Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-27-2011, 04:22 AM
 
Location: In the Redwoods
30,457 posts, read 52,171,508 times
Reputation: 24039

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
I do not think one should be "thankful" for electing someone solely upon the color of their skin or their gender. It seems to me to be a very superficial way, and entirely disingenuous means, of determining a leader.
Of course, but in the past they were NOT considered based on race & gender... that's where the "thank goodness times have changed" comes in, because now everyone has a legitimate chance at winning. I wouldn't vote for someone based solely on their demographics, but it's nice how the political club has become less exclusive - maybe the wider selection has increased our odds of finding a good one?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-27-2011, 05:53 AM
 
Location: NJ
18,665 posts, read 20,038,768 times
Reputation: 7315
Glitch"I do not think one should be "thankful" for electing someone solely upon the color of their skin or their gender. It seems to me to be a very superficial way, and entirely disingenuous means, of determining a leader."

As always, you read in stuff not written. What I do celebrate is color is no longer a disqualifier, it is not a qualifier. That is nuance, and most read it as such. Gender is no longer a disqualifier, IMO, either. Great! I sense you long for the days each was a disqualifier.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2011, 06:40 AM
 
21,026 posts, read 22,216,682 times
Reputation: 5942
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savoir Faire View Post
I think not.

Not looking to good for Newt or Christie.
Funny! Can you imagine if Bachmann or Palin were Christy's size ...their own slavering fans would've dropped them long ago even if they actually had a platform or any concrete plans or ideas...!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2011, 08:29 AM
 
Location: In Transition
1,637 posts, read 1,917,305 times
Reputation: 931
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savoir Faire View Post
Dohh!!!
If you would read the link, Taft was in office March 4, 1909 – March 4, 1913.

Let's see pull up a calculator 2011 - 1912 is about 99 years.

Dohh indeed. Double fail in history and in math! Let me guess, you're a English 17th century poetry major?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2011, 08:34 AM
 
12,436 posts, read 11,989,778 times
Reputation: 3159
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkbatca View Post
If you would read the link, Taft was in office March 4, 1909 – March 4, 1913.

Let's see pull up a calculator 2011 - 1912 is about 99 years.

Dohh indeed. Double fail in history and in math! Let me guess, you're a English 17th century poetry major?
What part of the word elected do you not undersand. Elected in 1909. If he had said served within the last 100 yrs you would have a point, but that is not what he said, but that is not what the thread is about. It is about the chances of Fat Bastard getting elected in 2012.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2011, 08:39 AM
 
Location: near bears but at least no snakes
26,667 posts, read 28,913,417 times
Reputation: 50595
Has the US elected an obese president in the last 100 years?

This thread is silly. Anyway here's the original question-> ELECTED.
ELECTED in 1908. 2012 minus 1908=104. It has been 104 yearssince he was ELECTED.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2011, 10:30 AM
 
Location: Fairfax, VA
3,826 posts, read 3,402,590 times
Reputation: 3694
Bill Clinton is obese.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2011, 10:41 AM
 
8,754 posts, read 10,209,574 times
Reputation: 1434
Quote:
Originally Posted by LetsRock View Post
Bill Clinton is obese.
Not anymore. He looks like death warmed over though.
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

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:04 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top