The first woman president

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Dem was going to win in 2008. It was inevitable.

Michelle didn’t want Obama to run, while the girls were so young. He went ahead. Trump was born because of Obama. He started his birthright blather and then Obama and Seth Myers made fun of him. Ergo, if Obama would have waited, we wouldn’t be here today.

+100000

Dems got it wrong in the 2008 Primary. We by-passed someone who was more qualified and in their prime for a person who had just begun their political journey and had a 20 year window of guaranteed to be POTUS one day. Then the DNC manipulation that determined who could and couldn't be nominee reared it's ugly head in 2016 and 2020. Here we are paying the price for these missteps by enduring a second term of the worst POTUS ever.

We'll be back in the high life again. All the doors we closed one time, will open up again.

This is one helluva stretch of speculative fiction.

+1. People vote for who they want to vote for. By now we should realize that qualifications are not that important to Americans. An HRC presidency could have led to Trump as well (backlash just like the Obama backlash).

No politician of the past 20 years was going to beat Obama in a POTUS race. The facts speak for themselves. Not only do numbers and facts prove this as true, common sense also does.

[Anonymous]

Democrats will be out of power for a few cycles now, so first woman Prez is more likely to be an R.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like the OP is describing Sarah Palin!

The OP is a sexist crack head. The first woman POTUS will be POTUS because she is the best person for the job at the time she seeks the position. Being the best person for the job at the time you seek the position isn't always a guarantee of victory (just ask HRC about 2008) but eventually the odds will fall in the favor of the best person for the job.

+100
I didn't have the energy to respond, but you are exactly right. The OP's screed was one of the most sexist things I've read here in a long time. Or was it misogynist? One of the "-ists" that liberals claim is solely the purview of conservatives. What a moronic myth.
DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Respectfully, I disagree with OP. I think the first female president will be a Democrat. I cannot imagine the same party that chose Trump as their leader would support a woman candidate.

I could see a Liz Cheney. She's a Republican but the anti-Trump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm a Dem, left of left of center, as in the Bernie and AOC wing of the progressive Democrats. And still, I'm coming to terms with this take on American culture: The first woman president will be a Republican.

I personally would vote for AOC or any of the younger Democrats being talked about now. But she won't win. If America votes for a woman, it will be a woman who does not threaten the male ego. She will be conservative but code moderate, simply by being softspoken and having gentle mannerisms. She will be attractive, probably white, probably of a slender build, and definitely a mother. Most likely of a WASP or northern European background.

I used to think Kristi Noem fit the bill until she bragged about shooting a dog. But generally she will fit the profile of a Mama Grizzly conservative, "tough" only in the pro-America red-blooded right wing kind of way, stroking the alpha male aesthetic ego. She won't be a pantsuit girlboss. She would win independents and moderate Democrats only because so much of this country is ill-informed about politics in that a woman - a softspoken woman, not someone outwardly crazy like MTG or Lauren Boebert - would "code moderate" just because she's a woman.

The first woman president will be nonthreatening and pleasing to the male gaze, and she will be subservient to a white male VP. But the GOP will get to claim the historic milestone of the first woman president.

I think you are prescient and it will be a great day for America. Probably as soon as 2028!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Respectfully, I disagree with OP. I think the first female president will be a Democrat. I cannot imagine the same party that chose Trump as their leader would support a woman candidate.

I could see a Liz Cheney. She's a Republican but the anti-Trump.

She'll be elderly by the time the GOP rids themselves of the Trump era. No chance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is a dumb thread

And no, I don’t think the first female president will be republican. You are not paying attention. They want women to be trad wives and don’t even want them voting. They certainly don’t want a woman worrying her pretty little head over nuclear codes.

Then why are there women in cabinet level positions in this Administration?

Trump chose to include women… why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a dumb thread

And no, I don’t think the first female president will be republican. You are not paying attention. They want women to be trad wives and don’t even want them voting. They certainly don’t want a woman worrying her pretty little head over nuclear codes.

Then why are there women in cabinet level positions in this Administration?

Trump chose to include women… why?

Because those people were the most qualified people who were willing to risk their careers by working for Trump. Some were men. Some were women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a dumb thread

And no, I don’t think the first female president will be republican. You are not paying attention. They want women to be trad wives and don’t even want them voting. They certainly don’t want a woman worrying her pretty little head over nuclear codes.

Then why are there women in cabinet level positions in this Administration?

Trump chose to include women… why?

That’s your best argument? He picked people who would do what he wants and not question his orders. He didn’t pick people who know what they are doing - male or female. He simply wants them to do his bidding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a dumb thread

And no, I don’t think the first female president will be republican. You are not paying attention. They want women to be trad wives and don’t even want them voting. They certainly don’t want a woman worrying her pretty little head over nuclear codes.

Then why are there women in cabinet level positions in this Administration?

Trump chose to include women… why?

That’s your best argument? He picked people who would do what he wants and not question his orders. He didn’t pick people who know what they are doing - male or female. He simply wants them to do his bidding.

I’m not trying to be argumentative and I think everyone in Trump’s administration is a moron. But pp said that Trump/Republicans/“They” want women at home barefoot in the kitchen doing trad wide stuff, so I’m wondering how PP reconciles their belief with the actual Trump administration demographics.

Obviously Trump could’ve found enough (moronic) men to serve in his administration, why include women?

Also I haven’t seen MAGA freaking out that women are holding jobs in the administration instead of being home. Does that Malibu Barbie press sec even have kids? I’m pretty sure Tulsi does t have kids either. So how do you reconcile “their” support for (1) working women and (2) childless women with your beliefs that “they” want women at home without the right to vote?

Still not sure who “they” is, if you want to clarify!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a dumb thread

And no, I don’t think the first female president will be republican. You are not paying attention. They want women to be trad wives and don’t even want them voting. They certainly don’t want a woman worrying her pretty little head over nuclear codes.

Then why are there women in cabinet level positions in this Administration?

Trump chose to include women… why?

That’s your best argument? He picked people who would do what he wants and not question his orders. He didn’t pick people who know what they are doing - male or female. He simply wants them to do his bidding.

I’m not trying to be argumentative and I think everyone in Trump’s administration is a moron. But pp said that Trump/Republicans/“They” want women at home barefoot in the kitchen doing trad wide stuff, so I’m wondering how PP reconciles their belief with the actual Trump administration demographics.

Obviously Trump could’ve found enough (moronic) men to serve in his administration, why include women?

Also I haven’t seen MAGA freaking out that women are holding jobs in the administration instead of being home. Does that Malibu Barbie press sec even have kids? I’m pretty sure Tulsi does t have kids either. So how do you reconcile “their” support for (1) working women and (2) childless women with your beliefs that “they” want women at home without the right to vote?

Still not sure who “they” is, if you want to clarify!

A few women will always rise, especially those who are loudest to champion the patriarchy. You have to convince women that’s it good to support the patriarchy because these women do. I mean they’re evil, but they’re not idiots.

Many women like power behind the scenes. White women are driving the white supremacy movement, but do it quietly. They give men the public face. Read Sisters in Hate.

Historically, GOP has a terrible record on elevating women in its party.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm a left of center Democrat and I agree with you. They'll elect a woman with internalized misogyny and then try to act like they've done such great things for women. Sadly, the country isn't ready to elect a woman with liberal beliefs. She's too threatening.

This.

[Anonymous]

I don't know...I'm starting to think AOC.

She's a fighter and incredibly courageous. I couldn't see it before- but she's convincing people that she's for "them" not billionaires, corporations, etc. She is gaining a lot of traction and respect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't know...I'm starting to think AOC.

She's a fighter and incredibly courageous. I couldn't see it before- but she's convincing people that she's for "them" not billionaires, corporations, etc. She is gaining a lot of traction and respect.

Mega donors will give AOC zero traction and zero respect and therefore she has zero chance of advancing her political career unless she becomes one of the swamp creatures. It sucks but that is the current state of American politics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know...I'm starting to think AOC.

She's a fighter and incredibly courageous. I couldn't see it before- but she's convincing people that she's for "them" not billionaires, corporations, etc. She is gaining a lot of traction and respect.

Mega donors will give AOC zero traction and zero respect and therefore she has zero chance of advancing her political career unless she becomes one of the swamp creatures. It sucks but that is the current state of American politics.

Well US politics have sure changed quickly in 2025 haven’t they? Who’s to say what comes next? If it’s burned to the ground, anything can rise from the ashes.