Hillary Clinton calls out Trump's "sexism".

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/trump-women-sexism-debate-clinton-228759

Social media outrage, biased articles, agenda-ridden comments - Trump really did ruffle some feathers last night at the first 2016 Presidential debate.

He "interrupted" Clinton 20-odd times in the first 20 minutes. Well that's what the mainstream mob are calling it.

Clinton accused Trump of several things, several things that were pure speculation. Isn't one entitled to defend oneself? Or is the fact that he's an "old, white, able-bodied, cisgender, racist, islamophobic, homophobic, xenophobic " man enough to remove such right?

I knew this would happen. I knew that even the little "wrong" retort when Clinton claimed something, would go in the bad books.

These are political debates, and much like in a Parliament and during Prime Minister's Questions, you can expect considerably low-blows.

Personally I think both candidates did well last night. Trump made several legitimate points, and Clinton was able to press certain concerns.

I'm so sick of these buzzwords.

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

Trinculo

This goes to the heart of why there is so much surprise at results like Brexit and the last General Election, though.

It's so easy to get caught up in social media - it's easy to forget that not everyone - in fact most people are not like us. An enormous chunk of the electorate are not on Buzzfeed reading about some brave woman shutting down a sexist pig (not Trump/Hilary - but any old story). Millions of voters are not exposed to that in any real sense and don't care about it - they vote on what goes on in their own sphere.

Reply 2

username2228735

Interrupting someone is not sexism. Feminists need to get over themselves and realise that equality means you stop victimising yourself at every occasion.

Reply 3

yudothis

Original post by Aceadria

Interrupting someone is not sexism. Feminists need to get over themselves and realise that equality means you stop victimising yourself at every occasion.

Depends why you do it. Trump has a history of belittling Hilary due to her sex (and health).

@OP: wonderful example of confirmation bias.

Reply 4

domusic

Original post by yudothis

Depends why you do it. Trump has a history of belittling Hilary due to her sex (and health).

@OP: wonderful example of confirmation bias.

It's not belittling if it's true.

Reply 5

yudothis

Original post by domusic

It's not belittling if it's true.

And it's only true in the eyes of those doing the belittling :wink:

Reply 6

ThatOldGuy

Original post by yudothis

Depends why you do it. Trump has a history of belittling Hilary due to her sex (and health).

@OP: wonderful example of confirmation bias.

Reply 7

yudothis

Original post by ThatOldGuy

But it is - there are people spreading the idea, and those believing it, that she must have cancer or aids. I wouldn't admit either to having pneumonia unless I had to. Your health is private, if a doctor says you are fit for presidency, I see no reason why she needs to reveal anything about her personal health.

Reply 8

domusic

Original post by ThatOldGuy

Clinton wants to poke Russia with a stick and increase tensions.
Trump wants to get along with Russia and decrease tensions.

There is no third party in this approach.

Reply 9

domusic

Original post by yudothis

I think you're belittling the issue of her health a little bit here.

Your bias is a bit too strong.

Reply 10

yudothis

Original post by domusic

I think you're belittling the issue of her health a little bit here.

Your bias is a bit too strong.

Not at all, I am saying it is highly important and personal and that is why it's hers. Not the public's.

Next time you try to be clever, make sure you are actually right. That way you won't look like a fool.

Reply 11

domusic

Original post by yudothis

line 1:
No it is the public's right to know when she is clearly unwell. I wouldn't want the person I voted for dying on me half way into a term or being too unfit for the job.

line 2:
adhom

Reply 12

yudothis

Original post by domusic

line 1:
No it is the public's right to know when she is clearly unwell. I wouldn't want the person I voted for dying on me half way into a term or being too unfit for the job.

line 2:
adhom

"if a doctor says you are fit for presidency, I see no reason why she needs to reveal anything about her personal health".

I suppose now you claim you know more than her doctor?

Ironic that you accuse me of bias and yet your bias stinks from a mile off. Not to mention you just gotta keep digging, huh? Just like it was said here that she should have just admitted to having pneumonia, you really need to admit you were wrong :biggrin:

ps i have zero respect for anyone that thinks crying adhom on here has any meaning whatsoever. just goes to prove my point about you. its like people crying islamophobia. oh and i said looking like a fool. that is based on the argument you made. not ad hominem at all.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 13

Joep95

I would say it isn't sexist he does it to other politicians so why should Hillary be different?
Here is him doing it to lyin ted
https://youtu.be/5D-tKJzkBdc

It's almost as if Hillary knows people don't like her so she is playing for sympathy.

Reply 14

swanderfeild

Original post by Dodgypirate

Clinton accused Trump of several things, several things that were pure speculation. Isn't one entitled to defend oneself? Or is the fact that he's an "old, white, able-bodied, cisgender, racist, islamophobic, homophobic, xenophobic " man enough to remove such right?

I knew this would happen. I knew that even the little "wrong" retort when Clinton claimed something, would go in the bad books.

Here's how you defend yourself against an accusation in civilized manner:
Person A: "Oh you suck because bla bla bla".
Person B: "You said x but that's not the case and you suck because bla bla bla"

If you're slightly less civilized you might go:
Person A: "Oh you suck because reason a -"
Person B: "- let me jump in here because a isn't what happened bla bla happened".

If you're a total ass with self control of a toddler, you'd go:
Person A: "Oh you suck"
Person B: "Wrong"
Person A: "let me finish, because reason a"
Person B: "No, no"
Person A, getting annoyed: "reason a since you"
Person B: "Wrong wrong, no"

Spot the trump. Probably not sexist, although based on his previous comments around various issues I'd not be surprised if he was, definitely obnoxious and insufferable jackass.

Reply 15

Observatory

Original post by ThatOldGuy

The health thing was Clinton's fault. All she had to say was, "Yeah. I'm coughing a lot. I have pneumonia, ass. But I'm not going to let Trump go on the rampage on the campaign trail without fighting him every step of the way. "

Her insinuating it was a right wing nutjob conspiracy right up until the point she fainted on camera makes people distrust her. If she lies about such tiny and inconsequential things, what -does- she tell the truth on?
You accept that she lied but you also accept her latest statements on what really happened. Her actions don't make sense if she was lying in the past and telling the truth now, but they make perfect sense if she was lying in the past and still lying now. If the right's claims that she has a chronic degenerative condition were true then it makes sense that she would try to deny everything and then "admit" she had pneumonia, a relatively benign condition, after it became impossible to deny that she had something.

Reply 16

Observatory

If people opposed Hillary Clinton because of sexism then those same people would also oppose Margaret Thatcher. Both are/were strong, arguably abrasive women who are widely hated, but they are hated by completely different groups of people. That suggests the hatreds are driven by ideology, not identity.

The American left is living in a distant past where a strong woman leader of a country is something new.

Reply 17

yudothis

Original post by Observatory

You accept that she lied but you also accept her latest statements on what really happened. Her actions don't make sense if she was lying in the past and telling the truth now, but they make perfect sense if she was lying in the past and still lying now. If the right's claims that she has a chronic degenerative condition were true then it makes sense that she would try to deny everything and then "admit" she had pneumonia, a relatively benign condition, after it became impossible to deny that she had something.

Or she did actually have pneumonia and at some point she realized she has to address this because Trump is not letting go.

Anyway, thinking someone has a degenerate disease because of a strong cough is quite, well, degenerate.

Reply 18

Observatory

Original post by yudothis

The "right wing conspiracy theories" were originated by footage of her appearing to collapse while climbing stairs etc.

She "admitted" to having pneumonia after being filmed collapsing into a van.