Re: Re: Do you want a women for President next year?
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.
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.
Re: Re: Do you want a women for President next year?
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.
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.
👆
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.
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.
👆
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.
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.
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.
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. 🙂
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