Here's a radical idea. Maybe the worth of presidential candidates should be determined by their prowess in politics and their capability to get the job done, rather than their gender or the colour of their skin?
A woman running for president needs balls of steel to deal with the way she is scrutinized. I recall female candidates dropping out before ever getting to the nomination. For all her faults, Hillary has bigger balls than any of the male politicians. Just for her gall, I admire her.
Men are largely ego driven. Look there have been Women leaders in Israel, England, India, Canada, Pakistan, the Philippines just not yet in the USA so what is the big deal here. Remove the gender from the equation and just look at the MERIT here in the decision - who will make the better leader, who has a plan or an idea of how to govern and who can actually deliver? When was the LAST time a sitting president and a former president actively campaigned for a candidate for the presidency? These are not foolish people and this is a serious undertaking. I have been to Mara Lago - he set the place up to own it himself and to have other people pay for his cost to do so, same thing with his condo on top of Trump tower.... How much do you think he paid for that unit and how much do you think his bills are for maintenance or taxes on his own apartment? Donald got rich having others pay for his bills... - my observation of Mr. Trump is that he is a consulate salesman but there is a whole lot more to being president than being a salesman. Mrs. Clinton is correctly described by Obama as perhaps the most qualified person to EVER have becoming POTUS. There is a reason Trump has not released his tax returns - he does not want to do so and he won't do so. When Romney exposed his returns it showed him to be an elitist - Trump is in a whole lot larger league than Romney is financially but the funny line came from Warren Buffet who suggested that they both publicize their tax returns and Buffets returns are a whole lot larger than Trumps. Trump works hard to pay a lot less rate of tax than anyone else does - he just does not want you to know about it. He can claim his income is huge to the public but can cry poor to the IRS - and without the returns no one will ever know what the real deal is. Trump does not want you to know what the real deal is.
Yes Mrs. Clinton will be president - and she will do a good job of it. Bill Clinton was the last man to run a surplus and he sure knows how to assemble a team to manage the economy properly. That much is a proven commodity. Hillary is well regarded the world over and the USA has some serious business to do and needs serious people to conduct that business.
pdq sailor, manage, run, who gives a rat's ass. You failed at deflection. Your lack of comprehension of how American government works is still obvious. I don't care to talk to you but I will correct lies and inaccuracies wherever I see them. Btw, I do have a degree and I have 12 hours of economics under my belt but that is irrelevant, retard, because I understood how my own government works at age 12. Too bad you are still so far behind.
That is not even close to my feelings. I don't want to elect a woman just because she is woman. It is too important of a decision to base on gender only. Both Candidates stink, in my opinion.
SW-User
Croatia has a woman president, can't say it's so special. Like one user wrote.
[quote]Here's a radical idea. Maybe the worth of presidential candidates should be determined by their prowess in politics and their capability to get the job done, rather than their gender or the colour of their skin?[/quote]
But yea, you really don't seem like you have much choice.
Then again, every country has the government it deserves.
I think your premise is flawed. By this logic women should vote for anyone who happens to be of their own gender? Really? How about electing a woman who is actually for women and did not get the nomination through what amounts to election rigging. Honestly as history looks back that would probably set back women even further. Look at Canada where I am from. Kim Campbell was the first woman PM and was a complete disaster and no woman has even come even remotely close again in twenty years and is held up as an example of "what happens when you put a woman in charge" by the haters.
SW-User
I really really don't like Trump, but I also think it's stupid to vote for Clinton simply because she's a woman
Look into everything hillary has been involved with. She belongs in a jail cell for so many treasonous scandals. The biggest being where her and the president watched and let American soldiers die instead of sending the reinforcements that were a mile away ride to be deployed out. Also the 30,000 emails she's only going to break America even more.
SW-User
Hilary is no WOMAN! she has a bigger dick than trump
Yes, both candidates stink, but one stinks more and HE will not b getting my vote. I would no sooner vote for a woman because it would sure be nice than I'd vote for someone with good hair. I wouldn't nrmaly vote for trump either but since I have to vote for someone and it isn't going to be the flhying witch it will have to be trump.
PicturesOfABetterTomorrow - well thanks for admitting that she inherited an impossible situation ONE that NO one could have come out of on top of. She was left holding the bag and the fact that she was a Woman does not detract from her abilities in the least. Over the years since I have seen her appear many times on Real Time and she is both competent and intelligent and she did not hold back ANYONE - please don't generalize - from attaining political office. England now has its second Female prime minister and England's history is far longer than Canada's is. Fact is politics is often a very dirty business and most Women don't involve themselves in dirty things. Kim Campbell has held back exactly no one and I for one hold her in a lot higher esteem than you do. I am older than you are and I am far less chauvinistic. Women do not possess the egos that men have, their actions are not driven by their lower extremities instead of their intellects and they are far more cautious and careful than most men are who are often reckless risk takers - Women consider the consequences of their actions far more intensely. Hillary Clinton will make an excellent President - far better than Mr. Trump will and I have personal insights into Mr. Trump through my family and I suggest knowing what I do that he would not make a good president - far from it actually. Hillary has a lot of support network around her and she has her Husband who is an accomplished former president and Barak Obama the current president in her corner - and this is unprecedented in history to have this much talent available for the American people's benefit.
I am not American, therefore I don't want to intervene in this with my opinion. I just want to discuss your argument here.
Women fought to be free and for the equality of position, and benefit. But one important benefit of that fight was for them to realize and express their opinion on what is best for them and to fight for that best and not for what is already achieved.
Women have the freedom to analyze, to speak and fight for the best now, whether Mrs. Clinton, Or Mr. Trump. They fought because they needed "the right to fight for their opinion".
Keeping to be in a constant fight for what we have already achieved is not a good sign of benefiting from that achievement.
Your question doesn't make sense. You don't like her much but you would vote for her just because she's a woman? It's not such a big deal that she's a woman. A better question would be, Is she qualified to be president?
pdqsailor1-Seems you either do not know or left out the fact that that is only part of the story. Mulroney definitely left a mess but she had no clue what she was doing and in inquires proved she did not even know what was going on in her own department. She was given a hopeless situation but it was only made worse by her own apparent (real or perceive)incompetence and like it or not anyone who looks back on that disaster remembers the person holding the bag. And do you think it is a mere coincidence that a woman has not even been able to get to the leadership of one of the two major parties in 20 years nevermind PM? It sucks but alot of politics is as much perception as actual deeds. Whether she meant to or not, setup or not she set back women in politics at least 30 years I would say.
pdqsailor. No surprise you take what you like from my response and completely ignore what you don't like. Your claims Kim Campbell was competent and has not held anyone back are personal opinions backed by as near as I can tell nothing. I am not a chauvinist but I can tell you are arrogant and age does not always equal wisdom. Bringing up British politics is irrelevant and has no bearing on Canadian politics. Your claims of what motivates men and women are 1950s stereotypes. Women don't have egos? are you kidding me? As for who would make a better president I think both are total disasters. Whoever wins Trump or Clinton the whole world will lose.
The answer is she qualified to make America better? I garuntee you just like most that voted for Obama for his first term, won't ever vote again after voting in Hitlary. Most people who voted Obama in for his first term did it to make history. More than half regretted their decision to do that and said they would not be voting in the next election. Neither Obama nor Hitlary are qualified. That's why America is so fucked up right now with its government cuz the people voting them in are too stupid to think logically on what they are really voting for
SW-User
You said you may vote for her just because she's female, when you should be voting for what a candidate stands for
It's a shame that it has to be Hilary really that could be the first ever female president...I know i'm a white man but i do not think i could ever vote for someone based around their gender or their race, i think what Clinton has shown me is that being a woman really doesn't change anything about you politically, if she was just your typical old white politician then she'd be a dime a dozen.
PicturesofabetterTomorrow - Kim Cambell was not a disaster - Mulroney instituted the GST and was a guarantee to loose the election and he resigned just before it happened leaving Kim to hold the bag instead of facing the music. Interesting how your revisionist take on the matter TRUMPS the facts.
Not vote? I would never not vote. People have died so I could have a say in my own government. Not voting would be like voting for that lying, corrupt, incompetent woman, and that is incomprehensible and unforgivable.
