Is it time for a woman President?

[Redfish]

Who was it that recently quipped, " A woman POTUS would mean fewer wars but nasty monthly arguments".

Straw man...who?

You gotta love Thomas Sowell. I agree 100%

With many people now acting as if it is time for "a woman" to become president, apparently they have learned absolutely nothing from the disastrous results of the irresponsible self-indulgence of choosing a President of the United States on the basis of demographic characteristics, instead of individual qualifications.

It would not matter to me if the next five presidents in a row were all women, if these happened to be the best individuals available at the time. But to say that we should now elect "a woman" president in 2016 is to say that we are willfully blind to the dangers of putting life and death decisions in the hands of someone chosen for symbolic reasons.

Since women will apparently accept about any job offered to them for 70% of what a man will accept the same job for, I'd say go for it.

Straw man...next

Straw man for president-------------------no brain. Wait, we already have one of those today.

 

[HenryBHough]

Ya mean there's straw inside the suit everybody thought was empty?

 

[Hossfly]

Do you really want someone with menopause with their finger on a nuke weapon button?

She is well past menopause.

She's close to Alzheimers.

 

[Mathbud1]

Some time back I posted about 4-5 vids of prominent Democrats saying exactly that. Everyone from Jimmy Carter to Sheila Jackson Lee.

It's definitely pretty common.

 

[Mr. H.]

 

[Mathbud1]

What if we were to ask....Is it time for a Republican President?

And voted accordingly

Sounds good. Since the point of voting for a Republican president would be voting for the positions they support not an irrelevant genetic trait.

 

[Mathbud1]

I caught your Little Rascals allusion with the He Man Woman Haters Club mention.

Those were great episodes!

But is someone trying to say this child is one of the original Little Rascals?

It doesn't look like 'BuhWeat' or Stymie or Farina. And I never knew any characters named Pickles.

From the more recent movie. Not really recent, but more so.

 

[Mathbud1]

Mathbud1 is correct generally in that one side's hero is vociferously defended by his supporters against any and all attacks.

However, an anecdote or one incident that is extrapolated to somehow indict all behavior is a fallacy of hasty generalization and not acceptable.

Did I hastily generalize?

 

[Kondor3]

Well, given that we've been suffering from our previous choice - electing a Black President mostly just because he was Black - and that the nation needs a little time to recover from such experiments, well, maybe it's not the right time for a woman after all. I dunno.

 

[HenryBHough]

Given Hillary's apparent mental state isn't it Nancy Pelosi's turn?

 

[Mojo2]

At 1:25 Olive takes a skillet and knocks the SHIT out of Popeye.

Arrest her!

Ban her from the cartoon Presidential race!

Question: As this cartoon was made in the early 1950's and reflects a surprising amount of violence, do you think we are more violent as a culture today as compared to the 50's or is our level of tolerance for violence reduced to the point where we are hypersensitive now and ready to 'riot' (figure of speech) over the least little thing?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Well, given that we've been suffering from our previous choice - electing a Black President mostly just because he was Black - and that the nation needs a little time to recover from such experiments, well, maybe it's not the right time for a woman after all. I dunno.

Well, we have tried white right wing presidents tied to the entitlement racial past of whites, so we won't go that way again.

 

[Kondor3]

Well, given that we've been suffering from our previous choice - electing a Black President mostly just because he was Black - and that the nation needs a little time to recover from such experiments, well, maybe it's not the right time for a woman after all. I dunno.

Well, we have tried white right wing presidents tied to the entitlement racial past of whites, so we won't go that way again.

Do you really think that we've seen the last of the white conservative Presidents?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Depends,

If she is a pro family and loves America = yes
If she's a culture marxist that wants to divide this nation = no

I'll vote for who I think is best.

 

[Lithdq]

What do you think about Condoleezza Rice?

 

[JoeB131]

[

How about we just go back to what we had in the 1950's, where you had a strong, unionized middle class bringing home good wages and strong protections for our markets?

Sure, as long as we also bring back the same level of government spending.[/QUOTE]

Um, okay, back at that time, you had a large military industrial complex, a Space program, an interstate highway program. the Government spent a shitload of money.

What it didn't have was a large entitlement spending. While Social Security was in place, you had 16 contributors to every recipient, as opposed to today, where you have 4 contributors to every one recipient. But if you have full employment, you don't need as much entitlement spending.

 

[JoeB131]

[.]Do you even know why people feel "entitled" to things they have paid for all their working lives?

I seriously doubt that you can even grasp the concept.

They aren't paying for it. Someone else is paying for it.

the delusion a lot of you guys have is that you are more entitled to benefits than other people are.

The problem being when the government stopped calling these things 'Welfare" and started calling them "Entitlements".

But even Rush Limbaugh calls Social Security Welfare.

He says the same thing about Unemployment, but he doesn't like to talk about that time in his 20's when he was an unemployed record spinner and collected unemployment after he got fired from his gig after he got caught soliciting a male prostitute.

They paid for those that came before them. I paid into Social Security for 49 years. With matching contributions from my employers, I paid in about a half million. I expect some return on that investment. I am entitled to it.

You are not entitled to an obamaphone.

Actually, the ObamaPhone program was started by Reagan, who had some funny idea that poor people needed to make phone calls once in a while.

If you live to be 72, you'll get everything you paid into back. So that's a non-argument. After a certain point, it's welfare.

 

[JoeB131]

As with every story, there's likely a lot more to it. I've been dealing with you here for over 3 years and with the level of credibility you've established here, I expect you were fired because the effects of your off the job injury made it impossible for you to do your job.
My first impression is that you set yourself on fire while free basing.

Yes, we know you have your fantasies.

But, no my job really wasn't impacted by my injury. I work a desk job. The injury was to my knee. While I had to use a walker for about a three month period to get around after the injury, I really didn't miss any work because of it.

There is a little more to it. SUch as the genius managers managed to lose our best customer the last year I worked there. But his solution was to fire his employees who had been with him since he started instead of the y oung waifs he just hired, because, and I quote ... "I don't have to deal with a union."

 

[candycorn]

"With many people now acting as if it is time for "a woman" to become president,"

Again, who are these many people? They don't exist, correct? His rant is just one big strawman.

Yeah, he's a genius alright. If you're a con and easily led.

It's pretty clear that a woman could not screw up any worse than her opposite sex predacessors in some cases.

Voting for a person because of their gender or their race or voting against someone because of gender or race is silly. Glad I didn't waste my time reading the Orwell piece.

Vote for who shares your values because fiscally, neither side is engaged enough to do what is necessary or politically powerful enough to make it happen regardless of their best intentions.

Wow. A well thought out post well put.
What have you done Candy?

I agree, it was a good post.

Same thing I've been saying all along:

Both parties are out to lunch fiscally and Presidents can only do so much about that in either direction.

What a President can directly effect is the make-up of federal courts. Center-left jurists are best in my view.

 

[Freewill]

You gotta love Thomas Sowell. I agree 100%

With many people now acting as if it is time for "a woman" to become president, apparently they have learned absolutely nothing from the disastrous results of the irresponsible self-indulgence of choosing a President of the United States on the basis of demographic characteristics, instead of individual qualifications.

It would not matter to me if the next five presidents in a row were all women, if these happened to be the best individuals available at the time. But to say that we should now elect "a woman" president in 2016 is to say that we are willfully blind to the dangers of putting life and death decisions in the hands of someone chosen for symbolic reasons.

He is of course correct no one in their right mind can disagree.

I will add that I don't believe it is time for a woman president. The US isn't particularly looking all resolved to do anything right now, nor strong. Unfortunately a lot of the rest of the world do not respect women in power. We need a strong leader not one who gives a mandatory speech while checking his watch for his next tee time.