Hillary Clinton calls out Trump's "sexism".

Announcements
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Of course interrupting someone isn't sexism. Men constantly interrupting women on average about 50 times more than women do - that's sexism.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    You're not really addressing my comment here. The concept of a burden of proof is not limited to theological debates; it can and is applied in any debate.



    Hardly. You've quoted a well-known liberal outlet, written by two journalists who seem to be anything but unbiased in there approach:

    https://twitter.com/amychozick?ref_s...Ctwgr%5Eauthor
    https://twitter.com/AshleyRParker?re...Ctwgr%5Eauthor

    Moreover, the article is filled with opinions or interpretations by individuals; there is very little concrete fact to support misogyny. The most interesting fact about the article, however, is that it assumes Trump is a misogynist and goes on the analyse how it will hurt his strategy; the central theme is not to show how he is one.

    So, again, where is your evidence?
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...t-of-the-vote/

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b07addcb442023

    https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/s...97333650239488

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/pol...-in-one-place/

    http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics...insults-women/

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-the-military/

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donal...ry?id=32955313

    http://www.ibtimes.com/42-horrible-t...ential-2345140

    http://www.bustle.com/articles/13183...the-tip-of-the

    http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37303432

    http://fortune.com/2015/08/09/trump-...women-history/
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    Pretty much every politician is dishonest and a bad person. So I ask again, is that the only complaint you have against her?
    Thankfully, "Pretty much" doesn't describe every politician. There are two other politicians in the US currently running for President that it doesn't apply to: Jill Stein and Gary Johnson.

    What you did there was a subtle variation on the 'Poisoning the well' logical fallacy. You gave a vague accusation designed to suggest that there were only two choices: Dishonest politicians who were bad people or no one. Obviously, if that were the case, no one could make any case against any politician.

    If your accusation were true, then my dislike of Hillary would be based upon wild incompetence. Not every politician has been caught in gross lies about their health and their leaking of classified intelligence. As she has been caught in far more and greater(As well as lesser lies such as her health), it would suggest she were wildly incompetent compared to her peers.

    I don't believe that. She's just a bad person.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Of course interrupting someone isn't sexism. Men constantly interrupting women on average about 50 times more than women do - that's sexism.
    Or it could just be bad manners, a difference in style, etc... 'Mansplaining' is not always relevant.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Changing the source of the argument does not change the inherent issues with the reasoning. Try again.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    Changing the source of the argument does not change the inherent issues with the reasoning. Try again.
    You wanted evidence, I gave you evidence.

    The burden of proof to say that that is not "evidence" is upon you.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThatOldGuy)
    Thankfully, "Pretty much" doesn't describe every politician. There are two other politicians in the US currently running for President that it doesn't apply to: Jill Stein and Gary Johnson.

    What you did there was a subtle variation on the 'Poisoning the well' logical fallacy. You gave a vague accusation designed to suggest that there were only two choices: Dishonest politicians who were bad people or no one. Obviously, if that were the case, no one could make any case against any politician.

    If your accusation were true, then my dislike of Hillary would be based upon wild incompetence. Not every politician has been caught in gross lies about their health and their leaking of classified intelligence. As she has been caught in far more and greater(As well as lesser lies such as her health), it would suggest she were wildly incompetent compared to her peers.

    I don't believe that. She's just a bad person.
    Funny. I come more and more to the conclusion that most humans are bad (at least selfish which often has the same outcome).

    But I still disagree with the fact that you get so caught up in the lying. Put every politicians name in a hat and draw a name. You will draw for a long time til you get to one that isn't dishonest.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    Or it could just be bad manners, a difference in style, etc... 'Mansplaining' is not always relevant.
    It may not always be relevant, but men still love to do it. A lot. :teehee:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    Funny. I come more and more to the conclusion that most humans are bad (at least selfish which often has the same outcome).

    But I still disagree with the fact that you get so caught up in the lying. Put every politicians name in a hat and draw a name. You will draw for a long time til you get to one that isn't dishonest.
    Perhaps because people don't care enough about whether or not they're honest.

    You will note that a lot of people on here talk about Donald Trump's lies and scandals while conveniently ignoring Hillary's. I choose not to do so and will reiterate what I said before: Vote 3rd party. You don't have to vote for the lesser of two evils.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThatOldGuy)
    Perhaps because people don't care enough about whether or not they're honest.

    You will note that a lot of people on here talk about Donald Trump's lies and scandals while conveniently ignoring Hillary's. I choose not to do so and will reiterate what I said before: Vote 3rd party. You don't have to vote for the lesser of two evils.
    Yes, you do, 3rd party will not win a single state. If you don't want the greater evil, you should vote for the lesser evil.

    Unless ofc you are indifferent, then go ahead, vote 3rd party.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 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.
    The problem isn't social media per second, it's actually more a problem with Twitter on the direct side, having a lot of support in Facebook actually really helps, the problem is that social media creates an echo chamber, especially on the young left, because of their algorithms.

    Facebook is becoming a big, important thing in political campaigns and the side that uses it best has a massive advantage, while Clinton pours hundreds of millions into attack ads Trump spends a few thousand pumping messages out to over 10m on Facebook. The leave campaign had significantly more followers on Facebook (between the groups) and really pushed on social media. The Tories last year did a lot more on Facebook last year than Labour. Facebook is free campaigning, targetting many many times more people than conventional methods for a fraction of the time and financial investment.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    Yes, you do, 3rd party will not win a single state. If you don't want the greater evil, you should vote for the lesser evil.

    Unless ofc you are indifferent, then go ahead, vote 3rd party.
    "Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    It may not always be relevant, but men still love to do it. A lot. :teehee:
    As do many women - I fail to see what you're trying to get at here. Perhaps some women expect to be treated differently because of their gender?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    You wanted evidence, I gave you evidence.

    The burden of proof to say that that is not "evidence" is upon you.
    You can keep repeating your previous statements - but unless you provide concrete arguments to back them up, this is going no where. I have already addressed the issue with your sources.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Hiya!

    Just to remind everyone, this subforum is subject to the same rules across the site. Despite how strongly we can feel discussing politics. posting should always be in a friendly and courteous manner.

    Regards,
    Funky:ahee:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    It's freedom of speech, Trump can say what he likes.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    What she did was reflect back to him the THINGS HE ACTUALLY SAID but which he now denies saying. Is that terribly wrong, in your eyes?
    (Original post by Dodgypirate)
    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by #ChaosKass)
    It's freedom of speech, Trump can say what he likes.
    Except that making stuff up is an abuse of the democratic system, whether you like it or not.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unicorn2016)
    Except that making stuff up is an abuse of the democratic system, whether you like it or not.
    Precisely why it is equally important for voters to understand and research the statements the nominees are making.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Male, therefore an aggressor, obvs. Think she should file charges for rape, he did touch her back in an unsolicited attack :rolleyes:
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: October 4, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Poll
Would you prefer to be told about sex by your:
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.