Wasn't Reagan in his 70's at the time of his last election ?

No on both an atheist and homosexual.

Wasn't Reagan in his 70's at the time of his last election ?

When he took office, he was 69 yrs 11 mo 14 days old.

At some point, everyone starts getting more and more health issues due to old age. I would have a hard time backing someone in their 70s because of the toll the job has on a person.

I think a Black, Catholic Woman of Jewish heritage stand a great chance!

Are you considering tossing your hat in the ring? :sssh:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

j/k Mom... j/k... :lol:

There are a lot of people I wouldn't vote for, but none of the reasons are on that list. I vote for people because of their political views and personal qualifications. They don't have to share my race, religion, gender, marital status or sexual orientation.

I would not vote for an atheist. I would have trouble aligning myself with someone who can neither be humbled nor awed.

 

I would not vote for a homosexual. The fact that the person took the time to tell me they were a homosexual would be enough.

 

The remainder of the options do not distinguish themselves enough for me to exclude the person as a potential candidate for me.

There are a lot of people I wouldn't vote for, but none of the reasons are on that list. I vote for people because of their political views and personal qualifications. They don't have to share my race, religion, gender, marital status or sexual orientation.

 

Can I get an Amen from the pulpit? :thumb: :thumb:

Given the right situation, I'd vote for any of them.

There are a lot of people I wouldn't vote for, but none of the reasons are on that list. I vote for people because of their political views and personal qualifications. They don't have to share my race, religion, gender, marital status or sexual orientation.

 

I think that I would be lying to myself if I said either of those.

I vote for people because of their political views and personal qualifications. They don't have to share my race, religion, gender, marital status or sexual orientation.

 

I agree with you 100%! However I don't think I would vote for an atheist, I don't see any party selecting an atheist as it would be an almost certain defeat, so they would have to be an independent.

I would not vote for an atheist. I would have trouble aligning myself with someone who can neither be humbled nor awed.

 

I would not vote for a homosexual. The fact that the person took the time to tell me they were a homosexual would be enough.

 

The remainder of the options do not distinguish themselves enough for me to exclude the person as a potential candidate for me.

I'm with you.

 

I can't see voting for someone, who in time of crisis, can't pray to someone for guidance.

I said yes to every single one of them. If they are qualified, that's all that matters to me. GET THE JOB DONE!!!!

Like..."If the person is breathing..."

:laugh: I would vote for the old person. I wonder if Hugh Heffner intends on running

WOW. Reading this thread just shows me that while things have improved over the years, bigotry is alive and well in 2007.

Does it really matter what a person's personal life is, if they can get the job done? In America, Land of the "Free", shouldn't the emphasis be on their ability to do the job, and not where they go to church or what their sexual orientation is? I would have to think hard about the age issue, simply because of the physical demands of the job (travel, long days, etc). But, if the person was up to the intense rigors of campaigning, I'd say they could handle the job itself.