• 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!

Isn't it about time that a Lady should be President of the US?

Isn't it about time that a Lady should be President of the US?

  • yes

    Votes: 24 70.6%

  • no

    Votes: 9 26.5%

  • better: a non-binary person .....

    Votes: 1 2.9%
  • Total voters
    34
mrjurrs said:
Did you hold your independent candidate to the same vetting as you did the main two party's? If Beau Biden had not passed away Joe Biden would have been president in 2017. As far as equivalency, you have got to be kidding. djt is a life long grifter that has benefited from lawless actions his entire life.
Click to expand...
I never said that DJT and HRC's "disqualifications" were the same. They were disqualified for two completely different reasons, though they fall under the general banner of "things I don't like in a President." There is no equivalency in my mind -- Trump's disqualifications were far worse, but it still doesn't mean I supported Hillary. As far as third party, it was either that or not vote for President. Jill Stein also disqualified herself because of the publicity stunts she pulled in 2012 and again in 2016, leaving ... Ron Johnson until he screwed up by asking "What is Benghazi?" I voted for him as the least of four evils. If you think I should not have voted for president at all, I yield the floor to you.

As far as all the misadventures Hillary had with her emails, etc. - it is proof she is a bad campaigner, because if she was a good campaigner, she would have at least had a decent response. The Benghazi hearing, for example, WAS a competent response. I had no problems with her response to Benghazi when she went before the Congressional hearing, etc. But that was Hillary as a politico in her natural environment.

Meanwhile, consider just the general mishandling of things that came out, starting with apologizing to the American people "for all the confusion" the email caused, instead of taking responsibility. What Hillary failed to realize and Donald Trump did was that if you owned up to it, the media goes away. There's no story any more because the candidate has admitted it. There must have been hundreds of articles written about those damn emails.

Back to Donald Trump, I find the idea of campaigning to lock a candidate up as anti-Democratic as it comes. It is repugnant and morally reprehensible. That being said, if Hillary did something illegal (you could argue she violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act unwittingly -- but this is a story for another day/post), But you should not be arguing to "lock her up" as if you determined she did something illegal -- the American justice system is built on "innocent until proven guilty."

I had the same problem with Letticia (sp?) James, who said she had determined Trump had done something illegal before she was even elected as NY's attorney general and made it part of her platform.

To Biden, Trump said the only person he thought could beat him was Biden in 2016. It turns out he was absolutely correct. Trump may be an incompetent leader, but he is a competent campaigner.
 
What about a non-binary person .....

Politically correct perhaps the best might be a lesbian/gay non-binary Innuit/Eskimo with some trans-gender experience :)
 
Logician Man said:
Is there anything a male is allowed to do/become in the RCC that a female is not allowed to do/become?
Click to expand...
Men may become priests and bishops and popes etc.
Women may not.
Isn't this generally known?
 
Rumpel said:
Men may become priests and bishops and popes etc.
Women may not.
Isn't this generally known?
Click to expand...
Not being a Catholic myself, didn't want to "assume." But that does answer my question, and seems to be "unfair/discriminatory to women in the RCC."
 
Logician Man said:
... that does answer my question, and seems to be "unfair/discriminatory to women in the RCC."
Click to expand...
So it is.
I am a Catholic myself, and I find this discrimintion also unfair - and just plain stupid of the RCC.
 
PoliSciPulse said:
I never said that DJT and HRC's "disqualifications" were the same. They were disqualified for two completely different reasons, though they fall under the general banner of "things I don't like in a President." There is no equivalency in my mind -- Trump's disqualifications were far worse, but it still doesn't mean I supported Hillary. As far as third party, it was either that or not vote for President. Jill Stein also disqualified herself because of the publicity stunts she pulled in 2012 and again in 2016, leaving ... Ron Johnson until he screwed up by asking "What is Benghazi?" I voted for him as the least of four evils. If you think I should not have voted for president at all, I yield the floor to you.

As far as all the misadventures Hillary had with her emails, etc. - it is proof she is a bad campaigner, because if she was a good campaigner, she would have at least had a decent response. The Benghazi hearing, for example, WAS a competent response. I had no problems with her response to Benghazi when she went before the Congressional hearing, etc. But that was Hillary as a politico in her natural environment.

Meanwhile, consider just the general mishandling of things that came out, starting with apologizing to the American people "for all the confusion" the email caused, instead of taking responsibility. What Hillary failed to realize and Donald Trump did was that if you owned up to it, the media goes away. There's no story any more because the candidate has admitted it. There must have been hundreds of articles written about those damn emails.

Back to Donald Trump, I find the idea of campaigning to lock a candidate up as anti-Democratic as it comes. It is repugnant and morally reprehensible. That being said, if Hillary did something illegal (you could argue she violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act unwittingly -- but this is a story for another day/post), But you should not be arguing to "lock her up" as if you determined she did something illegal -- the American justice system is built on "innocent until proven guilty."

I had the same problem with Letticia (sp?) James, who said she had determined Trump had done something illegal before she was even elected as NY's attorney general and made it part of her platform.

To Biden, Trump said the only person he thought could beat him was Biden in 2016. It turns out he was absolutely correct. Trump may be an incompetent leader, but he is a competent campaigner.
Click to expand...
My understanding is that AG James had specific knowledge of 'individual #1' in the Cohen case. I wouldn't compliment his campaign skills, he won because he didn't overestimate the intelligence of the American electorate.
 
Rumpel said:
So it is.
I am a Catholic myself, and I find this discrimintion also unfair - and just plain stupid of the RCC.
Click to expand...
Last time I went to church was easily a decade ago. Do they still harp on the idea that women are somehow inferior or subservient to men? Had to do the Bible verses they selected or sermons by specific pastors. Did not seem to be an endemic thing though.
 
It should be up to the American citizens to decide whether a candidate is worth voting for.
 
PoliSciPulse said:
Last time I went to church was easily a decade ago. Do they still harp on the idea that women are somehow inferior or subservient to men?
Click to expand...
Depends what you mean by "they".
The vast majority of Catholics does not.

It is the mostly the stupid clergy that thinks so.
Probably they are so busy molesting young boys that they have no time to think or work for a reform.
It is a sad story.
 
Tlrmln said:
Sure. As soon as one runs who people want to elect.
Click to expand...

H Clinton won the popular vote, so what the people want doesn't necessarily matter.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Yes, that is it, it always was it.
She's an excellent policy wonk, she is true and sincere in her values, she's experienced and she's capable.
And on a personal level, few others are as repellent in terms of relating to voters and accessibility.
And she's arrogant to boot.
Click to expand...

Trump is also arrogant and repellent, just without the qualifications, experience, or competency of Clinton.
 
Aristaeus said:
Trump is also arrogant and repellent, just without the qualifications, experience, or competency of Clinton.
Click to expand...
That is putting it mildly ....
 
Phys251 said:
I have no idea who will be our nominee in 2024. I don't see Biden running again, and I think that we may see several candidates besides Harris.
Click to expand...



My nominee as candidate for the Democratic Party in 2024 is Kamala Harris. I say that as a Trumpista who loves her with all my heart. Whenever she cackles I stay awake awake at night. To me she is like a gorgon. When she smiles, more like sneers, I am petrified
 
Aristaeus said:
H Clinton won the popular vote, so what the people want doesn't necessarily matter.
Click to expand...

The popular vote is not what gets someone elected as president.
 
Juin said:
My nominee as candidate for the Democratic Party in 2024 is Kamala Harris. I say that as a Trumpista who loves her with all my heart. Whenever she cackles
Click to expand...

That description of a woman's laugh dates all the way back to the days of witch accusations. Try to be more original in your sexism. :)
 
jpevans said:
Dick Cheney shot his friend in the face & eh that's all I got...
Click to expand...
Nevertheless he actually has brains compared to Liz Warren.
 
Phys251 said:
That description of a woman's laugh dates all the way back to the days of witch accusations. Try to be more original in your sexism. :)
Click to expand...
Taking about Hyena Harris' laugh isn't sexism. FFS can you think in any other terms ever?
 
Rumpel said:
Isn't it about time that a Lady should be President of the US?
Click to expand...
Sure if she shares the same views I have.No if she does not share the same views I have. Voting for someone because their biology is absolutely retarded. If the first woman president was a conservative then lib-tards would stop caring about a woman being president.
 
I think some get me wrong here.
I did never say that a lady must be President just because she is a lady.

My message is this:
By the law of probability there should be a female President sooner or later, because it is not normal that there should only be male Presidents now and forever.
 
Rumpel said:
Isn't it about time that a Lady should be President of the US?
Click to expand...

Screw genders! It's time we had a president with a physical or mental handicap! Non-disabled people have been way too privileged and self-invested for way too long, so it's time they moved themselves to the back of the queue!
 
HK.227 said:
Screw genders! It's time we had a president with a physical or mental handicap! Non-disabled people have been way too privileged and self-invested for way too long, so it's time they moved themselves to the back of the queue!
Click to expand...
See my posting above your posting .....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom