Thread: 2016 Democratic US Presidential Candidates

Originally Posted by Norton

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Misogynist dinosaurs like yourselves

Let's get something straight right now. You know nothing about me but here is a hint. Long before it was en vogue I hired hundreds of women all over the world and not once did I give a thought to pay them less than male counter parts.

You clearly have no desire to seriously debate any subject without resorting to name calling when an opinion doesn't fit your predetermined partisan blindered opinion.

The ad in question is not clever. It is a blatant attempt to garner votes because of her gender which for many women an insult to their intelligence.

Hope Hillary never allows this "leaked" video to air. Will do more harm than good.

Wonder what response an ad stating; vote for me, I'm black and will fix all racial inequalities?

You may very well try and paint yourself as a knight in shining armour, but you seem to disregard the fact that there has NEVER been a female President (or even Vice President) in the history of the US.

This current congress is about 80% male (and 80%) white, so don't tell me that "There are all sorts of laws in place that prohibit gender discrimination", because that means precisely squit.

Since she as at a predisposed disadvantage of being a woman, there is absolutely nothing wrong with her appealing to the female vote.

As usual, it is Republicans that squash equal pay legislation, as they still think women, Hillary included, should be in the kitchen making dinner, cleaning the house or taking care of the kids.

Note, however, that I did not call you a "Republican misogynist dinosaur".

Even I have morals.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by Norton

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Misogynist dinosaurs like yourselves

Let's get something straight right now. You know nothing about me but here is a hint. Long before it was en vogue I hired hundreds of women all over the world and not once did I give a thought to pay them less than male counter parts.

You clearly have no desire to seriously debate any subject without resorting to name calling when an opinion doesn't fit your predetermined partisan blindered opinion.

The ad in question is not clever. It is a blatant attempt to garner votes because of her gender which for many women an insult to their intelligence.

Hope Hillary never allows this "leaked" video to air. Will do more harm than good.

Wonder what response an ad stating; vote for me, I'm black and will fix all racial inequalities?

You may very well try and paint yourself as a knight in shining armour, but you seem to disregard the fact that there has NEVER been a female President (or even Vice President) in the history of the US.

This current congress is about 80% male (and 80%) white, so don't tell me that "There are all sorts of laws in place that prohibit gender discrimination", because that means precisely squit.

Since she as at a predisposed disadvantage of being a woman, there is absolutely nothing wrong with her appealing to the female vote.

As usual, it is Republicans that squash equal pay legislation, as they still think women, Hillary included, should be in the kitchen making dinner, cleaning the house or taking care of the kids.

Note, however, that I did not call you a "Republican misogynist dinosaur".

Even I have morals.

You are using percentages of people voted into positions as comparables for gender discrimination, what do you suggest rules on who one can vote for based on percentages of men and women in those positions, maybe a law demanding every other presidential term has to be a women.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

You are using percentages of people voted into positions as comparables for gender discrimination, what do you suggest rules on who one can vote for based on percentages of men and women in those positions, maybe a law demanding every other presidential term has to be a women.

I didn't suggest any rules.

I simply pointed out the facts.

It's up to the parties themselves to start picking female candidates on merit, rather than their mates on a dodgy handshake.

Of course women can help in this by getting out and voting for pro-equality candidates - i.e. not Republicans.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by RPETER65

You are using percentages of people voted into positions as comparables for gender discrimination, what do you suggest rules on who one can vote for based on percentages of men and women in those positions, maybe a law demanding every other presidential term has to be a women.

I didn't suggest any rules.

I simply pointed out the facts.

It's up to the parties themselves to start picking female candidates on merit, rather than their mates on a dodgy handshake.

Of course women can help in this by getting out and voting for pro-equality candidates - i.e. not Republicans.

No you didn't suggest any rules but the subject you picked as an example is not only rediculouse it would also require some pretty strict rules. Maybe you should have picked something from the occupational field as an example, at least it would have made some sense, but the truth is the imaginary gender gap is just that and used for political purposes to stir up the female voters.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by RPETER65

You are using percentages of people voted into positions as comparables for gender discrimination, what do you suggest rules on who one can vote for based on percentages of men and women in those positions, maybe a law demanding every other presidential term has to be a women.

I didn't suggest any rules.

I simply pointed out the facts.

It's up to the parties themselves to start picking female candidates on merit, rather than their mates on a dodgy handshake.

Of course women can help in this by getting out and voting for pro-equality candidates - i.e. not Republicans.

No you didn't suggest any rules but the subject you picked as an example is not only rediculouse it would also require some pretty strict rules. Maybe you should have picked something from the occupational field as an example, at least it would have made some sense, but the truth is the imaginary gender gap is just that and used for political purposes to stir up the female voters.

You are living proof why women are starting to realise that Republicans don't have a fucking clue.

"Imaginary"?

Figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics can be found here:

Median weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers by detailed occupation and sex

I would suggest you look through them, they are quite comprehensive.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by RPETER65

You are using percentages of people voted into positions as comparables for gender discrimination, what do you suggest rules on who one can vote for based on percentages of men and women in those positions, maybe a law demanding every other presidential term has to be a women.

I didn't suggest any rules.

I simply pointed out the facts.

It's up to the parties themselves to start picking female candidates on merit, rather than their mates on a dodgy handshake.

Of course women can help in this by getting out and voting for pro-equality candidates - i.e. not Republicans.

No you didn't suggest any rules but the subject you picked as an example is not only rediculouse it would also require some pretty strict rules. Maybe you should have picked something from the occupational field as an example, at least it would have made some sense, but the truth is the imaginary gender gap is just that and used for political purposes to stir up the female voters.

You are living proof why women are starting to realise that Republicans don't have a fucking clue.

"Imaginary"?

Figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics can be found here:

Median weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers by detailed occupation and sex

I would suggest you look through them, they are quite comprehensive.

Averages mean nothing other than reflect personal choices and desire to be rich. Some people are career obsessed money grubs, some are not. Some people trade off looks or connections, others get dealt worse cards.

Originally Posted by baconandeggs

Averages mean nothing other than reflect personal choices and desire to be rich.

No wonder you have so many reds. You talk bollocks.

But you know, if you want to provide some kind of evidence to back up your hare-brained theory, carry on.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by RPETER65

You are using percentages of people voted into positions as comparables for gender discrimination, what do you suggest rules on who one can vote for based on percentages of men and women in those positions, maybe a law demanding every other presidential term has to be a women.

I didn't suggest any rules.

I simply pointed out the facts.

It's up to the parties themselves to start picking female candidates on merit, rather than their mates on a dodgy handshake.

Of course women can help in this by getting out and voting for pro-equality candidates - i.e. not Republicans.

No you didn't suggest any rules but the subject you picked as an example is not only rediculouse it would also require some pretty strict rules. Maybe you should have picked something from the occupational field as an example, at least it would have made some sense, but the truth is the imaginary gender gap is just that and used for political purposes to stir up the female voters.

You are living proof why women are starting to realise that Republicans don't have a fucking clue.

"Imaginary"?

Figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics can be found here:

Median weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers by detailed occupation and sex

I would suggest you look through them, they are quite comprehensive.

I would suggest you read post 3445. Now I have to go watch the Voice don't bother me with your bs.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

I would suggest you read post 3445. Now I have to go watch the Voice don't bother me with your bs.

Yes, going and watch your brainless trash TV, it seems to be at about the peak of your intellectual level.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by RPETER65

You are using percentages of people voted into positions as comparables for gender discrimination, what do you suggest rules on who one can vote for based on percentages of men and women in those positions, maybe a law demanding every other presidential term has to be a women.

I didn't suggest any rules.

I simply pointed out the facts.

It's up to the parties themselves to start picking female candidates on merit, rather than their mates on a dodgy handshake.

Of course women can help in this by getting out and voting for pro-equality candidates - i.e. not Republicans.

No you didn't suggest any rules but the subject you picked as an example is not only rediculouse it would also require some pretty strict rules. Maybe you should have picked something from the occupational field as an example, at least it would have made some sense, but the truth is the imaginary gender gap is just that and used for political purposes to stir up the female voters.

You are living proof why women are starting to realise that Republicans don't have a fucking clue.

"Imaginary"?

Figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics can be found here:

Median weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers by detailed occupation and sex

I would suggest you look through them, they are quite comprehensive.

I see they left out the occupations where women average as much or more than men: Electrical engineers, mechanical engineers, and the three others mentioned in my post from Monster.