• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do We Need a First Lady?

Do We Need a First Lady?


  • Total voters
    31
Now, now. Lindsey is a spinster-man. Big difference. I don't know exactly what that difference is, but it's big.

Is spinster like a slur for gay men that I haven't heard of?
 
Is spinster like a slur for gay men that I haven't heard of?

I doubt it. I think that word passed out of common usage in the US a very long time ago. It is still used in Great Britain for elderly women who never married, and mostly employed as a descriptive legal term.
 
I don't think it's a need at all.

I do think it's interesting that no ones making a fuss over the matter that the first gay presidential candidate to run and has a chance of winning is a republican.


When do you think the NY Times will come out reporting on that?
 
It's a scenic, rural county. If you don't have to be someplace in a hurry, it's a good place to live, like much of SW Virginia.

Not the kind of place where moonshiners will jump out of the woods and sodomize you at gunpoint?
 
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure Linsey Graham is dating John McCain. They're seen everywhere together, finish each other's sentences, etc. I'm sure TMZ has some film they're anxious to air when the time is right. And don't forget, John McCain is dying to get into the White House, so it's a good fit.
 

I believe it's in the Constitution that if the President is a bachelor, a First Lady will be assigned to him by a 2/3 majority of congress.
 
When do you think the NY Times will come out reporting on that?

I don't know, I'm surprised you don't see it anywhere honestly. I guess it's cause he's not a front runner.
 
I doubt it. I think that word passed out of common usage in the US a very long time ago. It is still used in Great Britain for elderly women who never married, and mostly employed as a descriptive legal term.

Oh, I thought spinster meant like an old crazy scientist.
 

Heya CJ. :2wave: Maybe they will come up with a new term like the FSO. First Significant Other. :2razz:
 
I don't know, I'm surprised you don't see it anywhere honestly. I guess it's cause he's not a front runner.

One can assume is that what you mean?.....If he is, he isn't open about it. If he was hiding it.....the MS media would bring all that out, don't you think?

He did come out and say Jenner would be welcome in his party.
 
I believe it's in the Constitution that if the President is a bachelor, a First Lady will be assigned to him by a 2/3 majority of congress.



I would go with an EO, and choose a Hollywood actress. :lol:
 
Oh, I thought spinster meant like an old crazy scientist.

No. I think it refers to an elderly woman who sits and spins yarn - a task relegated to those women without offspring or a husband back when families were an extended thing. They had no meals to fix and so on.
 
I believe it's in the Constitution that if the President is a bachelor, a First Lady will be assigned to him by a 2/3 majority of congress.

Greetings, Cardinal. :2wave:

:lamo: Odds that such a display of bipartisanship could ever occur are very miniscule; but on the plus side, think of the entertainment value as various candidates are brought forward for consideration. Of course this process would be televised, and polls taken on each candidate, since the MSM would feel that the public had a right to know about their First Lady. opcorn2: Considering that both sides of the aisle would probably have sisters or cousins in mind, we have to think of the resulting lawsuits claiming discrimination by the rest of the female population. The President's term would be over before the preliminary duties for the job were even hammered out - judging by recent congresses - so we would probably have to settle for a robot just to keep everyone happy. :shrug: .. :lol:
 
Last edited:

Maybe we just need a first partner.
 
No. More relevant now, though, is the possibility of Bill Clinton as the "First Gentleman." WTF would he do in THAT role?

Bill Clinton certainly didn't need a first lady.
 
Nope. We don't elect the wife (or husband) of the President, they just come along with the deal if they're married. We don't need First Kids or First Pets either, even though they might also be part of the package. I just wish these people would go do something else for four years, I don't need them, nor want them, to be politically active. They were not elected.
 
Nope. There is no need.
Is it nice to have a wife/husband while in the White House? I guess. I can see political advantages. :shrug:
 
No. More relevant now, though, is the possibility of Bill Clinton as the "First Gentleman." WTF would he do in THAT role?

Give public speaking appearances at millions of dollars a pop making them even more filthy rich?
 
I wonder how feasible it would be for a President's wife to NOT do the First Lady gig. Let's say the wife a new POTUS is a surgeon or a college professor or something and she says, "**** all that pomp and circumstance. I worked my ass off to get to this point in my career. I'm not going to quit just to play a part."

I wonder how feasible it would be for her to do that. Would the Secret Service Protection just make it impossible?
 
I don't think it's so much about needing anything as it is about recognizing the contribution of a spouse to one's success personally and otherwise and tapping into the spouse's demonstrated talent.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…