Has anyone noticed that in most countries, when you get female leaders they're always getting in from 'the right'?
Like they could turn out to be ineffectual, globalist shills or some of the biggest hardass bitches only caring about THEIR country but the left always scream 'muh sexism' but never chose women that actually inspire leadership qualities.
When your culture is one that repeats the mantra "women are less, women are least, women are oppressed minorities who can't think for themselves, act for themselves, or have their own agency", like The Left does, then you tend to surround yourself with those whom you've selected for, who look at that mantra and say to themselves "sounds about right, I AM useless!".
when the modern left chooses a woman, they pigeon hole themselves into "our candidate is a woman therefore automatically deserves the position". Many people rightfully see this as bratty and entitled.
Gabbard tried to run an actual campaign, and left smeared her as a Russian puppet for it.
Good point plus you need a strong woman who can run a campaign and leadership WITHOUT relying on the crutch of being a woman to pave a path for future candidates.
Hillary and Kamala were definitely not that, if the dems weren't as corrupt and shortsighted that they let Gabbard win nomination and probably win 2020 with the cheats already set up then female president would be a non issue after her, sort of like the UK after Thatcher.
Which is why I don't think they'll EVER alow a non puppet female to run as president as they need the donation angle if 'first female president'
Oh yeah don't get me wrong, NONE have lived up to her but then again a LOT of male leaders have been shit too.
But the important thing is having a benchmark to compare to and for men we've have GREAT leaders over the centuries to easily say "you're not as good as him, do better" which is why it's important to have a good first female leader candidate otherwise you end up with Obama and I notice America ain't rushing to have another Black guy leading them...
In the remake of Manchurian Candidate, Meryl Streep plays an evil power hungry cunt. Meryl Streep modelled the part after Karen Hughes from the Bush administration. Her hairdo and clothes straight from Karen's photos and press conferences. But since she was playing an evil power hungry cunt. Everyone asked her why she played Hillary so evil.
On screen was an evil power hungry cunt, and everyone saw Hillary. I knew then, she'd never be President.
So Trudeau ran against 2 women in his 2013 LPC leadership race and beat them, does he explain his victory as an attack on women's progress? Trudeau is a dangerous idiot who needs to be removed from Telford's guidance & protection.
They never do. Remember, #NotYourShield and similar moments were never real women, even though as per the point in the thread title the ones making those claims would very likely also be the groups who can't even define one now.
Did Trudeau forget as a Prime Minister, he's not supposed to lament the defeat of the other candidate and insult the voters of his nextdoor ally for picking their President?
If I were you, Trudy, I'd be more worried about your approval rating dipping below 30%, and how everything indicates you getting kicked to the curb in your election next October.
Has anyone noticed that in most countries, when you get female leaders they're always getting in from 'the right'?
Like they could turn out to be ineffectual, globalist shills or some of the biggest hardass bitches only caring about THEIR country but the left always scream 'muh sexism' but never chose women that actually inspire leadership qualities.
When your culture is one that repeats the mantra "women are less, women are least, women are oppressed minorities who can't think for themselves, act for themselves, or have their own agency", like The Left does, then you tend to surround yourself with those whom you've selected for, who look at that mantra and say to themselves "sounds about right, I AM useless!".
when the modern left chooses a woman, they pigeon hole themselves into "our candidate is a woman therefore automatically deserves the position". Many people rightfully see this as bratty and entitled.
Gabbard tried to run an actual campaign, and left smeared her as a Russian puppet for it.
Good point plus you need a strong woman who can run a campaign and leadership WITHOUT relying on the crutch of being a woman to pave a path for future candidates.
Hillary and Kamala were definitely not that, if the dems weren't as corrupt and shortsighted that they let Gabbard win nomination and probably win 2020 with the cheats already set up then female president would be a non issue after her, sort of like the UK after Thatcher.
Which is why I don't think they'll EVER alow a non puppet female to run as president as they need the donation angle if 'first female president'
Every female PM since Thatcher was an embarrassment. Thatcher was a product of her time, a baroness and matriarch, unlike today's cunty bitches.
Oh yeah don't get me wrong, NONE have lived up to her but then again a LOT of male leaders have been shit too.
But the important thing is having a benchmark to compare to and for men we've have GREAT leaders over the centuries to easily say "you're not as good as him, do better" which is why it's important to have a good first female leader candidate otherwise you end up with Obama and I notice America ain't rushing to have another Black guy leading them...
Kinda off point, .... but.
In the remake of Manchurian Candidate, Meryl Streep plays an evil power hungry cunt. Meryl Streep modelled the part after Karen Hughes from the Bush administration. Her hairdo and clothes straight from Karen's photos and press conferences. But since she was playing an evil power hungry cunt. Everyone asked her why she played Hillary so evil.
On screen was an evil power hungry cunt, and everyone saw Hillary. I knew then, she'd never be President.
If only Trump decided to identify as a woman the last couple weeks of his term and made a big deal about being the first woman president.
While funny, it would be lending legitimacy to the idea that a man can be a woman.
No, it would be mocking that idea and making the pro-trans MSM tie themselves in knots over how Trump somehow isn't a woman because he says he is.
https://x.com/rexglacer/status/1866847132034142421
So the millions of women who voted for Trump mean nothing I guess
They never do. Remember, #NotYourShield and similar moments were never real women, even though as per the point in the thread title the ones making those claims would very likely also be the groups who can't even define one now.
To collectivist ideologues, The Message overrules observable reality.
They're "gender traitors" to leftists in the same way that black men who voted for Trump "aren't really black."
Did Trudeau forget as a Prime Minister, he's not supposed to lament the defeat of the other candidate and insult the voters of his nextdoor ally for picking their President?
The narcissistic little bitch can't help himself after he got spanked at Mar-a-Lago.
If I were you, Trudy, I'd be more worried about your approval rating dipping below 30%, and how everything indicates you getting kicked to the curb in your election next October.
shut up governor castro
Really - doesn’t this mean he should step down immediately?