Finally, a Good Female Presidential Candidate!!

[Deleted]

she doesn't know how to run a company though

But she knows how to ruin a company.

[Deleted]

You need qualifications to be a president?

I always thought the only qualifications was to bullshit yourself out in every conversation and to come over as a person who likes the "middle man". I can count the people in politics who actually wanted to help and serve their country/nation the best they could on my 2 hands...and I'm talking global as the entire planet.

[rayden54]

But I can tell you 1 thing for sure, a country is not a business.

But they've got no problem telling businesses what to do.

[High Marshal Sigismund]

Do leftists actually know the various reasons for why women make 78 percent of male salaries, or is there simply a quota that should be met no matter what?

[Sole-Warrior]

Do leftists actually know the various reasons for why women make 78 percent of male salaries, or is there simply a quota that should be met no matter what?

Yes we do and we know the wage gap is largely exaggerated. Men and women on average have different working habits for example.

[Kasierith]

By run the country like a business, Im talking purely economically. Trim the fat, reign in government contractors overcharging for everything, stop wasting money on useless programs like NASA, EPA, DHS, HUD, the UN, foreign aid, etc..

NASA - numerous technological developments that they pass down to companies and such, since their research funding methods aren't dependent on developing profit as the end result. In other words, NASA is the American outlet for theoretical research, whereas the majority of private research is towards streamlining current resources to make it more profitable.
EPA - grossly underfunded right now. That aside, have you ever seen northern China? Why would you want to bring that to the US?
DHS - I'm going to assume that you don't even know what the DHS does. The adoption system and such is pretty inefficient as it is, and the sheer workload compared to the available manpower is overwhelming. Their problems stem from not enough money, not too much. Unless you mean homeland security instead of health and human services. In which case, ok you have a point.
HUD - reduces homelessness and is overall far more cost effective than letting the private sector handle it. Shelters and such are expensive, and lead to increased medical cost due to too many people clustered together leading to fights and injuries.
UN - the UN is basically a means for the US to wave its cock around and say "don't make us nuke you" while being polite about it. The US gets a lot out of the UN, in that it allows it to project its influence in a polite way that doesn't anger people domestic or abroad.
Foreign aid - the US gets a lot out of foreign aid. 80% of medical resources are imported, often from random ass places all around the world. The US uses agreements to secure a military presence throughout numerous regions, which is vital for things like maintaining a global air force. The US uses its weight garnered from foreign aid to make imports more friendly towards American companies. It does a lot of things. Saying its bad is just silly.

[Jaxi]

As stupid as it sounds, I'd rather we get a president in that focuses on social policies first and then worry about the economics because, in my opinion, we have many social issues that can be taken care of pretty easily:

1) Gay marriage (which is being discussed by the Supreme Court right now so might not be an issue too much longer)
2) Women and contraceptives
3) Teaching actual sex ed in school that don't focus all their time pushing abstinence

These, to me, are the social issues that could be cleaned up very easily but economic policies have more push backs like with welfare programs and the like.

See, I just don't see those as issues in which we need a President to change, but for society to change. Gay Marriage is becoming legalized because the citizens of this nation are increasingly in favor of it, not because of the Commander and Chief's push. Foreign policy and economic direction are examples of issues I don't really trust the public with, and put more emphasis on the government to (hopefully) properly direct us.

Besides, getting gay marriage passed is less important to me than working towards full employment. The former is an inconvenience to a small minority of people, the latter is the livelihood to the majority of people. I'm not saying we can't work on more than one at once, it's just a priority system.

- - - Updated - - -

I agree. I think that is an education issue.

Or a breeding issue.

[Calfredd]

See, I just don't see those as issues in which we need a President to change, but for society to change. Gay Marriage is becoming legalized because the citizens of this nation are increasingly in favor of it, not because of the Commander and Chief's push. Foreign policy and economic direction are examples of issues I don't really trust the public with, and put more emphasis on the government to (hopefully) properly direct us.

Besides, getting gay marriage passed is less important to me than working towards full employment. The former is an inconvenience to a small minority of people, the latter is the livelihood to the majority of people. I'm not saying we can't work on more than one at once, it's just a priority system.

Even if half the country hates their president, they still look to him to deal with these things even if he doesn't directly influence these things. It's because we're so caught on these social issues that I feel we should deal with them as soon as possible so that they can debate about the economic problems. Again I know it sounded stupid to put social issues above our economic ones but we're clinging onto these things longer than we should.

[Jaxi]

Even if half the country hates their president, they still look to him to deal with these things even if he doesn't directly influence these things. It's because we're so caught on these social issues that I feel we should deal with them as soon as possible so that they can debate about the economic problems. Again I know it sounded stupid to put social issues above our economic ones but we're clinging onto these things longer than we should.

Social issues don't go away. There will always be some new campaign, and when we're the old wo/men we may be the social conservatives.

Wanting to get them out of the way doesn't justify electing our President based off of them for me. I value economic issues far more, and I will vote based off of economic issues. If that means waiting an extra year or two for all states to have gay marriage, so be it.

[Resies]

well the thing is the party with the better economic plans also has the better social platform

[Yvaelle]

Social issues don't go away. There will always be some new campaign, and when we're the old wo/men we may be the social conservatives.

Wanting to get them out of the way doesn't justify electing our President based off of them for me. I value economic issues far more, and I will vote based off of economic issues. If that means waiting an extra year or two for all states to have gay marriage, so be it.

For the last 70 years, the US economy has consistently performed better as the result of democratic policy than republican policy - so if you were economically motivated - you'd be voting Democrat?

There is also this:

[Dolus]

As stupid as it sounds, I'd rather we get a president in that focuses on social policies first and then worry about the economics because, in my opinion, we have many social issues that can be taken care of pretty easily:

1) Gay marriage (which is being discussed by the Supreme Court right now so might not be an issue too much longer)
2) Women and contraceptives
3) Teaching actual sex ed in school that don't focus all their time pushing abstinence

These, to me, are the social issues that could be cleaned up very easily but economic policies have more push backs like with welfare programs and the like.

On my list of the top 100 issues that worry me.... gay marriage, women/contraceptives, and sex ed rank at the bottom... right above my concern that AI will destroy the human race. National security and economics are at the top of my list.

[Orbitus]

On my list of the top 100 issues that worry me.... gay marriage, women/contraceptives, and sex ed rank at the bottom... right above my concern that AI will destroy the human race. National security and economics are at the top of my list.

Which neither have been made an issue by Republican candidates other than to "bomb the hell out of people" and some economics system that will not work in this country other than to actually kill off millions of people by cutting programs that benefit those millions of people.

Fiscal conservatives haven't provided anything fiscal in the last 35 years. Trickle down economics has failed and that was the last economics plan that they have produced. Everything else was basically privatize everything so we can make money off of it from our donors.

[Acidbaron]

Every time i see a person speaking of "we need to protect the borders more", yes that will solve the problem, since that strategy has worked so well for years but i guess you can wave around your magic wand of botox and get it right this time. More money wasted down a bottomless hole but the US got experience being in debt of china so why stop now

damn, if an candidate would speak to me like that i would feel insulted by the notion that they think i'm that dumb to buy it.

[Kurioxan]

Tbh, what its needed as a good candidate, gender regardless and honestly there isnt any. Sadly it seems that gender is now in vogue and a lot of people voting Hillary merely for "first female president!!1"
Hopefully there will be a better democratic alternative...

[Symphonic]

They have some... other beliefs and practices as well....

If you have particular questions you can PM me, but a lot of what people hear and what the truth is are different things, and sometimes it doesn't make sense when you're not willing to listen. If I am interested in a teaching of the Catholic church, I would ask a Catholic. If I have a question about jews or hindu or buddhist, I try to go to the source, instead of what others tell me.

- - - Updated - - -

Tbh, what its needed as a good candidate, gender regardless and honestly there isnt any. Sadly it seems that gender is now in vogue and a lot of people voting Hillary merely for "first female president!!1"
Hopefully there will be a better democratic alternative...

So many people vote based on "first" anything. A lot of people did, in fact, vote for Obama because he would be the first black president. I think that's great he's the first black president, but that should *not* be a reason to vote for them.

Same for a woman. You shouldn't vote for someone just because of their gender.

[Jaxi]

For the last 70 years, the US economy has consistently performed better as the result of democratic policy than republican policy - so if you were economically motivated - you'd be voting Democrat?

Gonna have to go with individual candidate positions rather than a subjective trend on party lines. As long as a single Democrat president exists with a poor economic record, or a single Republican president exists with a solid economic record, then voting off of party lines is faulty.

Honestly, still not sure why people vote straight party line. The two party system is so widely scorned yet so heavily perpetuated by voters. Such hypocrisy.