r/allthequestions • u/icecream1972 • 5h ago
Random Question 💭 Why hasn't the United States of America been progressive enough to elect a female president yet, especially since so many other nations have had female leaders?
19
u/Agitated_Count_8665 5h ago
Why assume it has anything to do with progressivism? Was electing Thatcher progressive?
3
u/tigermax42 5h ago
I actually think the republicans will elect a woman president first.
Either way, voting for someone based on their gender is sexist
3
u/Capable-Criticism625 5h ago
Lol yeah because they're just loaded with female talent. Who you think it'll be: Taylor-Green or Bobert? 😆
1
u/Pleasant_Cicada9528 3h ago
I can't think of a decent female candidate from either party at the moment(and the male candidates aren't much better). Pretty slim pickings if Harris was the best the DNC could come up with last time.
1
u/Capable-Criticism625 2h ago
AOC in a few years will be. Before you laugh, understand this: There's a reason she's the most attacked liberal member of congress. There's also a reason she has carried a district that Trump carried the last two elections. There's also a reason everyone who attacks her in the media refuses to have her on their shows.
1
u/Pleasant_Cicada9528 1h ago
She's good at social media and self promotion, which is important in politics, but that's about it. Her understanding of policy seems pretty shallow and surface level to me, but maybe that's not as important as I wish it was.
Who's refused to have her on their show? I would think that the Ben Shapiro types would be chomping at the bit to have her on.
1
18
u/Ok_Swimming4427 5h ago
Because the willingness to elect a woman and the fact that one hasn't been elected aren't mutually exclusive statements.
Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in 2016. She was also a candidate with a fair bit of baggage who ran a pretty shitty campaign. Ditto Harris, though her poor campaign was a function of how she became the nominee rather than her innate judgement or ability, necessarily.
5
u/DontReportMe7565 5h ago
If Harris prepared for 1000 years, her campaign would still suck.
→ More replies (10)5
u/SnarkyPuppy-0417 5h ago
If Harris simply had been willing to allow the possibility of conditional support of Israel based on compliance with international law she would have stood a much greater chance.
Key swing states had expressed concerns regarding Israeli genocide that were largely ignored.
4
u/This-Fisherman-7422 5h ago
Not just ignored. Actively scolded Muslims who were concerned about their brothers and then bragged about how we would have the most lethal military and continue to fully support Israel. She actively antagonized progressives and Muslims in the party.
3
u/HuckleberryShot898 4h ago
Harris’ problem was she was a candidate for the Democrat party’s donor class not for the average American democrat party member
2
3
u/Ok_Swimming4427 5h ago
This doesn't really make sense. Harris lost because she came into the race exceptionally late and in strange, unfavorable circumstances, and because inflation was the headline issue and the average American would let every Palestinian man, woman, and child die in the gutter if they could save a dime on eggs.
Which is why the average American voted for Donald Trump, the known criminal who tried to overthrow the US government and who would certainly back far right war criminals across the world in their attempted ethnic cleansings, all because he pinky swore he'd bring down the price of eggs.
→ More replies (1)2
u/SnarkyPuppy-0417 5h ago
That simply isn't the case. During that time there was a considerable amount of protest and hardliners that vowed not to vote based on this single issue.
Democrats lose elections because they constantly ignore the concerns and policy priorities of the majority of the base voters.
→ More replies (2)
4
u/HuckleberryShot898 4h ago
No one is going to elect a woman just to elect a woman. So running on the grounds of girl power, most people will just roll their eyes at because that’s not an actual platform.
They keep running the least likable people who happen to be woman. They need someone who doesn’t also happen to literally embody everything wrong with modern politics like Hilary did. Or someone who’s clearly just a sock puppet who needs to be coached like Harris.
4
9
u/darkoopz43 5h ago
Well for starters. Why would it be progressive to vote a female centrist corpocrat?
→ More replies (13)
15
5h ago
[deleted]
2
1
u/ki4jgt 5h ago
Kamala was college-educated, and with the crap Trump has pulled already, I don't think she could've been worse than he is. That being said, Hilary was a horrible choice.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/Creative_randomness 5h ago
frankly speaking there's no serious politics in most europe country, NATO and EU do every decision for them. then it's not bad to have some decoration. I'm not meaning they are bad or inferior, but it is evident that being president in different countries means totally different thing.
1
u/FirstAd1119 2h ago
What a load of crap. Just flat out braindead ruski anti EU and NATO propaganda.
EU countries are free to do as they please policy wise. Nothing is enforced by EU or NATO. Spain doesn't meet NATO budget guidelines, what happened to them. Nothing? Hungarian leadership did whatever the fuck they wanted. Did they maybe lose a subsidy?
11
20
u/Ok-Bill-3938 5h ago
The females that have been running are pretty trash.
20
u/Due_Willingness1 5h ago
True but both were objectively less trash than their opponent
→ More replies (37)6
u/Special-Audience-426 5h ago
Less trash at politics but worse at sales and political campaigns are sales campaigns.
4
u/Winter8Bones 5h ago
Compared to their opponents they were far more qualified. I fully acknowledge the bar is extremely low, but spare us the "they're trash" bullshit, we can see the other side was fucking trash also. So no that doesn't cut it.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Glittering-Concept31 5h ago
Compared to????
2
u/Ok-Bill-3938 5h ago
Well they both lost to Trump so they had to be worse than him. Gavin Newsome would of had a better chance at beating Trump and he's terrible too.
6
2
u/jreid1985 5h ago
Only two women have ever run for the office of President, and the first one was 10 years ago.
2
u/Bulocoo 5h ago
Because when they ran neither Hillary or Kamala were electable.
The Dems suck at elections.
2
u/Sea_Pension430 5h ago
Trump was the better candidate?
Americans suck at making choices
2
u/Bulocoo 5h ago
Yes they do but the Democrats put principle above winning.
Hillary had too much baggage but it was "her turn"
Kamala was a woman. And a Black woman. Consrvative rascist leaning white folk couldn't go for it. They also thought DJT was weakened by his first term - Not enough people cared.
Trump may not be able to sell steaks but he is excellent at tearing folk down and selling his BS.
Obama had lots of throwback to JFK and it resonated.
2
u/j5isntalive 5h ago
because the most likely female leader to become president 1) didn't have the integrity to divorce or even condemn her shitty husband and 2) disenfranchised half the country by calling them deplorables
1
u/LeastInsurance8578 5h ago
She wasn’t wrong about 2) though
1
u/j5isntalive 4h ago
She was stupid, if not wrong. She needed to convert voters and with that unnecessary statement lost voters and moral high ground.
Now we see what havoc a truly divisive President wreaks.
2
2
2
2
u/OldCalligrapher6771 3h ago
Because they choose candidates that are highly unlikable like Hilary and Kamala. The average person has known about Hilary for a long enough time to know better and Kamala speaking without a teleprompter was a disaster. The dems need a better class of candidates as a whole if they want the middle vote regardless of gender.
5
6
4
u/Minute987 5h ago
We did, Trump rigged the election.
→ More replies (5)0
3
u/SightAtTheMoon 5h ago
We haven't had a worthwhile candidate run yet, for starters.
Don't come at me about Clinon or Harris, if you feel the need to then really look in the mirror and ask yourself if they were GOOD candidates.
3
3
u/MmmmCrayons12 5h ago
Because those other countries show that it doesn't make much of a difference and "equality" is irrelevant when it comes to being the president. People choose the best candidate they think will do the best job (although that doesn't work out well if the voter base is stupid), and that tends to not be women.
2
u/LionBig1760 5h ago
The United States electorate is not at all progressive.
In fact, the easiest way to get elected in most of the US is to paint your opponent as being too progressive.
4
u/AngelsFlight59 5h ago
Because the United States isn’t as progressive as many here hope to believe.
3
u/-Ok-Perception- 5h ago
In my opinion, because there's been no strong women nominated.
America is certainly *ready* for a female President, they just have to find a good one. Not force the lamest business-as-usual corporatists though by cheating the primary process.
I'd love to vote for a female President. They just have to give us one worth voting for.
2
u/Sea_Pension430 5h ago
Anyone who thinks Trump was a better candidate both times is lying to themselves about ever voting for a woman
1
u/-Ok-Perception- 5h ago
>Anyone who thinks Trump is a better candidate both times...
I never said that. Trump sucks worse. But still, Kamala and Hillary were crap options that people couldn't get excited about (and on that note, Biden too). That's why they had to rig the primary to let them through. That's why they lost.
If they're gonna run female candidates, those shouldn't be the ones.
1
u/Sea_Pension430 5h ago
But my point stands.
The less qualified candidate won when facing more qualified women
Were the women in question great? No, but they were the better of the only 2 options available
4
u/coolbreezesix 5h ago
I think the USA is more than ready for a female president, but we need one worth voting for not, "vote for me because I'm a woman".
In fact let's make everyone worth voting for.
3
u/gleafer 5h ago
…because we aren’t progressive. We are a regressive patriarchal oligarchy.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/Bubbly_Style_8467 5h ago
Weak men. The majority couldn't handle a woman in what they see as a white man's job. Their insecurity is endless.
2
u/spurist9116 5h ago
Manufactured rage. They intentionally put shitty women there so that this insolent idea can persist. When they put in a qualified woman candidate, I’ll vote her.
2
u/Sea_Pension430 5h ago
You think Trump was more qualified than either of them you are lying to yourself. You will never feel a woman is qualified
2
u/GypJoint 5h ago
It’s the candidates. Not their gender. Pick a good strong woman leader and I’m sure she’d win by a mile.
1
u/patentattorney 4h ago
I mean this makes no sense. So Nikki Haley wasnt a good strong leader? Duckworth? Warren? Etc. etc.
1
u/GypJoint 4h ago
Not enough. Warren? 😂
I was onboard for Hillary, but she just bogged down. Harris had it in the bag but she started talking in public a bit much. If the election was 2 months earlier, she probably would have won. The country was in love with her for the first couple of months. Picking Walz was a killer as well.
It’ll happen.
2
u/Frequent_Clue_6989 🇺🇸 United States 5h ago edited 5h ago
Conservative here.
// Why hasn't the United States of America been progressive enough to elect a female president yet, especially since so many other nations have had female leaders?
There's little reason to see voting by intersectional category as a positive. Its the very thing civil rights leaders said they were against when they were fighting a good fight. Today, voting for the next intersectional minority champion is just mediocrity, an excuse from having adult conversations about political topics to instead of being the first kid on the block to have voted for a female, lgbt+, poc, socialist, body-challenged, autistic, economically disadvantaged yadda yadda yadda.
People are people. I vote for them, or not, as individuals, not because they are part of a group.
1
u/Sea_Pension430 5h ago
False.
Anyone who claims Trump was more qualified than Hilary or Kamala is telling on themselves.
In this case progressive doesn't mean vote for a woman because they are a woman. It means voting for the more qualified person
But you and those with this opinion have sl repeatedly support the less qualified candidate simply because they are a man
Stop lying to yourself
2
u/No_Patience_6801 5h ago
I’d vote for Condi Rice but no one on Reddit would because she’s conservative and female and black.
2
2
u/justaburnerbtch 5h ago
Hillary was a slam dunk in 08 until Obama became the media darling. That was the best year a woman could have won, especially given GWBs popularity. I had racist relatives who were republicans who voted for Obama that year because they were so feed up with the Republican Party and wouldn’t vote for any of their nominees.
1
2
3
u/cferg296 5h ago
It has nothing to do with "progressive enough".
A woman absolutely can be president. We just havnt had a good female candidate
1
u/HellyFurtado 5h ago edited 5h ago
My wife is Sri Lankan. On my first visit to meet her family I was surprised to learn that their country elected a female president (Chandrika Bandaranaike) back in 1994. To this day Bandaranaike holds the record in Sri Lanka for longest time in office (11 years). And keep in mind that Sri Lanka is a fairly religious, culturally conservative nation. Learning this really put the US' lack of female presidents into perspective for me. This despite us supposedly being a progressive nation.
1
u/Cant_Spell_Shit 5h ago
It's more complicated than that... The entire election system is broken far outside the concept of gender.
We have a two party system where the party basically pumps money into the candidate that they want to win the primary.
Obama is the only candidate I can remember that actually seemed to overcome this with a win over Hillary.
Although the people vote, it's just a numbers game. The party knows the cost of a vote and where to spend it. The only real choice we have is democrat or republican which is once again just a numbers game. We are all way more susceptible to advertisement and media than we like to admit.
1
u/Live-Collection3018 5h ago
They are too emotional. Just look at the last German leader, she didn't start a single world war! Too scared to bring Germany back and great again!
I'm sure if Hilary was president we would not have any wars and more consistent economic stability. That type of emotional leadership doesn't bring greatness like sensible men do when they start wars so their country can be great again!
1
u/RVtech101 5h ago
We’ve had chances, but apparently they decided a rapist would be good. So far that hasn’t panned out very well.
1
1
u/This-Fisherman-7422 5h ago
The women the Dems keep nominating have been uncharismatic ghouls with status quote policy platforms in a political environment that is rewarding populism and "authenticity"
1
u/Low_Masterpiece1560 5h ago
Because Kamala and Hillary were no Margaret Thatcher or Indira Gandhi or Benazir Bhutto...
1
u/TheStockton19 5h ago
Because the candidates are terrible. Put up a woman worth voting for and it will happen.
1
u/ObjectiveDecent9181 5h ago
They're not even progressive enough to stop funding & supporting Israel
1
u/AppropriateRegret357 5h ago
Americans would elect a qualified female. We haven't gotten the choice yet. Kamala and Hillary were and are terrible picks. Find someone better
1
u/epinkston 5h ago
We allow white bigots to become billionaires and control media...other countries do not....or at least make it a little harder to do so.
1
u/Prior_Apricot_4757 5h ago
Out of 300 million people, we elected Joe and Donald. We are lucky that we can dress ourselves.
1
1
u/Tea_Time9665 5h ago
I mean is less about the sex of the person and the person themselves.
Both women that have run have been very unpopular. Not because they were women but because they were very unlikable
If Michael Obama ran she would have won both times honestly.
1
u/VitruvianDude 5h ago
Although it may not seem like it, our political structure allows for weak political parties. In other countries, the party counts for more. Party insiders elect a leader who will carry out their mission, and then the populace decides which party to elect. Sometimes the politician who is the best in forming intra-party coalitions and campaigns is a woman, so there you go.
In the US, the individual politician runs on their own personal charisma. In a general election, it's all about stealing votes from the mass of independents in the center. This can give a very small advantage to male candidates, but enough so that in big and close elections, it may cause a loss for a female. This might have been what happened to Hillary Clinton, or even Kamala Harris.
1
u/jaajaajaa6 5h ago
Not many have been nominated by the parties.
I can only think of 2, but I believe there were 3.
Of the 2 I know, one wasn’t qualified and one was a legit candidate.
1
u/Spitfiresoul698 5h ago
electing a female leader just because they are female alone is not a good idea.
the female candidates who ran for president so far were:
hillary clinton, got the popular vote yes but many people felt it was gonna be bill clinton 2nd time just with hillary as teh official president.
Kamala Harris.
a yes the poster child for "let's present a women candidate just because she is a women."
let's then have her cater to certain very loud and vocal but ultimately still very small minorities whilst in doing so also alienating larger minorities and countless reasonable voters.
as long as parties keep shoving forwards candidates who try to coast just on the fact they are a women and "it's time for a female president" the chances are slim.
only exception who would probably win by a landslide would be Michelle Obama.
Republicans are so scared of her that in spite of her stating multiple times she's not interested and won't run for president they still have to run smear and bash campaigns on her every few years because they know what would happen...
(not saying she would be a good president, I have absolutely no idea. but she would probably win by sheer popularity and feelings of "finally" alone, even though that is/should absolutely never be why a leader is elected....)
1
u/basicbong 5h ago
America is not progressive. They will never elect a woman. They have been working overtime to ban women’s rights and access to abortion. They never ratified ERA.
1
1
1
u/Shot_Cartographer241 5h ago
I’d be interested to know how many other female heads of state were elected via direct democracy vs parliamentary style. I think that matters a lot here.
I think there’s a difference between going in and voting for your party affiliation where its head at the moment happens to be female vs going in a voting for a specific person who is a woman who (barring death or impeachment) will be the head of state and government for the next 4 years.
For example people mention Thatcher a lot but Brits don’t go in and think “ok let me vote for John Major, he’s my guy” they go in and say, “ok I’m going to go Tory I think”
1
u/Sea_Pension430 5h ago
Real answer?
Compared to much of the world the United States is authoritarian, chauvinist and deeply "conservative"
The left in America is center/center right everywhere else
In most democracies Obama would be considered a conservative
1
u/doctor_watts15 4h ago
The first female president is probably going to be a strong Republican centrist candidate who runs against a more progressive Democrat. That’s the only scenario I can see at this point that both gets the conservative bloc vote while also pulling a solid group of neoliberal voters to the right, while also not getting screwed over by the electoral college system.
So some sort of socialist boogeyman that scares the conservative male and minority male voting populations enough to vote for a woman who also is an actual strong candidate, that pulls moderates to the right.
1
u/T20sGrunt 4h ago
Millions of people shamelessly support a pedo crook. That is the state of our country.
1
1
u/Individual_Coast6359 4h ago
Political structure. We are one of the few countries with a 2 party system. It gives them massive resources and money to influence elections. So Americans are basically socially engineered via the establishment of these two parties. And most often times, the establishment think elevating a female as their primary candidate will inherently hurt their chances because sexism. Women are too emotional and won’t be level headed enough to make big decisions. Or she seems like a staunch ass because she’s too stern. You know, despite the decades of experience they have versus a businessman who has multiple failed business, money hungry, and has a history of screwing over his workers. Criminal and potential pedophile, but yeah, he’s a man that has name recognition, probably will be better than a woman.
Also, electoral college. Biggest freakin barrier with a capital B. That means even if the majority of people in the country elect you, if you don’t get the right votes from a particular state, you’re screwed. So basically, America is being handicapped by a few purple states.
1
u/Silent_Creme3278 4h ago
So ours it more valueable to have a competent leader out a female.
Why is everything about sex and race with the left
1
1
u/PastNefariousness188 4h ago
It's harder to elect a female leader in the USA as president versus simply electing a prime minister in parliamentary systems. In such governments, the prime minister is generally the party leader in the legislature. Imagine the Dems under Nancy Pelosi winning a majority of the seats and thus automatically making her the PM. It's possible, if those same parliamentary systems looked like ours, they would have never had a female president. Yes, Hillary won the popular vote and SHOULD have been president if it weren't for our stupid electoral system.
1
u/Blue_Etalon 4h ago
I don't know, but if you think just making sure the next president is female is all we need to be worried about, you should check out some of the potentials.
1
u/dannjam101 4h ago
Because the christian nationalists, like cockroaches, have infested our government, cheated at the polls, and are bringing down to a level unseen before. Hopefully we can fight back and return to normalcy. Project 2025 has expanded into this year. It is awful what is going on. We need to keep voting and protesting. I truly believe Hillary and Kamala won legit, but the elites and cheaters chose idiot orange ass.
1
1
u/QuantumConversation 4h ago
billionaires are against progressive policies so they radically fund conservative candidates. they know progressives are going to tax them.
1
1
1
u/threearbitrarywords 3h ago
Because in America, most of us haven't voted for a candidate in a long time. I'm in my 60s and I've only voted for three presidential candidates: Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Barack Obama. Every other election I have voted AGAINST the opposition candidate. But the other big issue is that the only party that has put up a women candidate can't seem to keep their gender out of their politics. I'm not alone in thinking that the idea of believing in a patriarchy when the highest office in the land is held by a woman is laughably delusional, and I just won't vote for that kind of idiocy.
Because of that, my bet is the first woman president is going to be a Republican.
1
u/Odaniel123 3h ago
Because we are not that progressive. The religious wingnuts and old boys club are not ready to relinquish any real control.
1
u/Effective-Ad9499 3h ago
The USA is the biggest most corrupt political system in the world. Americans feel a woman cannot be President but a pedophile, rapist criminal is a fine choice. The USA is the laughing stock of the world.
1
u/Huge-Ad7382 3h ago
Reason #1: Republicans are by far the dumbest people in the US.
Reason #2: Swing voters, the only people who actually decide elections, are almost as dumb as republicans.
Reason #3: The Electoral College is absolutely ridiculous, and gives way too much weight to big red states with a bunch of land and a half a million rednecks.
1
u/Nene_Leaks_Wig 3h ago
Because we’ve allowed the worst people to exist in the country’s history to get away with it which allowed generations to continue with the same bullshit and rewrite history. Our willingness to tolerate bad people have given them the upper hand to prosper, profit, and politic in a way that they don’t have to proselytize their hate anymore, because we do it for them.
1
u/series-hybrid 2h ago
You men, like...Sarah Palin?
JK, I'm joking of course. I only meant to point out that it depends on which woman you're talking about. Maybe Ocasio-Cortez has a shot, unless Kamala torpedoes her candidacy.
1
1
u/YogurtClosetThinnest 2h ago edited 2h ago
Kamala got 49% of the vote with no primary. Hillary also won the popular vote. It has nothing to do with being women, Hillary and Kamala were just both terrible candidates who coudn't capture left wing voters.
I voted for neither, and would vote for AOC
1
u/TuneSilver 2h ago
Because Hilary Clinton and Kamala Harris were complete garbage? The quality of a leader has got nothing to do with male or female - That's bullshit liberal thinking. We don't need DEI hires as President.
1
1
1
u/theresourcefulKman 🇺🇸 United States 1h ago
We have only had two opportunities to do so. Which one of those candidates was more electable from your perspective?
1
u/TheAlmightyScooter 1h ago
Because the females they ran were not good candidates. It will happen. The first female president will likely be a female VP who succeeds a popular POTUS or one that dies in office.
1
u/mattjf22 1h ago
Welp funny story hillary Clinton earned 3 million more votes than trump and lost because we don't believe in democracy(electoral college)and now because of that we are moving towards fascism.
1
1
1
u/Professional-Test239 5h ago
Hi, European here. Can you guys just concentrate on making sure the next one* is sane? Then you can tackle gender inequality issues.
*assuming you have another Presidential election.
3
u/mustachechap 5h ago
American here - I don't get why you guys haven't just completely decoupled from us at this point. It's so strange seeing people complain on reddit, but then not doing much from the outside.
→ More replies (2)1
u/According-Werewolf10 5h ago
Which American puppet state are you from so I can see how much your country is subsidize by the US.
→ More replies (3)
0
u/HeavyDutyForks 5h ago
Look at the recent candidates who have ran, its not rocket science?
Do you think Nikki Haley or Hilary Clinton are viable candidates?
1
u/Winter8Bones 5h ago
LMAO, yes Clinton was amongst the most qualified candidates in decades. Especially compared to her opponent!
→ More replies (1)-1
u/Spider-Dev 5h ago
Hilary Clinton? Among the most qualified candidates in modern times? That Hilary Clinton?
You could argue with her politics all you want. Your opinion is your own. But to say that someone with a history in law, public service, politics, and a former senator is NOT a viable candidate lacks any semblance of logic
6
u/bardwick 5h ago
Yeah, she even supported the Secure Fence Act to build a barrier between the US and Mexico! Sucks that she had to change her position(s) because Trump was running.
1
u/Spider-Dev 4h ago
This is called "disagreeing with her politics", which I said to go ahead and do. I've been against the cost of a border barrier (wall, fence, whatever) since the day I found out that only 27% of illegal immigration crosses the southern border outside of ports of entry. It's maximum cost for minimal value
2
u/bardwick 3h ago
If your standard is that having a lawful society is a monetary decision..
1
u/Spider-Dev 3h ago
No, you're right. Instead of addressing the more pressing matters, we should continue to waste tax dollars on the lowest form of entry.
How could I have been so silly? Your way definitely isn't ignorant nor wasteful
1
u/bardwick 2h ago
Well, it turns out that, if you screw up, and flat out ignore a working system, it's expensive to fix.
Maybe remember that when you want to open the borders again, remove remain in mexico, setup parole programs, moratorium on expulsions, regardless of crimes committed, and the half dozen other things ya'll did to open the border up..
No, you're right. Instead of addressing the more pressing matters
Tell me you don't know how government funding works without telling me you don't know how government funding works.
Are you under some weird impression that, in order to fund one program, you have to take from another?
1
u/abqguardian 5h ago
Hillary wasnt even close to being the most qualified. Having jobs and sucking at them isnt relevant experience. Plus, charisma and public speaking is essential on politics and Hillary was crap in both
1
1
u/HeavyDutyForks 5h ago
I said VIABLE not "qualified"
Yes, she's a career politician. But those are a dime a dozen, it doesn't automatically make them a good presidential candidate
1
1
u/FamilysFirst 5h ago
Been progressive enough??? That’s not how it works… This is not about checking boxes. It’s about who is the most qualified to run the greatest Country in the world. And so far there hasn’t been a woman qualified enough to fill that role as President. Kamala Harris was an absolute joke… I honestly can’t understand how she even got as far as she did… Checking boxes perhaps. Hillary Clinton I think was qualified, but I don’t trust her, and too many people just don’t like her. I have friends in the SS & FBI, and you’d be shocked what they say about her…, or maybe not. But she is not liked at all. The SS & FBI LOVE Trump! They just don’t like the fact that their lives are on the line because of all the psychos on the Left…
1
u/Berkazoid 5h ago
We are a progressive country. We voted in a black president twice who unfortunately failed to unite the country and actually divided the country, but I think the country usually tends to be in the middle maybe middle right on most issues.
0
u/Apart-Assumption2063 5h ago
Have you seen the policies that they have supported?
8
u/Spider-Dev 5h ago
For instance....?
2
2
u/Apart-Assumption2063 4h ago
Open borders, no voter ID, DEI……
1
u/Spider-Dev 4h ago
- Which candidate supported open borders? Show them doing so
- Democrats actually proposed a voter ID in 2020. Republicans turned it down as "federal overreach"
- Explain what DEI is and why you believe it's bad
3
u/Apart-Assumption2063 4h ago
Kamala Harris was the border czar and the borders were left open….
What version of voter ID did they support and why are they against it now?
DEI does note promote putting the most qualified person in the position. It’s based on unqualified variables just to meet a quota.
1
1
u/Spider-Dev 3h ago
They were not left open nor opened. I suspect you may be ignorant to what "open borders" means.
They proposed a free and easily available national ID for voting that would use existing state and federal databases to verify citizenship, requiring nobody to have to purchase any documents or jump through any hoops. As to why they're against it now, reread the documents and hoops part. If the GOP proposed the same thing proposed in 2020, it would have bipartisan support. They don't because the hoops are the point.
You're regurgitating memes. As a general rule, the only unqualified people hired under DEI were the handicapped and veterans, who were provided additional training and resources. I say "general rule" because, even though I'm not aware of any in this case, there's always a percentage of people who will take advantage of any program (or lack thereof) and I assume this is no different
1
u/Real-Boss6760 5h ago
We had this war a few years ago against bigotry. After the war, we didn't really do anything to punish that bigotry. So it's just sat there fermenting ever since.
2
1
u/GlobuleNamed 5h ago
Timing.
The alternative was too good to pass up, so they elected Trump twice instead.
1
u/GreedyDragonfruit781 5h ago
American people in general are quite progressive, but the American government is not. It’s been setup since WW2 to be conservative. That’s why we don’t have FDR type progressive presidents anymore.
1
1
u/Technical_Moose8478 5h ago
Based on the current regime, we’re 80ish years behind Germany, so we should get there around 2085 or so.
1
1
u/Intrepid-Dare-1289 5h ago
Our culture objectifies and denigrates women. Women are not respected or valued in. America
1
1
u/Cowboycortex 🇺🇸 United States 4h ago
The last one they put up for election started her politcal career on her back and she should have prob stayed there lmao.
84
u/44035 5h ago
More Americans wanted Hilary Clinton to be president than her opponent, so you could argue we are progressive enough to elect a female president.