Do you want a women for President next year?

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Wonder Man
I think the world has waited long enough and it's time to put a women in charge.

Shakyamunison
Don't vote for someone just because of their skin color or sex.

Trocity
I want the best candidate to be president - if it happens to be a woman, then yes.

Bardock42
Having a woman (or a black person, or another minority) in the highest office affects society and so one should take that into account when voting, making it the sole reason to vote for someone seems ill adviced though.

That said, I would like it if the US had a female president.

|King Joker|
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Don't vote for someone just because of their skin color or sex. Originally posted by Trocity
I want the best candidate to be president - if it happens to be a woman, then yes. thumb up

psmith81992
Well. If that woman is hilary....Nope.

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Bardock42
Having a woman (or a black person, or another minority) in the highest office affects society and so one should take that into account when voting, making it the sole reason to vote for someone seems ill adviced though.

That said, I would like it if the US had a female president.

So vote based off skin color and sex. Not on policy.

Pricless

Tzeentch
Only if she's hot.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
So vote based off skin color and sex. Not on policy.

Pricless

That's not what I said.

Newjak
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
So vote based off skin color and sex. Not on policy.

Pricless That's not what he said... he even says that you should not primarily base your decision around that. What he says is that those attributes can have an effect on society and maybe that effect should be considered.

Whether or not you agree with that statement is different discussion but he did not say ignore everything else and vote for skin color and sex which is what you seem to imply.

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Bardock42
That's not what I said.

That's what you meant though.

"That said"

psmith81992
I don't think that's what Bardock meant at all.

Bashar Teg
he said it should be taken into account. what he meant by that was that it should be taken into account.

Time-Immemorial
Why? Who cares about race or gender right? We are gender and race neutral now. Everyone is equal.

Bashar Teg
good form thumb up

dadudemon
There are no legitimate frontrunning female candidates that I would vote for, currently. I want to see a female in office, obviously.


Originally posted by Trocity
I want the best candidate to be president - if it happens to be a woman, then yes.


thumb up

Time-Immemorial
Bill and Hilary are in more legal trouble.

http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/judge-orders-clinton-foundation-racketeering-case-to-trial/article/2565272

psmith81992
Hilary is always in legal trouble. I feel sorry for Bill.

riv6672
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Don't vote for someone just because of their skin color or sex.
Man has a point.

Robtard
Originally posted by Wonder Man
I think the world has waited long enough and it's time to put a women in charge.

Hillary 2018, people are going to flip their shit.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Robtard
Hillary 2018, people are going to flip their shit.

Well, something drastic must have happened to change the US presidential election cycle.

psmith81992
I hope he means 2016. There's no reason the cycle doesn't continue with another Republican president for 8 more years.

Robtard
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, something drastic must have happened to change the US presidential election cycle. You got me

Bardock42
I win again. *victory dance*


Mods, plz close thread, thx

Surtur
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Why? Who cares about race or gender right? We are gender and race neutral now. Everyone is equal.

The only reasoning I can assume is that since we've never had a female president, having one in office could be a positive effect in general, perhaps truly showing gender doesn't matter.

To which I get what is being said, but I don't think gender should come into play when voting. Or rather, I think getting the best person in there for the job is what we should aim for.

Just the fact that Hilary is running for president is enough to show a woman could potentially become president. So I have no problem with a female president, but wait for the right one. Am I saying Hilary wouldn't be the right one? No, I'm just saying it'd be awesome if the first female president was elected because she was just the best for the job and happened to not be a dude.

I almost wish we had a way to keep the race/gender of people running for president a secret, so people don't let it influence them, but this would be impossible. If we did that, we'd of had a female president before this.

Emperordmb
What most people have already said. I want the best candidate to win. Gender should not be a motivating factor for a person to get votes by.

Flyattractor
Originally posted by Tzeentch
Only if she's hot.

This I will agree with....


Hey if Trump wins he should make the winner of his beauty pageant winner his VP!!!!!!!!


And that she must remain in her bikini the whole term.

MF DELPH
Originally posted by Trocity
I want the best candidate to be president - if it happens to be a woman, then yes.

thumb up

marwash22
Elizabeth Warren!

Flyattractor
Margaret Thatcher!

Emperordmb
Consider it this way. If the most qualified candidate is a man and you don't vote for him just because you want to see a woman as president, you are not voting for the most qualified candidate soely because he is a man. That sounds like textbook sexism to me.

red g jacks
i'm going to say no, because hillary is the only prospective "women" candidate atm, and imo hillary is a soulless fembot that is incapable of either giving or receiving human love

StyleTime
Originally posted by marwash22
Elizabeth Warren!
b..b..but marwash! She's such a socialist! Even more than Obama! Gosh! All my checks will go to lazy entitled poor people!

How can you not fear the war on the rich!?

(Also, I'd totally vote on a woman that was fit for the job)

Stealth Moose
Originally posted by StyleTime
b..b..but marwash! She's such a socialist! Even more than Obama! Gosh! All my checks will go to lazy entitled poor people!

How can you not fear the war on the rich!?

(Also, I'd totally vote on a woman that was fit for the job)

THAT SOUNDS TERRIBLE!

marwash22
unlike Shambama, Elizabeth Warren is actually a progressive who wants to fight against the banks.

Bardock42
I think some of the people arguing something like "vote for the most qualified"/"vote for the best", and people that say that gender shouldn't play a role make the mistake of disregarding that gender is an aspect of being most qualified and/or the best candidate in a case.

red g jacks
^dunno man that sounds kinda sexist to me

do you mean maybe a woman president would be better cause she would be more likely to give out govt subsidized tampons and birth control pills or something like that?

Bardock42
Originally posted by red g jacks
^dunno man that sounds kinda sexist to me

do you mean maybe a woman president would be better cause she would be more likely to give out govt subsidized tampons and birth control pills or something like that?

I wouldn't phrase it like that, but yes, one of the advantages of a female president may be that she is aware of issues that affect 50% of the population that often get overlooked by the very homogenous (old, white, male) make up of politicians otherwise.

Additionally there's an argument that if someone who faced more opposition, as a woman or someone black in predominantly male and white fields would, may have shown to be a superior candidate which would learn and adapt better, even if currently they are a bit less experienced with say foreign policy.

Then there is the advantage of inspiring young girls to maybe pursue careers that are otherwise uncommon for women. Tapping into these traditionally untapped markets can have huge positive effects on society down the line.

Of course these are only aspect, and everyone has to decide how to weigh them, but disregarding them completely to appeal to some sort of objectivity, seems actually the very opposite of objective to me.

marwash22
our choices are pretty goddamn slim. I'm definitely not voting for Hildog (slightly younger female John McCain).

shit, Bernie Sanders is the best looking choice, imo.

Star428
Originally posted by Wonder Man
I think the world has waited long enough and it's time to put a women in charge.



I wouldn't mind a woman as long as I agreed with her stance on key issues (like immigration, for instance) but unfortunately, no female is in the running right now who I'd want to be the President.

Star428
Originally posted by marwash22
our choices are pretty goddamn slim. I'm definitely not voting for Hildog (slightly younger female John McCain).

shit, Bernie Sanders is the best looking choice, imo.




sick

Omega Vision
Originally posted by Star428
I wouldn't mind a woman as long as I agreed with her stance on key issues (like immigration, for instance) but unfortunately, no female is in the running right now who I'd want to be the President.
If you move to France you could vote for Marine Le Pen.

Q99
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Don't vote for someone just because of their skin color or sex.


Can I vote for them because they're a much better candidate than their opponents in economics and civil rights and foreign policy?


And having elected officials that reflect the populace more in who they are isn't a bad thing either. It's no decider, but it doesn't hurt.

Q99
Originally posted by Star428
I wouldn't mind a woman as long as I agreed with her stance on key issues (like immigration, for instance) but unfortunately, no female is in the running right now who I'd want to be the President.


You do realize there's a female candidate in the Republican primary right now, right?


Carly Fiorina, former CEO of HP.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Q99
Carly Fiorina, former CEO of HP.

And she got things going for her as well, for one, she's not Leo Apotheker.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Bardock42
I wouldn't phrase it like that, but yes, one of the advantages of a female president may be that she is aware of issues that affect 50% of the population that often get overlooked by the very homogenous (old, white, male) make up of politicians otherwise.

But, isn't what you state, here, both sexist and racist?

As though an old white male is incapable of understanding a woman's plight? The implied is that only a woman could do so. That's very much not a feminist perspective.

I know you don't believe this to that extent and your argument is one of degrees, not absolutes. Obviously, I am much more capable of understanding and properly addressing women's issues that almost any potential presidential candidate, at the moment. As are you. So what you say is pretty much true. Even in Hillary's case. Unless one of them says they will push for 2 years paid maternity leave for women (and 1 year for men), free birth control, a true universal healthcare system, etc., I don't see any of the potential candidates as being good on women's issues.


Originally posted by marwash22
our choices are pretty goddamn slim. I'm definitely not voting for Hildog (slightly younger female John McCain).

shit, Bernie Sanders is the best looking choice, imo.

thumb up

Q99
Originally posted by dadudemon
As though an old white male is incapable of understanding a woman's plight? The implied is that only a woman could do so. That's very much not a feminist perspective.

It's not the case that only they can... but it is also true that people actually in the situation tend to have an edge, and many of the old white guys have no first-hand experience, so even if they study up, they're at a mild disadvantage.

Like, if an old white guy had grown up in black neighborhoods, been involved with helping women and minorities, and really gotten a lot of information on the subject first hand, then yea, of course they could be a top-shelf expert. There are old white guy experts out there.

But most of the old white guys who are candidates have no significant first hand experience, or even much sign of having extensively studied it.


It's like, not all experts on war are ex-military, but a former officer is the good majority of the time going to be a better authority, so we value veteran's experience when considering military leaders, right?


Economics, we value leaders who've worked in sectors where they need to manage it similarly.

Foreign policy, we value someone who's lived in other countries and work with foreign governments for significant periods of time, than someone who's never left the US borders.


So matters dealing with race and sex, we value people with first-hand experience, and, yea, one of the easier ways to get that is to be one of those groups- and having fought for said causes to boot (Hillary has experience beyond just being a woman, I should note).



It's one sign of likely competence, not the only one, not required, but it doesn't hurt.

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by dadudemon
But, isn't what you state, here, both sexist and racist?

As though an old white male is incapable of understanding a woman's plight? The implied is that only a woman could do so. That's very much not a feminist perspective.

I know you don't believe this to that extent and your argument is one of degrees, not absolutes. Obviously, I am much more capable of understanding and properly addressing women's issues that almost any potential presidential candidate, at the moment. As are you. So what you say is pretty much true. Even in Hillary's case. Unless one of them says they will push for 2 years paid maternity leave for women (and 1 year for men), free birth control, a true universal healthcare system, etc., I don't see any of the potential candidates as being good on women's issues.




thumb up

Yea Bardock has adopted/accepted this feminist movement so much he has gone full circle, he's blatant sexist now against himself. I really don't get it.

Quincy
If the question is "Would you be okay with a female President" the answer is yep.

I do think however there are folks who would support a candidate based SOLELY on that fact. I don't think it would be a destructive or monstrous blow-out because of it, though. More like Obama presumably getting a wide variety of young voters because he was cooler, more approachable, and would be the first black president.

But I'd guess the majority of voters would vote based strictly on policy.

Bardock42
Originally posted by dadudemon
I know you don't believe this to that extent and your argument is one of degrees, not absolutes. So what you say is pretty much true.

Good, then we are on the same page.

Q99
Originally posted by Quincy

But I'd guess the majority of voters would vote based strictly on policy.


Or party-lines, don't forget party lines as a vote decider.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Yea Bardock has adopted/accepted this feminist movement so much he has gone full circle, he's blatant sexist now against himself. I really don't get it.

Not quite. It's more like my stance is a 5 (neutral) and his is a 6 (slight bias in favor of women). That's what I meant when I told him that degrees thing.

But he thinks the same of me. I thinks I'm slightly sexist against women. He probably views me as a 4 because I think women should be able to do nudes, strip, do porn, etc., and not be **** shamed for it.

Bardock42
Originally posted by dadudemon
I think women should be able to do nudes, strip, do porn, etc., and not be **** shamed for it.

I believe all of those things.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Quincy
But I'd guess the majority of voters would vote based strictly on policy.

haha...oh man....

If any of those videos about Obama voters are indicative of voters actual knowledge, pretty much no president or candidate is elected based on the policies.

I would love it if you had to prove you knew the candidates policies before you were allowed to vote. smile

dadudemon
Originally posted by Bardock42
I believe all of those things.

Then why did you argue with me about that in the thread about posting sexy people?

Bardock42
Originally posted by dadudemon
Then why did you argue with me about that in the thread about posting sexy people?

I think women should be allowed to do it without being shamed. I think society should be better than to objectify women. These are different points.

Bashar Teg
because it objectifies women. it's ok for women to objectify themselves but not ok to enjoy the fruits of their labors whilst having a penis. but are we not off topic?

Time-Immemorial
The day the word "sexy" became non PC.

Bardock has a way of killing anything.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
because it objectifies women. it's ok for women to objectify themselves but not ok to enjoy the fruits of their labors whilst having a penis. but are we not off topic?

Yes, yes we are. Which topic are we in...oh okay.


So, while I think gender and race can play a role in decision making (which they have in the last 250 years anyways, i.e. you had to be white and male) and while it does play a role for me, I favor Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton

Time-Immemorial
lol

dadudemon
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
because it objectifies women. it's ok for women to objectify themselves but not ok to enjoy the fruits of their labors whilst having a penis. but are we not off topic?


My argument was both sexes should be objectified and that it holds true to a feminist argument that objectification of humans for sexual gratification.. Notice my post used the word "person." Because objectification comes in degrees and it is not either "purely and unequivocally sexist and oppressive of women!!!" or "completely empowers women!" It's just not that simple. Some people may fap and do it for sexist reasons, others may do it because they are animals (humans like to forget we are animals, too). But if you want to start regulating masturbation and you want to ensure people's intentions behind their knuckle babies are just for sexual gratification, and not to oppress and degrade women, I highly recommend you start a political action committee. By the way, my argument in that other thread amounted to it not being objectification (being turned on by and being attracted to people). Objectification is just the wording being used to strawman the other position (my position).


And, no, sexism is really what this thread is about. When the only viable GOP candidates have to be "hot MILFs", it is pretty obvious that sexism and objectification taint the ability for a female presidential candidate to win?

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes, yes we are. Which topic are we in...oh okay.


So, while I think gender and race can play a role in decision making (which they have in the last 250 years anyways, i.e. you had to be white and male) and while it does play a role for me, I favor Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton

You favor a guy that wrote a essay on his gangbang rape fantasies? This shows me you are not really what you say you claim to be.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
You favor a guy that wrote a essay on his gangbang rape fantasies? This shows me you are not really what you say you claim to be.
That's not really an accurate explanation of the essay. Also it's over 40 years old.

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Bardock42
That's not really an accurate explanation of the essay. Also it's over 40 years old.

Doesn't matter. He wrote it, but since he's your guy, he gets a pass.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Doesn't matter. He wrote it, but since he's your guy, he gets a pass.

No, he gets a pass because a) the essay isn't about his rape fantasies, but a discussion about harmful gender roles b) the world has changed a lot since then and c) he and his campaign have distanced himself from it.

It's the same reason I gave Ron Paul a pass on his much worse, much more racist, newsletters and still viewed him as one of the best candidates (although i have since changed political stances somewhat).

Time-Immemorial
I take it you didn't read the essay then.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I take it you didn't read the essay then.

No, I have, hence my more nuanced opinion. I am almost certain you haven't though, you obviously know nothing about the essay beyond the Fox News headline.

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Bardock42
No, I have, hence my more nuanced opinion. I am almost certain you haven't though, you obviously know nothing about the essay beyond the Fox News headline.

I actually heard about it on NPR. laughing

Bardock42
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I actually heard about it on NPR. laughing

"heard"? So you did not read it?

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Bardock42
"heard"? So you did not read it?

Thats how I heard about the essay, then I read it. Your downplaying what he wrote, in no way did his gangbang fantasy allude to anything else then what it said.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Thats how I heard about the essay, then I read it. Your downplaying what he wrote, in no way did his gangbang fantasy allude to anything else then what it said.

Just so we are clear what we are talking about:

http://i199.photobucket.com/albums/aa158/Bardock42/Man_and_Woman_0_zpsjtlvetel.jpg


It's very clear that these aren't "his" rape fantasies. He's talking about power dynamics between men and women based on how femininity and masculinity is defined, and the issues that arise because of it. I won't even deny that he doesn't do a great job of it, but you pretending it is some sort of erotic fiction doesn't do it justice in the least.

Time-Immemorial
Oh your right, if Bush had wrote that, he would be a hero.

Surtur
Originally posted by Bardock42
I think some of the people arguing something like "vote for the most qualified"/"vote for the best", and people that say that gender shouldn't play a role make the mistake of disregarding that gender is an aspect of being most qualified and/or the best candidate in a case.

How is this not sexist then? I mean, you realize what you just said is the stuff women complain about men thinking? In terms of their gender making them more qualified for things.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Oh your right, if Bush had wrote that, he would be a hero.

Yes, those are the two options, the person who wrote that, regardless of anything else they do in their life, is either a filthy pervert with disgusting rape fantasies or a shining hero.

Originally posted by Surtur
How is this not sexist then? I mean, you realize what you just said is the stuff women complain about men thinking?

First, this is really just counteracting the biases in selecting what to focus on, a woman may be more likely to be aware of women issues, and a black man more likely to be aware of race issues, because they have to consciously deal with the hardships that the power dynamic has created. Potentially there may be a white man that better understands the struggles a black single mother in a poor black neighbourhood faces better than anyone, but it is somewhat unlikely and hard to quantify, while literally everyone understands the white male experience (because it is the default in the media and everywhere). How important it is to you that a president understands a large number of the people he or she represents you have to decide for yourself.

And secondly, here I'll reveal my ideology, to me racism and sexism are not synonyms for "prejudice because of race" or "prejudice because of gender", sexism and racism to me are much larger concepts that add a structural component to it (i.e. racism is prejudice plus power). For me for something to be racist it has to be perpetrated against a disadvantaged group, a group that does not have systemic power as opposed to its oppressors. Though I don't really want to argue this definition, so lets just go with my first point.

Surtur
But then the question comes down to: okay, a woman would be more aware of female issues. So, are female issues the biggest problems in the country as of now?

Bardock42
Originally posted by Surtur
But then the question comes down to: okay, a woman would be more aware of female issues. So, are female issues the biggest problems in the country as of now?

They are not the biggest, but they are big issues. At any rate while a woman will likely be more aware of women's issues it doesn't mean she's less aware of other issues. Which brings us exactly to my point, the gender of the candidate can be one aspect of decision making, but like everyone else, I don't even think it should be a major aspect.

Surtur
So a woman will be more away of female issues, but not less aware of other issues. But a man(who isn't a minority) will only be as aware of certain issues, but less aware of others. Am I summing this up correctly?

Bardock42
Originally posted by Surtur
So a woman will be more away of female issues, but not less aware of other issues. But a man(who isn't a minority) will only be as aware of certain issues, but less aware of others. Am I summing this up correctly?

If we take two candidates, a man and a woman, and look at all issues except for woman's issues, and they are exactly the same on all of them, then the woman would likely be the better candidate as she is likely to be more aware and knowledgable about women's issues.

Surtur
Originally posted by Bardock42
If we take two candidates, a man and a woman, and look at all issues except for woman's issues, and they are exactly the same on all of them, then the woman would likely be the better candidate as she is likely to be more aware and knowledgable about women's issues.

But then you could of just said yes I summed it up correctly.

Q99
I also want to mention that what candidate is selected sends a meta-message.

If you tell people, "You can be anything, even president!" but there are no actual presidents of your group, and when someone tries, people go, "Oh, people

If you tell people, "You can be anything, even president!" and people actually are president of your group, it sends the message that they can actually be president, which encourages more people to try, which expands the talent pool from which presidents are drawn from. It may not pay off for decades, but it's likely to pay off.

There's thus a good long-term reason to use the meta-message a candidate sends as a tie breaker. Even if it's not something they themselves are consciously doing, electing a president is in part about the message we as a country wish to send about who we are.


Originally posted by Bardock42
If we take two candidates, a man and a woman, and look at all issues except for woman's issues, and they are exactly the same on all of them, then the woman would likely be the better candidate as she is likely to be more aware and knowledgable about women's issues.


And, if someone is more aware of issues that aren't much of a concern at the moment, that isn't much help. There's a couple women's issues that are active at the moment, pay gap and all that, so there is a reason to want someone knowledge about those specifically, more so than issues that are not currently being debated.


Like, if a candidate is good at running a healthy economy and you're in a recovery, that's less useful than someone who knows recoveries.

If a candidate is a doctor who knows health care, that's more useful if health care reform is a major issue at the moment. But if everyone's happy with health care, who cares?


Someone who knows the hispanic immigrant situation has a much more relevant specialty than someone who knows the Irish-American situation in equal depth, because how to treat Irish Americans is not a particularly on topic issue at the moment. Go back a hundred years ago and the situation is different.


Gender and minority issues are a topic being grappled with right now. There is thus specific reason to have someone with greater familiarity on them.


Thus on balance, I'd pick Marco Rubio, who's hispanic, or Jeb Bush, who is white but has a history of dealing with hispanics showing he has reasonable familiarity, over one of the Republican candidates who show no particular knowledge in the area. Or Trump, who shows, like, anti-knowledge of the area.

And similarly, Hillary has greater experience and knowledge of gender issues facing women than most of her opponents, so that's a point in her favor.

red g jacks
Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes, yes we are. Which topic are we in...oh okay.


So, while I think gender and race can play a role in decision making (which they have in the last 250 years anyways, i.e. you had to be white and male) and while it does play a role for me, I favor Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton i think there's definitely some merit to the idea that a woman president would be good for society in the sense that you said... it's an inspiration for women. i dunno about the whole "women will be more receptive to women's issues" thing though. not that it doesn't make some sense intuitively... but really i question how much of an impact that would have on the general policy direction of their administration. because politicians seem largely bound by whatever the current status quo is. sort of like obama

but i do think the president is first and foremost a symbolic figurehead... and thus i also favor bernie sanders over hillary... because imo the perfect symbolic figurehead for the united states is a short balding loud mouthed elderly jew. if i could elect larry david instead then i would, but for now i'll settle for mr. sanders

Bardock42
Originally posted by Surtur
But then you could of just said yes I summed it up correctly.

I don't think you did quite some it up correctly. Like it makes it seem much worse than what I actually believe.Originally posted by Q99
I also want to mention that what candidate is selected sends a meta-message.

If you tell people, "You can be anything, even president!" but there are no actual presidents of your group, and when someone tries, people go, "Oh, people

If you tell people, "You can be anything, even president!" and people actually are president of your group, it sends the message that they can actually be president, which encourages more people to try, which expands the talent pool from which presidents are drawn from. It may not pay off for decades, but it's likely to pay off.

There's thus a good long-term reason to use the meta-message a candidate sends as a tie breaker. Even if it's not something they themselves are consciously doing, electing a president is in part about the message we as a country wish to send about who we are.





And, if someone is more aware of issues that aren't much of a concern at the moment, that isn't much help. There's a couple women's issues that are active at the moment, pay gap and all that, so there is a reason to want someone knowledge about those specifically, more so than issues that are not currently being debated.


Like, if a candidate is good at running a healthy economy and you're in a recovery, that's less useful than someone who knows recoveries.

If a candidate is a doctor who knows health care, that's more useful if health care reform is a major issue at the moment. But if everyone's happy with health care, who cares?


Someone who knows the hispanic immigrant situation has a much more relevant specialty than someone who knows the Irish-American situation in equal depth, because how to treat Irish Americans is not a particularly on topic issue at the moment. Go back a hundred years ago and the situation is different.


Gender and minority issues are a topic being grappled with right now. There is thus specific reason to have someone with greater familiarity on them.


Thus on balance, I'd pick Marco Rubio, who's hispanic, or Jeb Bush, who is white but has a history of dealing with hispanics showing he has reasonable familiarity, over one of the Republican candidates who show no particular knowledge in the area. Or Trump, who shows, like, anti-knowledge of the area.

And similarly, Hillary has greater experience and knowledge of gender issues facing women than most of her opponents, so that's a point in her favor.

thumb up

StyleTime
Originally posted by marwash22
unlike Shambama, Elizabeth Warren is actually a progressive who wants to fight against the banks.
I was jk. I'm sure you realized that, but just in case in you didn't.

She's a pretteh cool guy.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Not quite. It's more like my stance is a 5 (neutral) and his is a 6 (slight bias in favor of women). That's what I meant when I told him that degrees thing.

But he thinks the same of me. I thinks I'm slightly sexist against women. He probably views me as a 4 because I think women should be able to do nudes, strip, do porn, etc., and not be **** shamed for it.
Well, that comment makes you pro-women(on that issue at least) in my book.

And my book is the only book that matters. Let's just be real here.

riv6672
I dunno, i saw it on the sale rack at B&N...eek!

Q99
Realize I left off a sentence there!

"Oh, people are just voting them because they're X."

dadudemon
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Oh your right, if Bush had wrote that, he would be a hero.

Haaaa!

Okay, I see your point, TI. Yeah, if Bush wrote that, the Libtards would be shitting themselves.

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by dadudemon
Haaaa!

Okay, I see your point, TI. Yeah, if Bush wrote that, the Libtards would be shitting themselves.

Yea Bardock took that and ran with "It was for women's rights! I swear!"

If Bush had wrote that, people would be calling for impeachment and striking him from history books.

Bardock42
Originally posted by dadudemon
Haaaa!

Okay, I see your point, TI. Yeah, if Bush wrote that, the Libtards would be shitting themselves.

Sure, there would have been outrage on the Democratic side, and partisan people on the Republican side would have argued it wasn't a big deal, that always happens. There's also a crucial difference though, George W. Bush and Bernie Sanders have completely different histories and stances on issues. That's why it is perfectly plausible what Bernie Sanders says, but if Bush said the same it would be a laughable lie.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Q99
I also want to mention that what candidate is selected sends a meta-message.

If you tell people, "You can be anything, even president!" but there are no actual presidents of your group, and when someone tries, people go, "Oh, people

If you tell people, "You can be anything, even president!" and people actually are president of your group, it sends the message that they can actually be president, which encourages more people to try, which expands the talent pool from which presidents are drawn from. It may not pay off for decades, but it's likely to pay off.

There's thus a good long-term reason to use the meta-message a candidate sends as a tie breaker. Even if it's not something they themselves are consciously doing, electing a president is in part about the message we as a country wish to send about who we are.





And, if someone is more aware of issues that aren't much of a concern at the moment, that isn't much help. There's a couple women's issues that are active at the moment, pay gap and all that, so there is a reason to want someone knowledge about those specifically, more so than issues that are not currently being debated.


Like, if a candidate is good at running a healthy economy and you're in a recovery, that's less useful than someone who knows recoveries.

If a candidate is a doctor who knows health care, that's more useful if health care reform is a major issue at the moment. But if everyone's happy with health care, who cares?


Someone who knows the hispanic immigrant situation has a much more relevant specialty than someone who knows the Irish-American situation in equal depth, because how to treat Irish Americans is not a particularly on topic issue at the moment. Go back a hundred years ago and the situation is different.


Gender and minority issues are a topic being grappled with right now. There is thus specific reason to have someone with greater familiarity on them.


Thus on balance, I'd pick Marco Rubio, who's hispanic, or Jeb Bush, who is white but has a history of dealing with hispanics showing he has reasonable familiarity, over one of the Republican candidates who show no particular knowledge in the area. Or Trump, who shows, like, anti-knowledge of the area.

And similarly, Hillary has greater experience and knowledge of gender issues facing women than most of her opponents, so that's a point in her favor.

I'll play devil's advocate for a bit (because that's what I do):


What if the young girl best identifies with a man who has her skin color?

What if a young girl best identifies with a man who has her hair color?

What if a young girl best identifies with a man that shares her values?


There are other scenarios that fit what you're talking about. Children identify with multiple traits from people they look up to: not just gender.

For instance, I identified with Walter Payton and Randall Cunningham as a kid. Both of them are black men who were very talented, enormously kind, very generous, and giving men.

I thought Samus Aran from Super Metroid (the game) was the coolest "hero" type when I was a kid, as well (she beat out other "heroes" such as Tony Stark, Peter Parker, Bruce Wayne, Frank Castle, etc.).

So when we conclude that little girls cannot identify with male politicians, it becomes sexist against both sexes. Here's how:

1. This implies that females are incapable of looking past gender.
2. Males are not role models that females can or should look up to.

I do agree that a female president could help some little girls better identify with politics, however. So, on the above comments, I was seriously playing devil's advocate.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Bardock42
Sure, there would have been outrage on the Democratic side, and partisan people on the Republican side would have argued it wasn't a big deal, that always happens.

Yup, that was my point. thumb up

And I hadn't thought about "reversing the political party" to check to see how stupid the outrage was until TI's post.

Originally posted by Bardock42
There's also a crucial difference though, George W. Bush and Bernie Sanders have completely different histories and stances on issues. That's why it is perfectly plausible what Bernie Sanders says, but if Bush said the same it would be a laughable lie.

This is where we differ. I'm not buying into this bullshit. smile

It's partisan shit slinging. That's all.

Flyattractor
If Bernie Sanders gets elected could that count as First Woman President?

Bardock42
Originally posted by dadudemon
Yup, that was my point. thumb up

And I hadn't thought about "reversing the political party" to check to see how stupid the outrage was until TI's post.



This is where we differ. I'm not buying into this bullshit. smile

It's partisan shit slinging. That's all.

Well, whether you agree or not it is different.

riv6672
Originally posted by Q99
Realize I left off a sentence there!

"Oh, people are just voting them because they're X."
I kinda figured thats what you meant. laughing out loud

Thing is, people go on record sying thats WHY they'e voting like they do.
I was told back in 08 thst it was my DUTY to vote for Obama because he/i was black.
Uh...no. Not remotely.

Really its not the person running its the people voting...

Q99
Originally posted by dadudemon
I'll play devil's advocate for a bit (because that's what I do):


What if the young girl best identifies with a man who has her skin color?

What if a young girl best identifies with a man who has her hair color?

What if a young girl best identifies with a man that shares her values?

Then they should vote them, plain and simple, no question.

It's one factor, not a decide-all, of course.

Politicians have a lot of factors, and having a background that is under-reflected is one selling point, and a willingness to fight for a group that needs fighting for is another, but there's plenty of others. Like, if the person of a group really doesn't share your values? Then you shouldn't vote for them, no question.


Herman Cain was black, but his tax plan would've been horrible for good chunks of the black community (as it'd pretty much involve gutting the government and removing the services they specifically needed). So while some would vote for him because his shared experience, many more would vote against him out of self-interest and strongly conflicting values.

Barack Obama was black and had values that many agreed with and supported, so it's like, bonus time.


People say it shouldn't matter, and that's wrong, where someone comes from and their experience does matter. People who say it's the only thing that matters is also wrong.

It's one factor and people may weigh it as they see fit.

Wonder Man
Adam let Eve make his decisions for him so I'd really trust a women in power.

Star428
Originally posted by Wonder Man
Adam let Eve make his decisions for him so I'd really trust a women in power.



Yeah, and look where that got him. I don't mind a woman in power as long as I agree with her stance on key issues but Adam and Eve is not exactly the best example to use to support your opinion of a woman being in power being a good thing.

Emperordmb
Lol yeah. It amuses me when people try and come up with examples of women in power being a good thing, and said examples are completely awful and suggest the contrary. Not that I believe women in power is a bad thing, or that there aren't plenty of good examples to choose from. Just that I'm amused by what constitutes a good example for some people.

Nephthys
It amuses me how that situation is apparently common enough for you to have become a recurring situation at all.

Also Eve did nothing wrong. **** the patriarchy!

Q99
Originally posted by Wonder Man
Adam let Eve make his decisions for him so I'd really trust a women in power.


Eve made a decision on her own. Granting humanity knowledge of good and evil and life beyond the walls of the garden, moving from humans being essentially a zoo exhibit to, well, you're on a computer right now.

Bashar Teg
it would just be nice to finally have a 200+ year combo-breaker of the sexes.

of course the strawman says that this equates to voting for someone on the grounds that they are a woman. he says silly things, that guy.

StyleTime
...there's definitely better examples of female leaders than ****ing Eve people.

I could walk into a mall, eyes closed, and randomly bump into women more fit to lead.

Star428
Originally posted by Q99
Eve made a decision on her own. Granting humanity knowledge of good and evil and life beyond the walls of the garden, moving from humans being essentially a zoo exhibit to, well, you're on a computer right now.


1. But she didn't make the decision on her own. Satan persuaded her. Without his persuasion, she most likely would've never ate from it.


2. Do you really think that God would've never allowed them to venture outside the Garden if she had obeyed Him and didn't eat from the tree?


3. By eating from the tree they disobeyed God and it was the death of their innocence. Up until that point, they were always happy and never felt sorrow, pain, or hardship. God had provided them with everything they needed for a perfect beautiful life and He would've always protected them. By disobeying God, they lost all of that. How is that a good thing, iyo? I mean, have you looked around at the world today? It's a mess. Because of the actions of the parents of the human race all humans are born with a sinful nature that they inherited from those two. Do you think all these wars, death, and hunger are a good thing? Yes, all of those are a result of sin somewhere along the line.


4. What's so great about being able to "be on a computer" compared to experiencing the joy of living a carefree beautiful life while always under God's protection? Always being happy with no hate in your heart? Filled with love for your Creator and your spouse and the beautiful world God created for you to enjoy and marvel at with no sinful or evil desires to keep you from enjoying life to the fullest as God intended you to? You would never be bored because you wouldn't know what boredom was.


5. Finally, do you enjoy experiencing extreme pain in childbirth? Do you think men enjoy having to work so damn hard at tilling the soil of a garden? By disobeying God, Adam and Eve brought those curses upon themselves and all their descendants.


Bottom line: Eve's decision to eat from the tree was not a good one. But it wasn't entirely her fault just as it wasn't entirely Adam's fault that he ate from it either.


This is not the religion forum so maybe we shouldn't derail this thread any further.

Shinobi Popcorn
Yes, I think it's time for a female president.

But it bothers me that they question how things like grandchildren would affect Hillary Clinton's potential administration, yet I don't remember them ever bringing this up when Sarah Palin was potential vice president.

Q99
Originally posted by Star428
1. But she didn't make the decision on her own. Satan persuaded her. Without his persuasion, she most likely would've never ate from it.

No, a snake did, one of god's creatures.

While many associate the snake with satan, this isn't accurate. God cursed the snake to not have legs. Satan has legs. The snake was not Satan, one doesn't overcome god's curses.





Probably no, no. See, they were in immortal blissful ignorance, that was the point. They weren't learning or changing. They were static.


Note also how god had a plan for humans to be fruitful and multiple and rule the Earth. Eve biting the apple is pretty much a prerequisite of that, there was no reproduction beforehand.




Sure, but they were also pretty much pets. They never learned from mistakes, or changed. God didn't teach them anything, they never built anything. They merely existed.

Eve gave humanity agency.




Well, for one thing, it would've been just those two forever. There were no children til afterwards.

So yea, it'd be great for them, not so great for humanity and all it had to do.




Eh, there is the actual biological setup to consider. Humans are physically set up this way, period.

Also, we have these lovely things called 'drugs'. Brains made them!




It seems to me to be an entirely necessary part of God's plan.


Eve lead the way into humans spreading across the Earth, Adam followed.





Also true. Aside from being, y'know, a religious metaphor to begin with, an uneducated person who lived in a garden is not going to have the knowledge and education of a highschool dropout.

Q99
Originally posted by Shinobi Popcorn
Yes, I think it's time for a female president.

But it bothers me that they question how things like grandchildren would affect Hillary Clinton's potential administration, yet I don't remember them ever bringing this up when Sarah Palin was potential vice president.

Probably because she was only in the VP slot, and because there was more her vast inexperience and other problems to worry about. Those against her had more serious concerns, and were generally ones without a problem with women running.


Though I think the grand child talk is more a way to imply she should be doing 'older womanly' things rather than running. You can't come out and say that, obviously, so you kinda code-word it. There's no actual reason for it to be a concern but mentioning it is a way to imply other stuff.

Star428
You seem to think that Satan doesn't have the power to take on different forms. He does.


I don't have time to reply to all of your replies right now but God didn't curse the snake to not have legs till after He caught Adam and Eve and asked them what happened. Which I always assumed meant that up until that point serpents had some type of legs or perhaps that was the only serpent up untill that time. But, I still believe it was Satan himself though. A normal serpent wouldn't be able to talk. That serpent wasn't normal by any means and bible even said that the serpent was the most cunning of all God's creatures. Everyone knows that Satan is undisputably the most cunning of all God's creatures. Also, Satan is referred to many times in the Bible by the name "serpent" or "that serpent of old". He took the form of a serpent to deceive Eve. And a normal serpent would have no reason to try and deceive her. A normal snake wouldn't even have approached them. All it would care about is finding it's next meal and resting. Guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on this.


I'll read and reply to your other replies tomorrow.

Trocity
That's a cool story, it almost sounds made up.

Star428
Sure it sounds that way. It's not though. smile

Flyattractor
Originally posted by Q99
No, a snake did, one of god's creatures.

While many associate the snake with satan, this isn't accurate. God cursed the snake to not have legs. Satan has legs. The snake was not Satan, one doesn't overcome god's curses.




The Snake just got curse. Satan got DAMNED! Big Diff..


and how dare you bring RELIGION into a Political Debate!

rolling on floor laughing

Trocity
Originally posted by Star428
Sure it sounds that way. It's not though. smile

How convenient we have the bible with all these fantastical stories to reminisce about then. The earth sure is a lot more boring today than it was back then. Seems like miracles and interactions with god happened every other week.

Man the world sucks today, rapture take me.

Flyattractor
Originally posted by Trocity
, rapture take me.

nah. Not gonna happen. You got to much hate in you. But then you are a leftist progressive.

ALL HAIL THE STATE!

Trocity
Nooooooooooooooooooooooo!

Flyattractor
I find your lack of faith disturbing.


See! I used a GOOD Star Wars Quote. You used a CRAPPY ONE!

That means I WIN!

Trocity
I find your delusion disturbing.

Flyattractor
How Wude!

See. If your gonna start FOULING the Great Star Wars Quotes.

You fall to the level of only being worthy of JAR JAR Quotes.

So there!

Star428
Originally posted by Q99
Probably no, no. See, they were in immortal blissful ignorance, that was the point. They weren't learning or changing. They were static.



You don't know that for certain. We can only speculate as to what God had in store for them. IMO, I don't think God would've been so cruel as to not let them ever venture outside the Garden. You also can't say for certain that they were cursed to remain forever "static". God gave them a brain, afterall. I seriously doubt he would've done that if he wanted them to be "ignorant" of the their surrounding world or how it works forever. Btw, the forbidden tree was not called the "tree of knowledge" but the "tree of knowledge of good and evil". So, knowledge in general wasn't forbidden but just the knowledge of good and evil. I don't see why that meant they couldn't have a learning mind.





Again, this just isn't true, imo. Nothing in the bible makes me believe that just because they were forbidden to learn about "good" and "evil" that they couldn't have a brain that learns how to rule over all the beasts and animals of the earth. Having a knowledge of what is "good" and what is "evil" is not a requirement for ruling over a bunch of dumb animals.







See my reply above.







Not sure what you mean here. As you've just admitted above, God told them to multiply. Why wouldn't they have children? Are u claiming they didn't even know how to do that? LOL. I'm sure God implanted basic instinct in them at least. Quite certain they would've eventually still reproduced even without eating from the tree.



Heh... Once again, guess we're going to have to agree to disagree. Imo, mankind would be much better off today because we all wouldn't be born with such a sinful nature and the world would be a much better place.

Trocity
It's frightening that god created these two beings, they lived in ignorant bliss until a shape shifting creature whose true nature they clearly were unprepared for could trick them into bringing sin into the world, thus ruining everything for the countless billions of people who came after.

We never had a chance. Two people f***ed up and now god leaves large parts of the world to war torn grief and poverty, never stepping in to do anything.

Then people defend and worship this tyrant.

Hilarious.

Ushgarak
Ok back to topic please.

MF DELPH
*edit

Just saw your comment Ush.

Star428
Originally posted by Q99


Eh, there is the actual biological setup to consider. Humans are physically set up this way, period.

Also, we have these lovely things called 'drugs'. Brains made them!



No. I don't believe a woman would be going thru the same great pain during childbirth if it wasn't for Eve sinning. Also, obviously I'm not a woman but does taking those drugs really take away ALL the pain during childbirth. Not trying to provoke you, here. Just curious.







No, it wasn't a "necessary" thing.




LOL. Uh, no. They would've reproduced even without eating from the tree. Eve didn't "lead" anything. Whether or not you agree that the serpent was Satan or not or Satan just influencing the serpent it doesn't matter. Without the serpent's persuasion, Eve probably would've never ate from the tree. Though, like I said already, eating fromthe tree was not a "prerequisite" for reproducing or ruling the earth.








Once again, you don't know for sure that Adam and Eve had a "static" brain as you claim. I really don't think God would've given them a brain and then forbid them to ever use it.

Star428
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Ok back to topic please.



Ok. Sorry. You posted this while I was in middle of posting my last reply. Promise I won't say anything else, Ush.

Wonder Man
I think a Women is more likely to get something actually done.
We've seen the gridlock long enough. And it would also be great for people to learn what a Women has to say for a change rather than listening to the logic system we might all have a chance to persue our feelings.

Star428
Being ruled by your emotions instead of your brain is not a good thing for the most powerful position in the world, imo.

Omega Vision
Originally posted by Star428
Being ruled by your emotions instead of your brain is not a good thing for the most powerful position in the world, imo.
Where does this guy think emotions come from? Does he think there's nervous tissue in the heart or gut?

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Wonder Man
I think a Women is more likely to get something actually done.
We've seen the gridlock long enough. And it would also be great for people to learn what a Women has to say for a change rather than listening to the logic system we might all have a chance to persue our feelings.

Lol, what? No, a sex change in the oval office is not going to make things move any faster. Its still politics.

You can be sure of one thing, if Hilary is elected, she will be breaking the law every chance she gets, just with a get out of jail free card.

Q99
I'm reminded how the president who's administration with the most legal problems was... the second Bush administration. Up to and including having a corrupt Attorney General.

It's kinda silly that Republicans act like the Democrats are just *waiting* to commit crimes when, while not perfect, their own party has a greater pile of garbage.

Q99
Originally posted by Star428
Being ruled by your emotions instead of your brain is not a good thing for the most powerful position in the world, imo.

Agreed.

Which is why I dislike it whenever a candidate talks about leading by the gut, 'knowing what they know,' and similar instinct-over-reason type of things. What feels right to a person may not work out in practice- just look at austerity vs stimulus in a financial crisis, a lot of politicians go with the former because it intuitively feels right to them, when in reality it's counter-productive and ironically costs more than spending money.


Hillary doesn't seem to be that type, though.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.