U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-08-2018, 09:51 AM
 
38,219 posts, read 14,933,179 times
Reputation: 24627

Advertisements

But back to Oprah.

If she decides to run, what are her chances of getting elected?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-08-2018, 09:52 AM
 
29,495 posts, read 15,457,419 times
Reputation: 20030
Quote:
Originally Posted by GotHereQuickAsICould View Post
BS.

Trump and the Russian troll farms would have painted Sanders as a socialist with a criminal wife.

Sanders didn't stand a chance.
Didnít Sander claim he was a socialist?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2018, 09:52 AM
 
10,511 posts, read 8,439,237 times
Reputation: 19262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kavalier View Post
Why are those standards a bad idea? Only the working man (note I didn't say any particular race) is paying taxes. Why shouldn't just working people be able to vote?


I mean, if there are reasons for being unemployed (legitimate reasons, like poor health) then we could/should make exceptions, but I think that standard is a fair one.


And since colleges now have diversity quotas and the like, I certainly wouldn't want only those with a college degree to be able to vote. I think my standard is quite sufficient and absolutely FAIR.
So, college students, vocational training students, stay at home moms and dads and family members caring for the elderly or disabled in their homes should lose their votes because they're not "contributing to the economy"? Actually, such folks are helping the economy enormously, if you compare their unpaid work to the cost of caring for children, the elderly and disabled outside the home.

Did you really mean to write "working MAN"?? How about working women?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2018, 09:53 AM
 
29,495 posts, read 15,457,419 times
Reputation: 20030
Quote:
Originally Posted by gotherequickasicould View Post
but back to oprah.

If she decides to run, what are her chances of getting elected?
50/50
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2018, 09:54 AM
 
38,219 posts, read 14,933,179 times
Reputation: 24627
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
No, I'm saying that the Democratic candidate only needs to meet the minimum qualifications to defeat Trump. We don't need some super inspirational person on par with JFK, Reagan or Obama. Voters will just want a return to normalcy.
I don't know about that. Lot of voters are happy with Trump, find him delightfully non-PC, and are eagerly anticipating the extra money in their paychecks and being able to get get low-cost insurance that doesn't cover much again.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2018, 09:54 AM
Noc
 
1,439 posts, read 1,806,407 times
Reputation: 612
Quote:
Originally Posted by GotHereQuickAsICould View Post
But back to Oprah.

If she decides to run, what are her chances of getting elected?
First who would run against her in the primaries? Is there anyone on the (D) side who even has a remote chance of being a challenger to Trump?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2018, 09:54 AM
 
Location: New York City
8,261 posts, read 6,285,564 times
Reputation: 6064
Quote:
Originally Posted by GotHereQuickAsICould View Post
Trump and the Russian troll farms would have painted Sanders as a socialist with a criminal wife.

Sanders didn't stand a chance.
Sounds like you've rationalized Trump's win as a Russian conspiracy to deflect from the reality that the people elected him with open eyes

Trump was a poor candidate, yet the best option available. Had Sanders been nominated, he would have been more palatable than Trump, warts and all
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2018, 09:54 AM
 
12,843 posts, read 4,649,849 times
Reputation: 5213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kavalier View Post
The specifics would have to be ironed out (NOTE THIS IS NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN, OBVIOUSLY), but in general only people/families that work (pay taxes) should be allowed to vote.


Why should incompetent, drug/alcohol-addicted, welfare recipients (be they white or yellow or purple) layabouts be allowed to vote if they don't even PAY TAXES??
But what if a divorced woman cant work. Perhaps she is studying. Perhaps she is taking care of children. Perhaps she is taking care of the elderly parents who are kicked to the curb by our horrendous health care system. Why should they be denied the chance to influence the society they live in? What if you had to take care of your frail parents and could no longer work?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2018, 09:55 AM
 
22,769 posts, read 26,222,576 times
Reputation: 14558
Quote:
Originally Posted by hellob View Post
That's true but it'd be hard to explain away certain things that we've been bitching about the other side.
lol

that's not how it works, unfortunately. Whether a politician is actually trustworthy and consistent is not important to winning elections. What's important is being able to construct a plausible narrative that the people will buy.

For instance, Republicans blaming the economic crisis on "the government forcing banks to loan." It's a totally fabricated story, but it was wildly successful with the Republican base and won them a LOT of votes.

Trump stood up there and said "we're going to bring manufacturing jobs back!" and even though that's basically impossible, and he's a total buffoon, it won him a LOT of votes.

Democrats don't need to explain anything about past positions, or stick to any kind of consistent story -- the Republicans sure don't. The Democrats just need to play the game better.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2018, 09:55 AM
 
Location: Up North
3,882 posts, read 1,021,490 times
Reputation: 2278
Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigCreek View Post
So, college students, vocational training students, stay at home moms and dads and family members caring for the elderly or disabled in their homes should lose their votes because they're not "contributing to the economy"? Actually, such folks are helping the economy enormously, if you compare their unpaid work to the cost of caring for children, the elderly and disabled outside the home.

Did you really mean to write "working MAN"?? How about working women?
I'm not politically poisoned, friend. "MAN" In reality (not this cultural marxist alternative reality we now live in) generally means man AND woman.


Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top