2016 Republican Presidential Clown Car Begins!

For a supposed misogynist, Trump seems to have a lot of popular support from female Republicans:

Source: http://edition.cnn.com/2015/08/18/politics/donald-trump-presidential-poll-debate/

Oh, but I guess right-wing women must just hate themselves

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. That's why it's usually left-wing feminists who tout themselves as victims, and rarely look after their physical appearance.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well let's look at Republican policies. They are against female reproductive rights, and against equal pay, they mandate unnecessary medical procedures, etc. And they have these unscientific beliefs about the female body (e.g. women can't get pregnant if they are raped). That doesn't sound very female friendly to me.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

We should also remember that Purity Culture runs strong in the current GOP; one wonders at the notion of looking after one's appearance in the context of what that actually means. To wit, the first thing to mind is that conservative women have been unsettled by their more liberal sisters who marry for fulfillment instead of obedience and duty, or who don't invest their self-love in the art of finding a husband.

Then again, we can't claim to know what anybody means by such gutter notions; the sewer of the intellect is an attractive place for those who prefer to wallow in sickness and muck.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Their fathers were guys like that, they married guys like that - it would be pretty awful if they didn't like them.

One of the demographic trends in the US has been the concentration of marriage in the deeply religious and the upper classes - married women tend to be living in locally prosperous households these days, and/or haling from strongly religious backgrounds, therefore leaning rightwing authoritarian unless well educated (not just credentialed, actually educated). And Trumps constituency is not well educated.

So that's what the engineered hair, monkey's-ass makeup, and boob enlargement is all about: "looking after their physical appearance". I recall wondering about what I was seeing, last time I was in a Walmart and surrounded by Republican women.

So the question would be - what happened? Here: right around 1:10, briefly - where'd that go?

 

So you're admitting that many women like Trump. If the don't take issue with his supposed misogyny, I'd argue that it's Trump's critics, not Trump himself, who have some sort of problem with women. That left-wingers would scream at women that they *should* be offended, even when said women feel the contrary, hints at liberals' propensity to try and control the way women think and feel. That's not controlling in the least!

I'd argue the opposite. While left-wingers are often credentialed with a degree of questionable worth from a left-wing institution, right-wingers actually have experience in the real world, outside the sheltered environment of the college (re)education centre. This is precisely why they aren't scandalized by Trump's behavior. You see, left-wingers have existed in their own controlled, sterile little echo chambers their entire life. They go to primary and secondary school, being taught political correctness by radical left-winger teachers. Then they go to university, where they are indoctrinated with leftist feminist white guilt claptrap. Then they go off and work in government jobs, education, or non-profit organizations, continuing the vicious cycle. Oh, and they also post on internet forums pre-dominated by left-wing members, and moderated by left-wing moderators...

So when someone like Trump, who actually venture outside of this sterile environment and make a name for themselves in the real world, makes an accurate observation of how the world outside of the leftist shelter works, it's a massive shock to liberals. In the real world, most people are sick of the politically correct nonsense the social justice warriors are trying to enforce on us from the safety of their little echo chamber.

Have you ever been to a feminist convention, or seen a college's woman's studies facility? There is a disproportionately high number of women among them who do not take care of their physical appearance. And let's not forget Andrea Dworkin, a key leader of the leftist feminist movement:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Source: http://mygaming.co.za/news/news/32479-dead-or-alive-5s-women-will-be-more-high-class.html

 

It occurs to me that we might not be regarding our neighbor fairly. To wit: Okay, so Andrea Dworkin is among the asserted "disproportionately high number of women among [liberals] who do not take care of their physical appearance". So now we know the anti-identification. But what is the affirmative identification?

Let us wait for our neighbor to affirm the point. Given how much of those posts are hate-driven excrement, we might find it useful, and, frankly, less stressful, if we don't bother holding our breath but, rather, simply leave it for our neighbor to get around to posting something useful and affirmative. To wit, if Andrea Dworkin is the "wrong", then what is the "right"? What does it look like when a woman (ahem!) "properly" takes care of her physical appearance?

We shouldn't jump to conclusions. Among so many anti-identifications, we might be surprised at the character and nature of an affirmative identification.

Or something like that.

No, I wouldn't suggest you need be hopeful, or anything like that, but it does occur to me to wonder.

 

Oh, and you can prove that?

Gloria Steinem, liberal author and activist for decades.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Angelina Jolie, another one of dem liberal activists:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

How about Tulsi Gabbard, House member representing Hawaii?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The bottom line here is you have been listening to too much Republican entertainment! You should venture outside your Republican entertainment echo zones one in a while and get a taste of the real world. But wait, that might threaten all those beliefs Republican entertainers have inculcated within you for all these years.

 

Trump has no problem with the kind of woman who can't see misogyny when it wakes up in her bed every morning and beats her when it gets drunk, true. And the rest of us do have a problem with those women, not only because Walmart's catering to them has trashed our towns's economies but mostly because they vote for guys like Trump - or in my town, Michelle Bachmann.

No projecting, now - you guys are the ones doing the screaming.

It's not an argument. It's a statistical fact. There is such a thing as education, and these women by and large lack it.

Except for the ones actually present in front of you when you are spinning these little delusions. Somehow, they never seem to match your descriptions - do they.

News flash: Donald Trump is not an enormous shock to the leftwingers of this world. They had him spotted years ago, and his current political successes have been predicted - one after the other - by an entire field of bloggers and unpaid pundits (and Krugman), who are now alternately despairing and laughing their asses off at this fire-cracker in the henhouse atmosphere. They've been dealing with the Limbaughs of the mass media world and the Republican ascendancy for an entire generation.

We've been warning you guys about the sewer at the bottom of the Reagan/Limbaugh slide for my entire adult life. (Actually, it's more like we've been warning the sane adult public about you guys - to choruses of disbelief).

Neither is what Trump is saying, except by accident, an accurate observation about anything. Accuracy is not a concern of Trump's.

We've seen it. Palin. Complete and unadulterated affirmation - to the point that anyone who claimed a lack of attraction or approval or affirmation had their honesty questioned.

 

Ah.

Why am I glad I wasn't paying attention?

Thank ye, sir.

 

So you're saying that all the Republican women who approve of Trump are beaten by their drunken husbands? Does that generalization also encompass the Republican women who don't have husbands? I know, I know, liberal doublethink at work again.

You associate liberal arts degrees obtained at left-wing institutions as education, when it would be more accurate to view such things as evidence of indoctrination. Self-study where your primary source are left-wing blogs and forums doesn't count either.

Which is why they are constantly bawling in outrage at his most innocuous remarks. Your behaviour is that of a person who has been lifted out of a warm bed, and dumped into a bath of ice-cold water.

'We'? As in, you liberals? Is this an admission that you guys are little more than a hive mind, mindlessly parroting the same diatribe you picked up from left-wing indoctrination academies and media? Don't you guys have *any* original thought whatsoever?

I understand why you would think that. When you're only exposed to one particular perspective, you develop a rather myopic and skewed interpretation of events around you. It might be good if you left your echo-chamber, and actually received information from something other than your usual biased sources.

Palin isn't 'hot', but she takes care of her appearance. She does the best with what God gave her. The same couldn't be said of liberal paragon Andrea Dworkin.

 

Palin has endorsed Trump.

On the other hand, Rupert Murdoch wants another billionaire to run for POTUS. He wants Bloomberg.

 

Well, that depends if you think the victim mentality (in which personal responsibility is absent) is a sign of higher thought:

Woman = Victim, Man = Aggressor. Ahh, I guess I can see why she is an idol of the left-wing. Only they would accept such simplistic notions.

It *is* a good thing that he aims to be tougher on illegal immigration, and close loopholes that allow the children of illegal immigrants to claim citizenship status. Or perhaps you don't feel that way. Your country must have completely open borders. I'm sure you've even sponsored a few immigrants, perhaps let them set up shop in your house. That's the only explanation I can think of for you to pooh-pooh Trump's policies, unless this is another case of liberal double-think.

 

and this is why people think right wingers are stupid, ignorant close minded bigots, they so often show them selves to be exactly that. the 14th amendment is not loophole pumpkin, it was a way for the country to atone for decades of vicious crimes committed against people living in this country. the former african slaves and the native population. you do realize that before the 14th amendment and other civil rights laws were passed native americans weren't viewed as citizens? hell it took the 14th amendment to make all african americans citizens and it wasn't until 1924 that all native americans became citizens. before you open your yapper to utter some nonsense a little bit of research might be in order.


hell do you even know that being born in american somoa doesn't automatically confer american citizenship? so while your whining about a non issue there are still people being ruled by the US that don't automatically become citizens of the country.

 

What does that have to do with the subject? American Samoa is an unincorporated territory of the US and residents of unincorporated territories are not automatically given birth right citizenship under the 14th Amendment (Puerto Rico and District of Columbia excepted). American Samoa does have a nonvoting member in the US Congress. American Samoa is officially self governing, they have their own legislature. But like all US states and territories they are subject to the laws of the United States. Samoa's current congressional representative agrees with that interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

And let's put this into perspective, there are only about 57,000 American Samoans. While American Samoans are not given birth right American citizenship, they are US nationals and have the right to live anywhere in the US and can easily obtain US citizenship. They just have to go through the naturalization process, (i.e. pass test and swear allegiance). Yeah, it's silly. But it isn't draconian and it has nothing to do with illegal immigration.

 

Trump isn't dumb, but he does say a lot of dumb stuff because it appeals to Republicans and those who watch his reality TV shows and seminars.

That makes Trump ammoral and disingenuous like most Republican politicians. Though there are some truly dumb Republicans politicians (e.g. Perry, Cruz, Palin, Baby Bush II, Bachmann, Huckabee, et al).

What I find interesting is Ruppert Murdoch's dislike of Trump and Trump's war on Fox News. I've heard many hardcore Republicans speak out against Fox in recent weeks because they believe Fox is biased against Trump. Fox News isn't conservative enough so they now watch CNN. The Republicans I'm referring to are leaders of a fundamentalist mega church.

 

are you seriously that out of touch to miss the point? probable given your recent track record. the point is complaining about birth right citizenship when not every person ruled by the Us gets it. and joe your also wrong every other territory under Us rule being born there confers automatic citizenship except american somoa which my point. to reiterate all other unincorporated territories are automatically citizens. when not every american gets automatic citizenship whining about it is obscence. so spare your self indulgant conservative rants. they mean nothing to me.

 

LOL except you are wrong. Congress can change Samoan status, but that doesn't change the facts. And I questioned, why you think it relevant to a discussion on illegal immigration. American Samoans are not illegal aliens. They are American nationals, but they don'gt have American birth right citizenship.

Samoans are not complaining about their status so why should you? The fact is in the US place of birth matters. Trump wants to deny that right to the children of illegal immigrants. That doesn't do a thing for Samoans. He isn't even giving them the status of a national, the status accorded Samoans. And let me remind you, out of the millions of square miles of American sovereignty Samoa accounts for less than 77 square miles...cherry pick much?

 

Verging on Mansplanation

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

Remember that for conservatives, the only brain function about a woman that counts is the one that prevents whatever they do to her from being necrophilia.

Sorry, I was looking for a couple of old posts of mine, and came across both in one. (Yes, really↗.)

Bill Maher described the phenomenon, in October 2010, as "the lovely milfs of the new right"°.

And, you know, one of the reasons I'm dubious about a latter-day assertion that Rousseau was actually progressive―technically, yes, he was, insofar as he preferred grooming females to simply outright forcing them―we should also consider that the woman he chose to marry was not only illiterate, but so uneducated it is said she did not know the months of the year.

Perhaps Maher's hit against these women sounds unfair; on this occasion he struck true. To the one, I would point out that the question of how sexually appealing a candidate is generally avoids explicit discussion in the mainline public discourse unless the candidate happens to be a woman. That is to say, sure, I remember hearing women comment on how appealing former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) was at the time, but it didn't have the same weight. Such as the editor of National Review ranting about Palin's sex appeal being the key to her debate victory against Joe Biden. Indeed, as cartoonist David Horsey noted of Palin-porn, people weren't tacking Joe Biden's head onto a lovely, naked female body. Or a handsome, studly, naked male body. To the other, if you're Hillary Clinton, well, I heard the strangest discussion about how she snarked a reporter last week for asking a general, stupid question about the email scandal, and you know what, that's the deal-breaker. And here's the thing about that: Pretty much anybody I know will call Donald Trump unpresidential, but it's rather quite striking to me at the incredibly more sensitive standard of presidential conduct Hillary Clinton is expected to fulfill, and, furthermore, it turns out snarking the forty-sixth reiteration of an already answered question is all it takes for people to start calling a female candidate a bitch. Well, actually, it takes less than that, but in this case I'm thinking of an alleged feminist hippie of my parents' generation, a woman who actually works in the schools and ends up reminding children daily to not say such things to each other because it's a grave insult, and this is all it takes for her to whip it out?

To the other, look at Iowa, where given a choice between competence and a Republican, voters chose Sen. Joni Ernst (R), and before we rush to give men a hand for not freaking out in their hypersensitive way about a woman threatening to castrate that many men as part of her Congressional agenda, we should also remember the lovely milfs of the new right. That is to say, there's a reason men in Iowa don't mind that kind of talk; they still think this woman will give them everything they want.

Speaking of giving men what they want, we might also pause to consider Reps. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN04) and Virginia Foxx (R-NC05), both of whom, for the record, appear to take reasonable care of their appearance. This, however, doesn't mean they're not both ugly as sin, because in this case the criteria is conduct. Ladies Blackburn and Foxx participate in a Republican ritual I grotesquely denounce as "lipsticking", which is approximately akin to putting shinola on a pig. Mixed metaphor. That sort of thing.

Ms. Blackburn is the one Republicans send out to the cable news shows to argue about wage equality; women, according to the Distinguished Lady from Tennesee Four, would be insulted by equal pay for equal work. Ms. Foxx is the one Republicans sent out to an anti-abortion rally to lend credence―by dint of a woman's voice―to the proposition that what women needed to do was pause to thank all the men for turning out. As Horsey reminded, "Call it sexist, call it the work of males who can’t break free of their adolescent fantasies about pretty females, call it predictable, but don’t call it immaterial to the democratic process. As Madison Avenue proved long ago, sex sells."

Here's an interesting bit I don't know what to do with; sexism is as sexism does, but the thing is that while many men seem to act as if a woman they wouldn't want to fuck is therefore a woman they wouldn't want to listen to, we should also remember that many of those men would, if given an opportunity, take the ride. And in that context, I would raise the point that it's not actually about who a guy fucks, but who he is seen to be fucking. That is, a lot of those guys who pick on women's bodies would still get on, because in the end that one comedian really did have a point when he explained, "Two tits, a hole, and a heartbeat". And it's funny to me at first glance―but, of course, somewhat tragic and stupid when we stop to think about it―that there are plenty of women a guy might get on, but he wouldn't want to admit to his friends that he did. I might recount any number of standards on this point, from Aleister Crowley seeking large and unattractive women because he believed them to be more desperate and therefore accommodating lovers, to Queen ("Fat Bottomed Girls"), Cheech and Chong ("Big Bottom"), AC/DC ("Whole Lotta Rosie"), an old but extant standard about child-bearing hips, a longstanding stereotype about Hispanic (usually explicitly "Mexican") men wanting large white women, and even some persistent chatter about driving to the hilt and other such euphemisms for vigorous, enthusiastic, oh, hell, potentially injurious penetration and copulation―you know, like that one skinny girl, it looks like you'd tear her in half, or something like that.

To that end, it's puzzling; in that superficial masculinity, what I recall is shrugging off criticism of who I was sleeping with and making the point that, hey, at least I was getting laid. The smarter ones only needed one or two such occasions in order to figure it out, and every damn one of them knew they would, too. Not that this is heroic, or anything, but it always struck me as strange, given the importance my masculine cohort put on getting laid, that we should maintain this pretense, functionally speaking, amounting to being too good to get on any woman that would realistically have one of us. Then again, I'm gay and have been the whole time, whether I wanted to admit it or not, so maybe I'm looking at this differently compared to my heterosexual brothers.

But this really is one of the curious things about how our political discourse intersects with the proverbial war of the sexes. To the one I don't think I've penetrated the issue any deeper than a basic, two-bit comedy routine on amateur night at the club, but neither have I even put that kind of effort into the present iteration. That is to say, I thought a lot of this was apparent in our culture, but it's also something we don't discuss, and how is all this too hard to account for in assessing whether Andrea Dworkin is sexually appealing enough to actually show basic human respect?

And what the fuck is up with that last question? How do we even arrive at such crossroads? Welcome to my America; how we've managed to survive this long, I couldn't tell you.
____________________

Notes:

° See #2665505/4↗ (20 Dec. 2010) for Horsey, Lowry, and Maher citations.