It's Time For a Woman President. Or Is It?

a reply to: jude11

I wouldn't vote for a women simply because she wouldn't be taken seriously by the heads of states, who are men - especially in the third world, Africa and Central Asian countries, who we hold in confidence as security allies. Her position as head of the US State Department was a sad affair for US politics. She couldn't cut a deal with any of her Middle Eastern contacts too save her soul. Feminists who would vote for any woman to claim some sort of sexist victory are being irresponsible, and just typically feministic.

a reply to: jude11

Of course if the woman is an idiot or immoral fool then of course no one wants her as a president.

But in the greater scheme of humanity (diversity…the woman’s touch) it would be good that there is a woman as president as long as she’s qualified.

The most likely to win
based on current popular standards
of who the next president should be.

Susana Martinez

A woman
A hispanic

A governor in a predominately hispanic state.

She has everything hollywood is looking for
she has everything the politically correct say is most important to be President
she is a female and she is not white

She is however sadly lacking in mafioso like tendencies which appear to be the other requirement
to make a good president in this day and age.

Actually, from what the people in New Mexico have said about her in another thread.
I truly think she would be a good candidate.
AND, bonus, hollywood and the feminists would be happy, although not for the reasons I would.

Although the fact that she didn't sleep with a former President to get where she has in politics, as another candidate has done
may be a strike against her for some voters.

originally posted by: jude11

Thank you for a thread backed up by actual facts, pardon me for being late with this coment.

Will she make decisions with the intent of proving herself capable as a woman leader? And will these decisions be sexist?

Yes and Yes, in this nation (USA) it will be the only way "she" can justify "her" actions. Strong equals destroy and male contradicts female.

Something else to ponder: “Edward Gibbon's "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire." In it, this 18th century historian, a contemporary of Ben Franklin, remarked that women rulers in the ancient world shared a common flaw - they took matters of state as personal. In other words, they could be influenced emotionally.”

This is a matter of concern. To be or approach life by intuition can be very benificial, but to percieve a curcumstance in a personal manner enables people to pass jugdement due to personel/ cultural preference.

We are no different when it comes down to holding a position of power.

I agree, all though women can be very vendictive and promote them selves in passive aggresive ways.

I went further than I intended in writing this but I wanted to hear from others worse with a woman at the helm. Personally, I believe that sex does not matter if we have an actual human being in the chair..

You wished to hear from others. Who ever the person is WE elected "IT". Your comment to an actual human being? How do we define this today?

The last point I wanted to make is that although I believe evil is gender neutral, Hillary is evil incarnate

I can not judge, who is the judge? we can only act according to our own conscience, and vote accordingly.

But what can I say? I’m just a man.

I am just a woman, but I have found that within the past five decades we have subdued men to the point of non-existence.
Go Boys, Go Girls, respect each other.
Thank You Jude


WIS

originally posted by: daaskapital
A woman should only be given a position if she is capable of it. The exact same should be applied to men. I don't agree with quotas or forcing a woman into a position simply for 'equality'.

And yeah, i agree. Hillary Clinton is the spawn of Satan, lol. People think previous Presidents have been bad? Oh boy, just wait until Hillary gets in!

This. Nobody should be elected on the base of sex or race--to do otherwise is racist and sexist. Of course the dems are very much into identity politics and often only care about the demographics of a candidate.

It is time for women president, sadly so far none of the possible candidates have the credentials they are all trash.

Beside that is none sense to say that estrogen and emotions will play a big role on a woman president, because let face it, most of the women in politics are already pass the hormonal change, they are all post menopausal woman.

So no, not hormone fueled decisions here.

originally posted by: grandmakdw
The most likely to win
based on current popular standards
of who the next president should be.

Susana Martinez

A woman
A hispanic

A governor in a predominately hispanic state.

She has everything hollywood is looking for
she has everything the politically correct say is most important to be President
she is a female and she is not white

She is however sadly lacking in mafioso like tendencies which appear to be the other requirement
to make a good president in this day and age.

Actually, from what the people in New Mexico have said about her in another thread.
I truly think she would be a good candidate.
AND, bonus, hollywood and the feminists would be happy, although not for the reasons I would.

Although the fact that she didn't sleep with a former President to get where she has in politics, as another candidate has done
may be a strike against her for some voters.

Wouldn't work. Since she is a conservative, she would be castigated by the press as being a "white Hispanic," not a real latina, race traitor, radical right wing loon, "uncle tom," anti-feminist, etc. and "high cheekbones" fake native American Elizabeth Warren would be considered more "racially pure."


The left only likes women and minorities when they are "their" women and minorities.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
Some good points there...

Some I disagreed with...


But nevertheless...

I'd assume a female President would be much more likely to sanction and drop allegiance with Saudi Arabia...



Which, as a policy, could be an election winner for male or female to be honest.

Not Hillary, she gets millions of dollars from Saudi Arabia.

originally posted by: jude11
I have been pondering this issue quite a lot lately and more so because of the almost given inevitability of a female Clinton in the big office. The question being why do I keep hearing that it's about time we have a woman at the helm? What's the reasoning behind this line of thought and is it going to be any different than a man in the chair?

I think the entire post is very interesting, but I only wanted to highlight one particular thing.

It's a terrible statement to make (not that you, OP, are making it, you're referring to others) that it is "time for a woman...", "time for a man...", "time for minority...".

No.

It's time for the right person for the job.

Not "the person who probably doesn't have the faintest idea of what they are doing but they happen to be the right race/gender/creed".

No.

The right person for the job, without regard to any other consideration. The minute you apply any other consideration, any other filter, any other criteria or criterion, then you have hung yourself before your trial.

The next time someone tells you that "it's time for...[race/colour/gender]" to be President, tell them that they are an idiot and that they are the best living argument in favour of restricting the right to vote to people who can pass an IQ test with an acceptable score.

originally posted by: EvillerBob

originally posted by: jude11
I have been pondering this issue quite a lot lately and more so because of the almost given inevitability of a female Clinton in the big office. The question being why do I keep hearing that it's about time we have a woman at the helm? What's the reasoning behind this line of thought and is it going to be any different than a man in the chair?

I think the entire post is very interesting, but I only wanted to highlight one particular thing.

It's a terrible statement to make (not that you, OP, are making it, you're referring to others) that it is "time for a woman...", "time for a man...", "time for minority...".

No.

It's time for the right person for the job.

Not "the person who probably doesn't have the faintest idea of what they are doing but they happen to be the right race/gender/creed".

No.

The right person for the job, without regard to any other consideration. The minute you apply any other consideration, any other filter, any other criteria or criterion, then you have hung yourself before your trial.

The next time someone tells you that "it's time for...[race/colour/gender]" to be President, tell them that they are an idiot and that they are the best living argument in favour of restricting the right to vote to people who can pass an IQ test with an acceptable score.

His point is, and it is a valid one, that there recently has been a big push of "it's time for a woman in office" specifically to garner support for Clinton.

a reply to: NavyDoc

That is how we got Obama also, is time for . . .(fill the blank here). Did it make a difference? Historically yes, political, same old same crap.

a reply to: jude11

Jude - Quoting 'anything' posted on Returnofkings.com is like quoting the weekly world news.

When 8 Muslim Nations already had women for heads of state in the past, I say yes it's about time the U.S has a woman president.
Can't believe the question can even be asked.

Just not Hillary plz...

originally posted by: NavyDoc

His point is, and it is a valid one, that there recently has been a big push of "it's time for a woman in office" specifically to garner support for Clinton.

Oh I'm not disputing that or seeking to criticise OP at all. I'm just throwing this in as a general observation - whenever people start saying "it's time for..." then they're usually about to ask for something for entirely the wrong reasons.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: grandmakdw
The most likely to win
based on current popular standards
of who the next president should be.

Susana Martinez

A woman
A hispanic

A governor in a predominately hispanic state.

She has everything hollywood is looking for
she has everything the politically correct say is most important to be President
she is a female and she is not white

She is however sadly lacking in mafioso like tendencies which appear to be the other requirement
to make a good president in this day and age.

Actually, from what the people in New Mexico have said about her in another thread.
I truly think she would be a good candidate.
AND, bonus, hollywood and the feminists would be happy, although not for the reasons I would.

Although the fact that she didn't sleep with a former President to get where she has in politics, as another candidate has done
may be a strike against her for some voters.

Wouldn't work. Since she is a conservative, she would be castigated by the press as being a "white Hispanic," not a real latina, race traitor, radical right wing loon, "uncle tom," anti-feminist, etc. and "high cheekbones" fake native American Elizabeth Warren would be considered more "racially pure."


The left only likes women and minorities when they are "their" women and minorities.

LOL

You are right, they still consider Warren a Native American just because she claims it, even though it has been proven that she hasn't a drop of native american blood in her.

But if a real Hispanic ran, and was a conservative, well the media would go out of its way to call her "white Hispanic" and do everything it could to disprove she was a "real" Hispanic.

Heck I'd bed ABC NBC CBS CNN whose CEO's all have either a spouse or sibling working directly for Obama or high up in the Democratic Party, they'd figure out a way to call her a "White Hispanic Faux Woman". They'd find a way to say she doesn't count as a real woman because she is conservative.

Is it time for a woman president?

I can't think of one.

None out here in public office that would be qualified.

WE don't have any real leaders on either side.

I have seen Presidents come and go for half a century. The bad Presidents had personal scandals or led us into poverty stress and war. The good Presidents promoted peace, happiness, financial stability, and goodwill, and intellectual growth. This led to stability, prosperity, and growth. Growth intellectually or an economic nation. Hillary is a wise older woman. She does not need the money at this point in her life. She could sit back and write books and do just fine. She probably cares about this world and what it will mean for her grandchildren. Women are like that. They care about the future.

Long term goals for the United States and the world are: removing starvation, poverty, illness, war. We all need to educate our people. Tolerating each other and appreciate our differences in cultural, religion, sexes, and races. The issue of pollution, fossil fuels, and economy need to be addressed. The terrorist groups need to stop, go home, and get jobs supporting their families and countries. Help those people dig wells. It is that simple. We just all need to get along and protect our planet. It is that simple. It is NOT rocket science.

Let's see what woman power can do and bring to the table. I am tired of men's agendas. They have made a real mess out of this planet. All the terrible things are because of men. Sit there and think about that for a long while.

originally posted by: frugal
I have seen Presidents come and go for half a century. The bad Presidents had personal scandals or led us into poverty stress and war. The good Presidents promoted peace, happiness, financial stability, and goodwill, and intellectual growth. This led to stability, prosperity, and growth either intellectually or an economic nation. Hillary is a wise older woman. She does not need the money at this point in her life. She could sit back and write books and do just fine. She probably cares about this world and what it will mean for her grandchildren. Women are like that. They care about the future.

Long term goals for the United States and the world are: removing starvation, poverty, illness, war. We all need to educate our people. Tolerating each other and appreciate our differences in cultural, religion, sexes, and races. The issue of pollution, fossil fuels, and economy need to be addressed. The terrorist groups need to stop, go home, and get jobs supporting their families and countries. Help those people dig wells. It is that simple. We just all need to get along and protect our planet. It is that simple. It is NOT rocket science.

Let's see what woman power can do and bring to the table. I am tired of men's agendas. They have made a real mess out of this planet. All the terrible things are because of men. Sit there and think about that for a long while.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA.



Man, that's funny.

originally posted by: EvillerBob

originally posted by: NavyDoc

His point is, and it is a valid one, that there recently has been a big push of "it's time for a woman in office" specifically to garner support for Clinton.

Oh I'm not disputing that or seeking to criticise OP at all. I'm just throwing this in as a general observation - whenever people start saying "it's time for..." then they're usually about to ask for something for entirely the wrong reasons.

I have to agree with you.

I agree that women are just as prone to being corrupt as are men.
I can almost see the reasoning behind the idea that it would be an interesting change to have a female President… thinking of feminine characteristics (as something both genders have, but we find more developed in woman than in men).

But we have a cultural issue to wrestle with- if a woman has gotten anywhere in Americas current political system, it is precisely because she has highly developed masculine tendencies. All you’ll get is a masculine woman up there- which doesn’t bring us anything new.

I do not agree with the POV that “women do not care about men” as a generalization. I will speak out loud and clear on that one. I am a mother of men, a wife, a daughter… I do defend men’s rights as much as women’s, and see them as creatures as complex and vulnerable as women (though perhaps in different ways).

I think that is just plain BS.
I think, however, that women who want to “get ahead” in modern society and politics must be very careful about not addressing men’s weaknesses, frailties, and vulnerabilities, because their pride might be wounded- which won’t get her any higher. Pretending men are invulnerable soothes their egos. They might be okay with their trusted wife knowing these things, but not other women outside that circle of trust.

I repeatedly run into men who will moan and complain about not getting relief from responsibility (and blame) in our present culture….. yet simultaneously abhor the idea of giving up any power and admitting any vulnerability. Peace is powerlessness, and too many men challenge each other to “deny powerlessness” , so you get conflicting desires- I want to be powerful, yet not responsible; I want others to carry their weight, yet I don’t trust them to do so properly, so I must do it for them, and resent that.

Hillary, as an individual, I admit to not being totally informed on her positions and ethics, so I won’t make any comment on her. But I definitely would not support voting for her simply because she is a woman. Every individual should be considered as an individual, regardless of gender.