Photo of new House members - notice any differences between the two parties?

[Cecilie1200]

Photo of new House members shows big gap in diversity between parties


Someone should tell the Republican Party that it is 2018 - not 1968.

52 women contested House seats for the Republican Party and only one won. So is it the Republican Party that's to blame or is it hard to get elected in this country as a conservative woman?

Why is there "blame" to be assigned at all? Oh, that's right. Because of shallow sexists who just see, "Oh, a vagina. She should win because she's a vagina, and vaginas are important because REASONS."

Maybe they just weren't the best candidates, or they didn't run the best campaigns and make the best connections with the voters.

It probably is harder for a woman to get elected as a Republican than as a Democrat, since we expect them to actually compete and win, instead of just electing their genitals for a photo op.

I didn't assign "blame"...I simply pointed out that the GOP did run quite a few female candidates...52 in fact...even though only one was elected. Therefore the OP's contention that a lack of female GOP members means that the Republicans somehow don't like women is laughable!

Um, you asked "Is it the Republican Party that's to blame". If you don't want responses using the word "blame", maybe don't introduce it.

I'll agree with you that the OP's contention is laughable . . . assuming one finds ignorant primitives to be amusing.

Your reading comprehension leaves something to be desired, Cecilie! The point I was making when I said "So is it the Republican Party that's to blame or is it hard to get elected in this country as a conservative woman?" is that it isn't the GOP's fault that more of the women they ran didn't win. The OP is trying to blame the GOP because they only have one new incoming woman trying to paint them as a Party that doesn't push women as candidates. I simply pointed out that if the Party really doesn't like women...having 52 of them running for office is a strange way to show that!

YOUR reading comprehension leaves something to be desired. You asked, "Is it the Republican Party that's to blame?" I answered, "Why is there blame to be assigned at all?" You further asked, "Is it hard to get elected in this country as a conservative woman?" I further answered, "It probably is, since we expect them to actually compete and win, instead of just standing up and saying, 'I have a vagina! I win!'" Or words to that effect, anyway.

I'm aware of the OP's aim, but thank you so very much for "helpfully" explaining as though you made some insightful breakthrough that others are incapable of.

I am pointing out, as I have been all along, that the GOP is interested in more important things than race and gender, unlike the shallow bigots on the left.

Maybe you would get less confused if A) you stayed away from complex sentence structures until you have the hang of it, and B) get off your defensive soapbox and stop reacting like a snowflake.

 

[Oldstyle]

52 women contested House seats for the Republican Party and only one won. So is it the Republican Party that's to blame or is it hard to get elected in this country as a conservative woman?

Why is there "blame" to be assigned at all? Oh, that's right. Because of shallow sexists who just see, "Oh, a vagina. She should win because she's a vagina, and vaginas are important because REASONS."

Maybe they just weren't the best candidates, or they didn't run the best campaigns and make the best connections with the voters.

It probably is harder for a woman to get elected as a Republican than as a Democrat, since we expect them to actually compete and win, instead of just electing their genitals for a photo op.

I didn't assign "blame"...I simply pointed out that the GOP did run quite a few female candidates...52 in fact...even though only one was elected. Therefore the OP's contention that a lack of female GOP members means that the Republicans somehow don't like women is laughable!

Um, you asked "Is it the Republican Party that's to blame". If you don't want responses using the word "blame", maybe don't introduce it.

I'll agree with you that the OP's contention is laughable . . . assuming one finds ignorant primitives to be amusing.

Your reading comprehension leaves something to be desired, Cecilie! The point I was making when I said "So is it the Republican Party that's to blame or is it hard to get elected in this country as a conservative woman?" is that it isn't the GOP's fault that more of the women they ran didn't win. The OP is trying to blame the GOP because they only have one new incoming woman trying to paint them as a Party that doesn't push women as candidates. I simply pointed out that if the Party really doesn't like women...having 52 of them running for office is a strange way to show that!

YOUR reading comprehension leaves something to be desired. You asked, "Is it the Republican Party that's to blame?" I answered, "Why is there blame to be assigned at all?" You further asked, "Is it hard to get elected in this country as a conservative woman?" I further answered, "It probably is, since we expect them to actually compete and win, instead of just standing up and saying, 'I have a vagina! I win!'" Or words to that effect, anyway.

I'm aware of the OP's aim, but thank you so very much for "helpfully" explaining as though you made some insightful breakthrough that others are incapable of.

I am pointing out, as I have been all along, that the GOP is interested in more important things than race and gender, unlike the shallow bigots on the left.

Maybe you would get less confused if A) you stayed away from complex sentence structures until you have the hang of it, and B) get off your defensive soapbox and stop reacting like a snowflake.

Why do you keep misquoting me? I posted exactly what my quote was. You keep shortening it. Why?

 

[Oldstyle]

And if that sentence was too "complex" for you...I guess I could dumb it down! See Spot. See Spot run. Is that more your speed?

 

[xyz]

Photo of new House members shows big gap in diversity between parties


Someone should tell the Republican Party that it is 2018 - not 1968.

Top one looks like the crew of a pirate ship.

 

[Conservative65]

Photo of new House members shows big gap in diversity between parties


Someone should tell the Republican Party that it is 2018 - not 1968.

Democrats picking people based on skin color and gender thinking they are qualifications isn't a good thing.

 

[xyz]

Photo of new House members shows big gap in diversity between parties


Someone should tell the Republican Party that it is 2018 - not 1968.

Democrats picking people based on skin color and gender thinking they are qualifications isn't a good thing.

But it's o.k. for Republicans to do it because white supremacy is a o.k., right?

 

[Conservative65]

Photo of new House members shows big gap in diversity between parties


Someone should tell the Republican Party that it is 2018 - not 1968.

Democrats picking people based on skin color and gender thinking they are qualifications isn't a good thing.

But it's o.k. for Republicans to do it because white supremacy is a o.k., right?

Oh, you're one of those that believes in diversity for the sake of diversity whether the person is qualified or not. Got it.

 

[Preacher]

Like I said before. I have no problem destroying this country rather than allowing the genocide of my race to happen. I am willing to die to save my people....I highly doubt many of you are willing to die to continue the genocide against my people.

Guy, there is no "genocide" against your people. Frankly, as much as I would truly like to see 'White trash loser" go extinct, we are always going to have plenty of you...

Maybe if we cut off your food stamps, you'll starve.

Oh indeed there is. You're approval of that fact isn't needed. We know there is,the facts and numbers says there is.

 

[xyz]

Photo of new House members shows big gap in diversity between parties


Someone should tell the Republican Party that it is 2018 - not 1968.

Democrats picking people based on skin color and gender thinking they are qualifications isn't a good thing.

But it's o.k. for Republicans to do it because white supremacy is a o.k., right?

Oh, you're one of those that believes in diversity for the sake of diversity whether the person is qualified or not. Got it.

That seems to be the case with some Republican blacks. I mean the HUD secretary is so urban because he looks it.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Photo of new House members shows big gap in diversity between parties


Someone should tell the Republican Party that it is 2018 - not 1968.

Why didn't more women Republicans choose to run?

 

[xyz]

Photo of new House members shows big gap in diversity between parties


Someone should tell the Republican Party that it is 2018 - not 1968.

Why didn't more women Republicans choose to run?

Because they didn't like the de-facto head of the GOP?

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Photo of new House members shows big gap in diversity between parties


Someone should tell the Republican Party that it is 2018 - not 1968.

Why didn't more women Republicans choose to run?

Because they didn't like the de-facto head of the GOP?

So, it was their own choice, and had nothing to do with some kind of latent sexism or racism like the OP wants people to believe.

 

[xyz]

Photo of new House members shows big gap in diversity between parties


Someone should tell the Republican Party that it is 2018 - not 1968.

Why didn't more women Republicans choose to run?

Because they didn't like the de-facto head of the GOP?

So, it was their own choice, and had nothing to do with some kind of latent sexism or racism like the OP wants people to believe.

Probably a bit of both, because there is a vote in the party. Or maybe the Republican women/blacks/hispanics, etc. that actually ran did not have much voter appeal.

 

[Conservative65]

Photo of new House members shows big gap in diversity between parties


Someone should tell the Republican Party that it is 2018 - not 1968.

Democrats picking people based on skin color and gender thinking they are qualifications isn't a good thing.

But it's o.k. for Republicans to do it because white supremacy is a o.k., right?

Oh, you're one of those that believes in diversity for the sake of diversity whether the person is qualified or not. Got it.

That seems to be the case with some Republican blacks. I mean the HUD secretary is so urban because he looks it.

Typical calling black Republicans Uncle Toms by a lefty.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Photo of new House members shows big gap in diversity between parties


Someone should tell the Republican Party that it is 2018 - not 1968.

Democrats picking people based on skin color and gender thinking they are qualifications isn't a good thing.

But it's o.k. for Republicans to do it because white supremacy is a o.k., right?

That whooshing sound is the point going over your head.

Once again, the problem here isn't that Republicans are "picking people based on skin color"; the problem here is that Democrats are looking at people and just seeing skin color. Do you know anything about any of the incoming Republicans OTHER than what you just saw when you looked at this picture? Do you know who their opponents were, what the issues were in their district, where their district even IS? No. You know you looked at a picture, and YOU saw "a white person", and you ASSumed everyone is as shallow and bigoted as you are. Appearance would have mattered to YOU - and does now - so OBVIOUSLY, that's what it was about to everyone.

The more you keep chanting, "White men, white men, white men!" the more you tell us what kind of person YOU are, and nothing else.

 

[xyz]

Photo of new House members shows big gap in diversity between parties


Someone should tell the Republican Party that it is 2018 - not 1968.

Democrats picking people based on skin color and gender thinking they are qualifications isn't a good thing.

But it's o.k. for Republicans to do it because white supremacy is a o.k., right?

Oh, you're one of those that believes in diversity for the sake of diversity whether the person is qualified or not. Got it.

That seems to be the case with some Republican blacks. I mean the HUD secretary is so urban because he looks it.

Typical calling black Republicans Uncle Toms by a lefty.

On the other hand I probably shouldn't argue about the HUD head, he could have put someone like Jeff Sessions there but didn't.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Photo of new House members shows big gap in diversity between parties


Someone should tell the Republican Party that it is 2018 - not 1968.

Democrats picking people based on skin color and gender thinking they are qualifications isn't a good thing.

But it's o.k. for Republicans to do it because white supremacy is a o.k., right?

Oh, you're one of those that believes in diversity for the sake of diversity whether the person is qualified or not. Got it.

No, he's one of those who thinks "diversity" is about what he can see, because he can't think deeper than the surface.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Photo of new House members shows big gap in diversity between parties


Someone should tell the Republican Party that it is 2018 - not 1968.

Why didn't more women Republicans choose to run?

You say that as though you think we have some sort of hive mind going on here, and they all had ONE thought pattern and are blank, interchangeable cogs with vaginas.

If I had to guess, I'd say every female Republican in the country who didn't choose to run for office had her own personal, individual reason for making that choice, because they're all . . . wait for it . . . UNIQUE INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Photo of new House members shows big gap in diversity between parties


Someone should tell the Republican Party that it is 2018 - not 1968.

Why didn't more women Republicans choose to run?

Because they didn't like the de-facto head of the GOP?

So, it was their own choice, and had nothing to do with some kind of latent sexism or racism like the OP wants people to believe.

Probably a bit of both, because there is a vote in the party. Or maybe the Republican women/blacks/hispanics, etc. that actually ran did not have much voter appeal.

I am so very glad that we have a non-GOP non-female here to divine for us the ONE SINGLE MOTIVATION held by all GOP women in the country who did not run for office.

I swear, I've seen better cogitation from my dog when he decides where to lift his leg.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So the point is that when Democrats bash on women, they have a good reason. When Republicans bash on a woman, it's because they are anti-female. Gotcha.

well, frankly, given that you guys routinely use the C-word to talk about women you don't like, I think that about says it all.

Nature isn't equal. You know that...or you should. I doubt most leftists have the common sense to understand that. Equality is a social construct that has NEVER existed.

Actually, you better hope it does, or life is going to truly suck for you when white people are a minority in this country.

Like I said before. I have no problem destroying this country rather than allowing the genocide of my race to happen. I am willing to die to save my people....I highly doubt many of you are willing to die to continue the genocide against my people.

Nonsense.

This is an example of the bigotry, lies, and idiocy coming from the right – it’s no wonder women and minorities don’t want anything to do with the GOP.