chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,627
|
Post by chiver78 on Jul 27, 2016 15:11:37 GMT -5
and yet you still haven't listed the advantages you swear she had. care to answer that one?
or would you like to continue ignoring the accomplishments Opti linked to a few posts back?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 15, 2024 13:54:01 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2016 15:12:53 GMT -5
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jul 27, 2016 15:18:40 GMT -5
and yet you still haven't listed the advantages you swear she had. care to answer that one? or would you like to continue ignoring the accomplishments Opti linked to a few posts back? He's not going to answer. He's pointedly ignoring the question, even though he made the claim.
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,627
|
Post by chiver78 on Jul 27, 2016 15:21:00 GMT -5
and yet you still haven't listed the advantages you swear she had. care to answer that one? or would you like to continue ignoring the accomplishments Opti linked to a few posts back? He's not going to answer. He's pointedly ignoring the question, even though he made the claim. oh, I'm aware. I love that he's trying to direct the conversation away from stuff that's probably uncomfortable for him, too. it's okay. I know better than to hold my breath waiting for an answer.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,762
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Jul 27, 2016 15:21:27 GMT -5
OK Ratchets, how do you view Trump as a role model? (I'll play this round.)
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,627
|
Post by chiver78 on Jul 27, 2016 15:40:16 GMT -5
Here's the problem, you and many others think being the first female President means that woman needs to be some sort of saint or at least way better than the other person running, just to be elected. Which is blatant sexism. Its saying simply because she is a woman, somehow she has to be held to standards that Trump does not have to meet.
Now its cute, not really, that you want to ignore Donald J. Trump is a proven serial adulterer. A man who has broken his word and has many lawsuits as a result. Yet, because he is a man, he doesn't need to be a role model in your opinion because he's a guy. We can simply elect or vote for him as President based on whether we want him to do the job. Do you not see the extra shit you want to pile on Hillary or whomever the first Madam President is, simply because they ended being born female? Isn't that terribly shitty?
That's actually not the problem at all. At least not for me - I can't speak for "many others." I don't have any issue with a female president - I lived in Germany when Angela Merkel was chancellor and didn't have an issue with that, and I lived in the UK after Margaret Thatcher was PM and it seemed like an ok place to live. I'm sure there are people on this forum who don't like either one because they are left-leaning politicians (I think they are, forgive me if I'm wrong). I think voting for her just to have a "first female president" is far more sexist than my opinion of her. It's ok to have a first female president. I'm cool with that. You know what dude...every president from here until infinity can be female, and Buzz Lightyear can be her vice-president. I don't care that's a female running for president. I do care that she is a very unethical person who is running for president. I do understand that some women will vote for her because she is the first female running for President. I won't do it, because I disagree with her on the ethics bit and also on her political stances...if you - or any other woman - wants to vote for her because she's a woman, then I'm even ok with that. I would never vote for somebody just because they are a man, but if any woman wants to vote for Hillary because she would be the first POTUS then that's ok with me. I don't see where that's any different from somebody voting against her because she's potentially the first woman POTUS....but I don't control everybody's ballet. Vote whatever reason you want to. If you vote for her because her name is first on the ballet alphabetically then that's your choice. I think she'll be our next president. I don't think she'll be a good one. I also don't think she is a good role model for women, and I don't think her election is any kind of victory for women's rights. if I may.... many of us who will ultimately cast a ballot for her in November aren't necessarily voting for her so much as voting against Trump. personally, I think that some of the things you've said in this thread as reasons not to vote for her are things that I wish you (collective) would take into serious consideration when you are saying that you (collective) will be voting for Trump. as far as a victory for women's rights, I'm sorry but you couldn't be more wrong there - electing her means that Trump and Pence don't get to take away rights that women have worked so hard to obtain and keep. that alone is reason to vote for her, IMHO.
|
|
emma1420
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 28, 2011 15:35:45 GMT -5
Posts: 2,430
|
Post by emma1420 on Jul 27, 2016 15:54:59 GMT -5
That's actually not the problem at all. At least not for me - I can't speak for "many others." I don't have any issue with a female president - I lived in Germany when Angela Merkel was chancellor and didn't have an issue with that, and I lived in the UK after Margaret Thatcher was PM and it seemed like an ok place to live. I'm sure there are people on this forum who don't like either one because they are left-leaning politicians (I think they are, forgive me if I'm wrong). I think voting for her just to have a "first female president" is far more sexist than my opinion of her. It's ok to have a first female president. I'm cool with that. You know what dude...every president from here until infinity can be female, and Buzz Lightyear can be her vice-president. I don't care that's a female running for president. I do care that she is a very unethical person who is running for president. I do understand that some women will vote for her because she is the first female running for President. I won't do it, because I disagree with her on the ethics bit and also on her political stances...if you - or any other woman - wants to vote for her because she's a woman, then I'm even ok with that. I would never vote for somebody just because they are a man, but if any woman wants to vote for Hillary because she would be the first POTUS then that's ok with me. I don't see where that's any different from somebody voting against her because she's potentially the first woman POTUS....but I don't control everybody's ballet. Vote whatever reason you want to. If you vote for her because her name is first on the ballet alphabetically then that's your choice. I think she'll be our next president. I don't think she'll be a good one. I also don't think she is a good role model for women, and I don't think her election is any kind of victory for women's rights. if I may.... many of us who will ultimately cast a ballot for her in November aren't necessarily voting for her so much as voting against Trump. personally, I think that some of the things you've said in this thread as reasons not to vote for her are things that I wish you (collective) would take into serious consideration when you are saying that you (collective) will be voting for Trump. as far as a victory for women's rights, I'm sorry but you couldn't be more wrong there - electing her means that Trump and Pence don't get to take away rights that women have worked so hard to obtain and keep. that alone is reason to vote for her, IMHO. This is where I am. I am not voting for her because she has a vagina. I'll be voting for because despite her flaws she is a much better alternative than the misogynistic, xenophobic, narcissistic, who has less impulse control than a three year old mid-temper tantrum. The fact that a woman will finally get to have the most important job in the country is an excellent bonus.
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,361
|
Post by movingforward on Jul 27, 2016 16:05:10 GMT -5
If Joe Biden had run against Hillary in the primary he would have had my vote. That didn't happen. I believe she is qualified to be POTUS. I am not voting for her because she is a woman (in fact, I have wavered back and forth between voting third party, writing in Joe Biden and voting for Clinton). In the end, I have decided she will get my vote based on her qualifications and the fact that I can't risk a write in vote helping Trump win.
|
|
emma1420
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 28, 2011 15:35:45 GMT -5
Posts: 2,430
|
Post by emma1420 on Jul 27, 2016 16:06:01 GMT -5
That's actually not the problem at all. At least not for me - I can't speak for "many others." I don't have any issue with a female president - I lived in Germany when Angela Merkel was chancellor and didn't have an issue with that, and I lived in the UK after Margaret Thatcher was PM and it seemed like an ok place to live. I'm sure there are people on this forum who don't like either one because they are left-leaning politicians (I think they are, forgive me if I'm wrong). I think voting for her just to have a "first female president" is far more sexist than my opinion of her. It's ok to have a first female president. I'm cool with that. You know what dude...every president from here until infinity can be female, and Buzz Lightyear can be her vice-president. I don't care that's a female running for president. I do care that she is a very unethical person who is running for president. I do understand that some women will vote for her because she is the first female running for President. I won't do it, because I disagree with her on the ethics bit and also on her political stances...if you - or any other woman - wants to vote for her because she's a woman, then I'm even ok with that. I would never vote for somebody just because they are a man, but if any woman wants to vote for Hillary because she would be the first POTUS then that's ok with me. I don't see where that's any different from somebody voting against her because she's potentially the first woman POTUS....but I don't control everybody's ballet. Vote whatever reason you want to. If you vote for her because her name is first on the ballet alphabetically then that's your choice. I think she'll be our next president. I don't think she'll be a good one. I also don't think she is a good role model for women, and I don't think her election is any kind of victory for women's rights. how about I'm voting for her because she is qualified and I think this whole "ethical" quandary is largely - if not entirely - manufactured? That all these email hearings were a giant fishing expedition? And I like to see anyone in politics go through that level of scrutiny, time after time after time and come anywhere close to being as clean as she it? It was pure partisan bullsh*t explicitly done to try to derail her career. Not because she is that bad, but because she is that good. I heard a quote recently that I thought was very appropriate, I can't remember the exact line, but the concept was that when a group in power (i.e., white men) are faced with equality, they feel as if they are being discriminated against. Not because they are facing discrimination, but because they've been in power for so long that once they lose some of that power, it leads to the feeling of discrimination. I wish I remember the exact quote, because I feel that some of the treatment that Hillary is receiving and some of the treatment that Obama has received is tied directly to one segment of the population who feels threatened that they may have to share power.
|
|
siralynn
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 8, 2013 10:33:16 GMT -5
Posts: 528
|
Post by siralynn on Jul 27, 2016 16:12:27 GMT -5
how about I'm voting for her because she is qualified and I think this whole "ethical" quandary is largely - if not entirely - manufactured? That all these email hearings were a giant fishing expedition? And I like to see anyone in politics go through that level of scrutiny, time after time after time and come anywhere close to being as clean as she it? It was pure partisan bullsh*t explicitly done to try to derail her career. Not because she is that bad, but because she is that good. I heard a quote recently that I thought was very appropriate, I can't remember the exact line, but the concept was that when a group in power (i.e., white men) are faced with equality, they feel as if they are being discriminated against. Not because they are facing discrimination, but because they've been in power for so long that once they lose some of that power, it leads to the feeling of discrimination. I wish I remember the exact quote, because I feel that some of the treatment that Hillary is receiving and some of the treatment that Obama has received is tied directly to one segment of the population who feels threatened that they may have to share power. When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,361
|
Post by movingforward on Jul 27, 2016 16:13:38 GMT -5
I heard a quote recently that I thought was very appropriate, I can't remember the exact line, but the concept was that when a group in power (i.e., white men) are faced with equality, they feel as if they are being discriminated against. Not because they are facing discrimination, but because they've been in power for so long that once they lose some of that power, it leads to the feeling of discrimination. I wish I remember the exact quote, because I feel that some of the treatment that Hillary is receiving and some of the treatment that Obama has received is tied directly to one segment of the population who feels threatened that they may have to share power. When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression That is a fabulous quote
|
|
emma1420
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 28, 2011 15:35:45 GMT -5
Posts: 2,430
|
Post by emma1420 on Jul 27, 2016 16:14:26 GMT -5
I heard a quote recently that I thought was very appropriate, I can't remember the exact line, but the concept was that when a group in power (i.e., white men) are faced with equality, they feel as if they are being discriminated against. Not because they are facing discrimination, but because they've been in power for so long that once they lose some of that power, it leads to the feeling of discrimination. I wish I remember the exact quote, because I feel that some of the treatment that Hillary is receiving and some of the treatment that Obama has received is tied directly to one segment of the population who feels threatened that they may have to share power. When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression That is it! Thank you.
|
|
siralynn
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 8, 2013 10:33:16 GMT -5
Posts: 528
|
Post by siralynn on Jul 27, 2016 16:14:28 GMT -5
When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression That is a fabulous quote It pretty much explains this entire election and the backlash against the BlackLivesMatter movement.
|
|
Iggy aka IG
Senior Associate
Joined: Oct 25, 2012 12:23:23 GMT -5
Posts: 12,461
Location: Good ol' USA
|
Post by Iggy aka IG on Jul 27, 2016 16:27:24 GMT -5
I hate to rain on the parade, but being nominated is not the same thing as being elected. Women have been nominated for vice-president before, and those tickets have failed. You can blame it mostly on the presidential nominee but not entirely.
There are people in this country (my ex comes to mind) who would NEVER vote for a women as president merely because she is a woman. That's just like there are people in this country who still want to deny Barack Obama as president even though he's almost finished his term merely because he is black. When a woman is elected President of the United States, we will know this. Not until then. This isn't, incidentally, an endorsement for either candidate. I don't like either candidate so I have decided to vote for my husband. I deserve to be First Lady. I don't want to be president myself because I'm too lazy. It's a lot of work, I've heard. And apparently there have been prior presidential nominees (I haven't researched all of these): "The first female nominee (in the general) for US President was Gracie Allen (1940). Linda Jenness was next, in 1972. Margaret Wright, 1976. Ellen McCormack, 1980. Sonia Johnson, 1984. Lenora Fulani, 1992. Cynthia McKinney, 2008. Jill Stein, 2012 and 2016. Roseanne Barr, 2012."
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,627
|
Post by chiver78 on Jul 27, 2016 16:30:22 GMT -5
I hate to rain on the parade, but being nominated is not the same thing as being elected. Women have been nominated for vice-president before, and those tickets have failed. You can blame it mostly on the presidential nominee but not entirely.
There are people in this country (my ex comes to mind) who would NEVER vote for a women as president merely because she is a woman. That's just like there are people in this country who still want to deny Barack Obama as president even though he's almost finished his term merely because he is black. When a woman is elected President of the United States, we will know this. Not until then. This isn't, incidentally, an endorsement for either candidate. I don't like either candidate so I have decided to vote for my husband. I deserve to be First Lady. I don't want to be president myself because I'm too lazy. It's a lot of work, I've heard. And apparently there have been prior presidential nominees (I haven't researched all of these): "The first female nominee (in the general) for US President was Gracie Allen (1940). Linda Jenness was next, in 1972. Margaret Wright, 1976. Ellen McCormack, 1980. Sonia Johnson, 1984. Lenora Fulani, 1992. Cynthia McKinney, 2008. Jill Stein, 2012 and 2016. Roseanne Barr, 2012." you missed one I only found out about her today, myself. Victoria Claflin Woodhull, 1872since we have devolved into essentially a 2-party system though, HRC is the first that actually has a legitimate shot at winning because she comes from a major party.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 15, 2024 13:54:01 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2016 16:48:39 GMT -5
OK, I'm back. I was going to make a joke but deleted it because this seems like serious bidness and I didn't want to be offensive. Especially when you broads get all worked about equality . OK, so advantages. I believe Welts politely asked if I lived in a trailer park during my childhood, and Chiver also had the same concerns vis-à-vis my trailer park upbringing and how they related to Mrs Clinton's background, which was assuredly worse than mine. I did in fact live in a trailer - or a "mobile" home as we would say in the parlance of our arrondissement - for a brief period of time during my childhood. I'm sure that in no way could compare to the hardships that Mrs Clinton faced under the tyranny of her father while she was attending Yale Community College or whatever it's called. I'm sure it was some sort of school down in the hood though. Dudettes...I don't even know what you're arguing anymore. You're all over the place. Half of you are saying she was from the streets or some such nonsense, and half of you are saying she had advantages. Let's do this...just give this a try and let's see how this works...put your heads together and figure out whether she was a privileged kid or whether she had to fight to get where she's at...then come back at me with some kind of coherent argument where you all get collectively together...and I'll argue with you. Fair enough? I don't see how this post could be taken the wrong way . Really? Your other posts didn't really bother me, but this one was really offensive. But then I hate being talked down to. I'm guess "bidness" is "bidiness" as in hens? And why again do we have to get our heads together in order to argue with you? Because all of us = one of you? And not a single woman has structured a coherent argument worthy of your rebuttal? A lot in this post could be taken the wrong way .
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,762
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Jul 27, 2016 17:45:21 GMT -5
OK, I'll be the better poster and admit I had no idea Hillary lived in a nice home growing up. Nevertheless, I wasn't speaking about physical beatings but mental abuse. It started early, being turned down because you are female, and in her case being told her accomplishments were not that great by her Dad. She's older than me but I've dealt with some of the same shit so I empathize.
Interesting that is was Bill who married into a more powerful family not the other way round.
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,406
Member is Online
|
Post by NastyWoman on Jul 27, 2016 18:14:27 GMT -5
Ratchets I like you in general but you know that saying about the hole and the stop digging? it is time..
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,627
|
Post by chiver78 on Jul 27, 2016 18:19:06 GMT -5
Really? Your other posts didn't really bother me, but this one was really offensive. But then I hate being talked down to. I'm guess "bidness" is "bidiness" as in hens? And why again do we have to get our heads together in order to argue with you? Because all of us = one of you? And not a single woman has structured a coherent argument worthy of your rebuttal? A lot in this post could be taken the wrong way . I actually think the most offensive thing is the suggestion that she wouldn't be where she is today without her marriage. She has impeccable academic and impressive early career credentials from before her marriage - she was just as qualified to enter public life as Bill was (and I'd argue, perhaps more so) but she is being reduced to a "wife" trying to glom off her husband's career - that is an insult to all women, imo. She graduated from Yale Law, published in her field, made partner, served as faculty at the university of arkansas, someone tell me WTF does a woman have to do to be "qualified" to run for public office? I've actually read a quote today, and I think I heard it last night as well. something to the effect that his third marriage proposal was telling her to go chase her own career, but that he wishes she wouldn't. I know I f'd it up somehow, I'll see if I can find it again.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,344
Member is Online
|
Post by swamp on Jul 27, 2016 18:38:05 GMT -5
OK, thanks to those who found those examples. I still understand why she chose to be married if President was one of her goals. I agree about the choosing to stay married...that's the main part of my point. Her marriage was to advance her career. Bills speech was very impressive. It appears that they do,love each other. He's a pig. She deals,with it. Meh. Not my marriage.
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,627
|
Post by chiver78 on Jul 27, 2016 19:15:48 GMT -5
I agree about the choosing to stay married...that's the main part of my point. Her marriage was to advance her career. Bills speech was very impressive. It appears that they do,love each other. He's a pig. She deals,with it. Meh. Not my marriage. there are a lot of political couples that I can't quite figure out why they are together, not just these two. but people get married for many reasons that don't include love, so who are we to judge?
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 10,972
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Jul 27, 2016 19:42:01 GMT -5
|
|
Bonny
Junior Associate
Joined: Nov 17, 2013 10:54:37 GMT -5
Posts: 7,438
Location: No Place Like Home!
|
Post by Bonny on Jul 27, 2016 19:42:07 GMT -5
if I may.... many of us who will ultimately cast a ballot for her in November aren't necessarily voting for her so much as voting against Trump. personally, I think that some of the things you've said in this thread as reasons not to vote for her are things that I wish you (collective) would take into serious consideration when you are saying that you (collective) will be voting for Trump. as far as a victory for women's rights, I'm sorry but you couldn't be more wrong there - electing her means that Trump and Pence don't get to take away rights that women have worked so hard to obtain and keep. that alone is reason to vote for her, IMHO. This is where I am. I am not voting for her because she has a vagina. I'll be voting for because despite her flaws she is a much better alternative than the misogynistic, xenophobic, narcissistic, who has less impulse control than a three year old mid-temper tantrum. The fact that a woman will finally get to have the most important job in the country is an excellent bonus. I'm only part way through the thread but I can't like this post enough!
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jul 27, 2016 19:50:10 GMT -5
Seriously? All I asked you to do was back up your statement about Hillary being born into privilege. No need to get your panties in a wad. Have you suffered a blow to the head? You didn't SEE them? I asked you several times, but feel free to play dumb. Well, actually you said a bit more than that. Here, I'll post what you said because it seems you forgot: Your post was a lot more about "me" than the thread. I don't know why that is, and I don't want to speculate...but it is. You know what dude, this conversation is not about you, and it's not about you talking about me but you're really trying to make it that way. I'm sorry that you feel left out. Go fucken find somebody else to stalk and get aggro with, or climb to the top of a building if you want attention that bad. I'm not playing your game, and I'm not interested in trading insults. If you have a legitimate question, then ask it. If you want to bitch about me not paying you enough attention then take a cold shower or something. All this "waah they're trolling me" and "have you suffered a blow to the head" is jabs. It's not a conversation. Maybe that's how you talk? Is this how you normally talk to people around you? Do you talk to your family or your peers at work like that? Maybe they put up with your shit, but I'm not. You don't get to insult me on one hand and then demand a response on the other. Go find your husband if that's the game you want to play. Or better yet, quit being an attention whore, and get out of a conversation that doesn't even involve you. Go find somebody else to trade jabs with. I'm not interested. This may come as a shock, but I don't give a fuck about you, and I have no interest in talking to you. Take your bullshit somewhere else. Thanks. ROTFLMAO! You really do have a victim mentality. You claimed Hillary had a privileged background, when in fact, her father owned a small textile firm where they made fabric for curtains. He saved and saved and bought a nice house for cheap because it was right by the airport. You refused to back up your statement. You lost and first you play the macho douchebag card by claiming you riled up the womenfolk on purpose. Now you're whining. Better luck next time, Mister.
|
|
sesfw
Junior Associate
Today is the first day of the rest of my life
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 15:45:17 GMT -5
Posts: 6,268
|
Post by sesfw on Jul 27, 2016 21:00:07 GMT -5
I know I'm against the grain but I'll make a final decision around the first of November, 2016. A lot can happen between now and then
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 10,972
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Jul 27, 2016 21:50:24 GMT -5
I'm voting for a brownie sundae.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,320
Member is Online
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Jul 27, 2016 22:04:38 GMT -5
Why are Hillary's choices in regards to her marriage being used to determine if she's worthy of being president?
It's also offensive to say her staying is a slap in the face to women. There are women who choose to work thru infidelity are they against women too?
For all we know years down the road Chelsea or her kids will write a book revealing the clintons have an open marriage.
Even if she stayed with him to benefit her career so what? There are plenty of couples throughout history that stayed together for mutual benefit.
Is JFK a lousy president? He used the secret service to procure women for him and sneak them into the white house.
Trump changes wives like some people change socks. If Hillary is being judged on the basis of her marriage then shouldn't trump also be judged?
Is a womanizer more qualified to be president than a woman married to one?
Why are her choices concerning marriage under fire but his aren't?
If the choices one makes in marriage are a key window into their ability to be president then trump should be put under the microscope too.
If you say that his behavior in regards to marriage means nothing in regards to his ability to run the country then ask yourself why the clintons marriage bothers you so much.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Jul 27, 2016 22:25:19 GMT -5
OK, I've already deleted more than a few posts - enough with the bickering and personal attacks.
Now returning to your regularly scheduled thread, "It's about damn time!!!" re: Hillary's nomination.
- Mid/mod
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Jul 28, 2016 8:45:36 GMT -5
I thought voting for Hillary because she's a woman ran counter to feminism, and she should be judged on merits (or lack there of). And I thought it also ran counter to feminism to dictate to women how they should think or vote because there is a female running.
But maybe I don't understand feminism.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Jul 28, 2016 8:52:48 GMT -5
Hillary is a pretty piss poor role model for girls. Sticking with a man who abuses your trust for career and political gain. A known liar, and the "unethical but not technically illegal" mishandling of our nations secrets.
Yeah, I bet everyone wants their daughter to be just like that.
|
|