Hillary in India: Married white women pressured by husbands to vote Trump

Article here. Watch the video. I do wonder what color the sky is in her reality. Excerpt:

'Clinton also said the places she lost were looking "backward" through Trump's "Make America Great Again" slogan - invoking opposition to women's suffrage and the historical mistreatment of blacks.

Gutfeld pointed out Clinton also made reference to white women voting for Trump because their husbands or other people told them to.

"How profoundly sexist is that?" he asked.

Gutfeld said Clinton still lives in a world where "you don't see actual people, just the group they belong to."'

33 users have voted.
I like this


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The mind goes...

... for too many as they age. The Vile One is not immune.

Last night on TV I saw a newscaster interview a young woman who worked for some kind of Demo. policy wonk outfit about The Hildebeast's Indian speech. The newscaster challenged The Vile One's assertion that white men pressure wives/daughters/etc. into voting "their" way and said it was a ludicrous suggestion. She actually replied that it may have been hyperbole somewhat but indeed there's truth to it in there at least a bit. Her claim was that married white women are more likely, according to one study, to vote for who seems to support the economic interests of their husbands vs. for... Democrats.

Think on that a minute. Let's just assume for giggles that that is true. A couple things come out of it. One is the implication that it supports the economic interests of (white) men to vote Trump. And that'd be a bad thing, voting for who supports your material interests? The Demo. lady assumed maybe married white women don't work, too. The great bulk do so, in fact. Why wouldn't they also vote their own economic interests? It seems dumb to vote for someone whose platform includes making you less well-off, doesn't it? She also at one point typified Democrats as being single women.

Granted she wasn't Hillary. I doubt even Hillary here in her declining years [During the India "speech", she sat down. That's far from an ideal position from which to speechify. Tells me she couldn't handle standing for whatever reason.] would have made such obvious mistakes. But to suggest a candidate is not good for the economic interests of ANYONE does them no favors. I think the wonk's contempt for anything white and male was such that to dis white men so casually from a politicking POV says a lot.

The Demos. keep doubling down on identity politics and speaking in broad sweeping generalizations. I wonder how they keep getting as many votes as they do. Is it their message of race/sex class warfare holds THAT much appeal to so many? Or are so many just so un-thrilled about the candidates from "the other party" that they'll hold their noses and push the blue lever?

America needs at least a third party. Personally I think 4 would be damn-near an ideal number.

7 users have voted.
I like this