Women Voted for Trump because their Husbands Told Them To!

[DAS (formerly BushAdmirer)]

Hillary may be the only one who knew this to be true.

Check it out here:


www.dickmorris.com/hillary-says-women-obeyed-husbands-voted-trump-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreportsCLICK HERE

[blc]

Morris has lost his touch. I voted for Trump because I chose to and lots of women I know did the same. Shrillery just can't stand that she lost the women's vote.

[Big Lin]

Well, she lost the white women's vote. She overwhelmingly won the black and Hispanic women's vote.

But certainly there seems to be a pattern in American politics. Mondale picked Ferraro and lost; McCain picked Palin and lost; Clinton picked herself and lost.

Maybe the US is just not as willing as Britain, Canada, Germany and other countries to have a woman leader?

[blc]

A lot of people voted for the McCain ticket because of Palin. Having said that, her subsequent hedging on if she would run, four years later, turned a lot of people off. She might be informed, but she lost the trust that people had in her. I doubt she could recover it.

I would dearly love to see the party system go away and have politicians run on issues only.

[DAS (formerly BushAdmirer)]

Sept 25, 2017 22:02:31 GMT Big Lin said:

Well, she lost the white women's vote. She overwhelmingly won the black and Hispanic women's vote.

But certainly there seems to be a pattern in American politics. Mondale picked Ferraro and lost; McCain picked Palin and lost; Clinton picked herself and lost.

Maybe the US is just not as willing as Britain, Canada, Germany and other countries to have a woman leader?

Hillary didn't lose because she's a woman. She lost because she's a phony and voters could see through her. Take this quiz:

True or False?

-> Hillary truly loves black people and isn't just after their vote

-> Hillary loves Latinos too and isn't just after their votes.

-> Hillary is honest and trustworthy

-> We could depend on Hillary to put the best interests of the American people before her own interests

-> Hillary is an inspirational leader who people just want to follow because they believe in her


See what I mean?

Ferraro and Palin were airheads. Americans will vote for a strong and honest woman who is a bit of a visionary and a realist. She'll need to be forceful like Maggie Thatcher. That's not a description of Elizabeth Warren or Hillary.

[Big Lin]

I honestly don't think that's true, BA.

Hillary Clinton was a disastrous candidate and should never have won the nomination.

On the other hand I think Trump - for better or worse - appealed to the same anti-establishment mindset that is sweeping the democratic world at the moment.

It takes different forms in different countries - Trump in the US, Trudeau in Canada, the AfD and FPD in Germany, Macron and Le Pen in France, Farage and Corbyn in Britain, Syriza in Greece.

Sometimes that means a shift to the left - Trudeau, Corby and Syriza - sometimes to the right - Trump, Le Pen, Farage - and sometimes to the centre-right - Macron and Lindner (the Free Democratic leader in Germany)

But I still feel that overall America is a more patriarchal country than anywhere in Europe. The idea that a British or French or German or Scandinavian or even Italian and Spanish woman would vote for a candidate because their husbands told them to just isn't on.

And in my experience visionaries are rarely realists.

Over the course of history visionaries have caused the death of millions - the Inquisition, the Nazis, the Communists, various terrorists from the IRA, Taliban, Shining Path, Naxalites and so on.

So I'd rather have a realist - even a crook - in charge than a visionary.

Their track record shows that their vision is all too often tunnel vision and enforced by oppression and murder.

So if it's a visionary you want well, I have to say - no thanks!

[DAS (formerly BushAdmirer)]

Sept 27, 2017 16:03:26 GMT Big Lin said:

I honestly don't think that's true, BA.

Hillary Clinton was a disastrous candidate and should never have won the nomination.

On the other hand I think Trump - for better or worse - appealed to the same anti-establishment mindset that is sweeping the democratic world at the moment.

It takes different forms in different countries - Trump in the US, Trudeau in Canada, the AfD and FPD in Germany, Macron and Le Pen in France, Farage and Corbyn in Britain, Syriza in Greece.

Sometimes that means a shift to the left - Trudeau, Corby and Syriza - sometimes to the right - Trump, Le Pen, Farage - and sometimes to the centre-right - Macron and Lindner (the Free Democratic leader in Germany)

But I still feel that overall America is a more patriarchal country than anywhere in Europe. The idea that a British or French or German or Scandinavian or even Italian and Spanish woman would vote for a candidate because their husbands told them to just isn't on.

And in my experience visionaries are rarely realists.

Over the course of history visionaries have caused the death of millions - the Inquisition, the Nazis, the Communists, various terrorists from the IRA, Taliban, Shining Path, Naxalites and so on.

So I'd rather have a realist - even a crook - in charge than a visionary.

Their track record shows that their vision is all too often tunnel vision and enforced by oppression and murder.

So if it's a visionary you want well, I have to say - no thanks!

Lin - A visionary is a person with wisdom and foresight who has some insights about the future. That's a good thing in a leader, not a bad thing.

Steve Jobs and the two guys who founded Google are the best examples I can think of when it comes to true visionaries.

Jobs didn't invent the personal computer, the iconic interface that was to become Macintosh and Windows, but he was able to see how that might change the world. He thought old fashioned cell phones were a pain in the @ss, so he decided to reinvent them.

The Google boys are big thinkers, very big. They foresaw how important the internet would become and visualized how crucial fast and effective searching would become. They decided to drive down just about every street in the civilized world taking photos of houses and buildings. That was to become Google Street View. They got a team of engineers busy copying the iPhone a day or two after it was announced because they visualized how important that technology would become. They bought YouTube when it was a tiny startup company because they visualized how ubiquitous home videos would become. They built a company worth billions of $$$ because they figured out how to monetize online advertising as a business model.

The best example I can think of where a leader was not at all visionary would be Neville Chamberlain. He didn't have the foresight to see where Hitler's military moves were leading.

All the recent American Presidents, leading up to Trump, should have been able to see where North Korea and Iran are headed. It takes both vision and courage to do something about it.

[blc]

Sept 29, 2017 15:12:31 GMT DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) said:

Sept 27, 2017 16:03:26 GMT Big Lin said:

I honestly don't think that's true, BA.

Hillary Clinton was a disastrous candidate and should never have won the nomination.

On the other hand I think Trump - for better or worse - appealed to the same anti-establishment mindset that is sweeping the democratic world at the moment.

It takes different forms in different countries - Trump in the US, Trudeau in Canada, the AfD and FPD in Germany, Macron and Le Pen in France, Farage and Corbyn in Britain, Syriza in Greece.

Sometimes that means a shift to the left - Trudeau, Corby and Syriza - sometimes to the right - Trump, Le Pen, Farage - and sometimes to the centre-right - Macron and Lindner (the Free Democratic leader in Germany)

But I still feel that overall America is a more patriarchal country than anywhere in Europe. The idea that a British or French or German or Scandinavian or even Italian and Spanish woman would vote for a candidate because their husbands told them to just isn't on.

And in my experience visionaries are rarely realists.

Over the course of history visionaries have caused the death of millions - the Inquisition, the Nazis, the Communists, various terrorists from the IRA, Taliban, Shining Path, Naxalites and so on.

So I'd rather have a realist - even a crook - in charge than a visionary.

Their track record shows that their vision is all too often tunnel vision and enforced by oppression and murder.

So if it's a visionary you want well, I have to say - no thanks!

Lin - A visionary is a person with wisdom and foresight who has some insights about the future. That's a good thing in a leader, not a bad thing.

Steve Jobs and the two guys who founded Google are the best examples I can think of when it comes to true visionaries.

Jobs didn't invent the personal computer, the iconic interface that was to become Macintosh and Windows, but he was able to see how that might change the world. He thought old fashioned cell phones were a pain in the @ss, so he decided to reinvent them.

The Google boys are big thinkers, very big. They foresaw how important the internet would become and visualized how crucial fast and effective searching would become. They decided to drive down just about every street in the civilized world taking photos of houses and buildings. That was to become Google Street View. They got a team of engineers busy copying the iPhone a day or two after it was announced because they visualized how important that technology would become. They bought YouTube when it was a tiny startup company because they visualized how ubiquitous home videos would become. They built a company worth billions of $$$ because they figured out how to monetize online advertising as a business model.

The best example I can think of where a leader was not at all visionary would be Neville Chamberlain. He didn't have the foresight to see where Hitler's military moves were leading.

All the recent American Presidents, leading up to Trump, should have been able to see where North Korea and Iran are headed. It takes both vision and courage to do something about it.

BA, I think what Lin meant is all those people and groups that she listed, 'they' thought they were visionaries for their times. Hitler thought he had the 'solution'. They weren't visionaries at all and they weren't realists. They believed their own propaganda and lived in some sort of demented fantasy land.

[DAS (formerly BushAdmirer)]

Sept 29, 2017 21:28:38 GMT blc said:

Sept 29, 2017 15:12:31 GMT DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) said:

Lin - A visionary is a person with wisdom and foresight who has some insights about the future. That's a good thing in a leader, not a bad thing.

Steve Jobs and the two guys who founded Google are the best examples I can think of when it comes to true visionaries.

Jobs didn't invent the personal computer, the iconic interface that was to become Macintosh and Windows, but he was able to see how that might change the world. He thought old fashioned cell phones were a pain in the @ss, so he decided to reinvent them.

The Google boys are big thinkers, very big. They foresaw how important the internet would become and visualized how crucial fast and effective searching would become. They decided to drive down just about every street in the civilized world taking photos of houses and buildings. That was to become Google Street View. They got a team of engineers busy copying the iPhone a day or two after it was announced because they visualized how important that technology would become. They bought YouTube when it was a tiny startup company because they visualized how ubiquitous home videos would become. They built a company worth billions of $$$ because they figured out how to monetize online advertising as a business model.

The best example I can think of where a leader was not at all visionary would be Neville Chamberlain. He didn't have the foresight to see where Hitler's military moves were leading.

All the recent American Presidents, leading up to Trump, should have been able to see where North Korea and Iran are headed. It takes both vision and courage to do something about it.

BA, I think what Lin meant is all those people and groups that she listed, 'they' thought they were visionaries for their times. Hitler thought he had the 'solution'. They weren't visionaries at all and they weren't realists. They believed their own propaganda and lived in some sort of demented fantasy land.

Good point BLC

[Scottish Lassie]

Sept 30, 2017 0:34:24 GMT DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) said:

Sept 29, 2017 21:28:38 GMT blc said:

BA, I think what Lin meant is all those people and groups that she listed, 'they' thought they were visionaries for their times. Hitler thought he had the 'solution'. They weren't visionaries at all and they weren't realists. They believed their own propaganda and lived in some sort of demented fantasy land.

Good point BLC

Hi BushAdmirer, I don't see anything wrong with wanting the species of human beings to become superior. It's what he did to try and achieve this goal, that was wrong.!!!

[Deleted]

Voting is a privilege and I for one have never let anyone even my husband sway me on how I vote! 

[Big Lin]

For what it's worth Mike and I nearly always vote differently.

We're both floating (swing) voters but except on Brexit we've hardly ever voted the same way.

[Deleted]

Oct 12, 2017 21:51:23 GMT Big Lin said:

For what it's worth Mike and I nearly always vote differently.

We're both floating (swing) voters but except on Brexit we've hardly ever voted the same way.

I have voted for all of the parties , including UKIP! I vote for the one with the best polices , although I appreciate they don't all deliver on their promises.