2007-12-09 02:10:54 · 16 answers · asked by realitycheck 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
There is no reason not to vote for a woman. Anyone who says a woman would be too emotional has not considered the extreme emotionality of the little dimwit we have in the White House now.
He destabilized an entire nation and sent thousands of Americans to their deaths over his foolish emotions. For Chrissakes, the man -- if you can call him that -- has histrionic personality disorder.
2007-12-09 02:15:04 · answer #1 · answered by Socion 6 · 1⤊ 6⤋
there is not any doubt in my strategies that there are some in this u . s . a . which will vote for Hillary because of the fact she is a girl. do no longer fool your self, some people voted for Bush because of the fact they theory he improve into handsome. it is unbelieveable that those issues take place, yet they do. some people will vote for somebody merely because of the fact they comprehend it will make somebody else mad. If Hillary wins the democratic nomination, then i visit unquestionably vote for her interior the presidential election. i'm sorry, yet i've got had adequate of the mendacity republicans for awhile. besides, I went to a area that confirmed how each candidate (Democrats and Republicans alike) stood on all the topics, then I in comparison that to how I stand on all the topics, and the sparkling winner improve into Joe Biden. notwithstanding if Joe would not win the Democratic nomination although, i might like it if he have been picked for the Veep. in uncomplicated terms for the checklist, Hillary is provided in third in my e book. First comes Biden, then Edwards, and then Hillary. i admire Obama, yet i think of he has to ripen slightly first. He desires slightly extra seasoning for the the main suitable option activity interior the land. If I had to vote for a republican, it may well be Huckabee, then Paul. If Rudy is our next president, i visit maximum possibly improve into an expatriot. He may well be the worst ingredient that would desire to take place to our u . s . a . in my opinion. i might quite see Bart Simpson as our president than Rudy. From what i've got discovered, he makes the mob look like a gaggle of boy scouts.
2016-10-01 05:31:33 · answer #2 · answered by sedlay 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, it always has to be who would do the best job. Hillary is hoping this will happen, but I bet if you told a female principal of school that she only got her job because she was a woman, it wouldn't make her feel any better. Meaning, I don't see how a woman really intersted in the plight of women would want a job just because they were a woman. Hillary is okay with that though. Ironic, as much as a feminist as she is, the only reason why she might become President is because of her cheating husband.
2007-12-09 02:16:54 · answer #3 · answered by theodore r 3 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Actually, there have been women presidents just not in the USA. Many female heads of state have done great jobs for their countries. I just don't believe that Hillary is the right woman for the job. For the same reason I don't think we have any good choices this election, not one can be trusted to carry out their campaign promises.
2007-12-09 02:37:03 · answer #4 · answered by James E Lewis AKA choteau 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
If your sole focus in this presidential circus is the penis size (or lack of) of the candidates, I don't want you to vote. You more than likely have no idea what's going on with their views and how they would change the country to fit their idea of 'good'. I'm not voting for Guiliani because he can't hold an opinion for more than three months. Not voting for Ron Paul because he's against the right to choose. Not voting for Obama because he's got only a few years of big government experience; I don't want him to resign because it wasn't what he expected. I certainly won't vote for Clinton because even though she has eight years of White House experience, and she could do the job well (I think), some of the things she's voted for and supported in the past are against my personal beliefs.
Clinton isn't the first to run for office, either...
2007-12-09 02:35:27 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
There have been female candidates. Does Ferrar (sp?) ring a bell?
No, not a good reason.. The only reason would be if qualified for the position, not on gender!
Women don't want the job! There are plenty of jobs that pay better, where you can get your beauty sleep and have weekends off, or at least every other, and much better hours.
Let the guys do this job. Older men with wrinkles don't really matter, but it does to women!
.
2007-12-09 02:19:17 · answer #6 · answered by Moody Red 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
YES, IF the Woman was 1. qualified, 2. had integrity, 3. was not in the 'race' for ego, money or power,4. had pro-American ideals, 5. had no court "Sealed Criminal Records", 6. the 'Best of The Bunch', in that race.
Too bad, today's 'female'(?) candidate 'does NOT fit the bill'.
2007-12-10 02:26:55 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely, NO!
Doing so would be purely emotional and sexist.
We NEED a lot of things, but a woman in the WH is not one of them.
Not saying it wouldn't be nice someday, but we definitely need to wait until an appropriate candidate comes along and Hillary IS NOT that candidate.
2007-12-09 08:49:23 · answer #8 · answered by wider scope 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, of course not, a sense of justice for a formerly "repressed" group is never a good reason to occupy an office, in government or industry. Thatcher was a strong leader for her ability and beliefs, not, because she was a woman.
2007-12-09 02:15:42 · answer #9 · answered by alphabetsoup2 5 · 5⤊ 0⤋
No, vote for the candidate you think will do the best job.
And lets stop with the stupid name calling.
It says nothing good when you imply that others are voting for monkeys and such.
2007-12-09 02:21:53 · answer #10 · answered by justa 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
It is irresponsible to vote for anyone of any party Solly on gender or race. So to answer the question no.
2007-12-09 02:17:29 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋