Who speaks more for women, Clinton or Trump? Who would prove themselves the better advocate?
Because if the answer is Clinton, then yes, the women who voted for Trump voted against their best interest.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Michelle Obama: Women who didn't vote for Clinton voted against their own voice
- Thread starter CDX
- Start date
Who speaks more for women, Clinton or Trump? Who would prove themselves the better advocate?
Because if the answer is Clinton, then yes, the women who voted for Trump voted against their best interest.
whitemex88
Member
LegendofJoe
Member
My wife is the exact opposite of that, it's why I love her. She's my peer and my partner, the idea of her being subservient to me is disgusting.
innervision961
Member
Does this apply to Kushner?
PixelatedBookake
Junior Member
Yep. They definitely voted against their own self-interests. Same as any black person who voted for the guy. Hell, I'd even go as far to say half the white males who voted for Trump voted against their own self-interests and didn't know it.
basically anyone that doesn't work at Boeing. give that a few days though and I'm sure they'll be on board too.
The Last Wizard
Member
So they chose to vote for someone that isnt even religious?
A bunch of contradictions these people are, Id rather they just come out and be honest about how they really feel.
This is absolutely true and doesn't get brought up enough. Only a small slice of white people actually benefit from a Trump administration.
Mercury Fred
Banned
Talking up to T***p voters doesn't work. Better to shame, mock and belittle them, honestly.
Like how many different levels of sexist is it that we all expected the women to know better and expected the men not to? LOL
Dude Abides
Banned
Says the person claiming to speak for all women. Irony is dead.
The Faceless Master
Member
DontBeThatGuy
Member
Plenty of (most older) women out there that shit on their own gender in the the sorts of ways you would think only an ignorant man could do. The nonsense I heard this past election was mind-boggling.
It was always about asserting white supremacy, that's why they voted.
Cesare Borgia
Banned
This posits that all women are in the same boat, the same Borg-like entity that benefits or doesn't benefit from the same things. In reality there are a lot of women, specifically white women, who are doing quite fine with Trump as president, and likely stand to gain. A lot of white women know full and well that they benefit from the type of society Trump (and many/most republicans) envision, and that their children will benefit from it. A good deal of that 53% of white women who voted for Trump voted for their best interests. That's a fact.
I tend to find complaints about identity politics to be weak, but if there's a criticism it's this. It doesn't matter how many white men fill Trump's cabinet, or visit the White House, or do anything else. He could have had the most "diverse" cabinet ever, and the ideologies would be the exact same. The same greed, disdain for the poor, criminality, white supremacy - white women are more than capable of exhibiting all of those traits. As are some non-whites (Ben Carson comes to mind). And those are the type of people Trump surrounds himself with.
I tend to find complaints about identity politics to be weak, but if there's a criticism it's this. It doesn't matter how many white men fill Trump's cabinet, or visit the White House, or do anything else. He could have had the most "diverse" cabinet ever, and the ideologies would be the exact same. The same greed, disdain for the poor, criminality, white supremacy - white women are more than capable of exhibiting all of those traits. As are some non-whites (Ben Carson comes to mind). And those are the type of people Trump surrounds himself with.
I mean, if she had said 'women who voted for Trump voted against their own voice", that would be the most obvious thing ever.
And as much as i am frustrated by it, i even find it reasonable if we're talking about pressuring swing state voters in the general specifically. Even Noam Chomsky admitted that holding your nose and voting for Clinton was really the only option against Trump, if you were in a swing state. Not in a swing state don't bother.
But if we're talking about the primaries and the election itself, that's significantly more problematic of a viewpoint to have and i dont agree period.
Between Trump and Clinton, if you had to vote for one of the two of them, like in the general, then yes, Clinton is the obvious choice. But if Michelle Obama is saying that the entire election, we were wrong to hold primaries and have people challenge Clinton on her weaknesses or even challenge her to be the nominee, then that IMO is wrong, and is not even worth consideration. What's scary about that is this is the view Clinton herself is arguing, that Sanders was wrong to get in the primary and 'harm her', as if she didn't have the same weaknesses that Trump could have exploited without Sanders help.
That is not a valid argument, everything else i'm cool with.
And as much as i am frustrated by it, i even find it reasonable if we're talking about pressuring swing state voters in the general specifically. Even Noam Chomsky admitted that holding your nose and voting for Clinton was really the only option against Trump, if you were in a swing state. Not in a swing state don't bother.
But if we're talking about the primaries and the election itself, that's significantly more problematic of a viewpoint to have and i dont agree period.
Between Trump and Clinton, if you had to vote for one of the two of them, like in the general, then yes, Clinton is the obvious choice. But if Michelle Obama is saying that the entire election, we were wrong to hold primaries and have people challenge Clinton on her weaknesses or even challenge her to be the nominee, then that IMO is wrong, and is not even worth consideration. What's scary about that is this is the view Clinton herself is arguing, that Sanders was wrong to get in the primary and 'harm her', as if she didn't have the same weaknesses that Trump could have exploited without Sanders help.
That is not a valid argument, everything else i'm cool with.
boiled goose
good with gravy
When the options were Clinton v Trump, she's 100 percent correct.
I'd extend it further and include the whole gop along Trump
I'd extend it further and include the whole gop along Trump
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
She did
Battersea Power Station
Member
That's a criticism that can only come from within the community of women, and the same is true about any minority group.
Which also means I'm a little uncomfortable with all the likely male voices here chiming in to agree.
Which also means I'm a little uncomfortable with all the likely male voices here chiming in to agree.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
But not by those who disagree?
Considering the history of Republican attacks on womens rights it doesnt seem like esoteric knowledge
Glass Rebel
Member
Seriously, some people in this thread are trying the hardest to appear as progressive and feminist as possible and completely forget that there's an actual sexual predator sitting in the White House right now.
It's because there is a segment of white people that think they are gonna be millionares one day and vote based on that (and this applies to some minorities too)
And then there's the white people who want to fuck minorities so bad they just forget overlook or don't care they are fucking themselves too.
Abinash117
Member
It is in the context of Trump v Hillary; it has very little to do with Sanders.
Cesare Borgia
Banned
It has absolutely nothing to do with Sanders, except for in the minds of those still obsessed with a primary he badly lost.
Captin Quacker
Member
People in this topic really don't understand how a little a good percent of the women in the country (probably over 40 percent) give a shit about a women's right to abort. To many it's not about reproductive right it's about the right to murder.
Hell I'll go as far to say prolifers are probably more passionate about their stance than pro choice voter. For a pro life voter a pro choice candidate automatically loses the vote while a pro life candidate might still win the vote of pro choice voters.
Hell I'll go as far to say prolifers are probably more passionate about their stance than pro choice voter. For a pro life voter a pro choice candidate automatically loses the vote while a pro life candidate might still win the vote of pro choice voters.
If she's talking about the general, then that's fine...
22 states and 47 percent of the vote is not "badly lost". Especially against the democratic establishment and Clinton family. It just says more about Sanders message resonating and the weakness of the establishment democrats argument during the primaries IMO. He only badly lost in the minds of those who want it to be a sweeping win for the one who lost to Trump, the guy with the lowest approval(or highest disapproval?) ratings ever.
I think we can all tell that the battle for the primaries is still going on because the dem party was split into two with that election and their viewpoints are fundamentally different about politics, let's be honest about that.
They did lol, they absolutely did.
there is NO WAY Trump would be more aligned in your views as a woman unless you REALLY REALLY hate abortion, or REALLY just hate minorities. Even if you don't agree with Hilary, and think she's a POS, even as a POS she is still more aligned to a woman's views than Donald Trump for christ's sake.
there is NO WAY Trump would be more aligned in your views as a woman unless you REALLY REALLY hate abortion, or REALLY just hate minorities. Even if you don't agree with Hilary, and think she's a POS, even as a POS she is still more aligned to a woman's views than Donald Trump for christ's sake.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
Its not about not understanding it, its about not normalizing that stupidity
We can debate whether Sanders was successful or not but the latter half is a load of crap. Clinton and Sanders agreed on 95%+. There is no split.
I recall during the election, my Mother (who decided not to vote) claimed that while she would like nothing more than to see a woman in the White House, she DID NOT want it to be Hillary Clinton, she told me she would have voted for Michelle Obama 100% if she decided to run.
Michelle is correct here, but I think we all thought Trump would lose a great chunk of woman voters after pussygate, turns out we were wrong and it's incredibly discouraging that they chose to either vote for a man who openly admitted he treats woman as sex objects or to just not vote at all.
Michelle is correct here, but I think we all thought Trump would lose a great chunk of woman voters after pussygate, turns out we were wrong and it's incredibly discouraging that they chose to either vote for a man who openly admitted he treats woman as sex objects or to just not vote at all.
Angelus Errare
Banned
Whew, don't hurt 'em!
YEP
Hillary is 100% right. And not just women, any minority going into the election voting for a man who campaigned on negatively targeting them voted against their own voice.
It's not just politicians. This country could use some self-reflection.
^^^^
I was amazed during summer last year at my old job listening to some of the lady technicians I worked with (Indianapolis) tell each other completely serious stories about how Hillary was going to make baby murder legal and whatnot. it's not talked about near as much as anti-immigration single issue voters but I'd say it's almost as big of a problem in Rust Belt states. And I have no real idea what to do about it, because they clearly aren't going to listen to reason, and it's too far fetched imo to think that said people will both personally suffer from it *and* learn their lesson.
I can sort of understand people being apathetic if their ideal candidate (hypothetical or not) isn't represented, but it's quite frustrating to me and a lot of others who are trying desperately to hammer home the fact that you do not win this game by not playing. A lot of unnecessary suffering has happened/is happening under the Trump admin, and yet they are incredibly stupid/incompetent, so it could have been much, much worse than it has been so far. It reeks of the privileged that no matter how bad it gets those protest voters/non-voters aren't in any real danger of their specific rights being removed by legislation put up by this admin (or are genuinely ignorant of what's at stake for them). For example, losing the vacant Supreme Court seat alone is a huge blow to our generation. Imagine if we lose another under this admin? Some of them are quite old and could die as suddenly as Scalia did. And that's just one of many, many things.
Actually the reverse is true, more whites were killed by blacks in 2016.
But both Black and White people killed a significant amount more of their own people. Proving people mostly stick with their own kind even when choosing to kill somebody.
https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-09-29/race-and-homicide-in-america-by-the-numbers
But wtf does this have to do with Michelle Obama?
OT: This oversimplification of people based on (insert a/s/r here) is silly. As others have mentioned anti abortion is probably the main reason Trump is in office. Wether you agree with that stance or not you have to understand that people consider it murder. So Hillary to them might as well have walked up to the podium with a bloody axe dripping baby parts strapped to her back.
Not all women think alike. Not all share the same values. I also bet there are some women out there who even have grabbed a man's dick without expressly asking for permission 😮
People need to stop acting like just because they are X it means can they speak for all Xs.
That said... Yeah it's prob true
Edit: not gonna reply to the off topic to avoid derailing. But Battersea Power Station, I said kill not hunt
kambaybolongo
Member
How about we cool it with political dynasties instead and stop fetishizing the Obamas and Clintons
UnemployedVillain
Member
Entertaining the idea that Trump would he better for women in way is offensive to any intelligent being
Glass Rebel
Member
Battersea Power Station
Member
Does that bear out proportionally? i.e. murderers of any race have a wider choice of white targets since whites make up most of the country.
The point is that none of us (men) should be passing judgement on what "better" even means for a woman.
UnemployedVillain
Member
But this was in response to Michelle Obama, not a man (unless I misread)
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
Recognizing the fact that Republicans are obsessed with undermining womens health and their autonomy with regard to it is not passing judgement on whats best for them.
Did you tell her that Trump's policies will speed up the extinction rate?
If you argue like that, that implies there are opposing political paths that are equally beneficial to the social progress of our society. I'd argue that women that are in favor of pro-life are indirectly advocating against the social progress of their sex. Ergo, women that vote Republican to uphold for instance the abortion ban do not only not strive for the social progress of women, they hinder it through the power of their vote.