Clinton says half her Cabinet will be women

[Slander and/or Libel]

Inb4 "b- b- but muh meritocracy"

Look two posts up. You weren't quick enough.

[Slander and/or Libel]

As was said above, it's laughable that any of you would believe that there is one objective most qualified person for any job, or even that there is one objective scale by which candidates can be definitively ranked. If there is one most qualified person for Secretary of Energy and nominating anybody else would be a LITERAL CRIME (according to Wulfric), why does the President even have the prerogative to pick a nominee?

More, it's laughable that a lot of you don't understand that there is a value to diversity. An intrinsic value. And that diversity doesn't just happen, but needs to be proactively made to happen.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Oh, yes, the leftist affirmative action crap. It's just an excuse to be sexist/racist in non-traditional ways. Society needs to wake up and realize that it is NEVER OKAY to consider someone's race or gender when evaluating them for a given position.

This stuff you're saying, in practice, is uniformly used to muster outrage when a woman is chosen for a job. "How dare they not choose the best person for the job?!?!"

[Slander and/or Libel]

Oh, yes, the leftist affirmative action crap. It's just an excuse to be sexist/racist in non-traditional ways. Society needs to wake up and realize that it is NEVER OKAY to consider someone's race or gender when evaluating them for a given position.

This stuff you're saying, in practice, is uniformly used to muster outrage when a woman is chosen for a job. "How dare they not choose the best person for the job?!?!"

No one is arguing that a women might not be the best person for the job...but what happens if the best people are 70% women? or 70% men? Setting arbitrary gender quotas (like with racial quotas) is pretty absurd to begin with and in the context of the Clinton campaign, its clear she is simply pandering to voters rather than making any sort of substantive policy decision.

Once again, this assumes that there is some objective standard by which we can say who's the best. Quick, can you name me the best person for the job of Secretary of Energy right now in the country? An objective choice that everyone will agree with?

[Slander and/or Libel]

Oh, yes, the leftist affirmative action crap. It's just an excuse to be sexist/racist in non-traditional ways. Society needs to wake up and realize that it is NEVER OKAY to consider someone's race or gender when evaluating them for a given position.

This stuff you're saying, in practice, is uniformly used to muster outrage when a woman is chosen for a job. "How dare they not choose the best person for the job?!?!"

No one is arguing that a women might not be the best person for the job...but what happens if the best people are 70% women? or 70% men? Setting arbitrary gender quotas (like with racial quotas) is pretty absurd to begin with and in the context of the Clinton campaign, its clear she is simply pandering to voters rather than making any sort of substantive policy decision.

Once again, this assumes that there is some objective standard by which we can say who's the best. Quick, can you name me the best person for the job of Secretary of Energy right now in the country? An objective choice that everyone will agree with?

That's not an answerable question because it depends on ideological preferences, which I do consider legitimate to take into account.

You can't answer who's objectively most qualified for the job, but you can muster outrage when somebody who you know isn't it gets picked? What are you even on about? Either there's an objective best or there isn't (hint: there isn't).

[Slander and/or Libel]

Very egalitarian of her.   She's going to win the women's vote, so she feels it important for Trump to win the males.

The men who are going to be outraged by half of cabinet positions going to women were not going to be voting for Clinton anyway.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Oh, yes, the leftist affirmative action crap. It's just an excuse to be sexist/racist in non-traditional ways. Society needs to wake up and realize that it is NEVER OKAY to consider someone's race or gender when evaluating them for a given position.

This stuff you're saying, in practice, is uniformly used to muster outrage when a woman is chosen for a job. "How dare they not choose the best person for the job?!?!"

No one is arguing that a women might not be the best person for the job...but what happens if the best people are 70% women? or 70% men? Setting arbitrary gender quotas (like with racial quotas) is pretty absurd to begin with and in the context of the Clinton campaign, its clear she is simply pandering to voters rather than making any sort of substantive policy decision.

Once again, this assumes that there is some objective standard by which we can say who's the best. Quick, can you name me the best person for the job of Secretary of Energy right now in the country? An objective choice that everyone will agree with?

That's not an answerable question because it depends on ideological preferences, which I do consider legitimate to take into account.

You can't answer who's objectively most qualified for the job, but you can muster outrage when somebody who you know isn't it gets picked? What are you even on about? Either there's an objective best or there isn't (hint: there isn't).

The fact that your main argument is to try to pick out whatever problems may or may not exist with trying to litigate this just shows that Hillary Clinton's statement should be looked at as sexist against men and an obvious pander to woman.

This makes no sense.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Very egalitarian of her.   She's going to win the women's vote, so she feels it important for Trump to win the males.

The men who are going to be outraged by half of cabinet positions going to women were not going to be voting for Clinton anyway.

Yes, she's made sure of that.   drip drip drip.   But she can still help with turnout.

Please describe for me the voter who wouldn't turn out to vote against Clinton because she's a woman, but will turn out to vote against her because she might appoint a female Secretary of the Interior.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Almost any conceivable position will have at least a few potential 'most competent people' for it. In very few cases is there ever one obviously, 'objectively' most qualified person for a job.

More, everybody is already implicitly conceding the subjectivity inherent in this by glossing over the fact that the picks for a Democratic President would be entirely different from the picks for a Republican President.

[Slander and/or Libel]

I find it hilarious that so many people in this thread think Hillary can't find less than a dozen qualified women for cabinet positions, and therefore will be putting in unqualified ones solely to fill a quota.

In the words of Obama, we don't need a bunch of binders in order to find qualified women!

Okay, so you'd be fine with a candidate saying "90% of my cabinet will be men"? If not, why not? Then take that "why not", and apply it to what Hillary Clinton said about 50% of her cabinet being women. Frankly, I find it appalling that any serious candidate would make such a dangerous statement. It's utterly wrong, and I would have thought someone who is supposedly fighting for women and minorities would know better.

One of those statements is representative of the population and one isn't. It's mind-boggling that you'd think they're equivalent.