Well, there was certainly a lot of positivisty initially, but otherwise sure. No one is saying that electing Hillary would necessarily change things, but I could see why some people would vote for her thinking it would.
Originally posted by Fated Xtasy
Could we please stop talking about the election? Donald won yay or nay. The People voted. It's done. We shall see the fruit borne of our actions in the years to come. For now tho? Let's just go back to the other bullshit we talked about before.
Election time, come on grab some pussy friends.
We're goin to verrrry.... distant lands
with Fate the librul and Ziggy the conservative
the fun... it never ends.
Election time.
Originally posted by Surtur
But you realize it's hypocritical..even if we'd had 400 male presidents.If voting based solely on gender is sexist then I'm sorry but..it's sexist all the way around.
Hypocrisy is hypocrisy, it's irrelevant what causes it.
You seem to be missing the point entirely. You aren't voting for a female candidate simply because she is a women but rather because of the message it would send electing a women president.
Originally posted by ares834
You seem to be missing the point entirely. You aren't voting for a female candidate simply because she is a women but rather because of the message it would send electing a women president.
The message would be powerful because she is a woman though, isn't that the jist of this?
We need to fix stuff in the country, a female president just for the f*ck of it isn't high on the list of stuff that needs fixing.
A female president for the sake of empowerment also isn't really a top priority nor should it be.
This country as a whole>>>>>>>>>>>some intangible concept of empowering females.
I mean did we just free women from slavery last week? Did they just get the right to vote a few years ago? Is there something I'm missing as to why this is needed?
Despite ALL her corruption she still came very very close to becoming the most powerful person in the world. It's not like that isn't something to kinda be proud of. Especially if women are just held down in this country as much as some would like to believe then the fact she got this far at all despite all her corruption and lies..doesn't really send a message to young girls that you can never be president.
The message is nobody gives a shit about "firsts" if you're as corrupt as the day is long. Hilary supporters do not want to hear things like that because..reasons.
Originally posted by Surtur
The message would be powerful because she is a woman though, isn't that the jist of this?We need to fix stuff in the country, a female president just for the f*ck of it isn't high on the list of stuff that needs fixing.
A female president for the sake of empowerment also isn't really a top priority nor should it be.
This country as a whole>>>>>>>>>>>some intangible concept of empowering females.
I mean did we just free women from slavery last week? Did they just get the right to vote a few years ago? Is there something I'm missing as to why this is needed?
Despite ALL her corruption she still came very very close to becoming the most powerful person in the world. It's not like that isn't something to kinda be proud of. Especially if women are just held down in this country as much as some would like to believe then the fact she got this far at all despite all her corruption and lies..doesn't really send a message to young girls that you can never be president.
The message is nobody gives a shit about "firsts" if you're as corrupt as the day is long. Hilary supporters do not want to hear things like that because..reasons.
I agree. It wasn't the most important consideration this election. That's why I favored Bernie in the primaries.
Originally posted by Surtur
The message would be powerful because she is a woman though, isn't that the jist of this?We need to fix stuff in the country, a female president just for the f*ck of it isn't high on the list of stuff that needs fixing.
A female president for the sake of empowerment also isn't really a top priority nor should it be.
This country as a whole>>>>>>>>>>>some intangible concept of empowering females.
I mean did we just free women from slavery last week? Did they just get the right to vote a few years ago? Is there something I'm missing as to why this is needed?
Despite ALL her corruption she still came very very close to becoming the most powerful person in the world. It's not like that isn't something to kinda be proud of. Especially if women are just held down in this country as much as some would like to believe then the fact she got this far at all despite all her corruption and lies..doesn't really send a message to young girls that you can never be president.
The message is nobody gives a shit about "firsts" if you're as corrupt as the day is long. Hilary supporters do not want to hear things like that because..reasons.
But wut about making da womenz feel good omg u fuking white male u should be hung!!!! idiot!!!!
Originally posted by TrocityDoes not matter. If he said something like "Because you have no proof of these claims of people becoming more racist. You're just looking like a ****ing idiot who blathers on the internet like the rest of the spergs in this thread. Where is your statistical data?", which is a fair enough thing to say on its own, but then say that "things haven't become less racist under Democrats. They've become more racist and sexist. Just against whites and men", if he doesn't have any evidence of that concrete statement then he's a hypocritical retard lol.
Won't be easy to find stats like those when they don't fit the agenda.
Now maybe he does, and he didn't see my post or whatever. If so, great! If he doesn't, he should kill himself. 👆
Oh, and as for whether or not voting for a female president because she is female is sexist? In of itself, not necessarily, with a caveat.
If all other things were equal, and you had two candidates, one being a man, the other being a woman, who would it be best to vote for? The answer is the woman, obviously. A female president would break ground that hasn't been broken before and is empowering towards women, whereas a male president has no intrinsic value in of itself. It's happened every other time. It's nothing special.
But with that said, the gender of the candidates should be a very, very minor reason to vote for them. If the man is obviously more qualified than the woman, he should get the vote.
But see, popular opinion of both candidates (at least on this site) seems to be that both were shit sandwiches. So voting for the shit sandwich that at least breaks new ground due to her gender isn't sexist at all. You'd have to be retarded to not think Hillary being female wasn't a point in her favor. It was a comparatively tiny point in her favor, but a point nonetheless.
Now, if you believe the female candidate is worse than the male but voted for her because she is female? Yeah that's arguably pretty sexist, and definitely pretty stupid.
Originally posted by NemeBro
Does not matter. If he said something like "Because you have no proof of these claims of people becoming more racist. You're just looking like a ****ing idiot who blathers on the internet like the rest of the spergs in this thread. Where is your statistical data?", which is a fair enough thing to say on its own, but then say that "things haven't become less racist under Democrats. They've become more racist and sexist. Just against whites and men", if he doesn't have any evidence of that concrete statement then he's a hypocritical retard lol.Now maybe he does, and he didn't see my post or whatever. If so, great! If he doesn't, he should kill himself. 👆
Oh, and as for whether or not voting for a female president because she is female is sexist? In of itself, not necessarily, with a caveat.
If all other things were equal, and you had two candidates, one being a man, the other being a woman, who would it be best to vote for? The answer is the woman, obviously. A female president would break ground that hasn't been broken before and is empowering towards women, whereas a male president has no intrinsic value in of itself. It's happened every other time. It's nothing special.
But with that said, the gender of the candidates should be a very, very minor reason to vote for them. If the man is obviously more qualified than the woman, he should get the vote.
But see, popular opinion of both candidates (at least on this site) seems to be that both were shit sandwiches. So voting for the shit sandwich that at least breaks new ground due to her gender isn't sexist at all. You'd have to be retarded to not think Hillary being female wasn't a point in her favor. It was a comparatively tiny point in her favor, but a point nonetheless.
Now, if you believe the female candidate is worse than the male but voted for her because she is female? Yeah that's arguably pretty sexist, and definitely pretty stupid.
This is really becoming a question of ideologies, and not what's actually better for society in reality.
Originally posted by ZiggystardustAre you implying that a female president's gender alone is inherently worse for society in reality? Ignore whatever you might believe about women, pretend that this woman is a 6'3" bull dyke with masculine features and mindset, but you know she's a woman because she did a porno when she was younger. If you are indeed implying what you seem to be, do you have any research to back up that implication that you are implicitly implying?
This is really becoming a question of ideologies, and not what's actually better for society in reality.
Originally posted by NemeBro
Does not matter. If he said something like "Because you have no proof of these claims of people becoming more racist. You're just looking like a ****ing idiot who blathers on the internet like the rest of the spergs in this thread. Where is your statistical data?", which is a fair enough thing to say on its own, but then say that "things haven't become less racist under Democrats. They've become more racist and sexist. Just against whites and men", if he doesn't have any evidence of that concrete statement then he's a hypocritical retard lol.Now maybe he does, and he didn't see my post or whatever. If so, great! If he doesn't, he should kill himself. 👆
Oh, and as for whether or not voting for a female president because she is female is sexist? In of itself, not necessarily, with a caveat.
If all other things were equal, and you had two candidates, one being a man, the other being a woman, who would it be best to vote for? The answer is the woman, obviously. A female president would break ground that hasn't been broken before and is empowering towards women, whereas a male president has no intrinsic value in of itself. It's happened every other time. It's nothing special.
But with that said, the gender of the candidates should be a very, very minor reason to vote for them. If the man is obviously more qualified than the woman, he should get the vote.
But see, popular opinion of both candidates (at least on this site) seems to be that both were shit sandwiches. So voting for the shit sandwich that at least breaks new ground due to her gender isn't sexist at all. You'd have to be retarded to not think Hillary being female wasn't a point in her favor. It was a comparatively tiny point in her favor, but a point nonetheless.
Now, if you believe the female candidate is worse than the male but voted for her because she is female? Yeah that's arguably pretty sexist, and definitely pretty stupid.
Also don't you think we should legalize incest?