CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — It was visceral. Women felt gutted, shocked, appalled, afraid. The prospect of celebrating the election of the nation’s first female president had been crushed by Donald J. Trump.
In this liberal enclave, where Mrs. Clinton won 89.2 percent of the vote, one of her strongest showings anywhere, Molly Hubner, 33, said she was having difficulty explaining the result to her 6-year-old daughter.
Pushing her young son in a stroller as she jogged down a leaf-covered sidewalk, Ms. Hubner said, “We had told her that he wouldn’t be a good president because he’s not very kind and just cares about himself.”
Women across the country who supported Mrs. Clinton are just starting to process their feelings about the long roller coaster ride that in their view ended in disaster.
The shock they feel that a man whom they describe as sexist, misogynistic and boorish was elected has overshadowed some of their grief about Mrs. Clinton’s loss. Like so many of the other rivals in his path, they say, the most famous woman in the world has been reduced to one more piece of collateral damage.
Really,are you aware of what Hillary had in store for men if she had won? Go Trump/Pence.
And these feelings have morphed into a genuine sense of foreboding.
“I woke up in a strange country,” said Jill Laurie Goodman, a lawyer who lives on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. “I’m about Hillary’s age. I went to law school about the same time she did, coming out of the antiwar and civil rights movement.”
She had believed that society was moving forward, Ms. Goodman said. And yet, “I woke up yesterday feeling as if everything I thought 45 years ago was wrong, that I had just gotten it wrong.”
Yeah,basically. You are way off.
In Berkeley, Calif., Hope Friedman, a 62-year-old retired nurse, said she was also stunned by the result.
“I was a big Hillary supporter, but I am not in love with Hillary the way I was with Obama,” she said of the president. “My motivation for being active in the campaign was much more about being terrified of a guy that says and does the things that Trump has said and does.”
As she described her reaction to Mr. Trump’s victory, she wept.
We're going to give you lots grief,bitch. I suggest you get used to it real quick.
“It kind of felt like being punched in the stomach,” she said. “It feels like when you get a cancer diagnosis and you are sick to your stomach and you can’t believe it and your mind is spinning.”
Sally Waldron, 69, an adult educator here in Cambridge, finds that her sorrow is rooted more in the dread she feels about a man with attitudes like Mr. Trump’s becoming president than it is borne of Mrs. Clinton’s loss.
“Part of me thinks this should be about the first woman losing,” Ms. Waldron said as she watched her grandson play in a sandlot.
Do you know what Hillary had in store for your grandson? A school environment that is hostile to boys. That includes higher learning in colleges and universities. She would back any woman making an accusation against your grandson and deny him due process rights and the right to have a real judge and jury preside over his case not a bunch of college kids that may be friends with the accuser or are influenced by her.
“I would have loved if she was the first woman president, but that’s not where the disappointment is for me,” she said. “The disappointment is in the values that won and what it means for lots of people.”
Being a man won. Not being a mangina won. That is great.
Even in the more conservative South, Clinton supporters expressed the same kind of disappointment and dread.
“I’m horrified because I have two daughters,” Kelly Cobb, 40, said as she bought slices of cake near Emory University in Atlanta.
Ms. Cobb, a stay-at-home mother, said she believed that Mr. Trump had managed to define Mrs. Clinton in the public imagination as a criminal, and that he had benefited from gender stereotypes.
How often have women benefitted from gender stereotypes? A lot. They use false female nature to get out of responsibility (women are kind stereotype. Women are sweet stereotype.)Beneficial sexism helps women get rights without responsibilities. They have no problem with this type of sexism.
“I think there’s huge disdain for her because she’s a woman, but she’s also been in politics for a long time,” said Ms. Cobb, who also said she was uncertain what Mrs. Clinton’s defeat signaled for other women seeking office.
“I don’t know if it’s Hillary Clinton and who she is, but I have to think it does have something to do with the fact that she’s a woman,” she said. “People are just unaccepting of that and judge her to a much higher standard than they would a white male.”
Or we didn't want a misandrist in the White House. Did you think of that?
Women did not turn out for Mrs. Clinton in the numbers that her campaign expected, said Celinda Lake, a Democratic pollster. The electorate was 52 percent female, slightly lower than the normal 53 percent. She was strongly supported by white, college-educated women, black women and Latina women, but white, blue-collar women and white, non-college-educated women sided heavily with Mr. Trump.
Her failed bid raises the question about whether Mrs. Clinton’s experience will discourage other women. Did she break a barrier, or did she inadvertently reveal how high that barrier is?
Women began entering government in bigger numbers in the 1970s, but any rush has stalled. The number of women in Congress is about 19 percent. Research has shown that women are such a minority in government not because they are less likely to win — they are just as likely, over all — but because they are so much less likely to run in the first place.
Political scientists say this so-called ambition gap is because women are less likely to be encouraged or recruited to run, underestimate their own abilities, assume they need to be more qualified than men and view politics as sexist.
Now, Mrs. Clinton’s loss may lend credence to those doubts.
“Because there was general consensus on both sides of the aisle that she was the most qualified presidential candidate we’ve ever seen, and she lost, it reinforces the notion that maybe it’s not even enough to be twice as good to get half as far,” said Jennifer L. Lawless, professor of government at American University who studies gender and political ambition.
Caroline Elkins, 47, a professor of history at Harvard, said she was profoundly disappointed and could not separate the outcome from Mrs. Clinton’s gender.
“To think that gender wasn’t a factor would be ludicrous,” she said. “You’d be hard-pressed to find someone more qualified than Hillary Clinton, in my view, and yet she was scrutinized above and beyond any male candidate we’ve ever seen.”
You mean the same media that paints Trump as a racist,a rapist and an ogre. That mainstream media. The same media that covered for Hillary. In fact Donna Brazille emailed Hillary the questions they were going to ask in advance.
That Mrs. Clinton’s flaws were “thrown into a hyperbolic relief,” she said, suggests that being highly qualified for the job was not enough, that a woman still has to be “twice as good and half as threatening” as a man to succeed.
Then why did Trump have to work overtime to calm women down and not to let their fears get the best of them?
Ms. Friedman, the retired nurse in Berkeley, who made phone calls on behalf of Mrs. Clinton, was convinced that gender was a factor.
“I underestimated the level of misogyny in the country,” she said. “Which is surprising, because usually I see it where it’s not.” But during her calls, she was sometimes met with crude responses.
“I forget how much people hate women,” she said.
Could it be due to the misandry that comes from women at the expense of men. Could it be due to the special treatment women demand or they call you a misogynist.
Mary Jane Judy, 35, a lawyer in Kansas City, Mo., said Mrs. Clinton lost more because of herself than because she is a woman.
“I think the baggage with her as Hillary Clinton over the course of the years was just stuff that people couldn’t get past,” she said. “I’ve heard people say, ‘Anybody but Hillary.’”
In Belfast, Me., Anita Zeno, an innkeeper on the pristine Atlantic Coast, knew Mrs. Clinton had flaws. But when she voted, she felt a rush.
“I was surprised at how good it felt to be voting for a woman,” said Ms. Zeno, 70.
But on Thursday, as Ms. Zeno examined the shallots in a farm store and cafe, her eyes welled with tears at the very mention of Mrs. Clinton’s defeat. She was worried about the country, the fate of the Affordable Care Act and climate change.
There is no climate change. The Affordable Care Act is not so affordable.
And one more thing.
“At my age, it’s now likely I’ll never see a woman elected president,” Ms. Zeno said. “And that really mattered to me.”
Source
My rights matter to me and I don't want some misandrist taking them away.
Showing posts with label hillary clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hillary clinton. Show all posts
Friday, November 11, 2016
Wednesday, October 26, 2016
The Gateway Pundit exposes Trump's accusers
Here is a website that debunks the charges against Donald Trump. It seems that a large proportion of these women are either Hillary supporters or women hiding their own transgressions by implicating Trump.
Saturday, October 22, 2016
No manginas in this family
This week, amid warnings of voter fraud and refusal to agree to accept the outcome of the election unless he is the winner, Donald Trump seemed to have finally shifted national attention away from the leaked 2005 recording of his lewd remarks about women and the accusations of sexual assault and misconduct that have followed in its wake.
That was, until his son weighed in.
In an interview with Seattle-based conservative talk radio host Dori Monson Friday, Donald Trump Jr. said that conversations like the one in which his father has described his penchant for groping and kissing women without their consent are “a fact of life.”
“Obviously, he’s not happy about that,” Trump Jr. said of his father’s language on the tape, which sparked a small stream of revoked endorsements from prominent Republicans followed by a wave of sexual assault and misconduct allegations after it was released to the public earlier this month.
“We all know guys that have had conversations with other guys that go a little bit in that direction,” he continued. “That’s a fact of life.”
The “fact of life” defense seems in line with Trump’s own argument that his comments, while inappropriate, amounted to nothing more than “locker-room banter.”
The White House hopeful has continued to double down on this defense in the face of mounting accusations from women who’ve come forward in recent weeks claiming that they were subjected to precisely the type of unwanted touching and kissing Trump is heard describing in the tape.
As he announced to the country during this week’s final presidential debate, “I didn’t even apologize to my wife … because I didn’t do anything.”
The candidate and others in his corner, such as Dr. Ben Carson, have also made a point of noting that the now-infamous conversation took place more than a decade ago, in an effort to suggest that the candidate has changed since then. His eldest son, however, assured Monson on Friday that Trump “is still very much like that.”
In fact, Don Jr. suggested, his father’s crass talk is exactly why “I think he’s able to relate to ordinary Americans.”
“He hasn’t spent his whole life sitting there polishing every statement he has ever made, every conversation he has ever had,” said Trump Jr. “He doesn’t run a focus group so he can tell you what he is thinking. He speaks from the heart.”
And while he said his dad “recognizes that” the 2005 video “was a mistake,” the younger Trump argued that his father is “able to make mistakes because he hasn’t spent his whole life trying to be a politician.”
Source
That says something about the Trump men and it's all good. This is quite refreshing. I am sick of these ballless manginas that grovel at the feet of women like Paul Ryan or Mitt Romney. Mitt likes to bully and sabotage his opponent's campaigns. He did to it to the Ron Paul supporters in 2012 and he is trying to do the same thing to Trump today. Romney is fierce against those of us who truly care about this country but he is timid before Obama. That showed up in his debates against Obama. On Paul Ryan. He almost did not get the Speakership considering the number of conservative groups that were against him. Ryan is very lucky to enjoy the position he currently has. It could have very easily gone the other way.
That was, until his son weighed in.
In an interview with Seattle-based conservative talk radio host Dori Monson Friday, Donald Trump Jr. said that conversations like the one in which his father has described his penchant for groping and kissing women without their consent are “a fact of life.”
“Obviously, he’s not happy about that,” Trump Jr. said of his father’s language on the tape, which sparked a small stream of revoked endorsements from prominent Republicans followed by a wave of sexual assault and misconduct allegations after it was released to the public earlier this month.
“We all know guys that have had conversations with other guys that go a little bit in that direction,” he continued. “That’s a fact of life.”
The “fact of life” defense seems in line with Trump’s own argument that his comments, while inappropriate, amounted to nothing more than “locker-room banter.”
The White House hopeful has continued to double down on this defense in the face of mounting accusations from women who’ve come forward in recent weeks claiming that they were subjected to precisely the type of unwanted touching and kissing Trump is heard describing in the tape.
As he announced to the country during this week’s final presidential debate, “I didn’t even apologize to my wife … because I didn’t do anything.”
The candidate and others in his corner, such as Dr. Ben Carson, have also made a point of noting that the now-infamous conversation took place more than a decade ago, in an effort to suggest that the candidate has changed since then. His eldest son, however, assured Monson on Friday that Trump “is still very much like that.”
In fact, Don Jr. suggested, his father’s crass talk is exactly why “I think he’s able to relate to ordinary Americans.”
“He hasn’t spent his whole life sitting there polishing every statement he has ever made, every conversation he has ever had,” said Trump Jr. “He doesn’t run a focus group so he can tell you what he is thinking. He speaks from the heart.”
And while he said his dad “recognizes that” the 2005 video “was a mistake,” the younger Trump argued that his father is “able to make mistakes because he hasn’t spent his whole life trying to be a politician.”
Source
That says something about the Trump men and it's all good. This is quite refreshing. I am sick of these ballless manginas that grovel at the feet of women like Paul Ryan or Mitt Romney. Mitt likes to bully and sabotage his opponent's campaigns. He did to it to the Ron Paul supporters in 2012 and he is trying to do the same thing to Trump today. Romney is fierce against those of us who truly care about this country but he is timid before Obama. That showed up in his debates against Obama. On Paul Ryan. He almost did not get the Speakership considering the number of conservative groups that were against him. Ryan is very lucky to enjoy the position he currently has. It could have very easily gone the other way.
Thursday, September 29, 2016
3 traitors in our midst
Even Some Men's Rights Activists Are Worried About a Trump Presidency
"I care about this country being led by the most competent person."
At a Trump campaign rally last week in Spokane, Washington, Donald Trump slammed Hillary Clinton for "playing the women's card" to gain campaign support. When citing Clinton's criticisms of him, Trump mimicked the candidate, straightening his shoulders and flattening his voice to convey a cold, prim demeanor. He concluded the performance with the pronouncement: "All of the men, we're petrified to speak to women anymore…You know what? The women get it better than we do, folks. They get it better than we do."
The audience erupted into cheers and applause.
Moments like this one—where Trump's unabashed political incorrectness and machismo are on display—resonate with many of his supporters. But his message in Spokane made headlines in part because the notion that men have it worse off than women echoes a central tenet of the Men's Rights Movement (MRM), a network of activists who believe that in many contexts, men are a disadvantaged class. New York magazine even offered its readers a quiz: "Who Said It, Trump or a Men's Rights Activist?"
It seems like a no-brainer that men's rights activists would admire Trump's rhetoric on gender and thus support his candidacy for president. But several leaders of the movement who spoke to Mother Jones are ambivalent about Trump, at best—one has even donated to Clinton—and say that many others in their community haven't been won over by Trump's bluster. But why do many members of a group that would appear to be his natural constituency not support Trump for president?
"It's nice to hear him say" things that align with the men's rights movement, says Dean Esmay, now a contributor to and formerly the managing editor of A Voice for Men, a blog and men's rights discussion hub, but those talking points aren't enough. "Somebody had the guts to say that men have it tougher than women, it gives you an emotional rush," he continues. "But when you listen, where's the meat behind it? What's he offering? I see nothing." Trump isn't offering much by way of policy substance, Esmay says, both on issues key to MRAs, such as incarceration or the treatment of fathers in family courts, or on others.
"Why do I think he would make a bad president?" asks Esmay. "Because he is a loose cannon. You don't know what he's going to do. We have a student loan debt bubble that's going to burst. We have a middle class that's imploding. And Donald Trump is going to fix it all by saying, 'Believe it, baby?' Give me a break."
Warren Farrell, widely considered the father of the men's right's movement and the author of one of its foundational texts, The Myth of Male Power, says he's a "very strong supporter" of Clinton. He has attended several campaign events for Clinton and has donated the allowed maximum of $2,700 to her primary campaign. Still, Farrell says he thinks Clinton is "the worst candidate in recent history, in my lifetime, on gender issues from the perspective of understanding and having compassion for men." But Farrell, who has a Ph.D. in political science, still supports Clinton in part because, he says, "even though I care about men's issues a lot, I care about this country being led by the most competent person."
"Trump is the quintessential example of the immature man and men at their worst."
"Its very hard for me," he continues, "because Trump does have a clue about what's happening with men's issues. But Trump is the quintessential example of the immature man and men at their worst."
Farrell falls into a more liberal faction of the men's rights community, says Gwyneth Williams, a professor of politics at Webster University who also studies men's movements. But some of Farrell's more conservative colleagues also have serious concerns about Trump.
"I think Trump was right on for saying that men are afraid of upsetting women," says Paul Elam, the CEO and founder of A Voice for Men. But Elam notes that he doesn't buy that Trump would be "some sort of savior for" the men's rights movement, and that there are other Trump positions he finds especially worrisome.
"Trump talks a lot about building a wall and the outlandish proposition that he's going to stop drugs from entering the country—which is impossible," says Elam. He's wary of a candidate who would further criminalize drugs, leading to greater incarceration of men. While Trump hasn't directly promised this, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, one of Trump's surrogates and a potential vice presidential pick, has said he supports the criminalization of marijuana use. That's why both Elam and Esmay say the possibility that in a Trump administration Christie might be elevated to a position of power might push them to vote for Clinton.
But many men's rights activists are definitely not Clinton fans: Both Elam and Esmay referred to her as a "lizard" while speaking with Mother Jones, and men's rights forums on Reddit and elsewhere are filled with anti-Clinton sentiments. But despite their Clinton scorn, many MRAs say it's obvious Trump is more swagger than substance. "Trump doesn't have the ability to successfully call out Hillary on her sexism. He is to [sic] crass and doesn't grasp the issues," writes one user on the men's rights subreddit. Another sums things up: "Trump VS Clinton. Whoever wins, America (and the world?) loses."
Source
Fuck you Paul Elam,fuck you Warren Farrell,fuck you Dean Esmay. A double fuck you to Farrell for donating to her cause. If they chose to vote for Gary Johnson or wrote in Donald Duck for president while keeping their money in their wallets that would have been acceptable. But to vote for this misandric witch is crossing the line. Bernard Chapin said if you call yourself an MRA and you vote for Hillary you are a traitor. End of story. I don't always agree with Chapin but he is right on this. You know whom a real MRA supports in this election? The Donald that's who.
"I care about this country being led by the most competent person."
At a Trump campaign rally last week in Spokane, Washington, Donald Trump slammed Hillary Clinton for "playing the women's card" to gain campaign support. When citing Clinton's criticisms of him, Trump mimicked the candidate, straightening his shoulders and flattening his voice to convey a cold, prim demeanor. He concluded the performance with the pronouncement: "All of the men, we're petrified to speak to women anymore…You know what? The women get it better than we do, folks. They get it better than we do."
The audience erupted into cheers and applause.
Moments like this one—where Trump's unabashed political incorrectness and machismo are on display—resonate with many of his supporters. But his message in Spokane made headlines in part because the notion that men have it worse off than women echoes a central tenet of the Men's Rights Movement (MRM), a network of activists who believe that in many contexts, men are a disadvantaged class. New York magazine even offered its readers a quiz: "Who Said It, Trump or a Men's Rights Activist?"
It seems like a no-brainer that men's rights activists would admire Trump's rhetoric on gender and thus support his candidacy for president. But several leaders of the movement who spoke to Mother Jones are ambivalent about Trump, at best—one has even donated to Clinton—and say that many others in their community haven't been won over by Trump's bluster. But why do many members of a group that would appear to be his natural constituency not support Trump for president?
"It's nice to hear him say" things that align with the men's rights movement, says Dean Esmay, now a contributor to and formerly the managing editor of A Voice for Men, a blog and men's rights discussion hub, but those talking points aren't enough. "Somebody had the guts to say that men have it tougher than women, it gives you an emotional rush," he continues. "But when you listen, where's the meat behind it? What's he offering? I see nothing." Trump isn't offering much by way of policy substance, Esmay says, both on issues key to MRAs, such as incarceration or the treatment of fathers in family courts, or on others.
"Why do I think he would make a bad president?" asks Esmay. "Because he is a loose cannon. You don't know what he's going to do. We have a student loan debt bubble that's going to burst. We have a middle class that's imploding. And Donald Trump is going to fix it all by saying, 'Believe it, baby?' Give me a break."
Warren Farrell, widely considered the father of the men's right's movement and the author of one of its foundational texts, The Myth of Male Power, says he's a "very strong supporter" of Clinton. He has attended several campaign events for Clinton and has donated the allowed maximum of $2,700 to her primary campaign. Still, Farrell says he thinks Clinton is "the worst candidate in recent history, in my lifetime, on gender issues from the perspective of understanding and having compassion for men." But Farrell, who has a Ph.D. in political science, still supports Clinton in part because, he says, "even though I care about men's issues a lot, I care about this country being led by the most competent person."
"Trump is the quintessential example of the immature man and men at their worst."
"Its very hard for me," he continues, "because Trump does have a clue about what's happening with men's issues. But Trump is the quintessential example of the immature man and men at their worst."
Farrell falls into a more liberal faction of the men's rights community, says Gwyneth Williams, a professor of politics at Webster University who also studies men's movements. But some of Farrell's more conservative colleagues also have serious concerns about Trump.
"I think Trump was right on for saying that men are afraid of upsetting women," says Paul Elam, the CEO and founder of A Voice for Men. But Elam notes that he doesn't buy that Trump would be "some sort of savior for" the men's rights movement, and that there are other Trump positions he finds especially worrisome.
"Trump talks a lot about building a wall and the outlandish proposition that he's going to stop drugs from entering the country—which is impossible," says Elam. He's wary of a candidate who would further criminalize drugs, leading to greater incarceration of men. While Trump hasn't directly promised this, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, one of Trump's surrogates and a potential vice presidential pick, has said he supports the criminalization of marijuana use. That's why both Elam and Esmay say the possibility that in a Trump administration Christie might be elevated to a position of power might push them to vote for Clinton.
But many men's rights activists are definitely not Clinton fans: Both Elam and Esmay referred to her as a "lizard" while speaking with Mother Jones, and men's rights forums on Reddit and elsewhere are filled with anti-Clinton sentiments. But despite their Clinton scorn, many MRAs say it's obvious Trump is more swagger than substance. "Trump doesn't have the ability to successfully call out Hillary on her sexism. He is to [sic] crass and doesn't grasp the issues," writes one user on the men's rights subreddit. Another sums things up: "Trump VS Clinton. Whoever wins, America (and the world?) loses."
Source
Fuck you Paul Elam,fuck you Warren Farrell,fuck you Dean Esmay. A double fuck you to Farrell for donating to her cause. If they chose to vote for Gary Johnson or wrote in Donald Duck for president while keeping their money in their wallets that would have been acceptable. But to vote for this misandric witch is crossing the line. Bernard Chapin said if you call yourself an MRA and you vote for Hillary you are a traitor. End of story. I don't always agree with Chapin but he is right on this. You know whom a real MRA supports in this election? The Donald that's who.
Friday, July 29, 2016
Introducing my voter's guide
Now that the Republican and Democratic National Conventions are over. The presidential and vice presidential candidates chosen by their respective parties. We see the candidates go into full campaigning mode. It can be very confusing that is why I have created this guide to make a few things easier. You're hit with bullshit from all sides everyday so why not treat yourself to the facts without the bullshit.
Monday, May 23, 2016
How Hillary’s “Feminist Army of Anti-Male Journalists” are Now Attacking Bernie Sanders
Feminist Journalists Are Completely Bias and Can’t Be Trusted to Report The News Accurately!
Sometimes, just for kicks, I will browse the Huffington Post’s Women’s Section for great laugh of what these liberal/progressive radicals think about the 2016 presidential election. Although I had some preconceived notions before I clicked on the page, my jaw dropped once I read a few articles about Bernie Sanders. These articles, for the most part, painted Bernie Sanders and his supporters in such a negative light I almost felt sorry for the guy.
Now, just to clear the air I am not a liberal, a progressive or anything remotely matching those two descriptions politically. But reading the feminist section of the Huffington post made me realize how truly manipulative and radical modern-day feminism has become. It is clear these liberal feminist within the Democratic Party had already anointed Hillary Clinton as their presidential candidate well before she collected a single signature.
With the help of liberal feminist within national journalism spearheading Hillary’s campaign she had even more so-called “new stories” painting her in a positive light. Sadly, this might work for a large number of uneducated voters who are not familiar with the Clinton’s shady past including their own “anti-woman” actions.
Most, if not all liberal feminist journalist writing at the Huffington post know Hillary’s history of demeaning “rape and sexual assault victims” when she was the first lady in the White House. Additionally, this should also be fully aware of the multiple acts of domestic violence Bill Clinton suffered through during all those years of marriage to the “Queen feminist Nazi”, also known as Hilary. Nevertheless, these anti-male feminist are willing to sweep this under the rug for the simple fact of getting “a woman in the White House.” Qualifications and personal history be damned!
Not only are feminist journalist willing to look the other way in defending Hillary, they are now turning their sights on one of their own. The feminist at the Huffingtion Post are now aiming to devour a fellow progressive feminist in a presidential election, not because he did anything wrong. Basically, they are turning on him simply because Bernie Sanders is male.
The Huffingtion Post Women’s section has painted Bernie Sanders in a very negative light over the past couple of weeks. Both he and his supporters (who are largely young and male) are now labeled as misogynist, “anti-woman” haters for stating the truth about Hillary, her campaign and the political process.
Recently, Jenavieve Hatch with the Huffingtion Post wrote a column explaining how the Bernie Sanders campaign has incited anti-woman and anti-feminist rhetoric. She writes,
the Sanders campaign’s insistence on being “robbed” has incited unnecessary aggression from its base. The messages Lange received show that poorly-channelled anger at the political process can easily spread, causing harm to those who cross its path — women in particular.
Ah, poor Hillary… She’s only woman who can’t stand on her own two feet. Make sure wonder what’s going to happen if she becomes president? Will she run to England or Canada when Russia or China fails to “play fair” with a female President of the United States? What a crock!
To add substance to her argument, Hatch explained when female reporters support Hillary Clinton they are often targets of sexist language, aggressive behavior and even threats regarding their news columns regarding Hillary. Sadly, this aspect occurs to all journalists today, not just feminist writers.
If I posted all the hate mail I receive from feminist on a weekly basis it could be 8 to 10 pages long. Do I cry about it? No! Why? Because it’s part of the business of being a men’s rights journalist. So Ms. Hatch needs to put her big girl panties on and get to work and stop bitching about how our society has evolved under liberal leadership of the last eight years.
But this should be a lesson to Bernie Sanders and his campaign. Although he considers himself a male feminist the moment he or his campaign staff “accurately criticizes” the supreme feminist Nazi known as Hillary Clinton you will be attacked viciously. Not only will you be attacked for honestly criticizing and pointing out the misdeeds of Bill and Hillary Clinton, you will also be attacked as a male.
So welcome Bernie Sanders to the new reality men face in the 21st century… male feminist or not! Good luck with the feminist crazies because it looks like they’re coming after you in a big way.
Source
I'm not surprised by this. I knew sooner or later they were going to play the woman card against Sanders. I told you democrat men this would happen. I hope none of you are stupid enough to support Hillary Clinton. She will turn on you.
Sometimes, just for kicks, I will browse the Huffington Post’s Women’s Section for great laugh of what these liberal/progressive radicals think about the 2016 presidential election. Although I had some preconceived notions before I clicked on the page, my jaw dropped once I read a few articles about Bernie Sanders. These articles, for the most part, painted Bernie Sanders and his supporters in such a negative light I almost felt sorry for the guy.
Now, just to clear the air I am not a liberal, a progressive or anything remotely matching those two descriptions politically. But reading the feminist section of the Huffington post made me realize how truly manipulative and radical modern-day feminism has become. It is clear these liberal feminist within the Democratic Party had already anointed Hillary Clinton as their presidential candidate well before she collected a single signature.
With the help of liberal feminist within national journalism spearheading Hillary’s campaign she had even more so-called “new stories” painting her in a positive light. Sadly, this might work for a large number of uneducated voters who are not familiar with the Clinton’s shady past including their own “anti-woman” actions.
Most, if not all liberal feminist journalist writing at the Huffington post know Hillary’s history of demeaning “rape and sexual assault victims” when she was the first lady in the White House. Additionally, this should also be fully aware of the multiple acts of domestic violence Bill Clinton suffered through during all those years of marriage to the “Queen feminist Nazi”, also known as Hilary. Nevertheless, these anti-male feminist are willing to sweep this under the rug for the simple fact of getting “a woman in the White House.” Qualifications and personal history be damned!
Not only are feminist journalist willing to look the other way in defending Hillary, they are now turning their sights on one of their own. The feminist at the Huffingtion Post are now aiming to devour a fellow progressive feminist in a presidential election, not because he did anything wrong. Basically, they are turning on him simply because Bernie Sanders is male.
The Huffingtion Post Women’s section has painted Bernie Sanders in a very negative light over the past couple of weeks. Both he and his supporters (who are largely young and male) are now labeled as misogynist, “anti-woman” haters for stating the truth about Hillary, her campaign and the political process.
Recently, Jenavieve Hatch with the Huffingtion Post wrote a column explaining how the Bernie Sanders campaign has incited anti-woman and anti-feminist rhetoric. She writes,
the Sanders campaign’s insistence on being “robbed” has incited unnecessary aggression from its base. The messages Lange received show that poorly-channelled anger at the political process can easily spread, causing harm to those who cross its path — women in particular.
Ah, poor Hillary… She’s only woman who can’t stand on her own two feet. Make sure wonder what’s going to happen if she becomes president? Will she run to England or Canada when Russia or China fails to “play fair” with a female President of the United States? What a crock!
To add substance to her argument, Hatch explained when female reporters support Hillary Clinton they are often targets of sexist language, aggressive behavior and even threats regarding their news columns regarding Hillary. Sadly, this aspect occurs to all journalists today, not just feminist writers.
If I posted all the hate mail I receive from feminist on a weekly basis it could be 8 to 10 pages long. Do I cry about it? No! Why? Because it’s part of the business of being a men’s rights journalist. So Ms. Hatch needs to put her big girl panties on and get to work and stop bitching about how our society has evolved under liberal leadership of the last eight years.
But this should be a lesson to Bernie Sanders and his campaign. Although he considers himself a male feminist the moment he or his campaign staff “accurately criticizes” the supreme feminist Nazi known as Hillary Clinton you will be attacked viciously. Not only will you be attacked for honestly criticizing and pointing out the misdeeds of Bill and Hillary Clinton, you will also be attacked as a male.
So welcome Bernie Sanders to the new reality men face in the 21st century… male feminist or not! Good luck with the feminist crazies because it looks like they’re coming after you in a big way.
Source
I'm not surprised by this. I knew sooner or later they were going to play the woman card against Sanders. I told you democrat men this would happen. I hope none of you are stupid enough to support Hillary Clinton. She will turn on you.
Sunday, May 15, 2016
Lesbian, psychoctic, drug addict, Hillary
“Hillary hates kids. She was one nasty bitch when she was pregnant. My God, for nine months, she made my life a living hell and blamed me!
One has always believed it to be the case that psychotic Hillary was indeed a lesbian as well as being a loose, unhinged, lefty lunatic and here is a statement made by one of Bill's sperm chambers statements.
Not only are these people completely vacant, void of morals, dignity and normal behaviour, they are sexual deviants and drug addicts as well. None of these revelations comes as any surprise..
Here is just a small sample of these deviant's "normal" behaviour. No wonder it runs with "women's rights" as that would give it access to more fresh meat..
“What a joke! Sex is a waste of time to Hillary. When we were dating, she talked about making-out with her girlfriends in college because she knew it turned me on. Hillary seemed worldly and more sexually-experienced than me and, at the time, I liked it.”
SALLY MILLER: Hillary and her ‘coke habit’
Like other men I’ve known, Bill Clinton fantasized about having a covey of females, all with full breasts, shapely long legs, and tight, eager vaginas in bed with him.
After watching his bed-mates kiss and fondle each other for a while, then he’d join the action.
When I asked Bill if he shared his fantasies with Hillary, he laughed.
“What a joke! Sex is a waste of time to Hillary. When we were dating, she talked about making-out with her girlfriends in college because she knew it turned me on. Hillary seemed worldly and more sexually-experienced than me and, at the time, I liked it.”
“Before we married, I got her pregnant and she had an abortion. It bothered me because I didn’t know about it until it was over. Then, several months after the wedding, she slipped up again because she was too lazy to take the pill.
“Hillary hates kids. She was one nasty bitch when she was pregnant. My God, for nine months, she made my life a living hell and blamed me!
“From the beginning, our political advisors warned us that Hillary must take my last name and concentrate on having a child if I was going to have a future in politics. I saw the real Hillary after we got married.
“She’s a damn frigid bitch who prefers women; she won’t even compromise and be bi-sexual. All I hear is how much she despises penises; she thinks they are fucking ugly, like snakes.”
Bill mentioned, “The only time Hillary gets aroused or agree to ‘play sexy’ is after she snorts coke. But, even then, she’s rigid and frigid. Hillary goes ape-shit crazy–I mean screams, hits, and cusses–if I touch her breasts! Right after we started fooling around, she warned me to stay away from her tits, even telling me: ‘If you want to nurse–go home to your momma!’”
Hillary Clinton despised Bill’s brother Roger but, she had to be nice to him since he supplied her coke habit.
(Roger Clinton was charged with and convicted of a cocaine-related offense in 1985 and pardoned by Bill in 2001.)
Bill talked about Hillary taking off work lots of times, desperate to find Roger. She cursed Roger but, at the same time, she had to be nice since he was her only source of coke.
She smoked weed but coke was her addiction.
RELATED: Bill Clinton snorted cocaine off my coffee table, former lover says
I recall Bill saying, “Everyone, including my staff, people at the law firm, even friends, knows Hillary is a cokehead but that’s okay. We tolerate Hillary on coke cause without it, Hillary’s a raving maniac.
“My God, we’ve had to borrow money to replace lamps, chairs, all kinds of valuable shit in the governor’s mansion just because of Hillary’s temper! I’ve had to take Chelsea outside many times to keep her out of Hillary’s ‘line of fire.’ Without her ‘fix’ Hillary’s Hell on Wheels.”
All these years later, I think Hillary is completely selfish and unstable; she’s a façade when it comes to dependability, commitment, and dedication.
Hillary has an attitude of entitlement; she believes anything and everything she does is okay and no one can question her. She never stops talking out of both sides of her mouth.
I continue to ask Hillary supporters, “What has Hillary accomplished other than keeping herself in politics, garnering enormous sums of money—all for her, and, like a rock star, maintaining a presence in the media? What has Hillary Rodham Clinton EVER done for anyone, other than herself?”
I may not know men but I know women. I speak from experience: Hillary Clinton is a FAKE. If you can prove otherwise, I’ll kiss Hillary’s caboose!
Source
One has always believed it to be the case that psychotic Hillary was indeed a lesbian as well as being a loose, unhinged, lefty lunatic and here is a statement made by one of Bill's sperm chambers statements.
Not only are these people completely vacant, void of morals, dignity and normal behaviour, they are sexual deviants and drug addicts as well. None of these revelations comes as any surprise..
Here is just a small sample of these deviant's "normal" behaviour. No wonder it runs with "women's rights" as that would give it access to more fresh meat..
“What a joke! Sex is a waste of time to Hillary. When we were dating, she talked about making-out with her girlfriends in college because she knew it turned me on. Hillary seemed worldly and more sexually-experienced than me and, at the time, I liked it.”
SALLY MILLER: Hillary and her ‘coke habit’
Like other men I’ve known, Bill Clinton fantasized about having a covey of females, all with full breasts, shapely long legs, and tight, eager vaginas in bed with him.
After watching his bed-mates kiss and fondle each other for a while, then he’d join the action.
When I asked Bill if he shared his fantasies with Hillary, he laughed.
“What a joke! Sex is a waste of time to Hillary. When we were dating, she talked about making-out with her girlfriends in college because she knew it turned me on. Hillary seemed worldly and more sexually-experienced than me and, at the time, I liked it.”
“Before we married, I got her pregnant and she had an abortion. It bothered me because I didn’t know about it until it was over. Then, several months after the wedding, she slipped up again because she was too lazy to take the pill.
“Hillary hates kids. She was one nasty bitch when she was pregnant. My God, for nine months, she made my life a living hell and blamed me!
“From the beginning, our political advisors warned us that Hillary must take my last name and concentrate on having a child if I was going to have a future in politics. I saw the real Hillary after we got married.
“She’s a damn frigid bitch who prefers women; she won’t even compromise and be bi-sexual. All I hear is how much she despises penises; she thinks they are fucking ugly, like snakes.”
Bill mentioned, “The only time Hillary gets aroused or agree to ‘play sexy’ is after she snorts coke. But, even then, she’s rigid and frigid. Hillary goes ape-shit crazy–I mean screams, hits, and cusses–if I touch her breasts! Right after we started fooling around, she warned me to stay away from her tits, even telling me: ‘If you want to nurse–go home to your momma!’”
Hillary Clinton despised Bill’s brother Roger but, she had to be nice to him since he supplied her coke habit.
(Roger Clinton was charged with and convicted of a cocaine-related offense in 1985 and pardoned by Bill in 2001.)
Bill talked about Hillary taking off work lots of times, desperate to find Roger. She cursed Roger but, at the same time, she had to be nice since he was her only source of coke.
She smoked weed but coke was her addiction.
RELATED: Bill Clinton snorted cocaine off my coffee table, former lover says
I recall Bill saying, “Everyone, including my staff, people at the law firm, even friends, knows Hillary is a cokehead but that’s okay. We tolerate Hillary on coke cause without it, Hillary’s a raving maniac.
“My God, we’ve had to borrow money to replace lamps, chairs, all kinds of valuable shit in the governor’s mansion just because of Hillary’s temper! I’ve had to take Chelsea outside many times to keep her out of Hillary’s ‘line of fire.’ Without her ‘fix’ Hillary’s Hell on Wheels.”
All these years later, I think Hillary is completely selfish and unstable; she’s a façade when it comes to dependability, commitment, and dedication.
Hillary has an attitude of entitlement; she believes anything and everything she does is okay and no one can question her. She never stops talking out of both sides of her mouth.
I continue to ask Hillary supporters, “What has Hillary accomplished other than keeping herself in politics, garnering enormous sums of money—all for her, and, like a rock star, maintaining a presence in the media? What has Hillary Rodham Clinton EVER done for anyone, other than herself?”
I may not know men but I know women. I speak from experience: Hillary Clinton is a FAKE. If you can prove otherwise, I’ll kiss Hillary’s caboose!
Source
Tuesday, May 10, 2016
Hillary and The Donald are neck and neck
Today Fox News, CNN, and ABC News are completely bewildered at the latest poll numbers showing Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton neck and neck in key swing states which may determine the November election.
CNN picked apart survey data and found Donald Trump essentially tied with Hillary Clinton in Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania. Not too surprisingly, Donald Trump has a double-digit lead in male voters in each of these three states. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton is up nine points with women voters in these key states. ABC News also supported this data showing Donald Trump surpassing Hillary Clinton in male voters by a very wide margin.
The point best sums up the Quinnipiac University poll released today is this… Hillary Clinton does not believe men are worth talking about. Even the casual political observer has noticed in recent weeks Hillary Clinton does not discuss men or men’s issues at all. It’s almost like she has a philosophy which radiates “men don’t have issues”, “men don’t need a voice in society” and “men need to get on board with women’s issues”.
Men are tired of being scapegoats in society for women’s problems. For decades men have been the scapegoats for women not succeeding in the workforce, becoming victims of domestic violence, blamed for divorce, not having equal educational opportunities and a whole list of other social ills too many to count.
The Fox News segment with Megan Kelly is right on point. When Hillary Clinton is forced to defend her record against a male opponent she immediately goes to the women’s card and avoids answering the questions or fails to stand by her previous position. Hillary Clinton’s defenders step in and claim sexism on Hillary Clinton’s behalf, defending her lack of answering tough questions. Bill Clinton, for example, even accused Bernie Sanders of being “sexist” when he forced Hillary to “own up” to her own behavior.
Clearly, every time Hillary Clinton is forced to answer tough questions she throws the woman card on the table as a shield to deflect against her bad judgement. Men in our society know exactly how this system works. As men, we’ve all been there and experienced this form of gender shaming. Women voters also know how this game is played. Donald Trump even alluded to this phenomenon in a recent speech that had plenty of news coverage.
Today, if a male employee criticizes a fellow female coworker or subordinate justifiably, in many cases women turn around and claim discrimination, sexism, biased against women and a whole host of other social evils “men can only do against women”.
Katrina Pierson, the National Trump Campaign Spokeswoman said it best on Fox News,
Just because you criticize a woman, particularly in her criticism of you, does not make you a sexist.
Over the course of the next six months we will learn how deep the gender divide in our country has become. Will Hillary Clinton win the presidency by continuously playing the “woman card” by blaming men for our social problems? Or will Donald Trump finally put radical feminism, progressive feminist and a whole list of anti-male and anti-father groups back in the cage where they belong? Only time will tell which side will triumph in November. Regardless, this election season will not be so much about Republican or Democrat social policy as much as it will be between “common sense” or “sexist feminism”.
Source
CNN picked apart survey data and found Donald Trump essentially tied with Hillary Clinton in Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania. Not too surprisingly, Donald Trump has a double-digit lead in male voters in each of these three states. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton is up nine points with women voters in these key states. ABC News also supported this data showing Donald Trump surpassing Hillary Clinton in male voters by a very wide margin.
The point best sums up the Quinnipiac University poll released today is this… Hillary Clinton does not believe men are worth talking about. Even the casual political observer has noticed in recent weeks Hillary Clinton does not discuss men or men’s issues at all. It’s almost like she has a philosophy which radiates “men don’t have issues”, “men don’t need a voice in society” and “men need to get on board with women’s issues”.
Men are tired of being scapegoats in society for women’s problems. For decades men have been the scapegoats for women not succeeding in the workforce, becoming victims of domestic violence, blamed for divorce, not having equal educational opportunities and a whole list of other social ills too many to count.
The Fox News segment with Megan Kelly is right on point. When Hillary Clinton is forced to defend her record against a male opponent she immediately goes to the women’s card and avoids answering the questions or fails to stand by her previous position. Hillary Clinton’s defenders step in and claim sexism on Hillary Clinton’s behalf, defending her lack of answering tough questions. Bill Clinton, for example, even accused Bernie Sanders of being “sexist” when he forced Hillary to “own up” to her own behavior.
Clearly, every time Hillary Clinton is forced to answer tough questions she throws the woman card on the table as a shield to deflect against her bad judgement. Men in our society know exactly how this system works. As men, we’ve all been there and experienced this form of gender shaming. Women voters also know how this game is played. Donald Trump even alluded to this phenomenon in a recent speech that had plenty of news coverage.
Today, if a male employee criticizes a fellow female coworker or subordinate justifiably, in many cases women turn around and claim discrimination, sexism, biased against women and a whole host of other social evils “men can only do against women”.
Katrina Pierson, the National Trump Campaign Spokeswoman said it best on Fox News,
Just because you criticize a woman, particularly in her criticism of you, does not make you a sexist.
Over the course of the next six months we will learn how deep the gender divide in our country has become. Will Hillary Clinton win the presidency by continuously playing the “woman card” by blaming men for our social problems? Or will Donald Trump finally put radical feminism, progressive feminist and a whole list of anti-male and anti-father groups back in the cage where they belong? Only time will tell which side will triumph in November. Regardless, this election season will not be so much about Republican or Democrat social policy as much as it will be between “common sense” or “sexist feminism”.
Source
Monday, May 2, 2016
Donald Trump reacts to Hillary's misandric dribble
Hey Donald,if you're reading this thanks. Thanks for speaking up for men we appreciate it.
Hillary Clinton Plans to Put Men on “Reservations” for Failing to Respect her “Progressive-Liberal Views!”
The Open War Against Men is Finally Here Thanks to Hillary Clinton
On April 29, Hillary Clinton made some head spinning comments about men in her world view. In an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper, Hillary Clinton has a plan for misbehaving men in American society. She plans to place them on a reservation where they apparently don’t have a voice and no rights to their opinion.
Hillary Clinton said, and I quote,
I have a lot of experience dealing with men who sometimes get off the reservation in the way they behave and how they speak.
I guess men should not say thinks in public that may be truthful, their opinion on social issues or exercise their constitutional rights. According to Hillary Clinton, men speaking out on women’s rights (otherwise known as female privilege) should all be sent to reservations for “social reeducation”.
According to CNN’s report,
The Democratic presidential front-runner did not elaborate which men she was referring to.
Of course, Hillary Clinton was meaning all men.
Progressive-feminism is becoming more radical by the month and with Hillary Clinton in the White House this outrageous feminist radicalization will get out of control in a hurry.
Recently, progressive-feminist have demanded radical changes to our society by treating men like cattle or sperm banks.
For example, a 22- year old single mother and university student suggested society should reduce the male population by 90% and the remaining 10% should be treated like slaves.
Then, progressive-feminist authors call for the “end of men” as the dominate sex in our society and happily flaunt their opinions in mainstream media. Sadly, there is not even the slightest push back by our social or political structures. I’m guessing, men are afraid to speak up about these issues for fear of ridicule.
Many white, middle-class women who are “Hillary” supporters are the same feminist who cry out “kill all men” and “blame the patriarchy” but fail to see their own, vast female privilege in American society.
So far, it seems when Hillary Clinton is called out for her scandals, many failures as a Sectary of State and mishandling of classified material she brushes the questions off. Now it seems when a question of accountability comes up, Clinton tells Trump to get back on the reservation with the other non-feminist males.
If Clinton is voted into office and we happen to get into a war with another superpower and we loose, will she blame the men for giving their lives in the war she created? If our economy crumbles will she blame men to stealing women’s money? Or, if her Presidency turns into a failure will she blame Bill Clinton for not being supportive to her and her needs?
With Hillary Clinton’s statements and progressive-feminist supporters only time will tell how they will react towards men once they get into power. For sure, if Hillary does loose this election she may regret not placing men in these no vote, no voice “reservations sooner? Or maybe just conservatives, including Donald Trump are the only people ?
Source
I told you guys about castration camps and if Hillary gets into the White House they will become a reality. If you didn't believe me then you better believe me now. Democrat men: don't think you're immune. There have been male feminists who've been betrayed by their sisters so you are not immune. If you want to save your own necks I suggest you make sure Bernie Sanders gets the nomination. If Hitlery gets into the White House your nuts on on the chopping block just like ours are. No men will be exempt. Femitheist made that quite clear.
If that doesn't convince you then maybe this and this will.
Saturday, April 30, 2016
Gynocentrist Carly Fiorina
Do men count with this VP? Apparently not. Gynocentricity to the left of me gynocentricity to the right. Here I am. Trump is starting to look better and better.
Sunday, March 20, 2016
Surprise surprise surprise (no,not really)
As Hillary Clinton Sweeps States, One Group Resists: White Men
By PATRICK HEALYMARCH 17, 2016
Dennis Bertko, a construction manager in Youngstown, Ohio, said that Hillary Clinton “could have a broader message.” Credit Mark Makela for The New York Times
White men narrowly backed Hillary Clinton in her 2008 race for president, but they are resisting her candidacy this time around in major battleground states, rattling some Democrats about her general-election strategy.
While Mrs. Clinton swept the five major primaries on Tuesday, she lost white men in all of them, and by double-digit margins in Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio, exit polls showed — a sharp turnabout from 2008, when she won double-digit victories among white male voters in all three states.
She also performed poorly on Tuesday with independents, who have never been among her core supporters. But white men were, at least when Mrs. Clinton was running against a black opponent: She explicitly appealed to them in 2008, extolling the Second Amendment, mocking Barack Obama’s comment that working-class voters “cling to guns or religion” and even needling him at one point over his difficulties with “working, hard-working Americans, white Americans.”
She could not sound more different today, aggressively campaigning to toughen gun-control laws and especially courting black and Hispanic voters.
Her standing among white men does not threaten her clinching the Democratic nomination this year, or preclude her from winning in November, unless it craters. Mr. Obama lost the white vote to Mrs. Clinton, after all, but still won the presidency.
Forrest Giffin, a mall supervisor from Sumter, S.C., said, “I really wonder if she wants people like me in the Democratic Party.” Credit Gabriella Demczuk for The New York Times
But what is striking is the change in attitudes about Mrs. Clinton among those voters, and her struggle to win them over again. In dozens of interviews in diners, offices and neighborhoods across the country, many white male Democrats expressed an array of misgivings, with some former supporters turning away from her now.
Many said they did not trust her to overhaul the economy because of her wealth and her ties to Wall Street. Some said her use of private email as secretary of state indicated she had something to hide. A few said they did not think a woman should be commander in chief. But most said they simply did not think Mrs. Clinton cared about people like them.
“She’s talking to minorities now, not really to white people, and that’s a mistake,” said Dennis Bertko, 66, a construction project manager in Youngstown, Ohio, as he sipped a draft beer at the Golden Dawn Restaurant in a downtrodden part of town. “She could have a broader message. We would have listened.”
“Instead, she’s talking a lot about continuing Obama’s policies,” he said. “I just don’t necessarily agree with all of the liberal ideas of Obama.”
Mr. Bertko said that he rarely crossed party lines but that he voted for Donald J. Trump, who is making a strong pitch to disaffected white men by assailing free-trade agreements that Mrs. Clinton once supported. “I know a lot of guys who are open to Trump,” he said.
The fading of white men as a Democratic bloc is hardly new: The last nominee to carry them was Lyndon Johnson in 1964, and many blue-collar “Reagan Democrats” now steadily vote Republican. But Democrats have won about 35 to 40 percent of white men in nearly every presidential election since 1988. And some Democratic leaders say the party needs white male voters to win the presidency, raise large sums of money and, like it or not, maintain credibility as a broad-based national coalition.
To win a general election, Mrs. Clinton would rely most heavily on strong turnout from blacks, Hispanics, women and older voters. Though she won among white men in Arkansas, Alabama and Tennessee, and tied in Texas, some Democratic officials and pollsters say they fear that without a stronger strategy, Mrs. Clinton could perform as poorly among white men as Walter Mondale, who drew just 32 percent in 1984, or even George McGovern, who took 31 percent in 1972.
“Her most serious relationship problem is with white men, on a policy issue front but also stylistically, and she is at real risk for running worse than the average Democrat with white males,” said Peter Hart, a veteran Democratic pollster.
Bill Richardson, former governor of New Mexico and energy secretary under President Clinton, said Mrs. Clinton needed to focus more on economic issues and job creation and to deploy her husband on her behalf. “Priority needs to be given to stopping the erosion of the white male voter and Reagan Democrats to Republicans,” he said.
Mrs. Clinton’s advisers expressed confidence, saying her economic policies and national security experience would appeal strongly to white men in a general election. They said she regularly won among those over 45 and argued that Senator Bernie Sanders’s appeal among younger white men reflected his popularity with young people generally.
Graphic: Florida Exit Polls
Joel Benenson, Mrs. Clinton’s strategist and pollster, predicted she would win at least 35 percent of white men nationally — the share Mr. Obama took in 2012 — and even more in battleground states like Ohio and Pennsylvania. But he insisted that focusing on white men overlooked the breadth of her support.
“Winning is never about slicing and dicing the electorate,” he said. “What you have to do is create a diverse coalition of voters that enables you to win, and win repeatedly. That’s what Hillary Clinton has done, and that’s what Bernie Sanders has failed to do.”
But Mrs. Clinton is clearly focusing more so far on nonwhites, who provide outsize shares of the delegates needed to win the nomination. Her political message, events and surrogate speakers have been geared largely to blacks and Hispanics, from denouncing gun violence and police abuses to promising improvements in immigration and education.
Eight years ago, Mrs. Clinton appealed to whites to counter Mr. Obama’s popularity among minority voters. She ran as a moderate and a national security hawk, and fondly recalled how her father taught her to shoot. Some political analysts said she also benefited among white men because many were not comfortable voting for a black man.
Mrs. Clinton’s political challenges now center on the controversies stemming from her time as secretary of state and doubts about her willingness to take on Wall Street.
“There are all these questions about her past, and she doesn’t give straight responses about them,” said Forrest Giffin, 23, a Democrat in Sumter, S.C., who cited Mrs. Clinton’s refusal to release transcripts of her paid speeches to banks. Mr. Giffin, a mall supervisor and assistant manager at a gas station, added, “I really wonder if she wants people like me in the Democratic Party.”
Terry Downs, a retired art professor who was impressed by Mrs. Clinton in Plymouth, N.H., last fall, said he was won over by Mr. Sanders’s economic policies. “I just thought there’s a lot of hypocritical lip service coming from Hillary when she talks like a strong progressive,” he said. “She and her husband received millions of dollars from Wall Street.”
In Ohio, a plurality of white men said honesty and trustworthiness were the most important qualities in a candidate, and 89 percent of them voted for Mr. Sanders, according to exit polls. Of the four in 10 who wanted a president to pursue more liberal policies than Mr. Obama’s, a wide majority favored Mr. Sanders.
In Youngstown, a city battered by job losses, Mrs. Clinton’s record was a flash point at the Golden Dawn.
“Being an ex-serviceman, the situation with Benghazi still upsets me greatly,” said Hayden Gerdes, 72, referring to the terrorist attacks in Libya. A Clinton voter in 2008, he chose Gov. John Kasich, a Republican, on Tuesday.
Mr. Gerdes had a sparring partner in Dick Lucarell, 73, who voted for Mrs. Clinton in 2008 and again on Tuesday. Mr. Lucarell said that Mrs. Clinton was the target of unfair Republican attacks, and that she and her husband would be “a strong team.” But he also said she had yet to give white men compelling reasons to stay in the party.
“If I’m a woman, I probably vote for Hillary. If I’m Hispanic, I vote for Hillary. Blacks will vote for Hillary,” Mr. Lucarell said. “But white people, especially white men — she has a big problem there.”
Source
All men out there should take note. Caucasian or not if you are a man Hillary hates you. Never forget that. When Hillary was Senator for New York she refused to meet with father's rights groups. That means that a lot of fathers and their children were fucked over because Hillary is a misandrist. That includes non-Caucasian fathers as well.
By PATRICK HEALYMARCH 17, 2016
Dennis Bertko, a construction manager in Youngstown, Ohio, said that Hillary Clinton “could have a broader message.” Credit Mark Makela for The New York Times
White men narrowly backed Hillary Clinton in her 2008 race for president, but they are resisting her candidacy this time around in major battleground states, rattling some Democrats about her general-election strategy.
While Mrs. Clinton swept the five major primaries on Tuesday, she lost white men in all of them, and by double-digit margins in Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio, exit polls showed — a sharp turnabout from 2008, when she won double-digit victories among white male voters in all three states.
She also performed poorly on Tuesday with independents, who have never been among her core supporters. But white men were, at least when Mrs. Clinton was running against a black opponent: She explicitly appealed to them in 2008, extolling the Second Amendment, mocking Barack Obama’s comment that working-class voters “cling to guns or religion” and even needling him at one point over his difficulties with “working, hard-working Americans, white Americans.”
She could not sound more different today, aggressively campaigning to toughen gun-control laws and especially courting black and Hispanic voters.
Her standing among white men does not threaten her clinching the Democratic nomination this year, or preclude her from winning in November, unless it craters. Mr. Obama lost the white vote to Mrs. Clinton, after all, but still won the presidency.
Forrest Giffin, a mall supervisor from Sumter, S.C., said, “I really wonder if she wants people like me in the Democratic Party.” Credit Gabriella Demczuk for The New York Times
But what is striking is the change in attitudes about Mrs. Clinton among those voters, and her struggle to win them over again. In dozens of interviews in diners, offices and neighborhoods across the country, many white male Democrats expressed an array of misgivings, with some former supporters turning away from her now.
Many said they did not trust her to overhaul the economy because of her wealth and her ties to Wall Street. Some said her use of private email as secretary of state indicated she had something to hide. A few said they did not think a woman should be commander in chief. But most said they simply did not think Mrs. Clinton cared about people like them.
“She’s talking to minorities now, not really to white people, and that’s a mistake,” said Dennis Bertko, 66, a construction project manager in Youngstown, Ohio, as he sipped a draft beer at the Golden Dawn Restaurant in a downtrodden part of town. “She could have a broader message. We would have listened.”
“Instead, she’s talking a lot about continuing Obama’s policies,” he said. “I just don’t necessarily agree with all of the liberal ideas of Obama.”
Mr. Bertko said that he rarely crossed party lines but that he voted for Donald J. Trump, who is making a strong pitch to disaffected white men by assailing free-trade agreements that Mrs. Clinton once supported. “I know a lot of guys who are open to Trump,” he said.
The fading of white men as a Democratic bloc is hardly new: The last nominee to carry them was Lyndon Johnson in 1964, and many blue-collar “Reagan Democrats” now steadily vote Republican. But Democrats have won about 35 to 40 percent of white men in nearly every presidential election since 1988. And some Democratic leaders say the party needs white male voters to win the presidency, raise large sums of money and, like it or not, maintain credibility as a broad-based national coalition.
To win a general election, Mrs. Clinton would rely most heavily on strong turnout from blacks, Hispanics, women and older voters. Though she won among white men in Arkansas, Alabama and Tennessee, and tied in Texas, some Democratic officials and pollsters say they fear that without a stronger strategy, Mrs. Clinton could perform as poorly among white men as Walter Mondale, who drew just 32 percent in 1984, or even George McGovern, who took 31 percent in 1972.
“Her most serious relationship problem is with white men, on a policy issue front but also stylistically, and she is at real risk for running worse than the average Democrat with white males,” said Peter Hart, a veteran Democratic pollster.
Bill Richardson, former governor of New Mexico and energy secretary under President Clinton, said Mrs. Clinton needed to focus more on economic issues and job creation and to deploy her husband on her behalf. “Priority needs to be given to stopping the erosion of the white male voter and Reagan Democrats to Republicans,” he said.
Mrs. Clinton’s advisers expressed confidence, saying her economic policies and national security experience would appeal strongly to white men in a general election. They said she regularly won among those over 45 and argued that Senator Bernie Sanders’s appeal among younger white men reflected his popularity with young people generally.
Graphic: Florida Exit Polls
Joel Benenson, Mrs. Clinton’s strategist and pollster, predicted she would win at least 35 percent of white men nationally — the share Mr. Obama took in 2012 — and even more in battleground states like Ohio and Pennsylvania. But he insisted that focusing on white men overlooked the breadth of her support.
“Winning is never about slicing and dicing the electorate,” he said. “What you have to do is create a diverse coalition of voters that enables you to win, and win repeatedly. That’s what Hillary Clinton has done, and that’s what Bernie Sanders has failed to do.”
But Mrs. Clinton is clearly focusing more so far on nonwhites, who provide outsize shares of the delegates needed to win the nomination. Her political message, events and surrogate speakers have been geared largely to blacks and Hispanics, from denouncing gun violence and police abuses to promising improvements in immigration and education.
Eight years ago, Mrs. Clinton appealed to whites to counter Mr. Obama’s popularity among minority voters. She ran as a moderate and a national security hawk, and fondly recalled how her father taught her to shoot. Some political analysts said she also benefited among white men because many were not comfortable voting for a black man.
Mrs. Clinton’s political challenges now center on the controversies stemming from her time as secretary of state and doubts about her willingness to take on Wall Street.
“There are all these questions about her past, and she doesn’t give straight responses about them,” said Forrest Giffin, 23, a Democrat in Sumter, S.C., who cited Mrs. Clinton’s refusal to release transcripts of her paid speeches to banks. Mr. Giffin, a mall supervisor and assistant manager at a gas station, added, “I really wonder if she wants people like me in the Democratic Party.”
Terry Downs, a retired art professor who was impressed by Mrs. Clinton in Plymouth, N.H., last fall, said he was won over by Mr. Sanders’s economic policies. “I just thought there’s a lot of hypocritical lip service coming from Hillary when she talks like a strong progressive,” he said. “She and her husband received millions of dollars from Wall Street.”
In Ohio, a plurality of white men said honesty and trustworthiness were the most important qualities in a candidate, and 89 percent of them voted for Mr. Sanders, according to exit polls. Of the four in 10 who wanted a president to pursue more liberal policies than Mr. Obama’s, a wide majority favored Mr. Sanders.
In Youngstown, a city battered by job losses, Mrs. Clinton’s record was a flash point at the Golden Dawn.
“Being an ex-serviceman, the situation with Benghazi still upsets me greatly,” said Hayden Gerdes, 72, referring to the terrorist attacks in Libya. A Clinton voter in 2008, he chose Gov. John Kasich, a Republican, on Tuesday.
Mr. Gerdes had a sparring partner in Dick Lucarell, 73, who voted for Mrs. Clinton in 2008 and again on Tuesday. Mr. Lucarell said that Mrs. Clinton was the target of unfair Republican attacks, and that she and her husband would be “a strong team.” But he also said she had yet to give white men compelling reasons to stay in the party.
“If I’m a woman, I probably vote for Hillary. If I’m Hispanic, I vote for Hillary. Blacks will vote for Hillary,” Mr. Lucarell said. “But white people, especially white men — she has a big problem there.”
Source
All men out there should take note. Caucasian or not if you are a man Hillary hates you. Never forget that. When Hillary was Senator for New York she refused to meet with father's rights groups. That means that a lot of fathers and their children were fucked over because Hillary is a misandrist. That includes non-Caucasian fathers as well.
Wednesday, June 3, 2015
Tell Trey Gowdy you have his back.
Congressman Trey Gowdy is being hammered by Hillary Clinton's allies. They say Gowdy better "watch out" or he'll feel "like dog that has a large car on its head". This isn't blowing off steam this was a premeditated calmly made statement. If this were anyone else I would say that there is a 50/50 chance of anything majorly bad happening but since is it the Clinton's we are look at 90/10 which means the shit is going to hit the fan. This political chess game has two players but it is going to be the American people whom will be the winners or losers. The two players are Hillary Clinton and Congressan Trey Gowy. If you side with Hillary one question: why? If you side with Clinton and her statists Then you are not going to like it here. If you want to see Hillary's royal coronation you are not going to like it here. If you are looking forward to it you hate the Constitution. There is no hope for you. On the other hand if you support Congressman Trey Gowdy then support him by filling out the petition. Let Congressman Gowdy know that We The People have have his back.
Wednesday, July 23, 2014
Defeat Kay Hagan defeat Hillary Clinton
From Stop Hillary PAC:
Hillary Clinton is running for President.
Hillary and her campaign are secretly plotting their road map to win the presidency with as little resistance as possible.
Fortunately, I have inside information on her plans -- and more importantly -- we have a strategy to stop her.
What I can tell you right now: Hillary's plan to win the presidency goes right through the state of North Carolina.
North Carolina, along with a small handful of other states, is essential to Hillary being elected president, and she and her super PAC, "Ready for Hillary" are going all-in to make it happen.
I'm writing you today to ask you to chip in to help me stop them.
You see, essential to winning North Carolina in 2016, Hillary must first reelect Kay Hagan, the liberal incumbent Senator who has already endorsed Hillary's run for the presidency.
That's right; Senator Kay Hagan from North Carolina is already endorsing Hillary for President.
In typical Washington D.C. fashion, Senator Kay Hagan has endorsed Hillary for President -- and Hillary will endorse Hagan for re-election.
That's why I'm announcing our plans today to defeat Kay Hagan for re-election. If we can defeat Senator Hagan's re-election, we blow a huge hole in Hillary's plan to be elected president.
But I can't do this alone, and that's why I'm asking you to chip in right now to help me defeat Senator Kay Hagan today. Will you chip in as much as $50 to help us defeat Hillary's personal choice for Senate in North Carolina?
How important is North Carolina to win the presidency?
Here are the facts:
• In 2008, Barack Obama won North Carolina by 1 point and in 2012, he lost North Carolina by 1 point -- North Carolina is a true swing state;
• 3 of the last 4 Governors of North Carolina have been Democrats;
• Liberal Super PACs beholden to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have already invested over 8 million dollars in re-electing Kay Hagan. That is more than any other Senate race in the country; AND
• Kay Hagan's campaign has outraised her opponent by more that 5-1 -- this week she placed a media buy for 4 million dollars.
North Carolina will be the state that decides who is the next President of the United States. That's why Hillary Clinton and her Super PAC's are going all-in.
And that's why I'm asking for your immediate help.
Will you join me by making a special, urgent contribution to our special fund to defeat liberal Senator Kay Hagan for re-election and deal a decisive blow to Hillary's plans to win the presidency? Some dedicated supporters have donated as much as $100 and $500. For others, $25 and $50 is a sacrificial gift.
Whatever you do, please commit to something. Even $10 will help us target the right voters to defeat Senator Hagan.
Current polls put Kay Hagan only 2.4% ahead of her GOP challenger.
This is a race we can -- MUST -- win.
While all races for U.S. Senate are important this year, North Carolina has more on the line than most because it will decide who our next president is.
That's why your support today is so important.
Will you chip in?
Sincerely,
Senator Ted Harvey
Chairman, Stop Hillary PAC
P.S. North Carolina -- and the re-election of liberal Senator Kay Hagen -- holds the key to Hillary's run for the presidency. That's why Stop Hillary PAC is announcing today our campaign to defeat Kay Hagan and blow a hole through Hillary's plans.
Will you please make an urgent contribution to ensure we have the resources to launch a hard-hitting campaign to defeat Hillary and Kay Hagan today? Please, click here to chip in.
Hillary Clinton is running for President.
Hillary and her campaign are secretly plotting their road map to win the presidency with as little resistance as possible.
Fortunately, I have inside information on her plans -- and more importantly -- we have a strategy to stop her.
What I can tell you right now: Hillary's plan to win the presidency goes right through the state of North Carolina.
North Carolina, along with a small handful of other states, is essential to Hillary being elected president, and she and her super PAC, "Ready for Hillary" are going all-in to make it happen.
I'm writing you today to ask you to chip in to help me stop them.
You see, essential to winning North Carolina in 2016, Hillary must first reelect Kay Hagan, the liberal incumbent Senator who has already endorsed Hillary's run for the presidency.
That's right; Senator Kay Hagan from North Carolina is already endorsing Hillary for President.
In typical Washington D.C. fashion, Senator Kay Hagan has endorsed Hillary for President -- and Hillary will endorse Hagan for re-election.
That's why I'm announcing our plans today to defeat Kay Hagan for re-election. If we can defeat Senator Hagan's re-election, we blow a huge hole in Hillary's plan to be elected president.
But I can't do this alone, and that's why I'm asking you to chip in right now to help me defeat Senator Kay Hagan today. Will you chip in as much as $50 to help us defeat Hillary's personal choice for Senate in North Carolina?
How important is North Carolina to win the presidency?
Here are the facts:
• In 2008, Barack Obama won North Carolina by 1 point and in 2012, he lost North Carolina by 1 point -- North Carolina is a true swing state;
• 3 of the last 4 Governors of North Carolina have been Democrats;
• Liberal Super PACs beholden to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have already invested over 8 million dollars in re-electing Kay Hagan. That is more than any other Senate race in the country; AND
• Kay Hagan's campaign has outraised her opponent by more that 5-1 -- this week she placed a media buy for 4 million dollars.
North Carolina will be the state that decides who is the next President of the United States. That's why Hillary Clinton and her Super PAC's are going all-in.
And that's why I'm asking for your immediate help.
Will you join me by making a special, urgent contribution to our special fund to defeat liberal Senator Kay Hagan for re-election and deal a decisive blow to Hillary's plans to win the presidency? Some dedicated supporters have donated as much as $100 and $500. For others, $25 and $50 is a sacrificial gift.
Whatever you do, please commit to something. Even $10 will help us target the right voters to defeat Senator Hagan.
Current polls put Kay Hagan only 2.4% ahead of her GOP challenger.
This is a race we can -- MUST -- win.
While all races for U.S. Senate are important this year, North Carolina has more on the line than most because it will decide who our next president is.
That's why your support today is so important.
Will you chip in?
Sincerely,
Senator Ted Harvey
Chairman, Stop Hillary PAC
P.S. North Carolina -- and the re-election of liberal Senator Kay Hagen -- holds the key to Hillary's run for the presidency. That's why Stop Hillary PAC is announcing today our campaign to defeat Kay Hagan and blow a hole through Hillary's plans.
Will you please make an urgent contribution to ensure we have the resources to launch a hard-hitting campaign to defeat Hillary and Kay Hagan today? Please, click here to chip in.
Saturday, February 8, 2014
Saturday, August 17, 2013
Hillary's camp has gone too far
From Stop Hillary PAC:
I wish I didn't have to write this letter. But I do.
Last week I received a voice mail that I immediately turned over to local and federal authorities -- including the FBI.
You see, because of my high profile campaign against Hillary Clinton -- Hillary's supporters are fighting back and I have become public enemy #1.
And now they have gone too far.
In a profanity filled voicemail, one of Hillary Clinton's supporters from New York has personally threatened me.
I can't even repeat the threats in this email it was so disgustingly evil. I have turned the voicemail over to the Capitol Police, State Patrol and the FBI.
I don't know where else to turn... so I'm turning to you.
I helped found Stop Hillary PAC for one reason -- to prevent Hillary Clinton from becoming President of the United States. So far, the response has been overwhelming. Tens of thousands of you have pledged to do whatever it takes to defeat Hillary. Our web video has been featured by CNN, CBS, Politico and other national news outlets and has tens of thousands of views on YouTube. Our momentum is building and I couldn't be more optimistic about fighting Hillary every step of the way.
What I didn't count on was the vitriol, personal threats and vile objections from her supporters. The emails from her supporters have been nasty. But threatening me and my family has gone too far.
The only way I know to fight back is to build an army of Americans to fight Hillary Clinton -- and her despicable supporters -- at every turn.
But I can't do it alone -- will you stand with me today?
If you agree that nobody should be personally threatened just because they oppose Hillary Clinton then I'm asking you to sign my petition insisting that Hillary denounce her supporters' threats and publicly apologize immediately.
And while I can't even repeat the disgusting, evil threats that were made against me -- I will play the voice mail for Hillary if she will listen. If Hillary Clinton has one ounce of decency she will immediately denounce this threat and openly and publicly apologize.
Will you stand with me in calling on Hillary to apologize today?
A public apology and rebuke of this vile human being by Hillary Clinton might be the only thing that will discourage this type of behavior in the future -- and I pray it will stop this individual in his tracks.
If you will stand with me please click here to sign the petition insisting that Hillary Clinton publicly apologize immediately and denounce this attack immediately.
If enough of you will stand with me, I will have our attorneys deliver your signed petitions directly to Hillary Clinton.
One more thing -- will you chip in $25, $50 or even $100 to help fight Hillary Clinton and her disgusting supporters? If so, I will be able to distribute this petition to millions of Americans to demand a public apology from Hillary.
Please click here to sign the apology petition today.
I'm not backing down and I hope I can count on you to not back down either.
Thank you for your support and prayers.
Senator Ted Harvey
Ted Harvey
Senator Ted Harvey (R)
Colorado State Senator
Co-Founder, Stop Hillary PAC
I wish I didn't have to write this letter. But I do.
Last week I received a voice mail that I immediately turned over to local and federal authorities -- including the FBI.
You see, because of my high profile campaign against Hillary Clinton -- Hillary's supporters are fighting back and I have become public enemy #1.
And now they have gone too far.
In a profanity filled voicemail, one of Hillary Clinton's supporters from New York has personally threatened me.
I can't even repeat the threats in this email it was so disgustingly evil. I have turned the voicemail over to the Capitol Police, State Patrol and the FBI.
I don't know where else to turn... so I'm turning to you.
I helped found Stop Hillary PAC for one reason -- to prevent Hillary Clinton from becoming President of the United States. So far, the response has been overwhelming. Tens of thousands of you have pledged to do whatever it takes to defeat Hillary. Our web video has been featured by CNN, CBS, Politico and other national news outlets and has tens of thousands of views on YouTube. Our momentum is building and I couldn't be more optimistic about fighting Hillary every step of the way.
What I didn't count on was the vitriol, personal threats and vile objections from her supporters. The emails from her supporters have been nasty. But threatening me and my family has gone too far.
The only way I know to fight back is to build an army of Americans to fight Hillary Clinton -- and her despicable supporters -- at every turn.
But I can't do it alone -- will you stand with me today?
If you agree that nobody should be personally threatened just because they oppose Hillary Clinton then I'm asking you to sign my petition insisting that Hillary denounce her supporters' threats and publicly apologize immediately.
And while I can't even repeat the disgusting, evil threats that were made against me -- I will play the voice mail for Hillary if she will listen. If Hillary Clinton has one ounce of decency she will immediately denounce this threat and openly and publicly apologize.
Will you stand with me in calling on Hillary to apologize today?
A public apology and rebuke of this vile human being by Hillary Clinton might be the only thing that will discourage this type of behavior in the future -- and I pray it will stop this individual in his tracks.
If you will stand with me please click here to sign the petition insisting that Hillary Clinton publicly apologize immediately and denounce this attack immediately.
If enough of you will stand with me, I will have our attorneys deliver your signed petitions directly to Hillary Clinton.
One more thing -- will you chip in $25, $50 or even $100 to help fight Hillary Clinton and her disgusting supporters? If so, I will be able to distribute this petition to millions of Americans to demand a public apology from Hillary.
Please click here to sign the apology petition today.
I'm not backing down and I hope I can count on you to not back down either.
Thank you for your support and prayers.
Senator Ted Harvey
Ted Harvey
Senator Ted Harvey (R)
Colorado State Senator
Co-Founder, Stop Hillary PAC
Wednesday, May 29, 2013
Pete Santilli has the right to say what he did about Hillary
Emily's List is having a shit fit when Pete Santilli said what he did about Hillary Clinton,whom as Secretary Of State has killed several men by her derelection of duty. Pete Santilli has every right to say what he did. It is his first amendment right. Hillary needs to be accountable with due process. Besides where was Emily's List when this infamous episode of The Talk was broadcasted. Which is the last video. Hillary was a woman in a powerful position that got men killed. Katerine Kieu Becker's husband harmed no one yet he was physically sexually mutilated yet what Santilli had done was use words with no actions. He didn't pick up a weapon and harm Hillary unlike what Katherine Kieu Becker did to her husband. I guess to feminists unpleasant words from a man are worse than aggrevated battery from a woman.
Thursday, April 11, 2013
Misandry from Ann Coulter
I was watching a Hannity clip which featured an interview with Ann Coulter. I was shocked by the misandry coming out of Coulter's mouth. Judging from the misandry this woman:
Reminded me of this woman:
Coulter should learn the concept of STFU:
I'm not kidding. Check it out for youself:click here
Monday, November 12, 2012
Statist loses election but wants to be Secretary of State
The good news: Congressman Howard Berman -- one of the lead supporters of SOPA -- lost his re-election bid last week. The bad news: The Los Angeles Times is reporting that Berman is being considered as the replacement for Hillary Clinton when she steps down as Secretary of State in coming weeks. That would mean that he'd play a key role in developing global Internet policy! Please add your name at right to tell President Obama and the Senate that Berman has no place being considered for Secretary of State. Berman has spent decades representing Southern California, and has been one of the biggest shills for Hollywood and other forces that seek to censor the Internet: He was one of the original sponsors of SOPA, and unlike so many others who had the sense to wiithdraw their support after the Internet cried out, Berman has never backed down. But now the LA Times reports:
Berman, who has been chairman and ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, is among those now mentioned by U.S. officials as a possible replacement for Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton when she departs next year.
If the United States really cares about global Internet freedom, there couldn't be a worse pick for Secretary of State than Berman, who's repeatedly tried to censor the web at Hollywood's behest -- and Hollywood's been leading a global charge to clamp down on Internet freedom. Let's put Obama and the Senate on notice.
Source:click here to sign petition.
Last week we got rid of this statist asshole through democratic means but we could end up stuck with him if we don't let Obama and our senators know that we don't want him. If he is a big SOPA supporter I don't want him anywhere near the controls for the internet. If he is so big with the Hollywood crowd then they can give him a job in the private sector so that way he can leave the rest of us alone.
Monday, April 16, 2012
Tonight On The Record
As I was watching On The Record with Greta Van Sustern I noticed her sexist attitude toward government employees relaxing in Columbia. It seems that Van Sustern had a hissy fit when several male secret service employees and some Pentagon personnel hired some hookers for some R and R. Sustern was citing safety concerns in allowing hookers into their rooms and how they were immoral for doing so. Someone pointed out that being a secret service employee is stressful and that they were relieving stress. Van Sustern stated she didn't care how stressful the job is they shouldn't be doing that. The next segment featured Secretary of State Hillary Clinton throwing down a few beers with Sustern stating that if anyone had a right to throw down a few beers it is Hillary Clinton because she has a stressful job. WTF??? Let's back up here for just a moment. The stress of secret service agents doesn't count because it comes with the territory but then again stress comes from the secretary of state's job as well. Why is one's stress a mitigating factor while another's is not? National security some might say. I say nice try but that dog don't hunt. Hillary,being the secretary of state,is part of Obama's cabinet,while the secret service employees are not. Clinton would know more about sensitive information than the secret service employees would know. If Clinton had shot her mouth off in that bar,where it is possible foreign agents are listening,she could have jeopardized our position in that region than these secret service employees could have ever done. Not only that but Clinton held up something that said "Havana" on it. Is Clinton promoting the Cuban capital? Or its government? Sustern states that she feels ashamed by the actions of the secret service employees but excuses Clinton who is drinking like a fish. So what is really going on here? It is the pussy pass in operation again. When you get right down to it there is no difference between left wing feminists and right wing feminists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)