Wee need a new debate so this will do. I predict in the next 20 years will will see something besides a white male president. Your thoughts?

I see either world nialation or a central world government...

I see a woman in charge, probably one of Bush's daughters ...

I think [censored] hillary clinton will run at some point, and probably win......but I won't be voting for her.

I want a women president but i honestly dont think it would be a good idea to be done within the next 10 years due to the fact it would strain our relations with middle eastern countries even more. There's a good chance they would threaten to cut off our oil supply since most men there wont talk to a women let alone even look at them...

Hillary will run next term. She will not win but the number of votes she will get will make a difference down the road. It just makes sense. 8 years of a republican. The country will be ready for a democrat. It actually needs one to get programs and jobs going. The 2 need balance.

I do not think the middle east would cut us off. Before Tony Blair Britan had a female as prime minister. However what might surprise you is how many women will vote against a woman.

I see a white female before I see a ethnic male. Hillary in ofice scares me. She would be worse than Bush.

I'm not sure if she will run or not, probably so. If she does I hope she doesn't win, but if she does I'm probably better off packing up and moving to Canada. I couldn't agree more about the fact that the country needs a dem as far as jobs go etc.

I personally wouldn't vote for someone just because she has a vagina. I need more reason than that to decide on who I think is the best person to run the country I live in. When voting for someone I consider everything that I know about, not just if they are a republican or democrat, if they have a [censored] or a vagina, blah blah blah.

I'm sure a woman will be in office before too long, but I just hope it's not Hillary.

I should run for President...

The first female president will be elected in 2012...

I will vote for her...

She will look like this...



Viva la Republichick!

Never.

Im not an american but I personally dont give a [censored] if the next president is a chick or not. As long as Bush is out voted this time. I carnt believe they voted him back in. But then again i dont live in the States so maybe they need him. I would like to see a change in the States foriegn policy though and maybe a democrat would balance things out again.

On the other hand, when I look into my crystal balls I see the European Union becoming a single country that will battle with the States for the position as "world police". The United Kindgom wont be in it though cause they think they are better.

I can also see India becoming like China and them two will eventually start battling economically too. But china will win, cause they care even less about the enviroment then India.

Oh and ofcourse Australia will take over the pacific and do Nuclear tests in the Mediterranean and the french coast until their people riot.

The only time you're going to see her face is if it's next to a side dish at taco bell.

You can't be president for more than two terms, so Bush won't be comming back.

Yes, Rice will win, deal with it.

Next term, we will probably vote in a moderate who is only in the decocrat party to have a decent shot, since nobody votes third party.

He will have won the primaries because even democrats (with the exception of hollywood) know that it'll be a cold day in hell that a radical liberal is voted in during this political era.

He will do nothing noteworthy - he won't be bad per-se, but he won't do anything worth remembering 20 years down the road.

Then Dr. Rice will run, and win, and she will probably have a popularity of 100%-n (Where n=potsmokinghippies).

PS: Because of my Republichick comment, the ads on this forum will probably be limited to RightWingConspiracy.org and Rightnation.us :p

someone is living in a dream world.

I say bull shizit! It will not be Hillary, it will not be horse face either. It will happen over time as more women run more will become comfortable voting for them. Then I can get a job as an intern. No I will not be on my knees. Everyone knows women are most comfortable on thier knees serving a man.

/me nods

yep that says it.

Well, that about sums it up. You can be my intern, when should I be expecting you?

Women Presidents, well that one the UK had was pretty famous. Then again the one in India got assasinated. But I dont think she was ever really in control. More like a puppet.

I wouldnt mind having a female PM here.
You know, I dont think we are ever going to be happy with who ever is actaully in the presidentry at the time. Only afterwards when someone we hate even more comes along will we say, oh that Mrs Rice was Nice.

arctic, dude:
i had no idea what ur post meant.

To the best of my knowledge, most of the UK (if not all) is governed under the Commonwealth Law.
Thus, just like us here in Australia, a countrys Head of State is the Queen, where she in turn delegates the duty of Royal Representive to a member of parliment. We call this person the Prime Minister.

I took the liberty to google 'United Kingdom Presidents' and came up with zilch.

So i have no idea what 'female UK president' of urs was 'pretty famous'.

Also, india, having been governed by british rule for nearly a century, still falls under the Commonwealth (despite their independence).
So it is impossible for India to 'have a president'.
'The mystery female indian president' u speak of, is Indira Gandhi .
And u call her a puppet?!?

She was brutally assassinated by her own bodyguards, men bought off to beat a woman because they new that she led a revolution.
Think of a country like india, third-world and famine riddled, and amidst all the corruption, a WOMAN was the one to stand up and fight for equality.

Australia is a shithouse government-wise.
Our Prime Minister, John loves-the-[censored] Howard is the real puppet.
Bush uses him as his boy toy and he cant even grow the gonads to stand up to the CEO of Telstra. After record high profits exceeding $4billion, jonny boy still intends to give telstra TAXPAYERS money to start a project in the bush.

I know this may sound like a rant, and upon careful reading some might argue it IS a rant.
But mate, theres one thing we should all have realised by now:
On UGN, give credit where the credit is due.

Not president of the UK, Prime minister, her name was Margaret Thatcher. Prime minister, president, all the same [censored]. The executive branch.

I'll clear up my last post for endgame and others.

What I was referring to when I said President instead of Prime minister was just that role as being the winner of an election that the people voted for. We don’t vote for the head of state. That is for the commonwealth, hereditary and so we do not vote for the women that may take up the throne.
The thread is about a female president being elected and I extended that to countries that don’t have Presidents but are still capable of electing a female leader.
Note: I know that England has had no President.

About Ghandi, well being an Indian and having gone to the country 3 times already, I can tell you that if the country still disputes whether or not she had control then for me it doesn’t matter what the west has accepted.
She was assassinated by the Sikhs in her guard because she blew up the Golden Temple (the Vatican of the Sikh faith) which she blamed on her military acting without full authority.
Mahatma Gandhi was a man and came before Indira to fight for equity between not only the people of Britain and Hindustan but also within the Country itself. Most Indians believe he got India its Independence and Indira hardly continued a revolution as effectively. I’m not saying that was because she was a woman, I’m just hoping to clear up any misconceptions that she was as great as you think she was in her “rising” out before others to fight inequity, and the real reason she was assassinated.
I hope you don’t always take what you find on google to be the bible of knowledge.

Disclaimer: I know this sounds like a flame/rant but its not meant to be.

further google reading for Indira

sintax:
Prime Minister still answers to the queen and can be charged for criminal acts.
President only answers to the people (ha, once in four years :p ) and he cannot be charged due to the fact as he is seen as an Institution, not a person.

Artic:
political conflict and disputes is my graduate minor.
no, google is not my bible, but rather the British Journal of Political Science, the Cambridge Journal PS1987 and a large amount of information from the World Political Journal - John Hopkins has been my guide through a year and a half of study.

i appreciate the fact that u are indian and have visited the richness of ur motherland, but please do not be so deluded in thinking that just because u were at the scene of the crime, you know who the murderer is (if ul pardon the metaphor).

i advise you read up on the journals rather than take what you find online (or on your travels) to be the bible of ur knowledge.

cheers

p.s
i have the article proving that her military INDEED, did not act on her authority whatsoever. It was written and drawn up by her successor and qualified by the head of the armed forces.
PM me if u require such proof as i will have to scan it and email it to u

Actually in the States we can impeach his [censored]. We tried to do it to Clinton for get caught while having his dick sucked...

icey, yea u can put him on trial.
but if found guilty, he can only serve his term after the presedential reign.

I dont understand why you want to prove to me something I already knew. Like I said she was to an extend a puppet "i have the article proving that her military INDEED, did not act on her authority whatsoever". I said that "which she blamed on her military acting without full authority".

In any case, they know it was the guards that killed her and I didnt have to go to the scence of the crime to find that out. But I know it was because of what she did to the Golden Temple and not "men bought off to beat a woman because they new that she led a revolution". I found that out from my mum, not online.

And I dont call India my motherland, my parents could but they dont either... I should have mentioned that I was born here.
However we are getting of the topic now.

if u acknowledge she said that the military wasnt acting on full authority and i HAVE PROOF they werent acting on full authority (in fact, on no authority whatsoever)...
then wouldnt that mean it wasnt her fault the building got bombed?!

so ur great source of enlightenment is your MOTHER!?!
wtf?!
professors studying the political conditions in the east, lecturers holding seminars on british rule and the aftermath and a journal that has been around since 1948 is all dismissed cos ur mother told u something on the contrary?!?



erm, yea..
u sure showed me.