MISOGYNISTS FOR JILL STEIN

That sounds pretty dumb doesn't it, but that is sort of what happened if you listen to the Clinton supporters.  They liked playing the woman card in both 2008 and 2016.

Remember "Obama Bros"?  And there is talk that the Barack Obama was a Kenyan Muslim began with somebody from Clinton's campaign back in 2008.

Given that the ad hominem attack is the sign somebody is losing the debate, we could indeed say Clinton lost before she even started running.

BUT

People need to ponder the significance of this picture since it pretty much sums up what is wrong with politics in the US.

While Hillary's running wasn't the main reason I voted Green, it was one small factor in that decision.

And it reflected that the current state of US politics is broken.  Hillary was the symptom, not the disease.

ANYONE who isn't aware of this and discussing what the real problem is can't really make an accurate statement about what went wrong.  So, they are going to say silly things like "misogyny caused Clinton the election", "Jill Stein and the Greens caused Hillary the election", or "Russians stole the election".

Even if all those reasons are total BULLSHIT.

The Fact is Hillary Clinton won the popular vote with 65,853,516 (48.5% votes) to Trump's 62,984,825 (46.4% votes), but lost in the electoral college by receiving 232 (43.1%) of the electoral votes to Trump's 306 (56.8%) votes.

That means the only thing which made Donald Trump president was the electoral college, an institution created by the US Constitution (Article II, Section 1, Clauses 2-4). 


I'm not sure who or where this was posted in a newsgroup, but it sums up the thinking of the Jill Stein voters:

So let play something out, if we vote for Jill Stein (which we will) and she gets enough electoral votes that it keeps either Hillary or Donald from receiving enough electoral votes to grab the nomination, then Congress will vote from the top three to be the next president. We all know how much both parties hate Donald and that they are to corrupt to vote for Jill. So who does that leave? So in all actuality a vote for Jill isn't a vote for trump. And if we get enough people to vote for her we will get a third party. If everyone voting fear because they are scared of Trump voted for Jill she would win hands down. Here is the true argument we should be telling the fear voters. And if no one gets enough electoral votes, we will then see in full view that it is rigged by the fact both parties will vote for her. So in the least a vote for Jill is a vote for Hillary, at most a vote for Jill is a vote for Jill. Either way we would at the least have a third party nationally recognized from now on. Lets push this talking point. I think it might sway the scared people into voting their conscience knowing Donald won't get the presidency.

I know that my reasons for voting for the Green Party relate to a broken system: and not anything else.

See also:
Why Electoral College wins are bigger than popular vote ones | Pew Research Center

So much for the Second Amendment protects the First's Freedoms.

Anita Sarkeesian, a feminist known for her critical look at how women are portrayed in popular media cancelled a talk at Utah State University, citing Utah gun laws, after an email threatening a campus shooting was sent to the school.

The e-mail threatened "the deadliest school shooting in American history" if Anita Sarkeesian was allowed to speak at the school. The email is purported to have been written by a student with access to a semiautomatic rifle, several pistols and pipe bombs.

"I'm giving you a chance to stop it," the message reads, demanding that Sarkeesian's presentation be canceled.

The writer of the threatening email called Sarkeesian "everything wrong with the feminist woman" and blames feminism for the emasculation of Western men. The message also referred  to Marc Lepine, the gunman behind a deadly attack against women at a Canadian university in 1989, as a hero and promised a similar shooting at USU, specifically referencing Sarkeesian, attendees at the presentation, and students and staff at the women's center.

Sarkeesian asked school officials whether firearms would be allowed in the auditorium where she was scheduled to speak. USU officials replied that, in accordance with Utah law, anyone with a valid concealed carry permit would be able to enter with a gun, according to a statement released by the university.

Sarkeesian said she requested pat-downs or metal detectors for those coming to the presentation but was denied based on Utah's firearms laws.

Of course, the lawful gun owners would be protecting a crazy.

Or else become yet another mass shooter thanks to crappy US gun laws.

Or as one person commented on Facebook:

But only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun! So clearly what was necessary was for pro-Sarkaasian partisans to also show up armed, and then we could have a multi-way shoot-out in a crowded auditorium. Freedom!

To be honest, guns don't guarantee freedom--they never have. What guarantees freedom are people who are willing to speak out, especially if what they say is unpopular.

Those who kill only create martyrs.

See also:

• Anita Sarkeesian, Video Game Critic, Cancels Speech After Threats of Massacre - NYTimes.com
• ‘Gamergate’: Feminist video game critic Anita Sarkeesian cancels Utah lecture after threat - The Washington Post
• Anita Sarkeesian cancels Utah State speech after mass-shooting threat - LA Times