What Do You Think About A Female President?

I don't mind women voting(though it's clear that I obviously question both their political knowledge and their neutrality in decision making), and yes by all means own your own property, not a man's after you've stripped it from divorce.(I'm sure there are also reverse cases, but not as much of a problem(if at all one). Social Laws have been written grossly in favor of women, which makes you wonder what, if not supremacy feminists are truly "fighting" for? What political claim do they have, that they don't already possess?

In fact, the social legislation has tried to give women the same advantages that they had in the "old system" while creating a new one with that pro-female bias. Ironically, this hasn't quite worked out in female's favor because it requires a man to be stupid enough, gullible enough to be used as a second hand pocketbook. So the result has been broken families and more work time for women.

Indeed, if we only had a slight adjustment factor instead of a major social upheaval, women might be better off today. They may actually have stronger political representation. They certainly wouldn't have the stigma of their crusade against them. But no, really. A bunch of idiots vote, it's par the course. If these idiots have a right to vote, you have a right to vote regardless of your body parts.

I won't oppress your right to vote, neither politically in office or as a private citizen. I'll just bemoan the fact that you vote based on gender ideology, making you sometimes even worse than the idiot. At least the idiot votes because of belonging to some social class or some other preconceived notion.

If women voted in much the same fashion as politically acute men, we'd have a stronger country as a result. I bemoan a woman's weakness, not her strength.

 

The typical bitter "It's all the fault of The Evil That Is Woman"......the ingrained ignorant sexism that says "all women are exactly the same, like cattle"

 

In the U.S? Yes, they pretty much are. I sincerely doubt that romanticism exists as part of U.S culture anymore.

 

We live in a country where blacks were discriminated against 45 years ago, as far as women? the above is complete turd, didn't happen. "Shut out for centuries" my ass. Stop trying to tag the bogus feminist movement on the back of the legitimate Civil Rights Movement by association. That may work in leftist echo chambers but not here.

To the topic, I'd love to see a female president, but never just because she's female. Ideally she would have a strong private sector history of legitimate accomplishment in finance or some kind of operations, never HR, marketing, nonprofits or legal. A STEM field would be the cherry on top. She would -not- be a career politician or academic, and she would tend to the center and to the right fiscally. Hey it could happen.

 

There are plenty of qualified women. None of them, currently,are named Hillary or are a Senator from Massachusetts.

 

The mentality that really IS retarded is the one that said only white males could be president for the first 43 presidents and 230 years. I don't blame folks for wanting to break a few glass ceilings.

As for qualifications, c'mon. NOBODY and EVERYBODY has the qualifications to be president. The fact that McCain tabbed a jr. college dropout to be a heart attack away from being president should tell you that. A chimp and a few bananas could run this country. The country is run by on/off buttons and the president punches those buttons the wrong way 50% of the time.

 

LOL! 45 years ago?! How blind to history and ignorant of the present.......and discrimination is very real and applies to women as well as minorities as all the sexists in here have proven....

 

Carly Fiona, Susana Martinez, Michele Bachman, Christie Whitman, Jan Brewer

 

What sexists dude? I haven't seen anyone in here say that a woman shouldn't be president.

 

Well UK had Margrat Thatcher. I didn't like her so yeah. I'm put off voting for women as leaders. I'm traumatised by Margret Thatcher's reign of terror.

MOD EDIT - Reply to Deleted

 

The predominant victims of discrimination in the status quo are white men, not blacks, not women, white men. I don't see any "all the sexists" here, I'm certainly not one. I hate feminism, but as you and I both know, feminism does not = "women." Most women aren't feminists, almost none want their daughters to be feminists, and more and more women and men are leaving the vile cult of feminism every day.

 

Evidence for a global flood naysayers have not been able to explain:

1. marine fossils on the summits of most major mountain ranges
2. the Sauk Sequence which covers most of North America and into Europe
3. the Tippecanoe Sequence covering North America, Europe and Africa
4. other redbed and coal sediment sequences throughout the globe
5. rapid burial of fossils, before the organism could rot, move or in some cases swallow, some animal polystrate fossils
6. fossils of water ripples, footprints, soft tissue and polystrate tree fossils show rapid burial
7. rapid or no erosion between rock layers showing knife edge boundaries
8. multiple rock layers bent and twisted without cracking of the layer, sign of soft layers bent before solidifying
9. clastic dikes spanning multiple rock layers

 

Sexist remarks abound......and yes one ignoramous even claimed PMS would lead to nuclear disaster.....

 

Since we have almost always elected married white Protestant males to the office of POTUS, any variation on that formula should be welcome. I dread the thought of Hillary or Sarah getting elected, but put into recent perspective and looking at some of the other contenders (Jeb Bush!?) even that might not be that bad.

 

Are you even aware of the phrase tongue i cheek?

 

You're not reading the mainstream scientific literature - there are actually plenty of good theories (with supporting evidence) to explain all those points. If you weren't reading Creationist BS, you'd know that.

 

Me too! But dominance by the church over psychology and slight differences in unconscious gender potential which feminism and religious zeal both reject unreasonably, (censored here) despite massive historical documentation needs to be understood.

The consequences for our future and that of true natural feminism without that understanding are probably so serious it could be the first step to extinction.

 

That very obvious fact is unimportant

Some can't have a fulfilling life of sitting online arguing without making up things to argue about, I guess.

 

There are many well-qualified women to be president.

The problem is that 99% are opposed by the media even before they even think of consider running.

Some governors of both sexes need to be considered for having the managerial experience needed for the job. IMHO, NO current member of Congress should run and certainly not be put forward as a candidate. Even some CEOs are better qualified.

 

The West did not do enough to fight against Marxism after WWII. It showed up at the door looking like this, talking about peace and love:



We let it in.

Here's what we really got:

 

I'm aware of the phrase "tongue in cheek"..........haven't seen it used here.....

 

On the bright side, those people are likely more than offset by those who DON'T vote for somebody for those same reasons. For example: for every ghetto t@rd who voted for Obama simply because he was black, there was some racist dipsh/t who did not vote for him because he was black.

 

A persons political idiot-ology says enough about their qualifications and their particular political agenda in showing who they will be actually representing than their gender. Gender, race, religious conviction, in most cases can make or break a person's chances in politics due to social convictions and good old human characteristics ever lasting discriminatory nature, but one thing is for sure, if the rich/elites want an atheist woman of color, to be president, nothing the people say will stop it.

 

Oh well, it's only the one most important job in your entire country. Let's not choose based on merit! Sounds great. What could possibly go wrong?

But seriously, whatever prejudices people might had in the past against non-white non-christian non-males doesn't justify voting based on race or gender. Just because we were stupid in one way n the past doesn't mean we should be stupid in another way in the future. Less stupid, more smart, that's what I vote for.

I'd naturally have to disagree with you on that one. Thatcher was wonderful. Politics wise, I'd tap that.

I don't really see a difference between those pictures.

MOD EDIT - Reply to Deleted