Clinton's poor judgement on display with sexism rant!
 

The woman has no sense of reality. Only political, empty headed, pure nonsense, cackle infested, desparate name calling.

Liberal host: Clinton 'pathetic' for playing 'sexism' card | Washington Examiner

How many democrats are willing to trade a racist POTUS for a sexist POTUS?
When she isn't lying or breaking the law.

Where is the cackle icon when it is needed!

:agree: ......:thumbup:

If she does manage to get elected, Hillary (along with the rest of the Liberals) will play the sexism card at every opportunity.

I will not look at any link from the Washington Examiner. It is fit only for wrapping fish entrails.

Of course not. You would rather a reference from the Huffington Post.

Not that is something I cannot understand.

If someone posts a link from the oped section and you have a problem with that source, that is not a problem is it ?

iF NOT, YOU are simply burying your head in the sand so you do not hear what you dont want to hear.

I am big on links, etc, but this is a quoted video fact, not someones opinion.

Actually from the Washington Post.

I feel so sorry for that poster with his head imbedded in the sand. So got this just for him. I know any liberal worth his salt will believe MSNBC and we all know how that bad Washington Examiner edits tapes from tv show

Morning Joe - Joe Scarborough, Mika Brzezinski & Willie Geist on msnbc

Look, yes sites have editorial bias, and in fact will highlight and accent some stories to fit that bias (I must add that actually doctoring a NEWS story would be really unique), but wise up....it is getting very frustrating to hear people post comments concerning content without having a clue about what they are saying.

There are a few sites that are just arms of a political party. Those I ignore, on both sides because they are tools, both literally and figuratively.

I love the tactic of addressing one's opinion about the source and completely ignoring the subject.

Regardless the news source the madame Clinton is already playing what she thinks is her trump (PUN intended) card....sexism.
Usually an intelligent person would save their trump cards until really neccessary. Even the it would have been a waste of time.

Does any female democrat really think the matron Clinton represents the American female(s)?

Just another political vote buying sham like the racist card player in the WH now.

Now that some have dumped on the source maybe they are allowed to comment on the uncalled for use of the sex card.

The person that made the derogatory statement concerning Washington Examiner was wrong. The entire news report on Morning Joe was included in the initial post. It was also include in the link to Morning Joe. You just had to scroll down to view it.

If you listened to the people clapping at both Hillary's speeches, you could tell that they were women. So, yes women do think Hillary is representing them. Unlike the race issue that is on display every time a black is shot, there isn't that graphic display of women's issues that will be played out on TV. We wouldn't be trading race issues for women's issues, if she becomes president.

When Mika, the feminist of all feminist, criticizes you on a women's issue, you know you have gone way too far. Mika is unbearable to listen to, but not in this case.

I am not being wise. I don't understand why you brought up the Morning Joe link. Are you implying that it has a left wing bias?

If it would not be trading racism for feminism then why does Clinton keep flaunting the sexism card....even when there is not an issue.

She is baiting for support.

Phony baiting....just like race baiting.

Some are making the error to think Clinton is at all concerned about her fellow females......she is doing NOTHING MORE than pandering and buying the vote block.

NOTHING MORE!!

Hillary's campaign will not be affected one iota by her comment.

The Republicans are grasping at straws to try and make it seem Mrs. Clinton' being a woman and mentioning it is a bad thing.

She is an inspiration to women who want our sex to break the glass ceiling.

A strong woman leader is a lot better than the likes of Huckabee, Cruz, Santorum, or the dropped out Walker. We do not need nor want a theocracy in America. If those who want a theocracy, book your next flight to Iran. See how far being an outspoken woman will get you over there.

Dear Guests:

It may be to some but not all pundits, nor even voters that Clinton is unstoppable. She continues to lead the Democrats candidates in the polls but just a cursory look tells you why. Sanders came to her rescue at the Democratic Debate and in return she attacked him or being a sexist.

Contributors know she is fatally flawed and that is causing great concern with the Democrat bigwig. Her default mode is to deceive.

Did she best the Republicans during the Benghazi Hearings? Or were the comments about her composure another validation of how she can lie without blinking an eye?

Consider that a know nothing came against her when she had all the big money contributors and she lost to him. She was thought to have been invincible then as now.

Consider that Clinton has moved so far left, if elected her presidency would represent an Obama third term, and as such she will have to own his legacy

She is playing the gender card but are women still buying that canard?

The polls consistently confirm that the majority of Americans find her untrustworthy.

Even some Democrats express concern because they view her as very polarizing and a candidate of the distant past

She shows contempt for the 1% with a blink because she has a long history of being cozy with Wall Street

As to news agency print, pixel or digital the issue should not be to defend any agency but demand from journalist or anyone claiming to represent a news agency to present objective and unbiased facts. Why is that so hard for some people to understand. Freedom of the press is no longer freedom if the truth tellers do not tell the truth. I can be as angry at a Fox News pundit has I can of a MSNBC pundit that try and push their bias down listeners throats.

Personal Best Regards:

I feel sorry for you. Too bad you consider being a Christian to be a bad thing. We have seen the results of a pseudo Muslim running things in D.C. and it isn't pretty. If you think Hilary represents women then you are very pathetic and haven't listened to her. If you think that it is ok for her to blatantly disregard federal law and put out country's national security at risk, then you are pretty shallow. You should be thinking of the country first, not the celebrity status of the candidate.

Personally, I would trust a person that has courage to profess his faith than one that tries to hide it. You mention a "strong woman leader" but have little regard to what's better for our country. That's a shame.

I don't see you mentioning Carly Fiorina as a possible woman president. You would rather a crook, criminal, liar than a good leader?

I definitely think that Mrs. Fiorina made great advances for herself and other womhen, rising to CEO of a major corporation. Her business acumen was not good and HP terminated her.

You are ignorant of the facts, aren't you? I'm not going to go into educating you on the aspects of her(Fiorina) employment history, but I will say that if you think that Clinton is a better choice, you are definitely lacking in knowledge and facts.

Why don't you admit that you really don't care about whether or not she is a woman. You are just miserable and want to chose the worst possible choice for America. What did America do to you that you feel so disgruntled? It's obvious, because you can't even defend Clinton. You actually embrace her illegal behavior. I feel sorry for you.

I wonder when the IRS will charge the Clintons on tax evasion/fraud.

:popcorn:

Everyone should feel sorry for you. For someone that professes to be knowledgeable of the facts, why don't you ever present the facts? If you want to talk about miserable, you are the gold standard of miserable.

Why should anybody try to defend Clinton here, where people just don't listen?

Nobody said that it would or not.

The discussion was about HER! You know Clinton's unsavory character. And that she is not a good representative of the female gender....IN SO MANY WAYS!!

And for those who think Fiorina is OK but she was fired from HP....that is the party talking point coming through. Those who feel that way need to do a little home work before just parroting those who choose an unethical, habitual, untrustworthy liar instead.

Because you can't come up with a logical, reasonable defense for her. You won't defend her because you can't.

Try telling us when was the last time she made a good choice? When did she last make a good decision? Hint: use google and maybe Huffington might have an answer for you. Doubtful of it's validity, but at least you might have an answer other than Bush did it.

:a20: ....the only "glass ceiling" anywhere is the one you put up there. You don't even know what it means. You probably have to go ask your spouse what it means. I understand that Bruce Jenner is being nominated for "Woman of the Year." Does that make him the one that is going to "break the glass ceiling" for women, or men that wannabee women? He was an Olympic athlete so perhaps he will pole vault through that glass ceiling?

You folks with gender and race issues are pathetic. Typical liberals that insist on being slaves of gender and race. You are slaves of your own minds.

You liberals make such stellar choices to represent you. You wanted bragging rights for the first black president, and you gave us an inept failure. With all the choices you could have made, such as Colin Powell, you chose a socialist, racist, divisive nobody.
Now, you want to choose for your "first female president" the worst possible crooked, liar in America to represent your party. You obviously have issues with critical thinking and logic. Are you liberals really that ignorant, naive or purposely disgruntled with American freedom? Does thoughtful, logical, common sense decisions elude you?

Because we know the truth, and have yet to hear anyone give a good reason for electing her, other than she can be the "first female president."

Perhaps it is because Hillary is a far better example of a world leader and has workable plans than ANY of the Republican candidates.

It is so funny to see how the Right Wing is so scared of losing the election to Hillary they are talking up Bernie Sanders as the Democrat nominee. Yes, with Sanders as the nominee, Republicans would have a good chance of winning - but no chance of winning with Hillary as the Democrat nominee.

It is also going to be so hilarious to see Don Trump run as the third party nominee. Fox News and other Republican groups have been "dissing" Trump. He will wait until after South Carolina and announce the pledge is null and void and that is how a real business leader operates. The Republican party will split their votes.

Hillary WINS and Democrats are in the White House another 8 years!

:popcorn:

It is very difficult to come up with any logic to suggest why a party would want a nominee that has had difficulty all of her public life with telling the truth, so many investigations into her and her husbands dealings, books written on her total lack of respect for anyone "beneath her level", and a total lack of character.

These are not simply general political kind of remarks. EVERY SINGLE word has been proven over the years yet the Democratic party does not seem to care.

The Clinton NATIONAL odyssey began with a lie by both of them on 60minutes prior to the first election he won. It is NOT a guess if he lied; when he was forced to testify under oath later, he admitted he lied.

Since most historians agree that that interview when he looked in the camera and lied is what put him over the top, it began with a lie.

What does that have to do with his wife? She is complicit and has been from day one, and this also can be proven.

I just cannot understand a party wanting her as a nominee frankly and certainly cannot understand anyone voting for her once she is jammed down the throat of the party. I mean a victory lap from a hearing where she lied knowingly and that validated past lies is beyond description.

The view from a sand trap is a bit odd frankly.

The Republican party, in fact, might be in trouble IF IT WERE NOT for Ms Clinton. She is and will be the unifying part of the campaign.

Never post much with a mention of Fox or some little cutsey remark on names (never heard Donald Trump referred to as Don) always gives some away.

A party hack is a party hack is a party hack and always will be it seems.

A world leader is very funny. Her reputation based on destroying Libya, resettjng with Russia, ignoring pleas in Benghazi and families of victims after the fact, and it goes on and on and on. There is so much failure in her stint as Secy of State that one needs a menu to chose the biggest failure.

World Leader ???

As Secy of State...

.....Afghanistan goes on her resume as a failure.

.....in 2009 she failed to support the democrat revolt in Iran

.....Destroyed Libya and this is ALL hers.

.....lack of response to Syria

.....She was assigned to work Obama's promise on peace in Palestine and she failed.

.....Her loud proclamation of our "Asian pivot" caused quite a stir with our allies

.....And of course Benghazi with all the failings before, after and now

No....world leader she is not

You have successfully launched a whole lot of bait and have your popcorn to see who bites.
No one certainly could be so loyal to such an unethichal, unqualified, croyism, business as usual, self centered nasty person.

The conclusion is one of a couple. You are campaigning for a high paying job some where in the party.

You are a 100% percent brain washed party follower even if it means doing or supporting and unqualified, unethical, liar.

OK so let's give you the benefit of the doubt that you are the latter.....the least you all could do is go find a candidate that represents your sex and is worthy of taking care of this country. There are much better qualified candidates in the party, both male and female.

I just do not get the concept of backing a loser....for the party's sake.

Let me guess you are a GUY!

You can lead a liberal to the truth, but you can't make them THINK !

L-cubed! = liberal, leftists, loonies :a040:

Don't you know that you are being sexist? My, my, using the word "guy" is so not PC.

I am going to go out on a limb and use the word "idiot" to describe our favorite pet liberal on here. I use it affectionately, and without malice.

I find your remark sexist and offensive!!! You must be a liberal democrat.

And what does that have to do with the subject at hand? Absolutely nothing.
Do you think it matters?
Are you so naieve or brain washed to think there are no females that think and feel the same way about Clinton?

Always a deviation from the subject matter....first and foremost.

Maybe you were just trying to demonstrate ANOTHER, Clinton-like uncalled for sexist remark.

Listening.........listening.........

Not much of a defense, huh?

Still waiting to hears something positive about electing her...........

listening.................................

Just keep up your useless rants against Mrs. Clinton. It will do you no good.

Remember, Florida is a take all state in electoral votes. The Democrat strongholds carry many, many more votes than the Republican areas.

Miami-Dade, Tampa-Clearwater, and Orlando will go Democrat and those areas alone beat out all the Republican precincts.

8 years of Democrats in the White House!

:coolsmiley: