USA Is it time for a woman President in the U.S.?

[Highlander]

[QUOTEI'm not familiar with those candidates but it sounds like you'd be quite happy with a female President in general, just not Hillary?[/QUOTE]

I was referring to several very famous women, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann & Carly Fiorniana (bad spelling). All are extremely conservative, moral people who are also VERY strong women. Any of them would make me happy if they were my president.

Hillary essentially is a communist and has no place in the oval office.

 

[Lamb]

Aww, Hillary just hung out with the wrong crowd that influenced her in a bad way! What would she have been like if she hadn't been married to Bill?

 

[Highlander]

Hillary was a radical from the day she was born. Her marriage to Bill was not out of love. She attached herself to a man she figured she could ride into power. And she did.

But now she is finding out what she should have learned 8 years ago -- that she has no coattails of her own. Just a wrinkled fleet of pantsuits.

 

[tango]

I'm not familiar with those candidates but it sounds like you'd be quite happy with a female President in general, just not Hillary?

I was referring to several very famous women, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann & Carly Fiorniana (bad spelling). All are extremely conservative, moral people who are also VERY strong women. Any of them would make me happy if they were my president.

I'm sure they are famous within US political circles, but as I said I'm not familiar with US politics to recognise people from their first names alone.

Hillary essentially is a communist and has no place in the oval office.

... unless the people elect her, of course

 

[Josiah]

I find all this "boys vs. girls" stuff to be pretty Kindergarden. WHO CARES if a candidate has an "X" chromosone or not.

 

[Josiah]

I find all this "boys vs. girls" stuff to be pretty Kindergarden. WHO CARES if a candidate has an "Y" chromosome or not?????? OR what color eyes they have or what shoe size they wear? How PETTY things can get..... To sorta quote Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, "I dream of a day when people won't care about whether one has a Y chromosome but rather about their CHARACTER."


Sorry.... Sexism bugs me.



- Josiah

 

[tango]

I find all this "boys vs. girls" stuff to be pretty Kindergarden. WHO CARES if a candidate has an "Y" chromosome or not?????? OR what color eyes they have or what shoe size they wear? How PETTY things can get..... To sorta quote Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, "I dream of a day when people won't care about whether one has a Y chromosome but rather about their CHARACTER."


Sorry.... Sexism bugs me.



- Josiah

One thing I'd really like to see in elections is a simple test. It would have to be done digitally or the page would be huge. The idea is that you'd select which candidate got your vote, then you'd be presented with a list of major policy initiatives from various candidates and have to identify one of the initiatives that your chosen candidate proposed. If you got that wrong your vote wouldn't count.

It would mean that the people who vote based on what their candidate stood for would make the difference while people who vote Republican because every generation of their family voted Republican would be filtered out, the people who voted for Obama because "it's about time we had a black President" would be weeded out, the people who voted against Obama because "I don't want no (racial slur) in the White House" would be filtered out and so on.

It would make voting more complex and the systems would need to be audited by cross-party groups every once in a while, but it would mean the people who bothered to engage with the system would make a difference while those who did vote based on gender, race, haircut etc would still get to mark their box but not actually change anything. I've found it alarming for some time now that the people who have no idea what the candidates actually stand for can swing an election if there are enough of them, and in some areas "enough of them" doesn't mean very many at all. If I recall during the Bush/Gore election the state of New Mexico returned a majority of less than 200.

 

[dogs4thewin]

I will say that, as I hope you all know by now in many parts of the world women are basically second-class citizens. Would leaders of those nations respect us less?

 

[Highlander]

I'm sure they are famous within US political circles, but as I said I'm not familiar with US politics to recognise people from their first names alone.

Are you from this country? Most people who keep themselves politically informed would be familiar with all of them. Unfortunately, that probably only refers to a small percentage of U.S. citizens. The rest are mostly concerned with the latest episode of "Dancing with the Stars," etc., and don't devote much time to staying abreast of the political world.

[/QUOTE]... unless the people elect her, of course [/QUOTE]

And therein lies her downfall. Remember that she was expecting to be coronated in 2008. But, because of her unpopularity, any candidate not named Hillary was preferrable to the Democrats. In the case of 2008, that person was named Barrick Hussein Obama. In 2015, with her popularity even lower than before, those other candidates not named Hillary are Bernie, Elizabeth and Martin.

I can provide their last names if necessary. LOL

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

I will say that, as I hope you all know by now in many parts of the world women are basically second-class citizens. Would leaders of those nations respect us less?

I don't think the issue with Hillary is how she'd be perceived in that manner. Consider Angela Merkel. A very strong female leader in the Western world. She has an enormous amount of clout in world affairs, and she's taken seriously. But can Hillary Clinton live up to that same level of respect and authority? I think not.

 

[tango]

Are you from this country? Most people who keep themselves politically informed would be familiar with all of them. Unfortunately, that probably only refers to a small percentage of U.S. citizens. The rest are mostly concerned with the latest episode of "Dancing with the Stars," etc., and don't devote much time to staying abreast of the political world.

No, I'm from England. I know some of the better known names in US politics but don't have the level of familiarity with the subject to recognise more than a few people by first names alone.

... unless the people elect her, of course

And therein lies her downfall. Remember that she was expecting to be coronated in 2008. But, because of her unpopularity, any candidate not named Hillary was preferrable to the Democrats. In the case of 2008, that person was named Barrick Hussein Obama. In 2015, with her popularity even lower than before, those other candidates not named Hillary are Bernie, Elizabeth and Martin.

I can provide their last names if necessary. LOL

Sure, I remember the surprise when an all-but unknown senator defeated Hillary for the Democrat nomination and in some ways it's surprising she's having another go given, as you say, her popularity seems lower now than then. Presumably she is hoping to see another Democrat in the White House, in which case if she doesn't get it now her next chance is realistically going to be 2024 by which time she'll probably be considered too old.

I'm sure I could find the last names of the other three but to be honest it's not really necessary, my expectation is that Someone Else will get the nomination so the other candidates could just as easily be Tom, Dick and Harry

 

[brinny]

Hillary essentially is an unindicted (so far) criminal. This is why her trust factor with the public is VERY low and why her campaign is crumbling.

Simply put, Hillary Clinton is not electable as POTUS.

POTUS? What exactly is that?

 

[psalms 91]

President Of The United States, POTUS

 

[brinny]

President Of The United States, POTUS

LOL! :doh: Thanks bill

 

[Highlander]

No, I'm from England. I know some of the better known names in US politics but don't have the level of familiarity with the subject to recognise more than a few people by first names alone.



Sure, I remember the surprise when an all-but unknown senator defeated Hillary for the Democrat nomination and in some ways it's surprising she's having another go given, as you say, her popularity seems lower now than then. Presumably she is hoping to see another Democrat in the White House, in which case if she doesn't get it now her next chance is realistically going to be 2024 by which time she'll probably be considered too old.

I'm sure I could find the last names of the other three but to be honest it's not really necessary, my expectation is that Someone Else will get the nomination so the other candidates could just as easily be Tom, Dick and Harry

Yeah, Hillary is about 68 now and would be in her late 70s by the time the new president takes office in 2024. And she has far too many skeletons in her closet to win this time around.

 

[tango]

Yeah, Hillary is about 68 now and would be in her late 70s by the time the new president takes office in 2024.

68 now would put her more like 76-77 by her next chance to run, assuming a Democrat takes it this time. If a Republican takes it this time she could conceivably run aged 72-73, although given she'd then be 80 by the end of a second term it's easy to see why the electorate would want someone younger. Not least someone who could complete two full terms without running into their 80s by the end of it.

And she has far too many skeletons in her closet to win this time around.

It seems that way, although that's not relevant to her age

 

[Highlander]

Her people dumped another big batch of emails this evening, after the reporters had all gone home. And there were many classified emails involved. There are now over 260 classified emails that will probably help spiral her campaign straight down the toilet.

 

[psalms 91]

depends, were they classified at the time or not?

 

[Highlander]

It really doesn't matter, but yes they were classified. The question some have posed is whether they were physically MARKED classified -- but that marking usually happens later, but they were still classified at the time of her emails. In addition, at the very least, it was very sensitive information that anyone -- especially the head official (Hillary) -- should have known about. So basically she is reduced to campaigning on being either diabolical or incompetent.

So it is very easy to see why her poll numbers are falling faster than the stock market.

 

[psalms 91]

Yeah, she definitely messed up but not so sure the data was classified at thetime