Hillary in India Blaming White Women that Listen to Men for Her Loss

Lead said:
I heard a few views on this. One that stood out is single to married generally seems to shift a person to the right (not just women but the guy too) which surprises me somewhat.

Also hi @Hans Gruber
Click to expand...

Eh, I think marriage in general makes people more insular, as well as economics taking a more primary role in your life. As an assumption, I also think right-wing ideas are more entrenched, so their positions are more likely to stick as the couple slowly becomes a faceless blob of marital toil.
 
Naw.. It's that married women with kids live in social reality.

My current gf was a left winger.. Funny how getting pregnant has moved her toward the middle. The insane gender crap disappears for anybody not fked in the head when the doctor asks you "do you know the gender of your baby." You realize the media is fucking with us and kind of cone back to reality. Same thing with white married women who realize the vadkue of normal streets and normal acting people.
 
foxnoob said:
Why don't you take a moment to spell out the positives for us.
Click to expand...




ethiopia-10thsaddest-place-on-earth.jpg


442993-44eb2288ad886005959548ebc1f68c88.jpg
 
You have democrat operatives, Clinton aids and surrogates, former Obama staffers, etc. up and down this article insisting that she needs to STFU and go away, that she's injuring the party with her comments yet ITT you have the usual suspects claiming it is, in fact, Sherdoggers in the War Room who have the real problem because they're talking about what Hillary said...

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/378259-dems-are-angry-over-hillary-clintons-latest-comments


Some highlights...

In interviews with The Hill on Tuesday, even the staunchest Clinton allies as well as longtime advisers say the comments were cringeworthy and ultimately detrimental to Democrats.

“She put herself in a position where [Democrats] from states that Trump won will have to distance themselves from her even more,” said one former senior Clinton aide. “That’s a lot of states.”

Another Clinton surrogate questioned the decision making behind Clinton’s remarks. For months, some Democrats have been arguing that Clinton’s sentiments have been counterproductive to the party’s rebuilding efforts. And some have told her she should emulate former President Obama’s model to only make statements when it’s essential.

Even before she launched her book tour last fall for “What Happened,” party strategists have said Clinton should lay low.

“She’s annoying me. She’s annoying everyone, as far as I can tell,” said one 2016 Clinton surrogate. “Who lets her say these things?”

One former senior Obama White House aide added, “If these statements are a form of catharsis, it would be in the Democratic Party’s best interest for her to get these out of her system soon.”

“We need leaders like her to look forward to 2020 and how to unify the party, not continue to re-litigate the past.”
 
Gunny said:
You have democrat operatives, Clinton aids and surrogates, former Obama staffers, etc. up and down this article insisting that she needs to STFU and go away, that she's injuring the party with her comments yet ITT you have the usual suspects claiming it is, in fact, Sherdoggers in the War Room who have the real problem because they're talking about what Hillary said...
Click to expand...

It's funny to see the disconnect between people who post here for propaganda purposes and us regular people, who are just trying to get things right. I said way back when Clinton made the "deplorables" comment that it might be bad politics, but it's obviously true. That kind of gap between purpose comes up here a lot. Witness when people say something dumb, have it called out, and respond "that kind of mocking is why Trump will win" or something. Obviously, telling people that they are wrong or morally repugnant isn't going to make them like you, but it's often true, and those of us who care about honest discourse are going to say it when appropriate.
 
Hans Gruber said:
Hillary (the great champion of women) thinks that women are so weak willed that they vote the way their son tells them to.

Hillary: "We do not do well with white men, and we don't do well with married white women. Part of that is ongoing pressure to vote the way that your husband, your boss, your son, whoever, believes you should. All of a sudden, you know, white women who were gonna vote for me and frankly standing up to the men in their lives and the men in their workplaces were being told, she's going to jail, you know, you don't want to vote for her, you know, it's terrible, you can't vote for that.




She also parroted this nonsense:

"If you look at the map of the United States, there's all that red in the middle where Trump won," Clinton said. "I win the coast, I win, you know, Illinois and Minnesota, places like that."

"I won the places that represent two-thirds of America's gross domestic product," Clinton continued. "So I won the places that are optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward. And his whole campaign, 'Make America Great Again,' was looking backwards."

"You didn't like black people getting rights, you don't like women, you know, getting jobs," Clinton said. "You don't want, you know, see that Indian American succeeding more than you are. Whatever your problem is, I'm going to solve it," she said.




So she tears down men for influencing women not to vote for her

Here she is later that day getting propped up by men



All that feminist babble and she still needs men to hold her up.

All of you food stamp recipients on this board that my tax dollars prop up must empathize with her. You know how it feels to have a real man (AKA Hans Gruber) support you
Click to expand...


WTF, you, here ?

Where have you been ?
Last WR elections were shit. Your absense did not help.
 
Meh if these quotes are true it's a pathetic attempt at playing the minority cards.

Like "hey you are fucking loosers and I represent loosers, vote for me".
 
panamaican said:
I can't believe that anyone is still discussing Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign over a year after she lost. While we're at it, let's get Mitt's opinion on why he lost too.
Click to expand...
Hillary's the one doing the talking...
 
luckyshot said:
Sure.

You could also point to the centuries long economic arrangement by which black Africans arranged to abduct whites from Europe, transport them half-way around the world in sub-human conditions, breed them like animals and sell them as chattlel...

Oh, wait, that didn't happen.
Click to expand...

You’re stupid. It was black people who abducted black people and sold them. And yes, they absolutely abducted white people and sold them into slavery as well.

How can you comment and not even read on the topic beforehand.

Nobody is denying certain white people wer eslave owners. But so were black people. The point is that the abolitionists were majority white.
 
tkotom said:
You’re stupid. It was black people who abducted black people and sold them. And yes, they absolutely abducted white people and sold them into slavery as well.

How can you comment and not even read on the topic beforehand.

Nobody is denying certain white people wer eslave owners. But so were black people. The point is that the abolitionists were majority white.
Click to expand...

The cherry picking of and deliberate glossing over of certain aspects of history is really annoying.
 
At this point, if you try to get Hilary to walk up or down a flight of stairs, that's basically an assassination attempt imo.
 
tkotom said:
You’re stupid. It was black people who abducted black people and sold them. And yes, they absolutely abducted white people and sold them into slavery as well.

How can you comment and not even read on the topic beforehand.

Nobody is denying certain white people wer eslave owners. But so were black people. The point is that the abolitionists were majority white.
Click to expand...
No, I’m not stupid. You are a historical revisionist who is intentionally (or not, maybe you are just stupid) ignoring little factors like... oh, I don’t know, scope and magnitude.

Over the course of 400 years between 9 and 12 million Africans were forcibly taken from Africa to become chattel of European slave owners in the New World.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Passage

Please post your facts and data to demonstrate that an even slightly comparable phenomenon has ever been perpetrated on white Europeans by black Africans.

I’ll wait.
 
tkotom said:
What a disingenuous line of argument. I could just as easily point out that black people owned slaves too.
Click to expand...

They sure did. There were free black people that owned slaves in America and even American Indians owned black slaves.
 
Jack V Savage said:
It's funny to see the disconnect between people who post here for propaganda purposes and us regular people, who are just trying to get things right.
Click to expand...

Jack V Shill not posting here for propaganda purposes.

mj-laughing.gif
 
Makani said:
Eh, I think marriage in general makes people more insular, as well as economics taking a more primary role in your life. As an assumption, I also think right-wing ideas are more entrenched, so their positions are more likely to stick as the couple slowly becomes a faceless blob of marital toil.
Click to expand...
Seems clear you've never been happily married.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,551
Messages
55,426,822
Members
174,773
Latest member
DREDATORXXXXL

Share this page

Back
Top