Forum Thread

Maddow, first female president?


Reply to ThreadDisplaying 9 Posts
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    This is purely hypothetical. I do not believe she has ever expressed an interest in such an idea. 

    It is my personal opinion that after Obama is re-elected and his final term as President ends, America needs a strong female leader who is strong willed, educated, and capable. 

    She is also a "homosexual" which would make an even bigger statement towards progress.

    Anyway, add any thoughts on this hypothetical, as well as list other strong female presidential candidates. Please also include Republican options. The general "leftist" view of the population is detrimental.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    She's "homosexual", also "strong willed, educated, and capable."

    And THAT'S what it takes?

    How is she capable?  Because she's strong willed?  Educated?  Homosexual?  A combination of those three things?

    What makes her "capable" to be President?

    Is it because she is photogenic, and a good speaker?

    Obama was too, and we see how THAT worked out.

    We already have a "strong female candidate":  Hillary.  If she would do it.

    Unlike Maddow, and Obama in 08, she actually has the knowledge and experience for the job.

    It should have been her instead of Obama and we ALL know that now.

    Unfortunately Hillary seems as if she's going retire.  And who can blame her?

    It should have been Hillary in 08.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    "And THAT'S what it takes?"

    No, but it's a good start.

    "How is she capable?  Because she's strong willed?  Educated?  Homosexual?  A combination of those three things?"

    Have you heard her speak? Do you know a journalist with less of a bias? Individual traits do not make a candidate, however from a "political" standpoint that combination of those three things would show that America isn't too bigoted to elect someone qualified and generally non-partisan in speech if not necessarily in deed.

    "What makes her "capable" to be President?"

    She doesn't take shit from idiots like you.

    "Is it because she is photogenic, and a good speaker?"

    She's kind of ugly, and rude, she interrupts and often does not listen. No one is perfect.

    "Obama was too, and we see how THAT worked out."

    Extremely well? What problem did you have with Obama that you can blame on him, and not say the filibuster or the Tea Party (just as two examples).

    "We already have a "strong female candidate":  Hillary.  If she would do it."

    No. She is not a good presidential candidate. She is an excellent politician and person, but she would not be a popular choice. Most people already think she "ran" the first Clinton white house anyway, and she is too polarizing. 

    "Unlike Maddow, and Obama in 08, she actually has the knowledge and experience for the job."

    Experience is bad. Vetting candidates are what creates Romney's as actual potential candidates.

    "It should have been her instead of Obama and we ALL know that now."

    If I had to guess I'd say she didn't and doesn't want to be President, that's just my opinion. I've never talked to her, but I really don't think she wanted the job. That is an opinion. I'm not sure in what way you'd assume she could have dealt with anything Obama had to deal with differently. I guess no one would have questioned her country of birth for 2 years. 

    "Unfortunately Hillary seems as if she's going retire.  And who can blame her?"

    Not me, she should. I wouldn't want to do that stupid job.

    "It should have been Hillary in 08."

    It should be Obama for dictator.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    King,

    Thanks for the respectful reply.

    "idiots like you."?  Is THAT the best you got? 

    With second grade level insults like that showing your intelligence level, how can your side possibly lose?

    You really think that America is ready for a president who is "ugly and rude" and "interrupts and often does not listen"?  THAT'S your candidate?  OK.  Good luck with THAT.

    "Experience is bad."  Believe it or not, most Americans actually think experience is a GOOD thing in a presidential candidate.

    "I wouldn't want to do that stupid job."  I guess we will have to remove your name from consideration.  Imagine America's disappointment.

    "I really don't think she wanted the job."  Sooooo...a person as intelligent as Hillary just threw away two years of her life campaigning for president when she never "wanted the job"?  Seriously?  Perhaps you could explain why she would do that.  Come on, enlighten us.

    "Obama for dictator."

    Sounds like a slogan for 2012.  Ya think?

    Who needs "hope and change" or "forward" when you can have "Obama for dictator"?
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I keep hearig about how the Right wants our President to have experience. I would like for one of youpeople that say that to tell me exactly how is a person supposed to get experience as President?  Unless you elect the Vice President there is noway any person can have that experience and knowledge, and even that doesn't give you that experience.

    Then I read and hear that we ned a business person to run this country. Well let's look at a feew Presidents that have had some experience in business. George W. Bush, remember the failed oil company and don't forget his dealings with the Texas Rangers. And Jimmy Carter was a business man and a peanut farmer. But the one we havge had that was by far and away the very best businessman we have ever had as President, he brought himself up from being an orphan to being a very sucessful, rich Businessman, and that man was Herbert Hoover, and we know how good of a job he did. Kind of like George W. Bush, both had the same outcome.

    Even though I am not a great fan of President Obama's he has done a very good job when one considers that it has been the mission of EVERY REPUBLICAN TO VOTE AGAINST EVERYTHING THIS MAN HAD TO OFFER. That even includes Republican ideas. There have been more filibusters in the last three year than any time in our history.

    Charlie Lockett
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Maybe now in the 21st century, it is time to consider a Triumvirate (like in Rome) ---- the job of President is too complex and multi-faceted to entrust to just one man. (or woman). We have 3 candidates mentioned (above) who are well educated, experienced, knowledgeable, & mature enough to handle the delicate balance of power.

    The triumvirate of Rome meant they had THREE leaders instead of just one. They all shared extreme power, but they had to communicate, coordinate, and compromise to get things done. 

    I think it would work even better in the Modern age, where they could carry instant communicators, to keep in touch with each other many times per day, no matter what continent they may be landing upon. Of course they would still have a staff to do the routine office work, & set up appointments or schedules. Arrange fundraisers or speeches, & social events.

    It would be like Obama would be the #1 President in Chief, who had to make the tough decisions, address Congress, run the military, & give speeches to the people. Hillary could be the #2 President who can make treaties, travel all over the world, advise on speeches for the President, do some public relations, & write some campaign material, Rachel (#3) could investigate election fraud against Obama, & help him pinpoint his message better to the public. Organize White House tours, put his kids on TV as publicity for the family aspect of the Presidency, bring in experts on all political matters for a roundtable discussion quite regularly. It could be a question/answer format, for everyone (the Public) to participate thru phone/internet/Skype.  But it would all be televised on at least one channel like MSNBC.

    I do not know all the details, but this is just an impromptu outline of what it could be like. Someone would be an active laison with the Congressional committees. To get the legislation better in agreement with the President, so it would not be immediately vetoed, & thus to save time. All appearances required by the President could be done by ANY ONE of the three, so to cut down time taken away from Wash DC duties.

    You know, maybe it could work. It does have some great advantages. What do YOU think?
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Well, it's like this...

    We can't even get rid of the electoral college, so how are we going to change EVERYTHING about the top of the US Gubmint?  But, since we are in fantasyland...

    "#1 President in Chief" is already the President in Chief.  He's called the President of the United States.  DONE.

    "#2 President" is already the State Department.  DONE.

    "Rachel (#3)" is already the liberal media doing what they do.  DONE.

    See there, we can all just relax, it's already a DONE deal.

    "They could investigate election fraud against Obama."

    But what about election fraud against Romney? 

    Doesn't the Repuiblican deserve equal protection against "election fraud"?  Just to be fair, ya know.

    Or are you suggesting that there should ONLY be investigations of election fraud against Obama and not investigations of election fraud against Romney? 

    "it would all be televised on at least one channel like MSNBC."

    Or maybe another channel without such a liberal bias, or rotated among various channels to keep things fair.

    "appearances required by the President could be done by ANY ONE of the three..."

    Yeah.  THAT would free up President Obama for more fund raisers.  He almost NEVER does any of those! 

    One hundred and sixty something at last count.  Yep, our politicians are OWNED by big money.

    Good afternoon, Veronica!
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Hi Fenway:   Thanks for your input. I like a lot of your comments and suggestions. Good work. Makes me think that Democrats and Republicans could begin to co-operate together, like in earlier times.  Maybe. How are you going to vote this year?  Have you got a real strong preference yet? 
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Veronica,

    You are very welcome.  I like many of your ideas and opinions, also.

    "Democrats and Republicans"..."to co-operate together"

    Wouldn't that be wonderful?  Wouldn't that make this country soooo much better?  We can only hope, but I am not holding my breath.

    Why am I not holding my breath?  Big MONEY owns our politicians, and has completely corrupted our political system.

    How am I going to vote?  I will wait until I see how my state is going to go.  If my state is CLEARLY going red or blue, then I will consider a third party.

    If my state is going to be close, I will hold my nose and vote for one of the two losers:  Obama or Romney.

    "preference yet"?  Yes, someone other than the two losers.  Unfortunately we do not have any other viable option.  "preference yet" for one of the two losers?  Not yet.  I feel it would be foolish to make up my mind at this point.  There is still quite a bit of time left.

    One of the great things about being an independent is the freedom to choose EITHER candidate...or neither.