Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
      4. Frontier Pursuits
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. DLC
      2. Find Lobbies & Players
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Vehicles
      5. Content Creator
      6. Help & Support
      7. The Diamond Casino Heist
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA 6

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA IV Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA SA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA VC Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA III Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

Brown Streak RR

A "Different" President?

Recommended Posts

Brown Streak RR

Some of you may be confused by the title, but you'll understand.

 

I'm talking about the top office of the United States of America Executive branch, the President. During the course of our history, we've had 43 presidents. Some great, some not. Some highly influential, while others accomplished nothing of great notability.

 

I will say, they where all white men, over the age of 35. My question is this, open for debate:

 

Is the United States ready for a non-white/non-male president?

 

The reason I ask, is that we all know Hilary Clinton, the former first lady, is a very, very strong pick for the Democrats as a Presidential candidate in the 2008 election. Is it possible? Yes. Are we ready for a woman president? I leave that up to you guys. Are we?

 

The other thing, is that are we ready for a 'minority', for example, a African-American or Spanish president?

 

 

My views:

 

I think Mrs. Clinton has a strong chance, and will probably run, in the upcoming election. However, I don't think we're ready for a woman president. I just don't. I know I won't vote for her. It will be a major step, however, that she will run. She may not be elected--but it sends the message that a woman could very well become president in the near future. I'm not sexist, I just don't think the country as a whole are ready for a female commander-in-chief.

 

On the 'minority' issue, I don't think we're ready for that, either. I see a woman becoming president before an African-American, for example. I can't explain further, I don't know why.

 

 

Those are my thoughts. What are your opinions on the subject? Thoughts?

 

I wanted to post this because this is becoming, believe it or not, a very real issue. And it will affect not only Americans, but the world as a whole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skins

Hillary won't win if she runs in 2008.

 

And I don't see a minority president for a while either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ganja_man_biatch
Hillary won't win if she runs in 2008.

 

And I don't see a minority president for a while either.

as bad as that sounds it true, not the hilary, part the minority thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yuck Fou
I've always wondered why it matters whether or not the president is male, female, black, white, or purple... I mean, I know it will probably be a while before any of them become president, simply because of the endless bigotry in this country, but why don't you think we're "ready"? What would be so different? How would a black guy in office change the world?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ganja_man_biatch

to tell the truth, from president to president, not much has ever changed in my life, for better or worse. to me it doesn't matter who it is unless we get some sorta dictator president in office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jheath

 

... I know it will probably be a while before any of them become president, simply because of the endless bigotry in this country, but why don't you think we're "ready"?  What would be so different?

My thoughts exactly, Yuck Fou. I've always believed that gender and race are irrelevant considerations for most jobs (with a few exceptions... men would make terrible pole dancers in straight strip-clubs, for example). Frankly, we should be more concerned with an individual's actual qualifications for the job, instead of faux issues like skin color or reproductive role.

 

I don't deny that there are inequalities between the genders and races. Blame genetics or society or what-have-you... the point is that the aggragate statistics are meaningless when assessing individuals. No doubt there are many women/blacks who are too stupid or unqualified to be President, just as there are many white men who are too stupid for the job (the current President being a case in point... zing!)

 

Hillary Clinton may be a poor candidate for the top job, but saying you'd vote against her because you "just don't think the country as a whole are [sic] ready for a female commander-in-chief" seems like a defeatist acceptance of misogyny. Try to come up with a better reason for opposing her... I assure you there are plenty. To put things into perspective, what if we had a female candidate who had impeccable views and credentials... would it really be better for the country to vote in a less qualified candidate, merely because it wouldn't shake the established order of things?

Edited by jheath

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mortukai

 

Frankly, we should be more concerned with an individual's actual qualifications for the job, instead of faux issues like skin color or reproductive role.

Often, there ar magnitudes of difference between what "should" be, and what actually "is".

 

A female president will not be elected in my lifetime, for many reasons, but the biggest obstacle is, funnily enough, females. In america, female voters outnumber males 1.5 : 1. It seems that once given the right to vote, they took to it with gusto, whilst the men cared just as little as they always have.

 

But the reason this is an obstacle is because women will never vote in a female president. Most women can't stand the idea of being led by another woman, almost as much as they would balk at the idea of being rescued by a female firefighter. I've known a staunch feminist lesbian who was my psychology lecturer at uni, telling us how she personally felt offended and indignate when a female colleague of hers was promoted above her and started telling her what to do. And yet, this self-professed man-hating dyke had absolutely no problem with being told what to do by a man. She caught herself up on it of course, being that she was a psych professor and was aware of her own behaviour and reactions, but the moral of her story was made quite clear by her: females as a group will never accept another female as the leader of their country. And it has nothing to do with credentials.

 

And given the gender proportion of voters, even if every man votes for Hilary, and 1/6 women vote for Hilary, she still won't get into office, because the remaining women will vote for whatever man is running against her.

 

As for issues of race, it doesn't matter really, does it? I mean, black men are still men, and if they get that high in politics, they are still subject to the same pressures and influences as any other man of any other race. Just look at Colin Powell. If you put his brain in Bush's body, all you'd notice is that he all of a sudden was a lot smarter and elloquent, but besides that, you'd notice nothing. He's as much a part of the "boy's club" as the rest of them. Race has nothing to do with anything. People are people and people drawn to that sort of power and have the guile to get there are all alike. So whether or not America saw a black president, there'd be no noticable difference besides the colours on your TV screen during presidential announcements.

 

And when it comes right down to it, even if women WOULD vote in a female president (which they totally could given their numbers in the voting booths), she'd be just the same as all the other presidents, except she'd have ovaries. If you took away any hint of gender or race, then any president America would ever vote in would basically be the same, simply due to the combination of what it takes to get to that position, and what the American people keep voting for time and time again. As George Carlin says, if the politicians are fvcked up, it's because the people are fvcked up. Garbage in, garbage out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mar

Mrs.Clinton ...Oh god I do not trust her.

 

I thought she was decent while Clinton was president, but after that, she had this book that was pure nonsense. You know, the one about her life with Bill Clinton? I thought that was rather full of it. Anyways, sadly I'd like to say that America isn't ready for a female president. I think we are ready for an african-american president though, and I think that's coming up fairly soon.

 

We haven't had a great president since JFK and it's about time we got one, and Mrs.Clinton won't do it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vALKYR
With her influence on GTA:SA's Rating lately and the fact that most gamers who can't buy GTA:SA right now because of that and have the right to vote in 2008, she of course will lose the Presidential Election. cool.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brown Streak RR
With her influence on GTA:SA's Rating lately and the fact that most gamers who can't buy GTA:SA right now because of that and have the right to vote in 2008, she of course will lose the Presidential Election. cool.gif

That's the number one reason right there. sign-clinton.gif

 

I see your views, and I understand them. I'm not saying I wouldn't vote for a woman, or for a black president. I agree that the personalities, politics, and qualifications are what make a politician, and not their color or race. I was just saying that not everyone cares about these items, there are many in America who would prefer to keep the President of the United States a white male, but obviously here we are too educated and are not those people.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
just another thug

I hope that Barrack Obama gets the democratic nod. He is a minority, which means he will more likely lose, but he is a better politician by leaps and bounds.

 

Hmm.. What if Hilary was Obama's running mate. A minority and a women. That would have the KKK up in arms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jersiq

I have to echo the sentiment that Americans should base their votes upon the qualifications of the candidate, rather than a popularity contest. As an aside it completely cracked me up during the last election, when on MTV I saw an ad stating that you should just get out and vote for anybody. Rather, the ad should have stated "get educated about the candidates, then get out and vote" Sorry about the tangent.

That being said, I think that the leap from a senator to the presidency is just too great, for either a woman or a minority. Instead the goal should be that of vice-presidency, under a strong candidate. Once the visibility of having a capable vice-president has been established, then the goal of presidency could be achieved. Unfortunately, due to the appearance of fragmentation of the Democratic party, they probably will not have a strong candidate to campaign for President.

 

even if women WOULD vote in a female president (which they totally could given their numbers in the voting booths)

sorry Mort, a little out of context. As recent history has shown, it's not a matter of winning the popular vote, you must win the electoral college. Sure based on her liberal views alone, she could take California, but then what? Would conservative Iowa feel the same about a female president? It's more than just a matter of numbers to win, it's having all the right numbers from all the right places.

 

With her influence on GTA:SA's Rating lately and the fact that most gamers who can't buy GTA:SA right now because of that and have the right to vote in 2008, she of course will lose the Presidential Election.

Maybe this demographic will be different this election, however in the past the 18-25 demographic turnout has been pathetic, and has contributed very little to an election. But, hopefully this election will be different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jheath
sorry Mort, a little out of context. As recent history has shown, it's not a matter of winning the popular vote, you must win the electoral college. ... It's more than just a matter of numbers to win, it's having all the right numbers from all the right places.

You're correct in pointing out that the electoral college influences the dynamics of an election, but I fail to see how that relates to Mortukai's point about women (supposedly) not voting for women. If the majority of women in each state voted against a female candidate, the candidate would likely lose, electoral college or no. Of course, if female voting behavior in the battleground states differed markedly from other parts of the union, the situation would be more complex, but Mortukai seemed to be making a point about women voters in general, regardless of geography.

 

That said, I'm not sure I agree with Mort's assessment of female voting psychology. Even if we accept the premise that the majority of women would not want to take orders from a female boss (a premise I consider questionable), we still have to demonstrate two more things:

 

1) That women would relate to the President as their "boss" (thereby triggering the distaste reaction), rather than as merely a remote "powerful figure"

 

Let's face it... for all the power vested in the Oval Office, the President has only an indirect influence over the lives of the majority of citizens (the armed services being a pseudo-exception.) The relationship for most isn't personal or direct, even when people really hate or admire the guy. I think women would view a female president in much the same way as they'd view a female boss at another company... a role model to look up to without the negative connotations of direct authority.

 

2) That this distaste for female bosses would override other considerations, such as party loyalty, common values, or shared economic interests.

 

I would argue that party loyalty supercedes likeability for the large majority of voters, leaving only a small percentage of swing voters who can be swayed by their personal like or dislike for a candidate. Hell, in one election large numbers of people voted for a potted plant, merely to stick it to the other side.

 

Of course, this is all assuming that women dislike female bosses in the first place. Since I'm not female (and since I spend more time with my computer than I do with girls... *sigh*), I wouldn't really know. Any girls want to throw in their two cents?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mortukai

 

Any girls want to throw in their two cents?

At least one already has:

 

Mrs.Clinton ...Oh god I do not trust her.

 

I thought she was decent while Clinton was president, but after that, she had this book that was pure nonsense. You know, the one about her life with Bill Clinton? I thought that was rather full of it. Anyways, sadly I'd like to say that America isn't ready for a female president. I think we are ready for an african-american president though, and I think that's coming up fairly soon.

 

We haven't had a great president since JFK and it's about time we got one, and Mrs.Clinton won't do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Naomi

People keep making the same mistakes they always make. The pressure's also on for a woman in power more now then ever. The reason being is that average jo/e has it their head that woman in a position of such power will either:

 

A) Make everything magically better & serve scones in the deal.

or

B) Blow up the world when her menstral cycle rocks around next.

 

There are other less dramatic reasons why people will be generally opposed to a woman in leadership, but the above sum it up at polar ends.

 

Power is power is power.

Women in power? Nothing new. Women have run entire empires across the span of time. Some have been magnificent, some have been tyrannical. Problem is, people will act like this is something new, like it's part of some hidden agenda or new novelty.

 

Now if a man votes for another man based entirely on the idea that a man will do a better job of leading, then fine, vote away, but as history has proven time & time again it'll fail him in many ways & he'll deserve everything he doesn't get.

 

Amanda Vanstone is an Australian politician whom I loathe. I mean LOATHE. Everything the woman spouts is pure bile as far as I'm concerned.

Because of her policies & general history, which I won't bore anyone with here.

 

There are women who would entirely ignore Vanstone's veiws, only seeing a woman, not thinking to question her. The reason being is they think that if they didn't support her, they'd lose any hope of seeing any women in power at all.

On the otherhand you got what I call female 'conditioned thinkers', that they'll vote for what they recognise & trust instantly, a man, not having the benifit or forthought of trying 'somthing new', so they go for what they think is 'safe'.

Which is entirely ridiculous & a little sad.

 

But these types only think this way because they can't think of more progressive ways to improve matters, they can't get beyond the 'us verses them' mentality or get out of 'safe mode', but that's their misgiving as far as I'm concerned & I've little time for 'battle of the sex' games when an important & potentially future altering decision needs to be made.

 

Now it's no secret that when it comes to the status of women, I'm pretty vocal. But if I were to 'support' someone such as her, I'd be doing the very thing that these 'boys club voters' do, knowing that on it's own, it's not the smartest way to hand over complete power.

 

"You've got a uterus! Here. Hold my future in your hands."

 

Pardon me for a moment while I gather my reaction to that way of thinking..

WTF?

 

That's btter.

 

Okay, devil's advocate, let's say I voted Amanda Vanstone in as Prime minister of Australia, she screws everything up like I knew she would, but I voted for her anyway because I thought we needed a 'female leader' or because I could 'relate' to her.

This instantly makes me the greatest idiot that ever disgraced the face of the earth. Because not only have I not gotten what I wanted, I've pretty much handed the 'misogynists united front' a big ol' plate of ammo to serve up to the public at any time...

"See? See what happens when you put a chick in power. We told you so!"

Fabulous.

 

So why not vote for someone I can relate to immediately? Because politicians know no gender, race etc etc, they operate in an entirely different frame of mind. They may play to your gender, race even your job, getting you to relate to them, when they 'fake' relating to you.

It's simply a means to an ends for power. It's politics.

 

Look at what they're offering.

Don't look at them.

Simple.

Edited by Naomi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.