- This topic has 19 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 10 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
I heard Hillary Clinton on the radio saying that people should vote for her because she is a woman. “Wouldn’t you like to point out you your child that they can be president” so it’s important to vote for her because she is. Woman.
Imagine the hullabaloo if a candidate would say don’t vote for her because she is a woman?
Or said vote for me because I am a man?
This is no different.
Another time, when talking about how people seem to be looking for someone outside of current politics to vote for, she actually said that she, Hillary Clinton, is the ultimate outsider because she is a woman.
Can any in their right mind deny that Hillary is the epitome of exactly what is wrong with the current insiders?
And this is who the democrats nominate for a Presidential candidate?
Trump is crazy, but on almost ever problem there is with him, Hillary is much worse.
She is more arrogant
She is way more corrupt. Pay for play her and Bill’s entire careers.
She is a bigger liar
She flip flops more.
She has violated more laws.
And think of poor Vince Foster, he was not the first, nor the last.
Charlie, she is a much worse person than Trump. She does not have any redeeming factors. Which is a reason she is supported by the OO movement. And by all the liberals.
Donald was the pay.
Considering all that nishtdayngesheft has revealed about Clinton, it’s surprising that Trump contributed to her campaigns in the past and invited her to his 3rd Chassanah.
Ndg
I hear your point, but it is different.
Imagine the following scenarios:
1. BOSS 1: “let’s hire ndg, I like working with jews”
2. Boss 2: “make sure you don’t hire ndg, he is a jew”
I’m not saying I agree with boss 1 per se. But I disagree that “this is no different “
Also lol at “hillary flip flops more”
Trump has flipped on every position, including which partyou he identifies with.
The only thing he has been consistent on is misogyny and racism. On those he has been fairly consitent
Also kudos for agreeing “trump is crazy but…”
In my mind there is no but (although SOME of your subsequent statements may be factual)
Being crazy disqualifies you, in my mind, from being president. Being a liar, arrogant, flip flop per etc…all of which apply to hillary (though I’d argue and be happy to provide examples lthat trump is worse) do not necessary disqualify you.
Ndg
No the scenario is not the same, they usually aren’t. But they are similar.
I’ll get back to you with an actual explanation as to the difference (between voting because woman and not voting because woman)
I have to think how to formulate the answer perhaps your response to the following may help…
But first if you would mind clarifying
I’m not sure what you mean by “Hire me over the other person, because I am a Jew.” Are you saying I should? Because I probably would (things being otherwise similar obviously)
Yet
If someone wouldn’t hire you BECAUSE you are a jew. We would rightly complain.
Do you agree?
Do you think this is a double standard?
Ndg
Among other distinctions, a big one is that saying “vote for me because I’m a woman”, at least in this situation is not discriminatory. It is merely a chance to help make history. Now while I agree that is far from the best reason to vote for somebody, there is no denying that a female president would be historic.
(And this is even without considering the lack of equality in the work place eg pay differences etc making a female president arguably a way of promoting equality)
However not voting simply because she’s a woman is not similar to the above at all!
This is but one difference. And while not being a great reason to vote for somebody (and Hillary never said it was) I don’t think it is discriminatory.
Of course this is not at all related to my example with hiring/not hiring a jew. Which I still need to think about, and await your reply to my earlier question to help me formulate my reply
As I see it we will have a choice in November between an egomaniacal loose cannon multi-billionaire and an evil corrupt volcanic witch!
Ubiquitin
I’m uncomfortable with both of them. While one may sound better than the other, they both have a very obvious racial tone.
Another point is, once Hillary makes her gender an issue, I get to decide if it is a positive or if it counts against her. Until then, I am very happy to compare both candidates based on their executive qualities.
Feminists love to do that. They claim they deserve the same consideration as their male colleagues, i.e. They can be just as good and sometimes better. Yet when they are treated equally, they want differential treatment because “I’m a woman”.
One last point, we already elected a black president into office because of the historic implications and you see where that got us. Now we’re going to elect a president because she’s a woman? For all those that love being part of major events that will go down in history, our generation will certainly be known for our stupidity of historic proportions.
“somewhat crazy is worse than utterly corrupt”
Given this week’s revelations that Trump made campaign contributions to two state Attorneys General after they both squelched investigations into his fraudulent university, you need a more emphatic adjective than “utterly” to describe Trump’s corruption. No major party nominee in history has done anything like that!
Charlie, so you’re saying that it comes down to who looks better in an orange jumpsuit? Trump, if he violated the law (a proof of a quid pro quo is needed), is small potatoes compared to Hillary. Her rap sheet includes unethical behavior as a Watergate committee staffer, participation in the Whitewater fraud, laughing about using a technicality to get a rapist acquitted (and violating attorney-client privilege in the process), accomplice to the murders of American diplomats, endangering national security through misuse of an unsecured server
and abusing her position by wrongfully imprisoning someone, completely ignoring the first amendment, in order to protect her image.
I think a woman should be president just not Hillary.
Scared, this is a new one on me. Please give details.
AviK, Hillary had Basseley Nakoula imprisoned after the Benghazi attack for posting a video called Innocence of Muslims on YouTube.
Scared, he violated the terms of his probation for fraud.
As I have said from the very beginning, the charges against him may have been fraudulent.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.