Hillary V. The Donald, David Duke, and Chris Christie

[AGBF]

Hillary Clinton is now the lone woman running for President versus The Bully Boys. Donald Trump, who never met a woman whose looks he couldn't rate is likely to be her Republican rival. (Sometimes the ratee even gets a a 10 or a 10 between her waist and shoulders if she is Halle Berry, with her face a perfect eight. Now aligned with Chris Christie-an alliance that has been called Walls and Bridges-he is ready to bully everyone else on the Republican stage. Certainly no women had better apply! And...David Duke??? Yup. You heard right. Trump has not disavowed the support of David Duke, former Grand Wizard of the KKK who said of him to an audience,“Voting against Donald Trump at this point is really treason to your heritage”.

When are the American women going to wise up and see that a misogynist is running against a woman and that this is The Apocalypse? No woman should be voting for Trump. If he is the Republican candidate, no woman should be voting Republican.

No man who puts down women for menstruating deserves a single woman's vote.

Link...http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/28/donald-trump-declines-to-disavow-david-duke/

AGBF, who went to college!

 

[azstonie]

I vote two issues: Women's Rights and Animal Rights, so the Bully Boys never get my vote.

I find it ironic that Trump, who has not aged well, criticises women for aging and showing it.

 

[missy]

Deb, I agree with you entirely. I hate Hillary Clinton but I hate Donald Trump and his crew much much more.

I vote two issues: Women's Rights and Animal Rights, so the Bully Boys never get my vote.

I find it ironic that Trump, who has not aged well, criticises women for aging and showing it.

Kristie, WORD.

 

[momhappy]

I don't believe in this sort of shaming.... telling women that they can't and/or shouldn't vote for Trump.... Or that they should "wise up" because women aren't smart enough to make their own choices, so they need to be told who to vote for/who not to vote for.
It's no different than Madeleine Albright telling women that, "There is a special place in h*ll for women who don't help each other."
I respect your thoughts/opinions, AGBF, but I don't agree. I do not support Trump (in fact, I do not support most of the candidates), but I don't like the idea of telling women who they should or shouldn't vote for.

 

[missy]

momhappy, generally I agree with that statement completely.

I don't like the idea of telling women who they should or shouldn't vote for

However I make an exception in this case. Trump is a horrible candidate and if he should become president I worry about women and their rights and worry we will be made to go backwards vs forward. But I understand what you are saying and hopefully most women will make the smart choice. I say most because let's face it. The wrong person has been voted president before.

 

[momhappy]

I understand what you're saying, missy, but I don't like the idea of implying that women aren't competent enough to choose their own presidential candidate.

 

[missy]

I hear you momhappy. And personally I don't think it is women per se but the American people in general. I mean how did Trump get to be the (potential) Republican candidate? Doesn't it feel like a surreal nightmare?

 

[missy]

Deb, how is your dear father doing? I hope he is healing well and not in any pain.

 

[marcy]

I am writing in Missy for president!

 

[missy]

I am writing in Missy for president!

Ha! I thought we were friends and that you liked me Marcy!

 

[Loves Vintage]

I agree wholeheartedly with AGBF's initial post.

I honestly feel bad for true Republicans. This character is their best option?!?!?

 

[momhappy]

I am writing in Missy for president!

Same here

 

[AGBF]

I don't believe in this sort of shaming.... telling women that they can't and/or shouldn't vote for Trump.... Or that they should "wise up" because women aren't smart enough to make their own choices, so they need to be told who to vote for/who not to vote for.

I never thought of it as shaming. I was surprised to see someone (you in this case) use that word. I posted because I was exploding with righteous rage and wanted to start a movement -a wave-among women like me who would rise up and destroy Donald Trump and his band of nasty, stupid, schoolboys.They are the ones I made leave my private school classroom when I was a teacher there and they were disrespectful and rude.

I didn't want to shame anyone...except the bullies. The boys who denigrate women. I wanted to energize my fellow women!!!

AGBF

 

[momhappy]

I don't believe in this sort of shaming.... telling women that they can't and/or shouldn't vote for Trump.... Or that they should "wise up" because women aren't smart enough to make their own choices, so they need to be told who to vote for/who not to vote for.

I never thought of it as shaming. I was surprised to see someone (you in this case) use that word. I posted because I was exploding with righteous rage and wanted to start a movement -a wave-among women like me who would rise up and destroy Donald Trump and his band of nasty, stupid, schoolboys.They are the ones I made leave my private school classroom when I was a teacher there and they were disrespectful and rude.

I didn't want to shame anyone...except the bullies. The boys who denigrate women. I wanted to energize my fellow women!!!

AGBF

I guess that it's a difference of perception - I perceive it as shaming women into voting (or not voting) for a particular candidate and it sounds like you perceive it is energizing women. I prefer to let women (or anyone for that matter) make their own choices (and I'm not implying that you don't). It just doesn't sit right with me and neither did the Madeleine Albright comment. It seems to imply that women need help knowing who to vote for or that women should vote (or not vote) for someone because of X, Y, or Z and shame on them if they vote otherwise....

 

[msop04]

I guess that it's a difference of perception - I perceive it as shaming women into voting (or not voting) for a particular candidate and it sounds like you perceive it is energizing women. I prefer to let women (or anyone for that matter) make their own choices (and I'm not implying that you don't). It just doesn't sit right with me and neither did the Madeleine Albright comment. It seems to imply that women need help knowing who to vote for or that women should vote (or not vote) for someone because of X, Y, or Z and shame on them if they vote otherwise....

This is exactly how it came across for me too... also, the little reminder of you being "college educated" seemed to imply that anyone who would disagree with you must be some kind of idiot, or at least uneducated.

I hold a doctoral degree in the medical field. I'm not an idiot; I just don't agree with you. I do not need someone else to tell me who I should vote for and why... especially in such a superior tone.

 

[kenny]

I wanted to energize my fellow women!!!

How about energizing your fellow human.
Some of us men are not the enemy.

 

[Matata]

All criticism isn't "shaming" and that term has become trite and divested the word of the power it should have to call attention to serious issues. Those of you who don't get it will claim I am "shame shaming" and you would be correct.

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/the_good_word/2013/10/stop_calling_all_criticism_shaming.html

 

[smitcompton]

Hi,

Firstly, I thought the remark about a college education was mentioned because it has been reported that Trump's followers are uneducated men.

Secondly. I was appalled when I saw Trump was running for Pres. Now, I think it is more interesting and maybe educational if we look at who and why people are Flocking to him. I gave an account from Minn. of evangelical Christians telling me they liked him, even though he was anti-Christian and anti-American.(their words).

Why should we expect his behavior to be different than it always is? He is authentic. He has been a democrat before and does support womens issues. He differs with the Dems. on Free trade treaties, immigration, and our position in the world. Obviously, people are concerned about this. I am.

I will admit I loved their schoolroom attacks against each other. Its like a comedy act. Rubio should have attacked Trump on his level. That's, what I think will get Trump.

Meanwhile, I don't care for Hillary Clinton. She has moved more left. For you Deb, the more left the better. Not for me.

Annette

 

[ksinger]

All criticism isn't "shaming" and that term has become trite and divested the word of the power it should have to call attention to serious issues. Those of you who don't get it will claim I am "shame shaming" and you would be correct.

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/the_good_word/2013/10/stop_calling_all_criticism_shaming.html

Thank you thank you thank you!

 

[marcy]

I am writing in Missy for president!

Ha! I thought we were friends and that you liked me Marcy!

I do like you. You are my friend. I wrote Marty in once for county commissioner.

To answer your real question I think if it ends up being Hillary and Trump I would have to pick between the lesser of 2 evils. IMO that could end up being a low voter turn out because people don't want either of them or there will be a huge turnout to vote against a candidate rather than vote for someone.

 

[Bonfire]

I wanted to energize my fellow women!!!

How about energizing your fellow human.
Some of us men are not the enemy.[/quote



This ^
Liars, cheaters and bullies come in both genders.
Because I am a woman does not mean I should automatically vote for a women I disagree with. That's ludicrous.

 

[momhappy]

All criticism isn't "shaming" and that term has become trite and divested the word of the power it should have to call attention to serious issues. Those of you who don't get it will claim I am "shame shaming" and you would be correct.

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/the_good_word/2013/10/stop_calling_all_criticism_shaming.html

I agree - not all criticism is shaming, but this came off as shaming to me - saying, "No women should be voting for Trump."
I don't agree with telling people who they should or shouldn't vote for and to single out women,makes it even more unsettling to me.

 

[Bonfire]

I agree with you momhappy. It comes across as shaming and condescending.

 

[Matata]

All criticism isn't "shaming" and that term has become trite and divested the word of the power it should have to call attention to serious issues. Those of you who don't get it will claim I am "shame shaming" and you would be correct.

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/the_good_word/2013/10/stop_calling_all_criticism_shaming.html

I agree - not all criticism is shaming, but this came off as shaming to me - saying, "No women should be voting for Trump."
I don't agree with telling people who they should or shouldn't vote for and to single out women,makes it even more unsettling to me.

I find it insulting to women to infer that women are so easily swayed that we can shamed into action solely by hearing an opinion. "No women should be voting for Trump" is an opinion with which we are free to agree or disagree. If it succeeds in shaming a person to vote for or against him, the weakness is in that individual.

As far as AGBFs opinion that women in particular should not vote for him and those who take umbrage with it, I believe there are issues that are more pertinent to women and for which they should take a stand because they have a bigger stake or will suffer greater loss than other groups. That is not to say that men cannot also take up the gauntlet for those issues but women should be committed to and willing to fight for issues that are especially relevant to them and not wait for nor depend upon others to raise their voices first.

 

[momhappy]

^and I found it insulting to women to imply that someone needs to tell us who we shouldn't vote for....
I find fault in that - just like you might find fault in the fact that someone might be weak enough to be swayed.

 

[AGBF]

All criticism isn't "shaming" and that term has become trite and divested the word of the power it should have to call attention to serious issues. Those of you who don't get it will claim I am "shame shaming" and you would be correct.

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/the_good_word/2013/10/stop_calling_all_criticism_shaming.html

I agree - not all criticism is shaming, but this came off as shaming to me - saying, "No women should be voting for Trump."
I don't agree with telling people who they should or shouldn't vote for and to single out women,makes it even more unsettling to me.

I find it insulting to women to infer that women are so easily swayed that we can shamed into action solely by hearing an opinion. "No women should be voting for Trump" is an opinion with which we are free to agree or disagree. If it succeeds in shaming a person to vote for or against him, the weakness is in that individual.

As far as AGBFs opinion that women in particular should not vote for him and those who take umbrage with it, I believe there are issues that are more pertinent to women and for which they should take a stand because they have a bigger stake or will suffer greater loss than other groups. That is not to say that men cannot also take up the gauntlet for those issues but women should be committed to and willing to fight for issues that are especially relevant to them and not wait for nor depend upon others to raise their voices first.

Thanks, Matata. I like to be defended by a woman who knows so many big words! Maybe because I need to show off my college education. Or would that be your college education?

Deb

 

[Matata]

AGBF, here's John Oliver telling EVERYONE in America not to vote for Trump and why. Let the shaming begin.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-drumpf-john-oliver_us_56d40adee4b0bf0dab32a73c

 

[AGBF]

AGBF, here's John Oliver telling EVERYONE in America not to vote for Trump and why. Let the shaming begin.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-drumpf-john-oliver_us_56d40adee4b0bf0dab32a73c

John Oliver was great, Matata! I love his idea of de-mythologyzing Trump by calling him by his original family name of Drumpf. It reminds me of the Battenbergs becoming the Mountbattens. Not that I dislike the name Battenberg. I am not, however, particularly charmed by the name "Drumpf". Mais chacun à son goût.

Thanks again.

Deb

 

[missy]

AGBF, here's John Oliver telling EVERYONE in America not to vote for Trump and why. Let the shaming begin.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-drumpf-john-oliver_us_56d40adee4b0bf0dab32a73c

John Oliver was great, Matata! I love his idea of de-mythologyzing Trump by calling him by his original family name of Drumpf. It reminds me of the Battenbergs becoming the Mountbattens. Not that I dislike the name Battenberg. I am not, however, particularly charmed by the name "Drumpf". Mais chacun à son goût.

Thanks again.

Deb

Haha Drumpf. It's perfect for him.

 

[AGBF]

and I found it insulting to women to imply that someone needs to tell us who we shouldn't vote for....

I was actually hoping I didn't need to tell any women they shouldn't vote for Trump. I hoped they would all have known it. But I was afraid that some women might have been busy-multitasking as we all do, you know-and missed some of his most egregiously misogynistic comments. He is a pig, you know. He does denigrate women.