A Hilary Question - Mild, I promise LOL

luvmykids wrote: I was listening to a local radio show and they were talking about her....it was flooded with women calling and saying they don't care WHO the woman is, they would vote for a woman simply b/c they want to make the point that a woman is capable of being president.

So, here is my question....for those of you who support her, is any part of it simply the fact that she is a woman? I don't know that I could disregard a candidates views and experience and vote for them solely to make a point but apparantly a lot of people can, so I'm just curious.

gr33n3y3z replied: I will so shut up LOL

PrairieMom replied: I used to think I would do that, then I wised up. I'm not voting for anyone based on gender or color .

Calimama replied: I'm not a Hilliary fan, but no way would I base my vote on color or gender.

gr33n3y3z replied:
Bingo

redchief replied: I'm no Hillary fan either. As to your question regarding whether I would vote based upon gender, I'd have to say that it wouldn't matter to me whether the candidate was male or female, if the candidate held the same beliefs as I. Hillary's problem is that she has no beliefs... She believes in adjusting herself to conform to the latest poll. She's a political sponge. Holds a lot of stuff, but as soon as you squeeze it, you see that she's full of holes and has no real mass.

msoulz replied: No I would not vote for someone based soley on his/her race, sex, hair color, etc.

And it gets under my skin when any candidate plays that card, KWIM?

Maddie&EthansMom replied:
ding ding ding!!!!

A&A'smommy replied:

Crystalina replied: I'm not saying I'm voting for her but I'm not saying I'm not so I will answer.

I would never vote soley because she was a woman. Just as I would not vote for O'Bama because Oprah backs him.

I do think that a woman's voice would be better because (since I am one ) I know that women usually say what is on their mind. Now that could be really good or really bad. I like the way she gets right into their business when they back her into a corner or try to bring her dh into it. Hello! He isn't the one running. And she tells them all the time. I just think it would be nice to have a woman come in and manage things the way women do.

But...not saying I'm voting for her.

Hillbilly Housewife replied:









aren't most electoral candidates like that? I'd take Hillary over Bush any day, just because.....and I don't even live there.







Bet you thought I was going to say something else, weren't you.

MommyToAshley replied: It's funny you ask this because I was just talking to Rod about this while we were watching the primary. I think it would be neat if we were to elect the first lady president. However, to answer your original question -- no I would not vote for a person based on their gender. My political views are no secret and I agree with most of what Ed said. (I wouldn't vote for Clinton... the male or female version..LOL) However, if you flip the question around, I wouldn't withhold my vote based on gender either. So... I have to ask, where is the great American female candidate that holds my views??? Actually, where is the candidate..male or female... that holds my views?

Cece00 replied:
I am not voting for her, but I think any woman who would vote for her JUST BECAUSE SHE IS A WOMAN should not vote. JMO, but that would be really, really ignorant.

Cece00 replied:
Amen.

Furthermore, I just can not respect her for letting her husband cheat on her (multiple times) and staying with him. I think that says a lot about her character.

Crystalina replied:
...unless she knew she would be running.

That's a whole other thread for me. The cheating thing.

Cece00 replied:
I dont care if she knew it or not.

And yes, it would be another thread, but its a part of the reason I would never, ever vote for her. There are many, but thats a big one.

Calimama replied:
What if she had religious beliefs that included not believing in divorce, would you feel the same? Just curious because I have friend who absolutely doesn't do divorce, and her DH is cheating on her.

Kentuckychick replied: At first I thought it was really cool that we could possibly have a female president. And frankly I liked Clinton (minus the whole sleeping scandal -- which by the way we don't know what Hilary does behind closed doors for all we know she could have been sleeping around too... maybe that's why she stayed with him... just sayin'!) but my views don't line up with hers so I will not be voting for her.

Just as I won't be voting for Huckabee and I won't be voting for Guiliani or Edwards if they make it.

It's regardless of party/race/religion/gender... and everything to do with their views and past governmental abilities.

I don't have a lot of tolerance for people who go out and vote straight party each time there's an election without being educated.

Kentuckychick replied:
I bet I know the real reason...

It's that whole basement neighbor equation again. If you had to chose between the neighbor building bombs in the basement and the one hiding skeletons in her closet... you'd go with the skeletons anyday!... I know I would!!!

Hillbilly Housewife replied:
You think??

I'd prefer to keep my peaceful country peaceful and not start getting terrorized here, too, by association, thanks

Cece00 replied:
No, that would not change my mind.

Cece00 replied:
That would make me even LESS inclined to vote for her.

Kentuckychick replied:


Lol, agreed... just saying she may be hiding more skeletons in those closets then we're aware of... just never know!

redchief replied: See that, you all thought I'd go back and forth through this thread, didn't you? I'm finding the insights here very interesting.

I don't vote on party lines, though I'm a registered Republican. My views are conservative Libertarian, but since the two party system is firmly entrenched in the USA, I'm stuck with candidates that are not exactly what I'm looking for. I guess that's probably accurate for most of you as well (not the political views, but that there are no perfect candidates).

I vote for candidates, in order of importance:
1. That share my less government, more liberty views (for those of you who are surprised, here's an even bigger one; I'm thoroughly ticked at GW for his knee-jerk expansion of domestic bureaucracy after 9/11)
2. That are honest (this is almost as important as my #1)
3. That are steadfast... nothing worse than a poll watcher and the only reason Bush got my vote in 2004, since none of the candidates that had a chance met voting priorities 1 and 2.
4. That have real understanding of global politics and needs AND will be taken seriously globally. This is critical in today's political climate, and Clinton fails here, miserably.
5. That are patriotic. If a presidential candidates crave power, but I wouldn't vote for one who craves power for him or herself at the expense of this great country. This is the Dem's biggest problem in their front-runners right now - there are no patriots there.
6. Faith. My candidate must have similar religious view to me since from religion comes morals, and from morals come positions on what is right and what is wrong.

So, there you have it - my big half-dozen. Nowhere in there are there requirements for gender, race, or age. I am sorry to report that I can't vote for one candidate solely because of his religious affiliation. I know the separatists will crucify me for this, but a candidate's faith is important to me, because if candidates' moral stances are too different from mine, I can't trust how they'll react in critical situations.

luvmykids replied:
No problem with that here....then again, I'm not a seperatist

Kentuckychick replied:
Oh no, totally understandable that religion is important to you in a leader -- I would like to know that the leader of our country has a good moral grounding (I mean that's a big part of being and honest about their views and plans) but I think it's also important to remember that a person can have a poor moral gounding despite their religion and that someone with no religion at all can be the most grounded person in the world when it comes to your opinion of right and wrong (since everyone's opinions differ).

For me there are certain areas of religion that don't belong in the government
and there are certain candidates whose views based upon their religions (subservience of women, homosexuality, cohabitation before marriage, abortion etc...) that I would not vote for regardless of whether or not they are of the same religious sect as me simply because I disagree too much with them.

lisar replied:


I refuse to vote for her.

Boo&BugsMom replied: To be honest, and this is just ME and my personal convictions...and NO tomatoes please...but I have a hard time voting for a woman president. I know, sounds weird, as I am a woman myself. I just don't feel right with voting for one into office. JMO.

Boo&BugsMom replied:
Same here.

My2Beauties replied:
I'm sorry but her personal life should not have anything to do with her as a politician. Many many smart, educated women let their husbands cheat on them. Some people's views of marriage are so strong that they continue to try and work it out. Using that as a basis for not voting on her is just as wrong as voting for her because she is a woman.

lisar replied:
Can I ask why? I dont have a problem voting for a woman but her I do.

mysweetpeasWil&Wes replied:
Wow, I think you described her to the T, Ed!

I'm not a Hillary fan either, but I do give her a lot of credit for being a woman running for President. Anyone who is a minority and chooses to run, should be very proud of themself IMO. It has to be very intimidating being the only female candidate, so like I said, I do support her for that. I just don't care for her views, plus I think she is quite the ball buster, attacking others is a personality flaw IMO. She has a great resume, but like Ed said, she is full of a lot of holes. Flipflops a lot.

So no, I would never vote for someone based on gender alone.

mysweetpeasWil&Wes replied:
See I'm with LeaAnn on that topic. I actually applaud Hillary even more for stepping out in the public eye (running for Pres) and showing that her husband's infidelity isn't going to bring her down. She had to know people were going to judge her whether she left or didn't leave, but IMO, she's showing that her personal life has nothing to do with her intelligence or as a politician. Who really knows what happened behind closed doors you guys. I think it's harsh to just say "I can't believe she didn't leave him". We don't know if they are legally seperated, and truthfully, it shouldn't matter. JMO

lisar replied:
I agree to an extent. I dont think she should be judged on for not leaving him. But I think I can base some of my decision for not voting for her on the fact that her dh didnt do a good job in the position. Does that make sense.

Boo&BugsMom replied:
I am only stating this because I was asked and it's JMO, so please NO TOMATOES. I just feel us women are too emotional to handle such a big responsibility. We are wired differently than men, naturally. I guess I just base it on my Biblical belief system...men are head of household Biblically, etc. Now, I am not saying there isn't a woman out there who could prove me wrong, and I hope there is to be honest. I just have yet to feel comfortable voting for one based on what the Bible tells us and what I have studied. I'm just old-fashioned, is all, I guess you could say.

As far as Hillary staying with Bill, that is actually the only thing I DO respect her for...to be able to forgive her husband and stay is remarkably strong. We have a friend who is going through this same ordeal in her life, and you need to be one strong person to go through such a thing and stay. Just because leaving would be easy, doesn't mean it's the best thing, or the right thing to do.

lisar replied:
Okay I understand your point. And so if there was a woman out there that you thought WOULD be a great president you would vote that way. So your not just voting against her just because she is a woman. Am I understanding you right?

HuskerMom replied: I will not be voting for Hillary but it's not because of her gender.

Boo&BugsMom replied:
Well, yes and no. I probably wont vote for any woman. I'm not voting for her solely based on because she is a woman, as I'm a repub, but I probably wouldn't vote for any woman, unless she can really prove she'd be the best. Don't know if that made sense.

jcc64 replied: Wow, is all I can say. So many things were said that pretty much blew my mind, I don't even know where to start.
Everyone should know first and foremost that I will NOT be voting for Hilary, though once upon a time, I used to respect her. Many years ago, I heard her interviewed on NPR, and she was speaking about the plight of women in the workplace, and she was speaking of her own experiences as a working mother, and by the things she was saying, I felt for the first time, here is a fiercely intelligent person in a high office who TRULY understands MY situation, and that of all working women. It was a very gratifying feeling. However, as she began to position herself for a presidential run, I saw that person slowly disappear, until I no longer know what she believes in. I also believe, as evidenced here, that she is far too polarizing at a time when the future of this country is at a critical juncture.
I can't for the life of me understand how personal decisions regarding her marriage are
any of our business, or relevant to her fitness as a candidate. If she HAD left him, she would have been criticized for bailing out on the sanctity of marriage. I can understand holding it against Bill Clinton for being an adulterer, but I don't see how you can hold it against his wife. Personally, I think if either Clinton said "the sky is blue", people would have a problem with it. As a country, we are facing far greater problems than who are leaders are sleeping with, imo. Aren't there more important things to be considering in this election?
As for a religious litmus test, THAT is truly the most disturbing part of this thread to me. Religious afiliation is not synonomous with morality or good judgment, and frankly, as an atheist, I find the assertion pretty offensive. History has proven, again and again, that not only have ostensibly pious people commited horrible atrocities, but have often done so in the name of their faith. A leader can be spiritually conscious without joining an exclusionary club of this religion or that, and it is entirely possible to make morally sound decisons without consulting with the Christian Bible.

My2Beauties replied:
I saw you in this thread and was so waiting for your response....oh I could kiss you right now...you say everything I want to say but so much better!

Boo&BugsMom replied:
I don't think anyone is disagreeing with that. I dunno, maybe Ed was, but for me this is not the case. It's not about "sound decisions". For me it is my personal convictions about abortion, same sex marriages, and that of the like. Any strong Christian leader would be opposed to those things, which is what sets them apart from the others for me. If someone (meaning, in general) understood the Christian religion a little better, they'd understand that voting for someone who was for abortion, same sex marriages, and that of the like would make me (and others) feel like I was backing down on my faith.

Furthermore (and this is not directed at anyone specifically), while we are on the subject (forgive me if I mix the two voting threads up), I'm a little disturbed that some people are afraid of voting for someone soley based on their religious beliefs. Do some people really think that WE are ALL trying to push our relgious beliefs on someone and trying to brainwash the entire country with them??? Please! IT GOES BOTH WAYS!!!

jcc64 replied: You're my girl, LeaAnn! Looks like we're voting the same way again!

coasterqueen replied:
That said it for me.

coasterqueen replied: I totally agree with LeAnn on this one as far as looking at what Hilary chose to do, stay with her husband, it should not be a factor. It would not be a factor for me.

Although, wouldn't most use the personal issue of someone cheating on the other when deciding on a candidate?

jcc64 replied: It wasn't you, Jennie! It was Ed, and I'm sure he'll come back and take my head off later!
I wouldn't vote AGAINST someone for being a this or that, anymore than I'd vote for. I simply want to know, as specified by the forefathers of this country, that our leaders are capable of representing the interests of ALL of us, not just the ones that subscribe to the tenets of his/her particular faith. The framers of the Constitution were adamant about the dangers of state sponsored religion, as am I. I don't care that Mike Huckabee said "Merry Christmas"- that's just stupid PC nonsense, imo, it WAS Christmas, after all. But I am appalled at the notion that someone would put the particulars of his faith, especially the one about women being subservient to men (I'm sorry, I know it's your sincerely held religious convicition, hon, but it IS far outside of mainstream ideology and doesn't represent the views of the majority of people in this country) ahead of the Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms we've worked so hard to protect.
Relgious people often seem to mistake the desire to protect the separation of church and state as religious intolerance. There has to be a line that can't be crossed, and though it feels silly and arbitrary at times, protecting the Constitution is no joke. Anyone and everyone should practice any religion they want, however they want, as long as they keep it out of public policy.

My2Beauties replied:
As usual.

jcc64 replied: Karen- I personally don't use the marriage thing as a reason NOT to vote for someone, though I think it's going to work against someone like Guiliani, who's been married 3 times and is trying to position himself favorably with conservatives.
Take for instance the married Congressman guy who got busted soliciting male prostitutes in an airport restroom. I hold it against him that he's presenting himself as a beacon of morality voting against the rights of homosexuals, but I don't hold it against him if he personally wants to engage in homosexual activity. That's his business, or it was, until he got caught in a public place.

Boo&BugsMom replied:
Actually, 85% of the USA has claimed to be "Christian", so yes that would be the majority.

Again, I think many people are and have blown his statement way out of context. Someone really needs to understand it in it's entirety to fully comprehend what it truly means. Too many people take things like this too literally, and don't educate themselves on what it truly means and just assume. In the Bible it also says a husband must respect his wife. There is WAY more to it than just a woman "submitting" to her husband. It's not black and white. I really wish I could better explain it, but I don't want people to get the wrong assumption on his statement about wives and husbands.

My2Beauties replied:
I would almost put money on it that while 85% of the country claims this, 85% of the country does not faithfully practice it nor believe in a lot of the things the Bible says. I've been Baptized and can say I'm a Christian any day of the week, I was baptized at 19, BUT...I don't attend church on a regular basis anymore and I have major problems being a subservient woman, heck....it's safe to say I WEAR the pants in my family Ask my poor DH I didn't understand enough about the Christian religion at 19 when I was baptized. I had major isses with church for a long time, when every church I attended seemed to constantly worry about my tithes and what I was putting in the jar being passed around, it became the "lesson of the day" every Sunday. I feel I can worship whomever I want to worship from the comfort of my own home, but then I'm going against the bible. A lot of people feel this way. So then they aren't being true "christians" but if you ask them I'd bet they say they were

Boo&BugsMom replied:
Totally agree. Actually, I was using the statistic to be a smart-arse....but anyways. I know many people who claim to be something, but they just "are" because they is what they "think" they are or they don't practice anything, if that makes sense.

But...let me try to explain this. Like you said...you wear the pants. Girl, I do too, and Troy will not deny it. He calls me the "boss". I am the headstrong one in the household. God balances us out nicely, I must say. But...as a Chrisitan I believe everything the Bible says. Does that mean I follow it every day? Well, I try...but I am falable and I sin and in today's world it is impossible to follow everything the Bible teaches (enter Jesus our Savior...but that is for another LONG thread !) ...so no I don't. Make sense? I believe a woman "should" submit to her husband, and any TRUE Bible believing Christian "would" unless their interpretation is different, but it doesn't mean we "follow" it in it's literal sense. Know what I mean? There are too many things in the Bible people take way too literally, instead of doing the proper research...this is one example of that.

I guess this is what I'm trying to get at. Huckabee might have said he believes that wives should submit to their husband (per the Bible), but it doesn't paint the picture of his household. I'm not sure I'm still making sense.

My2Beauties replied: You are making total sense, so I know exactly what you are saying. It's so funny because last night Brian and I were discussing our financial situation and he was talking about getting a part time job back at his old company, his old boss said he wants to talk with him about it and said they'd be extremely flexible with him. I, on the other hand, wishes he wouldn't do that I don't want him to stress himself out and overwork hisself. I said babe you shouldn't do that, he said I'm the man of the house and I need to take this burden.... I said you don't think I feel the strain too, he said yeah but since I'm the man I need to feel the brunt of it, your job is to make sure the kids are taken care of.....I wanted to die laughing! Since when does our household run like that It was cute though! My manly man!

Boo&BugsMom replied:
I'm sorry you felt that way. What you give is between you and God, noone else. A church has no right to pressure people into giving more than they are able/feel they should. I do understand churches need to count in the tithes, that is how they survive and we should help by giving being we are using the churches services. But, you should never feel stressed about it. Just wanted to let you know I'm sorry you had to endure that. That's too bad. A friend of mine use to go to a church that called her asking why her and her husband were not giving their 10%. They never returned...with good reason too.

I'm getting WAY off topic here. Sorry.

Boo&BugsMom replied:
SEE...that is submission!!! You probably had no idea either in that moment.

Crystalina replied:

I think it says a lot about her character also. She doesn't give up. Not to turn this into a cheating thread but I think there are a lot of women who find out their SO is cheating and yell DIVORCE! Yeah, to me that's a cop out. Sorry. Your married, deal with it. Now, if you find out that he will never change should you live like this for years and be miserable? No, but work it out. Put him on a shorter leash if you have to. Divorce is too easy for people anymore. People get it in their heads that since they've been cheated on it's over. Well what about the kids? Suck up your pride and work on your marriage! That's just me though. I've never been cheated on but I know that I would not throw my hands up in the air and hand over my life to another woman. Not happening. People don't like to work for anything anymore.

And yes, I agree that her and her husbands sex life should be kept out of it all. I do believe that a persons personal life should be involved in their politics to an extent but c'mon what does what her and her husband (or her husband and another woman) do in bed (or anywhere else in the oval office ) America's business? And if she's taking care of it in a way that she wants to take care of it who are we to judge her? It's her husband, her marriage and I think there is a point when we need to realize that, although we may find it hard to believe, politicians are people also and deal with everyday issues.

lisar replied: This is in response to crystals last post (to much to keep copying)

I agree with you on the whole why does there sex life have to be brought into it. However he choose to cheat as dh and the president. He should have known better in his position that it wouldnt be broadcast everywhere in the world. KWIM?

I also agree that I dont think it should effect her for running for this job.

Now the whole DIVORCE thing if a man cheats. Yes I would scream divorce. I have been cheated on. Walk into a room and your S/O is getting bj from some other girl and see how you react. (Not my Dh for the record) I was gona kill that girl and then realized she knew nothing about me but he did. So I didnt hold her responsible I only took her by the head of the hair and drug her out of the house and closed the door and quietly packed my crap. (I know off topic here) But I have to make my point.
If you would stay and try work things out good for you. You are a more forgiving person than I am and I applaud you for that.

Back on topic I dont think any diffrent of Hillary for staying for him, I am glad they could work things out and make there marriage work.

My2Beauties replied:
ITA! About the Hillary thing. About the cheating thing..I'd throw in the towel too, once a cheater always a cheater IMHO and I'd never trust again, the trust would be gone, that's no marriage. I hold grudges too long. Life is too short to deal with that crap.

Crystalina replied:
That's what I'm trying to say. People keep saying "Her husband cheated on her and she stayed with him. " like she's at fault. I don't get that. And if you are voting or not voting because of something like that then IMO you really shouldn't vote at all.

And let me clarify by saying that if I walked in on the scene you described I would also have a handful of hair and face would definitely be meeting concrete but I would not walk away. I would take my half dressed man, throw his butt in the car and leave. I would not give any other woman the satisfaction of finishing what she started. Things would also not be peaches and cream on the home front. Trust would have to be earned back and every move would be documented and timed. I'm not saying I would be ok with it or would easily forgive but I would not give up either. I've been married almost 16 yrs and to me I have too much to lose and I would fight for my marriage. I would knock sense into dh (get counseling) and live my life. If this was a pattern that started early in a marriage or after only a couple of years and you know it won't get better then I do agree that you should separate and move on with your lives but after so many years of marriage I think it's worth a little effort.

I think everyone knows what they can handle in a situation and I could handle that. Hillary apparently thought she could handle it and people should give her credit for not rolling over. (Oh how I would like to make a funny right now! )

jcc64 replied: Jennie- In the interest of clarity, could you try to elaborate on the dynamics of the proper relationship between a man/woman, according to your church's interpretation of the Bible. Yes, I understand that the majority of people in this country identify themselves as Christian, but I am certain that 85% or whatever your statistic was would not agree with the idea that a woman must be subservient to a man, in any sense. I do not, like LeaAnn's dh, think it's solely the man's responsibility to provide materially for the family, and in fact, for many years, I was the main bread winner in my family simply b/c I was in a higher paying field at the time. Did that make my dh less of a person in the eyes of God? No, it simply made him a person in a lower paying field. To me, and I think to many people, a marriage is a partnership that ebbs and flows, sometimes one person is stronger, sometimes it's the other. Sometimes the husband's judgment is better, sometimes it's the wife. But those situations are fluid, not fixed, and the notion that the guy has to be the officially designated one on top is a hold-over from less enlightened times, imo.
If I have this wrong, by all means, correct me. I don't know how else to interpret what you're saying. If a husband and wife are argueing about something, anything, and can't come to terms, are you suggesting that his views should supercede hers in the interest of harmony in the family? I know you're having trouble articulating it, and I'm not badgering you, honestly. But it seems to me that you feel misunderstood, and the only way around that is to help us understand your views.

My2Beauties replied:

See, I'm the opposite, let her have his cheatin arse, if she can take him from me, she can have him. Let her deal with him, I'd make their lives miserable too and probably get joy out of it

Boy...I'm in a mood today

Boo&BugsMom replied:
I don't feel misunderstood (and no your not badgering, I welcome educating people on belief systems), I just don't want people to get the wrong idea about submission and what Huckabee might have said.

About the question above, Biblically yes. However, every church and doctrine has their own opinion on it, and not all members of every one church ever practice 100% the same principals. We are all still individuals and make our own decisions based on what is right for us and our households. What we practice may not what the people next to us at church practice, but we still carry the same basic principles (Christ). Some people practice that yes the husband's decision on something superceeds (and Biblically it does), and then the woman should pray to ask God to show their husband the way that is best. This may or may NOT be what Huckabee believes. In our home, Troy and I have great communication. If we argue, I don't quiver and back away and let it go (but some do), we talk things out. We listen to each other and then normally come to an understanding. Some people believe THIS to be a form of submission, but maybe not full submission. I just call it mutual respect personally. Other people sometimes ARE way more literal about it. Some people are not. I guess for my marriage, I've never HAD to just back away. Either we've agreed, or we've been able to talk about everything.

I'm not sure if that is answering your question or not. I guess what I'm trying to say is that some people yes do take the submission to it's highest level like you mentioned. Other people do not, but that does not change what the Bible factually says. I do believe that my husband does have the ultimate say so (per the Bible), but lucky for me God gave me a wonderful husband who I share wonderful communication with. To be honest, he probably listens to me way more than I listen to him. Don't tell him I said that though.

As far as your whole post is concerned Jeanne, I don't disgree with you at all. I guess I just wanted to point out what Huckabee might have said was probably taken out of context or blown out of proportion. Too many times people take things like that too literally. If things were to be taken literally in every aspect of the Bible, you'd be shocked at some of the things we'd have to do.

Ok, gotta go to work now.

Anthony275 replied: why bring up religion?

Boo&BugsMom replied:
Noones arguing so who cares. It's an intelligent adult conversation.

Anthony275 replied: what's that supposed to mean?

Hillbilly Housewife replied:
I care.

In my opinion, voting or not votiong for someone based on their religious convictions should have no bearing on whether they should be voted in or not... because no intelligent country leader would involve God and catholicism in running a country. The leaders are there to represent the people... and I'm sorry, but the whole of America is not Catholic. There is such a diversity... could you imagine if everyone who was of Jewish faith only voted for a Jewish candidate? or, likewise with any other large group of a particular faith?

Say you had a candidate who debated on points and values that were 100% compatible for you... and happened to be of another religion? Would you NOT vote for them, just because they are of that particular religion?

Or, if there was only 1 christian candidate, and harped about the bible etc mixed in with his other messages about values and morals etc... but his values and ethics followed a different faction on christianity than you, and you didn't see eye to eye with him or her? Would you still vote based on religion?


And, it really is nobody's business whether he cheated on her, or her on him. It's their marriage, and it's their perogative whether they decided to work on it or not. YOUR married life certainly doesn't have an impact on your job, does it? Had you been in a situation where your "boss" knew you were having marital difficulties, and what they were, wouldn't you cry out and SUE the crap outta him if you were fired for it, or refused employment? It's no different. She shouldn't be denied a job based on her marital difficulties.

As for being a woman... women, yes, have an emotional sifde of things that men can compartmentalize... but, a lot of women can compartmentalize, and many are smart enough to realize there is a time and place in which to live your life by your tears, and when it's time to smarten the heck up and "work". Having a woman in power does not mean everything's going to be wishy washy and all heartwarming... Hillary isn't stupid, she's got a good head on her shoulders, has shown tremendous tact, poise and character throughout her whole publicly relvealed marital life... She's level headed. But, she's not right for Presidency. Not compared to some of the other candidates. I would certainly choose her over Bush though. We get the US news here too. Whereas Hillary's speeches may not have a lot of substance, and a lot of holes, Bush's has NO substance, and IS a big hole.

Boo&BugsMom replied:
Just what it says...who cares? If you read the start of the thread you'd understand why it was brought up. If someone doesn't like it, they can turn to another thread to read.

Boo&BugsMom replied:
That was not my point...again!

Calimama replied:
Wow that was extremely well said in a very elegant way.

Hillbilly Housewife replied: Jennie I wasn't talking about whether you said "who cares" or not....

Actually, I was more reffering to Ed's comment on page 1:



And that's where my questions come from. For the record, I did read your response to Anthony as he did, as a dissmissal of a valid question.

(eta - forgot a word. )

Anthony275 replied:
uh, i read the entire thread..twice today and maybe 2 times yesterday
do not try to exclude me from this thread, i know tons of things about the election and whos going for what, etc... plus, isn't the reason for this board to interract with everybody, regardless of their age? because coming from you it seems like you want to shut me out of this topic, but hey! guess what! im voting in november so hmmm looking at that it seems that i am included with the election!!

to answer the original post, which i think about only 4 people have done so far, i wont be voting for hilary but not because of her gender, race, etc..

jcc64 replied: Actually, to clarify, I THINK, that Ed was referring to Mitt Romney's mormonism when he said he couldn't vote for someone soley because of his religious beliefs, (Ed, where ARE you, working or something??!) and it's to his post that I was initially responding.
I think I DID answer the Hilary question, and yes, you have every right to have your opinion respected and counted, despite your tender young age. I wish everyone your age was interested in the election- it's a critical one. But religion, like it or not, IS a big issue, and we need to have an ongoing, respectful dialogue, which I believe, we've been doing successfully all throughout this thread, for the most part. So, jump in, type away, let's keep it going, we have alot to learn from one another.....

Boo&BugsMom replied:
Thanks for clarifying! That caught me way off guard. I was like "what"??? I did not dismiss him though. I find no reason to question a topic when it's not heated and people are talking maturly, IMO. That was my point.

Boo&BugsMom replied:
I was by no means excluding you. I was not referring to your age what so ever either. Don't put words in my mouth. I was just making the point that we were talking like intelligent adults and there should be no reason why the discussion of religion has to be questioned.

eta: I aplogize if I did sound like that, it was not meant to be taken that way, but there is no need to get snotty about it.

grapfruit replied: I think he was wondering (as in his view point) as to why religion should be a something concidered in a canidate (and my spelling sucks today). As in "Why is religion being brought up? What does religion have to do w/politics" (remember seperation of church and state is taught in schools)

I personally hate the word "religion". IMO it has nothing to do w/faith and your moral guidelines.

So for me religion is irrelevant. I would never vote for a person based on his/her religion, nor would I vote against them. Why is more important is their moral compass, how they live, how truthful they are.

I also (and throw those tomatoes this way if you must) think issues like abortion and same sex marriages, stem cell research etc. aren't what we, as a country should be focusing on.

Here's my reasoning as to why: Our country is falling apart from the inside out. I live in OH and IMO we're one of the worse hit w/the job market/real estate market/ forclosure rate and all that. Why do I care about a law that has been being argued about and will be argued about for years to come? And same sex marriage?? Is THIS what we need to focus our energy towards?? How about we pay attention to our economy? Our job market? Our FUTURE? That's what I want my canadate to think about. How are you going to fix America.

Alright, I'm going home

Anthony275 replied: yes casey thats exactly what i meant. thank you



i wasn't being snotty at all. if you look back in the post you can see where i said "it seems like you.." so i wasnt saying that you said it but why did you have to say that it's an adult conversation? sorta felt like you wanted me out





im not that young...ill be 18 for over 4 months when the election comes around. theres other members here that this will be the first time they're voting too



i really dont care about what candidates are saying towards the election, im choosing my vote on popularity, which candidate knows what they're talking about... i dont want a president with a stupid name either, ya know?

i just dont want people to judge me on what im saying, we all have different minds

Anthony275 replied: i didnt see all those posts before i wrote that, it was a response to jeanne
i was thinking about what to write for like 30 minutes and i just edited that post

luvmykids replied: What happened to my "mild" question?

There were so many things brought up that I would love to comment on but there are far too many

I guess this is more of a personal statement, aimed at addressing some of the many religious comments. It's meant as a general statement and very sincere, so I'll apologize in advance if it offends anyone:

When talking about Christians/Christianity/religion, please try to keep in mind that not all are the same...not all Christians/churches/pastors are greedy, judgemental, hypocritical, overrighteous zealots....the list could go on forever. I know there are some really rotten ones out there, and I know I am by no means perfect, I am a work in progress as a Christian just as we all are as people in general. So I make mistakes, make bad choices, don't live up to a Biblical example or the worlds varied perceptions of what a Christian "should be"....but this goes for Christians/Jews/Catholics/Atheists/etc....lets not lump all the folks from any one category together. As Jeanne said, atheists can be moral, valuable, decent citizens, the fact that someone is an atheist shouldn't automatically remove them from the "decent human being" category anymore than someone being a Christian should automatically put them in the "judgemental self-righteous hypocrite" category.

I don't know if I'm making sense, you guys did a great job of keeping it clean ...I guess just knowing this will come up again and again over the next year I wanted to get that off my chest.

Boo&BugsMom replied:
You make perfect sense Monica!

luvmykids replied:
I agree with you on that, very strongly, I think many people use religion as a blanket term and many times doing so changes the entire context.... I don't think nearly as many people would have an issue with a candidate who talked of their "faith" rather than their "religion".

The separation of church and state topic is slippery for me though, I don't believe the Constitution means that the state cannot have anything to do with religion, only that it can't dictate any certain religion to the people. That is a whole different topic for a whole different thread though

Boo&BugsMom replied:
Like I said, that is just how you took it. I didn't say the word "adult" on purpose to stab you. And I didn't say it "was an adult convo", I only said we were talking like intelligent adults...meaning talking maturely so why question why it was brought up which is what I thought you were referring to...maybe if I used that word you would have taken it differently? I said I'm sorry if you took it that way and that is not what I meant. I just sensed your frustration, which is why it sounded snotty, is all. I don't care about your age. We have many young people here that I enjoy a lot...I'm not even that old yet. Clean slate. Nothing was meant either way. End. Back to topic...

Hilary is a demo and not for many things I am for, so she's automatically out with me.

Boo&BugsMom replied:
Are you starting another light topic Monica???

Ok, I have to go work now or my boss will kill me....

Cece00 replied:
IMO, how you run your personal life is a big part of how you will run your professional life.

I wouldnt vote for someone who does great in office, but cheats on his wife all the time. Or has sex with prostitutes. Or does many other things I'm not OK with.

Cece00 replied:
Sure there are more important things.

That happens to be important to me, in addition to many other things. Of course some might be more important, and other things less important.

I'm not religious, so I'm not all "OMG, you are so wrong for running out on your marriage even though your husband cheated on you! You'll go to hell, the bible says its not OK!" about it. I dont think you should let someone walk all over you in marriage just because some book says its better to stay married.

In fact, I see it as a sign of weakness, not forgiveness.

Now thats JMO and lots of other people will not agree with me, and that's OK. People can have different opinions. If you want to flame me for that...whatever.

But she either stayed & forgave him, after he cheated multiple times, and that makes her weak (or a glutton for punishment) or she stayed to further her political career, which is just ICK to me.

So I refuse to vote for her.

Cece00 replied:
Right, see, like I am not wanting to vote for him either, for cheating on his wife.

If you cant tell, thats a hot spot of mine

Cece00 replied:
See, I dont see it that way.

If people are supposed to work on their marriage & not "give up too easily", then people wouldnt cheat on their spouses.

And then the wronged husband or wife wouldnt have to decide whether they should stay & work it out or decide they refuse to be treated like crap & walk away.

When you cheat on someone, it means you have NO respect for that person.

I value my marriage DEARLY. I respect my husband so much that I would NEVER cheat on him. I expect my husband to respect ME that much.

If he can not be faithful to our vows, then he doesnt deserve me.

Frankly, the LARGE majority of men who cheat once WILL do it again. If other ppl think you should stay with someone who cares so little about your feelings b/c it means you arent giving up on your marriage & you want to stay and work on it- go for it.

I dont see it that way. My husband knows its a deal breaker if he cheats on me. He knows it means this is OVER. So if he loves and respects me and wishes to stay married to me, he will be faithful. If he cheats on me, I take that as a message that he no longer cares to be married to me, and thusly, he needs to GTFO. I deserve someone who wants to treat me like the wonderful person I am, not some stupid woman he can walk all over. JMO.

And as far as forgiveness? Hey, my ex cheated on me. Its why we arent together anymore. I forgave him a long time ago. That doesnt mean I want to forget. And it doesnt mean I should still be with him either. Oh, and he has continued to cheat on every girl he has been with since me, so if I had "sucked it up" and forgiven him, he'd still be cheating on me whenever he could. I sent him a powerful message when I left him- I refused to be walked all over & he lost everything important to him because of HIS bad decisions not to treat me well. HE was the one giving up on our relationship by cheating and HE was the one who ruined everything. Not ME.

That doesnt mean I give up easily, either. I'm probably one of the most stubborn people I know, I rarely give up on ANYTHING. But sometimes, you have to have enough pride in yourself not to let people treat you badly.

Cece00 replied:
He's at fault for cheating.

But he did it a lot of times. And I'd never vote for him b/c of that...

BUT- she stayed with him. I dont agree with that, which I've explained in other posts.

So I wont vote for her.

And for saying I shouldnt vote at all if I'm not voting for her for those reasons. Thats absurd. I could say "Well, I dont think people who feel that X Y and Z are important should vote at all." But that isnt my place.

Kentuckychick replied:
Catholics should be in the same group as Christians... since Catholics are Christians
just so ya know (which I'm sure you did)

Hehe

Oh... and Amen to everything you said!!!

luvmykids replied:
LOL...I know, but I read a post somewhere in this mess that mentioned Catholics so I was trying not to leave anyone out

Hillbilly Housewife replied:
Kinda what I meant in my post... just because they aren't catholic (i.e. of another religion, or atheist) doesn't mean they dpn't have the morals and values etc we (well you.. lol) look for... but would that really make a difference in your vote

Boo&BugsMom replied: Oh my word, this thread has so many off topics my head is spinning. I can't keep them all straight.

Boo&BugsMom replied:
WHY didn't you say that to begin with? See, the whole thing was a complete miscommunication!!! I thought you were saying it as "why are you talking about religion?". Sorry I didn't see this sooner, I was at work and had to "sneak" a peak and didn't have the time to be thorough.

Sorry...back to the topic again...what WAS it anyways? Oh yeah...Hilary...carry on...

Crystalina replied:

Thank you very much. I appreciate you saying that my opinion is absurd (because afterall, I did say it was IMO).

IMO....
If you vote for someone because of their religion, color, race or because they didn't divorce their husband for getting a B.J. in the oval office then yeah, you shouldn't be voting. That's no different then voting because Oprah is backing someone or because someone is cute (John Edwards...isn't he though! ) or because someone is a female or because someone's daddy was once Pres. so lets give his son a try. People should vote for what will help this country and not because of what people do with their sex life or who they know or how they look.
So yes, IMO people should not vote for ignorant reasons or to sound less harsh, reasons that have nothing to do with actually running this country. If you will judge a woman by whether she forgives her cheating husband then you might want to check everyone around you because I'm sure "they" are everywhere.

Hillbilly Housewife replied: True Crystal, they are everywhere.


It doesn't mean we're STUPID.

Crystalina replied:
Thanks Rocky.

This is not Nathaniel Hawthorne's 'Scarlet Letter'. Cheaters don't walk around with a mark. You'd be very surprised who has done what or who is doing what (or doing who for that matter). Are you saying you would exclude someone from your life if they chose to forgive their husband? And if your answer is no then why would you not vote for someone who has done the same? What people decide to do behind closed doors or inside their marriage should be no one else's business.

I'm not saying you should vote for her but I'm just questioning one of the main reasons you gave for NOT voting for her is all. Not because it's her but because IMO that's really no way to judge people. That's why marriage is marriage. It's not a community thing.

And then some people complain about this country being too communist sometimes. Not you just people in general (my FIL:rolleyes: loves to say that). When we start judging people by their sex life or what happens in their marriage then why not tap phones, tell us what we can or cannot say or how we should think?

Cece00 replied:
Well, we will have to agree to disagree because

a) my husband is gone if he cheats, no matter how many years, because he REALLY knows how I feel about that

and

I think what goes on in someone's personal life can and does have an effect on their professional life or can show how they may be in a political office. For example, maybe she is easily pushed around by people, it could be construed that since she lets her husband get away with that sort of thing, lets him walk all over her & treat her like she is nothing, perhaps she will let ppl do that to her in the White House too.

Another example of ppl's private life hurting their professional life, if my husband is arrested for DWI/DUI, he will lose his job. Now, he doesnt drive for his job, at all. But, his company thinks that if he is doing such irresponsible things in his personal life, then he isnt fit to do his job.

Actually, if he gets arrested for pretty much ANYTHING, he will be most likely to lose his job.

Or think about those preachers...they are putting forth the image that they are so pious & love god & follow god's law...and they are doing drugs or sleeping with prostitutes. Do you really want someone like that leading people/teaching them about morality? I'm not religious, but if I was, I wouldnt.

Also- in someone's personal life, its really their business whether or not they are fine with staying with someone who did that to them. I wouldnt really care about the women around me. But when it comes to who will LEAD my COUNTRY, it matters.

Again, its JMO, and its NOT the only reason I am not voting for her, not even close. There are plenty of reasons why I think she would do a crappy job running this country.

And if ppl think I shouldnt vote b/c I see that as a character flaw in HER, well, thats OK. I'm gonna vote anyway. And not for Hilary Clinton.

Cece00 replied:
In day to day life, no, it doesnt really matter to me.

But again, when it comes to the President of the USA, it does. To me. It doesnt have to matter to anyone else. Or it can. Whatever.

& its not the only, or even main, reason that I wont vote for her.

Hillbilly Housewife replied:

I posted about it earlier.. but personal life still should have no bearing on how someone runs a management job... it's not a criminal act on her part, it's not lawd and lascivious on her part... SHE did nothing wrong, why should SHE be punished for it? lol

It's all good... I won't be voting for her, either.

Cece00 replied:
Well, thats true

Crystalina replied:
Yes, I agree with you...that we should agree to disagree.

Just to point out though that the examples you used are very different then the horrible thing Hillary did by not divorcing her dh. Even if she would have people would have judged her on that .

The DUI example is very serious and yes would make a huge difference but to me her crime (since that is how most see it) is nowhere near that serious and only involves her and her dh. The only casualty there was in her situation is the unfortunate demise of that infamous blue dress that was held for evidence. That would have surely come back in style in a few more years.

And as for the preacher example, Hillary is neither doing drugs, sleeping with prostitutes or touching little alter boys (I know you didn't mention that but just in case it comes up ). Again, in my eyes, not even close to the "terrible" thing she did.

luvmykids replied: To divorce or not, and on what grounds are deeply personal...it's not a one size fits all thing. As strongly as one feels one way, another can feel equally as strong...doesn't make one or the other right or wrong.

TBH, that issue with Hillary doesn't come into play with me because I learned the hard way that what I honestly thought (and always said) I would do in a given situation ended up not being what I did when truly confronted with it. I can give you a list the length of my arm of people who think I did the right thing, and an equal list of those who think I did the wrong thing. I still don't know if I did the right thing or not, but I do know that I made the choice for myself, by myself, and I am the one living with it. (And I'm not talking about cheating, btw...just the concept of "If...then...")

I think it's way too personal an issue to say there is a right and wrong way to handle it and honestly, I don't really care what someone does about their marriage as long as they aren't affecting mine. I'm not talking about agreeing, or not seeing it as a moral issue because sometimes....well, it is, cheating IMHO is a moral issue, but I can't make the call for someone else on how they deal with it.

I guess my point is, walk a mile in someones shoes....maybe they won't fit, maybe they will, but you don't know until you try them on

Crystalina replied:
Very well said!

coasterqueen replied:
Very well put, Monica. A little inspiration for my day. It's always good to be reminded that we all aren't everyone else. We are ourselves and I know, I judge people too harshly sometimes when I don't even know them well enough to know why they choose to do the things they do.

lisar replied: Okay way to many topics in one thread I cant keep up on all of them. Great job everyone on keeping it all civial. We did good. Sorry I cant reply again I have lots of thoughts on this there are just to many at this point.

TheOaf66 replied: well there are so many other topics that we could start if we could all play nice

on the original topic...I will not be voting for hilary because

1. I am republican
2. I don't like her
3. she couldn't do the job as well as a man (just kidding)

If the right woman were a candidate then I would vote for her.


So the list of other topics we could start threads about

1. Cheating and Divorce
2. Does a person's age exclude them from topics
3. Was Anthony snotty

I think we should just leave the religion thing alone because we have so many varying opinions here and just like the religious world, everyone claims theirs is right and those get pretty heated when you have believers and non-believers discussing.

TheOaf66 replied:
Too late!!!!!!!!!!!!!

lisar replied:
So whos gona start them?????

TheOaf66 replied: well you know me, I don't like confrontation nearly as much as my DW does so I chime in here and there to make a point.

Crystalina replied:

Boo&BugsMom replied:
You're lucky I love you!

And we already established that it was a miscommunication between Anthony and I.

holley79 replied: I try to keep up but sometimes I fall behind. To answer the orginal question I would not vote souly on gender, race or religion. Then on the flip side you can listen to them debate all day long but once they are in office it's a different ball game. We will see how this election goes. I won't be voting for a Clinton whether male or the female version.

Crystalina replied:
That is so true. Promises have to be kept which rarely happens no matter who is in office. We also have to remember that just because one candidate has a plan it takes many other politicians to agree and help it come together.

coasterqueen replied:
People tend to forget that one Very true.

Anthony275 replied:
wait until your turn comes

TheOaf66 replied: I live with her everyday buddy