• LimeZest@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    4 months ago

    They are already claiming she shouldn’t be eligible because she has no children of her own, only step children. No guy ever has been told he should be ineligible for office over not having children.

    • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      That’s patently ridiculous.

      Also… wanna bet the originalists are going to shut up about “what the constitution says”?

    • ChronosTriggerWarning@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      she shouldn’t be eligible because she has no children of her own

      By that metric, Trump isn’t qualified because who wants a president that doesn’t have a dog?!?!

    • merc@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      There hasn’t been a president without children since the civil war. In fact, unless my Wikipediaing failed me, the last time there was a major party candidate without children was 1876 when Samuel J. Tilden lost to Ruthorford B. Hayes.

      I strongly suspect it would be a major issue for a male candidate to be childless. The requirements for a presidential candidate are extremely conservative. They have to be married. They have to have children. They have to be christian – even being Catholic rather than Protestant has been a major issue for a few, including JFK and to a certain extent Biden. They also have to be tall. Since the advent of TV in 1928, the shorter candidate has only won 6 times. The taller candidate has won 17 times.

      Yes, there’s a ton of sexism about Harris, but in this case a guy would probably be attacked if he were childless too.