ot. america is pissed off.

[FlyerInHi]

Trump doesn’t just objectify women.

Bill was caught and impeached. He was punished.

Now. to hold a woman responsible, as an enabler, for the sins of her husband is not a novel concept, it’s very old. Women were held responsible for adultery, domestic violence against themselves and their kids.

On the right there is definitely a longing for traditional roles for women, among men and women. That’s why Trump was given a pass.

About my own views, I think that women should be given equal rights and responsibilities. They should earn their own money, take care of their own selves; and they can objectify men if they wish. Why can’t we have a female Trump? That would really mean that women finally made it.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=NotCranky]
Voting for your husband, who is probably a major financial contributor to the household, makes sense if you are hoping the candidate is going to improve his local job prospects and keep him from committing suicide, right or wrong on that hope.
Also it’s more likely if women voted for male gender reasons, they voted for their sons as much as the fathers. Children matter if you have them. I know my brother did a complete 360 when his daughter came out of the closet. One issue voter now, which I think is pretty nuts but i don’t bother him about it.[/quote]

Very traditional family values here. Sounds like the women have resigned themselves to be their husband’s wives.

How about voting for your own aspirations so that your daughters have move choices and don’t have to follow in your footsteps?

[NotCranky]

[quote=FlyerInHi]Trump doesn’t just objectify women.

Bill was caught and impeached. He was punished.

Now. to hold a woman responsible, as an enabler, for the sins of her husband is not a novel concept, it’s very old. Women were held responsible for adultery, domestic violence against themselves and their kids.
[/quote]

He’s still a creep and pervert.

Hillary is only responsible for dis-enabling Bill’s accusers. It is logical to worry that she is this man’s enabler. And voting for her, even if she were somehow innocent , enables this pervert to be back in the white house. Bill and her enabling is her baggage. Too much baggage.

There is no proof women including most Trump voters want to , or that Trump could possibly take gender equality issues too far back in time. Believing that is actually pretty rediculous. His relationship dynamics aren’t progressive enough ,he doesn’t think white males should be feminized and go extinct( the progressive way) , ha ha, so what. Most people just want common sense to be a little more prevalent.

[NotCranky]

[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=NotCranky]
Voting for your husband, who is probably a major financial contributor to the household, makes sense if you are hoping the candidate is going to improve his local job prospects and keep him from committing suicide, right or wrong on that hope.
Also it’s more likely if women voted for male gender reasons, they voted for their sons as much as the fathers. Children matter if you have them. I know my brother did a complete 360 when his daughter came out of the closet. One issue voter now, which I think is pretty nuts but i don’t bother him about it.[/quote]

Very traditional family values here. Sounds like the women have resigned themselves to be their husband’s wives.

How about voting for your own aspirations so that your daughters have move choices and don’t have to follow in your footsteps?[/quote]

The breadwinner situation is a fact for a lot of people, even in two income homes a woman wants for her and her husband to be able to find work.

Progressive women are doing more harm to their daughters and especially their sons by driving off and /or demonizing or feminizing the father figure in america than anything that comes from reasonably loving traditional families. The pendulum swung too far and we need it to swing back somewhat. Checks and balances.

Either way , progressives lost , you haven’t shown the way , you have shown that you want to live in a bubble and protect the bubble.

[Anonymous]

[quote=NotCranky]Trump objectifies women, which is pretty natural , as in natural selection, but with his money he can take it to extremes. Most people realize it isn’t cool , but enough felt he was better than Hillary. He officially marries and reproduces with hotties, wow. Nothing compared to Bill, the heartless pervert, who could have been back in the white house.[/quote]

Absolutely, the distinction between “natural” behavior and being a “heartless pervert” is only in one’s political party.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=NotCranky]

Progressive women are doing more harm to their daughters and especially their sons by driving off and /or demonizing or feminizing the father figure in america than anything that comes from reasonably loving traditional families. The pendulum swung too far and we need it to swing back somewhat. Checks and balances.

Either way , progressives lost , you haven’t shown the way , you have shown that you want to live in a bubble and protect the bubble.[/quote]

You’re not doing it and I’ll give you credit for consistency, but you do realize that some other guys (used as gender neutral term) here are wanting to feminize me for repeating Trump.

Progressive are more fair and objective. The concept of denying power to a woman because of her husband strikes me as going backward. But maybe it fits better with traditional values.

We should move away from gender roles and use reason instead. Let people decide what fits them and indulge in their own inclination. I think the problem is people want equality but still want to hang on to traditional roles. The truth is that if women were equal in pay and power, they would not need men the same. If you call that White men going extinct, so be it.

Gender roles are so anachronistic. Bring something concrete (money, physical appearance, intellect, whatever…) to the table to get what you want.

I just remembered rush Limbaugh warming that Obama is supporting lesbian farmers to kill off white men.

[NotCranky]

[quote=harvey][quote=NotCranky]Trump objectifies women, which is pretty natural , as in natural selection, but with his money he can take it to extremes. Most people realize it isn’t cool , but enough felt he was better than Hillary. He officially marries and reproduces with hotties, wow. Nothing compared to Bill, the heartless pervert, who could have been back in the white house.[/quote]

Absolutely, the distinction between “natural” behavior and being a “heartless pervert” is only in one’s political party.[/quote]

Nope what Bill did to Monica is heartless pervert stuff. Marrying Melania and having a kid with her is using your reproductive rights in what you feel is a good risk and she is doing the same thing, reproducing with a man who can more than take care of her and her offspring. They are both simply striving to accomplish their biological imperatives and look out for their best interests. It’s a pretty extreme case but it’s not perverted.

[NotCranky]

[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=NotCranky]

Progressive women are doing more harm to their daughters and especially their sons by driving off and /or demonizing or feminizing the father figure in america than anything that comes from reasonably loving traditional families. The pendulum swung too far and we need it to swing back somewhat. Checks and balances.

Either way , progressives lost , you haven’t shown the way , you have shown that you want to live in a bubble and protect the bubble.[/quote]

You’re not doing it and I’ll give you credit for consistency, but you do realize that some other guys (used as gender neutral term) here are wanting to feminize me for repeating Trump.

Progressive are more fair and objective. The concept of denying power to a woman because of her husband strikes me as going backward. But maybe it fits better with traditional values.

We should move away from gender roles and use reason instead. Let people decide what fits them and indulge in their own inclination. I think the problem is people want equality but still want to hang on to traditional roles. The truth is that if women were equal in pay and power, they would not need men the same. If you call that White men going extinct, so be it.

Gender roles are so anachronistic. Bring something concrete (money, physical appearance, intellect, whatever…) to the table to get what you want.

I just remembered rush Limbaugh warming that Obama is supporting lesbian farmers to kill off white men.[/quote]

If Melania had the money and Ugly and fat DT had the looks, or intellect or whatever, it would be o.k. too. Thing is women are hypergamist and don’t do things that way . Ugly fat and/or anti-opposite sex attitudes don’t make for good baby having potential either. How is that sexist from the point of men or republicans?

There was a poll once of a bunch of medical students they ask the men and women if raising their status with high income earning potential increased or decreased their pool of mates. The 85% of the men said it increased and a roughly equal percentage of women said it decreased, meaning because of their access to wealth less men had access to them. This stuff goes deep. Who is being sexist? Do we ever cry that women are sexist or anachronistic because of this?

[Anonymous]

[quote=NotCranky]Nope what Bill did to Monica is heartless pervert stuff. Marrying Melania and having a kid with her is using your reproductive rights in what you feel is a good risk and she is doing the same thing, reproducing with a man who can more than take care of her and her offspring. They are both simply striving to accomplish their biological imperatives and look out for their best interests. It’s a pretty extreme case but it’s not perverted.[/quote]

Ok

Marriage: good
Cheating on wife: bad

I think we’re all in agreement there.

No mention of Marla Maples in all of those words…

[NotCranky]

[quote=harvey][quote=NotCranky]Nope what Bill did to Monica is heartless pervert stuff. Marrying Melania and having a kid with her is using your reproductive rights in what you feel is a good risk and she is doing the same thing, reproducing with a man who can more than take care of her and her offspring. They are both simply striving to accomplish their biological imperatives and look out for their best interests. It’s a pretty extreme case but it’s not perverted.[/quote]

Ok

Marriage: good
Cheating on wife: bad

I think we’re all in agreement there.

No mention of Marla Maples in all of those words…[/quote]

Good trolling-NOT.
Cheating on your wife or husband is not perverted. It may be immature ,or possibly a betrayal, or other things , but it is not of itself perverted.

[spdrun]

What I don’t get is the hatred for Michelle Obama among the right. Good looking couple, no evidence of infidelity, two beautiful kids, she plays the (traditional FLOTUS) role of promoting social causes, yet she still got shamelessly mocked. Apparently, women can’t win, unless they’re white.

[NotCranky]

[quote=spdrun]What I don’t get is the hatred for Michelle Obama among the right. Good looking couple, no evidence of infidelity, two beautiful kids, she plays the (traditional FLOTUS) role of promoting social causes, yet she still got shamelessly mocked. Apparently, women can’t win, unless they’re white.[/quote]

I’d certainly take her for first lady , umm first person, over Bill, Hillary. The types of things that bother me about the Obamas are pimping celebrities, and the Versace dresses and what not, while pretending to be humble. The gardens for example just look like an act. She starts to come across just as contrived and teleprompted as her husband. Michelle is still probably a better person than most of them, not necessarily better than you average person. Melania could easily be her equal as far as first lady performance.

Also , I think they play race too much…as bad as Trump.

[Anonymous]

[quote=spdrun]What I don’t get is the hatred for Michelle Obama among the right. Good looking couple, no evidence of infidelity, two beautiful kids, she plays the (traditional FLOTUS) role of promoting social causes, yet she still got shamelessly mocked. Apparently, women can’t win, unless they’re white.[/quote]

It’s really simple: Democrat bad, Republican good.

Republican is not a party affiliation. The definition of Republican is one who stands against everything and anything Democrat.

And to be a “good” Republican, you can’t just disagree with Democrats. You have to find flaw with everything about them. Everything, even the president’s wife.

That’s why we have terms like RINO: A Republican who works with Democrats. It’s unacceptable behavior. A true, “Real American” Republican must despise everything Democrat. After all, Democrats aren’t even a political party with a plans, platforms, goals – they are just “libtards.”

The logic is everywhere on right-wing media. Fox, Limbaugh, Breitbart, etc. There are two completely different standards for everything simply based on party affiliation.

Exhibit A: The posts in this thread.

Democrat cheats on wife: perverted.
Republican cheats on wife: not perverted.

Democrat wears expensive dress donated by designer: gloating.
Republican lives in golden tower with his name on it: humble.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=NotCranky]

I’d certainly take her for first lady , umm first person, over Bill, Hillary. The types of things that bother me about the Obamas are pimping celebrities, and the Versace dresses and what not, while pretending to be humble. The gardens for example just look like an act. She starts to come across just as contrived and teleprompted as her husband. Michelle is still probably a better person than most of them, not necessarily better than you average person. Melania could easily be her equal as far as first lady performance.

Also , I think they play race too much…as bad as Trump.[/quote]

What about Nancy Reagan? She has to borrow designer dresses because she couldn’t afford them. Michele Obama buys off the rack and buys designer only on special occasions.

What about the veggie garden? It’s hipster cool and old fashioned at the same time.
I guest traditionalist forgot what a kitchen garden is. My grandma, rest her soul, had one. She had chickens and ducks in a pond too. We used to kill them for food.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=harvey]
Democrat wears expensive dress donated by designer: gloating.
Republican lives in golden tower with his name on it: humble.[/quote]

Republicans don’t like rich liberals because it shows you can be rich and socially caring at the same time. They want us to be on welfare and the stay stupid things like “why do you give up your money if you like social equity.” They fail to understand there is a difference between personal pursuits and policy that provide equal opportunity.

[Author]

Posts