Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
reagan did not have brain damage at that time. clinton does. elections always come down to looks. last time I checked, I think there has only been one bald president.
Indeed. It wasn't until his second term that the Alzheimer's kicked in and Nancy was running the country. Lucky for us.
I don't find most politicians all that attractive in general.
I do think that looks will matter, unfortunately. We've already heard the hoopla surrounding Christie's weight.
You shouldve made a poll. I like Warren better but I dont know that Ill vote for her in the primary since its way out in the future and I want to see if she can beat Christie.
Indeed. It wasn't until his second term that the Alzheimer's kicked in and Nancy was running the country. Lucky for us.
I don't find most politicians all that attractive in general.
I do think that looks will matter, unfortunately. We've already heard the hoopla surrounding Christie's weight.
Silly.
The only thing that should matter is, what kind of a job the candidate will do and is he/she both experienced enough and healthy enough to run the country? Unfortunately we are human and we do look at personality, likability and yes, looks to some degree. All the Presidents except Carter, since Ford have been nice looking, if not really good looking, all have looked healthy, none have had weight problems and all have had a certain amount of charisma except maybe Bush number one.
Elizabeth Warren’s former national finance chair, Paul Egerman, has told several inquiring donors this month that, despite runaway speculation and a burning desire from the party’s left wing, the freshman senator will not run for president in 2016.
Egerman, close to both Warren and to the heavy-hitting liberal base of funders who helped her raise $42 million last year, has been approached by donors in the last two weeks and told them that, no, Warren is not planning to run, according to two major players in Democratic financial circles who spoke with Egerman directly.
It's one thing to issue public denials of any current intent to run, while implicitly not commenting on the future. It is quite another thing to refuse to even allow the basic necessary infrastructure of a campaign to organically develop. It is very clear not simply that Warren does not intend to run at this time but that she has very specifically decided that she will not run, period.
Does it have to be a girl this time for Dems so you can feel good about yourselves? Why not go for the best candidate for a change? Don't you have any Democrat governors not spending their states into the poorhouse?
Does it have to be a girl this time for Dems so you can feel good about yourselves? Why not go for the best candidate for a change? Don't you have any Democrat governors not spending their states into the poorhouse?
If the Dems aren't going for the best candidate, then how do you explain the Reps losing two them twice in a row now? Or should the Reps choose the best candidate for a change too?
So, you like collectivism (socialism). I prefer freedom and Liberty. Why don't you move to another country more to your liking?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
