Your pick for first U.S. female president?

brianlux said:

Check out this "Elizabeth Warren is mad as hell" clip. This is so right on. We should be mad as hell and we need to do what she suggests which is to speak out and demand our representatives represent us and not BIG MONEY!
http://recode.net/2015/05/26/senator-elizabeth-warren-is-mad-as-hell-video/

When I saw this clip all I could think is Congress needs more Warrens and fewer Mitch McConnells and Rand Pauls. Even with a really concerted effort to "Ditch Mitch" in the last Senate race he still won pretty easily. And he is reelected by constituents who hate him! "But he's better than the other guy" as they rationalize and justify.

It really is up to us voters to demand better and then NOT reelect them even if there isn't a better choice.

GF, I think most reasonable people wouldn't rule out an entire gender or race (or even religion?) based on the opinions or histories of a handful of individuals.

For me, it's about ability, character, actions, and so much more - vs the (ir)relevance of skin color or genitalia.

Godfather. said:

just a thought but I doubt we will see a female or another black predident for a long time, I think obama and hillary screwed that shot all up...but they did widen the playing field for parties other than than the big 2, just my opinion.

Godfather.

By that theory, and given how some other recent presidents have performed, we shouldn't see another white male president for a good long time.

BS44325 said:

rgambs said:

BS44325 said:

People should watch this clip and recognize that Carly Fiorina should not be underestimated. You can disagree with her but you have to acknowledge that she is on fire here

http://launch.newsinc.com/share.html?trackingGroup=91074&siteSection=breitbartprivate&videoId=29141352

That's what it looks like to be on fire? Trashing the opponent rather than extolling your accomplishments? I know that's a bipartisan strategy, but I wouldn't say she was on fire at all. She was on the attack for sure, though the questions did lead her there. If she was on fire she would have said, I don't want to talk about Hillary, I want to talk about what I can bring to the table.

Politics absolutely requires both.
Fiorina has not shied away from a single question on any issue and has taken it to the most likely democratic challenger. Personally I don't know who my number one candidate is right now (can't even vote so I guess it don't matter) but I have been more and more impressed by Fiorina with each passing day. Right now she is proving to be a great communicator.

She was poised, and although I don't personally care for her, she isn't a batshit ideologue like Cruz, Rubio, Santorum, and Huckabee. Her ruthless pragmatism reminds me of Hillary, except that it will lead her to regressive social policies.

BS44325 said:

rgambs said:

BS44325 said:

rgambs said:

BS44325 said:

People should watch this clip and recognize that Carly Fiorina should not be underestimated. You can disagree with her but you have to acknowledge that she is on fire here

http://launch.newsinc.com/share.html?trackingGroup=91074&siteSection=breitbartprivate&videoId=29141352

That's what it looks like to be on fire? Trashing the opponent rather than extolling your accomplishments? I know that's a bipartisan strategy, but I wouldn't say she was on fire at all. She was on the attack for sure, though the questions did lead her there. If she was on fire she would have said, I don't want to talk about Hillary, I want to talk about what I can bring to the table.

Politics absolutely requires both.
Fiorina has not shied away from a single question on any issue and has taken it to the most likely democratic challenger. Personally I don't know who my number one candidate is right now (can't even vote so I guess it don't matter) but I have been more and more impressed by Fiorina with each passing day. Right now she is proving to be a great communicator.

She was poised, and although I don't personally care for her, she isn't a batshit ideologue like Cruz, Rubio, Santorum, and Huckabee. Her ruthless pragmatism reminds me of Hillary, except that it will lead her to regressive social policies.

Fair enough but once the supreme court rules on marriage I am not exactly sure about what "regressive social policies" are left to come into effect. There might be some restrictions on abortion in the later stages of pregnancy but the bulk of the country agrees with that. Roe isn't getting overturned and a constitutional amendment against gay marriage isn't ever going to happen. I'm probably more in line with you on social policy and I don't fear guys like santorum because even if he miraculously won he would never be able to pass any regressive change. Most social issues are generational and the times certainly are a changin'.

The times they be a changin' but Citizens United shows the power of a conservative Supreme Court, that's what scares me.

rgambs said:

BS44325 said:

rgambs said:

BS44325 said:

rgambs said:

BS44325 said:

People should watch this clip and recognize that Carly Fiorina should not be underestimated. You can disagree with her but you have to acknowledge that she is on fire here

http://launch.newsinc.com/share.html?trackingGroup=91074&siteSection=breitbartprivate&videoId=29141352

That's what it looks like to be on fire? Trashing the opponent rather than extolling your accomplishments? I know that's a bipartisan strategy, but I wouldn't say she was on fire at all. She was on the attack for sure, though the questions did lead her there. If she was on fire she would have said, I don't want to talk about Hillary, I want to talk about what I can bring to the table.

Politics absolutely requires both.
Fiorina has not shied away from a single question on any issue and has taken it to the most likely democratic challenger. Personally I don't know who my number one candidate is right now (can't even vote so I guess it don't matter) but I have been more and more impressed by Fiorina with each passing day. Right now she is proving to be a great communicator.

She was poised, and although I don't personally care for her, she isn't a batshit ideologue like Cruz, Rubio, Santorum, and Huckabee. Her ruthless pragmatism reminds me of Hillary, except that it will lead her to regressive social policies.

Fair enough but once the supreme court rules on marriage I am not exactly sure about what "regressive social policies" are left to come into effect. There might be some restrictions on abortion in the later stages of pregnancy but the bulk of the country agrees with that. Roe isn't getting overturned and a constitutional amendment against gay marriage isn't ever going to happen. I'm probably more in line with you on social policy and I don't fear guys like santorum because even if he miraculously won he would never be able to pass any regressive change. Most social issues are generational and the times certainly are a changin'.

The times they be a changin' but Citizens United shows the power of a conservative Supreme Court, that's what scares me.

But the same supreme court ruled in favour of Obamacare so it isn't always "conservative". Also...People always forget that Citizen United was really about Hillary Clinton not wanting a negative movie about her to see the light of day. Certainly it had fundraising implications but ultimately it was a freedom of speech issue. Movies criticizing politicians should be ok regardless of who pays for them.

BS44325 said:

rgambs said:

Look at how much social regression occurred during the Reagan years!
Same could be said for the Bush years, when they were able to shift the debate on issues like stem cell research and foreign invasions lol

Bush's position on stems cells was actually quite reasonable from the point of balancing the worries of both sides. In the end he was right...science moved past the need for using embryonic stem cells and life (as determined by some people) did not need to be destroyed in order for stem cell research to continue. This was a best of both worlds situation for all sides and in hindsight he should be commended on this issue.

Edit - Bush was also celebrated as the greatest president to confront HIV in Africa. He did this from a religious/moral perspective and even his harshest critics acknowledge this.

Time out … this absurd statement cannot go unchallenged. Bush does not deserve to be commended, in hindsight or otherwise, for his position. Bush attempted to shut down the progress of Science in the field of embryonic stem cell research. For anyone suffering from or who has a loved one suffering from Alzheimer’s disease, Cancer, Parkinson’s disease or spinal cord injury (just to name a few diseases being researched), Bush’s decision was a punch in the gut. Yes, Science found a way to go forward with Regenerative Medicine research through other developments, but embryonic stem cells are still a crucial part of the advancements being made even today.

After Bush put the restrictions on Federal funding in 2001 for embryonic stem cell research, the State of California voters passed Proposition 71 to help fund and support stem cell research, giving priority to human embryonic stem cell research. This is significant because Californians don’t usually pass many tax hikes on ourselves, but we believed the need was critical. I am proud of California, as well as the other States who supported embryonic stem cell research, for stepping up when the Federal Government did not.

In 2009, Obama removed the funding restrictions Bush put in place on human stem cell research. Obama should be commended for that.

Although I would not use the words “celebrated as the greatest president to confront HIV in Africa,” I will acknowledge that Bush’s policies played a major role in fighting the HIV epidemic in Africa. Good on him for that.

p.s. To answer the OP's question, I would vote for Elizabeth Warren in a heartbeat if she ran for President.