CDZ Breaking Barriers and Other Nonsense

jwoodie

Platinum Member
Aug 15, 2012
20,640
9,624
940
Post-DNC Convention analyses have primarily dealt with the nomination of a woman to be President as being an historic achievement of "breaking barriers" to women seeking our highest political office. How many of you buy this self-serving characterization, which can only become fulfilled by electing Hillary as President?

The same type of rhetoric was used to elect President Obama, but what "barriers" did he actually break? Despite his personal popularity, is the country now more inclined to elect another Black President? If not, what barrier was broken?

These questions also apply to Hillary's nomination. Other than her cadre of supporters seeking personal gain and/or validation by her election, why should anyone else else care about her gender? Is it because she is such a flawed candidate that her gender is her strongest attribute? Doesn't this denigrate the accomplishments of other female heads of governments who have achieved their successes through personal merit? Interestingly, even her harshest critics in this country don't cite her gender as a reason to not vote for her.

Let us remember that, prior to WW2, most women were devoted to raising families rather than pursuing careers in business or politics. Since then, we have elected only eleven Presidents (and only seven since the Civil Rights Act). Is it so surprising that a woman didn't happen to be included in that small group? Could not a Margaret Thatcher have been elected during that period? Why isn't she the feminist ideal?

My point is that these "barriers" are simply contrived political concoctions designed by the purveyors of identity politics to benefit particular candidates at any given time. Not being a white male is not a handicap to electoral success, and it shouldn't be an excuse for failure.
 
on one hand, I am not impressed with the wife of an ex two term president is a "barrier breaker".

On the other, hey, with 40 whatever presidents there has never been a woman elected so it is nice to break a trend. That is, if you believe them to be equal. (FWIW, I do)
 
on one hand, I am not impressed with the wife of an ex two term president is a "barrier breaker".

On the other, hey, with 40 whatever presidents there has never been a woman elected so it is nice to break a trend. That is, if you believe them to be equal. (FWIW, I do)

On the other hand, hey, there has never been someone as corrupt as Hillary elected...
 
on one hand, I am not impressed with the wife of an ex two term president is a "barrier breaker".

On the other, hey, with 40 whatever presidents there has never been a woman elected so it is nice to break a trend. That is, if you believe them to be equal. (FWIW, I do)

On the other hand, hey, there has never been someone as corrupt as Hillary elected...

Sorry for just replying about the importance or lack of importance of her being a woman.

Do you have any particular corruption incident you would rather talk about? The OP fooled me.
 
on one hand, I am not impressed with the wife of an ex two term president is a "barrier breaker".

On the other, hey, with 40 whatever presidents there has never been a woman elected so it is nice to break a trend. That is, if you believe them to be equal. (FWIW, I do)

On the other hand, hey, there has never been someone as corrupt as Hillary elected...

Sorry for just replying about the importance or lack of importance of her being a woman.

Do you have any particular corruption incident you would rather talk about? The OP fooled me.

The OP is about the validity of breaking so-called "barriers." Rather than addressing this issue directly, you merely stated that you were "not impressed" by Hillary as a "barrier breaker" but thought it would be nice to "break a trend" of never having elected a woman.

Is there some significance to your distinction between breaking a "barrier" and breaking a "trend?" This seems to be a case of wordsmithery designed to avoid dealing with the seminal proposition. In other words, is "breaking a barrier" (or "trend") a valid basis for selecting our next President?

P.S. My reference to "corruption" was to point out that some trends should not be broken.
 
I believe the term "an achievement of breaking barriers" (improper English), is actually referring to barriers that were broken in the past, and that now are mended by a fixing achievement, as in "an achievement from barriers broken (also incorrect English, but clarifies the given political context).

Politics does not and cannot include the goal of breaking barriers for any long term success, since its social mechanisms function through tradition and cohesion. Politics enforces the comprehension that barriers have purpose, and that if they are in fact a hindrance, they aren't to be rashly broken, but orderly substituted.

Take gender as an example. It's not only a civil title, but a civil right, for any citizen to make use of in their benefit and in benefit of the nation. If a fading, inert institution (family, school, company), somehow has difficulty of assimilating a specific gender, then the barrier ensuring the gender's safety and continuity therefore may have to be approached by a substitute barrier (entrance gate with protocol and specific procedure).

The benefit of having a woman as President is that previously uneducated, frustrated, confused and struggling citizens who did not know how to share and partake of the gender identity of womanhood, and could not find any venue to learn how to make personal use of it because of their background, now have an example to associate and learn from a person holding the gender identity within the highest official post in the nation, without psychological restraints coming from obsolete taboos, traumas, or misguided servitude to detain the expansion of their political identity and awareness, therefore for the first time becoming fully integrated into a complete national awareness, without frantically dissociating from various sectors and converting their confused perceptions of conflicting parties into established and developing alliance.
 
Sadly , we are seeing the same phenomenon as we seen with Obama. Those who yearned for a black candidate didn't care about the quality of said black candidate , same thing here, those who want a female President don't care about the quality of the candidate.
 
Post-DNC Convention analyses have primarily dealt with the nomination of a woman to be President as being an historic achievement of "breaking barriers" to women seeking our highest political office. How many of you buy this self-serving characterization, which can only become fulfilled by electing Hillary as President?

The same type of rhetoric was used to elect President Obama, but what "barriers" did he actually break? Despite his personal popularity, is the country now more inclined to elect another Black President? If not, what barrier was broken?

These questions also apply to Hillary's nomination. Other than her cadre of supporters seeking personal gain and/or validation by her election, why should anyone else else care about her gender? Is it because she is such a flawed candidate that her gender is her strongest attribute? Doesn't this denigrate the accomplishments of other female heads of governments who have achieved their successes through personal merit? Interestingly, even her harshest critics in this country don't cite her gender as a reason to not vote for her.

Let us remember that, prior to WW2, most women were devoted to raising families rather than pursuing careers in business or politics. Since then, we have elected only eleven Presidents (and only seven since the Civil Rights Act). Is it so surprising that a woman didn't happen to be included in that small group? Could not a Margaret Thatcher have been elected during that period? Why isn't she the feminist ideal?

My point is that these "barriers" are simply contrived political concoctions designed by the purveyors of identity politics to benefit particular candidates at any given time. Not being a white male is not a handicap to electoral success, and it shouldn't be an excuse for failure.

i suppose for certain types of males that would be nonsense. to normal people it's a good thing.

in the meantime, we've only had the vote for 100 years and we're one of the few civilized nations that's never been run by a woman.

and instead of talking policy, rightwingnut trolls post pictures photoshopping the likely future president as being 100 pounds heavier than she is.

i'll chalk it up to not seeing barriers when you're white male.
 
Post-DNC Convention analyses have primarily dealt with the nomination of a woman to be President as being an historic achievement of "breaking barriers" to women seeking our highest political office. How many of you buy this self-serving characterization, which can only become fulfilled by electing Hillary as President?

The same type of rhetoric was used to elect President Obama, but what "barriers" did he actually break? Despite his personal popularity, is the country now more inclined to elect another Black President? If not, what barrier was broken?

These questions also apply to Hillary's nomination. Other than her cadre of supporters seeking personal gain and/or validation by her election, why should anyone else else care about her gender? Is it because she is such a flawed candidate that her gender is her strongest attribute? Doesn't this denigrate the accomplishments of other female heads of governments who have achieved their successes through personal merit? Interestingly, even her harshest critics in this country don't cite her gender as a reason to not vote for her.

Let us remember that, prior to WW2, most women were devoted to raising families rather than pursuing careers in business or politics. Since then, we have elected only eleven Presidents (and only seven since the Civil Rights Act). Is it so surprising that a woman didn't happen to be included in that small group? Could not a Margaret Thatcher have been elected during that period? Why isn't she the feminist ideal?

My point is that these "barriers" are simply contrived political concoctions designed by the purveyors of identity politics to benefit particular candidates at any given time. Not being a white male is not a handicap to electoral success, and it shouldn't be an excuse for failure.

i suppose for certain types of males that would be nonsense. to normal people it's a good thing.

in the meantime, we've only had the vote for 100 years and we're one of the few civilized nations that's never been run by a woman.

and instead of talking policy, rightwingnut trolls post pictures photoshopping the likely future president as being 100 pounds heavier than she is.

i'll chalk it up to not seeing barriers when you're white male.

Jillian, this is the CDZ kindly take your BS "look what the right wingnuts do" elsewhere.

Regardless of her gender, Hillary is a TERRIBLE candidate, if she wasn't a woman she would be getting KILLED right now, in fact she might even be out of the race by now. Put plainly, there are powerful people who want this woman to be the first female President regardless of her qualifications.
 

Forum List

    1. Humor 9261
    1. Politics 271061
    2. Economy 13279
    3. Media 16686
      1. ObamaCare 781
    1. Sports 12014
    2. Music 7953
    3. Pets 2018
    1. Asia 3061
    2. Europe 15178
    3. Iran 1176
    4. Iraq 699
Back
Top