On Hillary Clinton as a Model for Young Girls

Townhall.com ^ | August 30, 2016 | Dennis Prager

[Kaslin]

This is why the voting age should be put back to 21 maybe even later.

[Read Write Repeat]

Voting has nothing to do with age.

The founders had it right with property owners.

[tflabo]

Anyone voting for Hellary is an uneducated moron, leftist hack or just a bad person.

[Louis Foxwell]

Liberals consider morality the burden of the right. They are liberated from such nonsense. Hillary is the quintessential woman, unfettered by the past and open to an unbridled future. Her legacy is “me first!”

[Hodar]

Yet another very simple and honest difference between how the conservative and liberal minds work. Really fascinating.

[CharlesOConnell]

You just have to turn the cultural propaganda off its head back onto its feet. Not “you can never have a career” but “you can have kids and stay home with them” which even hardened abortion feminists aspire to. Women drag down the wage & employment sex ratio with men by voting with their feet. Real “career” slavery means indefinitely deferring childbearing, working overtime and weekends. Women have this inconvenient pattern of voting against that paradigm with their feet.

[Paulie]

True, but too many of today’s twenty-somethings are about as mature and thoughtful as yesterday’s toddlers.

A better way to go might be to return us to the days when only landowners could vote, and add to that they must have children as well.

When virtually everyone has this kind of skin in the game, it’s likely the government would be kept in line and held to account.

[NorthMountain]

This is why the voting age should be put back to 21 maybe even later.

Why limit voting to older idiots?

Age largely misses the point. We get more big government because people who benefit from big government (but aren't required to pay for it) are allowed to vote.

[bert]

Black men would be employed if it weren’t for EEO

[Kaslin]

This is true, but what do you suggest?

[needmorePaine]

They say: "Then, my daughters will know that nothing is to too great for them to aspire to. A woman can indeed be president of the United States."

This is already true. There is no need to elect a corrupt harridan to affirm it.

[Kaslin]

You got that right.

[txrefugee]

Hear! Hear! The Founders knew that voters who paid to keep the country running by paying taxes would watch the federal government’s tendency to spend more than it took in. No democracy can survive when voters can vote themselves money from the nation’s treasury while not paying any taxes! Whoever thought that would work was really stupid, and we see the disastrous results all over the world. The current example is Venezuela.

[NorthMountain]

I suggest some combination of real property ownership and prior honorable military service. Since I oppose income taxation, I would rather abolish that instrument of totalitarianism than use it as a voting criterion.

Alternatively, I would offer that anyone receiving 'benefits' from government (or who has received them since the last election) is to be barred from voting.

[Lonely Bull]

Most conservative women are not impressed with the idea of "female solidarity." They regard it as intellectually and morally foolish.

Also notice that if the *****First Female Candidate for U.S. President on a Major-Party Ticket***** were a Republican, we would not hear much about the fact from women--or from men.

Conservatives wouldn't think primarily of "The First Female President!!!"--or at least should try not to think that way--and would mention the fact mainly to show that so-called liberals weren't saying things like "...then, my daughters will know that nothing is to too great for them to aspire to. A woman can indeed be president of the United States." Any of that "female solidarity" would end well before that point.

(The same applies to a "racial" or "ethnic" solidarity, which leftists will never invoke for conservatives who are "people of color.")

[Lonely Bull]

I forgot to add this to my last post:

So, if liberal women were to argue that they support Clinton because they will vote for an unethical Democrat over any Republican, then that would be intellectually honest.

But liberal women do not say that. Instead, they laud Clinton and say that they want a female president as a role model for their daughters.

What I just wrote is relevant to this part too, at least for those "liberal" women (and men, too) who actually have thought about this matter and say something like that, even if they know it to be dishonest. I can easily believe that many "liberals" exist who have never thought about the matter and have never realized that they'd never laud a "trailblazing" conservative woman.

[Read Write Repeat]

Identity politics is disgusting, and I fault both Dems and Republicans for turning people against each other based on groupings versus promoting individual ideals.

[Buckeye McFrog]

WORST....PAPER.....DOLL.....BOOK......EVER!!

[Missouri gal]

Political women are far more corrupt and over-compromising than men. Also, few have the stamina for the national election process, much less the pace of elected service. This is NOT to say that women in general are more corrupt, but that their natural gifts don’t work well in that arena. (Please note that I am a woman.)

[goodnesswins]

Yep...PROPERTY OWNERS should be the only ones voting.