The Pitters' Place

Same question as before, but more difficult because there are only two options. If you were forced to choose one over the other, which would you choose?

It's baffling to me that sexism is brought into Hillary being untrustworthy. Among numerous other reasons, she *literally* was being investigated by the FBI during her candidacy for possibly compromising state secrets, and still blatantly lies about that fact to this day.

The FBI is sexist.

Not sure if that was meant to be a joke, but I have no doubt the FBI is sexist.

I still don't trust Hillary for shit.

I'm just going to leave these here.

http://healthland.time.com/2010/12/13/s ... -than-men/
http://www.livescience.com/5080-survey- ... onest.html

Before I read that, I'll just say that I think we trust women more because we expect women to be motherly, emotionally available, kind, less violent, more empathetic and all that jazz. But the flip side of that is: if women fall even a little bit short of these standards, then they are all Elizabeth Bathory in our eyes.

See Salem witch trials(or any other time a woman is seen as a bitch or "bossy" for not precisely conforming to gender expectations)

I always assume that women are better, safer drivers than men. So when I'm driving along, minding my own business, and some arsehole decides to get right up behind my bumper in their huge 4x4 off road vehicle or shiny BMW, I automatically assume it's a prickish, white, middle ages businessman looking to assert his authority. Always surprises and disappoints me when I see it's a woman

Elizabeth Bathory was a saint compared to Hillary. I would not at all be surprised to find out Hillary literally does bathe in the blood of virgins. I would also not at all be surprised if the FBI decided not to investigate further if they found out she murdered young virgin women and bathed in their blood while telling Congress "we cannot guarantee that charges would not be brought against someone else for the same offense." Bill would follow it up by issuing a statement saying "It depends on what "blood" and "bathe" mean."

I would support Elizabeth Bathory with Genghis Khan as her VP if it meant beating the shit out of the GOP for the remainder of America.

#BathoryKhan2016

CashRules wrote:I would not at all be surprised to find out Hillary literally does bathe in the blood of virgins.

My guess: Hillary bathed in the blood of as many virgins as Elisabeth Bïthory did: Zero.

The legends around Elizabeth Bïthory are a good example for how some men react to powerful women: They demonize them by making horror stories up.
Apparently this has not changed.

Yes phe de, it's wrong to further demonize a serial killer.

CashRules wrote:Yes phe de, it's wrong to further demonize a serial killer.

Indeed it is.
If a person committed crimes, then these (real) crimes should be enough to judge the person.
Making stuff up about the person is not helpful; and distracts from the real crimes the person may or may not have committed.

Okay phe de.

#serialkillerslivesmatter

CashRules wrote:Yes phe de, it's wrong to further demonize a serial killer.

The more time I spend on this planet, the more I start to understand serial killers

Speaking of serial killers, Vegas just managed to turn the zodiac killer being "intelligent" into a source of white pride.

I would highly recommend John Oliver's "Scandals" clip from Last Week Tonight. You can find it on youtube.

That clip has convinced me not to vote for Donald Trump.

Derived Absurdity wrote:That clip has convinced me not to vote for Donald Trump.

That's pretty much why I answered sexist bullshit. Not because her reputation isn't deserved but because the sexist bullshit is overshadowing the far worse scandals by trump.

I dunno. I think a plausible alternative explanation is that she's the presumed easy win, so the media is over-focusing on all her negative qualities and going easy on Trump to create a horserace.

And she has been under an FBI investigation for potentially putting national security at risk for a good chunk of her campaign. That's not exactly a small deal. And she has blatantly lied multiple times about it, not just to the public but to the FBI. That's not a small deal either. The large attention on that isn't entirely unjustified.

I don't really watch much news media, do you really think they're going easy on Trump? I assume Fox News would be, but what others?

Boomer wrote:I don't really watch much news media, do you really think they're going easy on Trump? I assume Fox News would be, but what others?

Treating him as a serious candidate, not going after his constant stream of lies and slander, and not openly declaring his racism, is what going easy means in non-Fox land. They are handing him the election.

They're hyperventilating about stuff that doesn't matter and ignoring stuff that does. They're constantly red-baiting him about his supposed ties to Russia, which there's no evidence for and which no one cares about anyway, and treating his racism, xenophobia, proto-fascism, pathological lying, scandals, and general cuntishness as no big deal.

Has any big media person ever actually asked him a hard question? Like, ever? Has he ever been challenged by the media on anything? That's what I'm talking about.

The only way to get challenged by the media these days is by being liberal left wing. Jeremy Corbyn in the UK has been hounded by the media since he won the leadership of our Labour party. They pretty much ignored all the shite about Brexit, and Tory racism, to destroy him instead.

I rigged this poll, by the way. I'm employed by George Soros.