MSNBC's Todd: Pelosi Running Again Because She Didn't Want A White Male Running Dem Caucus

Never forget: "Anyone but EWMs* at the helm of anything. It makes no difference who is better-qualified. Categorically, EWMs cannot be allowed anywhere near the top of anything. And wherever they are found, look for chicanery, fraud, and of course... PURE EVIL! For if a male is involved in anything, most especially a WM (oops, sorry, that's an EWM), then it must be stopped-- or taken over by someone else-- anyone else, just so long as they are not 1) male and 2) white. (If you can pick a female though over a non-white male, that is of course preferable.)"

But wait; what if he's gay, bi, or transgendered? Does that enter into the equation at all? Hmmm... maybe that's case-by-case. If he's a GOP member or in some way unpalatable to feminist goals, then hmmm, maybe he stays in the EWM category. But maybe if he's with the program, that whole EWM detail can be overlooked. For now. Just keep in line you, you... WHITE MALE!

But lest you forget only a confirmed feminist can drink the Kool-Aid, read it here:

'The race for such an obscure post carried big symbolism after women voted for Democrats by an 11-point margin in the presidential and generic congressional races, according to an exit poll by The Associated Press and television networks. Republicans widely decried their party's domination by white males, and Democrats declared themselves the party of diversity.'

Is there anything wrong with having a woman in a top political post? Not at all. Not in any kind of post. But what is wrong is to say: "We'll pick someone because of their indelible characteristics simply because we think it'll buy us more votes, etc." It's called bigotry, or discrimination, and so on. And, it used to be decried by feminists, et al. Now, it's fine-- just as long as the discrimination is against the "right sort of people to discriminate against".

It's not about justice. It's about power. By now, if people can't see that, then I just dunno what else to say.

---
*Sorry, for those not used to it, it's my acronym shorthand for Evil White Males ("Evil" is a bit redundant though isn't it-- "Evil" is assumed!). In a more general context, I use "EMs" (i.e., "Evil Males") when the bigot in question hasn't actually used the word "white" in the sentence. In this case, Miss P has outdone herself as a bigot and a sexist. Amazing how so many people just let it go past them and don't think anything of it. It's no better than the shameful days of Jim Crow.

Has she actually said as much? I see in this video the guy is saying that is her goal, but I'd be interested in seeing her actually making the comment.

Sometimes comments are made when cameras are not rolling. Without a "smoking gun", in the world of electoral politics, it's always healthy to be skeptical, of course. But think about the other things Miss P. has said in the past about men, white and otherwise. Think such a thought is not in her head, said or not? Doubt it. You find sexist bigots all over the place. Sometimes they alert others to their presence by the things they say or do. Miss P. is one of them.

i've heard it said that if she has one more face lift

she could come out of surgery with a beard.

at which time she could easily be mistaken for an e.w.m.

just a really ugly one.

I agree. It's just so much easier to call them (and others) on this shit when you have a smoking gun. I've been in a debate with one youtube individual who has dismissed the "women are superior" line of reasoning because he keeps finding excuses why what is said "could" be interpreted as something else. It's cognitive dissonance, but I can't find a smoking gun that he can't seem somehow excuse. I'd normally give up, but he's a little more influential than most on youtube.