Thanks Timo. It looks like the Democrats may not have their official nominee until their convention.

Hillary seems to draw similar demographics as our Canadian Liberal party: women, immigrants, socialists. Republicans are generally unpopular here, though McCain might appeal to crossover voters.

We had a candidate like Ron Paul years ago, David Orchard. He was forced out of the Conservative party for being too libertarian (Maus knows these people, he could explain better than me.)

When you have feminist sexists vs. black racists, the bottom line for white men is that white men won't vote for either of them.

Blessings

Bob

Quote from bobx23456

When you have feminist sexists vs. black racists, the bottom line for white men is that white men won't vote for either of them.

Blessings

Bob

You are wrong, because I happen to be African-American
and I despise feminism as much as any MRA!!!!

What this doesn't say is the ratio of female to male voters. I read that in the 2000 election it was 6:5 in favour of women.Thats 20% more female voters than males. I doubt if anything will change for the better in this election.

Quote from Rage!!!!!

You are wrong, because I happen to be African-American
and I despise feminism as much as any MRA!!!!

Good for you. Feminism is at least as hard on black men as white men, perhpas more so.

Kick a cunt today!

A man never votes for a cunt.

Blessings

Bob

Quote from bobx23456

Good for you. Feminism is at least as hard on black men as white men, perhpas more so.

Kick a cunt today!

A man never votes for a cunt.

Blessings

Bob

Hey Bob you can vote for anybody, but Hitlery Clinton.
Any man who still retains his common sense will tell you that Hitlery is a FUCKING CON ARTIST!!!!

Quote from Rage!!!!!

Hey Bob you can vote for anybody, but Hitlery Clinton.
Any man who still retains his common sense will tell you that Hitlery is a FUCKING CON ARTIST!!!!

A man never votes for a cunt -- any cunt.

Females belong home taking care of the private sphere, home and family.

Blessings

Bob

A man never votes for a cunt -- any cunt.

I voted for Margaret Thatcher.

She was the best man for the job.

If you aren't in favour of Hitlery, at least have a good and well argued reason, rather than some knee-jerk cloddery. It makes MRAs look like jerks.

Thanks for the stats Timo. I agree that Men, as a block, have to use their combined clout to select and elect a decent candidate. I don't see any of them as being able to capture my approval.

Martin Luther King, many years ago, sought a time when people were judged on the content of their character. It hasn't sank in yet.

Their genitals have sod all to do with it.

Hitler was a bloke. And Joe Stalin. And Pol Pot. And Mao Tse Tung. And Ho Chi Minh. And .......

I am getting heartily tired of MRAs who cannot put a reasonable thought together.

Repeat after me:

"Content of their Character".

Quote from Percy

Their genitals have sod all to do with it.

No, Percy, we disagree there. Their "character" is dependent on their ovaries and their cunts. Feminists have been telling us for a long time that females are just like men, but that is a load of cowshit.

Their genitals has everying to do with it. Females do not belong in the public sphere. They should be home tending their husband's famliy and kitchen.

Blessings

Bob

Martin Luther King, many years ago, sought a time when people were judged on the content of their character.

"The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy."

Another of my favorite Martin Luther King Jr. quotes.

A person's character is not defined by their gender. I agree 100% that men and women are inherently different but I've met men and women both of phenomenal character and I've also met members of both sex who were quite lacking in that area. Qualities such as compassion, empathy, integrity, honesty...these are the things that define a person's character and they're capable of existing in either gender. Granted, in today's society fewer and fewer people exhibit them, and they're seldom expected in women anymore, but that doesn't mean they don't or can't exist.

That said, I agree that women, due to inherent gender differences, don't tend to do as well in positions of power and generally do the most good in positions of the great women behind the great man. That doesn't mean a woman couldn't do well in such a position, just that there's less a chance of it happening. Regardless, as Percy said, we should judge each individual upon their actions and the choices they make. Not voting for someone because they're a woman, regardless of their credentials or qualifications makes as much sense as all the feminists out there voting for Hillary simply because she's a woman...regardless of her credentials or qualifications.

No, Percy, we disagree there

"What you mean 'we' White eyes", as Tonto said to the Lone Ranger.

I agree 100% that men and women are inherently different but I've met men and women both of phenomenal character and I've also met members of both sex who were quite lacking in that area. Qualities such as compassion, empathy, integrity, honesty...these are the things that define a person's character and they're capable of existing in either gender.

This short, fat hairy bit of 'we', agree.

Quote from jbgood2

What this doesn't say is the ratio of female to male voters. I read that in the 2000 election it was 6:5 in favour of women.Thats 20% more female voters than males. I doubt if anything will change for the better in this election.

Here is some more info on this matter from the league of male voters which puts the figure at 15% more female than male voters. I guess this is what feminists mean by male privilege!

"Dear Citizen,
I am grateful today for the opportunity to introduce you to perhaps one of the most important
national non-profit organizations created in many years.
My name is Mike Aspen. I’m a lifetime Nebraska resident, a Creighton University marketing
graduate and the President and Founder of the nationally-focused and non-partisan League of
Men Voters®. I’m writing today to request your support as the League begins our exciting work
of greatly reducing the enormous voting gap that exists between male and female voters.
Most of us are aware that overall voter turnout in the U.S. has been embarrassingly low over
the past couple of decades. But what you might be surprised to learn is that males are by far
the major reason for that lower turnout.
For every 100 males who vote in national elections…115 females vote!
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 59,284,000 women compared to 51,542,000 men
reported voting in the 2000 presidential election.
That’s almost
8 million
fewer male votes
*1
!
Certainly some of this enormous vote gap can be attributed to the fact that women tend to live
and vote longer
*1
. But a shorter lifespan is only one reason why men are voting so poorly by
comparison. Another major reason, unfortunately, is that men also vote at a far lower rate per
their own eligible voting population

If men were to again vote at a rate consistent with their historical voting rate of only 20 years ago,
approximately 11 million more male votes would be counted!
Page 2
As the graphs on the previous page indicate, something extraordinary has caused the voting
gap to widen dramatically in a relatively short period of time. That “something” is called
MARKETING!
Although expensive get out the vote marketing campaigns have targeted eligible women for
decades, men have never once experienced the steady drumbeat of encouragement that
female-eligible voters receive during each and every election cycle. With millions of dollars
being spent on a regular basis to exclusively get out the female vote, it shouldn’t surprise
anyone that women are much more motivated to vote than men.
GET OUT THE VOTE CAMPAIGNS REALLY WORK!
Substantially increasing male voter turnout isn’t especially complicated, but it will require a
considerable commitment of resources similar to what leading women’s groups have been
spending for decades. Look carefully below at what the League of Women Voters and
EMILY’s List, two well-respected women’s organizations, have been doing to promote the
female vote. This information also describes the type of activity the League of Men Voters®
must (and will) engage in to increase male voter turnout.
(Please Note: This is but a fraction of the financial investment being spent to get out the female vote.)
2000 – “EMILY's List raised and contributed
$10.8 million
for WOMEN VOTE!® projects to reach out
to millions of women by mail, by telephone, and in person to bring them to the polls.”
1998 - “WOMEN VOTE!® campaigns in 26 states sent out nearly eight million pieces of mail and
made two million phone calls to 3.4 million women voters urging them to vote.”
1994 - In California…”with support from EMILY's List, targeted 902,575 women voters who had no
history of voting in non-presidential elections. The women received several get-out-the-vote messages
delivered by mail and telephone. Thanks to these efforts, an astounding 416,594 targeted women
voted at the polls or by absentee ballot.”


I don't hear feminists and manginas screaming for equality about this. No surprise there I guess!

Thanks JP Good 2,
These stats are good stuff. I'll add these facts to the other forums with your name on it.


I thought this was very funny from Don Suber:

Racist states vs. sexist states

Racist states:

California: Clinton 52, Obama 42 … New York: Clinton 57, Obama 40 … New Jersey: Clinton 54, Obama 44 … Tennessee: Clinton 54, Obama 41 … Massachusetts: Clinton 56, Obama 41 … Arizona: Clinton 52, Obama 41 … Oklahoma: Clinton 55, Obama 31 … Arkansas: Clinton 70, Obama 27 …

Sexist states:

Illinois: Obama 65, Clinton 33, … Georgia: Obama 67, Clinton 31, … Missouri: Obama 49, Clinton 48, … Minnesota: Obama 67, Clinton 32, … Colorado: Obama 67, Clinton 32, … Alabama: Obama 56, Clinton 42, … Connecticut: Obama 51, Clinton 47, … Utah: Obama 57, Clinton 39, … Delaware: Obama 53, Clinton 43, … Alaska: Obama 75, Clinton 25, … Kansas: Obama 74, Clinton 26, … Idaho: Obama 79, Clinton 17, …

Thank you for the identity politics, Democrats.

Very true according to our distorted world we find ourselves, no?!