Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is very obvious, IMO, that the ideal candidate in 2016 will be female, black or mixed race (but definitely dark skinned), with a PhD From one of the really BIG schools.
A Doctor of Laws would be a help, of course.
Homosexual may or may not be a plus.
Marital status, I think, will be irrelevant.
Of course, a squeaky clean resume will be a necessity when the media starts in on her past.
Is there ANYBODY who qualifies?
Actually, IMO, the job is now a killer, and there is nobody, male or female, white, mixed, yellow, red, or black, who is TRULY qualified for it. In fact, I have to question the intelligence of anybody who says they want the job!
Since when is race or sex most important for the Presidency?
Ever since that's all the left has to run on. They certainly didn't run on accomplishments the last 2 elections and doesn't look like they will for the next one either.
It seems to me that the main reason your focused on either sex or race is because you lost or are loosing?
I mean Americans voted for Obama twice. . .and that was in spite of his race. Though its a historical achievement.
I doubt that Hillary's gender is as much of a hindrance as Obama's race. . .but it is more of a hindrance than a help
I think the reason you say differently. .is because you watch some tv station that harps on such things. Being the first XYZ president means a tougher battle, not an easier one.
but it will get press
but - second bottom line - even if a majority of people said "I want a woman president" guess what, its their vote, their choice.
The idea that you need any type of real qualifications for a non-power job like President is idiotic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bentlebee
I'm getting sick of "isn't it time for a woman to be the President" or a person from a certain race or religion!
Since when isn't it about the BEST QUALIFIED PERSON FOR THE JOB!
Since when is race or sex most important for the Presidency?
Ever since that's all the left has to run on. They certainly didn't run on accomplishments the last 2 elections and doesn't look like they will for the next one either.
seriously the last two elections? And the "right" 2 before that were awesome. . (i use that term loosely WTF is the right anymore. Small government unless we want a bigger military, tell you where to put your dick, and what to smoke)
I mean so far as a very independent person. . I would say that Obama has done significantly better with better achievements than Bush. Bush achievements, destabilize the already destablized middle east. . .and watch us go into recession. Whoo hoo!
I see, so creating equal opportunity for all trumps qualifications, values and experience?
Interesting that that is what equal opportunity means to you.
You would prefer to exclude some based solely on their race or gender, I suppose.
Because that's basically what's happened for most of this country's history and what I always suspect people mean when they proclaim that they want to take "their" country back.
Fascinating that for some it has to be an either/or venture.
Why does creating opportunity for all immediately mean that qualifications, etc. would be dismissed?
Is it because you believe that those that have been historically marginalized do not have those qualifications?
Or that their inclusion must be immediately suspect as not being deserved, earned and so on?
Do you believe that Dr. Ben Carson earned his position as a surgeon?
Do you believe that giving him the opportunity to do so makes his accomplishments somehow less?
Seriously, WTH is wrong with giving EVERYONE the opportunity to prove his or herself?
I suspect that many believe that being a Christian is a requirement for a president.
How is gender/race any different?
Interesting that that is what equal opportunity means to you.
You would prefer to exclude some based solely on their race or gender, I suppose.
Because that's basically what's happened for most of this country's history and what I always suspect people mean when they proclaim that they want to take "their" country back.
Fascinating that for some it has to be an either/or venture.
Why does creating opportunity for all immediately mean that qualifications, etc. would be dismissed?
Is it because you believe that those that have been historically marginalized do not have those qualifications?
Or that their inclusion must be immediately suspect as not being deserved, earned and so on?
Do you believe that Dr. Ben Carson earned his position as a surgeon?
Do you believe that giving him the opportunity to do so makes his accomplishments somehow less?
Seriously, WTH is wrong with giving EVERYONE the opportunity to prove his or herself?
I suspect that many believe that being a Christian is a requirement for a president.
How is gender/race any different?
The highest office in the land, the position of President, is not the place to "prove" oneself.
We see what the President has done with his opportunity, given that opportunity twice, no less.
And THIS is why they feel free to spend YOUR money.
Quote:
A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
