Why the sudden explosion of liberal women running for president?

[gallantwarrior]

Scary?

A serious question. Why the sudden explosion.
Curiosity broadens the mind

The fact that someone who brags of grabbing women by the pussy and they win an election for federal office has made many many many more women sit up and pay attention.

And there will likely be even more women running for office in 2019 and 2020 thanks to the Brett O'Kavanagh hearings.

Only because too many leftist/progressive/WTFE women are too stupid or ignorant to understand the Constitution and what it means. "He has a dick" and some woman accuses him of something some time ago does not fit under the Constitutional rule of law as a conviction. But, hey, women who would vote because a candidate is "attractive" (B. Clinton), or "looks" like them (B. Soetoro & H. Clinton), really shouldn't be voting because obviously they are too stupid.

That's an interesting filter your brain has. Are drugs involved or was that all you?

My statement was based on history. Ever heard of "The Year of the Woman"? It happened after the Anita Hill hearing.

The Kavanaugh hearings were bullshit and political ploy to derail President Trump. How does something as partisan and bogus as that empower women? Can women not become empowered by their own merits? Do women always have to be victims in order to garner empowerment? Currently, the only women who have been elected to office have run on their victimhood at the hands of (white) men and traditional power brokers. They use their gender, their religious affiliation, and their "cuteness" to garner votes. Good job, gals...you soooo cute!

 

[Lesh]

Currently, the only women who have been elected to office have run on their victimhood

Complete horse shit...But hey...you're a Republican...

 

[gallantwarrior]

Currently, the only women who have been elected to office have run on their victimhood

Complete horse shit...But hey...you're a Republican...

Actually, I am not a Republican...but that FACT would harm your narrative. But I am not a brain-washed automaton, either. Carry on...

 

[22lcidw]

Scary?

A serious question. Why the sudden explosion.
Curiosity broadens the mind

The fact that someone who brags of grabbing women by the pussy and they win an election for federal office has made many many many more women sit up and pay attention.

And there will likely be even more women running for office in 2019 and 2020 thanks to the Brett O'Kavanagh hearings.

Watch the crime rate rise as more males become impoverished. Many picking up handguns and rifles as the emasculation grows and the education of them becomes more limited. Demographics can be adjusted for any reason. But the poverty rate is increasing in a culture that depends on checks with benefits being sent out each month.

Wow. Is it a full moon or something? To you more women in public office equals men becoming impoverished and emasculated?

Again, read true demographics. Wealth is not even in our nation. That is by your views. It is estimated that a good percentage of men will even defend a woman anymore. There are different levels of surviving. Being peaceful. Slight frustration. Frustration. Slight anger. Anger. Slight rage. And then pure rage. Anger, slight rage and rage by males gives them an advantage in an intergender war. Women,the tough ones will compete well up to anger. Rage ends ends most contests with men.Many men are not vioent but defend women. I would not defend any of them that I saw at the Women's march. They are not worth it. For there is no threat to them when they get in your face. And they know it.

 

[Billy000]

It may sound like I’m trying to kiss ass when I say this, but I would be thrilled if we had a female president for once.

For once? How about, for the next 250 years, for equality's sake?

It should also be noted, there is no more glaring an irony than Trumpletons questioning anyone's qualification for any job whatsoever.

Sure, I’m not opposed to the idea. I’m sick of all these self-righteous white male scumbag politicians. I say that as a white guy lol

Splendid. Yet, you say that as if a "white guy" were constitutionally incapable of recognizing the historical injustice.

Um no. That isn’t at all what I meant.

 

[Olde Europe]

Splendid. Yet, you say that as if a "white guy" were constitutionally incapable of recognizing the historical injustice.

Um no. That isn’t at all what I meant.

I know. Just pulling your leg, Bill.

Yet, I find the timidity of "having a female president, once" indicative - even those of good will are lacking the imagination to rectify as much as possible whatever injustice there was in the past. They are in effect unwitting allies of those who are standing athwart of even marginal changes, if they don't try outright to turn back the clock a century. It took 45 male presidents to create the domineered-by-males system we have. One female president will not suffice to correct for that outrage, just as one Obama didn't suffice to rectify that other outrage, that is, racism. And even while there are just female candidacies announced, or just exploratory committees, male weaklings are squealing like stuck pigs already. That's got to change.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Splendid. Yet, you say that as if a "white guy" were constitutionally incapable of recognizing the historical injustice.

Um no. That isn’t at all what I meant.

I know. Just pulling your leg, Bill.

Yet, I find the timidity of "having a female president, once" indicative - even those of good will are lacking the imagination to rectify as much as possible whatever injustice there was in the past. They are in effect unwitting allies of those who are standing athwart of even marginal changes, if they don't try outright to turn back the clock a century. It took 45 male presidents to create the domineered-by-males system we have. One female president will not suffice to correct for that outrage, just as one Obama didn't suffice to rectify that other outrage, that is, racism. And even while there are just female candidacies announced, or just exploratory committees, male weaklings are squealing like stuck pigs already. That's got to change.

We changed things by electing a candidate from outside the Beltway culture in 1916 and look what's happening. If a conservative/Republican female candidate announced, I am willing to bet that the lamestream media and left-tard establishment would initiate hew-and-cry to pull such a candidate down, regardless of sterling qualifications.

 

[Billy000]

Splendid. Yet, you say that as if a "white guy" were constitutionally incapable of recognizing the historical injustice.

Um no. That isn’t at all what I meant.

I know. Just pulling your leg, Bill.

Yet, I find the timidity of "having a female president, once" indicative - even those of good will are lacking the imagination to rectify as much as possible whatever injustice there was in the past. They are in effect unwitting allies of those who are standing athwart of even marginal changes, if they don't try outright to turn back the clock a century. It took 45 male presidents to create the domineered-by-males system we have. One female president will not suffice to correct for that outrage, just as one Obama didn't suffice to rectify that other outrage, that is, racism. And even while there are just female candidacies announced, or just exploratory committees, male weaklings are squealing like stuck pigs already. That's got to change.

When I said “for once” it is more about the odds of having more than one future female president. Of course, as much as I would be okay with having all future presidents be female, it is still important to choose the right president. I can’t stand republicans. If a female republican ran for office, you better believe I would vote for the democrat nominee no matter who he or she is. The republican candidate has to lose by default lol.

All this being said, I preferred Bernie and voted for him in the primaries over Hillary. It was of course a no brainer to vote for Hillary over Trump though. I don’t regret either of those votes.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Some just don't want to have an honest conversation,

Like the OP you just posted to. I gave a very reasonable answer, and he completely ignored it to whine about "protected groups".

 

[gallantwarrior]

Splendid. Yet, you say that as if a "white guy" were constitutionally incapable of recognizing the historical injustice.

Um no. That isn’t at all what I meant.

I know. Just pulling your leg, Bill.

Yet, I find the timidity of "having a female president, once" indicative - even those of good will are lacking the imagination to rectify as much as possible whatever injustice there was in the past. They are in effect unwitting allies of those who are standing athwart of even marginal changes, if they don't try outright to turn back the clock a century. It took 45 male presidents to create the domineered-by-males system we have. One female president will not suffice to correct for that outrage, just as one Obama didn't suffice to rectify that other outrage, that is, racism. And even while there are just female candidacies announced, or just exploratory committees, male weaklings are squealing like stuck pigs already. That's got to change.

When I said “for once” it is more about the odds of having more than one future female president. Of course, as much as I would be okay with having all future presidents be female, it is still important to choose the right president. I can’t stand republicans. If a female republican ran for office, you better believe I would vote for the democrat nominee no matter who he or she is. The republican candidate has to lose by default lol.

All this being said, I preferred Bernie and voted for him in the primaries over Hillary. It was of course a no brainer to vote for Hillary over Trump though. I don’t regret either of those votes.

Why, if faced with a Republican or a Democrat female candidate would you necessarily vote for one candidate over the other? Do you not regard qualifications over party affiliation? I am truly curious, why is a vote for Hillary a no-brainer?
PS: I voted for Barney over Hillary in the primaries

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Do you not regard qualifications over party affiliation?

You forgot "agenda"....

 

[gallantwarrior]

Do you not regard qualifications over party affiliation?

You forgot "agenda"....

Yup

 

[Rambunctious]

I'm running for president......ME TOO!....

 

[Billy000]

Splendid. Yet, you say that as if a "white guy" were constitutionally incapable of recognizing the historical injustice.

Um no. That isn’t at all what I meant.

I know. Just pulling your leg, Bill.

Yet, I find the timidity of "having a female president, once" indicative - even those of good will are lacking the imagination to rectify as much as possible whatever injustice there was in the past. They are in effect unwitting allies of those who are standing athwart of even marginal changes, if they don't try outright to turn back the clock a century. It took 45 male presidents to create the domineered-by-males system we have. One female president will not suffice to correct for that outrage, just as one Obama didn't suffice to rectify that other outrage, that is, racism. And even while there are just female candidacies announced, or just exploratory committees, male weaklings are squealing like stuck pigs already. That's got to change.

When I said “for once” it is more about the odds of having more than one future female president. Of course, as much as I would be okay with having all future presidents be female, it is still important to choose the right president. I can’t stand republicans. If a female republican ran for office, you better believe I would vote for the democrat nominee no matter who he or she is. The republican candidate has to lose by default lol.

All this being said, I preferred Bernie and voted for him in the primaries over Hillary. It was of course a no brainer to vote for Hillary over Trump though. I don’t regret either of those votes.

Why, if faced with a Republican or a Democrat female candidate would you necessarily vote for one candidate over the other? Do you not regard qualifications over party affiliation? I am truly curious, why is a vote for Hillary a no-brainer?
PS: I voted for Barney over Hillary in the primaries

Qualifications certainly do matter, but so does policy. The republican platform from a candidate has never appealed to me so I have never supported one. You could make the argument Obama was less qualified than the other candidates he ran against in terms of his experience, but what ultimately mattered to me was what his platform was.

The vote for Hillary was a no-brainer because it was a vote against Trump. I’m not really fond of Hillary, but I do think she had merits that qualified her as president either way.

 

[Olde Europe]

We changed things by electing a candidate from outside the Beltway culture in 1916 and look what's happening. If a conservative/Republican female candidate announced, I am willing to bet that the lamestream media and left-tard establishment would initiate hew-and-cry to pull such a candidate down, regardless of sterling qualifications.

Yeah, you voted for the ultimate insider, and for an incompetent crook, and now look what happened.

The last time you actually run a female for (vice) president, her most obvious, "sterling" qualification was spelled "MILF". Wake me up when you actually nominate a sterling female candidate - but that would be in about 50 or so years. Oh, and, while you are at it, do please spare us the silly whine about the MSM, okay? It's unbecoming.

 

[Kondor3]

...Democrats want white people to die and die quickly. When will you be smart enough to understand this?

Oh, fer Crissakes... lay off the Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter Kool-Aid, eh?

 

[pismoe]

We changed things by electing a candidate from outside the Beltway culture in 1916 and look what's happening. If a conservative/Republican female candidate announced, I am willing to bet that the lamestream media and left-tard establishment would initiate hew-and-cry to pull such a candidate down, regardless of sterling qualifications.

Yeah, you voted for the ultimate insider, and for an incompetent crook, and now look what happened.

The last time you actually run a female for (vice) president, her most obvious, "sterling" qualification was spelled "MILF". Wake me up when you actually nominate a sterling female candidate - but that would be in about 50 or so years. Oh, and, while you are at it, do please spare us the silly whine about the MSM, okay? It's unbecoming.

---------------------------------- 50 or so years is ok OEuro .

 

[Olde Europe]

PS: I voted for Barney over Hillary in the primaries

Who is Barney?

 

[Lesh]

I am truly curious, why is a vote for Hillary a no-brainer?

I voted for Hillary because of her experience and her policies.

NOT because of her gender. It didn't dissuade me either

 

[gallantwarrior]

Splendid. Yet, you say that as if a "white guy" were constitutionally incapable of recognizing the historical injustice.

Um no. That isn’t at all what I meant.

I know. Just pulling your leg, Bill.

Yet, I find the timidity of "having a female president, once" indicative - even those of good will are lacking the imagination to rectify as much as possible whatever injustice there was in the past. They are in effect unwitting allies of those who are standing athwart of even marginal changes, if they don't try outright to turn back the clock a century. It took 45 male presidents to create the domineered-by-males system we have. One female president will not suffice to correct for that outrage, just as one Obama didn't suffice to rectify that other outrage, that is, racism. And even while there are just female candidacies announced, or just exploratory committees, male weaklings are squealing like stuck pigs already. That's got to change.

When I said “for once” it is more about the odds of having more than one future female president. Of course, as much as I would be okay with having all future presidents be female, it is still important to choose the right president. I can’t stand republicans. If a female republican ran for office, you better believe I would vote for the democrat nominee no matter who he or she is. The republican candidate has to lose by default lol.

All this being said, I preferred Bernie and voted for him in the primaries over Hillary. It was of course a no brainer to vote for Hillary over Trump though. I don’t regret either of those votes.

Why, if faced with a Republican or a Democrat female candidate would you necessarily vote for one candidate over the other? Do you not regard qualifications over party affiliation? I am truly curious, why is a vote for Hillary a no-brainer?
PS: I voted for Barney over Hillary in the primaries

Qualifications certainly do matter, but so does policy. The republican platform from a candidate has never appealed to me so I have never supported one. You could make the argument Obama was less qualified than the other candidates he ran against in terms of his experience, but what ultimately mattered to me was what his platform was.

The vote for Hillary was a no-brainer because it was a vote against Trump. I’m not really fond of Hillary, but I do think she had merits that qualified her as president either way.

What qualifications did Hillary bring to the table that would have made her a better president?