|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
They say that victory has a thousand fathers but defeat is an orphan, but a liberal defeat seems to have a thousand abusive step-dads as a thousand theories are trotted out to explain the loss.
All of them having to do with how much America sucks.
The New York Times has decided to ‘circle back’ and amplify the claim that Kamala lost because of sexism.
“Will the U.S. Ever Be Ready for a Female President?” the paper asks, as if Kamala’s loss were somehow evidence that it’s not. Rather than that it’s not ready to elect a trainwreck word salad coup.
The article starts by suggesting, without a shred of evidence, that conservatives hate women the most and would only vote for a conservative woman, courtesy of Bill Clinton.
A few days earlier and several hundred miles north, Mr. Clinton — whose wife tried and failed twice to win the White House — made a similar argument.
“Ideologically, the people who are most likely to be against women are most likely to be conservative, so when people agree with you, it’s easier to be for them,” he said in an appearance at the DealBook Summit hosted by The New York Times. “But I think a woman can be elected president. I do.”
This doesn’t even make any sense.
Then there’s doubling down on the lie that Kamala was a great candidate.
“People feel pretty stung by what happened,” said Liz Shuler, the first woman elected to lead the A.F.L.-C.I.O., the largest federation of unions in the country, who supported Ms. Harris and believes she made no significant missteps in the race. “She totally over-performed and yet fell short. So it does feel like that sucker punch of, like, ‘Wow, even when you do everything right, that glass ceiling is still elusive.’”
Everything right? Name just one thing Kamala did right. Just one.
While few will say so aloud, some Democrats are already quietly hoping their party doesn’t nominate a woman in 2028, fearing she could not overcome an enduring hold of sexism on the American electorate.
They could nominate a woman, a man or a sheep, but that nominee needs to be able to convince Americans that either
- They can do the job
- The alternative is so much worse
Kamala couldn’t manage to do either one. The issue isn’t women. It was the price of food. But Dems will go on insisting that Americans just hate women.
Which means that women hate women.
Ms. Harris won the lowest level of support from female voters of any Democratic nominee since 2004, according to an analysis by the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University.
There you go. Women are sexist.
Race, sex, being non binary, gender fluid, a cross dresser, gay or whatever is not a talent or a qualification for any job or political office.
That is, or should be, obvious to any thinking person.
Harris did not lose to Trump because she was a woman of color.
Harris lost because she was a flat out terrible candidate.
She told Americans that they were racist and sexist and had to “do the work.”
That meant they had to prove they were not racist and sexist and the only way they could prove they were not racist or sexist was to vote her for her.
You cannot win an election by insulting the voters.
She knew Biden was cognitively impaired and lied about it.
She could never give a coherent answer to any question.
She kept repeating this vapid slogan about “what can be unburdened by what has been.”
What does that even mean?
It’s an old communist slogan, unburdening them from reality.
Kamala lost because Trump is authentic and there’s nothing about her that isn’t fake.
For the good of our nation, I would hope that Kamala lost because people are shifting away from socialism. But that’s probably just wishful thinking!
So ridiculous. Forty years ago I’d have enthusiastically voted for Jeanne Kirkpatrick had she run for President. But I’m not interested in voting for the evil Hillary Clinton or the vacuous and unserious Kamala Harris. But these peoples’ explanation is “sexism” rather than taking a good look at the horrible candidates the Dems are putting up. I only hope they keep putting up such candidates while chastising the voters for rejecting them. A real losing strategy.
Women are sexist. That’s true.
“Will the U.S. Ever Be Ready for a Female President?” I sure hope not. I’d rather have a toad for President. I especially don’t want an ugly skank with a turkey neck like Kamelho Harris in the White House. The only thing I like about her is that we’re the same age but I look twenty years younger than her. She makes me look good, not that I need the help. I’m so handsome my own reflection in my bathroom mirror blinds me with beauty. Narcissus was a fetid rodent compared to me. If I could kiss myself, I would. I guess I could blow myself a nice, wet kiss.
I see we have a trolltad here. Does it hurt when you get fucked up the ass?
When the left spews this crap why doesn’t someone just ask “Well, wasn’t she a Presidential Candidate before you guys selected Joe? It seems to me that YOU are the biggest sexist/racists since you DEMOcrats picked a decrepit, degenerate old white guy instead of your black female”!!
The left showed how RACIST/SEXIST they were by not voting for a very qualified white man!
I voted against Kamala solely because she is a woman. The fact that she is an alcoholic, lying, incompetent, marxist floozy had absolutely nothing to do with it.
How could you tell whether or not Kamala “Heels Up” Harris is a “woman?” Are you a biologist or did you consult her/his/its former pimp, Willie Brown?
The only sexist here are the ones that insist that women should vote for women purely because they are women.
Talk about being female chauvinist pigs.
Kamala is unburdened by what has been now, isn’t she.
Too bad Winsome Sears wasn’t born in the U.S. I certainly could vote for her.
My God, look at the drunk woman with the half closed left eye. Certainly presidential material, right?
And to think 40% of brain dead Democrats would vote for her again.
Did we ever dodge a bullet this time or what.
Only 40%. I think most democrats would vote for her against. They seem incapable of learning anything.
We are electing the best candidate, not someone because of their gender.
Women who voted for Trump were voting against having another Biden in the Oval Office
The dems’ position reminds me of an Al Bundy meme. “Don’t try to understand women. Women understand women and they hate each other.” Humor aside, it’s nice that the dems don’t seem to have a clue.
If Kamala Harris was Satan in drag or Hitler in a skirt and everyone knew it, women would still be expected to vote for her. The very notion of voting for Harris just because she was a women suggests that there are those who think that all women are unintelligent and incapable of thinking for themselves.
I reject that kind of thinking about women or any other group. Such a mindset is typically held by those who are inherently intellectually lazy and are quick to jump to conclusions based on dubious facts.