Philosophy Now Forum

.




................................................ AMERICA May Be Electing it's First WOMAN President...







.........................................................................


................................................................................................ Ivanka








.

Bill Wiltrack wrote:.

I vanka


.

Yes, you biggest vanka on forum.

Well we all got that one wrong. Hilary Clinton was a deeply flawed candidate and a poor campaigner. Her loss was not due to sexism. In fact women made gains in the 2016 election and the Senate now has 21 female members (hopefully enough to influence legislature about health care, child care and other women's issues and rights). There is also evidence to indicate when women choose to run for elected public office they stand an equal to better chance of being elected.

prothero wrote:Well we all got that one wrong. Hilary Clinton was a deeply flawed candidate and a poor campaigner. Her loss was not due to sexism. In fact women made gains in the 2016 election and the Senate now has 21 female members (hopefully enough to influence legislature about health care, child care and other women's issues and rights). There is also evidence to indicate when women choose to run for elected public office they stand an equal to better chance of being elected.

I wouldn't say Hillary was a poor campaigner because she did win the popular vote.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

prothero wrote:Well we all got that one wrong. Hilary Clinton was a deeply flawed candidate and a poor campaigner. Her loss was not due to sexism. In fact women made gains in the 2016 election and the Senate now has 21 female members (hopefully enough to influence legislature about health care, child care and other women's issues and rights). There is also evidence to indicate when women choose to run for elected public office they stand an equal to better chance of being elected.

I wouldn't say Hillary was a poor campaigner because she did win the popular vote.

PhilX

But as one can easily discern it is not about the popular vote, she never campaigned in Wisconsin for instance. She only won the popular vote because her opponent was so unpopular; in fact we have never had two candidates from the major parties with such high unfavorable and nu-likability ratings, had anyone other than Donald Trump been the opposition she likely would have lost by a wide margin.

This campaign should illustrate the profound flaws of the primary system (excluding independents and moderates), of voter suppression in individual states (through voter ID, early voting, voting by mail, voting hours, voting days, placement and staffing of voter precincts and other subtle and sometimes not so subtle methods). We need open primaries and easier more universal voting methods and procedures. The problem is not voter fraud but voter apathy and lack of voter participation. There is a frustrating amount of denial of facts, and the substitution of opinion for reason in this country even the media which now more closely resembles people magazine or entertainment weekly than Walter Cronkite or Edward R. Murrow.

prothero wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

prothero wrote:Well we all got that one wrong. Hilary Clinton was a deeply flawed candidate and a poor campaigner. Her loss was not due to sexism. In fact women made gains in the 2016 election and the Senate now has 21 female members (hopefully enough to influence legislature about health care, child care and other women's issues and rights). There is also evidence to indicate when women choose to run for elected public office they stand an equal to better chance of being elected.

I wouldn't say Hillary was a poor campaigner because she did win the popular vote.

PhilX

But as one can easily discern it is not about the popular vote, she never campaigned in Wisconsin for instance. She only won the popular vote because her opponent was so unpopular; in fact we have never had two candidates from the major parties with such high unfavorable and nu-likability ratings, had anyone other than Donald Trump been the opposition she likely would have lost by a wide margin.

This campaign should illustrate the profound flaws of the primary system (excluding independents and moderates), of voter suppression in individual states (through voter ID, early voting, voting by mail, voting hours, voting days, placement and staffing of voter precincts and other subtle and sometimes not so subtle methods). We need open primaries and easier more universal voting methods and procedures. The problem is not voter fraud but voter apathy and lack of voter participation. There is a frustrating amount of denial of facts, and the substitution of opinion for reason in this country even the media which now more closely resembles people magazine or entertainment weekly than Walter Cronkite or Edward R. Murrow.

There's a movement afoot to do away with the EC (which I predict will fail) to keep this thread up to date.

PhilX

Of course the movement to do away with the EC will fail. There's a damn good reason it was put into the constitution, though I doubt many people know what it is.

Reflex wrote:Of course the movement to do away with the EC will fail. There's a damn good reason it was put into the constitution, though I doubt many people know what it is.

The reason was to form a division between the mob and men of good standing that would be able to stop a poor candidate. Such a time is at hand, sadly the 'electors' have been paid by Trump and so are ineffective.

Have you nay other 'reason' for this ridiculous system? Or are you just blowing hot air?

Bill Wiltrack wrote:.

................................................[/color] AMERICA May Be Electing it's First WOMAN President...

Ivanka[/size]

.

WTF are you babbling on about now?

C'mon, this have ended, now donald duck has been named "president" in the USA (not America), maybe you should start a new thread... or... talk about something that isn't politicians...