Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Hilary Clinton's chance at US presidency? Watch

    • Reporter Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I think it's a really nice thought that Hilary is running for Presidency in the next election, but will it provide more equality between males and females in important roles?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lilypear)
    I think it's a really nice thought that Hilary is running for Presidency in the next election, but will it provide more equality between males and females in important roles?
    defanetly
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Don't really care. Sure it's nice if a women can potentially become president. It was good when a black man become president, didn't change the fact he was a horrible neocon though.

    Both men and women can race to the bottom on equal footing. True equality.

    (Original post by Algorithm69)
    You know that this is the same woman who stated women are the true victims of war, right?
    Whilst being in the political establishment of a country that supplies weapons to brutal dictators that shoot said women and children. She's as bad as the rest of them.
    • Reporter Team
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    No, it won't. One female does not signify equality. If women are to play a greater role in politics (which would be a much-welcomed notion), I would like to think that it is not Hilary Clinton who spearheads it. She should stand aside, and let some new blood into the running. Politics, especially in the US, is too dominated by the old generations who refuse to realize their time is over.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Hilary is an absolute psycho path. I do not care if its a man or a woman as long as its the right person but the corporations will decide and im sure the military industrial unit of America will be hoping for Hilary.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Margaret Thatcher.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lilypear)
    I think it's a really nice thought that Hilary is running for Presidency in the next election, but will it provide more equality between males and females in important roles?
    She has, at no point, confirmed she's running for anything.
    It's likely, of course, but that's not the same as actually doing it.

    But, if she does, will it change the balance of equality? No. Thatcher didn't here. Merkel hasn't in Germany. Kirchner hasn't in Argentina.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BenAssirati)
    No, it won't. One female does not signify equality. If women are to play a greater role in politics (which would be a much-welcomed notion), I would like to think that it is not Hilary Clinton who spearheads it. She should stand aside, and let some new blood into the running. Politics, especially in the US, is too dominated by the old generations who refuse to realize their time is over.
    It's a long road to the top. There aren't many people in a position to carry enough of a following to lead one of the American parties at 35 years of age.
    I doubt anyone younger than Obama was when he was elected (47) will be president for a long time.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    She's showed poor decision making, she's overly hasty, she's hawkish, she's exactly the kind of president to get the US into another Iraq as far as I'm concerned.

    However seeing as the US elections are political equivalent of the X-factor, she's probably got a pretty good chance of winning.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    As a committed supporter of feminism I think it is high time the USA had a lesbian President.
    • Reporter Team
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mrfletch)
    It's a long road to the top. There aren't many people in a position to carry enough of a following to lead one of the American parties at 35 years of age.
    I doubt anyone younger than Obama was when he was elected (47) will be president for a long time.
    That is the problem with american politics. It has become too franchised, and now the politicians are their own special class of celebrities. Lets be honest, more people voted for Obama as a figure than they did Democrats as a party. When these figures are idolized and pushed up by ~100 million people each, they will stay in the limelight for as long as they want, and this causes a massive wall below them that ensures fresh-minded, brilliant politicians cannot rise to the same level until they are, as you say, around 50. Hell, even Tony Blair in the UK is still making the news today.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Regardless of my own thoughts about her, she's likely to be the Democrat nomination in 2016, and given the state of the Republican party, she has every chance of winning.

    Will it provide more equality between males and females in important roles?

    There is nothing stopping women from taking these roles, it is not as though they are actively discriminated against. The reason there are few women in important roles, is because there are few women in political roles full-stop. I don't think a women President will change that, in the same way a woman PM didn't change anything in this country.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BenAssirati)
    That is the problem with american politics. It has become too franchised, and now the politicians are their own special class of celebrities. Lets be honest, more people voted for Obama as a figure than they did Democrats as a party. When these figures are idolized and pushed up by ~100 million people each, they will stay in the limelight for as long as they want, and this causes a massive wall below them that ensures fresh-minded, brilliant politicians cannot rise to the same level until they are, as you say, around 50. Hell, even Tony Blair in the UK is still making the news today.
    Totally agreed, and their politics aren't really going anywhere because it's all about the candidate. News channels over there start speculating who'll be running in the next election as soon as the last one's over without hearing a single policy. When that kind of speculative candidate-centric culture is so engrained on the national psyche it's almost impossible to change it. People everywhere love the status quo- look at how the AV referendum got shot down over here a couple of years ago.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lilypear)
    I think it's a really nice thought that Hilary is running for Presidency in the next election, but will it provide more equality between males and females in important roles?
    What?
    • Reporter Team
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mrfletch)
    Totally agreed, and their politics aren't really going anywhere because it's all about the candidate. News channels over there start speculating who'll be running in the next election as soon as the last one's over without hearing a single policy. When that kind of speculative candidate-centric culture is so engrained on the national psyche it's almost impossible to change it. People everywhere love the status quo- look at how the AV referendum got shot down over here a couple of years ago.
    I am kind of torn about that form of politics, because over here it has had mixed results. People like Tommy Robinson and Nigel Farage have drawn massive amounts of attention to their respective causes, but people don't remember the politics, they remember the people. This means UKIP without Farage will crumble, and that reliance on one person could cause issues for the country as a whole. In America it works as a system because each candidate is cherry-picked by companies and organisations, and funded with an almost blank cheque. Here, it is very much about the main three, and everyone else. It can also backfire, because there can be a party with good points (Labour and Conservatives have some good ones each), but the absolute tool who is their candidate will draw negative press, damaging the overall image.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BenAssirati)
    I am kind of torn about that form of politics, because over here it has had mixed results. People like Tommy Robinson and Nigel Farage have drawn massive amounts of attention to their respective causes, but people don't remember the politics, they remember the people. This means UKIP without Farage will crumble, and that reliance on one person could cause issues for the country as a whole. In America it works as a system because each candidate is cherry-picked by companies and organisations, and funded with an almost blank cheque. Here, it is very much about the main three, and everyone else. It can also backfire, because there can be a party with good points (Labour and Conservatives have some good ones each), but the absolute tool who is their candidate will draw negative press, damaging the overall image.
    In the USA the "candidate" is a puppet for the interests he represents. In the case of George Bush for example he was sponsored by the arms industry, by oil, and by the likes of Haliburton. He was also anti climate change control. Five minutes after being elected he invaded Iraq and Afghanistan and his sponsors cleaned up.
    • Reporter Team
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Old_Simon)
    In the USA the "candidate" is a puppet for the interests he represents. In the case of George Bush for example he was sponsored by the arms industry, by oil, and by the likes of Haliburton. He was also anti climate change control. Five minutes after being elected he invaded Iraq and Afghanistan and his sponsors cleaned up.
    Which is why they are so successful. The basic idea is: we give you money, fame and power, and you give us lenient policies, tax cuts and privileges. That means that as long as the same candidate agrees, they are there for the long haul, thus meaning no-one new can compete (due to a lack of publicity, media coverage and resources). In the UK, such an open attachment to companies is viewed with distaste, which is why Cameron is attacked for crony corporatism, Milliband is attacked for being a tool of the Unions, and Clegg is attacked for being a total mug. This means that the UK is very much more a meritocracy than the US (although still far too dominated by the notion of old-school family links and backroom handshakes).
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BenAssirati)
    Which is why they are so successful. The basic idea is: we give you money, fame and power, and you give us lenient policies, tax cuts and privileges. That means that as long as the same candidate agrees, they are there for the long haul, thus meaning no-one new can compete (due to a lack of publicity, media coverage and resources). In the UK, such an open attachment to companies is viewed with distaste, which is why Cameron is attacked for crony corporatism, Milliband is attacked for being a tool of the Unions, and Clegg is attacked for being a total mug. This means that the UK is very much more a meritocracy than the US (although still far too dominated by the notion of old-school family links and backroom handshakes).
    It has been alleged that President Sarkozy of France accepted 40 million pounds for his "election campaign" from Colonel Gaddafi. I think Blair drank at the same trough. They all suck.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Unless the Republicans can muster a good candidate and sort out their internal divisions, while possibly getting a swing from the Latino vote I think she has a fairly good chance if she wins the primaries. Think Joe Biden would do a better job though.
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lilypear)
    I think it's a really nice thought that Hilary is running for Presidency in the next election, but will it provide more equality between males and females in important roles?
    In the USA i'd be a swing voter (i'd have voted with the electorate since 1980 in every election bar 2000 - though actually Gore did 'win') and i'd quite like to see Castro vs Bush (Jed). Watching the conventions i think that Castro is brilliant and bang on, Hilary to me is a little tired and will always be in her husbands shadow. Jed Bush is pretty moderate though still a conservative, not at all a Tea Party candidate though (they'll probably ruin it for the Republicans again).

    Though come to think of it i'd much rather they amended the constitution and had Arnie vs Clinton (Bill).
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.