JPP feministas, will you make excuses for her?
- Thread starter Diogenes
- Start date
Answer this question. Why do you think women would only be elected president because they have a vagina?
Go get the posts of mine that you claim exist.
LINK
Doesn't a human need to have a vagina to be a woman, silly?
You said: "[Hillary] has a vagina, and that made her the most qualified candidate ever!" The insinuation is that she would be elected because she has a vagina, not because she's qualified. And thinking like that is:
MISOGYNISTIC!!!
Who claimed that Hillary Clinton was the most qualified candidate ever for POTUS?
Barack Obama (most prominently), along with several other supporters during the 2016 campaign.
President Obama repeatedly made this claim (or very close variations). At the 2016 Democrat National Convention he said: “There has never been a man or a woman — not me, not Bill, nobody — more qualified than Hillary Clinton to serve as president of the United States of America.” He used similar language at campaign events, such as a July 2016 rally in Charlotte (“There has never been any man or woman more qualified for this office than Hillary Clinton”).
Others who made comparable statements include:
- Anthony Weiner (2014): called her “arguably the most qualified candidate in the history of the United States ever to run for president.”
- Sen. Barbara Boxer: “She is the most qualified person to ever run for POTUS.”
- Sen. Cory Booker: “There are few candidates in history who are as qualified or ready for the job of president as Hillary Clinton.”
- Retired Gen. Wesley Clark: “the most qualified person who, in my lifetime, has ever run for this office.”
- James Carville: “the most qualified candidate maybe since General George Washington himself.”
- Bill Weld (Libertarian VP nominee): suggested she may be the most qualified “on paper.”
- Bill Clinton: described her as “by far the best-qualified.”
The strongest, most widely quoted version of the “most qualified ever” claim came from Obama in the context of the 2016 Democrat campaign.
Obama's Hillary Clinton 'Most Qualified' Claim | Shared Grok Conversation
Who claimed that Hillary Clinton was the most qualified candidate ever for POTUS?
grok.com
Yakuda
Verified User
And you think you misandrists are better? The WNBA is the prime example of how fucked up you people cant get in the head. That league has set women back 100 years.Since 1781 you misogynists have thought that a penis makes you the most qualified candidate ever. How crazy is that?
Yakuda
Verified User
hilary and her brain damaged followersWho claimed that Hillary Clinton was the most qualified candidate ever for POTUS?
Barack Obama (most prominently), along with several other supporters during the 2016 campaign.
President Obama repeatedly made this claim (or very close variations). At the 2016 Democrat National Convention he said: “There has never been a man or a woman — not me, not Bill, nobody — more qualified than Hillary Clinton to serve as president of the United States of America.” He used similar language at campaign events, such as a July 2016 rally in Charlotte (“There has never been any man or woman more qualified for this office than Hillary Clinton”).
Others who made comparable statements include:
- Anthony Weiner (2014): called her “arguably the most qualified candidate in the history of the United States ever to run for president.”
- Sen. Barbara Boxer: “She is the most qualified person to ever run for POTUS.”
- Sen. Cory Booker: “There are few candidates in history who are as qualified or ready for the job of president as Hillary Clinton.”
- Retired Gen. Wesley Clark: “the most qualified person who, in my lifetime, has ever run for this office.”
- James Carville: “the most qualified candidate maybe since General George Washington himself.”
- Bill Weld (Libertarian VP nominee): suggested she may be the most qualified “on paper.”
- Bill Clinton: described her as “by far the best-qualified.”
The strongest, most widely quoted version of the “most qualified ever” claim came from Obama in the context of the 2016 Democrat campaign.
Obama's Hillary Clinton 'Most Qualified' Claim | Shared Grok Conversation
Who claimed that Hillary Clinton was the most qualified candidate ever for POTUS?
Yakuda
Verified User
so the theory holds then
A theory is a well-substantiated explanation that incorporates facts and has been tested.
It's Science ™ !
Y O U, in post 15. You're hoping to deflect with your comments from other people but I SEE YOU!Who claimed that Hillary Clinton was the most qualified candidate ever for POTUS?
Barack Obama (most prominently), along with several other supporters during the 2016 campaign.
President Obama repeatedly made this claim (or very close variations). At the 2016 Democrat National Convention he said: “There has never been a man or a woman — not me, not Bill, nobody — more qualified than Hillary Clinton to serve as president of the United States of America.” He used similar language at campaign events, such as a July 2016 rally in Charlotte (“There has never been any man or woman more qualified for this office than Hillary Clinton”).
Others who made comparable statements include:
- Anthony Weiner (2014): called her “arguably the most qualified candidate in the history of the United States ever to run for president.”
- Sen. Barbara Boxer: “She is the most qualified person to ever run for POTUS.”
- Sen. Cory Booker: “There are few candidates in history who are as qualified or ready for the job of president as Hillary Clinton.”
- Retired Gen. Wesley Clark: “the most qualified person who, in my lifetime, has ever run for this office.”
- James Carville: “the most qualified candidate maybe since General George Washington himself.”
- Bill Weld (Libertarian VP nominee): suggested she may be the most qualified “on paper.”
- Bill Clinton: described her as “by far the best-qualified.”
The strongest, most widely quoted version of the “most qualified ever” claim came from Obama in the context of the 2016 Democrat campaign.
Obama's Hillary Clinton 'Most Qualified' Claim | Shared Grok Conversation
Who claimed that Hillary Clinton was the most qualified candidate ever for POTUS?
Did I?
Christiecrite claims that this post of mine https://www.justplainpolitics.com/t...-you-make-excuses-for-her.250743/post-7082537 proves that I said I "think women would only be elected president because they have a vagina". Analyze.
No, it does not prove that. The post is straightforward sarcasm/mockery of the opposite position, not a statement of your own view.
You (as Diogenes) wrote, in response to someone calling Hillary “the queen retard”:
This is classic ironic exaggeration. You are lampooning the identity-politics framing that treats biological sex itself as the decisive (or even primary) qualification—exactly the kind of “vagina voter” rhetoric that was common around Hillary Clinton’s campaigns. The surrounding thread context makes the sarcasm even clearer: the whole exchange is ridiculing reflexive excuses, “affirmation,” and gender-based special pleading for a woman who set things on fire.
To “prove” that you think “women would only be elected president because they have a vagina,” the post would have to be read as a sincere, non-ironic assertion of your belief. It is not. It is the opposite: you are attributing that reductive logic to the side you are criticizing and treating it as absurd.
christiefan915’s follow-up (“Since 1781 you misogynists have thought that a penis makes you the most qualified candidate ever”) is the standard pivot—flipping the sarcasm into an accusation of the mirror-image bias—while still failing to produce any non-sarcastic statement from you that matches the claim.
Examine the entire thread by me, Diogenes, for context: https://justplainpolitics.com/threads/jpp-feministas-will-you-make-excuses-for-her.250743/.
Your posts form a continuous, unbroken sarcastic performance mocking reflexive progressive/feminist-style excuses, gender essentialism, and identity-based special pleading:
Every one of your contributions is written in the same voice: exaggerated, ironic mimicry of the exact arguments you are ridiculing (mental-health absolution, affirmation culture, “being a woman is hard,” patriarchy, and gender-as-qualification). The “vagina” line is not an outlier or a sincere statement of belief. It is the same satirical register applied to the political version of that logic (the idea that biological sex itself confers special political qualification, as was often claimed around Hillary Clinton).
The thread as a whole is not about women being elected president. It is about demanding accountability for a specific violent crime against children, and mocking the predictable soft-pedaling responses that prioritize gender, mental-health framing, or systemic excuses over the father’s prior warnings and the victims. Your later posts simply demand that christiefan915 (Christiecrite) produce the non-sarcastic evidence for the claim being made against you.
Conclusion from the full thread: The post does not show you stating or believing that “women would only be elected president because they have a vagina.” It shows you continuing a consistent sarcastic persona that treats that kind of reductive gender essentialism as absurd. Taking the line out of this sustained ironic performance and treating it as a literal confession requires ignoring every other post you made in the same thread.
grok.com
@christiefan915;
No, it does not prove that. The post is straightforward sarcasm/mockery of the opposite position, not a statement of your own view.
The actual post (#15 in the thread)
You (as Diogenes) wrote, in response to someone calling Hillary “the queen retard”:
This is classic ironic exaggeration. You are lampooning the identity-politics framing that treats biological sex itself as the decisive (or even primary) qualification—exactly the kind of “vagina voter” rhetoric that was common around Hillary Clinton’s campaigns. The surrounding thread context makes the sarcasm even clearer: the whole exchange is ridiculing reflexive excuses, “affirmation,” and gender-based special pleading for a woman who set things on fire.
What Christiecrite’s claim requires
To “prove” that you think “women would only be elected president because they have a vagina,” the post would have to be read as a sincere, non-ironic assertion of your belief. It is not. It is the opposite: you are attributing that reductive logic to the side you are criticizing and treating it as absurd.
christiefan915’s follow-up (“Since 1781 you misogynists have thought that a penis makes you the most qualified candidate ever”) is the standard pivot—flipping the sarcasm into an accusation of the mirror-image bias—while still failing to produce any non-sarcastic statement from you that matches the claim.
Bottom line
- The post is satirical mockery of gender-as-qualification thinking.
- It does not express, endorse, or prove the belief Christiecrite attributes to you.
- Treating obvious irony as a literal confession is a common rhetorical move; it does not make the attribution accurate.
Examine the entire thread by me, Diogenes, for context: https://justplainpolitics.com/threads/jpp-feministas-will-you-make-excuses-for-her.250743/.
Your posts form a continuous, unbroken sarcastic performance mocking reflexive progressive/feminist-style excuses, gender essentialism, and identity-based special pleading:
- OP: Link to the X post about the arson/child-abuse case.
- #3: “Misogyny!” (sarcastic reply to calling her a psychopath).
- #5: “But but but she was failed by the American healthcare system .... IT"S NOT HET FAULT!”
- #7: “No no no no, she must be cared for and affirmed, you see.”
- #9: “But where is your empathy? Your compassion? Being a woman is hard! The patriarchy oppresses them! REEEEEEEEE!”
- #11: “I'll ask @christiefan915 to educate you, you bigot!”
- #13: “Well, it's your own fault, you disgusting sexist pig! Hillary will explain!” + YouTube clip.
- #15 (the post in question): “HOW DARE YOU? She has a vagina, and that made her the most qualified candidate ever!”
- #17: “Desh voice: Go get the post of mine that you say proves your claim. LINK”
- #19: “Desh voice: Go get the posts of mine that you claim exist. LINK”
Analysis of the context
Every one of your contributions is written in the same voice: exaggerated, ironic mimicry of the exact arguments you are ridiculing (mental-health absolution, affirmation culture, “being a woman is hard,” patriarchy, and gender-as-qualification). The “vagina” line is not an outlier or a sincere statement of belief. It is the same satirical register applied to the political version of that logic (the idea that biological sex itself confers special political qualification, as was often claimed around Hillary Clinton).
The thread as a whole is not about women being elected president. It is about demanding accountability for a specific violent crime against children, and mocking the predictable soft-pedaling responses that prioritize gender, mental-health framing, or systemic excuses over the father’s prior warnings and the victims. Your later posts simply demand that christiefan915 (Christiecrite) produce the non-sarcastic evidence for the claim being made against you.
Conclusion from the full thread: The post does not show you stating or believing that “women would only be elected president because they have a vagina.” It shows you continuing a consistent sarcastic persona that treats that kind of reductive gender essentialism as absurd. Taking the line out of this sustained ironic performance and treating it as a literal confession requires ignoring every other post you made in the same thread.
Sarcasm Post Not Vagina Claim | Shared Grok Conversation
Examine the entire thread by me, Diogenes, for context: https://justplainpolitics.com/threads/jpp-fe
grok.com
@christiefan915;