Democratic Primary Season 2020

[Schnitzer318is]

Campaign... campaign... campaign... no body actually governs/works anymore in politics. We need term limits and/or campaign reform. I'm looking at you Citizens United.

I'm mentally preparing for 4 more years of the cheetoh in chief for the reasons you mention z31. Leave it up to the dems to fuck up a slam dunk. Maybe if the primaries go quickly and without drama they will rally behind one candidate... but even then they may lose too many voters (supporters of the defeated) to an independent like last time. They certainly lost me... as there was no way I was going to vote Hillary.

[mbonder]

i'm not sure where you're going by agreeing with me while still trying to argue, so let's drop it

I wasn't agreeing with you.

You said why should someone have to have children to be a leader of a country. Your charge is that they apparently don't. I'm contending that you need to be a well-rounded person to be the leader of America, in most people's eyes that means having a family.

My statement read that you could get a degree in economics without taking both Micro and macro (something that you can't do). So I could have some skills without the family and still be the president. I contended that you couldn't do that. Same as you can't get a degree without taking both micro AND macro.


I edited that a couple hours after posting because my english wasn't clear enough.

[decay]

I'm contending that you need to be a well-rounded person to be the leader of America, in most people's eyes that means having a family.

then the burden of proof is on you. "in most people's eyes" is just logical fallacy, appeal to popularity.

i understand that raising a child, or children, develops a skill set; i've got friends with kids and i see their moments of joy and their struggles.

they have nothing to do with organizing a society consisting of hundreds of millions of people.

[Oaklandia30]

Really you think a 28 year barista that has issues with simple math, basic economics, and very poor etiquette especially when things should not go her way, should be running for the white house???

RUN HER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! its a landslide Trump for 4 more years, as most D's wont show up to vote and the Rs will straight ticket him in again

Can you elaborate? Is it because trump is the antithesis to this?
Trump speaks at the level of a fourth grader, English is a bit
difficult for him. Having declared bankruptcy at least 6 times and a long list of failed business endeavors built on money he inherited and never made himself shows he's not great on economics or business. He's a con-man with
no regard to the constitution or the rule of law, and our country has now fallen victim to his corruption and incompetence.
Poor etiquette when things don't go ones way, well jeez does that sound
familiar to you at all?
One clear example happened this week, when asked if he did what
everyone probably suspected, but the NYT uncovered. What does he
say: Fake news.. Not only is it poor etiquette, it's obstruction of justice.
A little more serious, don't you think?
He's attacked the Russia investigation 1,000 times. Is that normal?
Before you call it a witch hunt, there have been 37 indictments and more to come.
Ultimately you are saying is that AOC wouldn't be a viable candidate for you, OK I get that.
Her "corruption game" video broke records for views of a video by a politician, she's making moves and shaking things up in Washington-that should be commended. She has the outsider mentality that is refreshing. I remember when trump was supposed to be that guy who was coming in to end corruption and drain the swamp, lol.
I'm not writing this to attack you in particular, but I've been seeing so much of this bs on the internet and needed to vent. Sorry!
Ultimately you are correct in this regard, The R's will straight ticket him no matter how potentially treasonous, corrupt, racist, sexist, nepotistic, lazy good for nothing he is.
But to not see a little bit of irony in your response is curious.

[mbonder]

then the burden of proof is on you. "in most people's eyes" is just logical fallacy, appeal to popularity.

i understand that raising a child, or children, develops a skill set; i've got friends with kids and i see their moments of joy and their struggles.

they have nothing to do with organizing a society consisting of hundreds of millions of people.

Why is having kids or a family an appeal to popularity?

Also, why does your final statement require any less "proof" than mine?

In fact, I would argue that the mountain of evidence lies on my side rather than yours. There has been one president that hasn't had children, 44 of them that have. My initial argument even stated that hypothetically, you don't need to have a family to be president, however, in reality, you won't get elected if you don't have a family.

The greatest reason for this is that the president is supposed to represent the people. Something around 80% of the population have children, so if you want to represent the people, you should be like the majority of them. There is also the belief that if the Commander-in-Chief is going to send someone else's child into combat, he/she should be able to stand in that parent's shoes and understand the gravity of the situation in its entirety.

In your hypothetical world a single man/woman or a married one without kids could become president, I'm not disagreeing with you that it is possible. What I am saying is that in the real world, it won't happen. Now I'm sure that somewhere along the way in 2098 or something there will be a president without children and you can bring this thread back to life to make me eat my words, but right now there is a 2.2% chance that someone without kids will be elected president.

[gwb72tii]

I would have to agree that having a family and a few more winters under your belt, does completely change your outlook on life and your place within it.

At least it did for me and the friends I asked this question to, but obviously not everyone.

Once you hit a certain age and even more once you have children, and it’s a different age for everybody, you become less self focused and more understanding and compassionate.

I think that should be a trait of a good leader, let alone the leader of the free world.

But...what do I know, I am Canadian.

I could not agree more, thanks.

[decay]

Why is having kids or a family an appeal to popularity?

...it's not. your argument that "most people say this" is an appeal to popularity.

Also, why does your final statement require any less "proof" than mine?

it doesn't, but you made the statement in the first place. i'm asking you to justify it.

i've put down that running a family and running a country are two entirely different problem sets.

go ahead and explain where i'm wrong.

[mbonder]

Explain to me where you are right.

I already stated that the hierarchical organization of the family is similar to the hierarchical organization of the government. Being good at one allows you to develop the skills needed for the other. Organization, compassion, sympathy are some of those skills that would be developed more thoroughly when having and running a family.

[decay]

jesus christ, you're making me "per my last email" you. you're now that guy.

no it's not similar. the organizational requirements of running a household consisting of a handful of people, and a country containing hundreds of millions of people, are not the same, and you don't need to pop out kids in order to have compassion, sympathy, or a sense of order.

[z31maniac]

Explain to me where you are right.

I already stated that the hierarchical organization of the family is similar to the hierarchical organization of the government. Being good at one allows you to develop the skills needed for the other. Organization, compassion, sympathy are some of those skills that would be developed more thoroughly when having and running a family.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoJrMaFlxOk

[Kershaw]

jesus christ, you're making me "per my last email" you. you're now that guy.

no it's not similar. the organizational requirements of running a household consisting of a handful of people, and a country containing hundreds of millions of people, are not the same, and you don't need to pop out kids in order to have compassion, sympathy, or a sense of order.

I agree with you, but a large percentage of Americans can't even vote in their own self interest. You're trying to use logic here when for a lot of people it's a strictly emotional decision.

As someone dedicated to being childfree, I don't believe a childfree individual could be elected. The other side will tear at that and make it a huge issue.

[decay]

You're trying to use logic here

yeah, bad habit i've got

[mbonder]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoJrMaFlxOk

I love Bill Burr, truly a fantastic comedian.

Decay, maybe the way I put it didn't work, Kershaw's last line is what I was getting at. It's nearly impossible to get elected without children and a family.

The reality is that there were two separate discussions going on there:
1. Whether someone could get elected or not without having kids

and

2. Why that is the reality in America.


I think we sort of agree on the answer to the first and then disagree as to why in the second. I'm not saying that running the country is the same as running a family, clearly they aren't, otherwise 80% of Americans could be president and that's clearly not the case. What I am saying is that by having a family you develop certain qualities that the public finds useful for a president to have, which makes that person more relatable and therefore more electable.

[phillipj]

Potato/Potahto. As mentioned, this CF is going to hand the White House back to the cheetoh if they don't narrow it down and get the fundraising behind a strong candidate and fast.

To me that sounds like the exact doomed 2016 thinking -- everyone get out of the way for the obvious pre-determined Front-runner. What a disaster.

[decay]

I think we sort of agree on the answer to the first and then disagree as to why in the second. I'm not saying that running the country is the same as running a family, clearly they aren't, otherwise 80% of Americans could be president and that's clearly not the case. What I am saying is that by having a family you develop certain qualities that the public finds useful for a president to have, which makes that person more relatable and therefore more electable.

right. my objection comes from that i wish more people voted based on a candidate's voting history and their stances on the issues they care about. fair enough.