Hillary won more votes for President

hedonist

PJ_Soul said:

hedonist said:

PJ_Soul said:

hedonist said:

PJ_Soul said:

I am not overly interested.... I'm not a Hillary supporter. She is light years better than Trump, but I'm not a supporter (although it will be good to have a woman become POTUS for the first time, no matter who the woman is. That is a really big deal).

PJ, I just can't get behind the mindset of the bolded part.

Sure it'd be a milestone, much as Obama was, but...no matter who?

Solely because of their gender?

Nope. And not limiting this to the POTUS, but I'll take skills and qualifications and character anyday over skin color, sex, race, etc.

What do you mean? It's not complicated. Any woman getting to be POTUS is a major step forward for female equality. That's it. That is really separate from who the woman is. Just remove the names from the story, get Hillary out of your mind, and think about how huge it will be that a woman is the POTUS in terms of female equality. Just like it was a big deal that a black man became POTUS. The issue itself is separate from the individuals involved. I did not even hint that I think an person's gender (or ethnicity) should be the only reason someone wins or should be the only reason someone votes for a candidate. Although of COURSE women or minorities are going to factor that in, because that candidate would likely represent them better in certain ways. What, white men have been doing it since the beginning, so this isn't exactly a new concept, lol.

Right, but the issue should, to me, be kept separate from who is qualified. What you wrote seems tantamount to vote any woman in, simply by virtue of gender.

I don't give a damn that she has a vagina.

Just do what you say you'll do, and do it well.

Simple, no?

But that isn't what I said or suggested. Never even hinted at it.

The part I bolded - that was pretty clear to me unless you want to expound? Maybe I misinterpreted but it sounded like it's more important to have a woman in office because she's a woman, no matter whom vs someone worthy of it.

dignin

hedonist said:

PJ_Soul said:

hedonist said:

PJ_Soul said:

hedonist said:

PJ_Soul said:

I am not overly interested.... I'm not a Hillary supporter. She is light years better than Trump, but I'm not a supporter (although it will be good to have a woman become POTUS for the first time, no matter who the woman is. That is a really big deal).

PJ, I just can't get behind the mindset of the bolded part.

Sure it'd be a milestone, much as Obama was, but...no matter who?

Solely because of their gender?

Nope. And not limiting this to the POTUS, but I'll take skills and qualifications and character anyday over skin color, sex, race, etc.

What do you mean? It's not complicated. Any woman getting to be POTUS is a major step forward for female equality. That's it. That is really separate from who the woman is. Just remove the names from the story, get Hillary out of your mind, and think about how huge it will be that a woman is the POTUS in terms of female equality. Just like it was a big deal that a black man became POTUS. The issue itself is separate from the individuals involved. I did not even hint that I think an person's gender (or ethnicity) should be the only reason someone wins or should be the only reason someone votes for a candidate. Although of COURSE women or minorities are going to factor that in, because that candidate would likely represent them better in certain ways. What, white men have been doing it since the beginning, so this isn't exactly a new concept, lol.

Right, but the issue should, to me, be kept separate from who is qualified. What you wrote seems tantamount to vote any woman in, simply by virtue of gender.

I don't give a damn that she has a vagina.

Just do what you say you'll do, and do it well.

Simple, no?

But that isn't what I said or suggested. Never even hinted at it.

The part I bolded - that was pretty clear to me unless you want to expound? Maybe I misinterpreted but it sounded like it's more important to have a woman in office because she's a woman, no matter whom vs someone worthy of it.

You misinterpreted it. PJSoul made it clear what she was getting at.

hedonist

Maybe so, maybe not. The language seemed clear to me but I get that the term is relative.

Free

Programmer under oath admits computers rig elections

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=G0qivPudp6U

Bentleyspop

Free said:

Programmer under oath admits computers rig elections

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=G0qivPudp6U

Curtis specifically alleged that:

At the behest of Rep. Tom Feeney, in September 2000, he was asked to write a program for a touchscreen voting machine that would make it possible to change the results of an election undetectably.[10] Curtis assumed initially that this effort was aimed at detecting Democratic fraud, but later learned that it was intended to benefit the Republican Party.

Free

Regardless, evidence of rigged elections.

^^^: are you attempting to make the Dem party look innocent?

Curtis doesn't "claim" it happens like you said in the Bernie thread, he admits it does happen and he did it for Tom Feeney in 2000.

Bentleyspop

Free said:

Regardless, evidence of rigged elections.

^^^: are you attempting to make the Dem party look innocent?

Curtis doesn't "claim" it happens like you said in the Bernie thread, he admits it does happen and he did it for Tom Feeney in 2000.

Anyone with half a brain knows the election process is rigged by a cabal made up of the RNC, DNC, mainstream media, the old white rich guys who meet in bohemian grove, and The Rothschilds

mrussel1

^I'm sick of you covering for the Illuminati.

Bentleyspop

mrussel1 said:

^I'm sick of you covering for the Illuminati.

Don't forget ZOG and the NWO

Free

Thanks for verifying the validity of a video that a "Programmer under oath admits computers rig elections" by saying he's "claiming", "alledges".

mrussel1

Bentleyspop said:

mrussel1 said:

^I'm sick of you covering for the Illuminati.

Don't forget ZOG and the NWO

Yes, we know ZOG commands the Masons today. I'm monitoring their HQ in Alexandria as we speak.

Free

Bentleyspop said:

Free said:

Regardless, evidence of rigged elections.

^^^: are you attempting to make the Dem party look innocent?

Curtis doesn't "claim" it happens like you said in the Bernie thread, he admits it does happen and he did it for Tom Feeney in 2000.

Anyone with half a brain knows the election process is rigged by a cabal made up of the RNC, DNC, mainstream media, the old white rich guys who meet in bohemian grove, and The Rothschilds

Way to sidestep. See my post above.

rgambs

Free said:

Thanks for verifying the validity of a video that a "Programmer under oath admits computers rig elections" by saying he's "claiming", "alledges".

The title is a bit of a mischaracterization, the gentleman never asserts definitively with personal knowledge that such programs were used, only that it is possible and he would make the assumption in cases where there was a serious discrepancy.

PJ_Soul

hedonist said:

Maybe so, maybe not. The language seemed clear to me but I get that the term is relative.

I feel like you are totally ignoring all the words except the one sentence. If you read it all together, you can see pretty clearly that I was specifically not saying what you seem to think i was saying.

Free

rgambs said:

Free said:

Thanks for verifying the validity of a video that a "Programmer under oath admits computers rig elections" by saying he's "claiming", "alledges".

The title is a bit of a mischaracterization, the gentleman never asserts definitively with personal knowledge that such programs were used, only that it is possible and he would make the assumption in cases where there was a serious discrepancy.

rgambs said:

Free said:

Thanks for verifying the validity of a video that a "Programmer under oath admits computers rig elections" by saying he's "claiming", "alledges".

The title is a bit of a mischaracterization, the gentleman never asserts definitively with personal knowledge that such programs were used, only that it is possible and he would make the assumption in cases where there was a serious discrepancy.

You didn't watch it then. Because as I already pointed out and the court video points out, he did it for Tom Feeney in 2000.

But let's continue to argue facts...

hedonist

PJ_Soul said:

hedonist said:

Maybe so, maybe not. The language seemed clear to me but I get that the term is relative.

I feel like you are totally ignoring all the words except the one sentence. If you read it all together, you can see pretty clearly that I was specifically not saying what you seem to think i was saying.

Well, that sentence stood out to me (obviously!)...guess I'm a bit sensitive when support - or denial - is given based on gender, but fair enough.

Free

Never mind

mrussel1

hedonist said:

PJ_Soul said:

hedonist said:

Maybe so, maybe not. The language seemed clear to me but I get that the term is relative.

I feel like you are totally ignoring all the words except the one sentence. If you read it all together, you can see pretty clearly that I was specifically not saying what you seem to think i was saying.

Well, that sentence stood out to me (obviously!)...guess I'm a bit sensitive when support - or denial - is given based on gender, but fair enough.

Can't we just agree on the dreaminess of Marc Singer?

hedonist

mrussel1 said:

hedonist said:

PJ_Soul said:

hedonist said:

Maybe so, maybe not. The language seemed clear to me but I get that the term is relative.

I feel like you are totally ignoring all the words except the one sentence. If you read it all together, you can see pretty clearly that I was specifically not saying what you seem to think i was saying.

Well, that sentence stood out to me (obviously!)...guess I'm a bit sensitive when support - or denial - is given based on gender, but fair enough.

Can't we just agree on the dreaminess of Marc Singer?

But of course!

(needing laughs here this morning, so thank you)

rgambs

Free said:

rgambs said:

Free said:

Thanks for verifying the validity of a video that a "Programmer under oath admits computers rig elections" by saying he's "claiming", "alledges".

The title is a bit of a mischaracterization, the gentleman never asserts definitively with personal knowledge that such programs were used, only that it is possible and he would make the assumption in cases where there was a serious discrepancy.

rgambs said:

Free said:

Thanks for verifying the validity of a video that a "Programmer under oath admits computers rig elections" by saying he's "claiming", "alledges".

The title is a bit of a mischaracterization, the gentleman never asserts definitively with personal knowledge that such programs were used, only that it is possible and he would make the assumption in cases where there was a serious discrepancy.

You didn't watch it then. Because as I already pointed out and the court video points out, he did it for Tom Feeney in 2000.

But let's continue to argue facts...

I watched the video in entirety, he programmed for Feeney, he didn't implement it. He only has assumptions and conditional statements, they are bad enough in their own right, there's no reason to go above and beyond the truth with mischaracterizations.