RealLindaL wrote: Sal wrote:A couple of our best candidates happen to be women.
I hear them described even from our own side with adjectives like "strident" and "shrill" .... adjectives you almost never hear used to describe male candidates.
We really need to get beyond that shit.
Don't you dare imply that I'm anti-woman, just because I've called Warren strident and will again. I don't want any president of mine to constantly speak in what sounds like combative, emotion(anger?)-filled speech, male OR female. What this nation needs now is CALMNESS and STEADINESS spoken from strength, Sal, and I just do NOT get that impression at all from Warren, who frankly sounds very high strung to me. I'll vote for her if she's nominated, but she (and Bernie - who strikes similar tones with a male voice) would be far from my first choice in the pack.
I was not a great fan of Hillary (though I voted for her) and I know she was accused of being wooden, but honestly right now I'd rather have wood than dynamite -- and again, that's male or female. I'm just thoroughly sick of upheaval, and long for a return to a semblance of even-keeled normalcy in the Oval Office.
I'm not an expert, but do think Warren and Bernie both would turn off untold numbers of on-the-fence voters, due just as much to tone as to policy, if not more so. Like it or not, those on-the-fence or middle-of-the-road voters are out there, and will still be out there come election day, and they matter.
Thanks for verbalizing what I've been trying to say about Elizabeth Warren all along. Yes, she's intelligent. Yes, she might make a good president. I don't think she'd have a snowball's chance against Trump though, and when you used the words "high-strung," which I haven't heard in years, you absolutely hit it on the head. I've never seen her smile, she is always so deeply concerned about something, she seems to have no personal traits at all except that she is what a friend of mine calls worrysome. Hillary knew there were problems to confront, and she had ideas, but she did not seem so desperate about things. I think she had the experience and confidence to take on pretty much anything. I'm not sure about Ms Warren at all. She thought being insulted by a fool about her heritage was important enough to go check it out to prove him wrong. That's deeply insecure. It was never a priority to anybody that mattered and she just about destroyed her career over it. Trump will tear her up in an election. He can smell fear and I'm sorry, but Elizabeth Warren's aura doesn't shout ferocious.
She's high-strung.
And that is NOT being anti-woman. I canvassed for Hillary. It's that I prefer a strong woman if she wants to lead the free world.
Now, if we must have a woman because history demands it. and the choice were between Warren and Harris, who I've already said is disingenuous, I'd pick Harris. She's deceptive and willing to do anything to get to the top, including sleeping with Mayor Willie, so she's obviously seriously ambitious.
She's a natural politician, born to the job. She'll kick anybody in the balls on the way up the ladder. I don't admire her as a person at all, but as a politician, she's pretty brilliant.
I don't have a clue how she would govern, but she is strong enough to be POTUS, I think.
And good things can come from ambitious, not so good people. THE EPA is one of those things, and there are a lot more in the history of this country.
OH, and I still talk to Pkr because a forum without any opposing ideas dies out very quickly. Also, I know he's been here forever, just like I have, so I know he's not really a troll. He is a very typical Republican voter. You can't expect him to ignore Fox fake news reports.
If this were only democrats, it would be a very dull place.
Home
