PureX
Veteran Member
If they do, they're idiots. The Democratic Party doesn't have to abide by the primary voters wishes. They can run whomever they want for president regardless of what the primary voters want.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Do you prefer Michelle Obama or Gavin Newsom for U.S. President?
- Thread starter Patrick66
- Start date
Daemon Sophic
Avatar in flux
I would suggest that whatever each of you is using as a "news source" or "source of information", is actually....Not.
.
Actually, we're all just prohibited from ad hominem attacks. i.e. Hate the post; not the poster.
Patrick66
Member
You're right. Everything I wrote in this thread is inaccurate. I was so blind. Please forgive me.
The view you started the thread with of course, that either Michelle Obama or Newsom will be President. But you knew that.
If the Republicans run Trump, they'll certainly make that a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Patrick66
Member
You are 100% correct about everything and I am 100% wrong about everything. Thank you for enlightening me.
You are 100% correct about everything and I am 100% wrong about everything. Thank you for enlightening me.
The sarcasm is unnecessary.
When is the last time the Democratic Party nominated someone for President who hadn't gotten the majority of primary votes?
Daemon Sophic
Avatar in flux
Well, if you're feeling so persecuted, then we can discuss the issues you've raised, if your willing to dump the sarcasm.
1. Neither of the people you mention in the title or OP are currently running for POTUS, and one of clearly not expected to (Newsom yet might).
2. Nothing suggests that former POTUS Obama is calling any shots in any political campaign or current agenda of any current office-holding politicians (like Trump clearly is doing). Although, as an intelligent and highly revered former politician, his insights are undoubtedly sought by current and aspiring politicians.
If you have evidence to support your claim, then by all means post it. Of course you should be prepared to defend weak sources and/or have flagrant lies shot down/dismissed as nonsense. 3. President Biden's term in office is far from an authoritarian government (e.g. - "Regime"). If you believe that it is, then please provide evidence.
4. At the moment, Biden is the lead contender for the Democratic presidential front-runner. Although we are very early in the 2024 election process, and undoubtedly others will soon put their "hats in the ring". Heck, even Newsom might run.
5. The federal elections (unlike Russian propaganda to the opposite) have proven themselves to be very solid, valid, and reliable. Although we could have a long talk about Republican gerrymandering and voter suppression in another thread.
PureX
Veteran Member
Does that matter? We are not living in normal political times. And how do we even know? The delegates can vote as they please and who's even paying attention? Are you sure your delegates followed the will of the voters in your area?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Oh, you, the poor victim. So sad.
Nice stereotype and, btw, I'm an independent who strongly distrusts and dislikes Donald J. Trump, the twice-impeached insurrectionist.
The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.
I am. Vote counts are public information. Did you not know that?
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Actually so. The truth can be hard to take. Especially if one dosent agree with it.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
It's not like the left has any super majority. Those lines are razor thin lest one brags about ones majority.
Sand Dancer
Currently catless
Michelle is not interested, I don't believe. Is Newsom interested?
Newson seems to be fine. But it is well past time for someone like Kamala Harris or Bernie Sanders to become POTUS.
I doubt Michelle wants the job. Her family already spent eight years for the USA and they will forever pay a heinous price for their trouble. Enough is enough.
PureX
Veteran Member
Not this time, I suspect. But perhaps in the future.
The democrats are going to run Biden as long s he is able. And they'd be fools not to. Any other democrat with aspirations to the presedeincy understands this and doesn't want to be seen as getting in the way or dividing support. Now, if Biden's health begins to noticably fail him, that would all change.
Last edited:
Daemon Sophic
Avatar in flux
Precisely!
From your statement "Givin the love the Democrats now have for Socialist and Communist people running for office." is in stark contrast to the reality presented by the vast majority of U.S. Democrats, it seems clear that you want to present that article about one city official who stated something to the effect of "socialism works!", as the norm for democrats and their candidates for political office. But really? Overall?
Reality shows that perhaps you should take your own advice.
And that's completely ignoring the facts that no contenders from either main party claim to be communists, and that having socialistic aspects to one's platform (like supporting teachers, firemen, police, infrastructure, and the military) doesn't make a candidate a "Socialist".
Your reply here suggests that I should review news and accept things that I don't agree with. That would be foolish.
If I find an article or piece of information that I am dubious of, I investigate it from a variety of angles, to find out whether it is fact-based, or hogwash.
Heck! Sometimes I'll check things I resoundingly believe to be true, for the same reason.
Feel free to give it a try.
It's not good to harp on this belief.
RF is fair these days, a big improvement from the days of yore.
Find the limits & learn.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
The very fact open socialists/Marxists are, is, has , and will be completely and fully accepted into the Democrat party without nary a peep, a rebuttal , outrage, complaint, objection, or rebuke is telling that modern day Democrats have embraced Socialists and Marxists as being one of them.Precisely!
From your statement "Givin the love the Democrats now have for Socialist and Communist people running for office." is in stark contrast to the reality presented by the vast majority of U.S. Democrats, it seems clear that you want to present that article about one city official who stated something to the effect of "socialism works!", as the norm for democrats and their candidates for political office. But really? Overall?
Reality shows that perhaps you should take your own advice.
And that's completely ignoring the facts that no contenders from either main party claim to be communists, and that having socialistic aspects to one's platform (like supporting teachers, firemen, police, infrastructure, and the military) doesn't make a candidate a "Socialist".
Your reply here suggests that I should review news and accept things that I don't agree with. That would be foolish.
If I find an article or piece of information that I am dubious of, I investigate it from a variety of angles, to find out whether it is fact-based, or hogwash.
Heck! Sometimes I'll check things I resoundingly believe to be true, for the same reason.
Feel free to give it a try.
That's the fact of the matter as it stands.
Daemon Sophic
Avatar in flux
Very well. If it’s a fact, then present your evidence. If you’re just passing along Faux News, then we’ll see that.
BTW, here are the Socialist and Communist Parties candidates (plus some others) in US elections over the last century or so. Strangely, I see zero Democrats. (Must be a typo, right?)
U.S. Presidential Elections: Leftist Votes