Trump: Women 'get it better' than men

[–]Lethn 88 points89 points90 points 10 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]soalone34 -12 points-11 points-10 points 10 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]jubbergun 50 points51 points52 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 10 points11 points12 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kodiak01 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ThePigmanAgain -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]soalone34 -11 points-10 points-9 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]jubbergun 13 points14 points15 points 10 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

You could argue this has already happened, his reputation has been damaged beyond repair with many demographics.

...you say in response to a speech where he says something like this and has women applauding him. There are no "demographics," only individuals, and the people who are telling you his "reputation has been damaged beyond repair with many demographics" have said so at least once a week since the republican primaries started. They've based every one of their failed predictions on that line. If you want to buy into a narrative that is demonstrably untrue, feel free, but the reality of the situation is that not a damn thing has stuck Donald Trump no matter what the media and his opponents sling at him. It's like he made of teflon. Maybe that will change, but based on recent history believing that it will is worse than foolish.

It's a shame for the GOP because a Romney/Ryan ticket may have won 2016 if they were going up against the disliked Clinton.

No, it wouldn't. McCain and Romney both lost to President Obama because a huge chunk of their base stayed home rather than turn out to vote for a candidate foisted on them by the party's establishment. It has been estimated that as many as 3 million republicans stayed home during the 2012 election (according to the most republican source available). Of course, the people foisting those candidates on the party disagree, but they're kind of obligated to do so.

Trump may lose that same group of voters, but unlike Romney and McCain is only winning the nomination because he actually has the support from independents and cross-over democrats that the party elites nominated Romney and McCain to capture. The only reason Trump won the nomination is because he garnered large numbers of non-republican voters in open primary states. Those same voters will likely vote for him again in November.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]jubbergun 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]sujukarasnsd 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ymeynotu 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC 10 points11 points12 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]occupythekitchen 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]soalone34 -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]WaitingToBeBanned 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]circlhat 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]soalone34 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points16 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Naftoid 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]randomdude98 12 points13 points14 points 10 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]FrostLink 15 points16 points17 points 10 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]randomdude98 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]FrostLink 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]randomdude98 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]FrostLink 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]randomdude98 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]FeierInMeinHose 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]EgoandDesire 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Kodiak01 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

We aren't all quite that way, although I am a fair portion of the way there.

This is what I wrote about a month and a half ago on why I voted for Trump:

If it were up to me, Herman Cain would have run again... or never dropped out the last time. Coming into the election, I had no specific favorite although I did give points to Fiorina in the foreign policy arena based on her experience on the CIA's External Advisory Board.

Running through some of the other candidates:

Kasich: Actually to the left of Democrats on many subjects. His immigration stance in particular is a complete non-starter for me.

Cruz: Touted himself as an outsider yet worked in the Bush administration and even met his wife there. Speaking of his wife, she's interjecting herself way too much in the campaign, pulling out the "We" moniker several times, such as saying "This is why we are running for President". A Hillary 2.0 in the making.

Rubio: A younger McCain with better functioning arms and a worse functioning brain. The moment he stooped to insults, showing his true colors, he no longer was a viable candidate for me.

Sanders: What you get when you throw Granny Warren and Howard Dean in a blender. Has crazy eyes, but generally like his stance on 2nd Amendment issues. A small part of me keeps expecting him to pull off his face like a mask, a giant boot popping up showing that he is actually Vermin Supreme in disguise, and that we might actually get our free ponies!

Clinton: Patraeus got sent up the river for a tiny fraction of what she did, and did so many times more brazenly. If she couldn't figure out what was classified with her own email, what makes anyone think she can be trusted to do the same in the Oval Office?

and finally, Trump: Brash delivery can be extremely offputting, equal chance of rubbing other world leaders the wrong way, or restoring the perception of a backbone to the country. Even though he says things in an inflammatory way, hindsight and history have actually proven him right in several areas. These include the recent Brussels attacks that he predicted back in January and his "Wall with a big door" commentary actually having the force of both law and history (other Presidents have done it in the past). While I don't like how he says things, the core thoughts and ideas are ones that need to be spoken. I like that he has stated the desire to keep us out of Middle Eastern conflicts, that we should leave them to just keep blowing each other up as they have done for centuries, as long as it doesn't threaten the US in any way. That being said, he is Putin-lite in some thoughts and mannerisms.

I voted for Trump. The final choice was not made until just before I cast the vote, when the realization came that both sides are ganging up on him because he wants to upset the system... a system the rest of them are already a part of and attached to the hip with, financially and otherwise; a system that everyone claims to want to fix, but only so far as to allowing themselves to benefit from it. The most telling part was realizing that Cruz and Kasich were no longer asking people to vote FOR them, but rather AGAINST Trump. They have dropped any pretense of trying to convince voters of the positives for voting for them other than "They aren't Trump." -- Zero substance.

As for a brokered convention: If Trump is anywhere close to the number of delegates needed and they pull the rug out to stuff an Establishment player in the game, you will not only see riot on the convention floor, you will see a large enough portion of Trump voters staying home in November, all but handing the election to the Democrats.

This primary has long since stopped doing what is best for the people by putting forward the most viable and most popular candidate, instead becoming a power-play to maintain the power status-quo of a group of entrenched lifelong politicians.

Edit: Someone just PMd me asking how I categorize my political views. I am relatively Conservative to Austrian on most fiscal issues, a Constitutionalist/Originalist in the area of enforcing our founding documents, Moderate-Liberal to Libertarian on the majority of social issues (drugs, abortion, etc.)

Edit 2: My view on Trump and the other candidates was just echoed by none other than Salon (another place I regularly read but not always agree with):

http://www.salon.com/2016/03/24/camille_paglia_this_is_why_trumps_winning_and_why_i_wont_vote_for_hillary/

Trump may be raw, crude and uninformed, but he’s also smart, intuitive and a quick study who will presumably get up to passable speed as he assembles a brain trust over the coming months. Whether Trump can temper his shoot-from-the-hip impetuosity is another matter. There is a huge gap between the teeth-gnashing fulminations of the anti-Trump mainstream media and the perfectly reasonable Trump supporters whom I hear calling into radio talk shows. The machinations of the old-guard GOP establishment to thwart Trump voters and subvert the primary process are an absolute disgrace. But it’s business as usual for tone-deaf party leaders who, barely more than a day after the discovery of Antonin Scalia’s corpse last month, stupidly proclaimed there would be no hearings for an Obama nominee to the Supreme Court.

The writer goes on to lambaste all the other Republican candidates, and I can't say I disagree with much of anything she wrote.

[–]Alkomb 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Naftoid 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThePigmanAgain 24 points25 points26 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]WaitingToBeBanned 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]dissentforall 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC 25 points26 points27 points 10 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -6 points-5 points-4 points 10 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]FrostLink 10 points11 points12 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -7 points-6 points-5 points 10 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]FrostLink 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points-2 points 10 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]FrostLink 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Okay, you edited in literally everything after "by that rational, neither did plantation owners" after I made my response to you, so that's what I was replying to. The reason I assumed you were comparing women to slaves was because you directly compared women and men to white plantation owners and black slaves. This is obviously a false comparison. When I said that men weren't catered to I meant that men's suffering and problems weren't given the same attention that a MRA would. Men were wholly expected to be responsible for looking after women and fighting for their country. I don't think society was overly concerned about men being sexually abused being taken less seriously than women being sexually abused. You must have noticed that I had already posted my reply when you finished comment.

I'm only talking about women's suffrage in my comment and I am not going to justify or rationalise any other discriminatory policies. I don't support any discrimination based on totally arbitrary characteristics such as race or sex. This includes women not having been given the right to vote. Many women didn't want many of the responsibilities of a full citizen and felt that they would lose special privileges they had.

http://www.nebraskastudies.org/0700/frameset_reset.html?http://www.nebraskastudies.org/0700/stories/0701_0112.html

I find it remarkable that the quoted person presumes to know exactly what was really going on in anti suffragettes' heads as if he is gifted with the ability to read minds. This isn't me arguing against women's right to vote either; I just think you have misrepresented the position.

[–]Mens-Advocate 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]AutoModerator[M] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]soalone34 59 points60 points61 points 10 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC 33 points34 points35 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]lasciate 10 points11 points12 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ThePigmanAgain 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CountVonVague 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]off_da_grid 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]BookOfGQuan 10 points11 points12 points 10 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]off_da_grid 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]BookOfGQuan 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]agiganticpanda 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]TomHicks 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]agiganticpanda 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BookOfGQuan -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]agiganticpanda 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]BookOfGQuan 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Basically, Pro-abortionists think that foetuses have no right to life and that their own rights (if any) are subordinate to what they would call a person’s right to bodily autonomy (in this case, whether a woman wants to carry to term and give birth or not). Thus, since foetuses are out of the picture, the legal rights issue focuses on the mother alone, and there is no good reason to deny a woman full agency over her own body. More than reasonable, assuming we agree with the foundation. Anti-abortionists afford foetuses more rights and recognition and believe that their rights/needs trump what the mother happens to want. Again, if we accept the foundation, more than reasonable - one human can’t murder another simply because the latter person is inconvenient to them; one person’s rights don’t erase another’s, and can’t be used to deny others’ rights. Put simply, both positions are reasonable if you buy into the assumptions that underlie them. Let us recognise what those assumptions are. "Controlling women’s bodies" is neither here nor there other than as propaganda of the pro-abortionists. Being anti-abortion, if I started talking about "baby killers" people would recognise it as a loaded term that avoided any honest portrayal of what my opponent’s position on the matter was, being simply designed as an emotive hook to demonise - and make no mistake, "it’s bad for/harms women" is at least as powerful a red flag/accusation as "it harms infants". I think we can all recognise that there’s going to be a difficult debate when you’re dealing with one creature (with varying ideas as to whether it counts as an honorary being or not) that is literally growing inside another’s body. Ethically, this is going to be tricky,

[–]marauderp 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ThePigmanAgain 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Alkomb 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RICH_PENZOIL 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]possiblyhazardous 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -24 points-23 points-22 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC 17 points18 points19 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]EgoandDesire 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -14 points-13 points-12 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]soalone34 16 points17 points18 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Trump: Women 'get it better' than men
Author	WittyUsername1337
Upvotes	243
Comments	85
Date	May 7, 2016 11:53 PM UTC (10 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/4iccuu/trump_women_get_it_better_than_men/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/trump-women-get-it-better-than-men.950027 https://theredarchive.com/post/950027

Comments