Forum Thread

Can a woman be elected president ?

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 13 Posts
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Now that two women are saying everything that a Democrat should say I wonder if they could be elected. Duckworth/Gabbard are too good to be true. Close to the end of the Clinton/Trump race when the polls said Clinton was ahead I said the polls were wrong. People were ashamed to say they supported Trump just as they couldn't say they wouldn't vote for Hillary. Can a woman be elected? Right now my gut reaction is full blown support for Duckworth/Gabbard.

  • Center Left
    Independent
    Central, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Eventually yes. I voted for one last November. Dems and Independent voters need to vote like R women in S. Carolina, Alabama and the Dakotas. Eventually people will open their eyes and see what is happening. Eventually Dems will get in touch with social media and become communicators not silent polite minorities. Many serious changes are needed. Immediately. November is right around the corner and even though Republicans are evil and disgusting.... We are doing little to nothing. That

  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    No, a woman won't be elected here; this country and its "evangelical antique beliefs" makes that especially in the central and southern States impossible. Their "redneck deplorable beliefs" prevents such; women don't dare to run the show.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I thought women would thumb their nose at Trump and elect Hillary. Especially after the Billy Bush tape was aired. I doubt a woman can be elected when the most women disrespecting candidate defeated a woman. Duckworth/Gabbard say the right things but I don't think the Democratic Party can come together to do the right thing and get a meaningful candidate elected.
  • Independent
    Washington
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    I think a woman can, and of course, ultimately will become president. Women who are perceived as "Feminists" will have a much harder time. aka Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren.

    As many women can already verify, they have to work harder and be more talented to overcome existing biased against them.

    If you take a look at trump's WH, the men tend to be big tall men, and the women small\petite. This is reflective of big business, where physical size projects dominance\intimidation\control\threat.

  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    I nominate Joy Reid:

    New York Times, February 10, 2018: How Joy Reid of MSNBC Became a Heroine of the Resistance

    I tune into Joy Reid's program on Saturday and Sunday mornings because she does not shy away from controversial topics, and she has quality guest most of the time...or in the case of Pastor Mark Burns, she gives them the boot.

    She does her homework and can articulate in-depth discussions on almost any topic. And she has a happy, pleasant disposition...the AM Joy title of her program fits. I like her short comments that can bite.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    wwjd Wrote:

    I think a woman can, and of course, ultimately will become president. Women who are perceived as "Feminists" will have a much harder time. aka Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren.

    As many women can already verify, they have to work harder and be more talented to overcome existing biased against them.

    If you take a look at trump's WH, the men tend to be big tall men, and the women small\petite. This is reflective of big business, where physical size projects dominance\intimidation\control\threat.

    What do you think about Duckworth/Gabbard?
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Both good people, but no on President and Vice President.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote: Both good people, but no on President and Vice President.

    Why? I don't think so because they are women.

  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    My main problem with the both of them is that they seem to have a high reverence for the military and support for increased military spending. Both come with strong military credentials. "Supporting the troops" has become a populist slogan in our lexicon, and military budgets are seemingly approved with little questioning lest our legislators be labeled as "not supporting the troops".

    Somehow Republican President Eisenhower's words in 1953 have been lost in history:

    "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. [...] Is there no other way the world may live?"

    The endless war in Afghanistan and ongoing actions in Iraq, and all the threats of North Korea have shifted American thinking in both parties that all the requests for increases in military spending must be approved with little debate. Any legislator who dares question the costs will have their patriotism questioned. Meanwhile the military brass and the military contractors who contribute big money to campaigns are opportunistically calling for more military war toys knowing that very few people in Congress have the guts to say no.

    Otherwise I can agree with many of Duckworth's positions (except on military spending, trade and the TPP). However, her current stand on many foreign issues and the economy is less clear. Maybe I haven't dug deep enough.

    The 36 year old Tulsi Gabbard seems to be a headline seeker and tweets too much for me. On LGBT issues she once said (from Wikipedia) as a Hawaii state legislator: "To try to act as if there is a difference between 'civil unions' and same-sex marriage is dishonest, cowardly and extremely disrespectful to the people of Hawaii who have already made overwhelmingly clear our position on this issue... As Democrats we should be representing the views of the people, not a small number of homosexual extremists."

    She later changed her position on the LGBT community when it was politically expedient.

    Her "secret fact finding mission to Syria" and meeting with Bashar al-Assad without telling anyone suggests to me she is not a team player. Her positions on issues seem to not be very well thought out, and that's, of course, expected because of her age and inexperience. I guess she could learn on the job, but if she is going to be another middle of the night tweeter then I am sick of that now with Trump.

    I am also sick of the generals running the show in the White House and believe we need someone leading our country who will not automatically say yes to everything military.

    My opinion based on a rather limited understanding of where they really stand on the issues. That will undoubtedly change if they put their names in the hat. I'm sure Gabbard would love that opportunity...more headlines for her.

  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:

    My main problem with the both of them is that they seem to have a high reverence for the military and support for increased military spending. Both come with strong military credentials. "Supporting the troops" has become a populist slogan in our lexicon, and military budgets are seemingly approved with little questioning lest our legislators be labeled as "not supporting the troops".

    Somehow Republican President Eisenhower's words in 1953 have been lost in history:

    "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. [...] Is there no other way the world may live?"

    The endless war in Afghanistan and ongoing actions in Iraq, and all the threats of North Korea have shifted American thinking in both parties that all the requests for increases in military spending must be approved with little debate. Any legislator who dares question the costs will have their patriotism questioned. Meanwhile the military brass and the military contractors who contribute big money to campaigns are opportunistically calling for more military war toys knowing that very few people in Congress have the guts to say no.

    Otherwise I can agree with many of Duckworth's positions (except on military spending, trade and the TPP). However, her current stand on many foreign issues and the economy is less clear. Maybe I haven't dug deep enough.

    The 36 year old Tulsi Gabbard seems to be a headline seeker and tweets too much for me. On LGBT issues she once said (from Wikipedia) as a Hawaii state legislator: "To try to act as if there is a difference between 'civil unions' and same-sex marriage is dishonest, cowardly and extremely disrespectful to the people of Hawaii who have already made overwhelmingly clear our position on this issue... As Democrats we should be representing the views of the people, not a small number of homosexual extremists."

    She later changed her position on the LGBT community when it was politically expedient.

    Her "secret fact finding mission to Syria" and meeting with Bashar al-Assad without telling anyone suggests to me she is not a team player. Her positions on issues seem to not be very well thought out, and that's, of course, expected because of her age and inexperience. I guess she could learn on the job, but if she is going to be another middle of the night tweeter then I am sick of that now with Trump.

    I am also sick of the generals running the show in the White House and believe we need someone leading our country who will not automatically say yes to everything military.

    My opinion based on a rather limited understanding of where they really stand on the issues. That will undoubtedly change if they put their names in the hat. I'm sure Gabbard would love that opportunity...more headlines for her.

    Schmidt, good story/opinion. We need someone who hates killing and should view the military only as an "defense" for this country; not an "tool" to "invade and meddle all over in the world around us; except if we are attacked on our own soil.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    I say give people a reason to live for not a reason to die for. Patriotism is the basic premise for giving people a cause or reason to die. Placing generals in high positions will always lead to conflicts. Like my orthopaedic surgeon told me. I'm a surgeon so I am going to cut you, if you want a different solution see a different doctor. Generals can be great, honest people but their solution is fighting.

    Eisenhower's observation is more a critique of the radical right wing.

  • Independent
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Can a woman be elected president? Of course. Will a woman be elected president? Possibly, probably but I will not predict when. We have so many sociological/psychological factors moving in this sick society as to be astounding. Feminism is a perjorative as though supporting woman is somehow anathema to society. The concepts expressed in so-called sacred writing of the three Abrahamic faiths are those of men who viewed themselves as chosen via patriarchal tribalism. Of course this tribalism isn’t limited to a religion basis. Seen a lot of women leaders in the east? In the PRC, SK, Japan? In the nation’s described as the west those who have seen a decline in religion also seem to have more women in leadership unless I am mistaken. The U.S. is a bastion of reactionary patriarchy. Other countries less so in the west.

    As for patriotism it isn’t merely the last refuge of the scoundrel, it is also the front line of capital. There is profit in chaos and there is profit in the chaos of defense when framed as patriotism which it always is.

    I favor more women in politics. I also understand that women can be as stupid as men. From Bachman to Palin this has been proven.

    I want good people in politics and if that means women then that is what we need. What we don’t need is more stupidity, arrogance and ignorance.