The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux) - Page 260

sleepyjeff · 10-03-2007, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BarTopDancer

Just hope that whoever that is doesn't destroy the country any more than it already is.

This countries stength lies with those who don't look to Washington for the answers

wendybeth · 10-03-2007, 05:12 PM

I agree with BTD, but I would change the wording from 'not ready' to 'not willing'- I find it absurd that a country that claims to promote civil and gender rights is so damned reluctant to actually vote for anyone but a white, upper class male to the Presidency. I mean- just look at India, Pakistan, Britain and all the other countries that have had a female PM or President. Sure, you run the risk of the occasional Thatcher, but not every woman is perfect.

scaeagles · 10-03-2007, 05:33 PM

I would vote for Condoleeza Rice for President. If I thought about it I could name any number of minorities or women I would vote for.

I (and I suspect there are more like me than you would believe, but probably less than I think) base my vote on the policies of the candidate or the lesser of two evils. Hillary and Obama scare me (and Obama more so than Hillary, believe it or not) because of what they would do in office. I would vote for any Republican rather than either of them regardless of who the Republican is.

Do you (anyone being you) think Hillary wouldn't get votes because she's a woman or that she wouldn't get votes because of her history and policies? I have no doubt it is because of her history and policies.

wendybeth · 10-03-2007, 06:30 PM

I've no doubt it's both, Scaeagles. I think it's a safe bet that her politics plays into most people's decisions, but you're kidding yourself if you think there aren't a whole lot of people that would vote against her simply because of her gender.

scaeagles · 10-03-2007, 07:23 PM

I agree with it, but what I don't want to have happen - however, I guarantee it will happen - is that if she loses in a general it will be deemed as a defeat for women and declare that we are a society of neanderthals because obviously, no matter how brilliant she is, we just weren't ready because of our backwards thinking.

If she is in the general and she is defeated, it won't be because she is a woman. I dare say many women may vote for her just because she is a woman. Her defeat will be because of her policies and history, and it will be sickening (should it happen) to listen to the spin about how it wasn't that.

Motorboat Cruiser · 10-03-2007, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I would vote for Condoleeza Rice for President.

Luckily, nobody else would.

JWBear · 10-03-2007, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

...but more importantly I happen to think that Obama would be a better President.

As do I.

But I still prefer Richardson over either of them.

sleepyjeff · 10-03-2007, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JWBear

But I still prefer Richardson over either of them.

Me too....

JWBear · 10-03-2007, 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sleepyjeff

Me too....

Great. The universe should be imploding any second now.

sleepyjeff · 10-03-2007, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JWBear

Great. The universe should be imploding any second now.

Sleepyjeff on March 3rd, 2005(first mention of Richardson as a Presidential possibility on the LOT)

10-03-2007, 05:12 PM	#2592
wendybeth Nevermind Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,847	I agree with BTD, but I would change the wording from 'not ready' to 'not willing'- I find it absurd that a country that claims to promote civil and gender rights is so damned reluctant to actually vote for anyone but a white, upper class male to the Presidency. I mean- just look at India, Pakistan, Britain and all the other countries that have had a female PM or President. Sure, you run the risk of the occasional Thatcher, but not every woman is perfect. __________________
	Submit to Quotes

10-03-2007, 05:33 PM	#2593
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	I would vote for Condoleeza Rice for President. If I thought about it I could name any number of minorities or women I would vote for. I (and I suspect there are more like me than you would believe, but probably less than I think) base my vote on the policies of the candidate or the lesser of two evils. Hillary and Obama scare me (and Obama more so than Hillary, believe it or not) because of what they would do in office. I would vote for any Republican rather than either of them regardless of who the Republican is. Do you (anyone being you) think Hillary wouldn't get votes because she's a woman or that she wouldn't get votes because of her history and policies? I have no doubt it is because of her history and policies.
	Submit to Quotes

10-03-2007, 06:30 PM	#2594
wendybeth Nevermind Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,847	I've no doubt it's both, Scaeagles. I think it's a safe bet that her politics plays into most people's decisions, but you're kidding yourself if you think there aren't a whole lot of people that would vote against her simply because of her gender. __________________
	Submit to Quotes

10-03-2007, 07:23 PM	#2595
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	I agree with it, but what I don't want to have happen - however, I guarantee it will happen - is that if she loses in a general it will be deemed as a defeat for women and declare that we are a society of neanderthals because obviously, no matter how brilliant she is, we just weren't ready because of our backwards thinking. If she is in the general and she is defeated, it won't be because she is a woman. I dare say many women may vote for her just because she is a woman. Her defeat will be because of her policies and history, and it will be sickening (should it happen) to listen to the spin about how it wasn't that.
	Submit to Quotes