Magick: Book 4 -
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. Love is the law, love under will.
|
Monday, 13 March 2017
quote [ Many of these men (and women, too) would never admit that their hatred of Clinton was linked to her gender. She?s untrustworthy, they said?more so than a candidate who openly, compulsively lies more than any other candidate in recent memory. She?s corrupt, she has baggage, she?s shrill, she?s cold. Clinton was far from a perfect candidate, and there were lots of level-headed reasons to disagree with her. But it?s hard to look at the surplus of pure contempt lobbed at her over the years and not attribute it at least partly to the fact that she?s a woman. ]
If you still don't see it, if you still think that gender was not a major factor, I'm afraid you're unable to see it, and that is genuinely frightening.
|
kylemcbitch said @ 6:24pm GMT on 13th March
C18H27NO3 what's unworthy about pointing out that he literally made the exact argument I did in sentence following the one he quoted from me?
kylemcbitch said @ 6:26pm GMT on 13th March
C18H27NO3 what's unworthy about pointing out that he literally made the exact argument I did in sentence following the one he quoted from me?
Me: You can poke holes, such as by pointing out Trump has since claiming millions of people are voting illegally is functionally the same thing (because it is.) Or that the Republicans undermined the election through gerrymandering, but then you will at best have created a non-voter or 3rd party voter (which according to people here, is the same thing as a Trump voter anyway.)
HoZay: There's a lot wrong with that argument. It's the other party who has been making voting more difficult or impossible for minorities, students, poor folks, anybody who might not vote republican. Not to mention the gerrymandering which lets the minority of voters elect the majority of congress.
Tell me please, where was I wrong in pointing that out?
<-- Entry / Current Comment
kylemcbitch said @ 6:24pm GMT on 13th March [Score:-1]
C18H27NO3 what's unworthy about pointing out that he literally made the exact argument I did in sentence following the one he quoted from me?
Me: You can poke holes, such as by pointing out Trump has since claiming millions of people are voting illegally is functionally the same thing (because it is.) Or that the Republicans undermined the election through gerrymandering, but then you will at best have created a non-voter or 3rd party voter (which according to people here, is the same thing as a Trump voter anyway.)
HoZay: There's a lot wrong with that argument. It's the other party who has been making voting more difficult or impossible for minorities, students, poor folks, anybody who might not vote republican. Not to mention the gerrymandering which lets the minority of voters elect the majority of congress.
Tell me please, where was I wrong in pointing that out?
