Clinton promises 50% women in Cabinet

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

17 minutes ago, JbGaga said:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/23/hillary-clinton-as-senator-paid-women-72-cents-on-/

Hes fraud too. Ask his accountant/ wife why he pats less the 15% taxs but wants everyone to pay more

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/04/gender-pay-gap-in-clintons-senate-office/

This refutes it with actual facts as opposed to yellow journalism. The methodology used was inaccurate. The pay is actually identical.

[Whispering 18,865]

3 hours ago, MJHolland said:

Yet you refuse to admit that she's a career politician?

You Hillary supporters want everything both way. You want super PACs to get out of politics while supporting a candidate who has them. You don't want to judge her by her marriage to a President unless that is to paint her in a good light. You don't want a career politicians when she's in fact the biggest career politician there is in Washington. You don't want a secretive politician, yet you also support a candidate that wiped clean HALF of an illegal (at the very least negligent) private server before handing it in. You want a candidate that isn't tied up by big interests, yet made half a million dollars every single speech she gave to Wall Street that are still private to this day. You don't want to admit that you're voting for her because she's a woman, but you claim that she's the best candidate for women's rights because she is a woman, and here she's saying she would indiscriminately select at least half of her cabinet based on gender and not who is the most qualified. 

These positions should go to the most qualified individual, not the most qualified female individual. If the most qualified person happens to be a female, that's great. If not, also great. Having a female SoS doesn't do anything to promote women inherently though.

What are you even talking about? She spent time as a lawyer and then as an active First Lady and then on to her own political career. Hillary has been involved in politics in some way for decades, as she is interested in being involved and making a difference. 

You Hillary haters are so blinded by your irrational hate, you come up with the most bizarre and nonsensical delusions. That middle paragraph is so full of crazy accusations you just made up in your head, I don't even think it is possible to discuss it in a logical way.

Those positions should go to qualified individuals that the President feels will best work with them and the rest of their team. I'm more than certain that Hillary knows many qualified individuals, including women, to choose from. 

[Bt1 5,213]

7 hours ago, Morphine Prince said:

You brought up Bernie when the thread has nothing to do with him. You are obsessed

It's so sad because you're supporting the winning candidate... imagine how hateful you would be if you were a Bernie supporter

And I like how you call him "fake" making it sound like Hillary isn't  

Thats because you can find here so many Bernie supporters who attack her on this topic. This is too much.

 

Every politician is fake. It is important to put Bernie in the same category, as he is far from the Virgin Bernie that his supporters wants to make.

[Economy 52,847]

12 hours ago, LebaneseDude said:

That makes no sense.

If you have 1000 prospective male candidates and 100 female ones (and that's a REALLY pessimistic and skewed view) and you only need 4 out of 8 total, then it's not difficult to find four exemplary women out of 100. Unless you're implying that there are 996 men significantly better than all of those women?

It's a preposterous notion that has no real applicable reality. There is literally 0 probability that all prospective female candidates are WORSE than 95% of all male candidates.

You argue something that is mathematically irrelevant.

Also picking people isn't just a checklist of their qualifications. There are many issues at play such as individual proficiency, history, connections, and potential.

Even so, 4% of applicant women would get hired while if you were a man youd only get a 0.4% chance. Is that fair?

 

but if all 1100 applicants were put together and gender ignored, then all men and women would have about a 0.7% chance and it would be even

 

What yoy are suggeating creates partiality

[MJHolland 12,725]

10 hours ago, Whispering said:

What are you even talking about? She spent time as a lawyer and then as an active First Lady and then on to her own political career. Hillary has been involved in politics in some way for decades, as she is interested in being involved and making a difference. 

You Hillary haters are so blinded by your irrational hate, you come up with the most bizarre and nonsensical delusions. That middle paragraph is so full of crazy accusations you just made up in your head, I don't even think it is possible to discuss it in a logical way.

Those positions should go to qualified individuals that the President feels will best work with them and the rest of their team. I'm more than certain that Hillary knows many qualified individuals, including women, to choose from. 

Idk why you're talking about. She had one initiative and she didn't even write. She just "supported it", whatever that means.

[teo 609]

16 hours ago, Goosey said:

Why should 50% of her cabinet be women? There are more men than women in the political world, therefore it follows that if she was being truly impartial and only picking based on people's skills, that her cabinet would be VERY likely to have more men than women.

So do you have some sort of official statistic or data to prove that women are less qualified than men or are you just being sexist?

[Giorno Giovanna 3,178]

On 26.4.2016 at 6:24 PM, brendablethyn said:

Will there be a gay quota, and a black quota, and a jewish quota, and a muslim quota?

this

not to forget the anime fan quota, vegetarian quota, people with 11 toes quota, cthulluh believer quota, stinky farts fetishists quota

[Giorno Giovanna 3,178]

37 minutes ago, teo said:

So do you have some sort of official statistic or data to prove that women are less qualified than men or are you just being sexist?

i guess it is just meant as statistic that like (example) there are equal geniuses among the genders, and since there exists 60% male and 40% female there would be 60males and 40females in the cabinet .

 

this user never said that females are less qualified. stop changing people's words the way you like.

[Goosey 3,017]

2 hours ago, teo said:

So do you have some sort of official statistic or data to prove that women are less qualified than men or are you just being sexist?

Where did I say women are less qualified than men? 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

2 hours ago, ToughHooker said:

i guess it is just meant as statistic that like (example) there are equal geniuses among the genders, and since there exists 60% male and 40% female there would be 60males and 40females in the cabinet .

This makes no sense. If all were equal, then the distribution would be random. That's not how you present your case.

If all were equal, what's anyone's qualms about having an equal number of men and women?

Why is their sex such a focus for you? Why are you fixating on the fact that they would be women?

I totally understand where people are coming from in theory. You don't pick based on sex. The issue is that there are plenty of qualified women who fly under the radar. 

Functionally speaking, there is essentially a null probability that all men are more qualified than all women.

Furthermore, even if we take the worst case scenario and a man were to be more qualified in every single role, that's not the only criterion followed. You don't hire someone based on an objective checklist. If men were let's say 10% more qualified, that doesn't translate to them being 10% better on the job. In fact I'd argue that a lot of prospective people are overqualified if anything.

People are complaining about this because they want to complain now that there is something different being presented.

It's the same reason people are saying that Hillary should choose a guy as her running mate because choosing a woman would be sexist, when the last 44 male presidencies have had male vice presidents and no one blinked an eye. Do you honestly believe it was because men were always more qualified?

Even if they were, why not give women a chance to prove themselves? Equality hasn't been established yet. People need to stop thinking women are treated the same way as men. Maybe in Boston, but definitely not nationally.

[Giorno Giovanna 3,178]

6 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

This makes no sense. If all were equal, then the distribution would be random. That's not how you present your case.

If all were equal, what's anyone's qualms about having an equal number of men and women?

Why is their sex such a focus for you?

I totally understand where people are coming from in theory. You don't pick based on sex. The issue is that there are plenty of qualified women who fly under the radar. 

Functionally speaking, there is essentially a null probability that all men are more qualified than all women.

Furthermore, even if a man were to be more qualified, that's not the only criterion followed. You don't hire someone based on an objective checklist.

People are complaining about this because they want to complain. 

It's the same reason people are saying that Hillary should choose a guy as her running mate because choosing a woman would be sexist, when the last 44 male presidencies have had male vice presidents.

This is the issue. You don't blink an eye about the status quo, and now refuse to change it.

 Well the sex is not a focus for me per se, but since this topic is about their gender then that's of course what I'm writing about.

 

My opinion: Candidats for this cabinet should be based on their qualities that they worked hard for, and their good will to make the world a better place without excluding anyone. Not based on their sex.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

11 minutes ago, ToughHooker said:

 Well the sex is not a focus for me per se, but since this topic is about their gender then that's of course what I'm writing about.

 

My opinion: Candidats for this cabinet should be based on their qualities that they worked hard for, and their good will to make the world a better place without excluding anyone. Not based on their sex.

In this scenario we're referring to sex not gender. We are talking about women not their characteristics as women.

The net result won't change. Women that were previously shunned are now being accepted. Women are being included. Men aren't being ****ed over. They're just less likely to be chosen over women when they have similar qualities. That's what you fail to understand.

I don't get what people are arguing over here. There is no functional difference.

Any discussion of affirmative action is purely academic. Practically speaking there will always be enough women that have similar qualifications to men for these positions. Women are not a minority,  and the requirements for these positions are not astronomical. 

Edited for clarity.

[teo 609]

2 hours ago, ToughHooker said:

i guess it is just meant as statistic that like (example) there are equal geniuses among the genders, and since there exists 60% male and 40% female there would be 60males and 40females in the cabinet .

 

this user never said that females are less qualified. stop changing people's words the way you like.

By that logic there should be equal number of women and men in the cabinet.

 

 

And we weren't talking about how many are there, cause not all politicians go in the cabinet, it's a only a few select individuals. My question was "are you saying that you believe that out of the 320 million people living in the US there are not enough qualified women for these jobs?" to which he replied no, because there are more men so she'll just be putting women in positions even thought there are more qualified men for the job. Which is ridiculous, cause here we're talking about personal qualifications and not the sex ratio in the political world. But if there's an official ranking of the politicians in the US based on qualification and the top 10 is full of men the I apologize...

[teo 609]

34 minutes ago, Goosey said:

Where did I say women are less qualified than men?

Literally in your post. You said that because women are outnumbered therefore statistically there should be more qualified men. Which is not right because for example there could be 100 females and 1 male competing for something and the male can still win even thought he's vastly outnumbered right?

Anyway I don't want to argue, sorry if I offended you.  
 

[Whispering 18,865]

At the peak of gender parity in the Obama administration, when the most female cabinet members were serving at the same time, women numbered 35 percent of those high-level positions. Bill Clinton’s high-water mark was 41 percent. George W. Bush’s administration never got above 24 percent, and his father’s representation of women in the cabinet stalled at 18 percent, identical to Reagan’s two terms.

Maybe there are more qualified women who are in the Democratic Party?