Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Why are only men allowed to become president? When will the Republicans try to impeach Biden? And why the country will remain divided...these are not united states


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Princess of Tap said:

 Kansas has never been in the Confederacy.

Most of the Bible Belt is the Confederacy.

 But you know more about all that than I do. LOL

Arizona, where I reside, was part of the Confederacy for awhile. It's taught in curriculum in schools, that we were part of "the south" before Lincoln sent troops to reclaim Arizona for the Union.

But I don't consider Arizona part of the Bible Belt. I don't think being part of the Confederacy automatically makes a place some sort of bible thumping haven.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Princess of Tap said:

 Kansas has never been in the Confederacy.

Most of the Bible Belt is the Confederacy.

 But you know more about all that than I do. LOL

The Bible Belt has nothing to do with the Confederacy.

Origin of bible-belt:  The name is derived from the heavy emphasis on literal interpretations of the Bible in Evangelical denominations. The term "Bible Belt" was coined by the American journalist and social commentator, H.L. Mencken, in the early 1920s.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Princess of Tap said:

 BTW-- The Bible Belt is Dixie not Kansas.

And you may be too young to remember when people in the Bible Belt burned the Beatle records because of what John Lennon said about Jesus Christ.

Has nothing to do with the Confederacy, is in some Union as well.

main-qimg-cdba206d214cec1d238fd375abb68c

159a05ceaaccb64ab07556e633f6e7ae.png

 

There are other "belts".

7dfd62658d83bc7bf499f381fa1a9b50.jpg

latest?cb=20171109012930

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, TopBilled said:

Interesting. I was thinking about Geraldine Ferraro and Elizabeth Dole earlier. I was a kid in the 80s and aside from Margaret Thatcher, Corazon Aquino and Indira Gandhi, they were the only women with political power I heard about during those years. (Sorry but Imelda Marcos and her vast shoe collection do not count.)

Perhaps moderate Republicans have become Dems in your state because of the extremism of the GOP party.

When I looked at a map this morning about which states are now blue and now red, it seemed like the Dems control the densely populated states with large urban areas (California, Illinois and New York). They now have a foothold in the southwest, probably due to the Hispanics turning away from the Trumpers. And the Pacific Northwest is basically blue, as is the northern portion of the midwest. But there is still that bible belt area of the midwest into the south that is red and probably will remain so.

There was Golda Meir as well...

It's generally a less cumbersome path to become prime minister in most countries, when compared to the US Presidency, as the PM is typically elected first as the head of their party and not directly elected by the general population.  Note that in the UK, the PM is technically appointed by the monarch, and is customarily the head of the ruling party resulting from a general election.  The PM position in the UK is actually just a customary position by convention, and not supported by any statute or constitutional document.

In a UK general election, people are voting only for their local parliament representative (the UK calls this a constituency), which is analogous to our House of Representatives district, and not directly for the PM.   Now, the likeability/personality/etc of a leader of one party or another may influence which local candidate a person votes for, but the UK people do not vote for the PM directly.  If we had a similar system here, we would vote for our local district representative and whichever party in the House ended up with the majority would pick the president, as it would be the party leader.  The PM is also the head of the executive and legislative branches in the UK.

The election of the party head (and the person who might become the eventual PM) is done by party members only, which is a very small proportion of most countries' populations, and takes place outside of the general election process (the party leader is already established in most cases before a general election occurs).  As an example, the UK's Conservative party (which is in power today) has about 180,000 members total in the entire country.  Labour has about 550,000 members.  The UK population is nearly 67 million.   So you see the person who likely will become PM is selected by a very small minority of the population.

The general population generally votes for their local MP (representative) based on party platforms and programs rather than personalities, and usually people are lifelong voters for one party.

All this to say that leadership selection is quite a bit different in most other countries.  Ours is a mix of politics and personalities, with a heavy emphasis on the latter.  It also takes about 2 years (for some insane reason), as opposed to a few weeks or months everywhere else, and since there are so many hoops to go through here, there's a long winnowing out process.  

I'm not arguing that years of misogyny and male domination don't play a role here.  They definitely do.  I'm sure there are people who don't ever want to see a women President.  But the long process of primaries and conventions means that, just on averages, you need more women entering the race at the start than we have typically seen, in order for a woman to emerge as a winner.  I'm sure (I hope) it will only get better in that respect going forward 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, txfilmfan said:

There was Golda Meir as well...

It's generally a less cumbersome path to become prime minister in most countries, when compared to the US Presidency, as the PM is typically elected first as the head of their party and not directly elected by the general population.  Note that in the UK, the PM is technically appointed by the monarch, and is customarily the head of the ruling party resulting from a general election.  The PM position in the UK is actually just a customary position by convention, and not supported by any statute or constitutional document.

In a UK general election, people are voting only for their local parliament representative (the UK calls this a constituency), which is analogous to our House of Representatives district, and not directly for the PM.   Now, the likeability/personality/etc of a leader of one party or another may influence which local candidate a person votes for, but the UK people do not vote for the PM directly.  If we had a similar system here, we would vote for our local district representative and whichever party in the House ended up with the majority would pick the president, as it would be the party leader.  The PM is also the head of the executive and legislative branches in the UK.

The election of the party head (and the person who might become the eventual PM) is done by party members only, which is a very small proportion of most countries' populations, and takes place outside of the general election process (the party leader is already established in most cases before a general election occurs).  As an example, the UK's Conservative party (which is in power today) has about 180,000 members total in the entire country.  Labour has about 550,000 members.  The UK population is nearly 67 million.   So you see the person who likely will become PM is selected by a very small minority of the population.

The general population generally votes for their local MP (representative) based on party platforms and programs rather than personalities, and usually people are lifelong voters for one party.

All this to say that leadership selection is quite a bit different in most other countries.  Ours is a mix of politics and personalities, with a heavy emphasis on the latter.  It also takes about 2 years (for some insane reason), as opposed to a few weeks or months everywhere else, and since there are so many hoops to go through here, there's a long winnowing out process.  

I'm not arguing that years of misogyny and male domination don't play a role here.  They definitely do.  I'm sure there are people who don't ever want to see a women President.  But the long process of primaries and conventions means that, just on averages, you need more women entering the race at the start than we have typically seen, in order for a woman to emerge as a winner.  I'm sure (I hope) it will only get better in that respect going forward 

After I mentioned several female politicians from the 80s, I realized that some of them had been assassinated, such as Corazon Aquino and Indira Gandhi. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are only men allowed to become president?

Actually, your thread has gotten off on a false premise. If you divide the country by race and by gender, the largest single group would be white women. 53% of white women voted for Trump. As a matter of fact, 57% of white women chose not to vote for the white woman for president.

Women, in general, have had the majority vote in this country for 100 years. The issue is many conservative women would rather have a man in charge than a woman. Its not a popular thing to say but, its the truth. Women are as responsible for this "patriarchy" as men are. Many women like things just this way.

Even now, the main conversation about Kamala is: "She isn't really black, she mixed". Most Americans and especially Black American are mixed to some extent. I myself am only78% of African descent. Nothing about her views on any topic. Can anyone here mention any opinion she has had on anything ??

And why the country will remain divided...these are not united states

1) AM radio has scared so many conservative about communists, socialists, Armageddon etc... if the democrats win. Now we have militia groups and others in a panic over nothing. Fear is a very strong emotion.

2) Loss of blue collar jobs has caused us all to become disjointed. With blue collar jobs came, bowling leagues, softball leagues, etc... opportunities to mingle and meet people you wouldn't otherwise come in contact with. Now, the only exposure to others is through the media and I think we all can agree that's a very distorted view.

3) The internet is no replacement for face to face interaction. Virtual reality is no reality at all.

4)COVID19 has also caused us to be separate from each other. Humans need to be around other humans.

In my humble opinion, all those factors will have to be addressed for any total healing to begin.

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sepiatone said:

Well, in regards to the first question in your thread title, I had no idea that BARACK OBAMA was that white. ;) 

 

Sepiatone

Well he wasn't THIS white!

article-0-05807B70000005DC-999_306x423.j

 

It was rumored Jackson and David Duke were to collaborate in a move called "Whiter Than White".

:P

  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, hamradio said:

 

The change in the House was caused by the fear of AOC/Bernie Sanders socialist agenda - most Americans do not want it! This was the talking point in the MSNBC discussion.

If Biden makes no drastic changes and can work with the Republicans (at the dismay of some Democrats) he could be re-electable, a moderate I'm hoping on.

Lets wait and see how the next couple of years play out. I wish him good health.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, GGGGerald said:

Why are only men allowed to become president?

Actually, your thread has gotten off on a false premise. If you divide the country by race and by gender, the largest single group would be white women. 53% of white women voted for Trump. As a matter of fact, 57% of white women chose not to vote for the white woman for president.

Women, in general, have had the majority vote in this country for 100 years. The issue is many conservative women would rather have a man in charge than a woman. Its not a popular thing to say but, its the truth. Women are as responsible for this "patriarchy" as men are. Many women like things just this way.

Even now, the main conversation about Kamala is: "She isn't really black, she mixed". Most Americans and especially Black American are mixed to some extent. I myself am only78% of African descent. Nothing about her views on any topic. Can anyone here mention any opinion she has had on anything ??

And why the country will remain divided...these are not united states

1) AM radio has scared so many conservative about communists, socialists, Armageddon etc... if the democrats win. Now we have militia groups and others in a panic over nothing. Fear is a very strong emotion.

2) Loss of blue collar jobs has caused us all to become disjointed. With blue collar jobs came, bowling leagues, softball leagues, etc... opportunities to mingle and meet people you wouldn't otherwise come in contact with. Now, the only exposure to others is through the media and I think we all can agree that's a very distorted view.

3) The internet is no replacement for face to face interaction. Virtual reality is no reality at all.

4)COVID19 has also caused us to be separate from each other. Humans need to be around other humans.

In my humble opinion, all those factors will have to be addressed for any total healing to begin.

Thanks for sharing your perspective.

I have a female friend I met through a work-related project. I've known her just under a year but we became very close. We have nothing in common except our love of animals. But somehow we clicked. Anyway, she's a very dyed-in-the-wool conservative and she knows I'm much more moderate to the liberal side of the equation. We don't talk about politics because we both sense it would get in the way of our friendship.

I went to lunch with her on Wednesday the day after the election when all the vote counting was still occurring. We went to a bistro that is on the ground floor of the building I work in. The weather was still in the 90s this week here in Phoenix so we sat outside. While eating, a very loud alpha male walked by on his way into the bistro. And Sandy, my friend, called out to him-- "hey, don't I know you?" It turns out she had never met him before but she knows him from one of those AM political call-in shows. She recognized his voice, and he's very much a Republican like she is. She started telling him how she called some polling place to make sure her mail-in ballot (for Trump) had been received and was counted. Apparently, this radio show guy had been telling his listeners to do that since he was upset Arizona had gone blue. 

Of course I just smiled to myself. He's got his group of followers and Sandy's among them. I don't begrudge anyone wanting to make sure their vote has been counted since I would also want to make sure my vote was counted if I felt it might not have been. But I don't need a radio commentator with his own political agenda to nudge me or brainwash me into doing that.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, TopBilled said:

Thanks for sharing your perspective.

I have a female friend I met through a work-related project. I've known her just under a year but we became very close. We have nothing in common except our love of animals. But somehow we clicked. Anyway, she's a very dyed-in-the-wool conservative and she knows I'm much more moderate to the liberal side of the equation. We don't talk about politics because we both sense it would get in the way of our friendship.

I went to lunch with her on Wednesday the day after the election when all the vote counting was still occurring. We went to a bistro that is on the ground floor of the building I work in. The weather was still in the 90s this week here in Phoenix so we sat outside. While eating, a very loud alpha male walked by on his way into the bistro. And Sandy, my friend, called out to him-- "hey, don't I know you?" It turns out she had never met him before but she knows him from one of those AM political call-in shows. She recognized his voice, and he's very much a Republican like she is. She started telling him how she called some polling place to make sure her mail-in ballot (for Trump) had been received and was counted. Apparently, this radio show guy had been telling his listeners to do that since he was upset Arizona had gone blue. 

Of course I just smiled to myself. He's got his group of followers and Sandy's among them. I don't begrudge anyone wanting to make sure their vote has been counted since I would also want to make sure my vote was counted if I felt it might not have been. But I don't need a radio commentator with his own political agenda to nudge me or brainwash me into doing that.

Whether is the evil AM radio or the evil liberal TV media, they all are out for ratings. They'll do or say whatever to get those numbers up. Many don't even believe what they are saying.

How many times do we see people caught in controversies that are nothing like their "on air persona" ? Yet, they are taken seriously.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, GGGGerald said:

...3) The internet is no replacement for face to face interaction. Virtual reality is no reality at all.

And which THEN doesn't explain why you missed the opportunity to meet ME "face-to-face" when I was back in the South Bay last weekend!

(...dude, I and my wife Judie showed up at the Red Car Brewery last Saturday at noon, and so where the hell were YOU???) 

;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, TopBilled said:

Arizona, where I reside, was part of the Confederacy for awhile. It's taught in curriculum in schools, that we were part of "the south" before Lincoln sent troops to reclaim Arizona for the Union.

But I don't consider Arizona part of the Bible Belt. I don't think being part of the Confederacy automatically makes a place some sort of bible thumping haven.

Arizona didn't really exist. By the late 1840s, the tension in the United States between free and slave states was building to a boil. Each side in the controversy was fearful of the other getting an upper hand and the new territories in the West became pawns as to whether they would be free or slave. The South was interested in the territories seized from Mexico, the present Arizona, Utah and New Mexico and they believed also that a majority of the population of the southern portion of California was pro slavery. For a decade, Southerners promoting a southern Pacific railroad were particularly interested in New Mexico and they negotiated the Gadsden Purchase in 1853 (which at that time came to be known as Arizona, (more specifically, the southern area, Arizona didn't become a state until Feb 1912) solely with that in mind. New Mexico was key to Southern expansion and a port on the Pacific. Pro Southern sympathizers in the US Government proceeded to establish an almost "U" shaped overland communications and stagecoach route (The Butterfield Overland Stage Co.) from terminals in Missouri and Ft. Smith, Arkansas, swinging through Texas to El Paso and then utilizing a route through the recent Gadsden Purchase to Los Angeles then up to San Francisco rather than a more direct central route. The Mesilla Valley of the Rio Grande in New Mexico Territory formed the eastern extreme of that part of southern New Mexico called "Arizona" and contained two thirds of Arizona's population, most of them Mexicans, but the minority Americans were mostly from Texas and far more active and aggressive in dominating political affairs, and closely associated with staunchly pro-southern Texans living in and around El Paso. If ever an area epitomized lawlessness and wild frontier it was Western Arizona at the time of secession. Tucson was a place of resort for traders, speculators, gamblers, horse thieves, murderers, vagrant politicians, and a center of prostitution and crime. One critic observed that those that were not permitted to live in California found Tucson welcoming. Western Arizona was in a state of anarchy. The Tubac silver district area near Tucson and Pinos Altos near Mesilla were lively mining districts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, cigarjoe said:

Arizona didn't really exist. By the late 1840s, the tension in the United States between free and slave states was building to a boil. Each side in the controversy was fearful of the other getting an upper hand and the new territories in the West became pawns as to whether they would be free or slave. The South was interested in the territories seized from Mexico, the present Arizona, Utah and New Mexico and they believed also that a majority of the population of the southern portion of California was pro slavery. For a decade, Southerners promoting a southern Pacific railroad were particularly interested in New Mexico and they negotiated the Gadsden Purchase in 1853 (which at that time came to be known as Arizona, (more specifically, the southern area, Arizona didn't become a state until Feb 1912) solely with that in mind. New Mexico was key to Southern expansion and a port on the Pacific. Pro Southern sympathizers in the US Government proceeded to establish an almost "U" shaped overland communications and stagecoach route (The Butterfield Overland Stage Co.) from terminals in Missouri and Ft. Smith, Arkansas, swinging through Texas to El Paso and then utilizing a route through the recent Gadsden Purchase to Los Angeles then up to San Francisco rather than a more direct central route. The Mesilla Valley of the Rio Grande in New Mexico Territory formed the eastern extreme of that part of southern New Mexico called "Arizona" and contained two thirds of Arizona's population, most of them Mexicans, but the minority Americans were mostly from Texas and far more active and aggressive in dominating political affairs, and closely associated with staunchly pro-southern Texans living in and around El Paso. If ever an area epitomized lawlessness and wild frontier it was Western Arizona at the time of secession. Tucson was a place of resort for traders, speculators, gamblers, horse thieves, murderers, vagrant politicians, and a center of prostitution and crime. One critic observed that those that were not permitted to live in California found Tucson welcoming. Western Arizona was in a state of anarchy. The Tubac silver district area near Tucson and Pinos Altos near Mesilla were lively mining districts.

Interesting. Where did you find this info?

Obviously when I made my earlier comment in the thread, I was not referring to Arizona as a state but Arizona as a territory. And Lincoln did send troops to the region to keep it from being part of the Confederacy. There was a specific period of time, which your text above suggests, when the land was considered part of "the south."

Incidentally there is a small town south of Yuma, near the Mexican border, that is called Gadsden.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, TopBilled said:

Interesting. Where did you find this info?

Obviously when I made my earlier comment in the thread, I was not referring to Arizona as a state but Arizona as a territory. And Lincoln did send troops to the region to keep it from being part of the Confederacy. There was a specific period of time, which your text above suggests, when the land was considered part of "the south."

Incidentally there is a small town south of Yuma, near the Mexican border, that is called Gadsden.

For what it is worth, Gadsden was from S.C. and served as ambassador to Mexico prior to the civil war.  He died in 1858.

Prior to the war, three routes were proposed for the "transcontinental" railroad.  One from the North, the one in the above article and the central route which is the one eventually built.

Ironically, until Amtrak the US has never really had a transcontinental railroad.  We do have railroads that interchange in many places and permit cars to travel from the east to the west coasts and vice versa.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, hamradio said:

Well he wasn't THIS white!

article-0-05807B70000005DC-999_306x423.j

 

It was rumored Jackson and David Duke were to collaborate in a move called "Whiter Than White".

:P

And since Jackson was in the music biz, could it perhaps been about Johnny and Edgar Winter?  ;) 

Sepiatone

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, GGGGerald said:

Why are only men allowed to become president?

Actually, your thread has gotten off on a false premise. If you divide the country by race and by gender, the largest single group would be white women. 53% of white women voted for Trump. As a matter of fact, 57% of white women chose not to vote for the white woman for president.

Women, in general, have had the majority vote in this country for 100 years. The issue is many conservative women would rather have a man in charge than a woman. Its not a popular thing to say but, its the truth. Women are as responsible for this "patriarchy" as men are. Many women like things just this way.

Even now, the main conversation about Kamala is: "She isn't really black, she mixed". Most Americans and especially Black American are mixed to some extent. I myself am only78% of African descent. Nothing about her views on any topic. Can anyone here mention any opinion she has had on anything ??

And why the country will remain divided...these are not united states

1) AM radio has scared so many conservative about communists, socialists, Armageddon etc... if the democrats win. Now we have militia groups and others in a panic over nothing. Fear is a very strong emotion.

 

 

WHAT AM radio....it's nearly extinct! :(

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTx-Isibh0IcpD1Q_3fQO9

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, hamradio said:

WHAT AM radio....it's nearly extinct! :(

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTx-Isibh0IcpD1Q_3fQO9

 

Not for right wing talk radio.  You might be surprised by how many "conservative" to extremist right wingers listen to it.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Dargo said:

And which THEN doesn't explain why you missed the opportunity to meet ME "face-to-face" when I was back in the South Bay last weekend!

(...dude, I and my wife Judie showed up at the Red Car Brewery last Saturday at noon, and so where the hell were YOU???) 

;)

What Gerald didn't show up.    Now I don't feel so bad (NOT).     I really wanted to see both of you,  but with my wife coming back from Italy and having to quarantine, etc.

Hopefully you can forgive me and invite me the next time you're in the So Cal area.     Sedona is one of the first places my wife and I plan to travel too once this Covid-19 crap is over (e.g. there is a vaccine,  which according to my nephew who is working on one that has completed phase 4 testing, should be by the spring).      

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, ElCid said:

Not for right wing talk radio.

All I pick up is WSM 650 (on occasion) and a couple of ESPN stations using a 120' wire antenna and the best of my AM (Shortwave) radios!

maxresdefault.jpg

Edited by hamradio
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, hamradio said:

All I pick up is WSM 650 (on occasion) and a couple of ESPN stations and I use a 120' wire antenna!

 

 

Almost never listen to radio other than in my cars.  Then only to NPR.

I did notice back in early 80's that I got terrible to non-existent reception on AM in my vehicles, even in metropolitan areas where the stations were located.  Last time I tried, I think I could pick up about 3 or4 stations - all talk radio; all extreme right-wing.  I'll have to try again sometime to see what I can get on AM.

On the other hand, when I listen to FM in my cars, I only listen to two stations - NPR and an independent in Western North Carolina.  I can get others, but do not care for their music or many commercials.  Oh, reminds me of the time of year - one of the ones I don't listen to starts playing Christmas music about now with fewer commercials.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...