President of all AMericans II

[SaggyWoman]

Your thoughts

 

[Sopranette]

Sadly, I think a lot of people will be voting for a woman, regardless of her policies. It helps that she's a Clinton, too. The Clintons can do no wrong in some people's eyes. Hey, I've met people who voted for the best looking candidate. It never ceases to amaze me. You know more people voted on "American Idol" than in the presidential election?

love,

Sopranette

 

[Palatka51]

Come on Saggy this line of questioning serves nothing but division. Both surveys regarding Clinton's gender and Obama's race are unwarranted. We need to debate their policies not their sex or color.

 

[KenH]

Come on Saggy this line of questioning serves nothing but division. Both surveys regarding Clinton's gender and Obama's race are unwarranted. We need to debate their policies not their sex or color.

Amen, brother.

 

[Bob Alkire]

Come on Saggy this line of questioning serves nothing but division. Both surveys regarding Clinton's gender and Obama's race are unwarranted. We need to debate their policies not their sex or color.

Amen, brother.

I have to agree! Ken and I are far apart on agreement on most political views and many theological views but I agree 100% with the two of you on this.

 

[carpro]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Palatka51
Come on Saggy this line of questioning serves nothing but division. Both surveys regarding Clinton's gender and Obama's race are unwarranted. We need to debate their policies not their sex or color.



Quote:
Originally Posted by KenH
Amen, brother.

I have to agree! Ken and I are far apart on agreement on most political views and many theological views but I agree 100% with the two of you on this.

As in Romney's mormonism?

If one is afraid to talk about the issues that may affect the thinking or actions of a presidential candidate, why does one participate in a "politics" forum at all?

Ignoring the candidates gender, race, or religious background and their effects on policy gives us a picture characterized by the well known ostrich with his head in the ground.

 

[KenH]

Ignoring the candidates gender, race, or religious background and their effects on policy gives us a picture characterized by the well known ostrich with his head in the ground.

Do you apply the same standard to those candidates of the white race and to those candidates of the male gender and consider how those attributes affect their policies?

 

[carpro]

Do you apply the same standard to those candidates of the white race and to those candidates of the male gender and consider how those attributes affect their policies?

It's all part of the equation.

 

[SaggyWoman]

Come on Saggy this line of questioning serves nothing but division. Both surveys regarding Clinton's gender and Obama's race are unwarranted. We need to debate their policies not their sex or color.

I agree, so someone sees my point. Race and gender should not be a player, but it often is.

 

[just-want-peace]

I agree, so someone sees my point. Race and gender should not be a player, but it often is.

Welcome to a fallen world!!

Agreed that it should not be the main point, but in all honesty does anyone here truly believe that Clinton's feminism would not play some role in her decisions?
Likewise Obama's race?
Likewise Romney's mormonism?

I guess what I'm asking is, if you (any one of you posters) were to get the job, do you honestly believe that you could make each and every decision totally without any personal built in bias?

If you answer "YES" to that question, then here & now I'm calling you a liar, cause everyone of us are human and have these fallacies.

Therefore, anything that may influence the POTUS' decisions are subject to discussion as to how much it (religion, sex, race, etc etc) will play in his/her administration.

When Jesus starts His reign down here, we can then be confident that there will be no, NO, NO, built in prejudices in the application & processes of government.

Till then------

 

[carpro]

I agree, so someone sees my point. Race and gender should not be a player, but it often is.

Especially this time.

 

[Alcott]

You bet it's a factor. And this will be as plain as the ears on the jackass when the Democrats have their convention. If you remember '84, you probably remember how men delegates and other gave up their front area seats to women for the acceptance speech of Geraldine Fararro, who went crazy-- even for a political convention, even for left-wing radicals-- just at her appearance, and then at every statement she made. It will be the same thing for both Rodham (who started calling herself "Mrs. Clinton" entirely for political reasons) and Obama this year. But this has turned into such an unexpected tight race, that there may be hard feelings, and the floor demonstrations will be so loud and so boisterous, that it may disrupt the convention, and there will be boos and hisses for each as well, and maybe a walkout among many before it's over. One reason for the Republican's 28-12 year advantage in possession of the White House since the 60's is because they traditionally fight each other more tamely, and leave their sharper weapons for the Democrats, who have used much of theirs on each other. '76 was an exception, with the Ford v. Reagan fight, and that's one they lost, but still made it close, considering the affects of Watergate. But a party seldom has an all-the-way 2-person race for the nomination and still wins.

But also, think of how race will be a factor if Obama does indeed win the office. If any of his recommendations to Congress are not passed, will there be charges of "racism" no matter what recommedations are? Without question. How many times has a similar situation happend when a city, usually a large one, elects its first black mayor? And suppose he is assassinated while in office... do you think there won't follow the most widespread race riots since the King assassination?

But for whether race matters more than issues in too many voters' minds... it hasn't been that many years since Clarence Thomas was appointed to the Supreme Court, and then came the Anita Hill stuff and all. But polls indicated black Americans approved of his nomination even though a greater majority opposed the judicial stances for which he was known. That's how much race has to do with politics.

 

[Tom Bryant]

If it had been there, I would have checked "liberal"

 

[billwald]

If elected, Mrs Clinton will still be the Wicked Witch of the West.

 

[EdSutton]

If elected, Mrs Clinton will still be the Wicked Witch of the West.

Don't you really mean "the Wicked Witch of the West Wing"? :laugh: :laugh:

Or would that be "the Left Wing"?

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Now in a serious vein, I have the same question I asked in the other similar thread. And I quote:

"Moderators, why do we have such a poll still up here?? While the poll is not 'racist' per se, it certainly has, by its implications, the ability to evoke such a response!"

Ed

 

[LeBuick]

Now in a serious vein, I have the same question I asked in the other similar thread. And I quote:

"Moderators, why do we have such a poll still up here?? While the poll is not 'racist' per se, it certainly has, by its implications, the ability to evoke such a response!"

Ed

Could it be because a Moderator started the thread... :tonofbricks:

 

[Justlittleoldme]

Poll Options
If President, Would Hillary be American or white or female?

Since when did being elected President change your nationality, race or gender???? Won´t she still be all three?