Yeah, Hilary would be smart enough for the job,,,but I still have a problem with her being honest! Is anyone in politics honest? I thought Bill Clinton was a great speaker. ONE of our best. Bush has got to be the worst.
2006-08-23 04:40:15 · 36 answers · asked by sonny 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
SASSI..... you must be a strong republican. you remind me of my father-in-law. Did you like Nixon?
2006-08-23 04:57:30 · update #1
Women presidents have the world's worst track record for peace. Golda Meir (Israel), Margaret Thatcher (Falklands war) Benazir Bhutto (Pakistan) - wars were started or never stopped when they were in power, so my answer is no. Even if a monkey were president, the US would still go to war.
2006-08-23 04:43:29 · answer #1 · answered by Ya-sai 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Generally speaking the longer you are in politics the more dishonest you become, it is a hazard of the job. The USA is a republic but career politicians have fought hard over the last 20 years to turn it into a democracy. Just look at the quotes, the ones who speak of democracy all the time are the career politicians.
You have career politicians running the government, not citizen legislators. Many accuse the career corporate CEO of only working for themselves, not the stockholders. Career politicians are NO different and they seem to think they are above the law and expect preferential treatment. If the only issue to remaining in power is to obtain cash, buy some votes with special interests and have the media spotlight, then the incumbent has it easy, all at your expense.
In the Senate there are:
44 Dems averaging 20.8 years in Congress
55 Reps averaging 16.1 years in Congress
these numbers begin to make it look like career politicians are in control, who have lost touch with you the citizen and are more entrenched in their own careers.
For the Senate, if you were to use two terms or 12 years in Congress as a term limit
25 Dems would need to leave and 25 Reps would need to leave.
Those Dems are averaging 27.1 years in Congress
Those Reps averaging 24.0 years.
Ben Franklin said of congress, "They are of the People, and return again to mix with the People, having no more durable preeminence than the different Grains of Sand in an Hourglass. Such an Assembly cannot easily become dangerous to Liberty. They are the Servants of the People, sent together to do the People's Business, and promote the public Welfare; their Powers must be sufficient, or their Duties cannot be performed. They have no profitable Appointments, but a mere Payment of daily Wages, such as are scarcely equivalent to their Expences; so that, having no Chance for great Places, and enormous Salaries or Pensions, as in some Countries, there is no triguing or bribing for Elections"
2006-08-23 04:50:04 · answer #2 · answered by rmagedon 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why do so many people buy into the myth that women are any less belligerent and violent than men?
You are right, though, about Hillary's lack of honesty. Plus she has a trail of corruption that has followed her from Arkansas.
As for public speaker, yes, Clinton was good, and Bush is pretty bad, but I don't judge presidents based on how they look and sound on TV. Words can never replace actions, however elegantly phrased.
And speaking ability is not a function of intelligence - there is no correlation. I sometimes think Bush's problem is that he is still trying to speak like he thinks a President should, instead of speaking like GW Bush. It seems like he's working on an oratory assignment, and fumbles trying to recite the speech.
2006-08-23 05:08:22 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, to answer the first question...a lot of the Middle East doesn't respect women in the same way other countries might.
She may actually have more trouble with some countries, & less with others. Bill Clinton was a good president, we had an excellent ecomomy, & he wasn't pandering to the upper class. But, he was a snake...
My jury is still out on Hillary.
Yes, Bush has been & will eventually be found out to be one of our worst presidents.
2006-08-23 04:45:57 · answer #4 · answered by fairly smart 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
This is a classic question International Relations Political Scientists ponder in regards to feminism, but I think that any woman who got elected to the American Presidency would have to be one tough cookie, so the number of wars we got involved in would likely be the same as with a male President. A woman couldn't be viewed as weak on National Defense and get elected.
That said, I think Hillary would be the worst choice for President of all, but not because of her Foreign Policy. She's a lying, power-hungry, manipulative wench.
2006-08-23 04:45:29 · answer #5 · answered by Madam President 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No matter who is office be it a democrat or republican, man or woman there will be some kind of war. War is a necessary evil. You just cant sit back and watch the world crumble around us, when we do that we get attacked. Look at Pearl Harbor and 9-11. Now to comment on the Hilary being smart enough for the job, that was so funny i almost peed my pants from laughter. I needed a good laugh.
2006-08-23 04:44:29 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I don't think you can say "Politics and Honesty" in the same sentence, you would be committing some crime I am sure. About being in wars if there were a woman in the white house. I don't think it would matter, because she would still have a cabinet telling her what she should and shouldn't do. The president doesn't make these decisions on their own, nor do I want to live in a country were only one persons makes all the decisions. Cuba comes to mind.
2006-08-23 04:48:38 · answer #7 · answered by Mark F 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it's more likely that peaceful methods of diplomacy would certainly be explored first unlike our current way of striking first and killing thousands of innocent women and children not to mention 2,600 of our finest young men and women in a war that is illegal and that we were lied into believing it was necessary. Bush is the most evil and dangerous person in the world today. It's unbelievable that the people of this country have not said this is enough and forced a change in international policy. I'm embarrassed to travel to other countries and say I am an American. Everywhere I travel people we are crazy to have re-elected the idiot and allow what is happening to happen. The leader of the free world...that's sad.
2006-08-23 04:46:36 · answer #8 · answered by EMAILSKIP 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's a toss up. With all the testosterone gone, we'd have a better chance. Although I'd be afraid to have someone with PMS having access to the nuclear button!
C'mon, that was funny - and even-handed.
Bill Clinton is a much better public speaker than George Bush (either father or, especially, son). Whatever else people think of them.
I don't look for much sincerity in politics . . .
2006-08-23 04:43:13 · answer #9 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Its not the gender, but just the person's personality. I read a joke once that said there would bne no wars if there was a woman president, but intense negotiations. I agree that Clinton was great in his term and so is Hilary but we really would'nt know if it doesnt happen.
2006-08-23 04:48:47 · answer #10 · answered by chandniii 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋