laughing dog
Contributor
You have just described yourself down to the last atom.Arguing with that mindset is high on impossible. You only see one side of the coin and refuse to even glance at the other.
You have just described yourself down to the last atom.Arguing with that mindset is high on impossible. You only see one side of the coin and refuse to even glance at the other.
Because that's what's really important.Hillary best chance of becoming the first lady president in US history is Donald Trump.
Yeah, no misogyny there.Because that's what's really important.Hillary best chance of becoming the first lady president in US history is Donald Trump.
![]()
What is funny is that Clinton was Secretary of State. Fucking Secretary of State and we are getting these same "inexperienced" arguments that we heard regarding Obama.Maybe this guy should be running. Then there'd be two and he already has government experience.
![]()
Pointing out that much of her appeal comes from her gender alone is not misogyny.Yeah, no misogyny there.
Yes. She has experience. She is just not "most experienced candidate in modern history" like her fans and sycophants love to claim (by adding her 16 years as wife of governor/president as experience). Not by a long shot.What is funny is that Clinton was Secretary of State.
I think she outsourced that job (to Monica among others I am sure) way back in the 90s.Fucking

No, but while SecState was a quite reliable stepping stone to presidency in the early days of the Republic it has become pretty much a dead end position in more recent history.The Secretary of State must be the one who wears a pencil skirt and makes the coffees.
Her gender alone? If you think that her appeal comes from her gender alone, that is a reflection on you, not her.Pointing out that much of her appeal comes from her gender alone is not misogyny.
She certainly isn't the most qualified ever, but you just said her only appeal was her gender. Now you seem to say she does have appeal from experience in other jobs.Yes. She has experience. She is just not "most experienced candidate in modern history" like her fans and sycophants love to claim (by adding her 16 years as wife of governor/president as experience). Not by a long shot.What is funny is that Clinton was Secretary of State.
Is that because it is a simple job or people are just peaking there and don't have a chance at the Presidency?No, but while SecState was a quite reliable stepping stone to presidency in the early days of the Republic it has become pretty much a dead end position in more recent history.The Secretary of State must be the one who wears a pencil skirt and makes the coffees.
It's a reflection of what some of her supporters have said about "first woman president". And I said "much of her appeal", not all of it.Her gender alone? If you think that her appeal comes from her gender alone, that is a reflection on you, not her.
I do not even think she is the most qualified in the current field.She certainly isn't the most qualified ever,
No, I did not.but you just said her only appeal was her gender.
I do not know the reason but the difference between the first 8 presidents (5 of them were former SecStates) and the subsequent 36 (only one, James Buchanan, was former SecState) is quite glaring.Is that because it is a simple job or people are just peaking there and don't have a chance at the Presidency?
No, but while SecState was a quite reliable stepping stone to presidency in the early days of the Republic it has become pretty much a dead end position in more recent history.The Secretary of State must be the one who wears a pencil skirt and makes the coffees.
Pointing out that much of her appeal comes from her gender alone is not misogyny.
Pointing out that much of her appeal comes from her gender alone is not misogyny.
That all of your attacks against her are due to her gender alone is misogyny.
Because that's what's really important.Hillary best chance of becoming the first lady president in US history is Donald Trump.
![]()
Oh... this is about her supporters, not you.It's a reflection of what some of her supporters have said about "first woman president". And I said "much of her appeal", not all of it.
She is qualified.I do not even think she is the most qualified in the current field.She certainly isn't the most qualified ever,
No you didn't. That was my error. I misread what you said.No, I did not.but you just said her only appeal was her gender.
Glaring? Seems to be a passive aggressive way of saying the Sec. of State job isn't something to put on a resume.I do not know the reason but the difference between the first 8 presidents (5 of them were former SecStates) and the subsequent 36 (only one, James Buchanan, was former SecState) is quite glaring.Is that because it is a simple job or people are just peaking there and don't have a chance at the Presidency?
angelo said:The news here in Australia is that Trump is the leading Republican candidate. Would Americans really vote for him given a choice between him and Hillary?