• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do We Need a First Lady?

Do We Need a First Lady?


  • Total voters
    31
Voted No. I do not think we "need" a first lady as if to mean requirement.
 
I agree that we don't need one, meaning if one were President, he shouldn't be actively looking for one.

We've had single Presidents before. No big.
 
Yep.....quite the surprise. But you also have to remember when Hastert was picked for Speaker. It was as a replacement for another who got himself in trouble.

They didn't think he had any skeletons in his closet. But then the MS Media changed that perspective, huh?

The hypocrisy of it all is mind blowing. I love it when a politician, who stumps from a perceived moral high ground, pushes their party's moral issues, all the while, turns out to be a low-life scumbag. I especially like to read about the religious windbags getting busted.

Honestly, it bothers me none that Lindsey Graham appears to be as queer as a three dollar bill. It's mainly the hypocrisy of it all that I find unappealing.
 
Last edited:
The hypocrisy of it all is mind blowing. I love it when a politician, who stumps from a perceived moral high ground, pushes their party's moral issues, all the while, turns out to be a low-life scumbag. I especially like to read about the religious windbags getting busted.

Honestly, it bothers me none that Lindsey Graham appears to be as queer as a three dollar bill. It's mainly the hypocrisy of it all that I find unappealing.

Worse would be if the NY Times and the MS Media.....has known and not said anything.
 
The First Lady role is symbolic. She used to be the official hostess. I'm surprised the feminists haven't eliminated the official position altogether. Oh noes, we can't imply that women are hostesses and second to their husbands!

If it was purely symbolic, then why the amount of controversy surrounding Mrs. Obama?
 
I believe that the USA would survive without a first lady, but it looks like after next year's election we might have a first dude.

:lol:
 
If it was purely symbolic, then why the amount of controversy surrounding Mrs. Obama?


Cmon now Fiddy, Theres no Controversy.....rather have MO as First Lady, than ValJar. Just sayin. :lol:
 
I believe that the USA would survive without a first lady, but it looks like after next year's election we might have a first dude.:lol:


Carly Fiorina thanks you for that vote of confidence SN. :mrgreen:
 
If it was purely symbolic, then why the amount of controversy surrounding Mrs. Obama?

I have no idea why you're asking me this question. I also have no idea what controversy surrounds Mrs. Obama. She's completely inconsequential.
 
I have no idea why you're asking me this question. I also have no idea what controversy surrounds Mrs. Obama. She's completely inconsequential.

Because the office hasn't been symbolic for quite some time. She wasn't inconsequential. She was essentially the pillar for reforming school lunches.
 
Because the office hasn't been symbolic for quite some time. She wasn't inconsequential. She was essentially the pillar for reforming school lunches.

Oh, well reforming school lunches isn't a priority of mine. In fact, I'm not even interested in the subject. I never needed the help of the wife of a politician in DC to feed my kids or make sure my kids eat right. I always thought that was my responsibility as their mother. She can worry about her own kids and the kids of those who can't take care of them without her.
 
Carly Fiorina thanks you for that vote of confidence SN
. :mrgreen:



The only way that lady will ever see the inside of the White House is as a guest.

I doubt that the old White men who rule over the GOP will pick her as their candidate, they have many others to choose from who would lose by less.
 
Oh, well reforming school lunches isn't a priority of mine. In fact, I'm not even interested in the subject. I never needed the help of the wife of a politician in DC to feed my kids or make sure my kids eat right. I always thought that was my responsibility as their mother. She can worry about her own kids and the kids of those who can't take care of them without her.

I'm not generally interested in agricultural issues, but I can recognize where they may get a push in priority from various offices of the government.

Education policy matters frequently get aired in the Office of the First Lady and they can become staples for the field.

Just because you're indifferent to it doesn't make it symbolic.
 
I'm not generally interested in agricultural issues, but I can recognize where they may get a push in priority from various offices of the government.

Education policy matters frequently get aired in the Office of the First Lady and they can become staples for the field.

Just because you're indifferent to it doesn't make it symbolic.

You are trying to get me to say that Michelle Obama isn't inconsequential. I won't. She's important to you. That's your prerogative. She, like Laura Bush and Nancy Reagan and Barbara Bush and Rosalyn Carter and so on, before her, is inconsequential. Hillary should have been but apparently played her husband's left brain and right ball.
 
You are trying to get me to say that Michelle Obama isn't inconsequential. I won't. She's important to you. That's your prerogative. She, like Laura Bush and Nancy Reagan and Barbara Bush and Rosalyn Carter and so on, before her, is inconsequential. Hillary should have been but apparently played her husband's left brain and right ball.

Yeah, except you'd be wrong. They essentially serve as a means to coordinate interests of White House policy councils.
 
Yeah, except you'd be wrong. They essentially serve as a means to coordinate interests of White House policy councils.

I'm not wrong. They are inconsequential. They were not elected to govern. They do not hold an official role. If we never had another First Lady again it would be no loss.
 
I don't think it's so much about needing anything as it is about recognizing the contribution of a spouse to one's success personally and otherwise and tapping into the spouse's demonstrated talent.

it's just to have them wave enthusiastically at campaign stops. They are just showpieces, in terms of getting elected

Once in office, a few have promoted useful projects, like michelle obama's 'healthy kids' or whatever it's called. The most objectionable would have to be bill clinton giving his unelected wife the reigns to push for universal health care

Then there's the bipolar marry lincoln, who once chased her husband around the yard with a kitchen knife and seems to have been mostly a hindrance to his time in office
 
Yeah, except you'd be wrong. They essentially serve as a means to coordinate interests of White House policy councils.

So then why do you think some are questioning the role of a First Lady? Especially knowing what you just stated.

You don't think it was over ratings, do you? That would be the next best Leftist response besides their usual. Which would be Hating on BO peep.
 
No, but it also could be a first gentleman instead of a first lady.

Or of course there could also be no first anything.
 
Back
Top Bottom