• Images
  • Text
  • Find a Couple + Registry
GO
Chit Chat

Women in Politics

13»

Re: Women in Politics

  • I 100% agree. It would be awesome to have a woman president one day, but that shouldn't be the reason they're elected.  I think the best fit for our country should win, plain and simple.  Unfortunately I don't think either Hilary or Trump are the best fit, but if someone thinks otherwise, they should vote on that reason....

    I also think that when Obama first ran for POTUS, too much emphasis on "the first black president" played way too much of a factor in people's voting choices, everyone seems to forget that he is just as much white as he is black. 


    Vote for people who's views and campaigns are most in line with yours, that's all that should matter.  

    If only the presidential election could be more like "The Voice", it would be a better world :wink: 
    (and if Blake Shelton were part of it I wouldn't complain either) :relaxed:
    My brother is just as white as he is black, but when he was 6 and yelled at by an adult for crossing the street not at a corner, she didn't call him a white slur.

    Let's not take away from Obama's accomplishment because he's not "black enough."
    Oh I didn't in any way mean to take away from it, I just meant overall, there was so much emphasis on having a black president (amazing time in history for the US by the way, not negating that at all).  I just wish across the board that image/skin/sex has little to do with who people choose to elect.  

    I didn't mean to undermine his accomplishment at all, I apologize if it came off that way. 
  • MCmeowMCmeow member
    500 Love Its 100 Comments Second Anniversary Name Dropper
    edited July 2016
    The "you're only voting for her because you're a woman/black person bit" will be there as long as minorities and women are treated unequally and it is wrong (although I know of HRC supporters and encountered manyyyy that are voting for her for that reason alone, it doesn't mean the same for everyone), but it was made worse when people like Albright said there's a special place in hell for women who don't support other women, and the other person who said female Bernie supporters are only in it to attract guys, and all the false sexist accusations like pretending protesters threw money at her as a sexist thing not as an obvious anti-establishment thing (and Bernie bros, very similar to Obama boys). Also the amount of times HRC repeated that people should vote for her because her being a woman makes her an outsider, that was disastrous and proved our point. Her campaign did a horrible horrible job in PR and lost many people that likely won't come back. Assuming voters reasons for voting as shallow is wrong but they didn't help that point in the slightest.
    Wedding Countdown Ticker
    SP29
  • MCmeow said:
    The "you're only voting for her because you're a woman/black person bit" will be there as long as minorities and women are treated unequally and it is wrong (although I know of HRC supporters and encountered manyyyy that are voting for her for that reason alone, it doesn't mean the same for everyone), but it was made worse when people like Albright said there's a special place in hell for women who don't support other women, and the other person who said female Bernie supporters are only in it to attract guys, and all the false sexist accusations like pretending protesters threw money at her as a sexist thing not as an obvious anti-establishment thing (and Bernie bros, very similar to Obama boys). Also the amount of times HRC repeated that people should vote for her because her being a woman makes her an outsider, that was disastrous and proved our point. Her campaign did a horrible horrible job in PR and lost many people that likely won't come back. Assuming voters reasons for voting as shallow is wrong but they didn't help that point in the slightest.
    Assuming representation in the political game is a shallow reason for chosing a candidate is wrong. I'm not sure how a successful primary campaign by a candidate well ahead in the polls for the general election is disastrous. 

    Albright's quote is from years before this campaign, and I and many women agree with it. 
    bohobrideCA
  • kimmiinthemittenkimmiinthemitten Detroit, MI member
    2500 Comments 500 Love Its Third Anniversary 5 Answers
    Damn, just noticed my fat finger spelling error.  Wah wah!
    image
  • MCmeow said:
    The "you're only voting for her because you're a woman/black person bit" will be there as long as minorities and women are treated unequally and it is wrong (although I know of HRC supporters and encountered manyyyy that are voting for her for that reason alone, it doesn't mean the same for everyone), but it was made worse when people like Albright said there's a special place in hell for women who don't support other women, and the other person who said female Bernie supporters are only in it to attract guys, and all the false sexist accusations like pretending protesters threw money at her as a sexist thing not as an obvious anti-establishment thing (and Bernie bros, very similar to Obama boys). Also the amount of times HRC repeated that people should vote for her because her being a woman makes her an outsider, that was disastrous and proved our point. Her campaign did a horrible horrible job in PR and lost many people that likely won't come back. Assuming voters reasons for voting as shallow is wrong but they didn't help that point in the slightest.
    Assuming representation in the political game is a shallow reason for chosing a candidate is wrong. I'm not sure how a successful primary campaign by a candidate well ahead in the polls for the general election is disastrous. 

    Albright's quote is from years before this campaign, and I and many women agree with it. 
    For centuries, thr majority of voters have been white men and the majority of elected officials have been white men.  Somehow voting for someone who looks like you was never a problem until minorities started voted for minorities and women started voting for women.
    So much this. 

    Also, every time I hear "I don't care about gender/race/ethnicity/religion, I just want the best/most qualified person and they aren't it" all I hear is "people of this gender/race/ethnicity/religion are inherently less qualified". 


    Really?   I would love a female Presidential candidate but not THAT one.   It's about her abuse of power that's just the tip of the iceberg.   

    I don't think women are less qualified.   I think SHE should be in jail. 
    MCmeow
  • kimmiinthemittenkimmiinthemitten Detroit, MI member
    2500 Comments 500 Love Its Third Anniversary 5 Answers
    edited July 2016
    banana468 said:
    MCmeow said:
    The "you're only voting for her because you're a woman/black person bit" will be there as long as minorities and women are treated unequally and it is wrong (although I know of HRC supporters and encountered manyyyy that are voting for her for that reason alone, it doesn't mean the same for everyone), but it was made worse when people like Albright said there's a special place in hell for women who don't support other women, and the other person who said female Bernie supporters are only in it to attract guys, and all the false sexist accusations like pretending protesters threw money at her as a sexist thing not as an obvious anti-establishment thing (and Bernie bros, very similar to Obama boys). Also the amount of times HRC repeated that people should vote for her because her being a woman makes her an outsider, that was disastrous and proved our point. Her campaign did a horrible horrible job in PR and lost many people that likely won't come back. Assuming voters reasons for voting as shallow is wrong but they didn't help that point in the slightest.
    Assuming representation in the political game is a shallow reason for chosing a candidate is wrong. I'm not sure how a successful primary campaign by a candidate well ahead in the polls for the general election is disastrous. 

    Albright's quote is from years before this campaign, and I and many women agree with it. 
    For centuries, thr majority of voters have been white men and the majority of elected officials have been white men.  Somehow voting for someone who looks like you was never a problem until minorities started voted for minorities and women started voting for women.
    So much this. 

    Also, every time I hear "I don't care about gender/race/ethnicity/religion, I just want the best/most qualified person and they aren't it" all I hear is "people of this gender/race/ethnicity/religion are inherently less qualified". 


    Really?   I would love a female Presidential candidate but not THAT one.   It's about her abuse of power that's just the tip of the iceberg.   
    I don't think women are less qualified.   I think SHE should be in jail. 
    You also haven't said that you don't care about representative government, at least not in this post.

    The point is there is a difference between not liking Jane Government for her platform vs not liking the status quo that systemically tells us in nuanced voices that white men are best unless said minority proves to be the best for the job.

    Edited to clarify
    image
    bohobrideCA
  • banana468 said:
    MCmeow said:
    The "you're only voting for her because you're a woman/black person bit" will be there as long as minorities and women are treated unequally and it is wrong (although I know of HRC supporters and encountered manyyyy that are voting for her for that reason alone, it doesn't mean the same for everyone), but it was made worse when people like Albright said there's a special place in hell for women who don't support other women, and the other person who said female Bernie supporters are only in it to attract guys, and all the false sexist accusations like pretending protesters threw money at her as a sexist thing not as an obvious anti-establishment thing (and Bernie bros, very similar to Obama boys). Also the amount of times HRC repeated that people should vote for her because her being a woman makes her an outsider, that was disastrous and proved our point. Her campaign did a horrible horrible job in PR and lost many people that likely won't come back. Assuming voters reasons for voting as shallow is wrong but they didn't help that point in the slightest.
    Assuming representation in the political game is a shallow reason for chosing a candidate is wrong. I'm not sure how a successful primary campaign by a candidate well ahead in the polls for the general election is disastrous. 

    Albright's quote is from years before this campaign, and I and many women agree with it. 
    For centuries, thr majority of voters have been white men and the majority of elected officials have been white men.  Somehow voting for someone who looks like you was never a problem until minorities started voted for minorities and women started voting for women.
    So much this. 

    Also, every time I hear "I don't care about gender/race/ethnicity/religion, I just want the best/most qualified person and they aren't it" all I hear is "people of this gender/race/ethnicity/religion are inherently less qualified". 


    Really?   I would love a female Presidential candidate but not THAT one.   It's about her abuse of power that's just the tip of the iceberg.   
    I don't think women are less qualified.   I think SHE should be in jail. 
    You also haven't said that you don't care about representative government, at least not in this post.

    The point is there is a difference between not liking Jane Government for her platform and the status quo that systemically tells us in nuanced voices that white men are best unless said minority proves to be the best for the job.
    That wasn't my point.  It's that I didn't love the theory posted.   My not voting for that candidate has everything to do with what she's done and zero to do with her gender.    

    I think in general we have major issues in this country with working women.   We are very behind other industrialized nations that way.   
  • lyndausvilyndausvi Western Slope, Colorado mod
    Moderator Knottie Warrior 10000 Comments 500 Love Its
    edited July 2016
    MCmeow said:
    The "you're only voting for her because you're a woman/black person bit" will be there as long as minorities and women are treated unequally and it is wrong (although I know of HRC supporters and encountered manyyyy that are voting for her for that reason alone, it doesn't mean the same for everyone), but it was made worse when people like Albright said there's a special place in hell for women who don't support other women, and the other person who said female Bernie supporters are only in it to attract guys, and all the false sexist accusations like pretending protesters threw money at her as a sexist thing not as an obvious anti-establishment thing (and Bernie bros, very similar to Obama boys). Also the amount of times HRC repeated that people should vote for her because her being a woman makes her an outsider, that was disastrous and proved our point. Her campaign did a horrible horrible job in PR and lost many people that likely won't come back. Assuming voters reasons for voting as shallow is wrong but they didn't help that point in the slightest.
    Assuming representation in the political game is a shallow reason for chosing a candidate is wrong. I'm not sure how a successful primary campaign by a candidate well ahead in the polls for the general election is disastrous. 

    Albright's quote is from years before this campaign, and I and many women agree with it. 
    For centuries, thr majority of voters have been white men and the majority of elected officials have been white men.  Somehow voting for someone who looks like you was never a problem until minorities started voted for minorities and women started voting for women.
    So much this. 

    Also, every time I hear "I don't care about gender/race/ethnicity/religion, I just want the best/most qualified person and they aren't it" all I hear is "people of this gender/race/ethnicity/religion are inherently less qualified". 


    I'm more in the middle, leaning more towards conservationism.  I voted for Obama twice  (I would have voted for him the first time, but I was living in the USVI and was ineligible to vote for the president) because I thought he was the better choice.  

    I lived the USVI which had about 9% white people.  They had elections every other year for the senate.  There were 15 spots.  7 from STT (voted on only people from STT-STJ), 7 from STX (voted on by only STX) and 1 voted on by the entire territory but had to be from STJ.  

    That at-large spot was the only spot a white person had even a shot of getting into the senate.  Sometimes I would vote for the only white guy running for the at-large spot.   Other times I didn't because they were not the best candidate at the time. I voted on who I thought was the best.  Not because it was the only way I would see a white person in the territory senate. 

     I voted for Donna Christian-Christensen to represent us in the US House (non- voting)  She's represented us for a long time.  I thought she did a great job.  If I had been living in the USVI when she ran for Governor I would have voted for her in a heart beat.  Sadly she lost to Mapp who was one of the  worse territory senators.

    No way in hell would I ever vote for Alicia "chucky" Hansen.  One of the few women in the USVI senate.   She is a convicted felony and so corrupt (got to love the USVI where convicted felons can sit in office). Yet some how keeps getting elected to the USVI senate.   It's completely mind-blogging someone like her can keep getting elected, but she does.    Joke in the islands is she throws the best fish fry and sends a lot of kick-backs to get votes. 

    I look back at my voting history and I feel like I vote for who I perceive will do the best job regardless of gender/race/religion/ethnicity.

    That said, I understand why you might think the way you do.  






    What differentiates an average host and a great host is anticipating unexpressed needs and wants of their guests.  Just because the want/need is not expressed, doesn't mean it wouldn't be appreciated. 
  • lyndausvi said:

    I look back at my voting history and I feel like I vote for who I perceive will do the best job regardless of gender/race/religion/ethnicity.

    That said, I understand why you might think the way you do.  
    It's really difficult to separate the implicit bias against women and minoritiew from the legitimate disagreements people have over candidates' policies and issues. 

    Its imperative to do the bolded and be critical of our own actions. To ask whether we support (or don't support) candidates because of their policies and experiences or because they look/sound/act like what we've been condition to accept as "the best candidate for the job". 

    Im not saying everyone has to vote for Clinton because she's a woman, I'm saying we all should examine our motivations for why we support the candidates that we do and be aware that decades conditioning lead us to believe white male candidates are better suited for jobs (and there is TONS is research that shows this is the case) and that implicit bias is a very real thing. So if you're not examining your own motivations/reasons for voting/acting/doing what you do, it's time to start. 
    bohobrideCAkimmiinthemittenlevioosaSP29
  • Fran1985 Fran1985 Narnia member
    Fifth Anniversary 500 Love Its 500 Comments Name Dropper
    lyndausvi said:
    So Bill Clinton is friends with Jeffery Epstein.    Jeffery owns a private island in the USVI.  I have friends who worked there.  I've snorkeled by the island many, many, many times.        

     Jeffery is a pedophile.   He had sex slaves.  He paid teens to give him massages with happy endings.       Bill came to the island a few times.   He rode in Jeffery's plane many times around the world.   Jeffery was invited (and attended) Chelsea's wedding. (eta - which was after he was convicted and did 18 months jail time)

    Sorry, I do not trust a family who can be friends with someone like him.
    However you feel about her, I feel like you cannot try to use this against him without mentioning that Trump is not only friends with him, but accused of using one of those sex slaves. Like you can certainly hold it against both Bill (and by extension Hilary) and Trump, but to put this post out without even talking about Trump seems disingenuous at best. 

    And yet if you talk to Donald Trump, a different Epstein emerges. "I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy,'' Trump booms from a speakerphone. "He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it -- Jeffrey enjoys his social life."
    http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/n_7912/

    Most of the posts in the rest of this thread are super depressing so I am not even going to bother arguing them but I wanted to at least point this out. 

    image
    bohobrideCAlevioosaSP29scrunchythief
  • banana468 said:
    MCmeow said:
    The "you're only voting for her because you're a woman/black person bit" will be there as long as minorities and women are treated unequally and it is wrong (although I know of HRC supporters and encountered manyyyy that are voting for her for that reason alone, it doesn't mean the same for everyone), but it was made worse when people like Albright said there's a special place in hell for women who don't support other women, and the other person who said female Bernie supporters are only in it to attract guys, and all the false sexist accusations like pretending protesters threw money at her as a sexist thing not as an obvious anti-establishment thing (and Bernie bros, very similar to Obama boys). Also the amount of times HRC repeated that people should vote for her because her being a woman makes her an outsider, that was disastrous and proved our point. Her campaign did a horrible horrible job in PR and lost many people that likely won't come back. Assuming voters reasons for voting as shallow is wrong but they didn't help that point in the slightest.
    Assuming representation in the political game is a shallow reason for chosing a candidate is wrong. I'm not sure how a successful primary campaign by a candidate well ahead in the polls for the general election is disastrous. 

    Albright's quote is from years before this campaign, and I and many women agree with it. 
    For centuries, thr majority of voters have been white men and the majority of elected officials have been white men.  Somehow voting for someone who looks like you was never a problem until minorities started voted for minorities and women started voting for women.
    So much this. 

    Also, every time I hear "I don't care about gender/race/ethnicity/religion, I just want the best/most qualified person and they aren't it" all I hear is "people of this gender/race/ethnicity/religion are inherently less qualified". 


    Really?   I would love a female Presidential candidate but not THAT one.   It's about her abuse of power that's just the tip of the iceberg.   

    I don't think women are less qualified.   I think SHE should be in jail. 
    The only people who think she should be in jail have no understanding of the law or legal interpretation. I am a government ethics attorney. 100% she should have not used a private email server. 100% it was breaking ethics and appearance guidance. 100% is was not illegal. 

    I do not like a lot of things about Hillary Clinton. If you think that she and Trump are in anyway equivalent in terms of "badness" you are someone who is impervious to reason. 

    I realize there is no way to say this without getting accused of being a liberal shill (which I am not, having voted republican more overall in my lifetime (state and local elections included) but I have yet to meet an intelligent person who is voting for Trump. If you had told me two years ago that my dad would be voting for Clinton I would eat my hat. But here we are, and he is. If you care about the stability of the United States, the economy, the market, the Supreme Court (which will be hearing cases about abortion, gun rights, immigration, health care during the next President's turn) our security, women's rights, and/or disadvantaged people in this country, you vote for Clinton. I am sick to death of this "oh I am not going to vote for either, both are bad." No. No. No. Clinton will not destroy this country in four years. Whatever you have to say about her, she is a smart person and a seasoned politician. She will nominate someone for the Supreme Court that is competent and qualified. She will do the same with the cabinet. She will be able to withstand any sort of personal attack because she has before. 

    If you are in a swing state and you don't vote for her, god help us. 
    I'm in a state that is pretty darn blue.  

    I'm voting for neither.   She's smart because she's motivated to make herself look better.  

    I will concede that I think she has more experience than Trump but I am not optimistic about what she'll do.   

    That saI'd, a Trump presidency terrifies me.  
    MCmeow
  • MCmeowMCmeow member
    500 Love Its 100 Comments Second Anniversary Name Dropper
    edited July 2016
    banana468 said:
    MCmeow said:
    The "you're only voting for her because you're a woman/black person bit" will be there as long as minorities and women are treated unequally and it is wrong (although I know of HRC supporters and encountered manyyyy that are voting for her for that reason alone, it doesn't mean the same for everyone), but it was made worse when people like Albright said there's a special place in hell for women who don't support other women, and the other person who said female Bernie supporters are only in it to attract guys, and all the false sexist accusations like pretending protesters threw money at her as a sexist thing not as an obvious anti-establishment thing (and Bernie bros, very similar to Obama boys). Also the amount of times HRC repeated that people should vote for her because her being a woman makes her an outsider, that was disastrous and proved our point. Her campaign did a horrible horrible job in PR and lost many people that likely won't come back. Assuming voters reasons for voting as shallow is wrong but they didn't help that point in the slightest.
    Assuming representation in the political game is a shallow reason for chosing a candidate is wrong. I'm not sure how a successful primary campaign by a candidate well ahead in the polls for the general election is disastrous. 

    Albright's quote is from years before this campaign, and I and many women agree with it. 
    For centuries, thr majority of voters have been white men and the majority of elected officials have been white men.  Somehow voting for someone who looks like you was never a problem until minorities started voted for minorities and women started voting for women.
    So much this. 

    Also, every time I hear "I don't care about gender/race/ethnicity/religion, I just want the best/most qualified person and they aren't it" all I hear is "people of this gender/race/ethnicity/religion are inherently less qualified". 


    Really?   I would love a female Presidential candidate but not THAT one.   It's about her abuse of power that's just the tip of the iceberg.   

    I don't think women are less qualified.   I think SHE should be in jail. 
    The only people who think she should be in jail have no understanding of the law or legal interpretation. I am a government ethics attorney. 100% she should have not used a private email server. 100% it was breaking ethics and appearance guidance. 100% is was not illegal. 

    I do not like a lot of things about Hillary Clinton. If you think that she and Trump are in anyway equivalent in terms of "badness" you are someone who is impervious to reason. 

    I realize there is no way to say this without getting accused of being a liberal shill (which I am not, having voted republican more overall in my lifetime (state and local elections included) but I have yet to meet an intelligent person who is voting for Trump. If you had told me two years ago that my dad would be voting for Clinton I would eat my hat. But here we are, and he is. If you care about the stability of the United States, the economy, the market, the Supreme Court (which will be hearing cases about abortion, gun rights, immigration, health care during the next President's turn) our security, women's rights, and/or disadvantaged people in this country, you vote for Clinton. I am sick to death of this "oh I am not going to vote for either, both are bad." No. No. No. Clinton will not destroy this country in four years. Whatever you have to say about her, she is a smart person and a seasoned politician. She will nominate someone for the Supreme Court that is competent and qualified. She will do the same with the cabinet. She will be able to withstand any sort of personal attack because she has before. 

    If you are in a swing state and you don't vote for her, god help us. 
    But if you are in an affected group, yeah both choices suck and can ruin your life. Affected groups include: illegal immigrants, people of color, Syrians, Palestinians, soldiers, veterans, students, children that will grow up in environmentally racist communities drinking poison water, etc. People in these groups have every reason to say HRC is as bad as Trump as much as anyone may disagree with them (for example: Obama deported more people than any previous president, which is why he's now called deporter-in-chief, HRC says she'll continue his efforts, if you're an illegal immigrant, both choices have you at risk. If you're a Syrian, both choices include US involvement, if you're a child in a city with lead in the water, both choices won't change that and will lead you to grow up with developmental issues, etc). I believe Trump is slightly worse but that doesn't matter to my own life situation.

    I have yet to find a policy reason to ever vote for HRC except "she's better than trump". Ugh it pissed me off when in a town hall a concerned Black woman asked how she will deal with systematic racism, while Bernie and Jill gave specifics like demilitarize the police, have police officers that reflect the community, etc, she only said "white people need to talk about it more" and that was that, and then she snubs BLM protesters instead of listening to them, and then she forgets about Flint except for campaign stops. Clinton will not destroy the country, but she will destroy plenty of lives comfortable people won't ever know about. And I'm not saying she's specifically an evil person, she's a typical politician, who calculates everything, no one knows what her true beliefs are, and the US does not need a typical politician right now.

    I really don't know how anyone can deny these things and I'd love to hear specifics to prove she won't be terrible to these groups of people that will put me (and anyone against her) at ease.
    Wedding Countdown Ticker
    spockforprez
  • lyndausvilyndausvi Western Slope, Colorado mod
    Moderator Knottie Warrior 10000 Comments 500 Love Its
    edited July 2016
    lyndausvi said:
    So Bill Clinton is friends with Jeffery Epstein.    Jeffery owns a private island in the USVI.  I have friends who worked there.  I've snorkeled by the island many, many, many times.        

     Jeffery is a pedophile.   He had sex slaves.  He paid teens to give him massages with happy endings.       Bill came to the island a few times.   He rode in Jeffery's plane many times around the world.   Jeffery was invited (and attended) Chelsea's wedding. (eta - which was after he was convicted and did 18 months jail time)

    Sorry, I do not trust a family who can be friends with someone like him.
    However you feel about her, I feel like you cannot try to use this against him without mentioning that Trump is not only friends with him, but accused of using one of those sex slaves. Like you can certainly hold it against both Bill (and by extension Hilary) and Trump, but to put this post out without even talking about Trump seems disingenuous at best. 

    And yet if you talk to Donald Trump, a different Epstein emerges. "I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy,'' Trump booms from a speakerphone. "He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it -- Jeffrey enjoys his social life."
    http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/n_7912/

    Most of the posts in the rest of this thread are super depressing so I am not even going to bother arguing them but I wanted to at least point this out. 
    Just because I didn't mention Trump doesn't mean my comments were supporting Trump.  I'm not voting for him either.

    This thread was about women in politics.  And I express this as one (of many) reason why I do not trust her specifically.   The Clintons are sketchy as shit, but some people have blinders on that she is almost the next messhia because she is a woman.

    Trump is a well documented womanizing, racist, asshole.   Him knowing Epstein is no surprise, dare I say expected?  

     When it comes to the Clintons, well I have to question a family who after serving jail time for these crimes they still invited him to their daughter's wedding.    Really?   Makes you wonder what other secrets they all share?








    What differentiates an average host and a great host is anticipating unexpressed needs and wants of their guests.  Just because the want/need is not expressed, doesn't mean it wouldn't be appreciated. 
    MCmeowemmaaa
  • banana468 said:
    MCmeow said:
    The "you're only voting for her because you're a woman/black person bit" will be there as long as minorities and women are treated unequally and it is wrong (although I know of HRC supporters and encountered manyyyy that are voting for her for that reason alone, it doesn't mean the same for everyone), but it was made worse when people like Albright said there's a special place in hell for women who don't support other women, and the other person who said female Bernie supporters are only in it to attract guys, and all the false sexist accusations like pretending protesters threw money at her as a sexist thing not as an obvious anti-establishment thing (and Bernie bros, very similar to Obama boys). Also the amount of times HRC repeated that people should vote for her because her being a woman makes her an outsider, that was disastrous and proved our point. Her campaign did a horrible horrible job in PR and lost many people that likely won't come back. Assuming voters reasons for voting as shallow is wrong but they didn't help that point in the slightest.
    Assuming representation in the political game is a shallow reason for chosing a candidate is wrong. I'm not sure how a successful primary campaign by a candidate well ahead in the polls for the general election is disastrous. 

    Albright's quote is from years before this campaign, and I and many women agree with it. 
    For centuries, thr majority of voters have been white men and the majority of elected officials have been white men.  Somehow voting for someone who looks like you was never a problem until minorities started voted for minorities and women started voting for women.
    So much this. 

    Also, every time I hear "I don't care about gender/race/ethnicity/religion, I just want the best/most qualified person and they aren't it" all I hear is "people of this gender/race/ethnicity/religion are inherently less qualified". 


    Really?   I would love a female Presidential candidate but not THAT one.   It's about her abuse of power that's just the tip of the iceberg.   

    I don't think women are less qualified.   I think SHE should be in jail. 
    The only people who think she should be in jail have no understanding of the law or legal interpretation. I am a government ethics attorney. 100% she should have not used a private email server. 100% it was breaking ethics and appearance guidance. 100% is was not illegal. 

    I do not like a lot of things about Hillary Clinton. If you think that she and Trump are in anyway equivalent in terms of "badness" you are someone who is impervious to reason. 

    I realize there is no way to say this without getting accused of being a liberal shill (which I am not, having voted republican more overall in my lifetime (state and local elections included) but I have yet to meet an intelligent person who is voting for Trump. If you had told me two years ago that my dad would be voting for Clinton I would eat my hat. But here we are, and he is. If you care about the stability of the United States, the economy, the market, the Supreme Court (which will be hearing cases about abortion, gun rights, immigration, health care during the next President's turn) our security, women's rights, and/or disadvantaged people in this country, you vote for Clinton. I am sick to death of this "oh I am not going to vote for either, both are bad." No. No. No. Clinton will not destroy this country in four years. Whatever you have to say about her, she is a smart person and a seasoned politician. She will nominate someone for the Supreme Court that is competent and qualified. She will do the same with the cabinet. She will be able to withstand any sort of personal attack because she has before. 

    If you are in a swing state and you don't vote for her, god help us. 
    QFT. This is exactly how I feel, couldn't have said it better. I am not a huge fan of Hillary, but I will most definitely be voting for her in the hope that the country does not go down the shitter in the next four years. In this particular election, I am absolutely voting for the "lesser of two evils".

    While I, like many PPs, wish our country did not have a two-party system, we DO. That will not change in this election, though hopefully this election will spark future change. Maybe in 8 or 12 years the landscape will look different, but in all reality, either Trump or Clinton WILL be president come January. (Sorry if that's too cynical for some of you, but it's true.) I, for one, cannot think of anyone worse to be president than Trump, so I will reluctantly throw my support behind Clinton.
    BabyFruit Ticker
    kimmiinthemitten
  • kimmiinthemittenkimmiinthemitten Detroit, MI member
    2500 Comments 500 Love Its Third Anniversary 5 Answers
    Big day in the UK!  Congrats Theresa May!

    http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/brexit-referendum/theresa-may-bloody-difficult-woman-be-u-k-prime-minister-n608001

    I just read this article and loved this line in response to a male colleague who called her a "bloody difficult woman":

     "Politics could do with some Bloody Difficult Women actually.  I think that if you believe in something strongly you should go for it and if that makes me difficult…” 
    image
    charlotte989875glasgowtolondon
  • Big day in the UK!  Congrats Theresa May!

    http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/brexit-referendum/theresa-may-bloody-difficult-woman-be-u-k-prime-minister-n608001

    I just read this article and loved this line in response to a male colleague who called her a "bloody difficult woman":

     "Politics could do with some Bloody Difficult Women actually.  I think that if you believe in something strongly you should go for it and if that makes me difficult…” 
    She is now, as of 5mins ago - we had an odd period there for about 30mins where we had no PM at all. I'm not even kidding, she had to kiss the Queens hand before she was officially confirmed as Prime Minister.

    Obviously the papers are all now full "She's the new Merkel", "She's the new Thatcher", "She wore leopard print shoes". 
                 
    kimmiinthemittencharlotte989875
  • kimmiinthemittenkimmiinthemitten Detroit, MI member
    2500 Comments 500 Love Its Third Anniversary 5 Answers
    Big day in the UK!  Congrats Theresa May!

    http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/brexit-referendum/theresa-may-bloody-difficult-woman-be-u-k-prime-minister-n608001

    I just read this article and loved this line in response to a male colleague who called her a "bloody difficult woman":

     "Politics could do with some Bloody Difficult Women actually.  I think that if you believe in something strongly you should go for it and if that makes me difficult…” 
    She is now, as of 5mins ago - we had an odd period there for about 30mins where we had no PM at all. I'm not even kidding, she had to kiss the Queens hand before she was officially confirmed as Prime Minister.

    Obviously the papers are all now full "She's the new Merkel", "She's the new Thatcher", "She wore leopard print shoes". 
    Those must have been bloody difficult to walk in.
    image
  • Big day in the UK!  Congrats Theresa May!

    http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/brexit-referendum/theresa-may-bloody-difficult-woman-be-u-k-prime-minister-n608001

    I just read this article and loved this line in response to a male colleague who called her a "bloody difficult woman":

     "Politics could do with some Bloody Difficult Women actually.  I think that if you believe in something strongly you should go for it and if that makes me difficult…” 
    Lol this reminds me of the story about Ruth Bader Ginsburg (who I don't agree with on a lot of things, but I admire her courage and integrity).  

    Someone called her a bitch, and she replied, "Better bitch than mouse."  
    I love it.

    SaveSave
    kimmiinthemittenscrunchythief
  • kimmiinthemittenkimmiinthemitten Detroit, MI member
    2500 Comments 500 Love Its Third Anniversary 5 Answers
    monkeysip said:
    Big day in the UK!  Congrats Theresa May!

    http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/brexit-referendum/theresa-may-bloody-difficult-woman-be-u-k-prime-minister-n608001

    I just read this article and loved this line in response to a male colleague who called her a "bloody difficult woman":

     "Politics could do with some Bloody Difficult Women actually.  I think that if you believe in something strongly you should go for it and if that makes me difficult…” 
    Lol this reminds me of the story about Ruth Bader Ginsburg (who I don't agree with on a lot of things, but I admire her courage and integrity).  

    Someone called her a bitch, and she replied, "Better bitch than mouse."  
    I love it.
    I love RGB and would probably still admire even her if I disagreed with her.  I mean she was told by a law professor to give up her seat in the class to a man who would use the degree and went on to become a Justice of the Supreme Court.  Talk about success makes for the best revenge!
    image
    scrunchythief
  • monkeysip said:
    Big day in the UK!  Congrats Theresa May!

    http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/brexit-referendum/theresa-may-bloody-difficult-woman-be-u-k-prime-minister-n608001

    I just read this article and loved this line in response to a male colleague who called her a "bloody difficult woman":

     "Politics could do with some Bloody Difficult Women actually.  I think that if you believe in something strongly you should go for it and if that makes me difficult…” 
    Lol this reminds me of the story about Ruth Bader Ginsburg (who I don't agree with on a lot of things, but I admire her courage and integrity).  

    Someone called her a bitch, and she replied, "Better bitch than mouse."  
    I love it.

                 
    kimmiinthemittenthisismynickname2scrunchythief
13»
This discussion has been closed.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards