Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
That, too. She should have staff grilling her about world leaders every waking moment. But apparently she eats that grilling with a comb or something.
Trying what? Even with this issue...Im pretty confident in her knowledge of many issue over the incumbent.
Yeah, she knows the immigration issue cold. Can't wait to see what she'll do with so many of her appropriation bills that show her bipartisanship.
I don't think that affects the analysis. We're grading on a curve, considering many different issues, either way.
Even if that issue was immigration and immigration policy? I would think that to be remarkably short-sighted.
A voter can have only one issue that is his single issue. So if my single issue were immigration policy, it is mathematically provable that my single issue could not also be the ability to name the President of Mexico.
Touché.A voter can have only one issue that is a single issue. So if my single issue were immigration policy, it is mathematically provable that my single issue could not also be the ability to name the President of Mexico.
Speaking for myself, I know very little about Obrador, but I could have named him if I'd been asked. (I could also have named his predecessor.) But I consider that to be a trivia question of almost no consequence in precisely this sense: my views on immigration would be exactly the same if I couldn't name the President of Mexico. I've given immigration policy more thought than the average person, I reckon, but none of my thoughts on the subject depend on knowing Obrador's name.
From a nativist perspective, sure, I could see that. But from someone who is looking to use each individuals in power's tastes, preferences, and political capital to craft policy in the light of people streaming over the border? Color me among those who would hope we would know the policy implications -- both extensions and limitations -- of the current president of Mexico and his or her power to achieve what needs to be achieved, both in the short term (where this really matters) and in long-term, systemic ways.
I didn't vote in the last election partially because I wasn't convinced Gary Johnson was serious enough about being president to be president. So, it certainly added to not voting for him, yes. And it was considered the deal-breaker in the media narrative because of his presumable isolationism as a Libertarian candidate. It emphasized that we do need to involve ourselves in the world; to what extent is the question, and not knowing the Aleppo/Syria connection was part of keeping abreast of current events at a little more than surface level.
There are many deal breakers (perhaps as many as there are voters) and some one's deal breaker might be another's enabler. E.g. "Mexico is not sendeíng their best - they are sending rapists etc" was reportedly a deal breaker for many. Who is to say it was not an enabler for some?
True, but I think that's apples and oranges. People generally want a more informed president than a lesser informed one. You'd certainly find examples of people that are against illegal immigration responding well to that type of political tactic described above in your example, but not too many people, ceteris paribus, want a president to be less informed than informed.
"He tells it like it is" "He doesn't speak like a politician" "Burn it all down" I believe are all quotes from people on this board not exactly supporting the more informed choice. Milage varies
Certainly. I'm surprised people go for it, too, but that's left for them to explain rather than trying to draw generalizations from populist rhetoric turned appealing in comparison to just not knowing things. Certainly also Trump didn't know fundamental governing structures according to the Constitution (at times) and that wasn't a deal-breaker for those that were aware of his missteps yet still voted for him.
Oh, I wasn't talking about Trump. I really set this poll up wrong. I should have limited it to the Democratic Primary field. That's what was in my mind when I started it, but I just assumed and didn't specify. I'll let the poll stand as is though, because people have responded.
Almost every time I've set up a poll in the FFA or here I've missed one glaring thing that completely hinders my hopes for an accurate result about what I'm trying to ask.
This is why all my poles are flawless, I’m a non-verbose simpleton with simple words.
