Whom Do You Think We'll See As President First?
Mantrid
Lockpick Join Date: 2003-12-07 Member: 24109Members
Lockpick Join Date: 2003-12-07 Member: 24109Members
in Discussions
I have based the following choices on what I think could be widely considered only "one-off" from our current 200-year string of "White Guys" as president.
So, what kind of person do you think will be a president first?
A Caucasian Woman?
A Man from a Minority Group (African-American, Hispanic, et cetera)?
or
A Homosexual Caucasian Man?
So, what kind of person do you think will be a president first?
A Caucasian Woman?
A Man from a Minority Group (African-American, Hispanic, et cetera)?
or
A Homosexual Caucasian Man?
Comments
It'd be even cooler if it was a husband-wife setup with at least one of them having minority status, but we're guessing at "most likely first" here.
Ever wondered what the world would be like without men? Imagine a world today without the history of what men have done-wars, rape, violence-and replace that with womanistic ideals. It would be interesting to see; not saying that a woman president will replace all that, just that it would be infuential.
Ever wondered what the world would be like without men? Imagine a world today without the history of what men have done-wars, rape, violence-and replace that with womanistic ideals. It would be interesting to see; not saying that a woman president will replace all that, just that it would be infuential. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
*cough* Thatcher *cough*
I believe the only reason the men have done the killing so far is that the happened to be the ones in power. If women had been ruling, they wouldn't do much different.
Ever wondered what the world would be like without men? Imagine a world today without the history of what men have done-wars, rape, violence-and replace that with womanistic ideals. It would be interesting to see; not saying that a woman president will replace all that, just that it would be infuential. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Allow me to answer a sterotype with a sterotype:
With womanistic ideals, we'd see mass materialism and naracism.
The same is about as true for a black man, but (just my opinion) I think there are fewer black men in the government that have universal appeal than the women in government do. Sharpton, for instance, very much represents just a niche. Colin Powell is probably the best example of strong, universal leadership that just happens to come from a black man, but I'm pretty sure he isn't that interested trading his current position (a good, influencial one) in for one that's far more trouble.
Before we will accept a homosexual man as president, we will first have to accept them as a neighbor and a friend. That is sadly still a few years off.
edit: arg the R meant Republican not restricted!
Yeah, sadly. But then again, when America is still seen trying to prevent abortion and to make other countries ban abortion, causing AIDS to spread and even more poor children to be born, I think that accepting homosexuals is not even within sight.
Yeah, sadly. But then again, when America is still seen trying to prevent abortion and to make other countries ban abortion, causing AIDS to spread and even more poor children to be born, I think that accepting homosexuals is not even within sight. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I fail to see how murdering unborn babies and homosexuals are correlated.
Well, I personally believe that being opposed to abortion and being opposed to homosexuals are two sides of the same ideals. I see the point when people say that abortion is murder, though I do not agree with it. But when preventing a child from being born into a world of poverty, starvation and suffering is pictured as being wrong, I think something is off the trail, just like it is with anti-homosexual opinions.
But I think we're going off topic here, so better end the discussion now.
Ever wondered what the world would be like without men? Imagine a world today without the history of what men have done-wars, rape, violence-and replace that with womanistic ideals. It would be interesting to see; not saying that a woman president will replace all that, just that it would be infuential. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Allow me to answer a sterotype with a sterotype:
With womanistic ideals, we'd see mass materialism and naracism. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Woman: "How do you write women so well?"
Jack Nicholson: "I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->