America would rather be led by someone who boasts of assaulting women, than a woman

[noblegiraffe]

And some people think we don't need feminism any more.

Ok buffy, I won't discuss with you any more. It's clear your just trying to redirect through lack of knowledge/interest in my view.

Eh? "Pussy grabber" Trump isn't sexist because some women voted for him?

It's his opinions and actions that make him sexist, not who does or doesn't vote for him.

"an ignorant comment"

Y'know, for someone whose first post was concerned about the meanness in this section of MN, you sure have been mean in things you have said.

I don't think you are a troll. I don't think you are a pleasant poster who is engaging constructively, though, so I won't engage with you again.

Yonic

Thats interesting, calling a omment ignorant is not rude, or unpleasant, it is a view based on a comment made, I didn't attack the poster, I wasn't rude or unpleasant to anyone.

Strangely, 2 of your comments I have read recently I have thoroughly agreed with, and saidd so, however you choose not to acknowledge we hold similar viewpoints, but be offended by something I say that is way off the scale of unpleasantness, why is that? Are you looking to be offended?

It's a shame because I was starting to look for your name as an intereting poster who I could agree and disagree with.

I wonder how far they will go in banning abortion, though - as there needs to be a loophole for rich white women to exploit at least.

This is a good point. The loophole will be that if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, which could happen depending on how many justices Trump gets to appoint during his presidency, abortion rights will be up to the states. The more liberal states will allow it, so for example, New York and California. Women in my state (in the Southern US) would have to travel to another state, and likely some distance, to get an abortion. So there you are. Poor women will have no real recourse but women of means will.

Terrible, isn't it, Seneca?

Seneca

And this is a ligitimate reason why Trump is a bad candidate, based on a policy of his, which isn't sexist, it's just stupid and Republican. He doesn't hate women, his party is anti fetus murder.

Yes, Yonic, what Trump could do to women's rights just from two Supreme Court appointments is truly scary. Other important rights are at stake as well. He has said that he would appoint justices who would overturn the decision mandating same sex marriage rights in the US. That would again mean leaving the matter up to the states.

One aspect of his support that has not been discussed on this thread but that is highly significant is that of evangelical (so conservative and often fundamentalist as well) Christians. They are animated these days over two main issues: abortion and same sex marriage. In the past, they have also emphasized character issues and have wanted someone who is a practicing and believing Christian. This time around, they rejected the actual practicing and believing Christian (Hillary is a devout Methodist) for someone who has no real religious life at all and whose personal life exhibits many of the character traits that conservative Christians deplore. But they think that he will get rid of abortion rights and gay rights, so he's their man.

He doesn't hate women Are you serious?

His entire life is full of sexist and degrading actions and comments about women. And many of his avowed policies are anti-women. That's misogyny.

Ah, you gave yourself away there, Piz.

Explain why policies that restrict women's access to abortion aren't sexist, please.

At lest Obama has protected the funding for Planned Parenthood, even if states are in future allowed to overturn Roe vs Wade. I think Seneca has it right that women with the means will travel to states (East and West Coast, I would guess) that will retain access to legal abortion, women without those means (a disproportionate amount of whom will be POC) will be stuck or will seek out dodgy back street abortions.

The Catholic Church and other religious organisations supported Trump over Hillary simply because of her position on the right to choose. Again, privileged white men call the shots.

The one thing that comforts me slightly is that at least Clinton will finally be able to collapse in a heap. She's been fighting illness for weeks, had almost lost her voice. She put up a brave show but it must've been tough. Pneumonia takes no notice of election cycles. Now she can relax, in as much as anyone in her position can.

And now Farage has made a joke about Trump groping Theresa May........

You couldn't make it up.

I'm not sure you can argue that a man who has repeatedly stated that he treats women like shit isn't sexist. Well, you can, but you will merely make yourself appear to have only a passing relationship with either logic or rationality.

The likelihood that American women are going to have their ability to access reproductive health care destroyed isn't sexist? Eh?

I'm sure that's how it will be. Women and men will be equally restricted in their ability to access to safe abortion. Wouldn't want to be sexist about it in the new, great America. No abortions for anybody!

How can I link this thread to Facebook

It wasn't all bad news in the election: some amazing women were also elected

Clinton did indeed look weak. Physically and mentally not up to it. Her potential criminal past aside she just wasn't up to the job. I think people saw that.

Can I ask a potentially dim question? The alleged criminality that's being referred to is the email thing, yes? Or is there something else?

m.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/12/bill-clinton-hillary-clinton-scandals-ranked-from-/

Ok from a quick scan, a lot of that is about Bill Clinton. Some are not illegal but are something people might object to like large fees for public speaking. Could you clarify which of those apart from the emails represents allegedly illegal/criminal behaviour from Hillary as there are no links or further details?