• 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!

Obama Chooses First Woman Secret Service Director: Officials.....

MMC

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
56,981
Reaction score
27,029
Location
Chicago Illinois
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama has chosen veteran secret service agent Julia Pierson as Secret Service director, the first woman to head the agency that protects the president, two officials told Reuters.



Pierson has been chief of staff at the agency.



Obama chooses first woman Secret Service director: officials


Obama has appointed the First Woman Secret Service Director. Thoughts?
 
Pierson, 53, began her career in the Secret Service as an agent in Miami three decades ago. She serves as the service’s chief of staff.

She does not need Senate confirmation for the post, which White House officials said would be announced Tuesday afternoon.

Obama selected Pierson, in part, to bring a culture change to an agency whose masculine culture was exposed during an overseas trip last year.

Obama to name Julia Pierson as new Secret Service director - The Washington Post

So, Obama's Answer was to change up the agency's masculine culture all due to a few bad apples in the barrel. This was his concern over Secret Service, a masculinity problem?
 
And what if she's too busy dealing with her menstrual issues to protect the president? He's taken his life into his own hands.
 
Having never heard of her I can't speak to her qualifications in any meaningful way and I suspect that's the case for every poster here. The fact that she is the first female in this position is slightly noteworthy I suppose but I hardly think her gender has any relevance to her job.
 
She's not who I would have picked, but he gets to choose the people, not me.
 

Par for the course for the Obama Presidency. :roll:
 
Well as the director I doubt she is going to standing post at the East Gate but I could be wrong.
 
Anybody remember Lorena Bobbitt?

Pierson knows how to Bobbit.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
And what if she's too busy dealing with her menstrual issues to protect the president? He's taken his life into his own hands.
Click to expand...

I hope you're joking.
 
Tigger said:
She's not who I would have picked, but he gets to choose the people, not me.
Click to expand...

You've never heard of this person before so why on earth would you decide that?
 
RabidAlpaca said:
And what if she's too busy dealing with her menstrual issues to protect the president? He's taken his life into his own hands.
Click to expand...

Is that humor?
 
Deuce said:
Are you implying that putting a woman in that position is somehow bad?
Click to expand...

Not in and of itself. I simply wouldn't be surprised if it turned out that, given the Obama Administration's record on such matters, they only appointed this particular individual because they happened to be a woman in the first place and they thought it'd be good press.

The Obama presidency has emphasized nothing but style over substance from the very beginning.
 

It didn't even occur to you to learn anything about the woman before making that judgement?

Given the history of conservatives, perhaps I should just "not be surprised" that the motivation for this is pure sexism?
 
Deuce said:
It didn't even occur to you to learn anything about the woman before making that judgement?
Click to expand...

I wasn't aware that I had made any judgement. I simply stated that such a move would be in character for the current administration. :shrug:

They've already made it clear that shoehorning women into certain positions for its own sake is a priority on their agenda. Just look at the what they've done with the military.
 
Gathomas88 said:
I wasn't aware that I had made any judgement. I simply stated that such a move would be in character for the current administration. :shrug:
Click to expand...

It would be in character for a conservative to believe this out of sexism. Right? I should just conclude that without bothering to know anything about you, eh?
 
The best person for the position is someone who will ensure the President's safety is paramount and never compromised. Male or female, it matters not to me.
 
Deuce said:
It would be in character for a conservative to believe this out of sexism. Right? I should just conclude that without bothering to know anything about you, eh?
Click to expand...

Or the current administration's track record. :roll:

Again, just look at the lifting of restrictions on combat roles for women in the military. Pretty much anyone who knows the first thing about combat or how the military operates knows that it's a bad idea, but they're forcing it through for purely political reasons anyway.
 

Bull****.
 
Serenity said:
The best person for the position is someone who will ensure the President's safety is paramount and never compromised. Male or female, it matters not to me.
Click to expand...

She might be perfectly qualified for all I know. I just think it's awfully convenient how many "first female blank" positions the Obama Administration has appointed in it's time in office.

In any case, it's not like she can't be a political pick and good at her job at the same time.
 
Last edited:
Gathomas88 said:
I am speechless in the face of your crushingly logical counter argument. :roll:
Click to expand...

As opposed to the mountain of empirical evidence you provided for your personal opinion?

Both our statements came with the same amount of logical support. Mine was just more succinct.
 
Deuce said:
As opposed to the mountain of empirical evidence you provided for your personal opinion?

Both our statements came with the same amount of logical support. Mine was just more succinct.
Click to expand...

I have served with a lot of women in the armed forces. I can honestly say that I've known only two or three who would be qualified to even keep up with the average male soldier in front line combat, let alone surpass them.

They can carry less equipment, are more prone to injury, tend to needlessly complicate matters from a psychological and morale standpoint, and they would likely be faced with mistreatment above and beyond that which a male soldier would experience if they were ever unfortunate enough to be captured.

Why on Earth would it be a good idea to put them on front lines?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…