Wow all that flack from a stupid joke....and i thought i was here to have fun :rofl: I never said anything about Bush or Clinton, i could care less about either one actually as long as the next president we get is a good president and doesnt go to war for his own personal reasons or to make daddy happy, needlessly wasting the lives of american soldiers. Yes they knew as soldiers they could die in combat, but i dont think they signed up to be toy soldiers either.
Is America Ready for a female president?
- Thread starter humming20
- Start date
dave_rhino
Closed Account
I personally get a kick out of the fact that people seriously seem to think that our presidents single handedly have so much power. The US presidency is not a dictatorship for one thing and the president is not the sole person running things. It's the president, the president's advisors in addition to the house and congress.
One thing I find unfortunate in our government is that it is mainly republican verses democrat. Both sides have valid issues and agendas, but I find it hard to believe that many people agree w/every thing that one party mainly represents. And it's really too bad that they spend so much time on the few high profile issues that they are hung up on such as abortion rights for example.
In my opinion it should be up to each individual woman whether or not she can have an abortion. Don't get me wrong, there is plenty of good birth control out there and I wish more people would be responsable, but that just isn't the reality, but who is the government to order any woman to go full term and put the child up for adoption w/no option for an abortion? Isn't the world already populated enough and aren't there plenty of kids already in need of decent homes?
Just because I have a pro choice attitude that doesn't mean I have all democratic beliefs. I really think we do need to get a more diverse group of people involved in our political system in general.
And as far as having a female president goes, we have plenty of women in positions of power and I'm sure the president has female advisors currently in some capacity, so we aren't too far away from it and imo it really doesn't make that much of a difference.
When you get right down to the nitty gritty I think anyone who wants to be the president is a bit insane to begin with. Look at how much it aged Clinton? Not to say he didn't create a good share of his problems himself.
One thing I find unfortunate in our government is that it is mainly republican verses democrat. Both sides have valid issues and agendas, but I find it hard to believe that many people agree w/every thing that one party mainly represents. And it's really too bad that they spend so much time on the few high profile issues that they are hung up on such as abortion rights for example.
In my opinion it should be up to each individual woman whether or not she can have an abortion. Don't get me wrong, there is plenty of good birth control out there and I wish more people would be responsable, but that just isn't the reality, but who is the government to order any woman to go full term and put the child up for adoption w/no option for an abortion? Isn't the world already populated enough and aren't there plenty of kids already in need of decent homes?
Just because I have a pro choice attitude that doesn't mean I have all democratic beliefs. I really think we do need to get a more diverse group of people involved in our political system in general.
And as far as having a female president goes, we have plenty of women in positions of power and I'm sure the president has female advisors currently in some capacity, so we aren't too far away from it and imo it really doesn't make that much of a difference.
When you get right down to the nitty gritty I think anyone who wants to be the president is a bit insane to begin with. Look at how much it aged Clinton? Not to say he didn't create a good share of his problems himself.
Ignorance of the US Legislative v. Executive ...
Most other republics elect their Executive leadership from the Legislative, which is often the majority party in the Legislative. I actually prefer when the Legislative and Executive are from different parties, hence why I prefer the US' option to do such.
As I have to remind most people in other threads, the US never pulled out of Kyoto because the US never joined Kyoto. It was struck down by the US Senate 0-98-2 (0 votes for) during the Clinton administration!
If I hear one more ignorant comment that Bush pulled out of Kyoto, I'm going to scream! But it's a great example of how ignorant people are about how power works in the US.
Especially when US Legislative v. Executive "back-forth-back-forth" negotiations occur. People in countries where their Legislative and Executives from the same party aren't used to seeing that, because the only time it happens for them is when their Prime Minister doesn't agree with his own party.
For the US, "it's business as usual." I like the "business as usual" because stupid things don't get passed.
I think non-Americans (and even some Americans) forget that the US' Legislative and Executive branches do not have to be from the same party. This is unlike most other Republics!
Most other republics elect their Executive leadership from the Legislative, which is often the majority party in the Legislative. I actually prefer when the Legislative and Executive are from different parties, hence why I prefer the US' option to do such.
As I have to remind most people in other threads, the US never pulled out of Kyoto because the US never joined Kyoto. It was struck down by the US Senate 0-98-2 (0 votes for) during the Clinton administration!
If I hear one more ignorant comment that Bush pulled out of Kyoto, I'm going to scream! But it's a great example of how ignorant people are about how power works in the US.
Especially when US Legislative v. Executive "back-forth-back-forth" negotiations occur. People in countries where their Legislative and Executives from the same party aren't used to seeing that, because the only time it happens for them is when their Prime Minister doesn't agree with his own party.
For the US, "it's business as usual." I like the "business as usual" because stupid things don't get passed.
Women's rights versus others ...
The difference between women, as well as most minorities, and African Americans or Native Americans is that women and most other minorities were not denied education. Many American states (especially southern, where most of the African American population is located) made entrance into schools and, even more so, colleges extremely difficult.
When you deny someone a job or equal pay, it only affects their generation. That's why women are taking over businesses within 2 generations. Women don't need to be labeled a "minority" when it comes to jobs. Never had a problem with any female engineers "keeping up" with me, although I hate it when some women who didn't go into engineering bitches about "male engineers" and "all the money they make."
Now when you deny someone education, you fuck their entire family for generations. That's why the racial bigots did it to African Americans, for 100 years after 1963. And I wish Anglo Americans would wake up to that fact. *WE* are responsible for it, even if not directly. And more directly yet, *WE* are responsible for addressing it.
Now I don't believe in giving African Americans lower entrance requirements. But I do believe in giving African Americans full, free rides through college if they do qualify -- until the average median income of the African American family is that of the average American. I figure this would be at least 3 generations after such an act was made.
Until then, I will argue the best charity for our nation is the United Negro College Fund (UNCF). If you give to only one charity a year, please give it to the UNCF. There is nothing worse than an outstanding, young African American whose family can't afford college. Especially since, given the median income, he's had (and his family has had) a rougher time getting them.
But women were able to almost instantly overcome countless issues once the pay and other changes were made. They are already taking over middle management and lower-level executive positions. By Generation-Y, they will control most executive positions (more than men).
The difference between women, as well as most minorities, and African Americans or Native Americans is that women and most other minorities were not denied education. Many American states (especially southern, where most of the African American population is located) made entrance into schools and, even more so, colleges extremely difficult.
When you deny someone a job or equal pay, it only affects their generation. That's why women are taking over businesses within 2 generations. Women don't need to be labeled a "minority" when it comes to jobs. Never had a problem with any female engineers "keeping up" with me, although I hate it when some women who didn't go into engineering bitches about "male engineers" and "all the money they make."
Now when you deny someone education, you fuck their entire family for generations. That's why the racial bigots did it to African Americans, for 100 years after 1963. And I wish Anglo Americans would wake up to that fact. *WE* are responsible for it, even if not directly. And more directly yet, *WE* are responsible for addressing it.
Now I don't believe in giving African Americans lower entrance requirements. But I do believe in giving African Americans full, free rides through college if they do qualify -- until the average median income of the African American family is that of the average American. I figure this would be at least 3 generations after such an act was made.
Until then, I will argue the best charity for our nation is the United Negro College Fund (UNCF). If you give to only one charity a year, please give it to the UNCF. There is nothing worse than an outstanding, young African American whose family can't afford college. Especially since, given the median income, he's had (and his family has had) a rougher time getting them.
Iamforever
Banned
reality- no. plain and simple!
Re: Ignorance of the US Legislative v. Executive ...
Another thing my fellow Americans seem to forget is that we voted them in, we can vote them out and we don't have to wait for an election to do it. It's really unfortunate that so many people know how to bitch so much about who and what they don't like, but they don't seem to know or realize that we do as a nation have that power.
So if all these people that don't like their president at the time whether it's a democrat, a republican or an independent would put their money where there mouth is maybe they could actually do something about it.
My honest feeling is that no matter who is in there at this point it really doesn't make a whole lot of difference. It's really a lot of hot air and red tape to go through to get much done and when you look at the big picture you will see that a good number of the politicians are involved in some kind of scandal, and those are only the ones that get caught. That said it makes you wonder how many don't get caught. I would like to see more independents put in office if for no other reason just to shake things up a bit.
And as far as politicians go I have a bit of a problem w/anyone that is in public office and has the power to vote themselves a raise-that should definately be left to the people in my opinion.
I think non-Americans (and even some Americans) forget that the US' Legislative and Executive branches do not have to be from the same party. This is unlike most other Republics!
Most other republics elect their Executive leadership from the Legislative, which is often the majority party in the Legislative. I actually prefer when the Legislative and Executive are from different parties, hence why I prefer the US' option to do such.
As I have to remind most people in other threads, the US never pulled out of Kyoto because the US never joined Kyoto. It was struck down by the US Senate 0-98-2 (0 votes for) during the Clinton administration!
If I hear one more ignorant comment that Bush pulled out of Kyoto, I'm going to scream! But it's a great example of how ignorant people are about how power works in the US.
Especially when US Legislative v. Executive "back-forth-back-forth" negotiations occur. People in countries where their Legislative and Executives from the same party aren't used to seeing that, because the only time it happens for them is when their Prime Minister doesn't agree with his own party.
For the US, "it's business as usual." I like the "business as usual" because stupid things don't get passed.
Another thing my fellow Americans seem to forget is that we voted them in, we can vote them out and we don't have to wait for an election to do it. It's really unfortunate that so many people know how to bitch so much about who and what they don't like, but they don't seem to know or realize that we do as a nation have that power.
So if all these people that don't like their president at the time whether it's a democrat, a republican or an independent would put their money where there mouth is maybe they could actually do something about it.
My honest feeling is that no matter who is in there at this point it really doesn't make a whole lot of difference. It's really a lot of hot air and red tape to go through to get much done and when you look at the big picture you will see that a good number of the politicians are involved in some kind of scandal, and those are only the ones that get caught. That said it makes you wonder how many don't get caught. I would like to see more independents put in office if for no other reason just to shake things up a bit.
And as far as politicians go I have a bit of a problem w/anyone that is in public office and has the power to vote themselves a raise-that should definately be left to the people in my opinion.
America may or may not be ready for a female president but they certainly aren't ready for Hilary Clinton. She's a very polarizing character and many people, especially women - who can see right through her, do not trust her at all.
She has what you would call an "electability" problem. I personally would never vote for her because I think she's a power mad bitch. Others feel the same way I do and Millions of them will do even less research into her actual politics than I will. That's the heart of the matter, she's shown her stripes and too many people have made up their mind about her.
She's toast.
She has what you would call an "electability" problem. I personally would never vote for her because I think she's a power mad bitch. Others feel the same way I do and Millions of them will do even less research into her actual politics than I will. That's the heart of the matter, she's shown her stripes and too many people have made up their mind about her.
She's toast.
I agree with you completely about Hillary Clinton.
I also have to say that by having had Bill Clinton in office haven't we already had a woman as the president?
That would depend on what your definition of the word "woman" is.
what is the definition of "definition"?
This rhetoric is getting beyond old ...
And yes, I know Peter, you're not a conservative.
Let's just leave it at the most popular slogan of 1994 ...
"Impeach Clinton! And her husband too!"
I think that says enough how people felt, at least early on.
I expect it out of the liberals but you conservatives can show you're just as bad.
And yes, I know Peter, you're not a conservative.Let's just leave it at the most popular slogan of 1994 ...
"Impeach Clinton! And her husband too!"
I think that says enough how people felt, at least early on.
lmfao. That's hitting the nail on the head and driving it right on in.
Similar threads
