Hillary won more votes for President

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

^^^
It must be a terrible position to be in when you have to vote for a tolerable ruler.
You have two choices, Hillary or Trump.

It sucks!

But other systems have their drawbacks too, the Canadian deal looks like a chaotic free-for-all compared to our binary system lol

The democrats are insane for putting all their eggs in the Hillary basket.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/06/10/how_clinton_donor_rajiv_fernando_got_a_job_as_a_nuclear_expert_he_wasn_t.html

Drip, drip, drip

PJ_Soul said:

Did you just make a Tragically Hip reference?

Ha. I can see how you might think that but I would never reference a song post-Phantom Power.

I am not overly interested.... I'm not a Hillary supporter (Bernie's the man). She is light years better than Trump and I would vote for her in the general if I could just for lack of other reasonable options and to vote against Trump, but I'm not a supporter. I also am not really bothered about the whole email thing TBH. I don't really think it will matter in the long run. I know the Reps need this to be a big scandal that offends everyone, but it's just not working out that way.
I admit 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. It wouod be nice if the woman in question were more inspiring, but I'll still take it as a win for gender equality.

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Did you just make a Tragically Hip reference?

Here's some more drip drip drip if you're interested

http://observer.com/2016/06/breaking-hillary-clinton-sent-information-marked-classified/

Material was marked classified.

How about you all just wait for the FBI to do their job. No one reads the Observer, whatever that is.

What happened to bulletproofing your arguments?

PJ_Soul said:

I am not overly interested.... I'm not a Hillary supporter (Bernie's the man). She is light years better than Trump and I would vote for her in the general if I could just for lack of other reasonable options and to vote against Trump, but I'm not a supporter. I also am not really bothered about the whole email thing TBH. I don't really think it will matter in the long run. I know the Reps need this to be a big scandal that offends everyone, but it's just not working out that way.
I admit 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. It wouod be nice if the woman in question were more inspiring, but I'll still take it as a win for gender equality.

I can't believe you are not really bothered about her corruption. If that's the case then you can't truly be a Bernie supporter. She is corrupt plain and simple and those that supporter are giving their blessing to the status quo.

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.

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.

My 7 year old daughter is so excited about HRC. And she literally said. .. so I can be president too? She obviously knows nothing about politics, but HRC can be a new role model. That's very important and should be celebrated.

mrussel1 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.

My 7 year old daughter is so excited about HRC. And she literally said. .. so I can be president too? She obviously knows nothing about politics, but HRC can be a new role model. That's very important and should be celebrated.

Totally. Any problems with Hillary can be separated from what a woman in Office means to girls and women and society.

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.