Is America ready for a female President?

[Wolfwood]

What do other countries have to do with this question?

Anyway, there's a female president in Finland, as everyone watching Conan O'Brian already know, and she was elected by direct vote. And it seems that she's going to continue onto a second term as well...

 

[silver 2039]

Females are an inferior, illogical, irrational species suitable only for breeding purposes. They cannot lead, and they certainely should'nt drive. It is the femal duty to stay at home. God told me so.
















India had a female dictator Indhira Gandhi she was quite a strong lady but hopelessly corrupt. And currently the dictator is Sonia Gandhi. Joyous.

 

[Panda]

How about America getting a good president? I don't care so much about gender and species - a radioactive monkey would do! As long as it just was a smart monkey...

What do other countries have to do with this question?

Anyway, there's a female president in Finland, as everyone watching Conan O'Brian already know, and she was elected by direct vote. And it seems that she's going to continue onto a second term as well...

Hell no. Whatever evil we have commited we don't deserve another term of that socialist hag. She and her cronies can mount their broom sticks and feck off to Cuba or North Korea.

 

[skadistic]

The difference between Thatcher - Merkel - (perhaps the Chilean President) on one side and the US-Presidential alection is that they didn't get elected directly, but indirectly where the US President is elected directly.

I think...

A common mistake made by people is they think the US president is elected by the popular vote. The sad part is many US citizens think this way too. POTUS is elected by the electoral collage (SP). All the leftistm, liberal (US centric terms) dribble about Bush stole the election in Florida is pure hogwash. Not only did he get the votes but it would not have mattered one way or another. One other POTUS was elected by the E.C. that did not get the majority of the popular vote. The US is not a democracy. It is a Federal Republic. Elections on the locale and state level are one man one vote but for the federal elction your vote does not count. Even if a third party were to win the popular vote the canadet would not get the E.C. votes and not be President.

 

[Cuivienen]

A common mistake made by people is they think the US president is elected by the popular vote. The sad part is many US citizens think this way too. POTUS is elected by the electoral collage (SP). All the leftistm, liberal (US centric terms) dribble about Bush stole the election in Florida is pure hogwash. Not only did he get the votes but it would not have mattered one way or another. One other POTUS was elected by the E.C. that did not get the majority of the popular vote. The US is not a democracy. It is a Federal Republic. Elections on the locale and state level are one man one vote but for the federal elction your vote does not count. Even if a third party were to win the popular vote the canadet would not get the E.C. votes and not be President.

Your claim that the preisdent is not elected directly is more than slightly exaggerated - the Electoral College selects the president, yes, but it very rarely differs from the popular vote. Only in 1860, 1876, 1888 and 2000 did the two even show signs of conflicting.

In 1860, Abraham Lincoln won the electoral college with 40% of the vote but a majority in the EC - but he was facing three opponents. It is notable, however, that a "united opposition" would have only won a single additional electoral vote - another one of New Jersey's then-split vote - and so Lincoln could have won the election while clearly losing the popular vote, but he didn't (40% was the largest of the four popular votes).

In 1876, the results in Florida, South Carolina, Oregon and Louisiana were disputed, with Republican-led commitees certifying that Rutherford Hayes had won and Democratic-led state governments certifyign that Samuel Tilden ahd won. Realistically, the Republicans probably should have won in all four states, but I tend to believe that enough former slaves were scared away from the polls that the Democrats had actually won at least Florida, So. Carolina and Louisiana. Nonetheless, the Republican-controlled Congress eventually declared Rutherford Hayes the winner. However, such disagreements were due to friction between the federal government and Reconstructed South and don't really have much to do with the Electoral College.

In 1888 and 2000 the popular vote and electoral college were extremely close to 50% each, so much so that tiny "margins of error" come into play. While they did result in presidents who did not win the popular vote, it isn't much different from the UK having a labour majority of 55% when Labour won ~35% of the nationwide popular vote. It's just one of the problems with first-past-the-post in general.

 

[MobBoss]

I dont think the US is ready for a female president. Remember, we havent even had one run for the office yet, much less win. And I dont think we will elect one the very first time one runs either, so tuff for Hillery, if she runs.

 

[ironduck]

While they did result in presidents who did not win the popular vote, it isn't much different from the UK having a labour majority of 55% when Labour won ~35% of the nationwide popular vote. It's just one of the problems with first-past-the-post in general.

Yeah, the UK system strikes me as absolutely ridiculous. Labour was a far cry from having a majority and yet they are basically in complete control. These ancient electoral systems need to be brought into the modern age.

 

[dragokatzov]

I hope at least America is ready for another President.

i live in canada, and i was ready for a new american presicent right after bush got in!

seriously though, i tihnk a female should run for officice. Canada did have a female prime ministerm in 93, but she was only in office for a couple monthes before the general election robbed her party of every seat except for 2 in the house of commons. she lost her own seat as well

 

[Dr. Yoshi]

Remember, we havent even had one run for the office yet, much less win.

That's not true. (link goes to PDF)

 

[Stapel]

I guess Condi could do the trick, if she wants to.

 

[The Yankee]

I dont think the US is ready for a female president. Remember, we havent even had one run for the office yet, much less win. And I dont think we will elect one the very first time one runs either, so tuff for Hillery, if she runs.

Carol Moseley-Braun (don't know if it's correct spelling) ran a campaign for the Democratic nomination, even if it was a lame attempt, the last time around.

 

[Ayatollah So]

The only woman who would be able to win the presidency fairly easily at the present time is Jennifer Granholm, Governor of Michigan, and she's barred from running as she was born in Canada.

Just wait until Schwarzenegger's supporters pass that Constitutional amendment. Then we spring the trap

 

[The Yankee]

I guess Condi could do the trick, if she wants to.

I believe she's stated that she doesn't want to run, but that's a standard response to that question.

I do wonder...would more women vote Republican simply because Rice is the nominee? We'd all like to think issues win the day, but that is far from always the case.

 

[slip79]

Females are an inferior, illogical, irrational species suitable only for breeding purposes. They cannot lead, and they certainely should'nt drive. It is the femal duty to stay at home. God told me so.

Laura is as a lady ought to be, mild mannered, actually SMILES -- as opposed to Condi who smiles in a blue moon -- and deferential to men, while still having a good self-sense of the gift of God who is woman ... being modest like a lady ought to be as opposed to aggressive ... STRONG yes, as in strongly committed to being modest and lady-like, STRONGLY standing by one's husband, STRONGLY reluctant to interfere with the affairs of men ... but when NECESSITY warrants, you need to do interfere sometimes like Ann Coulter does and as does that marvelous Republican politician who supports are return to exclusive male suffrage even while running for political office in her great state

[Bolding mine]

I really do despair at the narrowmindedness of the last quote and hope that the first one is being (supposedly) ironic.

It would be nice if the US elected a female president but I can't see them doing it for a while yet. We have a female PM. H3ll a few elections back both major political parties were led by women. Hasn't done us much harm at all.

Edit: Rice ain't ugly.

 

[wit>trope]

Sorry nihil, I somehow missed your post.

Oh, that's the one I missed. I meant to cut that one one. However, you haven't addressed the other ones.

I think I addressed them (or most of them -- I'm not recalling all of them) in my other posts. It's not membership in some African tribe that is the problem, it is lack of aesthetic lustre that is the problem. And lack of aesthetic lustre is a univeral problem -- whites can suffer from that too (for instance the Elephant Man). Also conceivably it is possible for a white person to be a member of some African tribe -- I suppose for instance that a white woman could be adopted by an African tribe and in this way be incorporated into that tribes lineage and in the LINEAGE definition of race, be truly black or African (I am NOT a subscriber to the DNA definition of race -- I believe in race as CLAN, as TRIBE, PEOPLE, -- defined by lineage) ... in such a case as in the story Clan of the Cave Bear (which I have not read, only heard about) -- the woman while STILL being truly black in MY sense of the word, could still be very beautiful.

So in truth, those points (or the ones I vaguely remember) have naught to do with race as I define it, but only with the silly silly silly silly silly definition of race that relies on either physical attributes or DNA. The modern scientific definition of race as evolutionary or genetic lineage is CLOSER to my definition, but not quite the same since it does not allow for cultural adoption into a tribe. It also differs in many other respects (issue of subraces, belonging to multiple races and subraces and so on)

LMAO. Your justification is a forum quote? I can easily pull up some quotes that shows a lot more convincing than your quites that he is practically braindead.[q/uote]

It is NOT a "forum quote"; it is an ANSWER from a GOOGLE ANSWERS PROFESSIONAL -- you have to PAY a small FEE to get the answer. Yes, others can contribute to the thread but the OFFICIAL answer -- which I cite -- you have to actually PAY MONEY for.

Keyes, the person who ran on the message that his opponent is the antichrist?

He never said that. Media don't understand religion so they always miscontrue what religious people say. For instance, did you know that in Keyes' religion there is the concept of multiple antichrists as well as one Big Kahuna Antichrist? Media probably didn't realize this fact. This ignorance of the media coupled with their incompetence and lack of concern for the truth, makes them unreliable on these matters.

Do you support him because you support his "vision"?

He never AFAIK claimed to have had any supernatural vision.

Or, do you "support" him because he has absolutely no chance of being elected?

Your question is without substance here and is merely rhetorical so I will ignore it.

 

[wit>trope]

The several people who said that foreign elections of women as leader by her party are very different are absolutely right.

Even if the people knew what the party would do, that doesn't mean AT ALL that they had no qualms about it. For it could very well mean only that their qualms about the OTHER party were even GREATER than their qualms about a female leader!

Also in America, the CANDIDATE of a party is chosen popularly, by the people in "primaries" -- and only after these primaries are over do the two nominees and any third party nominees, duke it out.

So Americans get TWO chances to reject women candidates -- in the primaries and in the general election.

 

[nihilistic]

It is NOT a "forum quote"; it is an ANSWER from a GOOGLE ANSWERS PROFESSIONAL -- you have to PAY a small FEE to get the answer. Yes, others can contribute to the thread but the OFFICIAL answer -- which I cite -- you have to actually PAY MONEY for.

Is that all it takes to convince you? A buck?

He never said that. Media don't understand religion so they always miscontrue what religious people say. For instance, did you know that in Keyes' religion there is the concept of multiple antichrists as well as one Big Kahuna Antichrist? Media probably didn't realize this fact. This ignorance of the media coupled with their incompetence and lack of concern for the truth, makes them unreliable on these matters.

Fine, I'll quote him then. Are you saying that you support what he said here:

"From the point of view of the things I deeply believe in to be right and necessary, Barack Obama is wrong and taking the wicked and evil position on every single one of them.
"And I would simply say to voters of faith and conscience—the Roman Catholics, the black Christians, the evangelicals—I don't see how anyone in good conscience can cast a vote for Barack Obama."
"...On all the key issues of conscience, he stands for the position that has been identified by the Catholic Church as objectively evil...Catholics who vote for him make themselves part of that evil, just as the folks in Germany who voted for the party that eventually led to the Holocaust."

 

[wit>trope]

Fine, I'll quote him then. Are you saying that you support what he said here:

"From the point of view of the things I deeply believe in to be right and necessary, Barack Obama is wrong and taking the wicked and evil position on every single one of them.
"And I would simply say to voters of faith and conscience—the Roman Catholics, the black Christians, the evangelicals—I don't see how anyone in good conscience can cast a vote for Barack Obama."
"...On all the key issues of conscience, he stands for the position that has been identified by the Catholic Church as objectively evil...Catholics who vote for him make themselves part of that evil, just as the folks in Germany who voted for the party that eventually led to the Holocaust."

Let me observe some things

1 ABSOLUTELY NO WHERE in this quote is found ANY of the original allegations you made about "antichrist" and "vision" So you have conceded those original points

2 But still this quote raises OTHER issues -- which is fair enough

3 But before I comment, I need the WHOLE of what he said without ellipses -- so I can see what he said IN CONTEXT.

 

[ironduck]

Mentioning holocaust in the same sentence as a legit politician.. nice.

 

[MobBoss]

That's not true. (link goes to PDF)

By your wink I think you know what I meant. No woman has ever been the frontrunner of either the Republicans or the Democrats. Third party losers need not apply.