A woman can be as effective of an executive leader as a man. What the **** is going on around here.

Old Army Metal said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

their whole political/theological belief system disqualifies them from office in my opinion, as racist, evil, misogynist, antisemitic, and generally dishonest

---

Have you read the bible?

---

Ah yes the Bible, the book oozing with antisemitism.

I took his "submissive to their husband" comment as the biblical meaning, not some current day sexist remark.

But I don't think he's understanding the context around the biblical meaning judging by the rest of his post and couldn't disagree with him more about his conclusion.

and to follow up (start at 9:30 mark for greatness)

raging_agaholic said:

---

The Jo Jorgensen thread made me think of this. While I believe that there are effective female business leaders and elected officials that have been good in their respective roles, I don't like the idea of our nation being lead by a woman as the executive. I believe that a wife should be submissive to her husband and in a role as commander in chief she would have a conflict in that regard. Are we electing her, or her husband? Not to mention, how would other nations (Middle Eastern and Russia/China to name a few) receive her in a potential negotiation?

I'm not trolling and feel free to flame away, but I don't think we should ever have a female president even if I agree with her politics and business acumen. Too many uncomfortable and unstable scenarios.

---

Ok, don't want to get too deep into this on a politics post vs a religion post, but just wanted to say that I think your statement here is too simplistic and you are misapplying it.

I listen to a particular Christian podcast and recently the topic has been marriage, and the "wives submit to your husbands as to the Lord" was one of the items.

#1, the "submit to your husbands as to the Lord" only applies in a covenantal marriage relationship, and further, in a God-centered marriage relationship. It doesn't apply to all women submitting to all men, or any such nonsense.

#2 really isn't relevant to the OP, but I feel obligated to continue to explain a little more for the benefit of bystanders to my post: the "submit to your husbands as to the Lord" doesn't exclude shared decision making, which should happen all the time, and maybe even arguing! The "submit" should really only come into play if there isn't an agreement, to "break the tie" so to speak. The speaker in the podcast's example was it had only happened less than 10 times in many decades of his own marriage.

There is a lot more here and if anyone is interested in listening to the podcast I'm referencing, PM me.

mazag08 said:

---

I took his "submissive to their husband" comment as the biblical meaning, not some current day sexist remark.

But I don't think he's understanding the context around the biblical meaning judging by the rest of his post and couldn't disagree with him more about his conclusion.

---

This- see my post just above.

Sounds like you believe Muslims have it right out the treatment of women.

I don't believe we should have a woman POTUS for the simple fact that many regions of the world do not respect women in positions of power.

To me, this has the possibility of putting our country into danger when it comes to dealing with Islamic cultures, for example.

I don't think there are very many women qualified to run the country.

I am not sexist, because I think there may be fewer men qualified to run the country!

" I don't like the idea of our nation being lead by a woman"

This is really the problem. There are plenty of fully capable women that could run the country. To think that gender would matter is foolish. Intelligence, wisdom, common sense.....

I've seen guys in the workforce that cannot work for a woman, and it makes no sense. I don't care what your gender is if you are competent.

It's really a bummer when people take a verse of the bible, Ephesians 5:22 in this case, and mangle it into something so silly and irreverent.

nutmegger_aggie said:

---

and to follow up (start at 9:30 mark for greatness)

---

She was such a badass!

What a nutter, op

NCNJ1217 said:

---

raging_agaholic said:

---

The Jo Jorgensen thread made me think of this. While I believe that there are effective female business leaders and elected officials that have been good in their respective roles, I don't like the idea of our nation being lead by a woman as the executive. I believe that a wife should be submissive to her husband and in a role as commander in chief she would have a conflict in that regard. Are we electing her, or her husband? Not to mention, how would other nations (Middle Eastern and Russia/China to name a few) receive her in a potential negotiation?

I'm not trolling and feel free to flame away, but I don't think we should ever have a female president even if I agree with her politics and business acumen. Too many uncomfortable and unstable scenarios.

---

Ok, don't want to get too deep into this on a politics post vs a religion post, but just wanted to say that I think your statement here is too simplistic and you are misapplying it.

I listen to a particular Christian podcast and recently the topic has been marriage, and the "wives submit to your husbands as to the Lord" was one of the items.

#1, the "submit to your husbands as to the Lord" only applies in a covenantal marriage relationship, and further, in a God-centered marriage relationship. It doesn't apply to all women submitting to all men, or any such nonsense.

#2 really isn't relevant to the OP, but I feel obligated to continue to explain a little more for the benefit of bystanders to my post: the "submit to your husbands as to the Lord" doesn't exclude shared decision making, which should happen all the time, and maybe even arguing! The "submit" should really only come into play if there isn't an agreement, to "break the tie" so to speak. The speaker in the podcast's example was it had only happened less than 10 times in many decades of his own marriage.

There is a lot more here and if anyone is interested in listening to the podcast I'm referencing, PM me.

---

Great post! Exactly what I was thinking but couldn't quite type it into words. What's the podcast?

raging_agaholic said:

---

The Jo Jorgensen thread made me think of this. While I believe that there are effective female business leaders and elected officials that have been good in their respective roles, I don't like the idea of our nation being lead by a woman as the executive. I believe that a wife should be submissive to her husband and in a role as commander in chief she would have a conflict in that regard. Are we electing her, or her husband? Not to mention, how would other nations (Middle Eastern and Russia/China to name a few) receive her in a potential negotiation?

I'm not trolling and feel free to flame away, but I don't think we should ever have a female president even if I agree with her politics and business acumen. Too many uncomfortable and unstable scenarios.

---

What if she wasn't married?
Or is that allowed in your version of reality?

Are you kidding? No way. We're crazy and volatile. I'd never vote for a woman for POTUS


- Urban Ag's wife

raging_agaholic said:

---

The Jo Jorgensen thread made me think of this. While I believe that there are effective female business leaders and elected officials that have been good in their respective roles, I don't like the idea of our nation being lead by a woman as the executive. I believe that a wife should be submissive to her husband and in a role as commander in chief she would have a conflict in that regard. Are we electing her, or her husband? Not to mention, how would other nations (Middle Eastern and Russia/China to name a few) receive her in a potential negotiation?

I'm not trolling and feel free to flame away, but I don't think we should ever have a female president even if I agree with her politics and business acumen. Too many uncomfortable and unstable scenarios.

---

Anonymously posted but let me guess...you are a white male. Did I guess that correctly?

And are you married? If so, loved your opinion about how a wife should be submissive to the husband. How has that philosophy worked out for ya at home? Your wife knows to stay in her lane, huh?

Pumpkinhead said:

---

raging_agaholic said:

---

The Jo Jorgensen thread made me think of this. While I believe that there are effective female business leaders and elected officials that have been good in their respective roles, I don't like the idea of our nation being lead by a woman as the executive. I believe that a wife should be submissive to her husband and in a role as commander in chief she would have a conflict in that regard. Are we electing her, or her husband? Not to mention, how would other nations (Middle Eastern and Russia/China to name a few) receive her in a potential negotiation?

I'm not trolling and feel free to flame away, but I don't think we should ever have a female president even if I agree with her politics and business acumen. Too many uncomfortable and unstable scenarios.

---

Anonymously posted but let me guess...you are a white male. Did I guess that correctly?

---

What in the world does that have to do with anything related to his post?

Absolutely nothing and the notion that black or latino men are more accepting of feminism than white males is utterly laughable. But just let him or her run with it.

You're missing a key word

Why do you assume he is white?

Pumpkinhead said:

---

mazag08 said:

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

raging_agaholic said:

---

The Jo Jorgensen thread made me think of this. While I believe that there are effective female business leaders and elected officials that have been good in their respective roles, I don't like the idea of our nation being lead by a woman as the executive. I believe that a wife should be submissive to her husband and in a role as commander in chief she would have a conflict in that regard. Are we electing her, or her husband? Not to mention, how would other nations (Middle Eastern and Russia/China to name a few) receive her in a potential negotiation?

I'm not trolling and feel free to flame away, but I don't think we should ever have a female president even if I agree with her politics and business acumen. Too many uncomfortable and unstable scenarios.

---

Anonymously posted but let me guess...you are a white male. Did I guess that correctly?

---

What in the world does that have to do with anything related to his post?

---

Lol, did you read the frigging thing? Was a post copied right out of the male chauvinist handbook. You think it likely that a woman wrote that?

---

First, you obviously didn't read the posts above that discuss the "submissive to your husband" comment. Second, I see nothing about race is his post. You are the first to insinuate anything about race, which tells me a lot about you.

There have been strong, powerful women who were war fighters through out history.

If we could find the RIGHT hardened maiden for the job, I'd follow her into battle.

A Liberal female President will be devastating to our military. Devastating.

The problem with any minority leading the country is that they would tend to make it all about the issues of whatever minority they are. Often at the expense of the rest of the country. Obviously they don't have to do this. There's plenty of great minority leaders. But the urge and pressure to do so as president would be too great.

Use the pyramid model. At the base you have your highest priorities. The Constitution. National defense. Law enforcement. Protection of basic rights. Mid-pyramid you have economy, etc. At the top you have the lower priority niceties. Going to the moon. Entitlements. Making sure every minority is happy. Etc.

Right now our Constitution and basic rights are under attack. So no. Not at this time.

mazag08 said:

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

mazag08 said:

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

raging_agaholic said:

---

The Jo Jorgensen thread made me think of this. While I believe that there are effective female business leaders and elected officials that have been good in their respective roles, I don't like the idea of our nation being lead by a woman as the executive. I believe that a wife should be submissive to her husband and in a role as commander in chief she would have a conflict in that regard. Are we electing her, or her husband? Not to mention, how would other nations (Middle Eastern and Russia/China to name a few) receive her in a potential negotiation?

I'm not trolling and feel free to flame away, but I don't think we should ever have a female president even if I agree with her politics and business acumen. Too many uncomfortable and unstable scenarios.

---

Anonymously posted but let me guess...you are a white male. Did I guess that correctly?

---

What in the world does that have to do with anything related to his post?

---

Lol, did you read the frigging thing? Was a post copied right out of the male chauvinist handbook. You think it likely that a woman wrote that?

---

First, you obviously didn't read the posts above that discuss the "submissive to your husband" comment. Second, I see nothing about race is his post. You are the first to insinuate anything about race, which tells me a lot about you.

---

Correct. I didn't read a single other post in this thread other than the OP, before I posted. Read the OP, thought 'male chauvinist pig' and he said 'flame away, so I did.

And I don't know what it says about me that the image of a white, middle aged, truck driver with a six-pack dangling from one arm was what popped into my head reading that opinion by a poster named 'raging-alcoholic'. You tell me. Do I need therapy?

e=mc2 said:

---

nutmegger_aggie said:

---

and to follow up (start at 9:30 mark for greatness)

---

She was such a badass!

---

Probably the only real badass the United Kingdom has had running the country post-Churchill.

She was a born fighter and proof positive that intestinal fortitude is not a matter of gender.

TexAgs91 said:

---

The problem with any minority leading the country is that they would tend to make it all about the issues of whatever minority they are. Often at the expense of the rest of the country. Obviously they don't have to do this. There's plenty of great minority leaders. But the urge and pressure to do so as president would be too great.

Use the pyramid model. At the base you have your highest priorities. The Constitution. National defense. Law enforcement. Protection of basic rights. Mid-pyramid you have economy, etc. At the top you have the lower priority niceties. Going to the moon. Entitlements. Making sure every minority is happy. Etc.

Right now our Constitution and basic rights are under attack. So no. Not at this time.

---

You assume that everyone has the same pyramid structure. I imagine that for minorities, racial issues are a lot farther up on the pyramid than they are on yours.

Old Army Metal said:

---

The Debt said:

---

Why do you assume he is white?

---

Because it's F16, odds are pretty dang good.

---

This is the kind of crap that doesn't need to be on this board.

mazag08 said:

---

Old Army Metal said:

---

The Debt said:

---

Why do you assume he is white?

---

Because it's F16, odds are pretty dang good.

---

This is the kind of crap that doesn't need to be on this board.

---

But he's not wrong.

I am SOOOOOOOO white.

mazag08 said:

---

Old Army Metal said:

---

The Debt said:

---

Why do you assume he is white?

---

Because it's F16, odds are pretty dang good.

---

This is the kind of crap that doesn't need to be on this board.

---

LOL "women can't be president because my book club said they should submit to their husbands" is OK but "I bet most of the posters on this forum are white" crosses the line.

Fine, I'll edit it.

OP didn't cover the sammich making capability of the candidate so I can't say whether I would vote for her or not.

If there's ever a woman who's a good enough candidate to be president I have no problem with it.

So far we've never seen that.

Old Army Metal said:

---

mazag08 said:

---

Old Army Metal said:

---

The Debt said:

---

Why do you assume he is white?

---

Because it's F16, odds are pretty dang good.

---

This is the kind of crap that doesn't need to be on this board.

---

LOL "women can't be president because my book club said they should submit to their husbands" is OK but "I bet most of the posters on this forum are white" crosses the line.

Fine, I'll edit it.

---

Providing color on the "submit to your husband" comment doesn't mean I agreed with his reasoning for using it. Go read my previous posts before you make a fool of yourself.

Old Army Metal said:

---

mazag08 said:

---

Old Army Metal said:

---

The Debt said:

---

Why do you assume he is white?

---

Because it's F16, odds are pretty dang good.

---

This is the kind of crap that doesn't need to be on this board.

---

LOL "women can't be president because my book club said they should submit to their husbands" is OK but "I bet most of the posters on this forum are white" crosses the line.

Fine, I'll edit it.

---

Race has absolutely nothing to do with the topic. But you guys threw it in. Therefore you've opened the door to examining the treatment and perception of women in America by other races and cultures.

Hey if you want to go there, go there.