tough old broad (and I mean that in a positive way.).

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

The thing that astonishes me is that she's knows all this, but is still running. At this point she couldn't have any illusions that her stint in the White House is going to be easy going. She's not my favorite person, but I will concede that she's one tough 'ol broad (and I mean that in a positive way.).

Obama's time in the White House hasn't been easy, either, whether it's having to face the Birther movement, or the House and the Senate blocking most things he wanted to do almost out of spite - even if later they had second thoughts, like they did with the Saudi lawsuit legislation.

Obama has faced a level of disrespect that wouldn't have happened to a white president. He did it anyway, and I'm sure that he knew what he was facing beforehand, as well.

Somebody has to be the first: and being the first through these barriers is never easy.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

Obama's time in the White House hasn't been easy, either, whether it's having to face the Birther movement, or the House and the Senate blocking most things he wanted to do almost out of spite - even if later they had second thoughts, like they did with the Saudi lawsuit legislation.

Obama has faced a level of disrespect that wouldn't have happened to a white president. He did it anyway, and I'm sure that he knew what he was facing beforehand, as well.

Somebody has to be the first: and being the first through these barriers is never easy.

It wasn't "almost out of spite". It was spite. All of the GOP leaders got together over a steak and decided to be as obstructive as possible:

The Conspiracy to Commit Legislative Constipation

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke has qualified for a televised debate in Louisiana's Senate race after a new poll showed him drawing 5 percent of the vote.

Duke, a white supremacist, announced he was running late this summer, saying GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump had inspired him and drawn more followers to his cause.

David Duke qualifies for Louisiana Senate debate

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Good one.

These Latina Sisters Trolled Eric Trump With A Simple T-Shirt

 

[J Ed]

You're probably right.

The point I'm trying to make is that it's not just commentators from the Economist who have remarked on the misogyny and anti-feminist backlash that Clinton has had to endure, apart from any consideration of her fitness to be president based on her character or prior actions.

...or, god forbid, politics. That is what has been left out of this crap which attempts to whitewash Hillary Clinton by claiming that all of her critics are sexists. The majority of Americans do not share her political positions, so it is not surprising that most of them do not support her.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

It's a misstatement to say that commentators who mention the anti-feminism operating here are saying that all her critics are sexists.

What they're saying, is that no matter what her politics, some of the strong opposition and unequal treatment from some quarters, stems from the fact that Clinton is female.

 

[J Ed]

It's a misstatement to say that commentators who mention the anti-feminism operating here are saying that all her critics are sexists.

What they're saying, is that no matter what her politics, some of the strong opposition and unequal treatment from some quarters, stems from the fact that Clinton is female.

In all of these articles there is a total erasure of reasonable criticisms of Hillary Clinton, and even more of an erasure of female voices which are anti-Clinton.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

... because.... the articles are about the anti-feminist backlash that Clinton faces.

It's like an article discussing Trump's 'grab 'em by the pussy' comment. It's not necessary in such an article to discuss Trump's disparaging of Mexicans; or his positions[ or lack thereof] on foreign policy.

It's possible to focus on one issue, and leave other areas of critique or analysis, to other articles.

 

[bimble]

In all of these articles there is a total erasure of reasonable criticisms of Hillary Clinton, and even more of an erasure of female voices which are anti-Clinton.

The articles are not about the reasonable criticisms of Clinton though, that's the point.

 

[J Ed]

... because.... the articles are about the anti-feminist backlash that Clinton faces.

It's like an article discussing Trump's 'grab 'em by the pussy' comment. It's not necessary in such an article to discuss Trump's disparaging of Mexicans; or his positions[ or lack thereof] on foreign policy.

It's possible to focus on one issue, and leave other areas of critique or analysis, to other articles.

The articles are about criticism of Hillary Clinton, which they attribute entirely to sexism while leaving a handful of weasel words in for people to claim otherwise while not actually giving voice to any of those criticisms.

 

[bimble]

The articles are about criticism of Hillary Clinton, which they attribute entirely to sexism while leaving a handful of weasel words in for people to claim otherwise while not actually giving voice to any of those criticisms.

No, they don't, but you've read 3 of them now and keep refusing to see the point they're making. Acknowledging that some of the hatred she gets is to do with her being a woman does not mean that all criticisms of her are from woman-haters. That's not hard to grasp surely.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

The articles are about criticism of Hillary Clinton, which they attribute entirely to sexism while leaving a handful of weasel words in for people to claim otherwise while not actually giving voice to any of those criticisms.

No; the articles are about the role sexism plays in this election.

 

[Yossarian]

Obama's time in the White House hasn't been easy, either, whether it's having to face the Birther movement, or the House and the Senate blocking most things he wanted to do almost out of spite - even if later they had second thoughts, like they did with the Saudi lawsuit legislation.

Obama has faced a level of disrespect that wouldn't have happened to a white president. He did it anyway, and I'm sure that he knew what he was facing beforehand, as well.

Somebody has to be the first: and being the first through these barriers is never easy.

Yep, it was shameful - history will record that not only did some yahoos in Congress treat the constitutional law professor who became America's first black president like an uppity servant who had somehow stumbled into the job, there was a reasonable-sized movement that tried to claim he wasn't the real president because he was secretly an illegal alien from Africa, not a real American at all.

History will probably also go on to record that the asshole billionaire who spearheaded the latter movement tried to run for president himself a few years later and was humiliated.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

It's like watching a Clown Car smashup.

Some Republicans are running so far away from their party’s nominee that they are threatening to sue TV stations for running ads that suggest they support Donald Trump.

Just two weeks before Election Day, five Republicans ― Reps. Bob Dold (R-Ill.), Mike Coffman (R-Colo.), David Jolly (R-Fla.), John Katko (R-N.Y.) and Brian Fitzpatrick, a Pennsylvania Republican running for an open seat that’s currently occupied by his brother ― contend that certain commercials paid for by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee provide false or misleading information by connecting them to the GOP nominee.

Trump is so terrible, these Republicans are essentially arguing, that tying them to him amounts to defamation.

Republicans Threaten Lawsuits Over TV Ads Linking Them To Donald Trump | Huffington Post

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

An American Eagle attacking Trump's hair:

 

[J Ed]

No, they don't, but you've read 3 of them now and keep refusing to see the point they're making. Acknowledging that some of the hatred she gets is to do with her being a woman does not mean that all criticisms of her are from woman-haters. That's not hard to grasp surely.

I know that you and Johnny Canuck have a habit of not actually reading the articles you paste on here but the articles literally do bundle in left-wingers who are against Clinton with the right-wing sexists (and, presumably non-sexists).

From your Economist article

Hence their voluble support for Bernie Sanders, whose outsiderish credentials were confirmed by the fact that he had only recently joined the party whose nomination he sought. By pillorying Mrs Clinton as an apologist for a predatory elite—to which effort her lucrative past speechmaking on Wall Street provided ammunition—the Vermont senator assisted in her vilification. Over the course of the primaries, her favourability ratings worsened especially among millennials; 60% voted for Mr Obama in 2012, but by the time Mr Sanders threw in the towel, only 31% had a positive view of Mrs Clinton.

This was not only true of millennial men but also of women; the latter have proved largely unmoved by the prospect of America’s first woman president. Older women, who backed Mrs Clinton in the primaries by big margins, are often enraged by this. Madeleine Albright, a previous secretary of state, warned of a “special place in hell” for women who do not support other women. Yet it seems younger women do not see the logic of this, perhaps because they are less likely to have experienced maternity leave and gender-related pay disparities, two areas where women are most likely to report sexism

So not only is Bernie Sanders, sexist socialist, to blame for the overall sexist vilification of hated Hillary but his base which consists basically of young women are apparently also motivated by internalised sexism. So the article lumps in the left, sexists that they are, but does not manage to discuss any left-wing non-sexists.

Honestly perhaps you two are just missing information here. Throughout and since the Democratic primaries this sort of article has become an absolute staple of the journalism of Clintonite partisans, and we know now from the Podesta e-mails that the Clinton campaign intentionally got journos to write spurious articles about the sexism of Sanders and 'berniebros', in addition to using their twitter accounts to push the same narrative through some pretty dubious means. This is very much in the same genre.

We're going to have 8 (probably actually 4) years of this 'don't support this drone triple tap? Obviously you must be sexist', this is all just laying the groundwork for that. Which is not to say that much of the antipathy on the Republican side isn't motivated by sexism, undoubtedly a lot of it is, but the idea most or all criticism of Clinton is sexism is very dangerous.

 

[bimble]

We're going to have 8 (probably actually 4) years of this 'don't support this drone triple tap? Obviously you must be sexist', this is all just laying the groundwork for that. Which is not to say that much of the antipathy on the Republican side isn't motivated by sexism, undoubtedly a lot of it is, but the idea most or all criticism of Clinton is sexism is very dangerous.

Morning. You're right, that bit from the Economist does a sleight of hand trick, seeming to confuse, on purpose, the criticisms of her as 'an apologist for a predatory elite' with sexism, and then accusing all young women who fail to love Hillary of some sort of false consciousness. That's crap, and I get how it's dangerous, as a way of delegitimising all criticism of her both now and in the future.
I thought you were refusing to acknowledge that much of the antipathy towards her is motivated by sexism, saying that wasn't true, but I think I get where you're coming from now, you're saying that there's been a concerted campaign to pretend that all anti-HC feeling is simply sexism, which obviously isn't true, just some of it is.

 

[bimble]

If HC's team were to design the perfect opponent though, tailor-made to make sexism the number one issue, they'd have created the Donald though, isn't it.
Elizabeth Warren: 'nasty women' will defeat Donald Trump on election day

 

[J Ed]

If HC's team were to design the perfect opponent though, tailor-made to make sexism the number one issue, they'd have created the Donald though, isn't it.
Elizabeth Warren: 'nasty women' will defeat Donald Trump on election day

They sort of did. WikiLeaks Reveals DNC Elevated Trump to Help Clinton

 

[belboid]

They sort of did. WikiLeaks Reveals DNC Elevated Trump to Help Clinton

Don't feed the troll!

 

[TomUS]

They sort of did. WikiLeaks Reveals DNC Elevated Trump to Help Clinton

It wasn't the Dems that elevated Trump. Trump elevated Trump. He absolutely dominated the primaries & needed no help from the Dems in doing so.

 

[J Ed]

It wasn't the Dems that elevated Trump. Trump elevated Trump. He absolutely dominated the primaries & needed no help from the Dems in doing so.

That isn't falsifiable though, is it?

 

[bimble]

Of all the conspiracy theories around at the moment, the one that says Trump is a plant designed to destroy the republic party isn't bad.'A Lot of People Are Saying' Trump's a Democratic Plant

 

[TomUS]

That isn't falsifiable though, is it?

I don't get what you are saying. I think it's absolutely false that the Dems/Hillary campaign caused or helped Trump win the nomination. I'm sure they were delighted he won but it's obvious to me he did it on his own.

 

[Yossarian]

Trump was the front-runner from almost as soon as he entered the race and was saying and doing stupid and crazy things from his acceptance speech onwards - wouldn't have taken DNC skulduggery to get the media to cover him, not when he was feuding with Miss America pageant while Jeb Bush was making boring speeches.

 

[Idris2002]

Of all the conspiracy theories around at the moment, the one that says Trump is a plant designed to destroy the republic party isn't bad.'A Lot of People Are Saying' Trump's a Democratic Plant

That assumes a motivation on the part of the Dems to do actually do their fucking job, which is something they haven't had since Henry Wallace was VP.

 

[Idris2002]

I mean why would the Democrats want to destroy the GOP? The duopoly suits them fine, especially because they can use the threat of the greater evil to keep people voting for the lesser evil, i.e. the Democrats.

 

[redsquirrel]

The main driving force behind Trump has been the neo-liberalism pursued by both parties for the last 30 years.

 

[bimble]

I think the idea is that Trump's apparently mad recklessness and offensiveness (attacking war heroes, calling mexicans drug dealing rapists etc) is so stupid and so damaging to the image of the republican party not just now but longer term too that he is effectively working for the other side.
But some people actually think he made a secret deal with his his friend Bill Clinton; Trump gets priceless publicity but never actually wanted to be president etc.
Democratic Congresswoman Suggests Trump May Be a Clinton Plant