Younger men threw their support behind Donald Trump in 2024 after favoring Biden in 2020
The United States is still not ready for a female president after more than a century of unsuccessful campaigns for the White House, according to former First Lady Michelle Obama.
“As we saw in this past election, sadly, we ain’t ready,” Obama said earlier this month in a live conversation with actor Tracee Ellis Ross that was published Friday.
“That’s why I’m like, don’t even look at me about running, because you all are lying,” she said. “You’re not ready for a woman. You are not. So don’t waste my time.”
I agree Michelle shouldn’t run. I’d argue, though, that we’re ready for a woman leader, but we need one presented without a bunch of past baggage (Hillary) or a party agenda (Kamala and arguably Hillary, too) and with their own ideas and not what the think tank says will win.
I’d say it’s pretty hard for a woman to both have enough experience to be taken seriously as a candidate and simultaneously have no past baggage or party agenda.
And I don’t think most male candidates are held to that standard, either.
The misogyny is palpable. In the country as a whole.
Species as a whole.
More progressive cultures are getting over this tribalistic, divisive stuff – they will tend to flourish over time.
More conservative cultures will double down on division – they will tend to wither.
While they certainly implode… I think there’s the old problem.
Like say you have 5 co-operative communities that focus on building up great resources, polite trade with eachother, no focus on millitary.
Then you throw in 2 Viking type communities, extremely warlike, that have no independent ability to gather resources… but specifically focus on pillaging.
Obviously the vikings take out the poorly defended villages to build up resources, before going after eachother, in the long run everyone dies out because the vikings wreck everything for everyone, and leave nothing for themselves.
I feel like that’s kind of a form of what happens with capitalism vs socialism types. we’ve got elements that really just want peace… but the warlike ones will just continue to survive, as long as there are enough peaceful societies to wreck… and unfortunately the peaceful ones are the ones to go down first, in spite of being the only ones that would survive long term without the others existance.
I didn’t say “undefended”
It’s the point though, not even completely undefended, still not 10% of the same level of defense as the primary points of capitalism. IE just note how much force, propoganda etc… is pushed at any country that isn’t capitalist enough. Right now fishing boats are being bombed. or even non military force, like the trade embargo’s on cuba etc…
and heaven knows how many government sponsered coups etc… Point is a lot of resources go into doing everything possible to make things that aren’t capitalist enough have a very steep uphill climb.
Bet it all on black and maybe you can win some sort of prize, but you will still be spending the houses money until we all start to agree that liquid cash is not a stabilizing mechanism for mediating our intermittent desire to hold various kinds of power over one another in different situations typically encountered throughout our lives, and that more complex and mindful methods/systems of resource allocation + public investment strategies can be developed as well as successfully popularized in a way that can be intrinsically understood and widely accepted by most new or developing (younger) people who will be steering the general trajectory of our worldwide “society”.
I’m pretty sure socialist and communist countries also do perverted things like blatant propaganda, needless use of force, etc.
Cuba is a great example. Cuba wasn’t embargoed ‘because Communism!’ (though that was, stupidly IMO, part of the USA political messaging)
Castro did summary political executions & imprisonment , killed the free press , enacted torture …
What exactly did you want? Continue doing business like “NBD, you do you?”
Yeah that’s what I thought… In the 1970s.
I’m sorry to say it’s not going as well as I’d hoped.
It’s hilarious. Everyone in this thread literally ignoring the lived experience of women, trying to convince everyone their country isn’t misogynistic.
The majority of people voted for Clinton, a woman.
Not true. Clinton won the popular vote
I want to vote for a woman, but not a Zionist with plans for lots of tax rebates
I didn’t vote for Biden, I didn’t vote for Clinton, I didn’t vote for Harris, and I didn’t vote for Obama (but I did caucus for him because public option)
People laugh but I 100% believe AOC would win.
Who’s laughing that’s not a useful idiot?
I think they’re laughing nervously because deep down they fear that you’re right. I certainly think you are.
I’d like to see her win; just not sure it’ll happen.
I didn’t vote for Hillary or Kamala, but I’d vote for AOC.
What we also don’t need is yet another political dynasty.
AOC
Great VP pick
Eh. She already meets the requirements. She’s old enough. That’s it. And she is eminently more qualified than the current president. She’ll be 39 in 2028. The youngest president, Teddy Roosevelt, was 42.
Any woman who runs will be running with the baggage of feminist politics. This is not the right time for it.
I disagree. I just think what I want is a candidate that has a coherent policy and their campaign to be elected isn’t solely/majority “but I could be the first female president” slop. Hillary and Kamala could have been great presidents, but when the selling point is “I’m a woman” and not much else, that’s not going to resonate with enough people to win an election.
And yet the same doesn’t apply to men for some weird reason