• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would you elect....

Would you elect a person who is poor to President of the US?

  • Total voters
    46
Kal'Stang

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
A person who is poor to President of the US? Or should poor people need not apply? If not what is the minimum that you think a person should be earning before you would vote for them? (note: I know that the Constitution does not require X amount of dollars to earn, this question has nothing to do with legality so lets keep that out of the thread please)

And for the sake of argument lets say that they reflect and espouse 95% of the same values that you do, and you know that they would do their very best to try to enact policies that you would agree with.
 
It depends on why they are poor, and it depends on your definition of "poor". AFAIK, legally a person on eternal welfare can run if they are a citizen and over 34 years of age.

In the economic realm success is defined my wealth, particularly wealth you have earned yourself, rater than inherited. So unless a poor person can convince me he knows the secret to country wealth and physical security, I'm skeptical. This is a big country with a lot of challenges and a lot of calcified leadership happy to vote the path of least resistance, go home and take a nap.

We have lots of inherited wealth in the halls of congress, and not nearly enough earned wealth.
 
I like the idea of electing someone who makes middle class income, a "man of the people" type who has walked the walk before.

I don't know if you mean like, go down to the Jesus saves building and find someone dirt poor who lives under bridges and on food stamps. But, perhaps there is some homeless messiah with all the right ideas.

Interesting topic.
 
If that poor person's politics are the most in line with my own, then yes.
 
Proper term for this thread comes to mind.. a "diamond in the rough".


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Yes, I would. Someone like the former President of Uruguay, Jose Mujica.
 
Kal'Stang said:
A person who is poor to President of the US? Or should poor people need not apply? If not what is the minimum that you think a person should be earning before you would vote for them? (note: I know that the Constitution does not require X amount of dollars to earn, this question has nothing to do with legality so lets keep that out of the thread please)

And for the sake of argument lets say that they reflect and espouse 95% of the same values that you do, and you know that they would do their very best to try to enact policies that you would agree with.
Click to expand...

Yes of course because that last part is really all that matters except I dont know if i like the word values. To me for the most part values only matter for the president as in regards to the constitutions and life liberty and purist of happenings. But anyway in general "income" or prior "wealth" would be meaningless to me in general.
 
Certainly (if I were a U.S. citizen). Look at Truman, for example - so poor that he was urged by many of his family and friends to enter bankruptcy and ended up being the first person on Medicare. Look at Lincoln, who lost everything and had to build himself up from scratch. If a poor person can make themselves a serious candidate for President of the United States, given all the obstacles that would be in their way, I would actually have more respect for them than I would have otherwise.
 
Their finances are irrelevant.

What's more important is their educational background, their demonstrated knowledge, their experience, and their ability to communicate effectively.
 
The High Sparrow for President 2020.
 
It amazes me that I have to define "poor" here when it comes to money. I mean anyone that is legally considered to be monetarily poor. Be it someone that lives under a bridge or someone making 10k/year, or someone living in subsidized housing or on food stamps. Etc etc etc. I can understand having to define poor when it comes to pretty much anything else. But money? I just don't get it.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
The High Sparrow for President 2020.
Click to expand...

Heh. Communism versus plutocracy. Would you like to be shot in the head by a bullet made of iron or lead?
 
Captain Adverse said:
Their finances are irrelevant.

What's more important is their educational background, their demonstrated knowledge, their experience, and their ability to communicate effectively.
Click to expand...

By educational background are you referring to going to college/universities? Or just general knowledge? Because quite a few poor people do not have that piece of paper from college/universities primarily because of them being poor.

And can you expand on what you mean by experience? What kind?

I can definitely see their ability to communicate effectively being a condition. One would need that in order to negotiate pretty much anything.
 
Kal'Stang said:
It amazes me that I have to define "poor" here when it comes to money. I mean anyone that is legally considered to be monetarily poor. Be it someone that lives under a bridge or someone making 10k/year, or someone living in subsidized housing or on food stamps. Etc etc etc. I can understand having to define poor when it comes to pretty much anything else. But money? I just don't get it.
Click to expand...

The reason I needed further clarification is because the donor class, who ostensibly selects our candidates for us, are all millionaires and billionaires. And someone who makes a solid 30-40k per year, is comparatively poor when measured against that standard. But, those modest earners are far from being impoverished.
 
I would be mildly concerned that a poor person might be as clueless about money as the plutocrat who never had to work a day in his life. Under those extremes, neither seem especially equipped to be in a position of making major economic decisions.
 
Kal'Stang said:
By educational background are you referring to going to college/universities? Or just general knowledge? Because quite a few poor people do not have that piece of paper from college/universities primarily because of them being poor.

And can you expand on what you mean by experience? What kind?

I can definitely see their ability to communicate effectively being a condition. One would need that in order to negotiate pretty much anything.
Click to expand...

Certainly.

Educational background requires a general literacy (one has to be able to read and write if one is expected to deal with legislation and government); as well as a basic knowledge of history, mathematics, and general sciences. At a minimum a high school diploma or equivalency. However, the better educated the more I'd be inclined to support their candidacy.

Experience? Life experience so that their viewpoints aren't limited to insular or parochial thinking. Time in military service, or other public service (teaching, police/fire depts., etc.) or at least community service.

One should have enough knowledge and personal experience not to become a total pawn of the sharks already in office one would need to work with.
 
I couldn't care less how much money a person has, I care about their positions.
 
I voted No.

Inability to successfully manage the simple, small-scale economics of one's private life
is evidence of cognitive shortcoming and poor decision-making skill.

Impoverishment in pre-adulthood is no excuse because one does not need to be a genius
to work one's way up to a condition of surplus net wealth.
 
Define poor. A homeless person living on the street? Probably not. An auto mechanic earning less than $50k/year, but who has served his/her community/state in elective office for a couple of decades, and has congressional/senate/gubernatorial experience under his/her belt? Sure.
 
Would you elect a person who is poor to President of the US?
Click to expand...

sure. i care about policy positions and general competency, not how much money a candidate has.
 
yes, i would be willing to vote for someone such as Harry Truman or Lincoln, who came from modest means
 
Kal'Stang said:
A person who is poor to President of the US? Or should poor people need not apply? If not what is the minimum that you think a person should be earning before you would vote for them? (note: I know that the Constitution does not require X amount of dollars to earn, this question has nothing to do with legality so lets keep that out of the thread please)

And for the sake of argument lets say that they reflect and espouse 95% of the same values that you do, and you know that they would do their very best to try to enact policies that you would agree with.
Click to expand...

I don't care how much money they make.
 
Kal'Stang said:
A person who is poor to President of the US? Or should poor people need not apply? If not what is the minimum that you think a person should be earning before you would vote for them? (note: I know that the Constitution does not require X amount of dollars to earn, this question has nothing to do with legality so lets keep that out of the thread please)

And for the sake of argument lets say that they reflect and espouse 95% of the same values that you do, and you know that they would do their very best to try to enact policies that you would agree with.
Click to expand...


I picked maybe.If I agree with most of that person's views I will vote for him or her.If I don't then I am not going to vote for that person.
 
Kal'Stang said:
A person who is poor to President of the US? Or should poor people need not apply? If not what is the minimum that you think a person should be earning before you would vote for them? (note: I know that the Constitution does not require X amount of dollars to earn, this question has nothing to do with legality so lets keep that out of the thread please)

And for the sake of argument lets say that they reflect and espouse 95% of the same values that you do, and you know that they would do their very best to try to enact policies that you would agree with.
Click to expand...

Depends on whether I think they're a generally good candidate and have some sort of relevant experience.

There's plenty of knowledgeable people who choose lower paying ways of doing their work, and some who even give away or re-invest the vast majority of whatever they may earn, if they do have a higher income.
 
We have had poor presidents!

Harry S. Truman

Ulysses S. Grant

William Henry Harrison

James A. Garfield


I don't think money or the lack of money should make a difference when voting for president.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom