• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Could this candidate get elected?

G

GWestphal

Golden Member
Given: Their ideas would give unsurpassed personal and social liberty and grow the economy by 10% each year.

But, the candidate is atheist and has a child out of wedlock.

Would America elect them?
 
Last edited:
Not today, but it could when Grover Cleveland was running except that he wasn't an athiest.

Today, people would rather have someone doesn't tell the truth.
 
That seems a sad commentary of the American people. Unable to look at the big picture and what is actually important to save this nation.
 
Absolutely yes. But the candidate may have to go through a litigation to protect such "ideas" as hers (e.g. trademark) so that others cannot copy those. Once that happened and people realized what's at stake, then I see no reason why Americans wouldn't vote for her.

Of course this is a talk in Disneyland since the "given" part will not likely (if not ever) be proven or copyrighted.
 
lopri said:
Absolutely yes. But the candidate may have to go through a litigation to protect such "ideas" as hers (e.g. trademark) so that others cannot copy those. Once that happened and people realized what's at stake, then I see no reason why Americans wouldn't vote for her.

Of course this is a talk in Disneyland since the "given" part will not likely (if not ever) be proven or copyrighted.
Click to expand...

What?
 
GWestphal said:
Given: Their ideas would give unsurpassed personal and social liberty and grow the economy by 10% each year.

But, the candidate is atheist and has a child out of wedlock.

Would America elect them?
Click to expand...

If your "given" was universally believed by the voters I would say "yes", absolutely.

I think 'money' trumps 'principles' for a majority of Americans.

Fern
 
The problem with this hypothetical is that it isn't a possible real world situation. In the real world, there is no guarantee that any intended policy will have the intended effect. Hence, there is no possible scenario where we're guaranteed

unsurpassed personal and social liberty and grow the economy by 10% each year.
Click to expand...

So we aren't really weighing the guarantee of those things against the candidate being an atheist with a child out of wedlock. What we're weighing is a candidate who has *debatably* good or bad ideas against the "downside" of him being an atheist with a child out of wedlock. In that real world scenario, the answer is no, this electorate will not elect him.

However, if by some theoretical method we could have a mathematical certainty of an extremely positive outcome for the nation, I think we probably world. But not in the real world where people who don't like the candidate being an atheist can always argue that his policies are bad and use it as a pretext to not vote for him.
 
GWestphal said:
Given: Their ideas would give unsurpassed personal and social liberty and grow the economy by 10% each year.

But, the candidate is atheist and has a child out of wedlock.

Would America elect them?
Click to expand...

No, because you need Congressional support to enact legislation needed to achieve all that.
 
Anarchist420 said:
Not today, but it could when Grover Cleveland was running except that he wasn't an athiest.

Today, people would rather have someone doesn't tell the truth.
Click to expand...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Methinks anarchist 420 comes out with exactly the wrong take of an age old issue.

Because when Grover Cleveland ran against James B Blain it was the same dirty politics we have today. The GOP charge was Ma ma where my PA, gone to the white house ha ha ha, and the democratic charge was Blain Blain, James B Blain the continental liar from the State of Maine on his record of total corruption.

We all know who won today, the American people will tolerate a few sexual peccadilloes, but they will not tolerate total corruption. Romney is the new John B. Blain and Gingrich is the new John B. Blain plus Grover Cleveland all rolled up into one.
 
GWestphal said:
Given: Their ideas would give unsurpassed personal and social liberty and grow the economy by 10% each year.

But, the candidate is atheist and has a child out of wedlock.

Would America elect them?
Click to expand...

It depends. If he is an atheist in the say Richard Dawkins is, then no. If he is an atheist in the way Penn Jillette is (not the way he used to be, but the way he is now), then I say yes.

It also depends on how he treats the child out of wedlock. Does he pay child support but spends no time with the kid? Is he a great father, just never married the mother? Makes a big difference.

At least to me it does.
 
The candidate is a non-confrontational atheist and an impeccable parent.

As for the given, assume that analysis by even his staunchest rivals estimate his policies would grow the country by 10%.
 
GWestphal said:
The candidate is a non-confrontational atheist and an impeccable parent.

As for the given, assume that analysis by even his staunchest rivals estimate his policies would grow the country by 10%.
Click to expand...

Then the atheist's position is also that of his rivals, so it becomes, "All else being equal, would the country vote for an atheist." A rather obvious, "No."

There's really no way for you to word the question and have it work. You're stuck on "sufficiency." If you give a sufficient number sufficient data to make the right choice and elect him, they have sufficient data and sufficient numbers. If you don't, they don't, and they don't.
 
You misread. Even the candidates enemies can't find fault with the estimates of what the candidates policies should/will produce. The rival candidates policies will continue along the path of the last 20 years.
 
"The grass is always greener ..." gave us a lot of the bad politicians we have today, and will give us another set of bad politicians this November.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top