On this local radio program, the host was talking about a speech that Hillary made. She seemed to be saying that she expects a lot of the female vote simply because she's a women. The host put the question out there to female listeners...would you vote for Hillary for president for the sole reason of having a women in the oval office? The program leans conservative so that's mostly who the responses came from. I thought it'd be interesting to get a more diverse response. Anybody?I wouldn't vote for someone just because they were a woman. I still don't know who I'm voting for, so I can't really say if I'd vote for Hillary.
I'd be surprized to find anyone on either side who who would vote based only on gender. At least around this board. Regardless of your politics, no one strikes me as being that short sighted.Heck no! At least, I hope not! LOL
Ah...I am.
For me, it depends on who gets the nomination - either Hilary or Obama. Doesn't matter to me, both have my liberal interests at heart. As an added bonus - it's a first, either way.
But Hilary is wrong. She's going to lose a lot of the womens' vote if history is an indicator. How many remember Ferraro? If women had voted years ago..we'd have ERA. Women are are the last to look after their own best interests.
Pip
So you'd vote for a woman, just because she's a woman? I'm confused...A liberal woman.
To me, it comes down to one real party anymore - too many special interests buying politicians on both sides and 'we the people' getting...hosed. I think I saw the last 'multimillionare' president was Lincoln. So, nobody is really looking out for the people. That being said, the two parties give lip service to different agenda's. Liberals are more "bottom up" and the Conservative's are "top down".
So, if two equally qualified candidates are up for the nomination - I'm voting for the woman.
Come on - have we looked at their stances? Same words; different mouth.
Pip
So why vote the woman just because she's a woman?Why vote for a man just because he's a man?
Guess I'm hoping a change will do us good.
That and she went after Big Pharma when Bubba was in office. She didn't handle it right and got beat down. So, she's had time to think about what went wrong and now the country is much more receptive to her ideas. She gives us hope.
Pip
Why vote for a man just because he's a man?I guess for me it would then come down to who I like better.
Based on WHAT? Hehehehe This is neat......I would never base my vote on something like gender or race - or party. I try to listen to what is said by each candidate, look at their experience and what they have done before and make an informed decision. And that doesn't make me feel confident in my choice, because so much of what is said by all candidates is BS - they say whatever is needed to get elected.
With the huge cost of campaigning now, and the powerhouse candidates getting most of the press and attention, I feel that some of the better candidates can be lost in the shuffle. I also never vote for someone based on whether or not he has a chance of winning. I have to vote my conscience, knowing I may be throwing my vote away. How sad is that?
I'm with you Karen. I will vote for who I think is best, even if I'm "throwing away" my vote.
Katie, if you mean that two candiadtes are identicle in their political stand, I would vote for, ya know, who I just like better.
Identical stances = identical positions.
All things being equal - I'm going for the woman.
What other options are there if the stances are the same? Then we're back to 'women voted for Kennedy because he looked good".
Oh, that's the ticket!
:-)
Pip
She made that statement on "The View", although she could have made it previously. The question also arose about Bill and what would he be doing. They have decided that Bill would do whatever Hillary wanted him to do and she thought that he would be a good ambassador or peace maker as he already knew most of the leaders in foreign countries. I am wondering what his title would be as opposed to "First Lady" What do you think? Well, we have a female govenor, and her husband's title is....you guessed it First GentlemanI have never based my vote on party lines, nor would I ever. I do go into looking at records...cause to me actions speak a whole lot louder than words. I can say I am a pearly pink VW Beetle, but that doesn't make me one. BTW that's my dream car. I look at who is doing what and what their record is like, and how many special interest groups are in their pockets. *If they have huge amts of money for a campaign you can GUARENTEE they have LOTS of people in their pockets*. I also look at their families. You can tell a lot about a person when you look at the people behind them.
Bottom line for me in any campaign is LESS Government control and more ME control. I want to spend my money...not have the government decide what PROGRAM I have to support!!!
Our govenor actually said in a recent speech....it's not your money. It must be used for the COMMON GOOD.
A little communism for ya??
And that's the problem. Nobody thinks about the common good any more. Nobody thinks about others and what they need. Remember, we're a vast group of sick people. You mean to tell me that if I'm unable to care for myself over the next 40 years (after being a law abiding upstanding tax paying person for decades) I'm on my own?
Anybody notice all the 'service organizations' our parents belonged to have died off? Elks, the Moose, and whatnot. That's because we've become too self-centered and GREEDY that we think of us and only us. The ugly flip side of the Boomers.
Anybody notice the new media push on how 'altruism' is the new cool? Frankly, I'm looking at it as a manufactured trend to get stupid self-absorbed people to do something for anybody except themselves.
Pip
I'm saying that I should be able to make the decision about how I spend the money that I earn. It isn't the governments place to take my money and divie it up in any way they see fit. Does this mean I won't use my money to help others??? That I have no compassion? No ma'am. It just means that I get to choose. [QUOTE=Linncn]I'm saying that I should be able to make the decision about how I spend the money that I earn. It isn't the governments place to take my money and divie it up in any way they see fit. Does this mean I won't use my money to help others??? That I have no compassion? No ma'am. It just means that I get to choose.[/QUOTE]What about my say?
I do not want money going for war? Not on penny of my tax dollars for bullets.
Or that our tax dollars go to bailing out greedy, 'creative book-keeping', criminal multinational companies. Think Enron and Worldcom. Or let's not forget the bail out packages for CEO's and exec's that ran a company into the ground. Or think of the mortgage companies who actively practiced predatory lending and want bail outs now!
Is it fair that the governement does that?
It's not either/or.
Pip
[QUOTE=Pip!]What about my say?
I do not want money going for war? Not on penny of my tax dollars for bullets.
Or that our tax dollars go to bailing out greedy, 'creative book-keeping', criminal multinational companies. Think Enron and Worldcom. Or let's not forget the bail out packages for CEO's and exec's that ran a company into the ground. Or think of the mortgage companies who actively practiced predatory lending and want bail outs now!
Is it fair that the governement does that?
It's not either/or.
Pip
[/QUOTE]I don't think the government should be bailing out private companies. But tell me, do you think that you are entitled to a portion of my paycheck just because your short this month?
I think if someone wants to be stingy with their own money, that is also their right. I think it would suck to be like that, but it is still their right.
Maybe some of those clubs you were talking about aren't as popular these days because of government welfare. Maybe people think, well, I don't need to give, they can always get food stamps. You know, the hungry were fed, the poor found homes long before SS and welfare.
I, thru the Grace of God and AP, should never need to collect diability. But that doesn't mean that I am against a portion of my paycheck going to programs that help the less fortunate. The poor will always be among us. It doesn't mean we need to ignore them in hopes they'll go away.
Those service programs that I mentioned died out because they weren't 'cool'. And if you have 2 jobs to keep up with the Joneses you don't have time to give to others - only time enough to keep stockpiling useless 'junk' that all the other cool people have.
One can't be navel gazing and self-absorbed if they're looking at what other people DON'T have.
Stinginess is a disease of the soul. Right up there with selfishness and greed.
Pip
I am not stingy, and I resent the implication. And just because you would rather have the government manage your charity works, doesn't mean I want them managing my charity works. What happened to "Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”Pip, would you be charitable with what you have if the government didn't make you be? Would your generous instinct be stifled if you weren't taxed to provide for others? If not taxed for social programs, would you become greedy all of the sudden and not help the poor? My guess is that you would still be the same kind person that you are now, that you would likely give more if you had more to give. I don't think you are unusal that way. I think that many, if not most people do care about those in need. I think that most people feel good when they help people. I don't believe it's to the government to tell people who and how much to give. I think people can figure that out for themselves.
Link -
Girl, I didn't say you were stingy. Go back and look at what you wrote. You said 'if somebody wants to be stingy with their own money" or something darn similar. My point was - a stingy person has a disease of the soul. Best example - Scrooge.
I think I'd be able to do more if I brought home more. I've never been able to hang onto money. LOL Hubby says if we ever hit the lotto I'm on a budget. And I can't argue with him. I tend to gravitate to jobs that don't pay much.
See, that's were we differ. I see people walking over others for themselves or their frends and family - all for things they perceive as their 'right'.
Again, until the government takes into my wishes on where the money goes - be it bombs or welfare - then it can't be one or the other.
We've had 8 years of the rich getting richer. It's time for something to go back to the little guy.
Starting with health care!
Pip
Oh no!!! I don't even want to the socialized medicine topic again
I don't know about you, but I don't advertise what I give, to whom or how much. I don't ask for that kind of info from others. I don't believe it's my business. You may be assuming too much about the Jones'.
I'm in LA - the land of plastic people.
The land of plastic Joneses.
The median price of a home here is 0K. At the port most of the gas coming into the country goes thru - gas is .35 a gallon last time I looked. Food costs are thru the roof. But it's amaizing how many Ferrari's I see on the road.
Pip
Still, you only see what they have, you don't see what they might have given up. It's not like their is something immoral about being rich. (I am not rich, by the way). Let's say you made 5 million last year. You could generously give away half of it and still drive a ferrari. If you earned that $$, is it wrong to enjoy some of it? I don't think so.I have no problem with Ferrari's. And there's no problem being rich. But we all must account, to ourselves at least, with how we got that way and what we were willing to do to get there.
Pip