Page 80 of 90
Re: Politics
Posted: February 10th, 2020, 8:08 pm
by MadCow2357
TheChiScientist wrote: ↑February 10th, 2020, 6:49 pm
Warren is a quality choice but this is nation still not ready for a woman president unfortunately.
Wut r u high on
Care to explain this statement?
Re: Politics
Posted: February 11th, 2020, 8:34 am
by TheChiScientist
MadCow2357 wrote: ↑February 10th, 2020, 8:08 pm
TheChiScientist wrote: ↑February 10th, 2020, 6:49 pm
Warren is a quality choice but this is nation still not ready for a woman president unfortunately.
Wut r u high on
Care to explain this statement?
The quality choice part or not ready for a woman president? Anti feminism is too strong in this country to allow Warren to win in an election against Trump. Many of the anti feminists are already on Trumps side so it would be a losing election for Warren. The time is not yet right to put a woman in the presidency due to this. If Warren was without a doubt more popular then it would more feasible. However many won't risk having this election lost to Trump. 2024 would most likely be a better opportunity for a woman president to take power. The Iowa caucuses reflect this as Pete an openly gay person had won Iowa. While Warren is lagging behind by quite a bit. Sad but it might be awhile before the nation as a whole is ready and willing to elect a woman president.
Re: Politics
Posted: February 11th, 2020, 9:19 am
by Unome
TheChiScientist wrote: ↑February 11th, 2020, 8:34 am
MadCow2357 wrote: ↑February 10th, 2020, 8:08 pm
TheChiScientist wrote: ↑February 10th, 2020, 6:49 pm
Warren is a quality choice but this is nation still not ready for a woman president unfortunately.
Wut r u high on
Care to explain this statement?
The quality choice part or not ready for a woman president? Anti feminism is too strong in this country to allow Warren to win in an election against Trump. Many of the anti feminists are already on Trumps side so it would be a losing election for Warren. The time is not yet right to put a woman in the presidency due to this. If Warren was without a doubt more popular then it would more feasible. However many won't risk having this election lost to Trump. 2024 would most likely be a better opportunity for a woman president to take power. The Iowa caucuses reflect this as Pete an openly gay person had won Iowa. While Warren is lagging behind by quite a bit. Sad but it might be awhile before the nation as a whole is ready and willing to elect a woman president.
There are many other factors that could be affecting the Iowa results. Even disregarding the caucus format arguments, I can draw from the article I linked earlier and note that Warren has a long history of politics which can be used against (voting records, advocacy, and of course stuff like the Cherokee debacle) while Buttigieg is a fresh face with little political baggage.
Re: Politics
Posted: February 11th, 2020, 10:19 am
by nateDC
TheChiScientist wrote: ↑February 10th, 2020, 7:20 pm
Hahahahaha. This is why we can't have nice politicians... Yea an experienced politician would be nice cause look what happened with the most recent inexperienced politician that we let into office... ┻━┻ ︵ヽ(`Д´)ﾉ︵ ┻━┻
But the whole point of the United States election system is that anyone can be President, not just the politicians.
Re: Politics
Posted: February 11th, 2020, 10:27 am
by TheChiScientist
nateDC wrote: ↑February 11th, 2020, 10:19 am
TheChiScientist wrote: ↑February 10th, 2020, 7:20 pm
Hahahahaha. This is why we can't have nice politicians... Yea an experienced politician would be nice cause look what happened with the most recent inexperienced politician that we let into office... ┻━┻ ︵ヽ(`Д´)ﾉ︵ ┻━┻
But the whole point of the United States election system is that anyone can be President, not just the politicians.
That's fine. Until the uneducated make a poor choice.....
Re: Politics
Posted: February 11th, 2020, 10:59 am
by amineral
TheChiScientist wrote: ↑February 11th, 2020, 10:27 am
nateDC wrote: ↑February 11th, 2020, 10:19 am
TheChiScientist wrote: ↑February 10th, 2020, 7:20 pm
Hahahahaha. This is why we can't have nice politicians... Yea an experienced politician would be nice cause look what happened with the most recent inexperienced politician that we let into office... ┻━┻ ︵ヽ(`Д´)ﾉ︵ ┻━┻
But the whole point of the United States election system is that anyone can be President, not just the politicians.
That's fine. Until the uneducated make a poor choice.....
Plenty of educated career politicians also make "poor decisions" also though. I think it may be more about morals than anything.
Re: Politics
Posted: February 11th, 2020, 6:42 pm
by PM2017
Re: Politics
Posted: February 11th, 2020, 6:52 pm
by MTV<=>Operator
Rip yanggang
. At this point I'm doubtful that any of the democratic candidates, with the exception of maybe Bloomberg, could beat Trump. The economy is good and people seem to think this is due to his presidency. His approval rates are reaching an all time high, and almost everyone that voted for him in 2016 is ready to vote for him once again. It almost seems like he gained popularity from impeachment.
Re: Politics
Posted: February 11th, 2020, 7:36 pm
by JoeyC
Right now the main thing is electability - who can beat Trump.
That rules out Pete and Warren, due to the high sentiments against them in America (it'll be kind of like Mitt Romney). Biden hasn't garnered too much support, and Bloomberg (right now) doesn't appear to have a large gathering yet.
Which leaves us with Sanders, though there is still room for other candidates to take the lead.
I do feel that Warren could take the lead, and to a lesser extent possibly Bloomberg and do well, but with the status quo, I'd say Sanders is the Democratic party's best bet, solely based on electability.
Re: Politics
Posted: February 11th, 2020, 7:59 pm
by MadCow2357
aghhhh i think imma go cry now
andrew yang was the man