|
|
Post by James on Dec 10, 2012 23:16:13 GMT -6
Right. We monopolized the office for more than two centuries.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by mostinterestingmanintheworld on Dec 10, 2012 23:22:11 GMT -6
So? Does that mean we have to even the score?
|
|
|
|
Post by James on Dec 10, 2012 23:26:52 GMT -6
It's just somebody else's turn, that's all. Didn't you learn about taking turns in grade school?
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by PamIsMe on Dec 11, 2012 0:39:51 GMT -6
In all but 9 states more than 50% of the population are women, and of those 9 states, Alaska is the lowest with only 48% women.
It's about time we had a women President. And, she would be the only candidate who WOULDN'T be a minority!
I don't think Hillary will run, the Dem's failed her the last time she did and I'd guess she's probably about had enough of political infighting to last her the rest of her life.
;D
Pam
|
|
|
|
Post by C1972 on Dec 11, 2012 0:48:34 GMT -6
Elizabeth Warren would be a great candidate.
|
|
|
|
Post by PamIsMe on Dec 11, 2012 1:08:52 GMT -6
How about a match between Elizabeth Warren and Condi Rice? Wouldn't that be something........
Cheers,
Pam
|
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Dec 11, 2012 6:48:59 GMT -6
yes, as CEOs, legislators etc, old white men are a rare breed
|
|
|
|
Post by Jarhead620 on Dec 11, 2012 7:53:17 GMT -6
Elizabeth Warren would be a great candidate. My fear is that you may actually be serious. Please assure me that you are joking. No way would I vote for that profile. No way would I vote for a black female neocon chickenhawk either. I'd have to stay home if those were the choices. Larry |
|
|
|
Post by mostinterestingmanintheworld on Dec 11, 2012 9:12:21 GMT -6
I think that saying that a woman should be president just because it's time is one of the most ludicrous things that I've ever heard.
Now if you've got something else that is relevant that's another thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by mtcbrlatrap on Dec 11, 2012 11:09:15 GMT -6
I think if Hilary chose to run she would be an extremely viable candidate and not because it is her turn or a women's turn. It is her choice and she may have other ventures that she wants to initiate. She may be able to change our society, culture and even economics more in other roles than even president. If our government remains as stalled out as it is the main way to make change in the society may be by influential persons be they blue or red. the anxiety part of that way to change a stalled out government is that change can occur and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights can be end run in those modes. That may be something these my way or the highway politicians need to think about and get to governing instead of politicking. The US does not want Political kings.
|
|
|
|
Post by FWS on Dec 11, 2012 12:09:47 GMT -6
That seems to be the current GOP line of thought with the names of potential candidates for 2016 being bandied about, Bobby Jindal, Susannah Martinez, Marco Rubio, Kelly Ayotte, Nikki Haley, Condi Rice.............
Hillary would indeed be a formidable candidate and your average Santorumite clone would get thumped even worse than Romney did.
|
|
|
|
Post by PamIsMe on Dec 11, 2012 12:58:58 GMT -6
Larry, I'm curious what your problem with Elizabeth Warren is?
Cheers,
Pam
|
|
|
|
Post by mostinterestingmanintheworld on Dec 11, 2012 13:10:29 GMT -6
So it's politically correct to be a racist and a sexist as long as you favor women and minorities?
That is what you are all saying except for Bryce.
|
|
|
|
Post by C1972 on Dec 11, 2012 13:22:33 GMT -6
Elizabeth Warren would be a great candidate. My fear is that you may actually be serious. Please assure me that you are joking. No way would I vote for that profile. No way would I vote for a black female neocon chickenhawk either. I'd have to stay home if those were the choices. Larry I'm totally serious Larry. She's a woman of great intelligence, character and class. No person is perfect. I could easily see her as Veep or Secretary of State then moving on to the Presidency. She'll be that qualified very soon. She'd have the cards stacked against her though due the status quo in Washington, just like Ms. Clinton will should she decide to run. Ask Ms. Ferraro...oh wait..she's six feet under. |
|
|
|
Post by Jarhead620 on Dec 11, 2012 14:16:37 GMT -6
Larry, I'm curious what your problem with Elizabeth Warren is? Cheers, Pam Well, I would try to get by the American Gothic appearance, LOL. Negative Aspects: She's a woman, LOL. Just kidding. No Executive experience, but Obama got by without that. No Military, National security, or foreign policy experience. A bit too far to the left, seems naive, lacks toughness. Phony Native American creds. That always annoys me. Typical liberal position on guns Positive Aspects: Working class origin Strong academic background Financial policy wonk Despised by Wall Street Pro choice Mixed Aspect: Strong on environmental protection Unrealistic opposition to fossil fuels I could go on but we have plenty of time before November, 2016. I predict that she will not be the nominee. Larry |
|
