[LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX]

That's a nonsense post. Quotas are mandates. Voting in a democracy has no mandates.

What I'm making an analogy to is qualification. In a situation where one person is clearly more qualified for a job, they still don't get the job just because of their gender. Does that mean that we should have mandates for voting? No, because that's not possible. But does that show that society doesn't actually operate on a meritocracy? I would say so. So people arguing that the job market is a meritocracy need to not take that as a given, because it's not a given that people only hire men because they are more qualified for the position and not because of cultural perception of men being better leaders or cultural notions on what the culture of a job should be--both of those being discrimination based on genetalia.

[SolarCross]

That's a nonsense post. Quotas are mandates. Voting in a democracy has no mandates.

What I'm making an analogy to is qualification. In a situation where one person is clearly more qualified for a job, they still don't get the job just because of their gender. Does that mean that we should have mandates for voting? No, because that's not possible. But does that show that society doesn't actually operate on a meritocracy? I would say so. So people arguing that the job market is a meritocracy need to not take that as a given, because it's not a given that people only hire men because they are more qualified for the position and not because of cultural perception of men being better leaders or cultural notions on what the culture of a job should be--both of those being discrimination based on genetalia.

You picked a bad example then. The qualification for being president is having won an election for the presidency so Trump actually is more qualified than Hillary, since he won and she didn't.

[LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX]

Nah, that's quite clearly circular reasoning. The fact that you even had to go to that argument shows how little you must believe in Trump's qualifications for president. He's a good conman though, I'll give him that. One of the best that ever lived.

Anyway so I assume you realize that your argument about quotas for voting was stupid? Good to know.

[SolarCross]

Nah, that's quite clearly circular reasoning. The fact that you even had to go to that argument shows how little you must believe in Trump's qualifications for president. He's a good conman though, I'll give him that. One of the best that ever lived.

Anyway so I assume you realize that your argument about quotas for voting was stupid? Good to know.

It isn't circular reasoning, it is a simple statement of fact.

Also I made no argument about voting quotas I merely queried your argument for gender based employment quotas which used the result of a recent election to justify it.

Be a gent and admit you used a bad example.

[Pants-of-dog]

It is social engineering / ideological propaganda being pushed by elements of the regime. It is blatant and it is annoying.

The fact that your feelings are discomfited is not an argument.

And it is being pushed by people who can't take criticism. Who justify it on the basis of victim-hood. That makes it authoritarian too. Identity politics is divisive anti-social behavior.

You do not seem to understand the definition of "authoritarian".

The fact that society has progressed to the point that gov't officials cannot be openly transphobic is not authoritarian.

Fine, who cares if you put sexually identifiable symbolism on traffic lights-if other kinds of arbitrary symbolism were allowed. Let's say, a Christian cross-you can bet it would cause offense and be taken down in a second because promoting traditional marriage/rival dogma is offensive these days.

Suddenly we have an answer-neutrality. Don't put anything on the traffic lights. Just a big old green circle.

The fact that you are somehow offended by these traffic lights is also not an argument. Nor is it relevant to the actual topic.

Here it is in a nutshell-it is a moral panic. Instead of being pushed by traditionalist conservatives on the basis of cult-like values, this new moralism is being pushed by leftist ideologues on the basis of cult-like values. It must be shut down whenever it arises, from wherever. It is a big deal because it is infesting schools, universities, media, now government. Extremists with extremist views must be resisted.

The only one panicking is you.

Being respectful to trans people is extremism? Lol.

[One Degree]

The number of people who are physically transgender are extremely low. The multitude of others who claim so are basically nut cases.
I see no problem with these people choosing a public persona to adapt to male/female society. They are free to act as they wish in private. To demand the entire world adapt to their rare condition is ludicrous.

[Pants-of-dog]

So we need to treat them with disrespect because there are so few of them?

[noemon]

When you answer the phone and you hear a man's voice, it is disrespectful to call them "Sir" instead of "Miss"?

So basic call operator courtesy is disrespectful?

Operators are instructed to answer the phone and say: "Hello Sir/Miss, how can I help you?"

What would you have them do @Pants-of-dog?

[Frollein]

When you answer the phone and you hear a man's voice, it is disrespectful to call them "Sir" instead of "Miss"?

Of course it is. First you have to ask, "what is your chosen gender for today?"

[LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX]

It isn't circular reasoning, it is a simple statement of fact.

Also I made no argument about voting quotas I merely queried your argument for gender based employment quotas which used the result of a recent election to justify it.

Be a gent and admit you used a bad example.

Apparently this isn't circular reasoning:

Trump won the presidency because he was more qualified.

Why is he more qualified?

He's more qualified because he won the presidency.

It's textbook circular reasoning. Have you never supported the losing side of a presidency before? Ask McCain supporters who was more qualified. Ask Gore supporters who was more qualified. Hell, ask Nixon supporters when he lost to Kennedy who was more qualified.

Winning =/= more qualified. Being the president doesn't make you qualified. What your resume is does. Trump is the first US president never to have any military or civil service experience. We elected an oligarch whose supporters are like you, always willing to defend any stupid action he makes or his past without question.

[Albert]

Are you saying that people did elect a more qualified leader?

[LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX]

Seeing as Hillary's popular vote lead is at 2.8 million and counting, yes.

[One Degree]

No person who held a previous political position for more than two years and/or has a law degree should be allowed to run for president.

[Albert]

Sorry I made a mistake there, I mean to say, so are you saying people did not elect a more qualified leader?

[LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX]

Yeah we certainly wouldn't want people who know how the law works or who have served this country for an extended period of time to be president. Because that makes total sense to people who voted for a reality TV star. Just admit you hate America already.

Sorry I made a mistake there, I mean to say, so are you saying people did not elect a more qualified leader?

Not by what the classic notion of qualifications are, nor by what I view as qualification. He has some relevant experience as a manager, but he is too ignorant for that to matter. He also didn't state many of his positions in clear terms, further muddying the waters.

[One Degree]

Just admit you hate America already.

Nope, just the self serving professionals that thrive upon the misery of the populace.

[LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX]

So businesspeople don't thrive on the misery of their workers? They don't try to make people buy useless crap? Donald Trump didn't gain fame and popularity by telling people they were fired? Donald Trump hasn't stiffed his workers out of millions of dollars? Donald Trump didn't recently settle a lawsuit over his fraud college? Donald Trump didn't rape his ex-wife and then pay her off for her silence/to recant the story which is a matter of public record?

You got conned, buddy. Now America has to suffer because you wanted to hold a grudge against politicians.

[One Degree]

I did not vote for Trump even though I felt he was the superior of the two choices.
Your other comments do not really pertain to me since I support cooperative ownership of local communities that compete with other communities in a capitalist market.

[Igor Antunov]

Seeing as Hillary's popular vote lead is at 2.8 million and counting, yes.

100% of that lead is due to California, which is home to millions of illegals who were encouraged to vote by Obama. So it means nothing. Clinton won California by up to 5 million votes. If she leads nationally by 2.8 million, that means pretty much all of that is due to a compromised California. Trump won the popular vote almost everywhere else.

[Albert]

So businesspeople don't thrive on the misery of their workers? They don't try to make people buy useless crap? Donald Trump didn't gain fame and popularity by telling people they were fired? Donald Trump hasn't stiffed his workers out of millions of dollars? Donald Trump didn't recently settle a lawsuit over his fraud college? Donald Trump didn't rape his ex-wife and then pay her off for her silence/to recant the story which is a matter of public record?

You got conned, buddy. Now America has to suffer because you wanted to hold a grudge against politicians.

You can't rape your wife, for petes sakes, you crazy SJWs. You can be abusive to her but you can't rape her.

And as Igor stated, if you discount all the fraudulent illegal votes Trump probably won.