2016 Presidential Election: A woman might be elected first time in History.

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 03:27 PM
Oh, goody, just what we need. First it was Bushes, then it was Clintons, and now you want to make it more Kennedys, and just in case they aren't already politically elite or special enough, you want us to feel that God himself will reach down and "choose" her ... In case, you haven't forgotten, America went to war so that we didn't have to ruled by people claiming "divine right."

Also, the Democrats (Ms. Kennedy would almost certainly run as one) removed God from their platform and booed Him when they tried to shoehorn him back in, so why on earth is He going to life on of them up to rule us?

Unless of course, God has heard the slender majority of this nation demanding to have a "King" set over them just like the people of Israel did in the days of old. And he is complying and his purpose is not to save America, but to give her what she asks for ... good and hard ... by way of punishment.

In other words, He'd be bringing our chickens home to roost.

posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 03:29 PM
reply to post by khnum

Yes Benghazi is the Nemesis of the political career of Hillary, you are quite right, and it will be for some time also part of the troubles of Obama in this second term, although frankly now he has enough to deal with the mistake committed with the Obamacare, that menace to be a real huge scandal.

Talking about scandals, well Mrs Palin also has enough to be out of any possibility with all what have happened in her own family, it is difficult that a lady that has a so doubtful role in the Troppergate and the embarrassment of to have a teen daughter that became pregnant, can easy convince the public opinion that she can handle successfully the oval office.

As i told once, Geraldine Ferraro, Madelain Allbright, Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Dole and Sarah Palin all have worked without even know for the future President of the USA, Mrs Kennedy, in the same way that Adlay Stevension did to open the pathway for JFK to the Presidence.

The Angel of Lightness
edit on 11/13/2013 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 03:51 PM
reply to post by ketsuko

You remember me the so old rhetoric of certain political party that every election claims that if there is a President they dont like trying to be reelected he is another unsuccessful leader like Jimmy Carter.

Lets check how accurate is the statement that Carter was not a successful President or the worst, as they like always to say:

1) If Carter was not successful since he was only one term in the white house, well the same can be said of extremly popular Presidents like JF Kennedy or A Lincoln.

2) Well, it is true that he was only one term in the oval office, but at least he never was forced to resignate to continue in his job, like it happened to L Johnson and R Nixon. Moreover, he was never catched in a lie, specially being under oath, as it happened to R Nixon and W Clinton.

3) He also never was impeached or menaced to be so as it happened to R Reagan and W Clinton, that were both reelected.

4) Mr Carter never dealed with a political scandal that questioned his ethics, as it happened with R Nixon in Watergate, R Reagan in Irangate or W Clinton in Sexgate.

5) He also never drove the country to a policy that began a long escalation of the public finances toward a giant deficit, as R Reagan and G W H Bush did or to a global recesion or Great Depression as G.W.Bush and C Coolidge did.

6) He never push the country to conflicts that was unable later to win as it happened to L Johnson or GW Bush, or took in his hands the responsibility to use massive destruction weapons to try to end one, as it happened with H Truman when launched a nuclear attack over civil population in 1945.

7) it is true that he lost the election of 1980 affronting the horrendus campaign that Reagan launched against him, in moments in which he was affronting the violation of the international Law by the regime of Teheran against American diplomats, but at least he lost against only one rival and not trying to be relected with two opponents inthe election, embarrassment that in modern History only G.H.W.Bush has had in 1992.

8) Finally, he was indeed not relected and with a clear margin of votes against him, but at least he didnt affront the embarrassment that his own Vicepresident didnt want to run again with him, as It happened to G Ford with N Rockefeller, or to be forced the fire his own Vicepresident, for criminal charges against him, as it happend to Nixon with S Agnew.

9) He has beem longly blamed for the bad performance that the economy had in 1979-80, but the objective truth is that he inherited a sick economy from his predecessors, in a similar way that H Hoover in 1929, that was their tragedy and both affronted with courage times of crisis, that even their successors couldn't fix in one term. Yes, they, in that sense, were unsuccessful, but they worked in the best of their abilities to try to repair what they didn't damage and for that reason History has exonerated them. President Carter won Nobel Prize in 2002 and President Hoover was nominated 5 times for it - in 1921, 1933, 1941, 1946 and 1964.

Everything can be of the political color that you want to depending through which lens you are checking it.

Thanks for your interesting comment, By the way check my profile please, I am a respectable seer not a politician.

The Angel of Lightness
edit on 11/13/2013 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 03:54 PM
A ha !
So it's Ted Cruz or Rand Paul.
One loves costumes and the other wigs.

posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 04:21 PM
reply to post by The angel of light

None of that proves anything about Carter beyond that he is probably a decent person. That doesn't mean he was very good at being a president.

And at the moment, if we elect "Sweet Caroline" the only thing we would be doing it on would be her name. She has no experience and a number of embarrassing verbal tics.

Of course, Obama had no experience, either, and look what that's getting us, but at least he can make a speech.

posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 04:52 PM
Unless of course, God has heard the slender majority of this nation demanding to have a "King" set over them just like the people of Israel did in the days of old.
reply to post by ketsuko


Dear Ketsuko,

Now, if to have a King means to have somebody that is able to stop a Nuclear Armageddon against all the odds, as JF Kennedy did in 1962, or with enough Character and moral authority to propose a Civil Rights Law , ignored at all for about 15 Presidents that were confronted with the issue, longly waited since the end of a civil war that was fought a century before him precisely to make it a reality,that is not a bad choice.

If to think like a King is to have a vision of progress that expanded the notion of prosperity of his generation, welcome to such kind of intellectual royalty. Before JFK the issue was to see who was going to decide what was the better way to share the access to opportunities, the repartition of the wealth. After him it was clear that the real problem was to use the science and technology to allow us to open new worlds of opportunities, each one offering to us even more resources than the ones nature without our intervention has to offer.

Before JFK it was a huge discussion of who was going to take the biggest portion of what progress can offer, after him there is the clarity to see that if the society work altogether pushing in the same direction that sinergy can move us to the shores of an ocean of aboundance never known for previous generations, even to reach the moon resources or try to conquer new frontiers for civilization in the space is possible.

Before JFK diversity was seen with fear, lack of confidence and even skepticism, after him we all learnt that is one of the great opportunities a society can have, it is a huge source of human capital.

With such kind of leadership, able to set up in just less than 1000 days the standards, ideals, goals and dreams of an entire generation, I am sure almost everybody will be happy to live again in Camelot, even if there would be a Queen but not a King ruling it.

Yes, Mrs Kennedy seems to be so much inexperienced now, but she has had along her life so close three private tutors of the most high order in Politics teaching her very valuable lessons, JF Kennedy, RF Kennedy and E Kennedy, with Professors like them it is not so difficult to find enough inspiration for the role.

Thanks for your participation in the thread,

Just an advice, pay attention to whom are you following or reading in Interpretation of History, ideologic fundamentalisms are not the best way to get objectivity.

Rice University Speech about why to go to the Moon?

The Angel of Lightness
edit on 11/13/2013 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 06:55 PM
People can elect a man, a woman, a black person or white, and in six months the novelty will wear off and we'll all go back to saying, "This President is just like all the rest. A politician."

posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 07:42 PM
Carolyn Kennedy is not going to run for anything. She took the gig in Japan because she loves the place and PM Abe is pushing for women to take a greater role in Japan and she wanted to get away from the press in the US for JFKs 50th anniversy. She once showed interest in being appointed to take Clintons spot in congress when she became Sec State but, she was a hot mess in front of the media and had no interest in going through the motions the get the job so she withdrew. She has never shown any interest in running for any office and will be a stong supported of Clinton in 2016.

posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 07:59 PM
You would think a woman would be smart enough not to even want the presidents job. I guess there could be a few dumb ones who would run. Why would anyone want to deal with the type of people in Washington anyway, you are on edge all the time, wondering if any part of what they are hearing is true. It would really suck to be a congressman.

FDR wore a dress when he was a kid, does that qualify.
edit on 13-11-2013 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 21 2014 @ 10:07 AM
a reply to: The angel of light
The Peace of God to all that belong to the Light,
Dear Readers,

This week I have decided to come back to this thread since it is clear that many of the essential factors I mentioned were going to occur by the Presidential election of 2016 have already appeared in scene on this second semester of 2014.

I my opening posts of the thread, that comes from the time a little after the Presidential election of 2012, I predicted that we were going to see running for the Nominations of both parties a woman, like it is the case of ex Senator and ex Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, from the Democratic Side of the Arena, and ex Governor of Florida Jeb Bush , from the Republican side of the Arena.

Their respective reactions to the announcement Yesterday of an Executive Action that in practice represents a Migratory reform, shows to us that they are decided to contend in the next election and compete for their respective nominations until the end.

Here the news:


Thanks for your attention,

The Angel of Lightness

Post by The angel of Lightness Nov 10th 2012,
I am perceiving Political events coming in years beyond the Obama era, and although this is not the first time I have said that I have seen clearly a woman in the role of the President of the country for the future, I am now convinced that this will occur following the ending of the second term of the Obama-Biden administration.

edit on 11/21/2014 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)

Post by The Angel of Lightness, Nov 13th 2012, Hillary Clinton might contend to be the next President, ....
edit on 11/21/2014 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in