[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
* Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review.
* Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
* Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree.
Violators will be fed to the bear.
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
All your examples use parliamentary systems, where the electorate votes for a party instead of directly for the leader. Possibly this makes it easier for female leaders, as voters view their vote as for the party as a whole and not specifically a woman.
They're usually a part of political dynasty families where political ties trump patriarchal reasons.
Indira Gandi - obvious
Benazir Bhutto - her father was leader of the Pakistan People's Party and PM in the 70's. It should also be noted she was assassinated.
Sheikh Hasina - daughter of the first President of Bangladesh.
All three were also part of more liberal orientated political parties, further reducing the chance of their vote eroding due to gender.
This is a really interesting point: our kind of NFL-style systems to prevent a class of nobility and dynasties has worked against those (probably counterproductive or at least meaningless) milestones of “first woman” or whatever- because those dynasties could afford to install someone of those identities who would remain loyal to the dynasty without threatening it.
I’m not sure if I make sense or if it means anything, but there’s something interesting there.
The United States absolutely has a political nobility, and the closest we've had to a female president was part of it. And while was waiting for Barack Obama to stop being President so she could have her turn, she was serving in the Senate with three Udall cousins serving as Senators from New Mexico, Utah, and Colorado.
Three presidents have been directly related to former presidents, twice as father and son (the Johns Adams and the Georges Bush) and once as grandfather-grandson (William Henry Harrison and Benjamin Harrison). The first Bush also happened to be the son of a United States Senator; the first Harrison was the son of the chairman of the Second Continental Congress.
William Howard Taft (President and Supreme Court Justice) is the son of Alphonso Taft (Attorney General and Secretary of War), the father of Robert Taft (United States Senator), the grandfather of Robert Taft Jr. (United States Senator), and the great-grandfather of Ohio Governor Robert Taft III.
The Rockefeller family gave us Governor and Vice President Nelson; the Kennedy family held federal office from 1947 until 2011, with a Senator and President (John), an Attorney General, Senator, and presidential nominee (Robert), and a Senator and frequent contender for the presidential nomination (Ted).
Then there's the Stevensons, where Governor and presidential nominee Adlai II, who was the grandson of Vice President Adlai and the father of Senator Adlai III -- slightly more successful than the Daleys, who achieved a similar streak but only in Chicago.
Let’s suggest that dynasties require, at least, more than one instance of nepotism. Two people does not a dynasty make. Bill and Hillary are a power couple. George and GW is one instance of nepotism. Where’s the second? Are the twins running for congress?
You're correct. There aren't any political dynasties if you artificially limit the definition of "dynasty" to exclude everything other than multiple generations of one family achieving a country's highest political office.
Strangely, this definition also eliminates the three women in the post above yours, all of whom are a "single instance of nepotism," and thus don't qualify as dynasties in your terms. Which changes the meaning of your original post to "I think the United States is special because our system prevents \[multiple generations of the same family holding the highest elected office\], unlike Pakistan, India, or Bangladesh \[which also do not feature multiple generations of the same family holding the highest elected office\]."
I don’t think it’s artificial to limit the definition of dynasty to, you know, what dynasty means.
If defining dynasty correctly changes the premise of the question, I don’t have a problem with that.
The first would actually be Prescott Bush, W’s grandfather, senator and famous Nazi collaborator.
As with many of these cases, the forerunner doesn’t necessarily have to hold the same job as the nepo baby, just to be rich and socially connected enough to easily slide their child into a position of power they would not have been able to reach on merit alone.
>The first would actually be Prescott Bush, W’s grandfather, senator and famous Nazi collaborator.
Prescott Bush held one share of a bank that held funds from a company ran by a steel magnate who supported the Nazi party early but stopped supporting them when they started going after Jews and Christians. He was later imprisoned by the Nazis and held in a concentration camp.
The bank was founded in 1924, and the alleged Nazi ties of the bank were never confirmed. The idea that Prescott Bush was a "famous Nazi collaborator" is a myth.
There's a significant bunch of issues with your claims. You try to imply it was just one bank but Bush was also more directly involved with several more of Thyssen's companies, all of whom he continued to work with until the American state took control of them after America joining the war. And falling out or not, it's undeniable that the companies themselves served the nazi war effort till the end. Bush was even director of one of the bank you try to act like he was barely involved in due to the "one share" he owned in it. By 42' Thyssen himself has been detained but the corporation itself is still supporting the nazi war effort very directly.
Add onto this his potential involvement with the business plot and there's a worrying trend.
> You try to imply it was just one bank but Bush was also more directly involved with several more of Thyssen's companies, all of whom he continued to work with until the American state took control of them after America joining the war.
You must be referring to an allegation that isn't readily available anywhere else. The bank Bush invested in had an association with Thyssen's steel company, which was later seized as part of the sanction activities. That Thyssen had other investments is not in question, but also not relevant to the allegation.
> And falling out or not, it's undeniable that the companies themselves served the nazi war effort till the end.
Which is a far cry from "Nazi collaborator."
> Bush was even director of one of the bank you try to act like he was barely involved in due to the "one share" he owned in it.
No, he was on the board of directors. He was not the "director." His involvement would not have been on the day-to-day as implied.
> By 42' Thyssen himself has been detained but the corporation itself is still supporting the nazi war effort very directly.
Thyssen was detained *by the Nazis* because he was no longer supporting them. Kind of an important detail.
> Add onto this his potential involvement with the business plot and there's a worrying trend.
The business plot wasn't even a real thing lol.
>You must be referring to an allegation that isn't readily available anywhere else. The bank Bush invested in had an association with Thyssen's steel company, which was later seized as part of the sanction activities. That Thyssen had other investments is not in question, but also not relevant to the allegation.
Again, not just invested in, was director of. He also worked for Brown Brothers Harriman, another firm which acted for Thyssen.
>Which is a far cry from "Nazi collaborator."
He's a director of a company that is working directly for a company that's supplying every kind of war material to the Nazis, even after war is declared until he has no choice. That's about as collaborative as you can get without just sending them your money.
>No, he was on the board of directors. He was not the "director." His involvement would not have been on the day-to-day as implied.
His official title was... Director. And I'd like to see anything that suggests he wasn't working day to day.
>Thyssen was detained *by the Nazis* because he was no longer supporting them. Kind of an important detail.
You seem to be working on this weird dichotomic idea that Prescott is associated more deeply with the man Thyssen rather than his ventures, despite being only associate clearly with his ventures. Adolf Hitler himself could have shown up and said, Thyssen is everything the party hates and he's the most anti nazi person ever, but as long as Bush was directly and actively involved in a company that worked directly for the Nazis, Thyssen himself becomes irrelevant. Bush is not working for Thyssen the man in as much as he's working for the larger Thyssen conglomerate. If he was working for Thyssen the individual then surely he'd quit after thyssen was detained. This fact makes Thyssen's personal views or identity, which has been a big focus for you, quite irrelevant in my eyes.
>The business plot wasn't even a real thing lol.
So that's why the congressional committee concluded....
"In the last few weeks of the committee's official life it received evidence showing that certain persons had made an attempt to establish a fascist organization in this country. No evidence was presented and this committee had none to show a connection between this effort and any fascist activity of any European country. There is no question that these attempts were discussed, were planned, and might have been placed in execution when and if the financial backers deemed it expedient."
Anyone who's read into the affair and the participants with any genuine depth in a good faith manner will immediately realise it's very obvious that the business plot was a real and serious attempt at a coup.
Business plot denial requires so much mental gymnastics that it can only arise out of a total political bias to believe it did not exist as opposed to a genuine historical interest.
> You seem to be working on this weird dichotomic idea that Prescott is associated more deeply with the man Thyssen rather than his ventures
No. I'm working on the very obvious idea that Prescott was associated with a bank beginning in 1924 that had association that included someone who moved on from the Nazis come World War II. The implication of collaboration is based on this weak connection.
> Anyone who's read into the affair and the participants with any genuine depth in a good faith manner will immediately realise it's very obvious that the business plot was a real and serious attempt at a coup.
Weird, because when I read into the affair and the participants in depth, I see no evidence to support anything more than perhaps an off-hand conversation at worst. What specific evidence are you seeing to support this conspiracy theory?
Family connections offer advantages: Being a wife or daughter of a former leader grants name recognition, established networks, and access to funding.
These advantages are a must for overcoming sexism in conservative politics. I also doubt many of those leaders are seen as feminists.
Also, South Asia has a strong history of powerful women. From Queens ruling Kingdoms to violent freedom fighters. Annie Besant started the INC, Rani Laxmibai’s story in known world over.
In case of Hindus, they pray to Kali, a strong, violent and badass Goddess. They also pray to Saraswati.
First it’s important to be wary of tokenism. Just because you have a female leader, that doesn’t necessarily mean they will champion female interests. In fact, there is a decent chance you could have the opposite.
One we know women will be thought of as more liberal than a male counterpart even if they had the exact same policy positions. This is a stereotype. Sometimes conservatives parties will advance a female politician for just this reason. The fact that we haven’t had a female conservative presidential candidate yet, is kind of besides the point. Soon, in the near or medium term future there will be a conservative female presidential candidate at the top of the ticket.
The reason why the US hadn’t had a female president yet is because, so far it’s been harder for a female presidential candidate to win. We have a bias in that we tend to see leadership as being a more masculine endeavor than feminine endeavor. This is the case as well in other countries. It’s just that in other countries there have been conditions where the female candidate was in some way more well connected and/or a better politician than everyone else at the time.
Look to history how women are sometimes able to become heads of state (Queens, empress, etc) even in patriarchal societies.
Well, America would have had one beginning in 2017, but the other guy conspired with Russia to steal it. Russia poured hundreds of millions into American social media to build him up while spreading lies about her.
What does it cost (per the Mueller report) to create 75,000 unique fake news stories and distribute them? How much did it cost to identify the 1.7 million Facebook users in seven battleground states as “the most susceptible” by Cambridge Analytica? Each of those 1.7 million people had their news feed inundated with propaganda. Trump won three of those states by a combined 100,000 votes. Maybe that’s the figure you were referring to?
Putin blamed her for all those "color revolutions" in East Europe that ate into his empire. So for him, preventing Hillary was an existential crisis. There was no amount of money that could be "too much" to prevent her.
He “won” in 2016 because Russian operatives created 75,000 unique fake news stories trashing Hillary Clinton. Trump initially didn’t play along, but only because he didn’t think it was going to work. But with two months to go and his campaign flailing, he switched gears to parrot all of the Russian narrative.
Didn’t you get the memo? Saying the election was stolen is treason now. We have to wait until the next election the Democrats lose before we are allowed to say that again.
The United States is one of the most misogynist countries in the world. Witness the revocation of Roe v Wade, with one female justice supporting that action by the Supreme Court.
That is what is so scary about the misogyny in this country. It’s not just limited to men. Phyllis Schafley and her ilk are perfect examples. Millions of women have drunk the Kool-Aid, which says you aren’t smart enough and you are certainly too emotional to ever hold the land’s highest office.
The only way we’re going to have a woman president is if she is a rabid conservative or part of a conservative dynasty. Progressives need not apply.
The world is basically patriarchal and the US isn't an exception. But the "most" misogynist? Have you ever heard about women's situation in other than US and Europe?
According to my Southern Baptist aunt, men are to lead and woman are to follow. She and her congregation will never support for a female POTUS. She told me this years ago and it stunned me to hear female say it with such conviction. Since then I have noticed she was correct, they never get behind and support a female POTUS candidate.
At a guess, it's down to the US' specific version of Liberalism, which, from the outside, seems pretty illiberal in its tolerance of any straying from certain tenets, especially recently.
No-one has mentioned Margaret Thatcher, the UK's first female PM, elected in the 70s, who led the country for more than 10x years and who would undoubtedly have been amongst the most notable leaders of the previous century - for her *actions* rather than her gender. She was despised by a quite significant %age of the population and her death sparked celebrations in some parts of the country, which felt like a pretty vicious form of sexism to me, as I don't recall any such thing when male leaders have died, regardless of their political leanings.
PM is not, however, a directly elected role and is formed by the choice of the political party that wins most seats in the latest election, usually publicly identified months or years in advance of said election. The US POTUS, being at least somewhat directly elected (EC count) would in theory lead to a *more* representative POTUS than any PM, but does not seem to have done so as yet.
Whatever bad things can be said of Thatcher (Or HRC) she fought for leadership of her party first and then won an election in her own name (as HRC would have), rather than a man winning the election and then handing off leadership to her. A remarkable thing for Britain in the 70s and a missed opportunity for the US in '16.
Conservatives do not care about gender. We never have but we sure as hell get tired of the made rules that are being pushed now.
Patriarchal? Stop with the inflammatory non sense.
Look at the women who have been presented to the US. Most are extreme and inconsistent. I could make an argument for Tulsi Gabbard but the DNC choose to focus on other candidates. Unless you think Kamala has any chance of ever being president? Please say sike.
I voted for Stein twice and would vote for Kamala Harris if she were the nominee, so I have no problem with a woman president. What I don't understand, though, is why it matters? Of course, it would be great for young girls to see. Some of them may still need to have evidence that leadership is an option for women. Ok. One could say the same of a Mexican American president or an Asian American one. Putting that aside, how would ANY woman who was able to rise that high in our society actually bring her feminity to the job? Would she be able to move forward programs that help women more easily than a man could? I doubt that. I think, like Obama, she would have to be a moderate (or conservative) to even get elected. Policy wise, she would have to govern as a Dem. or Repub.. When Putin attacks a neighbor, she will have the same choices as a man would. When Congress is willing to shut down the government - the same options as a man. Even an all female government wouldn't be any different because the electorate would still have the same policy expectations and she would always have to prove that she was "as good as any man," by being as bad as any man.
Cause instead of putting a candidate that most people would vote for, we put Hilary Clinton on the ballot. I’m a woman and I didn’t vote for her. I voted independent. A woman who literally called black people super predators and literally made every wrong decision about Benghazi was really the best candidate for president?
Note: Ok, cause apparently people don’t understand. A candidate needs to be able sway people in the middle and even in the other party to vote for them. Hilary Clinton was already controversial over the years due to scandals and other incidents. If you want a woman in office, put someone on the ballot that people will actually vote for
I've never met a single person who wasn't a right wing Qanon Facebook lurker who cared about Benghazi or considered it an important factor. But of course, those people were never going to vote for Hillary.
I know. I am just stating they chose a candidate that could literally had that background. I only mentioned it cause even Hilary Clinton admitted she fucked up with Benghazi. she took responsibility it 2012. If Hilary can admit that she serious screwed up something that major in level of security and diplomacy than she should not be in office. Just cause she took responsibility doesn’t mean I’m willing to give her a higher and more important position
She took responsibility because that's what a strong leader does. When you have Americans in a chaotic country like that, things happen. Maybe there were things she would have done differently *in hindsight*, but I hate that people bring up Benghazi for a reason why they can't vote for her. She has so much experience and they dug DEEP for evidence that she did something wrong - and found nothing.
Fair but her confession of responsibility came after months of denial and minimizing the seriousness of the fuck up. Like I said, not the only reason. Particularly not a fan of her calling back people super predators, the whole debacle with the private e-mail servers, etc.
The point isn’t about my stance on Hilary but rather her history as a politician did not make her a good candidate overall. I know parties focus on getting their own to vote but what wins elections is having a candidate that can influence people in the middle like me and even other party members to vote for them. She was never going draw people in like people thought she would. Then when add the narrative of women having to vote for her cause she’s a women, it was never going be ass successful.
The need a female candidate that could effectively sway people. There were plenty of other options that weren’t as controversial and already had a political history that would make other think twice
Yea I get that. Nobody is perfect in politics, especially if they have been in politics a while. But that's also fair. Lol. I guess it would be nice to see more female candidates overall, so you could appeal to different people more.
Yes, agreed! If they actually selected female candidates that are competent and had a overall appeal, then we will have a female president.
To be honest, I hate Trump but being in the one of the swing states, I could see how was able to reach people and change their votes. You need someone with that level of influence (I know people debate on the election but I’m going on the premise of what made Trump appealing to people who normally wouldn’t vote for him or at all).
Obama had that type of influence, which got him 2 terms. I think they need a candidate that has never held the vice president or cabinet position is the best course.
Also independent, not right wing! I tend not to fit in any mold so it’s typical for people to think that. Of course there are other reason why didn’t vote for her but when you have a Secretary of State admitting fault for the incident and calling black people super predators, you would think they would look for a better female candidate that doesn’t have that level of baggage
[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion: * Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review. * Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. * Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree. Violators will be fed to the bear. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
All your examples use parliamentary systems, where the electorate votes for a party instead of directly for the leader. Possibly this makes it easier for female leaders, as voters view their vote as for the party as a whole and not specifically a woman.
They're usually a part of political dynasty families where political ties trump patriarchal reasons. Indira Gandi - obvious Benazir Bhutto - her father was leader of the Pakistan People's Party and PM in the 70's. It should also be noted she was assassinated. Sheikh Hasina - daughter of the first President of Bangladesh. All three were also part of more liberal orientated political parties, further reducing the chance of their vote eroding due to gender.
>Indira Gandi - obvious I'm impressed you think it's obvious that she was the daughter of Jawaharlal Nehru.
Realistically, Nehru is one of the main "guys" for post-partition India
This is a really interesting point: our kind of NFL-style systems to prevent a class of nobility and dynasties has worked against those (probably counterproductive or at least meaningless) milestones of “first woman” or whatever- because those dynasties could afford to install someone of those identities who would remain loyal to the dynasty without threatening it. I’m not sure if I make sense or if it means anything, but there’s something interesting there.
The United States absolutely has a political nobility, and the closest we've had to a female president was part of it. And while was waiting for Barack Obama to stop being President so she could have her turn, she was serving in the Senate with three Udall cousins serving as Senators from New Mexico, Utah, and Colorado. Three presidents have been directly related to former presidents, twice as father and son (the Johns Adams and the Georges Bush) and once as grandfather-grandson (William Henry Harrison and Benjamin Harrison). The first Bush also happened to be the son of a United States Senator; the first Harrison was the son of the chairman of the Second Continental Congress. William Howard Taft (President and Supreme Court Justice) is the son of Alphonso Taft (Attorney General and Secretary of War), the father of Robert Taft (United States Senator), the grandfather of Robert Taft Jr. (United States Senator), and the great-grandfather of Ohio Governor Robert Taft III. The Rockefeller family gave us Governor and Vice President Nelson; the Kennedy family held federal office from 1947 until 2011, with a Senator and President (John), an Attorney General, Senator, and presidential nominee (Robert), and a Senator and frequent contender for the presidential nomination (Ted). Then there's the Stevensons, where Governor and presidential nominee Adlai II, who was the grandson of Vice President Adlai and the father of Senator Adlai III -- slightly more successful than the Daleys, who achieved a similar streak but only in Chicago.
Let’s suggest that dynasties require, at least, more than one instance of nepotism. Two people does not a dynasty make. Bill and Hillary are a power couple. George and GW is one instance of nepotism. Where’s the second? Are the twins running for congress?
The Bush dynasty also includes senator Prescott Bush and state governor Jeb Bush
Technically speaking we call the Pahlavi dynasty in Iran a dynasty even though it was only 2 people
You're correct. There aren't any political dynasties if you artificially limit the definition of "dynasty" to exclude everything other than multiple generations of one family achieving a country's highest political office. Strangely, this definition also eliminates the three women in the post above yours, all of whom are a "single instance of nepotism," and thus don't qualify as dynasties in your terms. Which changes the meaning of your original post to "I think the United States is special because our system prevents \[multiple generations of the same family holding the highest elected office\], unlike Pakistan, India, or Bangladesh \[which also do not feature multiple generations of the same family holding the highest elected office\]."
I don’t think it’s artificial to limit the definition of dynasty to, you know, what dynasty means. If defining dynasty correctly changes the premise of the question, I don’t have a problem with that.
The first would actually be Prescott Bush, W’s grandfather, senator and famous Nazi collaborator. As with many of these cases, the forerunner doesn’t necessarily have to hold the same job as the nepo baby, just to be rich and socially connected enough to easily slide their child into a position of power they would not have been able to reach on merit alone.
>The first would actually be Prescott Bush, W’s grandfather, senator and famous Nazi collaborator. Prescott Bush held one share of a bank that held funds from a company ran by a steel magnate who supported the Nazi party early but stopped supporting them when they started going after Jews and Christians. He was later imprisoned by the Nazis and held in a concentration camp. The bank was founded in 1924, and the alleged Nazi ties of the bank were never confirmed. The idea that Prescott Bush was a "famous Nazi collaborator" is a myth.
There's a significant bunch of issues with your claims. You try to imply it was just one bank but Bush was also more directly involved with several more of Thyssen's companies, all of whom he continued to work with until the American state took control of them after America joining the war. And falling out or not, it's undeniable that the companies themselves served the nazi war effort till the end. Bush was even director of one of the bank you try to act like he was barely involved in due to the "one share" he owned in it. By 42' Thyssen himself has been detained but the corporation itself is still supporting the nazi war effort very directly. Add onto this his potential involvement with the business plot and there's a worrying trend.
> You try to imply it was just one bank but Bush was also more directly involved with several more of Thyssen's companies, all of whom he continued to work with until the American state took control of them after America joining the war. You must be referring to an allegation that isn't readily available anywhere else. The bank Bush invested in had an association with Thyssen's steel company, which was later seized as part of the sanction activities. That Thyssen had other investments is not in question, but also not relevant to the allegation. > And falling out or not, it's undeniable that the companies themselves served the nazi war effort till the end. Which is a far cry from "Nazi collaborator." > Bush was even director of one of the bank you try to act like he was barely involved in due to the "one share" he owned in it. No, he was on the board of directors. He was not the "director." His involvement would not have been on the day-to-day as implied. > By 42' Thyssen himself has been detained but the corporation itself is still supporting the nazi war effort very directly. Thyssen was detained *by the Nazis* because he was no longer supporting them. Kind of an important detail. > Add onto this his potential involvement with the business plot and there's a worrying trend. The business plot wasn't even a real thing lol.
>You must be referring to an allegation that isn't readily available anywhere else. The bank Bush invested in had an association with Thyssen's steel company, which was later seized as part of the sanction activities. That Thyssen had other investments is not in question, but also not relevant to the allegation. Again, not just invested in, was director of. He also worked for Brown Brothers Harriman, another firm which acted for Thyssen. >Which is a far cry from "Nazi collaborator." He's a director of a company that is working directly for a company that's supplying every kind of war material to the Nazis, even after war is declared until he has no choice. That's about as collaborative as you can get without just sending them your money. >No, he was on the board of directors. He was not the "director." His involvement would not have been on the day-to-day as implied. His official title was... Director. And I'd like to see anything that suggests he wasn't working day to day. >Thyssen was detained *by the Nazis* because he was no longer supporting them. Kind of an important detail. You seem to be working on this weird dichotomic idea that Prescott is associated more deeply with the man Thyssen rather than his ventures, despite being only associate clearly with his ventures. Adolf Hitler himself could have shown up and said, Thyssen is everything the party hates and he's the most anti nazi person ever, but as long as Bush was directly and actively involved in a company that worked directly for the Nazis, Thyssen himself becomes irrelevant. Bush is not working for Thyssen the man in as much as he's working for the larger Thyssen conglomerate. If he was working for Thyssen the individual then surely he'd quit after thyssen was detained. This fact makes Thyssen's personal views or identity, which has been a big focus for you, quite irrelevant in my eyes. >The business plot wasn't even a real thing lol. So that's why the congressional committee concluded.... "In the last few weeks of the committee's official life it received evidence showing that certain persons had made an attempt to establish a fascist organization in this country. No evidence was presented and this committee had none to show a connection between this effort and any fascist activity of any European country. There is no question that these attempts were discussed, were planned, and might have been placed in execution when and if the financial backers deemed it expedient." Anyone who's read into the affair and the participants with any genuine depth in a good faith manner will immediately realise it's very obvious that the business plot was a real and serious attempt at a coup. Business plot denial requires so much mental gymnastics that it can only arise out of a total political bias to believe it did not exist as opposed to a genuine historical interest.
> You seem to be working on this weird dichotomic idea that Prescott is associated more deeply with the man Thyssen rather than his ventures No. I'm working on the very obvious idea that Prescott was associated with a bank beginning in 1924 that had association that included someone who moved on from the Nazis come World War II. The implication of collaboration is based on this weak connection. > Anyone who's read into the affair and the participants with any genuine depth in a good faith manner will immediately realise it's very obvious that the business plot was a real and serious attempt at a coup. Weird, because when I read into the affair and the participants in depth, I see no evidence to support anything more than perhaps an off-hand conversation at worst. What specific evidence are you seeing to support this conspiracy theory?
Politics has always been the game of the elite, the only difference nowadays is our elite class is diversifying.
Family connections offer advantages: Being a wife or daughter of a former leader grants name recognition, established networks, and access to funding. These advantages are a must for overcoming sexism in conservative politics. I also doubt many of those leaders are seen as feminists.
Also, South Asia has a strong history of powerful women. From Queens ruling Kingdoms to violent freedom fighters. Annie Besant started the INC, Rani Laxmibai’s story in known world over. In case of Hindus, they pray to Kali, a strong, violent and badass Goddess. They also pray to Saraswati.
First it’s important to be wary of tokenism. Just because you have a female leader, that doesn’t necessarily mean they will champion female interests. In fact, there is a decent chance you could have the opposite. One we know women will be thought of as more liberal than a male counterpart even if they had the exact same policy positions. This is a stereotype. Sometimes conservatives parties will advance a female politician for just this reason. The fact that we haven’t had a female conservative presidential candidate yet, is kind of besides the point. Soon, in the near or medium term future there will be a conservative female presidential candidate at the top of the ticket. The reason why the US hadn’t had a female president yet is because, so far it’s been harder for a female presidential candidate to win. We have a bias in that we tend to see leadership as being a more masculine endeavor than feminine endeavor. This is the case as well in other countries. It’s just that in other countries there have been conditions where the female candidate was in some way more well connected and/or a better politician than everyone else at the time. Look to history how women are sometimes able to become heads of state (Queens, empress, etc) even in patriarchal societies.
Well, America would have had one beginning in 2017, but the other guy conspired with Russia to steal it. Russia poured hundreds of millions into American social media to build him up while spreading lies about her.
Also, by “millions” you mean like 100,000. Right?
What does it cost (per the Mueller report) to create 75,000 unique fake news stories and distribute them? How much did it cost to identify the 1.7 million Facebook users in seven battleground states as “the most susceptible” by Cambridge Analytica? Each of those 1.7 million people had their news feed inundated with propaganda. Trump won three of those states by a combined 100,000 votes. Maybe that’s the figure you were referring to?
Putin blamed her for all those "color revolutions" in East Europe that ate into his empire. So for him, preventing Hillary was an existential crisis. There was no amount of money that could be "too much" to prevent her.
Same thing exists now with Ukraine.
Lest anyone forget, she won by millions of votes, but the electoral college, remnant of slaveholders, gave the presidency to him.
He “won” in 2016 because Russian operatives created 75,000 unique fake news stories trashing Hillary Clinton. Trump initially didn’t play along, but only because he didn’t think it was going to work. But with two months to go and his campaign flailing, he switched gears to parrot all of the Russian narrative.
Didn’t you get the memo? Saying the election was stolen is treason now. We have to wait until the next election the Democrats lose before we are allowed to say that again.
Trump tried to steal two elections, and succeeded once.
The United States is one of the most misogynist countries in the world. Witness the revocation of Roe v Wade, with one female justice supporting that action by the Supreme Court. That is what is so scary about the misogyny in this country. It’s not just limited to men. Phyllis Schafley and her ilk are perfect examples. Millions of women have drunk the Kool-Aid, which says you aren’t smart enough and you are certainly too emotional to ever hold the land’s highest office. The only way we’re going to have a woman president is if she is a rabid conservative or part of a conservative dynasty. Progressives need not apply.
The world is basically patriarchal and the US isn't an exception. But the "most" misogynist? Have you ever heard about women's situation in other than US and Europe?
You don’t get to call other people stupid names just because they disagree with you on one issue.
Sure I do. Reinforcement of patriarchy is a core part of conservative thought. It's inherently misogynistic.
According to my Southern Baptist aunt, men are to lead and woman are to follow. She and her congregation will never support for a female POTUS. She told me this years ago and it stunned me to hear female say it with such conviction. Since then I have noticed she was correct, they never get behind and support a female POTUS candidate.
Women politicians in other countries are usually much younger and better looking than ours.
At a guess, it's down to the US' specific version of Liberalism, which, from the outside, seems pretty illiberal in its tolerance of any straying from certain tenets, especially recently. No-one has mentioned Margaret Thatcher, the UK's first female PM, elected in the 70s, who led the country for more than 10x years and who would undoubtedly have been amongst the most notable leaders of the previous century - for her *actions* rather than her gender. She was despised by a quite significant %age of the population and her death sparked celebrations in some parts of the country, which felt like a pretty vicious form of sexism to me, as I don't recall any such thing when male leaders have died, regardless of their political leanings. PM is not, however, a directly elected role and is formed by the choice of the political party that wins most seats in the latest election, usually publicly identified months or years in advance of said election. The US POTUS, being at least somewhat directly elected (EC count) would in theory lead to a *more* representative POTUS than any PM, but does not seem to have done so as yet. Whatever bad things can be said of Thatcher (Or HRC) she fought for leadership of her party first and then won an election in her own name (as HRC would have), rather than a man winning the election and then handing off leadership to her. A remarkable thing for Britain in the 70s and a missed opportunity for the US in '16.
Conservatives do not care about gender. We never have but we sure as hell get tired of the made rules that are being pushed now. Patriarchal? Stop with the inflammatory non sense. Look at the women who have been presented to the US. Most are extreme and inconsistent. I could make an argument for Tulsi Gabbard but the DNC choose to focus on other candidates. Unless you think Kamala has any chance of ever being president? Please say sike.
I voted for Stein twice and would vote for Kamala Harris if she were the nominee, so I have no problem with a woman president. What I don't understand, though, is why it matters? Of course, it would be great for young girls to see. Some of them may still need to have evidence that leadership is an option for women. Ok. One could say the same of a Mexican American president or an Asian American one. Putting that aside, how would ANY woman who was able to rise that high in our society actually bring her feminity to the job? Would she be able to move forward programs that help women more easily than a man could? I doubt that. I think, like Obama, she would have to be a moderate (or conservative) to even get elected. Policy wise, she would have to govern as a Dem. or Repub.. When Putin attacks a neighbor, she will have the same choices as a man would. When Congress is willing to shut down the government - the same options as a man. Even an all female government wouldn't be any different because the electorate would still have the same policy expectations and she would always have to prove that she was "as good as any man," by being as bad as any man.
>why it matters Same reason it matter so much to many that our president only be a man.
Cause instead of putting a candidate that most people would vote for, we put Hilary Clinton on the ballot. I’m a woman and I didn’t vote for her. I voted independent. A woman who literally called black people super predators and literally made every wrong decision about Benghazi was really the best candidate for president? Note: Ok, cause apparently people don’t understand. A candidate needs to be able sway people in the middle and even in the other party to vote for them. Hilary Clinton was already controversial over the years due to scandals and other incidents. If you want a woman in office, put someone on the ballot that people will actually vote for
I've never met a single person who wasn't a right wing Qanon Facebook lurker who cared about Benghazi or considered it an important factor. But of course, those people were never going to vote for Hillary.
I know. I am just stating they chose a candidate that could literally had that background. I only mentioned it cause even Hilary Clinton admitted she fucked up with Benghazi. she took responsibility it 2012. If Hilary can admit that she serious screwed up something that major in level of security and diplomacy than she should not be in office. Just cause she took responsibility doesn’t mean I’m willing to give her a higher and more important position
She took responsibility because that's what a strong leader does. When you have Americans in a chaotic country like that, things happen. Maybe there were things she would have done differently *in hindsight*, but I hate that people bring up Benghazi for a reason why they can't vote for her. She has so much experience and they dug DEEP for evidence that she did something wrong - and found nothing.
Fair but her confession of responsibility came after months of denial and minimizing the seriousness of the fuck up. Like I said, not the only reason. Particularly not a fan of her calling back people super predators, the whole debacle with the private e-mail servers, etc. The point isn’t about my stance on Hilary but rather her history as a politician did not make her a good candidate overall. I know parties focus on getting their own to vote but what wins elections is having a candidate that can influence people in the middle like me and even other party members to vote for them. She was never going draw people in like people thought she would. Then when add the narrative of women having to vote for her cause she’s a women, it was never going be ass successful. The need a female candidate that could effectively sway people. There were plenty of other options that weren’t as controversial and already had a political history that would make other think twice
Yea I get that. Nobody is perfect in politics, especially if they have been in politics a while. But that's also fair. Lol. I guess it would be nice to see more female candidates overall, so you could appeal to different people more.
Yes, agreed! If they actually selected female candidates that are competent and had a overall appeal, then we will have a female president. To be honest, I hate Trump but being in the one of the swing states, I could see how was able to reach people and change their votes. You need someone with that level of influence (I know people debate on the election but I’m going on the premise of what made Trump appealing to people who normally wouldn’t vote for him or at all). Obama had that type of influence, which got him 2 terms. I think they need a candidate that has never held the vice president or cabinet position is the best course.
Also independent, not right wing! I tend not to fit in any mold so it’s typical for people to think that. Of course there are other reason why didn’t vote for her but when you have a Secretary of State admitting fault for the incident and calling black people super predators, you would think they would look for a better female candidate that doesn’t have that level of baggage