It is not ideal that women be in authority over men (president)
- Thread starter republicanchick
- Start date
If they said it was to "defend traditional voting" some conservatives might.
FOOL said,
Sarah Palin is way cuter.
----------------------------
And nicer Legs.
Lets have a President with Nice Legs.........:wave:
Junk like this, is yet another reason why i think a man is preferential as president - men of other nations are more likely to take seriously another man, than a woman also. Sad, but true.
I think a woman poses a greater security risk, than a man, simply by nature of mens thinking.
Okay
Why do you
You...think...a man.....is better suited.....to deal with other men... because they assume....things....they have no clue about.....but insist anyway?
FOOL said,
Sarah Palin is way cuter.
----------------------------
And nicer Legs.
Lets have a President with Nice Legs.........
She's got nice everything.
How could mens thinking make a woman a greater security risk?
yep, just like you initially dismissed my thoughts, without actually asking me what i thought, but tossed out a falsehood i dont think as a fact (claim that i dont trust a woman when i said nothing of the sort and had already told you my reasoning isnt the same as republican chick) face it, you guys think your masters of the universe (which of course is exactly what it says in genesis being a result of the fall) and that you (men in general) seek to rule over women (history bears this out) which would put a female president at a greater risk than a man.
Like it or not, and also the president is commander in chief of the us military - unfortunately most military men, arent going to be very receptive of a female commander, sad again but true.
I deal with fact and the way it is, not the utopian way i wish it was. Do i think mentally a woman is as capeable, you bet. But there are tons and tons of reasons, i do not believe it wise, or feasible, in reality.
Tell me how a muslim leader sees a woman for example. Im guessing you know other men also, and know how they think.
I dont think the american people need to be guinea pigs for that experiment, especially with all that is going on in the world right now, specifically with muslim nations.
Example, a woman has to be pre-aproved with male escort to even travel to Saudi Arabia - she is seen as lessor already and women are arrested for it there, do tell how you think any negotiations would be had on that term alone?
republicanchick
New member
yeh, if you don't mind LYING
conniving
selling out to other countries for "donations"
people who don't give a rip about their nation's security..
yeh, if you c an ignore all that, I guess it isn't hard to find Cute...
____
May sound sexist but, I agree with you Angel as does my wife. The rest of the world is not as forward thinking as the U.S. for the most part, when we speak of countries like Russia, China, North Korea, or any nation in the Middle East who would view our having a woman president as a sign of weakness. I know many here will make the argument of Margret Thatcher who was probably the most notable of strong female leaders of my time anyway but, who is running that is even remotely in that class? Fiorina? Hardly...she is a failed business person and a failed politician from my talley, her credentials suck for decision making so, no, Fiorina is no Margret Thatcher. The only other is the felon Hillary and if you thought Obama was inept & lawless (and he is) fasten your seatbelt for the lawless ride that this lady will bring to the table. At some point maybe a qualified woman will step up to the plate to lead & I will vote for her but, that time is not now and the field is devoid of a qualified female candidate.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
You start by saying you agree that a man should be president, but you finish by saying you'd vote for a qualified woman. So which is it?
(I'm assuming you'd only vote for a person you considered qualified, regardless of gender.)
Well said. You get the point and it has nothing to do with me not thinking a woman couldnt handle the job, its the other people that cant handle it, with potentially dire consequences.
As Paul teaches us, it's the other way around. In the authentic letters that have not been declared forgeries, his radical theology shines through: nothing about going along with government authorities (Paul was vehemently anti-Rome) nothing about keeping slaves beneath us, nothing about not allowing women to speak in church.
The true letters of Paul talk about many women in the movement who were obviously regarded as wise or equals.
Politicians and citizens put down women because we are not the "Christian nation" that we all assume we are.
Quetzal
New member
I can't remember the source, but a few years ago an interviewer asked Hillary if during her diplomatic visits to the Middle East (where women are viewed as inferior) if she she felt like she was treated any differently. She said she wasn't treated any differently there than anywhere else. Not sure if she was the President proper if that would change things or not.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Second question to go with the first:
If you could choose between a qualified (your qualifications) woman and Trump, who would you vote for?