AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → Presidents:( Not to troll on Christians)

85 17420
Ro13ey
offline
Ro13ey
21 posts
Nomad

Have you ever noticed that every single U.S. president is Christian?
Now we have a black president, sure that's a start. But we need to diversify! When people are not exposed to different people things like the KKK happen. I think we should have backrounds in office.

  • 85 Replies
Seroph
offline
Seroph
54 posts
Scribe

You have to keep in mind which group dominates the voting demographic. Politicians try to appeal to senior citizens and christian conservatives because they vote more than any other group. Because of this, it would be political suicide to try to run for office openly supporting any belief other than Christianity. For the same reason, politicians rarely advocate for reducing funding on programs like medicare medicare.

Personally, I'd prefer to have a non-Christian leader and move politics away from religion; however, it is highly unlikely we'll see a change anytime soon.

Dewi1066
offline
Dewi1066
539 posts
Nomad

You have to keep in mind which group dominates the voting demographic. Politicians try to appeal to senior citizens and christian conservatives because they vote more than any other group. Because of this, it would be political suicide to try to run for office openly supporting any belief other than Christianity. For the same reason, politicians rarely advocate for reducing funding on programs like medicare medicare.


Fair play, and my only point is if you really are going to open up the election trail to anyone, regardless of belief, race or background, why not someone from the Amish community?

My initial mention of the Amish was actually meant to shine a light on discrimination, but it's turned out to shine a much wider light.
Hypermnestra
offline
Hypermnestra
26,390 posts
Nomad

I mean I was expressing my belief, not that of the Amish,
I was putting forward the beliefs of the Amish, not my own!

Wait, what? You just said "I was talking about the Amish. I wasn't talking about the Amish."

Is it? Why?

Are you serious? You really can't see how vital travel is for the president?
At the very least, they need to be able to travel their own country at a reasonable rate of time. A flying president's schedule, for example, might look something like this.

Monday
7:00 AM, Take plane from D.C. to California.
Noon, Have lunch in California.
1:30 PM, speak at conference in California.
3:00 PM, fly back to Washington D.C.
5:00 PM, review request by citizens to veto new bill.
8:00 PM, Veto or approve new bill in Senate.
Sleep.

Whereas, a non-flying and non-driving president's schedule would be something like...

Monday
Take buggy from Washington D.C. to California.

Tuesday
Take buggy to California.

Wednesday
Take buggy to California

Thursday
Take buggy to California

Friday
Take buggy to California

*months later*
Speak at conference in California.
Deth666
offline
Deth666
653 posts
Nomad

Believe it or not, plenty of Amish use know how to and use modern technology. It just depends on how liberal the church they belong to is. Most even believe that its okay to use technology in relation to their job, if it takes them outside the Amish community. So yes an Amish person could be president and use modern technology like an airplane and automobile.

Dewi1066
offline
Dewi1066
539 posts
Nomad

Wait, what? You just said "I was talking about the Amish. I wasn't talking about the Amish."


Ah... I appear to have crossed myself with fast typing and slow thought. I was talking about the beliefs of the Amish. Sometimes I type too fast and I'm thinking a sentence ahead.

As far as Presidential travel is concerned, how did Abraham Lincoln do it? Or for that matter, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Adams, Jackson, Buren, Harrison, Tyler, Polk, Taylor, Fillmore, Pierce, Buchanan, Johnson, Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, Cleveland, Harrison, Mckinly or Roosevelt cope? None of them had access to travel via car or aeroplane, so how did they cope with being President if travel was so essential?

****, that is a lot of Presidents in a short period of time. Anyway, the question still stands.
Masterforger
offline
Masterforger
1,824 posts
Peasant

Abraham and the others had no real political duties that needed speedy attention. It's now that a presidents life is swamped in what can only be political spam.

Hypermnestra
offline
Hypermnestra
26,390 posts
Nomad

Believe it or not, plenty of Amish use know how to and use modern technology. It just depends on how liberal the church they belong to is. Most even believe that its okay to use technology in relation to their job, if it takes them outside the Amish community. So yes an Amish person could be president and use modern technology like an airplane and automobile.

If they are okay with using technology, then I guess I wouldn't have a problem with them being Amish.
But this is purely theoretical. Being realistic, an Amish person simply would never be elected to the presidency even if one ran...which isn't likely, since they're supposed to be humble and all.

As far as Presidential travel is concerned, how did Abraham Lincoln do it? Or for that matter, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Adams, Jackson, Buren, Harrison, Tyler, Polk, Taylor, Fillmore, Pierce, Buchanan, Johnson, Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, Cleveland, Harrison, Mckinly or Roosevelt cope? None of them had access to travel via car or aeroplane, so how did they cope with being President if travel was so essential?

That's very simple if you think about it. The United States was considerably smaller then, so they had less distance to traverse. And once the U.S. started getting larger, they started using trains to travel. That's much faster than horses and buggies.
They also traveled to other countries less, which was all right, because no one could really afford to travel to other countries all the time. For that reason, there were not any important meetings or conferences in other countries to miss at all. Because overseas travel was so impractical and time-consuming, no one was expected to do it. Whereas, now, if a president could not travel, it would be extremely limiting because everyone else can, and communication centers around that assumption instead of the assumption that no one can.
Capisce?

Mckinly

McKinley.
Hypermnestra
offline
Hypermnestra
26,390 posts
Nomad

I just did it again!! What the hell is up with me?!?!?!

So what did you actually mean to say?
Seroph
offline
Seroph
54 posts
Scribe

Another thing to consider, if we are going to continue to beat the Amish issue to a pulp, would a citizen who lives by the Amish lifestyle ever have any inclination to get involved in politics? The entire philosophy behind these societies is to exclude themselves from the rest of society and live a simpler lifestyle. Within their communities, they have a communal governing body which creates the rules by which the group lives by. For an Amish citizen to run for president--thus leaving their communal population for a federal government institution--they wouldn't be in accordance with their Amish beliefs.

Dewi1066
offline
Dewi1066
539 posts
Nomad

McKinley


That long list of Presidents and you're going to pick me up on one spelling mistake? Seriously? How many of those Presidents could you have named? Bearing in mind I live in England and my knowledge of the US has been schooled through McDonalds, KFC and the sightings of G.W. Bush.

So what did you actually mean to say?


I meant that I was thinking ahead, typing too fast and ended up typing a contradiction. In my haste to reply to that, I typed another contradiction. It is easy to do when you're rushing to type in order to prepare baby milk. And that is an even longer story, so no, I can't really explain that.

I accept that having an Amish President would present its problems, and one of those is travel. I'm not daft enough to think for a second that America has changed since Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Adams, Jackson, Buren, Harrison, Tyler, Polk, Taylor, Fillmore, Pierce, Buchanan, Johnson, Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, Cleveland, Harrison, McKinley or Roosevelt.

I was simply trying to highlight the fact that in an age where we must show no discrimination against any race, colour or creed, that the simple fact that the Amish choose to live without the aid of technology, that this in itself would lead to a natural prejudice.

Maybe I'm a little ahead of myself and perhaps I should stick to arguments that don't involve long drawn out discussions about how the Amish will travel from point A to point B, but perhaps someone recognised my point?

And why does the browser I'm using refuse to accept the English language? It will tell me that recognise is a spelling mistake and insist on replacing it with recognize, which is an American spelling.
zakyman
offline
zakyman
1,627 posts
Peasant

I was simply trying to highlight the fact that in an age where we must show no discrimination against any race, colour or creed, that the simple fact that the Amish choose to live without the aid of technology, that this in itself would lead to a natural prejudice.


I never objected to allowing an Amish person RUN for president, I just said that I wouldn't support him for reasons listed earlier.
Dewi1066
offline
Dewi1066
539 posts
Nomad

I never objected to allowing an Amish person RUN for president, I just said that I wouldn't support him for reasons listed earlier.


Not sure how you emote embarrassment on here, but I missed your first post on this thread completely. I didn't mean to imply anything, just that I was generally trying to highlight that there are some in American society that would be more welcome than others in a Presidential election.
314d1
offline
314d1
3,817 posts
Nomad

At OP: False. Here is a link to prove it.

And who cares if most of the presidents are Christian, white, black, or whatever? Race and religion simply shouldn't matter in a presidential debate, at all.

Dewi1066
offline
Dewi1066
539 posts
Nomad

And who cares if most of the presidents are Christian, white, black, or whatever? Race and religion simply shouldn't matter in a presidential debate, at all.


It does to certain Americans if what we're told over here is true.

Could I ask, because I only have British media to go from really, but is the south end of the USA really that religious and prejudice against the north?
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,552 posts
Jester

but is the south end of the USA really that religious and prejudice against the north?


Not really in general. However, there are more extremists there than other places.
Showing 46-60 of 85