Time for a Woman President?

[dgridley]

Is it time for a woman president in the US?

 

[01wojtowicz]

There are still a lot of men who refuse to have a woman superior, too.

Then theres still alot of stupid men

peopel should realise that gender or skin colour men nothing, but that will never happen

 

[inspiration100]

IMO viciouscircle is right. Why slam the president, you could have done that during elections in 04. Now this time vote for who you think is best and don't slam the others.
As for gender, I would imagine a Male will get in like John Mccain.
-----
Please Note! Everything stated is My Opinion only, not that of Namepros, if you have any questions please PM me and not RJ. This message has been brought to you by no one but myself. I take full responsibility for all that this causes. :hehe:

 

[CrazyTech]

I'll offer up my own opinions here and it probably will step on a few toes. So be it.

Let the best man (or woman) win. I think it's a bit much to say that it's "time" for a woman President. So, for once, HH and I agree politically. (Miracles do happen. ) My vote is going for the person best qualified for the job and that's the general idea when other people vote (hopefully).

To suggest that we're not the land of the free merely because we haven't had a female or minority in office is being a bit facetious. Again, practically speaking, you want the best qualified person in office, not just someone there because of what skin color they have or what sex they are.

The simple fact is, the person is elected because enough Americans believe that they share similar values. These hypothetical "what if" situations are just that - hypothetical.

 

[viciouscircle]

Does the gender actually amtter, if 2 candidates went out and had exaclty the same policies and were exactly the same apart from the gender... youd probably find that the woman woulod win as I get the feeling people think there needs to be a woman president...But thats positive discrimination and the gender shouldnt matter...the thing is there will never be 2 people with the same policies, you should vote for th epolicies and person you like more, not the gener

There is no such thing as positive discrimination.

It was a mistake. I meant non-male.

Secondly, politics is only as predjudice as the people who vote there is nothing preventing any candidate from winning other than a lack of support. Voter turnout for the 2004 Presidential election was approximately 60% of the voting eligible public in the US. This is the first time the turnout hit above 60% since 1968. There is nothing forcing us to be stuck with a 2 party system in the US other than apathy. That being said, you have no way of knowing where that 40% of the population stands on the issues. When it comes down to it, the President should be someone who will look out for the best interests of the American populous in general. It shouldn't matter what that persons gender, race, or anything else is. It should simply be about doing what the majority of America wants them to do.

My post was directed towards the false perception that most Americans are not prejudice. Honestly, if the best candidate was a Muslim, you think Americans would vote him/her in? There are still a lot of men who refuse to have a woman superior, too.

The fact is, everyone is prejudice. But, that has nothing to do with this. If the best candidate was a Muslim, Americans wouldn't vote him/her in. 50% of them wouldn't vote in the first place, and besides that, what makes them the "best candidate"? Politics is opinion based. The person you believe to be the best candidate might not be the person I believe to be the best candidate.

 

[01wojtowicz]

Positive discrimination does exist ... maybe use this tool called google define, or maybe use some common sense to work out what it means


And it dosent actually matter who gets the most votes because the american system is a pathetic useless heap of rubbish... the ellectorate collage votes or soemthing like that account for alot of votes

 

[viciouscircle]

I know what you're trying to claim when you say "positive discrimination", but the fact is there is nothing positive about ANY discrimination. Trying to argue me on this point will just result in you looking foolish.

Now, on the the point worth debating...
Do you even know how the American electoral system works? The electoral college was established in Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution. America is an indirect democracy. The electoral college does not account for a lot of votes, it accounts for ALL of them. Each state has as many representatives in the electoral college as it has members of the House and Senate, along with an additional 3 (currently) electors allocated to the District of Columbia. This currently totals to 538 electoral college members. With the exception of Maine and Nebraska, whichever candidate wins a plurality of the vote in a state will win all the votes of that state's electors.

While you may debate if it is the BEST method, you can hardly say that our electoral system is a "pathetic useless heap of rubbish". Next time, please have a full understanding of the issues before starting to criticize things.

 

[CrazyTech]

And it dosent actually matter who gets the most votes because the american system is a pathetic useless heap of rubbish... the ellectorate collage votes or soemthing like that account for alot of votes

That's a fair statement for someone who doesn't even participate in the system and sits across the Atlantic. With all due respect, you don't seem to know that much about it either.

And well said, Robert!

 

[01wojtowicz]

I actually dont care how it works, it just makes more sense if its that a person casts a vote and that counts, the person/party with the highest number should be the president. Didnt gore get more votes that bush, and look where thats got you

I dont know much about it and have never claimed to.

and positive discrimination is such a thing, for example a university having to allow 50 asian students per 1000 when it usually only acepts 30 is positive discrimination (there were talks about something like this happening in the UK)

 

[viciouscircle]

Bush got more votes than Kerry.... AND the Bush/Kerry election had a 5+% greater turnout than the Bush/Gore election.

You seem to be missing my point on the "positive" discrimination thing. "Positive discrimination" is a buzzword, slogan politics. Discrimination in any form is not positive. The number of asian students in a university should not be considered when reviewing applications and admitting students. It should be based on academic merit NOT race. Discrimination is discrimination is discrimination and it is NOT positive in any situation.

 

[Shorty]

I'm all for a woman president, simply because that means that clueless moron has his power taken away. George Bush is an absolute joke, the entire world thinks he's a god damn idiot.

I dont personally think men or women generally do better than the other. I think Margaret Thatcher did kind of put a damper on things since she turned out to be the spawn of satan, but a woman can still do a good job.

I think for a woman to actually survive in politics and get elected by America shes needs to be a very progressive, modern and forward thinking kind of woman, basically the opposite of Thatcher.

 

[viciouscircle]

I'm all for a woman president, simply because that means that clueless moron has his power taken away. George Bush is an absolute joke, the entire world thinks he's a god damn idiot.

I dont personally think men or women generally do better than the other. I think Margaret Thatcher did kind of put a damper on things since she turned out to be the spawn of satan, but a woman can still do a good job.

I think for a woman to actually survive in politics and get elected by America shes needs to be a very progressive, modern and forward thinking kind of woman, basically the opposite of Thatcher.

Unintelligent, uninformed post. American presidents have a 2 term limit. George Bush can not be re-elected, by the next election he will have served his 2 term maximum. Also, Bush's job is not to please the entire world, simply the United States of America. The question of the next U.S. President being a woman or not has NOTHING to do with George W. Bush, don't try to involve the two issues when they are totally unrelated.

 

[Lyte]

For me it would depend on the woman! Condoleezza... sure I might vote for her. Hillary... heck no! :td:

Lyte

p.s.

Long overdue IMHO, after all, women are more intelligent and better than men at everything! :p

I don't know you B33R ... but I sure like you! :tu:

 

[GeneCosta]

Discrimination is discrimination is discrimination and it is NOT positive in any situation.

Bravo. I can't tolerate any form of discrimination.

 

[B33R]

I don't know you B33R ... but I sure like you! :tu:

:hehe: Thanks!

Everyone knows it's true, most men are afraid to admit it though!

I like your custom title by the way.

 

[DN Tycoon]

Long overdue IMHO, after all, women are more intelligent and better than men at everything! :p



(apparently)

Lol you've been drinking to much beer, each person is different regardless of gender, race, culture and so on. The question isn't is this country ready for a woman president it's are those people in this country who are ignorant ready for a woman president. It really does not matter who is president as you could even put Saddam in as president the country is really run by congress and all the over paid elected greedy monsters.

 

[codyturk]

I believe that in our life time we will see a women president. Hillary Clinton has the best shot at achieving this.

 

[viciouscircle]

I believe that in our life time we will see a women president. Hillary Clinton has the best shot at achieving this.

Are you kidding me?

Edit: About Hillary that is...

 

[AdoptableDomains]

I believe that in our life time we will see a women president. Hillary Clinton has the best shot at achieving this.

I think Barbara Bush or Elizabeth Dole could kick Hillary's butt any time.

 

[viciouscircle]

I honestly think that as of right now, the most likely chance as far as a woman becoming president would be senator Olympia Snowe of Maine, but not for a few more years. Clinton and Rice have too much bad associated with each of them and either one would be a bad move for a nomination (although we all know Hillary has had her eye on the job since before Bill even finished his terms). Either one would more than likely be easily defeated in a national election.

Snowe on the other hand, has decades of applicable experience, and was selected by Time as one of "America's 10 Best Senators" back in April. Her main issue is lack of name recognition with the majority (or should i say, plurality) of Americans, however her politics are rather moderate and she is from New England, so if she could swing a Republican nomination she would have a great chance at winning it all. Otherwise, if she wants to make a run at it, she will have to spend a few years getting her name out there a bit more.

 

[DN Tycoon]

I honestly think that as of right now, the most likely chance as far as a woman becoming president would be senator Olympia Snowe of Maine, but not for a few more years. Clinton and Rice have too much bad associated with each of them and either one would be a bad move for a nomination (although we all know Hillary has had her eye on the job since before Bill even finished his terms). Either one would more than likely be easily defeated in a national election.

Snowe on the other hand, has decades of applicable experience, and was selected by Time as one of "America's 10 Best Senators" back in April. Her main issue is lack of name recognition with the majority (or should i say, plurality) of Americans, however her politics are rather moderate and she is from New England, so if she could swing a Republican nomination she would have a great chance at winning it all. Otherwise, if she wants to make a run at it, she will have to spend a few years getting her name out there a bit more.

The first woman president will be a dem not a rep.....that's just about guaranteed .