GRG a/k/a goldenrulegirl
Senior Associate
"How you win matters." Ender, Ender's Game
Joined: Jan 2, 2011 13:33:09 GMT -5
Posts: 11,291
|
Post by GRG a/k/a goldenrulegirl on Jul 26, 2016 17:59:16 GMT -5
Like her or not, my sons, and all of our children, can now take for granted that a woman can be President of the United States.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,598
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jul 26, 2016 18:03:21 GMT -5
And rightly so.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 15, 2024 13:54:05 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2016 18:18:21 GMT -5
Yeah, I know-what took us so long? Frankly, there are things I find odious about both candidates, but I can't believe it took us till the 21st century for a woman to be nominated by a major political party.
|
|
GRG a/k/a goldenrulegirl
Senior Associate
"How you win matters." Ender, Ender's Game
Joined: Jan 2, 2011 13:33:09 GMT -5
Posts: 11,291
|
Post by GRG a/k/a goldenrulegirl on Jul 26, 2016 18:19:33 GMT -5
It's weirdly reassuring that my sons don't see why this is a big deal.
|
|
ken a.k.a OMK
Senior Associate
They killed Kenny, the bastards.
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 14:39:20 GMT -5
Posts: 14,117
Location: Maryland
Member is Online
|
Post by ken a.k.a OMK on Jul 26, 2016 19:46:28 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 15, 2024 13:54:05 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2016 19:59:29 GMT -5
I hate to rain on the parade, but being nominated is not the same thing as being elected. Women have been nominated for vice-president before, and those tickets have failed. You can blame it mostly on the presidential nominee but not entirely. There are people in this country (my ex comes to mind) who would NEVER vote for a women as president merely because she is a woman. That's just like there are people in this country who still want to deny Barack Obama as president even though he's almost finished his term merely because he is black. When a woman is elected President of the United States, we will know this. Not until then. This isn't, incidentally, an endorsement for either candidate. I don't like either candidate so I have decided to vote for my husband. I deserve to be First Lady. I don't want to be president myself because I'm too lazy. It's a lot of work, I've heard.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Jul 26, 2016 21:12:24 GMT -5
Just a shame it's this woman. Or rather, it might be more accurate to say the first person to identify as a woman, as such things are open to interpretation nowdays.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,598
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jul 26, 2016 21:28:31 GMT -5
Just a shame it's this woman. Or rather, it might be more accurate to say the first person to identify as a woman, as such things are open to interpretation nowdays. What does your second sentence even mean?
|
|
toomuchreality
Senior Associate
Joined: Sept 3, 2011 10:28:25 GMT -5
Posts: 15,833
Favorite Drink: Sometimes I drink water... just to surprise my liver!
Member is Online
|
Post by toomuchreality on Jul 26, 2016 21:29:21 GMT -5
I hate to rain on the parade, but being nominated is not the same thing as being elected. Women have been nominated for vice-president before, and those tickets have failed. You can blame it mostly on the presidential nominee but not entirely. There are people in this country (my ex comes to mind) who would NEVER vote for a women as president merely because she is a woman. That's just like there are people in this country who still want to deny Barack Obama as president even though he's almost finished his term merely because he is black. When a woman is elected President of the United States, we will know this. Not until then. This isn't, incidentally, an endorsement for either candidate. I don't like either candidate so I have decided to vote for my husband. I deserve to be First Lady. I don't want to be president myself because I'm too lazy. It's a lot of work, I've heard.PM me his name. I'll vote for you to be first lady! Even that sounds like too much effort, to me.
|
|
GRG a/k/a goldenrulegirl
Senior Associate
"How you win matters." Ender, Ender's Game
Joined: Jan 2, 2011 13:33:09 GMT -5
Posts: 11,291
|
Post by GRG a/k/a goldenrulegirl on Jul 26, 2016 22:36:03 GMT -5
I hate to rain on the parade, but being nominated is not the same thing as being elected.
Women have been nominated for vice-president before, and those tickets have failed. You can blame it mostly on the presidential nominee but not entirely.There are people in this country (my ex comes to mind) who would NEVER vote for a women as president merely because she is a woman. That's just like there are people in this country who still want to deny Barack Obama as president even though he's almost finished his term merely because he is black. When a woman is elected President of the United States, we will know this. Not until then. This isn't, incidentally, an endorsement for either candidate. I don't like either candidate so I have decided to vote for my husband. I deserve to be First Lady. I don't want to be president myself because I'm too lazy. It's a lot of work, I've heard. Sorry, IMHO, being a token female vice presidential nominee doesn't mean jack. While we do still need to elect a woman president, finally having a major party nominate a woman as the presidential nominee is HUGE. You can't be elected president unless you are first nominated. I'll bet your granddaughters noticed that only boys have been president. Don't discount the historical significance of tonight's nomination based on your political preference. Both parties are equally behind the times. Let's just celebrate that it finally happened.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 15, 2024 13:54:05 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2016 22:48:54 GMT -5
I hate to rain on the parade, but being nominated is not the same thing as being elected.
Women have been nominated for vice-president before, and those tickets have failed. You can blame it mostly on the presidential nominee but not entirely.There are people in this country (my ex comes to mind) who would NEVER vote for a women as president merely because she is a woman. That's just like there are people in this country who still want to deny Barack Obama as president even though he's almost finished his term merely because he is black. When a woman is elected President of the United States, we will know this. Not until then. This isn't, incidentally, an endorsement for either candidate. I don't like either candidate so I have decided to vote for my husband. I deserve to be First Lady. I don't want to be president myself because I'm too lazy. It's a lot of work, I've heard. Sorry, IMHO, being a token female vice presidential nominee doesn't mean jack. While we do still need to elect a woman president, finally having a major party nominate a woman as the presidential nominee is HUGE. You can't be elected president unless you are first nominated. I'll bet your granddaughters noticed that only boys have been president. Don't discount the historical significance of tonight's nomination based on your political preference. Both parties are equally behind the times. Let's just celebrate that it finally happened. Whenever you vote for president, you are voting for a ticket. The person who is vice-president is one heartbeat away from being president. Don't ever discount that. I think part of the reason why McCain lost is because Sarah Palin is such a dingbat. If the "Don't discount . . . " comment was directed towards me, you are wrong. I supported Hillary when she ran against President Obama. I am not her supporter (or Trump's, but for different reasons) now for reasons I won't discuss now because this isn't a political thread really. However, I will say that when she was running the first time, I tried to explain to my daughter why I was supporting her. My daughter is a staunch Republican married to a party leader. They contribute monthly to the party like other people tithe. I told her that it was because I wanted my granddaughters to know they could grow up to be president. So she called me, all excited, when the Republicans chose Sarah Palin. "You must be so happy!" she told me. "Same lesson!" I had to explain to her that it wasn't quite the same thing when you chose a woman to be second-in-charge.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jul 26, 2016 23:00:27 GMT -5
Like her or not, my sons, and all of our children, can now take for granted that a woman can be President of the United States. Heh! Stephen Colbert just said "Finally! The US catches up to 1960 Sri Lanka!"
|
|
yogiii
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 19:38:00 GMT -5
Posts: 5,377
|
Post by yogiii on Jul 27, 2016 5:47:06 GMT -5
I apologize for not running, but I wasn't born here!
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,598
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jul 27, 2016 8:04:38 GMT -5
I don't see where it's a big deal, but I lived in Germany under Angela Merkel's reign and in the UK but after Maggie (that's what I call her, just to piss off the Brits reading this ) . They both did fine jobs - er Liberals may not think so, but they whatever - there are two sides to every story, and those countries elected one side and they did a good job. Women are more than capable of leading a country. Believe it or not they lead most households...you may have the illusion that you're walking through your house running the show, but you're not . Don't forget Golda Meir. She was tough as nails. I liked her.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,762
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Jul 27, 2016 8:29:00 GMT -5
Just a shame it's this woman. Or rather, it might be more accurate to say the first person to identify as a woman, as such things are open to interpretation nowdays. What does your second sentence even mean? For reasons only the poster knows, he's trying to drag in trans gender issues into a thread where a woman was finally nominated to be president. Since Chelsea is Hillary and Bill's biological child, the only purpose can be to add negativity, because apparently the first sentence was not sufficient.
|
|
973beachbum
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,501
|
Post by 973beachbum on Jul 27, 2016 9:17:18 GMT -5
I don't see where it's a big deal, but I lived in Germany under Angela Merkel's reign and in the UK but after Maggie (that's what I call her, just to piss off the Brits reading this ) . They both did fine jobs - er Liberals may not think so, but they whatever - there are two sides to every story, and those countries elected one side and they did a good job. Women are more than capable of leading a country. Believe it or not they lead most households...you may have the illusion that you're walking through your house running the show, but you're not . But aren't they both prime ministers? The people don't actually elect them they choose a party to vote for. It seems more like they are appointed by the winning party in "congress". Who knows maybe they would have voted for them if they had the chance but we don't really know since it can't happen that way there. There have been a few countries that have had women elected as heads of state, but in my memory there aren't many.
|
|
emma1420
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 28, 2011 15:35:45 GMT -5
Posts: 2,430
|
Post by emma1420 on Jul 27, 2016 9:57:16 GMT -5
I don't see where it's a big deal, but I lived in Germany under Angela Merkel's reign and in the UK but after Maggie (that's what I call her, just to piss off the Brits reading this ) . They both did fine jobs - er Liberals may not think so, but they whatever - there are two sides to every story, and those countries elected one side and they did a good job. Women are more than capable of leading a country. Believe it or not they lead most households...you may have the illusion that you're walking through your house running the show, but you're not . But aren't they both prime ministers? The people don't actually elect them they choose a party to vote for. It seems more like they are appointed by the winning party in "congress". Who knows maybe they would have voted for them if they had the chance but we don't really know since it can't happen that way there. There have been a few countries that have had women elected as heads of state, but in my memory there aren't many. They are the head of their parties, but most people know who will serve as prime minister when they vote in the general election (at least in the UK). There can definitely be changes in leadership. For example, Theresa May who is the prime minister now was never floated as the leader of the conservative party during the last general election. And, I suspect as a result, Parliament may call a general election before they are required to in 2020. But, more often than not people know who will become prime minister when they vote. Margaret Thatcher became the leader of the conservative party in 1975, but the conservative party didn't win the majority in Parliament until 1979. In the 1979 election, the 1983, and 1987 everyone voting knew that Margaret Thatcher was going to be the prime minister. Ireland, Latvia, Panama, Finland, Iceland, Indonesia, Liberia, Chile, India, Brazil, and South Korea have all had elected presidents who were women (plus many others). There have been almost 50 countries that have had a head of state that has been a woman. Granted it's not as many as I would like, but most of the developed countries in the world (with a few exceptions like Sweden and Italy) have at a woman as their leader over the course of the last 50 years. And many of the developing countries. So the fact that the US hasn't even had a woman as the head of the ticket for one of the major parties by now is pretty appalling.
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 10,972
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Jul 27, 2016 10:08:16 GMT -5
What does your second sentence even mean? For reasons only the poster knows, he's trying to drag in trans gender issues into a thread where a woman was finally nominated to be president. Since Chelsea is Hillary and Bill's biological child, the only purpose can be to add negativity, because apparently the first sentence was not sufficient. Burn.
|
|
973beachbum
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,501
|
Post by 973beachbum on Jul 27, 2016 10:15:44 GMT -5
But aren't they both prime ministers? The people don't actually elect them they choose a party to vote for. It seems more like they are appointed by the winning party in "congress". Who knows maybe they would have voted for them if they had the chance but we don't really know since it can't happen that way there. There have been a few countries that have had women elected as heads of state, but in my memory there aren't many. I don't know how their electoral process works - probably similar to ours? We don't actually elect our leaders either. I would argue that we should, with the communication advances we've had since those processes were set up. There's no reason we can't have a popular vote now. That's something I feel very strongly about. We could actually vote for every law, and every budget. I think we have the means to do that, but that's a whole nother story. I don't think there has been many either - certainly not in Eastern Europe, Middle East or Africa, some of the pacific islands I think have? I wasn't thinking about the behind the scenes political stuff. My thought was more of the with a president you have to go in that booth, I know some do absentee ballots, and pull the lever for Her vs Him. I think pulling that lever for an actual person would feel totally different than a party even if in my mind I know that party probably means such and such person.
|
|
bean29
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 22:26:57 GMT -5
Posts: 9,963
|
Post by bean29 on Jul 27, 2016 10:20:23 GMT -5
I love this line. I think I might use it. My husband would love it too!
|
|
973beachbum
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,501
|
Post by 973beachbum on Jul 27, 2016 10:21:13 GMT -5
I will admit that for the past 20ish years I haven't actually really voted for President myself. For years I have always "given" my vote away to my kids. They had to have a reason, but I didn't judge them for it as long as it was reasonably well thought out. My DD always went in the booth with me and pulled the levers. It probably helps that I live in a state that has never mattered for primaries in my lifetime, and as far as actual general elections is mostly a done deal so it isn't like my vote would actually change anything even if I was totally for or against someone. I figured maybe getting my kids to care and vote themselves was worth the very little I lose by letting them choose and pull the lever.
|
|
emma1420
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 28, 2011 15:35:45 GMT -5
Posts: 2,430
|
Post by emma1420 on Jul 27, 2016 10:46:30 GMT -5
They are the head of their parties, but most people know who will serve as prime minister when they vote in the general election (at least in the UK). There can definitely be changes in leadership. For example, Theresa May who is the prime minister now was never floated as the leader of the conservative party during the last general election. And, I suspect as a result, Parliament may call a general election before they are required to in 2020. But, more often than note people know who will become prime minister when they vote. Margaret Thatcher became the leader of the conservative party in 1975, but the conservative party didn't win the majority in Parliament until 1979. In the 1979 election, the 1983, and 1987 everyone voting knew that Margaret Thatcher was going to be the prime minister. Ireland, Latvia, Panama, Finland, Iceland, Indonesia, Liberia, Chile, India, Brazil, and South Korea have all had elected presidents who were women (plus many others). There have been almost 50 countries that have had a head of state that has been a woman. Granted it's not as many as I would like, but most of the developed countries in the world (with a few exceptions like Sweden and Italy) have at a woman as their leader over the course of the last 50 years. And many of the developing countries. So the fact that the US hasn't even had a woman as the head of the ticket for one of the major parties by now is pretty appalling. I wouldn't have guessed Latvia...I haven't been there so that's my pre-conceived impressions I guess. I dunno, obviously the people I met were like 10 people out of a whole country so you get an impression from that - I wouldn't have guessed that though, not in a million years. I knew Finland, Iceland, India, etc...really none of those countries surprised me except Latvia and Liberia. I don't know if it's appalling the US hasn't had a woman running - my opinion is that it's ok, not a big deal either way...I don't like Hillary because of ethical reasons but I thought Elizabeth Dole would have been better than Bob Dole. I think Hillary getting elected because she's a woman is kind of 180 from what women's rights is about...if it's about equality, then shouldn't we judge her on her merit and not her sex? The fact that she stuck with Bill is also a slap in the face - you have to stay with a man who cheats in order to get to the top. So I don't buy into the vote for her because you're a woman theory - she's personally done so much to tarnish women. She's not the only woman in the world though, and there will certainly be more who are very qualified and are ethical too. We should judge Hillary on her merits. And she's not a perfect candidate by any means. I think the problem is she is being held to a much higher standard that her opponent. I don't know if she was facing someone like Jeb Bush or Scott Walker if the treatment would be more equal. But, right now, Hillary gets torn apart anytime she makes a mistake, and yet her opponent can say things that would sink any other candidate and it gets brushed off as it's no big deal. Personally, I would have preferred for someone like Elizabeth Warren to run for president. But, I'm pleased that we have a woman on the top of the ticket, even if it's not the person I would have chosen. And for me it's a big deal to have a woman who has a real chance of becoming president. Because it's never happened before, and because women are still in the vast minority in leadership roles in the workplace. Women make up about 47% of the labor force, and yet they only represent about 5% of the CEO's in the country, and 25% of key management positions. Despite the fact that more women graduate from college and professional degree programs than men.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,762
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Jul 27, 2016 11:44:21 GMT -5
We should judge Hillary on her merits. And she's not a perfect candidate by any means. I think the problem is she is being held to a much higher standard that her opponent. I don't know if she was facing someone like Jeb Bush or Scott Walker if the treatment would be more equal. But, right now, Hillary gets torn apart anytime she makes a mistake, and yet her opponent can say things that would sink any other candidate and it gets brushed off as it's no big deal. Personally, I would have preferred for someone like Elizabeth Warren to run for president. But, I'm pleased that we have a woman on the top of the ticket, even if it's not the person I would have chosen. And for me it's a big deal to have a woman who has a real chance of becoming president. Because it's never happened before, and because women are still in the vast minority in leadership roles in the workplace. Women make up about 47% of the labor force, and yet they only represent about 5% of the CEO's in the country, and 25% of key management positions. Despite the fact that more women graduate from college and professional degree programs than men. I think you should vote for her then. I really do. If I was black I would have voted for Obama just because he is, and I don't feel any shame in saying that. You're right, we should judge her on her merits (I don't think those merits are very good). I agree also that she's not a perfect candidate - I don't think any are. I disagree that she's being held to a higher standard, if anything the media is using "kid gloves" in my opinion. Maybe not FOX news but the media in general. I don't think Hillary is getting torn apart every time she makes a mistake. I think she's gotten off lightly for some very large mistakes she's made. That's not because she's a woman, it's because of political connections. I'm not a big feminist - or masochist - but I would still rather our first female president be worthy of it. Not because she was a woman with good political connections and marrying into a powerful family, but because she was worthy of it and would do a good job. Marrying into a powerful family? Are you confusing Bill Clinton's childhood with W's and Jeb's?
millercenter.org/president/biography/clinton-life-before-the-presidency
William Jefferson Clinton spent the first six years of his life in Hope, Arkansas, where he was born on August 19, 1946. His father, William Jefferson Blythe, had died in an auto accident several months before his mother, Virginia Cassidy Blythe, gave birth to the future President. Raised in the home of his grandmother, Edith Cassidy, Bill's early years were dominated by two strong women, who often competed for his attention. His mother, a vivacious and fun-loving free spirit, was often away from home taking nursing classes in New Orleans. It was during those periods that his grandmother, a temperamental and strong-willed disciplinarian, tried to shape her grandson's character—and taught him to be a very early reader. Bill later remembered loving both women during that time of his life but feeling torn between them as a young mediator of their arguments.
In 1950, Bill's mother married Roger Clinton, a car dealer and abusive alcoholic. The family moved to Hot Springs, Arkansas, a bustling resort town an hour away. (She later divorced Roger Clinton when Bill was fifteen, only to remarry him quickly thereafter.) Again, Clinton had to intervene between two adults engaged in violent arguments
Hot Springs High School, although a segregated all-white school, stood heads above most public schools in Arkansas. School Principal Johnnie Mae Mackey—another strong woman in Clinton's life—recruited staff committed to producing leaders who thought of personal success in terms of public service. Clinton became her brightest protégé. It was under her mentoring that Clinton was sent to Washington, D.C., as one of two Arkansas delegates to Boy's Nation, an imitation political convention sponsored by the American Legion. While there, the seventeen-year-old Clinton was captured in a historic photograph shaking hands with his political idol, President John F. Kennedy, in the White House Rose Garden.
You might want to buy and read the current issue of Time. I think Hillary came from a slightly better background but also went into politics not because of family history but in spite of it. Her time at Wesley seems to have put her on the political track.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jul 27, 2016 11:55:20 GMT -5
They are the head of their parties, but most people know who will serve as prime minister when they vote in the general election (at least in the UK). There can definitely be changes in leadership. For example, Theresa May who is the prime minister now was never floated as the leader of the conservative party during the last general election. And, I suspect as a result, Parliament may call a general election before they are required to in 2020. But, more often than note people know who will become prime minister when they vote. Margaret Thatcher became the leader of the conservative party in 1975, but the conservative party didn't win the majority in Parliament until 1979. In the 1979 election, the 1983, and 1987 everyone voting knew that Margaret Thatcher was going to be the prime minister. Ireland, Latvia, Panama, Finland, Iceland, Indonesia, Liberia, Chile, India, Brazil, and South Korea have all had elected presidents who were women (plus many others). There have been almost 50 countries that have had a head of state that has been a woman. Granted it's not as many as I would like, but most of the developed countries in the world (with a few exceptions like Sweden and Italy) have at a woman as their leader over the course of the last 50 years. And many of the developing countries. So the fact that the US hasn't even had a woman as the head of the ticket for one of the major parties by now is pretty appalling. I wouldn't have guessed Latvia...I haven't been there so that's my pre-conceived impressions I guess. I dunno, obviously the people I met were like 10 people out of a whole country so you get an impression from that - I wouldn't have guessed that though, not in a million years. I knew Finland, Iceland, India, etc...really none of those countries surprised me except Latvia and Liberia. I don't know if it's appalling the US hasn't had a woman running - my opinion is that it's ok, not a big deal either way...I don't like Hillary because of ethical reasons but I thought Elizabeth Dole would have been better than Bob Dole. I think Hillary getting elected because she's a woman is kind of 180 from what women's rights is about...if it's about equality, then shouldn't we judge her on her merit and not her sex? The fact that she stuck with Bill is also a slap in the face - you have to stay with a man who cheats in order to get to the top. So I don't buy into the vote for her because you're a woman theory - she's personally done so much to tarnish women. She's not the only woman in the world though, and there will certainly be more who are very qualified and are ethical too. Slap in the face? I guess BEING a serial adulterer is much better that sticking with one. Trump was a serial philanderer who fathered children out of wedlock while married to somebody else.
|
|
emma1420
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 28, 2011 15:35:45 GMT -5
Posts: 2,430
|
Post by emma1420 on Jul 27, 2016 12:42:11 GMT -5
We should judge Hillary on her merits. And she's not a perfect candidate by any means. I think the problem is she is being held to a much higher standard that her opponent. I don't know if she was facing someone like Jeb Bush or Scott Walker if the treatment would be more equal. But, right now, Hillary gets torn apart anytime she makes a mistake, and yet her opponent can say things that would sink any other candidate and it gets brushed off as it's no big deal. Personally, I would have preferred for someone like Elizabeth Warren to run for president. But, I'm pleased that we have a woman on the top of the ticket, even if it's not the person I would have chosen. And for me it's a big deal to have a woman who has a real chance of becoming president. Because it's never happened before, and because women are still in the vast minority in leadership roles in the workplace. Women make up about 47% of the labor force, and yet they only represent about 5% of the CEO's in the country, and 25% of key management positions. Despite the fact that more women graduate from college and professional degree programs than men. I think you should vote for her then. I really do. If I was black I would have voted for Obama just because he is, and I don't feel any shame in saying that. You're right, we should judge her on her merits (I don't think those merits are very good). I agree also that she's not a perfect candidate - I don't think any are. I disagree that she's being held to a higher standard, if anything the media is using "kid gloves" in my opinion. Maybe not FOX news but the media in general. I don't think Hillary is getting torn apart every time she makes a mistake. I think she's gotten off lightly for some very large mistakes she's made. That's not because she's a woman, it's because of political connections. I'm not a big feminist - or masochist - but I would still rather our first female president be worthy of it. Not because she was a woman with good political connections and marrying into a powerful family, but because she was worthy of it and would do a good job. i guess when I see that there were 7 investigations into Benghazi, and not one investigation into the 20 embassy attacks that occurred from 2001 to 2009, and then Hillary is ripped apart for using a private email account when Colin Powell did exactly the same thing I do tend to think she's being held to a higher standard. It's probably not helped by the fact that the media is so obsessed with her opponent, that he hasn't had to buy much in the way advertising because he get so much free positive media attention. In fact, there have been several studies of the media coverage from January 2015 to April 2016, and they have all concluded that Hillary received the most negative reporting of any of the candidates (and Trump had just as many, if not more, very large mistakes as Hillary), and she only received about a third of the positive media reporting that Trump received.
|
|
cronewitch
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:44:20 GMT -5
Posts: 5,976
|
Post by cronewitch on Jul 27, 2016 12:48:58 GMT -5
I don't see it as a big deal, bound to be a woman eventually. Other world leaders have been woman and we have the right to vote for any person who is a citizen and over 35 so didn't need to change laws. It would have been nice to find a different woman to be first but she will be acceptable as first woman president. Woman are gradually taking over top roles like Fed Chairman that would have been men's jobs not that long ago. Kennedy was first Catholic president but now we have any religion or lack of religion run and nobody cares at least not much, after this if she wins the next president nobody will care about gender, at least not much.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,762
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Jul 27, 2016 13:12:53 GMT -5
Marrying into a powerful family? Are you confusing Bill Clinton's childhood with W's and Jeb's?
millercenter.org/president/biography/clinton-life-before-the-presidency
William Jefferson Clinton spent the first six years of his life in Hope, Arkansas, where he was born on August 19, 1946. His father, William Jefferson Blythe, had died in an auto accident several months before his mother, Virginia Cassidy Blythe, gave birth to the future President. Raised in the home of his grandmother, Edith Cassidy, Bill's early years were dominated by two strong women, who often competed for his attention. His mother, a vivacious and fun-loving free spirit, was often away from home taking nursing classes in New Orleans. It was during those periods that his grandmother, a temperamental and strong-willed disciplinarian, tried to shape her grandson's character—and taught him to be a very early reader. Bill later remembered loving both women during that time of his life but feeling torn between them as a young mediator of their arguments.
In 1950, Bill's mother married Roger Clinton, a car dealer and abusive alcoholic. The family moved to Hot Springs, Arkansas, a bustling resort town an hour away. (She later divorced Roger Clinton when Bill was fifteen, only to remarry him quickly thereafter.) Again, Clinton had to intervene between two adults engaged in violent arguments
Hot Springs High School, although a segregated all-white school, stood heads above most public schools in Arkansas. School Principal Johnnie Mae Mackey—another strong woman in Clinton's life—recruited staff committed to producing leaders who thought of personal success in terms of public service. Clinton became her brightest protégé. It was under her mentoring that Clinton was sent to Washington, D.C., as one of two Arkansas delegates to Boy's Nation, an imitation political convention sponsored by the American Legion. While there, the seventeen-year-old Clinton was captured in a historic photograph shaking hands with his political idol, President John F. Kennedy, in the White House Rose Garden.
You might want to buy and read the current issue of Time. I think Hillary came from a slightly better background but also went into politics not because of family history but in spite of it. Her time at Wesley seems to have put her on the political track.
I would say that being married to the President of the US is a pretty powerful position, yes. If she would have gotten a divorce, she wouldn't have been Secretary of State or running for President now, IMO. She is part of the family that got there though. Your assertion she married into a powerful family is utterly incorrect. She stood by him to get the governorship way back when and changed her image so he could be re-elected even though at one time he made about $34K as governor and she brought in $200K as a lawyer. You are naïve if you think she hasn't assisted him to the Presidency.
And while I agree she probably stayed married to him in part to stay in politics, that is her right and perogitive. We still live in a world where women are judged more harshly if they are divorced than men are. And so far, I don't think we've had a President who has been divorced, so not surprising she might make that choice.
|
|
sesfw
Junior Associate
Today is the first day of the rest of my life
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 15:45:17 GMT -5
Posts: 6,268
|
Post by sesfw on Jul 27, 2016 13:24:41 GMT -5
I would say that being married to the President of the US is a pretty powerful position, yes. If she would have gotten a divorce, she wouldn't have been Secretary of State or running for President now, IMO.
billary has more power as the wife of and ex-prez than she would as an ex-wife of an ex-prez. she is not stupid, just no common sense, no integrity, and very politically ambitious
And so far, I don't think we've had a President who has been divorced, so not surprising she might make that choice.
Ronald Reagan was married for a short time before he divorced and married Nancy Davis. This was a while before his political career
|
|
emma1420
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 28, 2011 15:35:45 GMT -5
Posts: 2,430
|
Post by emma1420 on Jul 27, 2016 13:27:25 GMT -5
Slap in the face? I guess BEING a serial adulterer is much better that sticking with one. Trump was a serial philanderer who fathered children out of wedlock while married to somebody else. I'm sorry, I didn't talk about Donald Trump because the thread is about the first woman President. I don't think Donald Trump will be our first woman president. Although it is technically possible, I'm going to just go out on a limb and disregard that theory and stick to the original topic . I'm not comparing Hillary to him because the thread is not about him...I'm comparing Hillary to the millions of women out there who don't stay with an adulterer because it will lead to a powerful position for them in the future, but have achieved success based on their own merits and talents. I know many women who are far more successful than Hillary Clinton because that's who they are...not because they stayed in a marriage to do it. I'm married to one. I'm probably biased a little bit on that example, but I know she wouldn't hang around if I did half the shit he pulled. Let me do a test...I'll go tell her "hey I've been fucking the intern at work...but I'm going to be President someday" and see how well that goes over . Like I said I'm biased on that one. I've worked for women before that are for more ethically "sound" than Hillary. And this isn't about political parties either, because I'm guessing some would lean either way politically. They were confident successful women. They didn't need to marry or stay married to a serial adulterer in order be successful. I think Hillary has no integrity. Zero. If she switched parties today and became the most conservative woman on the planet and moved in next door, I would not invite her over to dinner, because she is not the kind of person my family chooses to socialize with. If I wouldn't have dinner with her then I don't care if she's a woman or a freakin' martian, I'm not going to vote for her. If you want to vote for her because she's a woman, I can understand that. Like I said, if I was black I would have voted for Obama, and I could care less what people think of that decision. If I was a woman, I wouldn't vote for Hillary...she is an example of everything that competent, successful women who have integrity do NOT stand for. You know many presidents and heads of state?
|
|
gs11rmb
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 12:43:39 GMT -5
Posts: 3,307
Member is Online
|
Post by gs11rmb on Jul 27, 2016 13:31:20 GMT -5
And while I agree she probably stayed married to him in part to stay in politics, that is her right and perogitive. We still live in a world where women are judged more harshly if they are divorced than men are. And so far, I don't think we've had a President who has been divorced, so not surprising she might make that choice.
Ronald Reagan was the first divorced President. Betty Ford was the first divorced First Lady.
Useless trivia for the day...
|
|