Here’s a conundrum to consider: If the gender of equally qualified individuals is irrelevant to their job performance, (I’m sure most people here would agree to this statement) then it should be irrelevant which sex is chosen to do the job. Which, by extension, would mean that it is irrelevant whether one sex is more heavily represented in a certain field, if job performance is the criterion. This would render the desire of the less represented sex to have numeric parity to be a matter of vanity, and not necessarily a desire for better job performance, since we’ve already established that gender in this example is not relative to performance. In other words, just because parity may be desired, this does not constitute a valid reason to alter the situation, especially if improvement of performance is the goal.  

 http://www.jerseys-buy.com/soccer-jersey/Shop-by-Country/USA.html USA jersey
 http://www.jerseys-buy.com/soccer-jersey/Shop-by-Country/USA.html USA jerseys
 http://www.jerseys-buy.com/soccer-jersey/Shop-by-Country/Austria.html Austria jersey
 http://www.jerseys-buy.com/soccer-jersey/Shop-by-Country.html Shop by Country jersey
 http://www.jerseys-buy.com/soccer-jersey/Shop-by-Country/Argentina.html Argentina jersey
 http://www.jerseys-buy.com/soccer-jersey/Shop-by-Country/Australia.html Australia jersey
 http://www.jerseys-buy.com/soccer-jersey/Shop-by-Country/Bolivia.html Bolivia jersey

“HRC won the D Corporation primary for President but the D’s put BO’s name on the ballot”.

That’s the entire argument,  In one simple sentence.  Hillary R. Clinton won the primary.  BUT, the D’s put BO’s name on the ballot.

Hello!!! 

All the arguments of more women running for office, of putting their names out there, of working harder, of letting time to slowly rectify the situation is totally bashed by the simple truth: a woman by the name of Hillary Rodham Clinton won the Democratic primary, undeniably took the popular vote, undeniably was the most qualified for the job, but  she was denied the nomination.

Why? 

Well, I would suggrest one reason is because she was a woman.  Oh yes, there are many excuses to bring to the fore, many that we’ve all heard and puked on. She was controversial, she ran a lousy campaign and worse, she was a hardass, a bitch with a voice that sounded like everyone’s ex-wife.  She was reviled by Dems and Republicans alike.

Well, how do all like the alternative???

Please, I do not want to hear another word about Democracy lost or the Republic in jeopardy.  We had the best candidate in a generation.  And she was kicked to the curb.  Because she was a woman.

How dare she think she could be POTUS?  Again, I ask everyone here:

How do you like the alternative, the choice of the “boy’s club?” 

And we really need to argue about whether sexism rules the day in this country?  Or that India’s idea of using quotas is some sort of horrendous abomination?

I’m beyond words!

(All of this is covered on my blog.  Try reading, CLUBS RULE )

The Constitution says nothing about political parties.  We created them and gave them this exaggerated power over us.  If we don’t like the way they operate, we don’t have to join them OR let them use our state ballots.  Without violating any civil or Constitutional rights. 

The sooner you realize their only only power derives from the power voluntarily handed over by the states; the sooner you can stem that power.

In Wa state, the Dems run a whole primary election and people go out to the polls to vote. but not one single vote is counted towards who becomes the candidate, that’s all done in the caucuses. You can vote all you want for a Dem primary candidate but it has absolutely no influence on the outcome. On the Republican side, they take half their influence from the caucus and the other half from the votes. So when you cast a Republican vote, it counts as half a vote.

The rules vary from state to state, but it is always the two parties who hold the cards and determine how and who will be selected.