Hillary Makes History: So What?

[jwoodie]

So Hillary may be the first female Presidential candidate of a "major" political party. So what? Why would anyone vote for her on that basis? We are coming to the end of our first Black President's term in office, and what did that accomplish? Is there a single tangible benefit to the country that was derived from his racial background?

Some say that a woman's "perspective" is a valuable asset (e.g., Sotomayor), but what does that mean? Any judge who decided a case on that basis should be removed from the bench, so why should a Presidential candidate be held to a similar standard?

The case for voting for Hillary because she is a woman is fraught with contradiction: Either she would allow her gender to supercede objective analysis of issues, or she would merely be a figurehead for her handlers. Which is it?

P.S. Please look up "ad hominem" before responding.

 

[OldLady]

No one should vote for her based on her gender, and I don't actually think many people will. However, as a woman, it is noteworthy that a woman has been taken seriously enough by a major party and a majority of voters to be a candidate for the POTUS. 100 years ago we were considered unfit to vote, even.
It's noteworthy, just not the right first candidate.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Obama was not voted for or elected "because he's black".
Clinton has not been voted for and will not be elected because she's a woman.

In both cases, they're the most qualified and in the case of President Obama, he saved the US and the world from total financial collapse.

Since you and other RWNJs don't know what Secty Clinton has done, click on the link in my sig.

And then, by all means, go on lying about her cuz that's all you've got.

 

[ClosedCaption]

And the GOP nominated another old white dude. Congratulations!

 

[BIG YANK BAL 1976]

I'll make a prediction right here, right now, hold me too it, Clinton will beat Trump and break 300 on the electoral college..

Yea Trump will win the white guy's , poorly educated, but that's about it

 

[jwoodie]

And the GOP nominated another old white dude. Congratulations!

So what is most important to you: Age, race or gender?

 

[Fueri]

So we've found out the the electorate is comprised of disconnected morons who will vote for someone based on name recognition alone.

For president of the United States.

Fucking pathetic.

 

[ClosedCaption]

And the GOP nominated another old white dude. Congratulations!

So what is most important to you: Age, race or gender?

More Important? You mean if I'm picking a team for basketball? Or cards?

 

[jwoodie]

More Important? You mean if I'm picking a team for basketball? Or cards?

YOU are the one who criticized the GOP for nominating "another old white dude." And now you claim to be confused about your own reference?

 

[ClosedCaption]

More Important? You mean if I'm picking a team for basketball? Or cards?

YOU are the one who criticized the GOP for nominating "another old white dude." And now you claim to be confused about your own reference?

You ask what was more important. I'm asking for what activity? Because in general none are more important than another. But if you're talking a hiking partner then I'd go age first.

 

[jwoodie]

You ask what was more important. I'm asking for what activity? Because in general none are more important than another. But if you're talking a hiking partner then I'd go age first.

So now we're going to play the "I don't understand" game? YOU said:

"And the GOP nominated another old white dude."

Should I ask "for what activity?" (Maybe he was nominated to be a hiking partner?)

YOU are the one who cited the nominee's age, race and gender. Why are these important enough for you to mention?

 

[ClosedCaption]

You ask what was more important. I'm asking for what activity? Because in general none are more important than another. But if you're talking a hiking partner then I'd go age first.

So now we're going to play the "I don't understand" game? YOU said:

"And the GOP nominated another old white dude."

Should I ask "for what activity?" (Maybe he was nominated to be a hiking partner?)

YOU are the one who cited the nominee's age, race and gender. Why are these important enough for you to mention?

Because he's old and white.

 

[dani67]

So Hillary may be the first female Presidential candidate of a "major" political party. So what? Why would anyone vote for her on that basis? We are coming to the end of our first Black President's term in office, and what did that accomplish? Is there a single tangible benefit to the country that was derived from his racial background?

Some say that a woman's "perspective" is a valuable asset (e.g., Sotomayor), but what does that mean? Any judge who decided a case on that basis should be removed from the bench, so why should a Presidential candidate be held to a similar standard?

The case for voting for Hillary because she is a woman is fraught with contradiction: Either she would allow her gender to supercede objective analysis of issues, or she would merely be a figurehead for her handlers. Which is it?

P.S. Please look up "ad hominem" before responding.

Shame on America

 

[rightwinger]

No one should vote for her based on her gender, and I don't actually think many people will. However, as a woman, it is noteworthy that a woman has been taken seriously enough by a major party and a majority of voters to be a candidate for the POTUS. 100 years ago we were considered unfit to vote, even.
It's noteworthy, just not the right first candidate.

Much like a country that fought and died over slavery elected its first black man after 150 years, electing your first woman almost 100 years after women got the vote is significant

You've come a long way baby!

 

[rightwinger]

More Important? You mean if I'm picking a team for basketball? Or cards?

YOU are the one who criticized the GOP for nominating "another old white dude." And now you claim to be confused about your own reference?

Make that an old orange dude

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So Hillary may be the first female Presidential candidate of a "major" political party. So what? Why would anyone vote for her on that basis? We are coming to the end of our first Black President's term in office, and what did that accomplish? Is there a single tangible benefit to the country that was derived from his racial background?

Some say that a woman's "perspective" is a valuable asset (e.g., Sotomayor), but what does that mean? Any judge who decided a case on that basis should be removed from the bench, so why should a Presidential candidate be held to a similar standard?

The case for voting for Hillary because she is a woman is fraught with contradiction: Either she would allow her gender to supercede objective analysis of issues, or she would merely be a figurehead for her handlers. Which is it?

P.S. Please look up "ad hominem" before responding.

Most conservatives are such childish, partisan hacks; if Clinton were a Republican we'd never hear the end of it from the right.