- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Lindsay Clancy's case should take care of any chance of having a woman POTUS
Posted on 9/3/26 at 7:45 am
Posted on 9/3/26 at 7:45 am
Even women are coming out saying that perhaps women shouldn't be in positions of power.
I am shocked Dems are letting this go on since their current choices seem to be Kamala or AOC
Since this started, I’ve noticed that parts of the Democratic Party are quietly rallying behind Jon Ossoff. By the standards the party has promoted in recent years, he shouldn’t even be a choice. He’s a young, straight white man with an average, skinny white wife and two daughters, and he’s not a communist. He's the complete opposite of the kinds of candidates and identities the party has emphasized and welcomed over the past decade.
I don't think Dems leave it to chance to a woman after the two failed attempts of Kamala and Hillary, on top of the world now viewing women as unstable and being able to excuse their actions due to hormones thanks to the Clancy case. They will run the clean-cut white dude.
I am shocked Dems are letting this go on since their current choices seem to be Kamala or AOC
Since this started, I’ve noticed that parts of the Democratic Party are quietly rallying behind Jon Ossoff. By the standards the party has promoted in recent years, he shouldn’t even be a choice. He’s a young, straight white man with an average, skinny white wife and two daughters, and he’s not a communist. He's the complete opposite of the kinds of candidates and identities the party has emphasized and welcomed over the past decade.
I don't think Dems leave it to chance to a woman after the two failed attempts of Kamala and Hillary, on top of the world now viewing women as unstable and being able to excuse their actions due to hormones thanks to the Clancy case. They will run the clean-cut white dude.
15
Posted on 9/3/26 at 7:46 am to stout
Posted on 9/3/26 at 7:48 am to stout
Jon Ossoff is Jewish. That's an automatic DQ for today's Dems. If they had any sense, they would've run Shapiro in 2024.
Posted on 9/3/26 at 7:50 am to medium_okra
quote:
Jon Ossoff is Jewish. That's an automatic DQ for today's Dems.
You would think so but the party knows hardliners will vote for anyone with a D by their name
They run Ossoff to attract moderates
Posted on 9/3/26 at 8:03 am to stout
In theory yes, but they also covet the Intifada, keffiyah, DSA vote, so they have make a choice to make on that.
A real sticky wicket.
A real sticky wicket.
Posted on 9/3/26 at 8:07 am to medium_okra
The Dem party is way more fractured right now than Rs ever have been
Posted on 9/3/26 at 8:10 am to stout
Should
But won't.
You'd think the histories of QE1, Victoria, Maria Teresa, Catherine the Great would disabise the notion of the "peaceful" female leader.
But won't.
You'd think the histories of QE1, Victoria, Maria Teresa, Catherine the Great would disabise the notion of the "peaceful" female leader.
Posted on 9/3/26 at 8:11 am to stout
quote:
Lindsay Clancy's case should take care of any chance of having a woman POTUS
Using your logic, why wouldn’t any of the heinous crimes committed by men (who commit the overwhelming majority of all violent and sexual crimes globally across world history) prohibit them from holding positions of power?
Posted on 9/3/26 at 8:12 am to medium_okra
quote:
If they had any sense, they would've run Shapiro in 2024
They would've lost as well. Not sure why everyone has a hard on for Shapiro. He's just flying under the radar but still subscribes to all of the lunacy on the left.
Oh, and he's jewish so good luck with that in this climate
Posted on 9/3/26 at 8:17 am to stout
This has to be one of the dumbest takes on this board this week.
Posted on 9/3/26 at 8:18 am to stout
I don't think that America will agree with that.
Posted on 9/3/26 at 8:19 am to Hateradedrink
quote:
This has to be one of the dumbest takes on this board this week.
Not wanting a female president is a bad take?
I, for one, would never vote for a woman no matter her party or beliefs.
Posted on 9/3/26 at 8:19 am to Hateradedrink
Only heritage American males should be president
Posted on 9/3/26 at 8:20 am to stout
The problem for an Ossoff or Shapiro is they have to navigate a primary. They’ll have to take positions on open borders, ICE, defund the police, trans kids, etc.
Posted on 9/3/26 at 8:21 am to GreatLakesTiger24
quote:
heritage American
What this?
Posted on 9/3/26 at 8:22 am to B747Tiger
Anyone thinking the Lindsay Clancy trial is some sort of preview of female leadership is a moron. Any “lesson” here could be applied to anyone.
shite guys have you heard of this Jeffry Dahmer guy??? He doesn’t seem very fit for leadership *tsk*
Whether or not a female should be president is an entirely different discussion.
shite guys have you heard of this Jeffry Dahmer guy??? He doesn’t seem very fit for leadership *tsk*
Whether or not a female should be president is an entirely different discussion.
Posted on 9/3/26 at 8:24 am to 4cubbies
quote:
Using your logic, why wouldn’t any of the heinous crimes committed by men (who commit the overwhelming majority of all violent and sexual crimes globally across world history) prohibit them from holding positions of power?
Because perception is reality.
Right now, the message a lot of people are putting out there is that a woman’s hormones can become so powerful that they can push her into doing something completely unthinkable, even killing her own children.
If that’s the argument being used to excuse or soften responsibility, then people are obviously going to ask what that says about judgment and self-control in other serious situations.
And the other problem is the double standard. Men are constantly told not to judge all women by the actions of a few, and that’s fair. Guilt is individual, not collective.
But then you see a bunch of women defending this woman specifically by saying, basically, “you don’t understand what women go through.”
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say sex and biology should matter when they help explain away someone’s actions, then turn around and say sex and biology are totally irrelevant when someone questions the broader implication of that argument.
Either people are responsible for their own actions as individuals, or they’re not.
You would never see mass hoards of men defending another man if roles were reversed.
Posted on 9/3/26 at 8:24 am to 4cubbies
quote:
Using your logic, why wouldn’t any of the heinous crimes committed by men (who commit the overwhelming majority of all violent and sexual crimes globally across world history) prohibit them from holding positions of power?
Most of those men were not elected in anything resembling a true election of the citizenry. If there was any election, it was a single-candidate vote conducted by the single-party politburo, perhaps with a token controlled opposition. Many of those men until the 20th century advent of Godless communism believed they had a divine mandate, backed by their people, to conquer and control the neighbors and rival clans, religions, etc...
Ms. Clancy had no mandate, real or imagined, whatsoever, to kill her children. She is a cold blooded murderer and should be made an example of so that others considering such get help rather than committing the same heinous crime.
Posted on 9/3/26 at 8:27 am to Hateradedrink
quote:
Anyone thinking the Lindsay Clancy trial is some sort of preview of female leadership is a moron. Any “lesson” here could be applied to anyone. shite guys have you heard of this Jeffry Dahmer guy??? He doesn’t seem very fit for leadership *tsk*
I don’t recall Dahmer receiving an outcry of support for a large group of Americans. Hell, a woman was crazy enough to marry the man while he was in prison. The lesson is that women aren’t even capable of serving on jury, much less being in charge of the largest nuclear arsenal in the world.
Posted on 9/3/26 at 8:28 am to Hateradedrink
quote:
shite guys have you heard of this Jeffry Dahmer guy??? He doesn’t seem very fit for leadership *tsk*
Your take is bad.
Were there hordes of men defending Dahmer just because he was a man? No.
That’s the difference you keep missing. Men didn’t say, “Well, you have to understand male biology,” or try to make excuses for him as a group. He was a sick individual who did horrible things, and he was judged as an individual.
What people are seeing now is women using being a woman as part of the excuse. Then when someone points out what that argument sounds like, suddenly we’re told sex has nothing to do with it.
You can’t have it both ways.
And honestly, women have done a lot of damage to their own argument over the past month. It’s all over the place. If you can’t see why people are noticing the double standard, you’re being obtuse.
Page 1 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News