PDA

View Full Version : Women voters carry McMahon




carlos1215
08-10-2010, 07:47 PM
it is very difficult to beat a female these days....they start out with a huge advantage among their hysterical female sisters...

i read somewhere that McMahon was polling at close to 60% among women in a 3-way race.....

in a 3 way race against two men, neither Peter...nor Simmons...ever had a chance against the dipshit soccer mom voting block...."Linda's just like one of us." they reason

good grief....
the war on white males continues....

freedoms-light
08-10-2010, 07:48 PM
it is very difficult to beat a female these days....they start out with a huge advantage among their hysterical sisters...

i read somewhere that McMahon was polling at close to 60% among women in a 3-way race.....

in a 3 way race against two men, neither Peter...nor Simmons...ever had a chance against the dipshit soccer mom block...."Linda's just like one of us."

good grief
the war on white males continues....

Maybe the KICK ad?

economics102
08-10-2010, 08:06 PM
What morons. Of all the issues facing this country, gender inequality is the biggest??

Won't it be great if by 2020 the demographic makeup in Congress will be 50% male, 50% female, 25% white, 25% black, 25% hispanic, 25% asian, 25% homosexual, 5% transgender, 25% Jewish, 5% Scientologist...that will be a GREAT distraction while we're all pushing wheelbarrows of worthless dollars past burning junkyards and tent cities...

Go to hell Linda.

ironmanjakarta
08-10-2010, 09:58 PM
American really went socialist in a big way after women got the vote. It's not PC but I truly believe it's women who caused America's economic downfall.

tpreitzel
08-10-2010, 10:02 PM
American really went socialist in a big way after women got the vote. It's not PC but I truly believe it's women who caused America's economic downfall.

In general, I believe one could probably develop a good case supporting your observation. I'm sure a book already exists exploring this idea. Sure, exceptions exist, e.g. members of RPFs, but generally, you're probably right about the negative impact of female suffrage.

ironmanjakarta
08-10-2010, 10:10 PM
A good case in point would be this election. McMahon, the woman, thought nothing of "spending" whatever it took to win while Schiff, the man, was more responsible. I bet most of "her" money really came from her husband so she didnt think twice spending it. :-P

tpreitzel
08-10-2010, 10:12 PM
A good case in point would be this election. McMahon, the woman, thought nothing of "spending" whatever it took to win while Schiff, the man, was more responsible. I bet most of "her" money really came from her husband so she didnt think twice spending it. :-P

No argument from me ... ;)

Baptist
08-10-2010, 10:31 PM
In general, I believe one could probably develop a good case supporting your observation. I'm sure a book already exists exploring this idea. Sure, exceptions exist, e.g. members of RPFs, but generally, you're probably right about the negative impact of female suffrage.

It's because women are not independent. For the longest time women were dependent on their husbands for protection and support. Every ounce of husband/man that American women got rid of, has been replaced by an ounce of government. So now instead of helpless women finding a man to protect them, helpless American women rely on government to protect them.

The only thing stopping masses of men from raping masses of women are honorable husbands with a set of balls, or government officials with guns. Sadly, the women of America have traded the former for the latter. They can't get rid of the former without accepting the latter because if they did, it would simply go back to caveman days were men clubbed women at will, drug them to the nearest cave, and had their way with them.

Women know this and that is why they don't want true equality and true freedom.
So I agree with you that our big government owes a debt of gratitude to the women of America.

Brian4Liberty
08-10-2010, 10:32 PM
i read somewhere that McMahon was polling at close to 60% among women in a 3-way race.....


Considering the final outcome, 60% is not that far from the rest of the people. At least it wasn't 90% of women for McMahan.

LeifEiriksson
08-10-2010, 11:12 PM
It's because women are not independent. For the longest time women were dependent on their husbands for protection and support. Every ounce of husband/man that American women got rid of, has been replaced by an ounce of government. So now instead of helpless women finding a man to protect them, helpless American women rely on government to protect them.

The only thing stopping masses of men from raping masses of women are honorable husbands with a set of balls, or government officials with guns. Sadly, the women of America have traded the former for the latter. They can't get rid of the former without accepting the latter because if they did, it would simply go back to caveman days were men clubbed women at will, drug them to the nearest cave, and had their way with them.

Women know this and that is why they don't want true equality and true freedom.
So I agree with you that our big government owes a debt of gratitude to the women of America.

Here's one of the most fascinating blogs ever. Read a few blog posts and I guarantee you'll be addicted. He often talks about politics, specifically the welfare state and how the government has taken the place of husbands and families. He's definitely close to a libertarian, though he's got a love-hate relationship with them.
http://roissy.wordpress.com/

amy31416
08-10-2010, 11:22 PM
These bitches are almost as bad as the black voters who put Obama in power and the men who gave GW Bush a second term.

Assholes.

People mostly suck, regardless of race/gender/religion, etc.

Baptist
08-10-2010, 11:32 PM
These bitches are almost as bad as the black voters who put Obama in power and the men who gave GW Bush a second term.

Assholes.

People mostly suck, regardless of race/gender/religion, etc.

+1

My last statement was said tongue-in-cheek, although I'm afraid there might be truth to it.

But you are right. Blacks voted for Obama, Utah went for Mormon Romney, and everyone at my church voted for Huckabee because he used to be a Baptist preacher. Heh, sadly I voted for George W in 2004.

economics102
08-11-2010, 12:47 AM
This is why democracy doesn't work. Forget blacks, or women. We need to take away ALL of our votes on as many issues as possible. The way to do that is to replace majority-rule decisions with individual decisions.

It infuriates me how arrogant, self-fashioned "educated elite" liberals (I know, I just used all the GOP talking point buzzwords, but what can I say, they're fitting!) think society would be great if only the right people decided everything for us. Who is going to choose these "right people?" The same people who are too stupid to see (or care!?) that Linda McMahon is a phony bitch because she's a woman?

You know what's really ridiculous? Collectivist groups, such as woman, blacks, et. al, see no problem with voting for Linda because she's a woman, or voting for Obama because he's black. But yet I'm sure quite a many of those same voters would be brandishing their pitchforks if I said that an employer should be allowed to discriminate based on gender or race. In other words, it's ok to to HIRE a woman because she's a woman, but it's terrible, horrible, evil to NOT hire a woman because she's a woman. Yes, that's quite logical and even-handed...it's only discrimination when it hurts one of the "protected" classes. When the victim is an unprotected class (like white males), it's "empowering" minorities.

someperson
08-11-2010, 12:55 AM
Heh, sadly I voted for George W in 2004.
http://www.family-vacation-getaways-at-los-angeles-theme-parks.com/images/GlowingPumpkin.gif

j/k :)

JohnEngland
08-11-2010, 01:57 AM
This is why democracy doesn't work. Forget blacks, or women. We need to take away ALL of our votes on as many issues as possible. The way to do that is to replace majority-rule decisions with individual decisions.

Here in Britain, I've suggested to friends that we should have a system where people have to correctly answer a few basic questions on their voting card. If they get any questions wrong, their vote is disqualified.

For example, in America it could be :

1) Who is the current president?
2) Who is the current vice-president?
3) Who is the current speaker of the house?

All citizens should know these and if not, how can they possibly be expected to make an informed decision when voting?

These questions would filter out those who are voting simply because they like the guy's hair, the way he speaks, because she has big breasts etc.

Tinnuhana
08-11-2010, 07:11 AM
@Baptist, et al,
Don't overlook our educational systems, which more often than not promote a collectivist agenda and attitude from pre-school and up. They make slaves of us all in the sense that we are seldom presented with individual freedom. When do we ever think in individual terms instead of group terms? And even if we have overcome this through prayer, thought, self-education, whatever, we still come up against that wall when seeking freedom. We still think in terms of our group affiliations.
A popular saying is, "G_d has no grandchildren" yet when asked about our religious preferences, we tend to say which church, temple, etc. we attend. Same with political affiliations.
I know you were speaking tongue-in-cheek, but thought this is an interesting aspect to bring up.

MelissaWV
08-11-2010, 07:26 AM
Here in Britain, I've suggested to friends that we should have a system where people have to correctly answer a few basic questions on their voting card. If they get any questions wrong, their vote is disqualified.

For example, in America it could be :

1) Who is the current president?
2) Who is the current vice-president?
3) Who is the current speaker of the house?

All citizens should know these and if not, how can they possibly be expected to make an informed decision when voting?

These questions would filter out those who are voting simply because they like the guy's hair, the way he speaks, because she has big breasts etc.

You're saying no one would vote for Palin because she's a "MILF," as long as they know who the President, VP, and Speaker are? :rolleyes: A lot of people would know those answers and still vote for superficial reasons.

On the other hand, many people who have no idea who Pelosi is might still know that this current Government is screwing them over, regardless of who's at the helm.

Aratus
08-11-2010, 11:52 AM
ODDs ARE THAT LINDA McMAHON GOES 'MOMMA GRIZZLY' A.S.A.P TO COUNTER BLUMENTHAL ANd THE DNC...

MelissaWV
08-11-2010, 11:54 AM
Ah the magic of this forum, by the way.

One thread "Women are dumb!"

Next thread "How come women won't let me touch their jiggly parts?"

:p

Brian4Liberty
08-11-2010, 12:13 PM
You know what's really ridiculous? Collectivist groups, such as woman, blacks, et. al, see no problem with voting for Linda because she's a woman, or voting for Obama because he's black.

What we need is anonymous candidates. Candidates can give a written list of their stances. They can answer written questions with written answers, edited to ensure that no personal information is slipped in. No candidate's names, genders, ages, race, ethnicity or economic status. A vote purely on the issues.

low preference guy
08-11-2010, 01:05 PM
Ah the magic of this forum, by the way.

One thread "Women are dumb!"

Next thread "How come women won't let me touch their jiggly parts?"

:p

Don't be a collectivist, those are different people.

It's like "ah the magic of the world"... this person loves you and this other wants to rob you. It's a true but irrelevant observation.

ninepointfive
08-11-2010, 01:22 PM
What we need is anonymous candidates. Candidates can give a written list of their stances. They can answer written questions with written answers, edited to ensure that no personal information is slipped in. No candidate's names, genders, ages, race, ethnicity or economic status. A vote purely on the issues.

sounds cool. but what about the judgment of character that occurs when you meet a person for real? I don't think you can discount intuition.

Also, i remember reading about the skills a person needs to campaign. Once it was pen and paper. Then print media and pictures. And now video news. All requiring different skills and character traits.

MelissaWV
08-11-2010, 01:25 PM
Don't be a collectivist, those are different people.

It's like "ah the magic of the world"... this person loves you and this other wants to rob you. It's a true but irrelevant observation.

Oh I've seen the same people say things much along those lines, and am thinking of them. I will think fondly on that when another "advice" thread pops up from them in the future. Not if, but when.

Brian4Liberty
08-12-2010, 05:22 PM
sounds cool. but what about the judgment of character that occurs when you meet a person for real? I don't think you can discount intuition.

Also, i remember reading about the skills a person needs to campaign. Once it was pen and paper. Then print media and pictures. And now video news. All requiring different skills and character traits.

Yeah, that's true, it has all changed. Now it's a Reality TV/acting/beauty contest.

We rarely meet candidates in person. We see prepared speeches, usually on TV. Even if you meet them in person several times, what can you get from that? I guess the biggest problem with anonymous candidates is that you wouldn't know their background, as in what they have done before, and what are their true actions. They could write out a bunch of lies (not that they don't go out and say a bunch of lies anyway). Guess we're just screwed any way, because the majority of the voters get the superficial PR job presented to them by the media. (And just the candidates that they want to show you.)

libertarian4321
08-12-2010, 05:58 PM
A good case in point would be this election. McMahon, the woman, thought nothing of "spending" whatever it took to win while Schiff, the man, was more responsible. I bet most of "her" money really came from her husband so she didnt think twice spending it. :-P

Whatever you think of her or her politics, Linda McMahon was NOT an uninvolved housewife just waiting for "her man" to bring home the money while she stayed home and wiped the kids noses.

She was intricately involved in the WWE from the earliest years, and both she and her husband built that company from a tiny, bankrupt regional promotion to a major company. By all accounts, Vince took care of the show biz part of the business (finding talent and putting on shows), while she handled the business end (running the office, intellectual property, merchandising) and the like.

That's why I said earlier that Schiff made a mistake when he tried to portray himself as a successful businessman running against a hack politician (Simmons) and a mere wrestling promoter who didn't have business skills- McMahon was every bit as successful in business as Schiff (actually, more so).

BTW. when you post sexist stuff like this, and claim to support Schiff, do you really wonder why women might find that stuff offensive and vote for McMahon?