English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

16 answers

Living in the U.S.A., I know that the people of this country want change. We want our troops to come home. We want to end this war. As far as president, based on the last elections, Democrats took control of the house and senate. The next president will be a Democrat. It will be Hillary, Obama, or Edwards. Too close to tell right now. All three support ending the war and allowing Gay people to openly serve in our military. I choose Hillary only because Bill Clinton is incredible and Hillary will have the knowledge of eight years experience from Pres. Clinton. PS. our country isn't ready for a Gay president yet. Even though Pres. Lincoln could very well have been a closeted Homosexual. http://www.salon.com/books/it/1999/04/30/lincoln/

2007-06-16 13:19:12 · answer #1 · answered by TRACER ™ 6 · 0 0

I think we're a long way from potentially electing anyone who isn't exclusively heterosexual. The other two I'm not so sure about. Barack Obama is a plausible candidate for the Democratic nomination, and if six hundred more Democrats had voted in Florida in 2000, Vice President Joe Lieberman could be working on sewing up the nomination for himself this year.

Of course, given how closeted people have been historically, it's possible that we've already had a gay president. (Buchanan? Lincoln?)

2007-06-16 20:10:02 · answer #2 · answered by Doc Occam 7 · 0 0

A non christian would be the last one to be elected followed by a non heterosexual. After all, all the candidates currently running are STRAIGHT and proclaim to be CHRISTIAN in one way or another (and by all candidates I mean the 2 big parties), the only exception is OBAMA. So naturally we are closer to a minority being the next president elect.

2007-06-16 20:01:16 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Minority

2007-06-16 19:53:25 · answer #4 · answered by ? 2 · 2 0

In order of acceptance:
non-christian (but the person has to believe in some god or the masses won't accept him/her)
minority (although Powell was considered a strong candidate by some so ...)
non-heterosexual (least acceptable to the masses)

2007-06-16 19:54:55 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

I would say a racial minority will become US president before a non-christian, and a non-christian before a gay.

The first non-christian will have to be an agnostic or a Jew. I can't see US voters accepting an atheist, a Muslim or a Hindu.

2007-06-16 19:55:31 · answer #6 · answered by Citizen Justin 7 · 1 0

We can only hope its someone who cares more about the people then their own selfishness, A US government would better be run by someone who puts all religious and racial stereotypes aside and takes whatever situation it is, in terms of if it will benefit people in general or not. ( I for one miss Bill Clinton) His presidency had a lot of peace for people. So if we can get someone like him again ( besides for that scandal) things would be better.

2007-06-16 20:04:35 · answer #7 · answered by ۩MoonLit Muslima۩ 5 · 0 0

.....by definition Non-heterosexual and non-Christian are minorities.

......but I think a white female, African American female or male are more likely to be elected then the first two minorities.

2007-06-16 20:00:05 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Non-Christian.
A non-Christian is not necessarily a faithless person.
I think the majority of the country could be okay with a President who ws spiritual but does not label himself Christian.
My answer would be the same even if you threw "woman" into the mix.

2007-06-16 19:54:46 · answer #9 · answered by JenasaurusX 5 · 0 1

A minority first, a non-Christian second and a homosexual third.

2007-06-16 20:11:50 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers