Are Women Ready to Lead?

I have been really disappointed that two of the highest ranking Democratic women have shown such weakness. Hillary Clinton didn’t show enough leadership to make a concession speech the night of the election. No one wants to give one of those but you suck it in and deal with it. If Hillary were ever president, she would have on her desk “The Buck Never Stops Here”.

Nancy Pelosi got her feelings hurt and walked out of meeting. Trump has to face more garbage by breakfast than weak kneed Nancy faces by midnight. When the situation got tough she went and boohooed to a bank of microphones.

I am for equality but not for giving people who want to lead passes because life is too hard for them.

9+

Users who have liked this post:

  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar

60 thoughts on “Are Women Ready to Lead?”

  1. Bob Thompson:
    President Trump has pushed something new to the forefront for the people to see, and not just Americans. People have gotten very accustomed to the manifestation of power between and among nations coming through militarism and within nations by legal means, police power, and sometimes military. I see Trump using a personal value, the art of the deal, in other words economics and trade, to get others to do what he wants them to do. I realize plenty of people have been benefiting from the existing approach and they are showing how upset they are but it has also cost many American lives and disabilities. Can such an approach have any chance of success? I don’t mean abandoning military might but reserving its use.

    This sounds suspiciously like soft power, advocated by the likes of the appropriately named Samantha Power of the previous administration. Be careful out there, Bob.

    2+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
  2. drlorentz:

    Bob Thompson:
    President Trump has pushed something new to the forefront for the people to see, and not just Americans. People have gotten very accustomed to the manifestation of power between and among nations coming through militarism and within nations by legal means, police power, and sometimes military. I see Trump using a personal value, the art of the deal, in other words economics and trade, to get others to do what he wants them to do. I realize plenty of people have been benefiting from the existing approach and they are showing how upset they are but it has also cost many American lives and disabilities. Can such an approach have any chance of success? I don’t mean abandoning military might but reserving its use.

    This sounds suspiciously like soft power, advocated by the likes of the appropriately named Samantha Power of the previous administration. Be careful out there, Bob.

    That was news to me. I’m just interested in how we deal with the Chinese Communists while everyone else seems to think the Russians are our greatest threat.

    0

  3. drlorentz:

    10 Cents:
    So dictators who prize control are conservatives and libertarians who oppose government control are leftists. (I am printing up “Damocles loves Chaos” posters now.)

    There is such a thing as left-libertarians. It seems to me that they’ve recently become the face of libertarianism. Also, don’t conflate libertarianism and anarchism.

    So you think Damocles is not a bomb throwing anarchist. That is like the pot calling the kettle, “Hey, Dude.”

    0

  4. 10 Cents:

    drlorentz:

    10 Cents:
    So dictators who prize control are conservatives and libertarians who oppose government control are leftists. (I am printing up “Damocles loves Chaos” posters now.)

    There is such a thing as left-libertarians. It seems to me that they’ve recently become the face of libertarianism. Also, don’t conflate libertarianism and anarchism.

    So you think Damocles is not a bomb throwing anarchist. That is like the pot calling the kettle, “Hey, Dude.”

    I’m not saying he isn’t.

    2+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
  5. drlorentz:

    10 Cents:
    Would someone relate where there are different values?  I see more values put in a different order. One takes precedence over another.  Or the values coming out by different actions. The example would be the value of say beauty being one of a lot of clothes and of almost complete nudity in public. In both cases there is a want to be attractive. Has the value changed or just the fashion?

    Changing priorities of a set of existing values is the same as changing values. Of what importance is a value that’s been pushed to the lowest priority? Other values will always triumph over it because values are always in conflict and the one on top wins. Another way of saying it is that the ones on the bottom always lose. People can continue to virtue signal by supposedly upholding the values at the bottom, while never allowing them to prevail: “Sure, I believe in freedom of expression, as long as it doesn’t result in anybody’s hurt feelings.”

    I don’t rule out delusion but people think crazy things. The left believes in the value of freedom of expression therefore we must silence people. Looking from the outside it looks like they changed their values but on the inside I think they are “making omelettes by breaking eggs”.

    The left also thinks the right does believe in helping ethnic groups because they don’t favor affirmative action. If they cared they would be in favor of making things “fair”.

    I favor taking people where they are. It helps to persuade people if you relate closer how they see things. Of course this depends on the situation and the type of person.

    0

  6. drlorentz:

    10 Cents:

    drlorentz:

    10 Cents:
    So dictators who prize control are conservatives and libertarians who oppose government control are leftists. (I am printing up “Damocles loves Chaos” posters now.)

    There is such a thing as left-libertarians. It seems to me that they’ve recently become the face of libertarianism. Also, don’t conflate libertarianism and anarchism.

    So you think Damocles is not a bomb throwing anarchist. That is like the pot calling the kettle, “Hey, Dude.”

    I’m not saying he isn’t.

    [wink wink nod nod]

    0

  7. Bob Thompson:

    drlorentz:

    Bob Thompson:
    President Trump has pushed something new to the forefront for the people to see, and not just Americans. People have gotten very accustomed to the manifestation of power between and among nations coming through militarism and within nations by legal means, police power, and sometimes military. I see Trump using a personal value, the art of the deal, in other words economics and trade, to get others to do what he wants them to do. I realize plenty of people have been benefiting from the existing approach and they are showing how upset they are but it has also cost many American lives and disabilities. Can such an approach have any chance of success? I don’t mean abandoning military might but reserving its use.

    This sounds suspiciously like soft power, advocated by the likes of the appropriately named Samantha Power of the previous administration. Be careful out there, Bob.

    That was news to me. I’m just interested in how we deal with the Chinese Communists while everyone else seems to think the Russians are our greatest threat.

    There’s certainly room for other forms of persuasion short of military action. It’s all a matter of emphasis. My concern is the excessive reliance on these other means without backing it up with a credible threat of violence. We all agree it’s better to jaw jaw than to war war.

    As for thinking the Ruskies are our greatest threat, that’s confined to the loony Left Democrats and their fellow travelers in the legacy media. From what I’ve seen serious people in the military are well aware that China is the main threat, as is the president.

    1+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
  8. A coda on the topic of demographics from the latest VDH column:

    Obama supporters bragged of a much-hailed new demography that had created a vast new constituency of the lockstep non-white voters supposedly now united not by class, or politics or culture, but by the mere fact of their appearance.

    While Obama supporters might have been the first to be open about this, the process has been going on for decades.

    In addition to that quote, the whole column is worth a read.

    2+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
  9. 10 Cents:

    MJBubba:

    10 Cents:
    Would someone relate where there are different values?  I see more values put in a different order. One takes precedence over another.  Or the values coming out by different actions. The example would be the value of say beauty being one of a lot of clothes and of almost complete nudity in public. In both cases there is a want to be attractive. Has the value changed or just the fashion?

    OK, that can take us pretty far, I think.

    I prize order over chaos.   This is a biblical value, so, see the verses about the ruler bearing a sword, and rulers being a gift from God, even when they are corrupt.  Chaos is bad for people, and, in any event, chaos never lasts long.  Anarchists prize chaos; they evidently think that anarchy could be a sustained social order.   But anarchy is just another name for chaos, and chaos is soon replaced by feudal order.  Sometimes a conquering king takes advantage of chaos, or sometimes warring gangs divide lands that have fallen into chaos.

    It appears that the value of good order is a conservative value, and that Leftists place a very low value on order.

    So dictators who prize control are conservatives and libertarians who oppose government control are leftists. (I am printing up “Damocles loves Chaos” posters now.)

    Dictators who prize control might or might not be conservative.

    Libertarians are not conservative, but it does not necessarily follow that all Libertarians are Leftists.

    As I was looking around anarchy comes from “without” and “ruler”. There is a belief that voluntary systems will work better than a top down system. I think even they want order.

    Whose belief is it that voluntary systems work better in a top down system?   That seems to me to be Leftist thinking.

    As it comes to religious groups the one’s with freedom seem to look like cats being herded whereas oppressive cults seem well organized. The latter takes a big cut for people’s paychecks and the other could use more cash. Are cults godly for their love of order?

    Cults might or might not be “godly.”   First, I want to know whose definition of “godly” you want to use.

    0

Leave a Reply