Topic: Can Hillary Clinton or any woman be the president of the
United States?
Q: How do you think the founding fathers of the country would view a woman as president?
A: They would probably go ape shit on someone’s ass if they were presently alive and understood this truth as truth. Of course they would also probably be going ape shit about a lot of things that are going down in this present culture. Things have changed a lot and honestly the relativity of this question in its literal sense is nonexistent; it’s irrelevant; it’s ridiculous.
So, I am going to attempt to answer this question with the understanding of it possessing implied metaphorical meaning. With my understanding of the basal ideals that this country was originally built on, the ideals that the founding fathers perceivably held dear to themselves as doctrine, I will say: That they would either clap in rejoice for the great bound that her candidacy itself has represented and accomplished in equal rights for all human-kind (at least in the U.S.A. and a large portion of the “developed” world); or they would laugh their asses off because the theology, general social stigma, and ideals of that time all had hard and deep roots of male superiority/female inferiority leaving them completely ignorant of this idea.
Q: Would a woman as president cause other countries to view the United States as weak or vulnerable?
A: In my ignorant perspective; I believe that slightly greater respect would be had for the United States by a decent proportion of the “developed” world. I believe that this would be especially true for a great portion of European states; this understanding may result from Europe’s history of female leaders and therefore their less obtuse mindset. Further, based on the projectable options that are at the voters footsteps, I find that Hillary not only holds the most international experience, but also has a damn good international action-plan, respectively, and such a politically Machiavellian mind that I believe she would provide greater international relations than any of the other projectable candidates.
The biggest downfall that I bear as a foreseeable possibility in Hillary’s international relations would be in concern with the “developing” nations and “undeveloped” nations. This being a result of already held and deeply rooted negative socio-cultural stigmas toward women that a proportion of those countries possess. In this negative foreseeable possibility, Hillary may not pose as positive a stature as a male would because she does not have a penis. This therefore may cause problems with the nations that manufacture most of the goods that this country consumes, though this country also houses a vast amount of the corporations that incorporate those country’s manufacturing plants; posing that this conversely may not be a problem at all.
Q: What effect do you think a woman president would have upon our military?
A: Well, in supposing this question to be inferring Hilary and not just any random woman, I suggest that the effect will be similar to any of the other candidates. Slightly less military spending, removing our military from Iraq, moving it to Iran and/or various other places throughout the world, still holding a strong fist in the air as imagery for our (U.S.A.’s) resounding power and influence throughout the world, and etcetera. I believe that the women of the military would generally feel more empowered and would see this as a win for equality. I also imagine that some of the women of the military would feel heavily debilitated by this occurrence; for they may be harassed more so by men who are retaliating for feeling attacked by the occurrence and possibly somewhat emasculated. And, in that, some of the men in the military may possess vibrant agitation by this occurrence. This latter understanding may be a result of understanding many of the men in the military to have a macho-man mentality and a social stigma against females.
Q: How would having a female president change the interactions of other government officials? I.e. would the president get more or less support from Senators/ Congressmen depending on their sex?
A: I am pretty sure that Hillary would be just dandy in this aspect. She has such a Machiavellian nature, a lot of corporate support, has seen first hand the dealings of the White house for eight years as First Lady, and has crazy Bill at her side. Some of the old farts may not warm up to her too quickly, same with some of the southern boys and some of the evangelical congressmen. Though, I also imagine that the evangelicals will attempt to “love” her all the same, you know “like Jesus”; I image the southern boys would treat her like a lady while they attempt to undermine her, which they would probably do quite a bit of anyway; and the old farts are going to stick to their guns whether it be a man or a woman.
By and large though, I imagine that there will be less receptiveness by the congressmen for Hillary, more undermining, and, in general, less faith in her. This all, at least, for a couple years.
In rethought, the whole political aspect of politics plays such an extreme role that as long as she is being adorned by the people and corporations she will be “adorned” by the congressmen. They like having a job just as much as the congresswomen do.
Q: Why would you/ wouldn’t you support having a female president?
A: Well, I am personally all about women’s rights. Actually, I am all about them equal rights, not necessarily “women’s” nor “racial” rights, but just equal rights across the board for all humankind. For this, I have no quarrel with a candidate in regard to whether they have a fly on their trousers or a zipper. In my opinion, there are many more factors that are much more decisive for me. Granted, I do put into consideration how not having a dick may affect things; I just understand the picture to also contain a vast amount more than the crotch, and I try to grasp the big picture to make my decision.
Q: If you could select one woman in history to be our potential president who would you select.
A: Shit. . . . I am of Scottish heritage, and who should really be president of this country is Mary Queen of Scotts
Q: Does our current Middle Eastern conflict affect the timing of electing a woman?
A: Well sure it does. All things affect all things in some way. This specific situation in the Middle East affects the election much in the possible ways that Hillary as president affects the military and international affairs. I am not going to go into it beyond that.
Q: Do you believe that electing a woman would help or hurt our images with foreign countries?
A: man, I am running out of steam. I kind of hit this earlier too. So, I’ll just leave it at that
Q: Do you believe that the security would have to be increased around a female president?
A: YES!!!! There are still negative social stigmas in this vast and varied culture against women.
Q: Could you support a female president on US currency?
A: Sure; them Canadians do, so do the Britts; hell, the russian’s might as well, and I bet the scotts would if they ever get liberated from England. I believe the Australians also do. And really, who gives a flying fuck. A female president on currency could act as a symbol for equality, for how un-obtuse our culture is, for a huge step in history, and etcetera. Noticing people that are against a female president on US currency would fearfully cause me to be pissed off at how ignorant so many are.
hope this is sufficient
