Clearly I sent the wrong message, let me explain.

On a personal level, I'm dispised when people mention they're voting for Hilary based on her gender. I've had women, and Gay/LGBT friends acknowledge the fact that they're voting for her simply because she's a woman. I didn't state that as a matter of fact, but based on what has been said to me.

With that being said, I have no dog in the fight, I'm a Canadian who's observing. I just think it's unfortunate that what I hear from my friends (I have family in SF and Maine) is they're supporting Hilary based on gender and gender alone.

The reason I said "2016 guy dude" is because we're at a point in time (fortunately) that you don't have to vote for someone just because they have a history of supporting LGBT rights. What sickens me is that I truly believe Hilary would switch views on LGBT rights if she thought it wouldn't be beneficial to her campaign. She has a clear history of siding with popular opinion rather than moral stance.

I understand now that the 2016 comment came off offensive. It has nothing to do a birth year. Really it was about abandoning a candidate who's always fought for the communities rights, and supporting one that all of a sudden shows support because that's where the party is on the "issue".

If the argument is "we think she has a better shot", you're not voting based on political views, which is a major problem in politics. In my opinion, everyone should be voting for the candidate they feel best represents them in office, not which one has a better shot at beating the "bad guys". Similarly, the same sort of things were said about our recently elected PM in Canada. "I like him the most, but he doesn't have chance to win, we should vote for _____." Fortunately he kept gaining support based on political views and positivity and ended up being elected. It was a big win for politics in Canada.