Is America ready for female president?

She's got my vote if she legalizes prostitution, does the state of the union address wearing lingerie and makes Mamisan the Secretary of State.

She's qualified to be my maid but not my president.

She is a better choice than Hillary

She's just as qualified as Oprah.

She’s a lot cleaner than about 99.9% of the other potential candidates!

Why would a porn star want to subject herself to the pain of political office? She is educated - but not in a political field.

Sure - she has some popular platform choices - but she’s not ready. Maybe she should hold a lower level position before campaigning for the top job.

In my view - Niki Haley would be a legit choice.

Can't vote for her for at least six more years - she's only 39!

@ATACdawg: The age is 35, not 45.

She’s at *least* as qualified as any other candidate we’ve seen in the last 40 years, and more so than anyone in the last two elections.

The constitution says you just have to be 35, not 45. The election is two years away so she would be 41 then.

And Cash, Why would ANYBODY want the job of president ?

Why so much talk about presidential candidates?

Our current president is doing a very good job. (no hyperbole)

^Melania hasn’t been seen or heard from in 23 days do you think our “no hyperbole” President ate her. Hmmmmmm............

^ Jealous?

I'd sure like to eat her. Our current first lady certainly can't be accused of looking like a man.

^Not really, she looks more like a plastic doll, than a real woman.

I'd vote for a woman president but not just because she is a woman....any more than I would vote for someone just because they are a minority.............if we really are an equal opportunity nation and believe that everyone should be rewarded on merit and hard work why is anything beyond qualifications a consideration.

We haven't had a purple dinosaur for president either.....and I have no plans to vote for Barney.

From the article: "DeVille said she likes to read the libertarian Reason magazine and that her favorite politician is Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. She wants to [...] impose new gun control legislation, and resurrect government-mandated net neutrality."

So apparently she hasn't read very much of it then. But I would absolutely vote for a woman who CAN read.

Yet another Randoid with high reading comprehension. Maybe she's available on SA, @Burlington?

NO, America is obviously not ready for a female president.

@Warrenboy +1 for the first paragraph

The part about Barney kinda went over my head.

@RandomMember,

I told you, lots of people may call themselves libertarians, but actual libertarians are extremely rare. Including here on Tuscl.

Anyway, American progressives will often compare America to other countries that have previously elected female heads of government, and wonder why we can't do the same. But the reality is that many of these countries have parliamentary systems, and therefore these female leaders were actually chosen by their fellow legislators, not necessarily by the voters. So the equivalent here in America would be the Speaker of the House (and we've already had Nancy Pelosi).

Having said that, American voters have already elected a youngish black guy with a foreign-sounding name, who was partially raised in Indonesia by a single mother. So why can't they eventually elect a woman president? I'm sure it will happen in my lifetime.

"Having said that, American voters have already elected a youngish black guy with a foreign-sounding name, who was partially raised in Indonesia by a single mother."
=============
I think he was born in Kenya? No?

I guess Merkel would be a good example of what you're talking about. She's the leader of the free world now that we've elected a reality TV clown.

I got a question for you @BHF in your estimation was Gary Johnson a good candidate, or was he a borderline moron ?

@ twentyfive --you can remove the word borderline.

@RandomMember from what I have seen out of Merkel the past five years she isn't the leader of much of anything --she happens to sit in a chair of authority but a leader requires showing leadership.

@BurhlingtonHoFactory you better come up with a better example than Pelosi if you want anyone with a logical mind to ever be enticed to vote for a female---that's the liberal equal to Palin.....and both of them show their ignorance to politics every time they open their mouths.

@flagooner----Barney the Purple Dinosaur was a popular kids TV figure..........if we are voting for an AA as was the liberal cry simply because is AA and then we were to vote for Hillary simply because she was a woman and we had to show the world we are progressive minded what's next? We've never had a purple dinosaur as president either.....same liberal logic.........

@Warrenboy I used the borderline because BHF seems like a nice guy, despite his cult like recitation of talking points as put out by that Disheveled drunk, Steve Bannion. ;)

Thanks Warren, got it.

She has experience with repeatedly screwing a large number of people in order to make money for herself so that would make her a natural politician.

How about Karen Huckabee Sanders?

SJG

^I though it was Sarah Huckabee Sanders, and truth be told she’s got the affliction known as resting bitch face.

^ that is true.

@Warrenboy75,

I'm not saying that Nancy Pelosi is a a good candidate. Personally I can't stand her. And I couldn't care less if America ever elects a female president. All I was saying is that she was chosen by her party to be the Speaker of the House, which is similar to how Prime Ministers are chosen in most parliamentary systems. They're not popularly elected.

@RandomMember,

Right, I was thinking of Angela Merkel, but also Indira Ghandi, Benazir Bhutto, Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir, etc. As far as I know, none of these women ever had to face the voters the way Hillary Clinton did. Not that there haven't been several women popularly elected as heads of governments in some countries, but they are still very rare compared to their male counterparts.

@twentyfive,

I think Gary Johnson was both a good candidate and a borderline moron. He was a good candidate, for me anyway, because I agreed with him on probably 90% of the issues. And he was a borderline moron because he had a hard time stringing a sentence together or appearing in public while sober. In his defense, he wasn't always this way. He broke his back in a hang-gliding accident in 2005 and began smoking tons of weed to cope with the pain. To be fair, he had already come out in favor of legalizing drugs 7 or 8 years prior, but he had never been a stoner during his adult life up until that point. The pot seems to have messed with his concentration somewhat. Either that or he has early-onset dementia. Here's a video clip of him in the year 2000, 5 years before the accident, while he was still governor of New Mexico; you'll see that, although he's not going to win any awards for public speaking, he's at least fully coherent:

https://youtu.be/Hn3rt4SE7os

Also, Steve Bannon is the exact opposite of a libertarian, and he's spoken about his antipathy for libertarianism on several occasions. He's in favor of higher taxes on the wealthy, less trade, and much less immigration (especially from non-white countries), and he's against any cuts to entitlement programs. I'm not sure why someone would lump him in with us. This guy ain't the Tea Party, he's something else entirely.

So Steve Bannion AKA the Disheveled Drunk is the exact opposite of a libertarian and Nancy Pelosi who is the opposite of him so which of them are the libertarian?
Plus Gary Johnson is a borderline moron and a good candidate, for what, the lead in One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest, Cmon man stop contradicting yourself.

@twentyfive,

Well, to be fair, I never said that Nancy Pelosi is the opposite of a libertarian, only that I didn't like her. And I suppose it isn't entirely fair to characterize Bannon that way, either. After all, there is at least some overlap among the policy positions of all three of them.

For example, all three generally oppose war (with some exceptions). Pelosi and Bannon support more infrastructure spending, but Johnson probably opposes it. Bannon and Johnson both oppose bailouts, while Pelosi supported them. Bannon and Johnson support shrinking the size of the Federal bureaucracy, while Pelosi obviously opposes doing so. Bannon and Pelosi both want to raise taxes on high income earners, while Johnson opposes that idea. Johnson and Pelosi both support more immigration, while Bannon opposes it. Bannon is openly hostile to trade, especially with China; Johnson is supportive of trade; and Pelosi has a mixed record, opposing free trade deals during a Republican presidency, while sometimes supporting trade deals during Democratic presidencies. So while I don't like Bannon or Pelosi, neither of them are literally "all bad." They both have some good ideas and some bad ideas.

We use a tool called the Nolan Chart to place people in the political spectrum:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolan_Char…

Based on this methodology, Bannon would be categorized as an authoritarian (which is sometimes referred to as a populist); Pelosi would be a liberal or a leftist; and Johnson would be a libertarian. The chart allows you to visually map out where everyone falls along the spectrum.

If you're interested, here's one quote from Bannon tepidly criticizing libertarianism, courtesy of an interview he gave with the New York Times Magazine: "... and then the Republicans, it’s all this theoretical Cato Institute, Austrian economics, limited government — which just doesn’t have any depth to it. They’re not living in the real world.” (Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/26/magaz…). And he's also made several comments disparaging Ayn Rand and Objectivism through the years.

As for Johnson's strange behavior, I seriously doubt that it would have affected his ability to be President. Viewed objectively, anyone who has the hubris and narcissism to believe that they should have the kind of power that we've conferred on the modern American President is probably suffering from some kind of a personality disorder anyway. And that includes Trump, Obama, Clinton, Bush, Kerry, etc. But also Gary Johnson (although to a much lesser extent, because not even Gary Johnson himself seriously believed he could even come close to winning).

Well this thread has turned into a pseudo-intellectual circle jerk.