|
Monday, 13 March 2017
quote [ Many of these men (and women, too) would never admit that their hatred of Clinton was linked to her gender. She?s untrustworthy, they said?more so than a candidate who openly, compulsively lies more than any other candidate in recent memory. She?s corrupt, she has baggage, she?s shrill, she?s cold. Clinton was far from a perfect candidate, and there were lots of level-headed reasons to disagree with her. But it?s hard to look at the surplus of pure contempt lobbed at her over the years and not attribute it at least partly to the fact that she?s a woman. ]
If you still don't see it, if you still think that gender was not a major factor, I'm afraid you're unable to see it, and that is genuinely frightening.
|
kylemcbitch said @ 9:26pm GMT on 13th March
Well, yes this is an argument of semantics because this is a conversation on the nature logic.
I would say, you're argument should be: "there is no sound reason to vote for Trump over Clinton."
That is still debatable (again, due to the subjective nature of how anyone might rank the importance of any issue comparative to another.) But will likely get no issue from me over it.
kylemcbitch said @ 9:31pm GMT on 13th March
Well, yes this is an argument of semantics because this is a conversation on the nature logic.
I would say, your argument should be: "there is no sound reason to vote for Trump over Clinton."
That is still debatable (again, due to the subjective nature of how anyone might rank the importance of any issue comparative to another.) But will likely get no issue from me over it.
<-- Entry / Current Comment
kylemcbitch said @ 9:26pm GMT on 13th March
Well, yes this is an argument of semantics because this is a conversation on the nature logic.
I would say, your argument should be: "there is no sound reason to vote for Trump over Clinton."
That is still debatable (again, due to the subjective nature of how anyone might rank the importance of any issue comparative to another.) But will likely get no issue from me over it.
