Do I think it requires anything other than a coincidence for two women to be the headline nominees for a party? No more than I think two men requires a coincidence. The majority of human beings in the United States have vaginas, why does it require a "gimmick" as you put it for two to be nominated?
So is she a bad candidate or not? You said "How about no more gimmicks and get some good candidates?". You haven't elaborated on any reason for David or Van de Putte to be "bad candidates", thus my only conclusion to jump to, which you called "absurd" is that you think it's a gimmick just because they both happen to be women.I'm not sure what qualifies anyone in politics...except for getting money and getting votes. She is definitely qualified with the money aspect, since there will be alot of non Texan pro-choice funding her.
What has she done that you feel qualifies her?
So whether I think she's a good candidate or not is irrelevant, since I'm not the one who made the comment.
If Wendy didn't want her kids, but the husband did, and she was willing to pay support then her divorce was probably as easy as possible. If she does get the nomination and this is true then it will go the typical mass media route.
1.) It's not true
2.) It's true but it doesn't matter
3.) If you think it matters, then misogyny
Last edited by BradLohaus; 01-28-2014 at 02:32 AM.
Dear right-wing WD-sliming misogynist,
"If Wendy didn't want her kids,"
how do you know she "didn't want" her kids?
They were 14 and 21 at time of divorce. iow, she wasn't NOT WANTING her kids as babies nor a little children but as 1) legal adult and 2) teenager.
While they were living with the father and WD paying child support, how often did WD and the kids see each other? Was there a bad relationship between WD and kids? Good relationship?
Was WD denied visiting rights?
Any other imaginary sliming, biased details you want to fill in?
Misogynist, again. Yawn, again.
Giving up your biological child to the step is odd.
When the courts sytemacally DENY dads custody, that's not "odd"
"Giving up your biological child"
you still haven't supported your misogynist bias was giving us all the details of the deals and relationships between the father, wife, and kids. The divorce and terms were amicable.
They weren't children, but a 21 year old adult and 14 year old teen.
your misogynist prejudice isn't at all ODD, it's the normal, the average for less, manhood-threatened, paranoid right-wingers.
a 14 yr old teen is a child. In fact, a 14 year old child is probably going to take a divorce the hardest of anyone.
probably, but you got any facts how about this particular 14 year was affected and how this particular amicable divorce worked out among the 4 of them?
That is a link to what someone else thinks is her stated motivation.
Somehow I doubt an anonymous "former colleague and political supporter who worked closely with Davis" was privy to the decision making process with enough authority to speak definitively.
I demand a bit higher standard of evidence when it comes to such things, and you should too.
wow
let's see how the misogynists here and the Fox/haters respond
almost anyone would stick up for their mom, but yeah, parroting Erick Erickson's facile bs is weak as .
It's not surprising at all that the daughters would stick up for their mom. Nobody (that I've read, at least) claimed that they didn't love her. The issue comes from the sugar daddy aspects, and whether or not she fought for primary custody of the kids. Personally I've never heard of a woman not doing that, and neither has anyone else I know.
Who expected her daughters to come out and bash her? And they also didn't talk about the divorce timing. It's funny that people like to throw around the word misogyny when I've heard women rip WD apart.
"Nobody (that I've read, at least) claimed that they didn't love her"
... but the right-wing hate media's and ST right-wingers' implication, if not outright claim, is that WD didn't love her kids, was a BAD MOTHER for trying to have a family AND pursue an ambitious career, you know, a woman getting all uppity, challenging less men's RIGHT to be superior, like them n!gg@s, also so loved by the Repugs, that don't know their place (is to be in prison).
"the sugar daddy aspects"
the husband paying for his wife's education is a (extorted? forced? suckered?) sugar daddy, but a mother interrupting (aka sacrificing) her career to raise kids is expected. He took out the loan 10 years before the divorce. Think the marriage was bad then? Maybe he wanted her to achieve her objectives? nah, Real Men don't do that.
"didn't talk about the divorce timing" which condemns WD in what way? do you KNOW WD AMBUSHED him witht the divorce? the divorce is said to have been amicable. Him paying off the load could have been part of their agreement to get that debt out of community property.
"I've heard women rip WD apart." link? They're probably Repugs or in the right-wing misogynist hate media.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 01-29-2014 at 09:31 AM.
No, one of the issues raised by yourself was how a 14 year old feels about divorce, how it might hurt them in this case. So now you have an open letter and change to another argument.
As an aside I have met Leticia. She is very nice and astoundingly dull. Dull as in not sharp. Very dull. The democrats must have very slim pickings to run her with Wendy. When I saw her name I was moderately shocked. But I got better, this is Texas politics and policies. Maybe Letty has some capable guide dogs being that she is running blind.
2 cents.
I'd think if I was the daughter of someone who wanted me aborted and then abandoned me after conning my father out of money so she could start a political career, I might have a few not-so-kind things to say about her.
"conning"
evidence she conned her husband?
evidence she ambushed him with divorce?
All you right-wing assholes have is misogynist bias
You Alternet assholes have no sense of sarcasm.
.SR 865 Author: Zaffirini | Birdwell | Campbell | Carona | Davis | et al.
Last Action: 05/09/2013 S Reported enrolled
Caption: Recognizing Mother's Day 2013.
Wendy Davis’ daughters defend their mom as ‘remarkable mother’
http://www.statesman.com/news/news/s...d-their/nc5d7/
Open letters from Wendy Davis' daughters
http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/n...pen_Letter.pdf
Edit: Sorry, just realized they were already posted.
To boutons #138
It does come down to what you said about the difference between a man and a woman focusing on career vs primary custody in a settlement. You say there should be no difference, but most men and married women with kids view it differently as to whether it's a man giving up custody or a woman. This shows up in voting stats when it comes to age, marriage & divorce and having children. This is why I said at the beginning that young, never married women with no kids and single mothers love WD. Married women with kids not so much. The same aspect applies with young never married men vs. married men with kids. It's simple voting demographics that show up in every election, along with race.
But as I've also said before, don't worry, you'll get your wish with the changing racial and family demographics. Just not yet; you'll have to wait until the next decade. Which is great news, because as history shows, countries with broken families create fantastic societies that last. Bet the house on that.
"countries with broken families create fantastic societies that last"
so it looks like USA is going to be even more "fantastic"
New Study Says Divorce Rates Will Increase As Economy Recovers
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/28/divorce-rates_n_4682692.html
FastStats: Marriage and Divorce
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/divorce.html
the divorce rate has been around 50% for decades. That is not, nor is single, unmarried mothers, the cause of USA being so unFantastic, wiht increasing socioecomic immobility, a huge percentage in poverty or near-poverty, and with increasingly horrible inequality.
"defense of marriage" is nothing but another Repug social issue to sucker the divorce-ridden red-staters who think as "Christians" they are the saviour of the mythical American/Norman Rockwell Dream.
You know you are in trouble when your kids have to write letters to try and convince people that you are not a ty person.
you know your a slimy bag when your political strategy is not policies and programs but slanderous personal destruction (and suckering ignorant, poor bubbas into voting against their own best interests with hypocritial "social" issues).
Gee, because this hasn't been the system since before the country was founded. It was just as slimy for Davis to make the comment about Abbot not walking a day her in shoes. Politicians are s bags.
"not walking a mile in my shoes" is an old adage used in countless situations.
Prove that WD was specifically referring to Abbot as a paraplegic?
Last edited by boutons_deux; 02-03-2014 at 10:28 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote