The first woman President

Teflon Don

Teflon Don

I'm back baby
So the left seems to making the calculus that Hillary is a lock not only for their own nomination but the Presidency as well.

We are asked to forget that after two terms the country is usually tired of the incumbent party. We are also asked to forget that the lefties cast Hillary aside in 2008. I heard something interesting today and that was that people would want to vote for the "First Woman President". But is that true?

I mean they voted for the first negro President and that didn't work out so great. Maybe the American people will be tired of firsts for a while?
 
or maybe there will be enough low information voters that don't care about the deaths of americans in benghazi, saying 'what difference does it make'
 
or maybe there will be enough voters without penises who are tired of voting for presidents WITH penises and seeing them mess everything up.
 
voting for someone not encumbered by periodic testosterone storms seems to be not all that bad of a reason......

I doubt a woman would have taunted the Iraqi insurgents with "bring em on" while our troops were in harm's way, for example.
 
I don't think she is a lock, but she is the only thing going right now. She is way ahead of any other possibility for the nomination. If she makes a serious stumble in the coming year, there are plenty of people waiting in the wings, but only if there is an opening... Otherwise all we are going to get is vanity candidates, people who know they don't have a chance, but like the attention.

As far as a lock on the Presidency, I don't think much can be known about that until we are closer to the election. The issues have not even really been established yet, the national mood is in flux and we have no idea who the Republican candidate is likely to be. The odds are in Hillary's favor, but that's like being ranked number one in the pre-season college football polls.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
voting for someone based upon their genitals is excellent reasoning........:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Voting for someone based on anything other than their unique qualifications for the office they are running for, is bad reasoning.

If anyone votes for Hillary because she is a woman they are morons. Anyone who voted for Obama because he was black were morons.

The fact of the matter however is that Hillary will be promoted as both qualified and as a woman. So the question is; are her qualifications adequate. Let's stick to her record and her rhetoric. But at the end of the day, if she gets the DNC nod, the majority of registered democrats will vote for her, and female democrats especially.
 
maineman said:
voting for someone not encumbered by periodic testosterone storms seems to be not all that bad of a reason......

I doubt a woman would have taunted the Iraqi insurgents with "bring em on" while our troops were in harm's way, for example.
Click to expand...


"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
 
maineman said:
voting for someone not encumbered by periodic testosterone storms seems to be not all that bad of a reason......

I doubt a woman would have taunted the Iraqi insurgents with "bring em on" while our troops were in harm's way, for example.
Click to expand...

Its rare but I have to take issue with your statement. There are women who would have taunted the Iraqi insurgents with "bring em on" even more than GWB did. I doubt Hillary would, and I doubt a majority of women would, but we need to avoid acting as if all people fall in to the norm of their gender, race, nationality, etc.
 
XLVIII DOMINATORS said:
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
Click to expand...

She was on the wrong side of this issue, but that is NOT anywhere close to being insane enough to say "Bring em on" when talking about a group attacking and severely injuring our troops.
 
Jarod said:
She was on the wrong side of this issue, but that is NOT anywhere close to being insane enough to say "Bring em on" when talking about a group attacking and severely injuring our troops.
Click to expand...

No, she simply dismisses loss of American life with "what difference does it make".
 
When you come down to it, Mrs Clinton (whom I dislike as a rabid Zionist) could easily wipe out any nutter the weirdoes put up. Nutters should live in nuthouses and not waste everyone else's time.
 
July 3, 2003
Bush warns militants who attack U.S. troops in Iraq

"Anybody who wants to harm American troops will be found and brought to justice," Bush said. "There are some that feel like if they attack us that we may decide to leave prematurely. They don't understand what they are talking about if that is the case. Let me finish. There are some who feel like the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is, bring 'em on."

AVI movie of comment (1.3MB)
 
Jarod said:
She was on the wrong side of this issue, but that is NOT anywhere close to being insane enough to say "Bring em on" when talking about a group attacking and severely injuring our troops.
Click to expand...

wouldn't that be in line with the gun control lobby saying that the 2nd Amendment is moot because it would be impossible for a scraggly bunch of gun nuts to take on the worlds best military?
 
maineman said:
voting for someone not encumbered by periodic testosterone storms seems to be not all that bad of a reason......

I doubt a woman would have taunted the Iraqi insurgents with "bring em on" while our troops were in harm's way, for example.
Click to expand...

LMAO@ taunting terrorists and claiming they are Iraqi "insurgents". You really are a moron. No wonder you're a low information Democrat.
 
"The reason it makes a difference, Hillary Clinton, is because this administration lied to the American people. Her voice was one of those voices that lied to the American people."

"The reason it makes a difference is because Americans were killed and you were a part of the cover-up"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top