Think about it.. we are at war with one of the most sexist groups in the world. Do you really think that they would negotiate with a female president?
2007-11-28 05:13:23 · 19 answers · asked by Holly Jo 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
NO, with a capital "N".
2007-11-28 05:16:35 · answer #1 · answered by WC 7 · 8⤊ 1⤋
That is one side that we need to consider, when we are at "war" with a part of the world that does not see women as equals, I don't think electing a woman is a good idea. That is to say even if the woman was a good candidate, which Hillary is not. I'm not a sexist person, but they are. Please don't take this the wrong way. I'm not saying a woman cannot lead our nation. I'm saying a woman can not negotiate with people who will not negotiate with women.
2007-11-28 13:36:59 · answer #2 · answered by benni 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Definitely not, but I don't think the problem is so much the sexist nature of our present enemy. Look at her past and the things she has supported. I'm not against having a female president, but this is not the woman you want at the head of this republic.
The other point to note is that the United States does not negotiate with terrorists. We are not at war with a sovereign nation so there should be no negotiations. It concerns me that Hillary may not have what it takes to uphold this critical policy. If we negotiate with terrorists, it validates their tactics. It means they can benefit, in some way, from their actions. As it stands, terrorism against the US is just a quick way to get killed. That's exactly as it should be and that's part of the reason we have not had greater problems with terrorism in the past.
2007-11-28 13:27:32 · answer #3 · answered by counter774 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No. She's a 2 faced person and all she does is put the blame on others while making herself look good. I don't think the sexist group would want to deal with a female president especially with Muslim country where they don't take orders from a female
2007-11-28 13:20:55 · answer #4 · answered by I_Rockzzz!!! 3 · 5⤊ 1⤋
Of course they will. We do not elect our Presidents to reflect the prejudices of other countries. They will certainly deal with Clinton, without question. They already deal with Condoleeza Rice as our Secretary of State, and have expressed no disrespect or requested that a man be sent to them instead. This is a terrible argument against having a woman President.
2007-11-28 14:22:25 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Not at gunpoint... and if she ever did get elected, I'd move to Canada.
The people we are at war with are a lot more than sexist. They are terrorists at heart and want everything we stand for as a nation to be terminated. They are only interested in forcing everyone else into submission. They are dictators, plain and simple. Even if we had God himself negotiating with them, they would be unresponsive and hostile.
2007-11-28 13:26:20 · answer #6 · answered by Mr_Masks99 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No-she doesn't have the experience no matter what some people say. Being the wife of a past President doesn't make one qualified.
And aren't people tired of the Bush-Clinton dynastys?
2007-11-28 13:17:51 · answer #7 · answered by Big Bear 7 · 7⤊ 1⤋
Hillary would be a horrible president. We don't need a socialist, pro-amnesty, tax-raising witch in the White House.
I would love to vote for an experienced and competent woman for President. When one runs, I will vote for her. We don't have a competent woman running right now!!!!
BTW, I don't vote based on the gender, sex or religion of a candidate. I vote for the PERSON!
2007-11-28 13:18:25 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 11⤊ 2⤋
i would not vote for hillary becuase she will bankrupt our country. but i dont really think i would worry about a woman negotiating on the world stage. madelyn albright did just fine.
2007-11-28 13:19:50 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
To your first question... no!
During war or peace Hillary is NOT the right person for the job!
2007-11-28 13:18:46 · answer #10 · answered by Stealth 2 · 6⤊ 1⤋
she would not negotiate with them. she wants war, nuclear war.
if she was "honorable" they would negotiate with her. But since she is not ...let us not even give her the chance.
2007-11-28 20:35:48 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋