[Anhil8tor]

I can't see hiliary getting elected...


and what happened to Obamas chrisma

[what?]

hurry the fuck up bird, I'm about to go trick or treating

[Anhil8tor]

hurry the fuck up bird, I'm about to go trick or treating

what are you dressing as?

[what?]

what are you dressing as?

Larry Craig

[BIRD33]

nowhere in my comment did I talk about a republican candidate, with the exception of suggesting that I could be effective against a clinton/obama ticket (I might have been joking). most of the political news I get is off the morning show on the rock station I listen to, and I don't much give a fuck yet, so if you're looking to debate this with me you're gonna have to come down to my level. the polls I've heard of have half the country voting against hillary. how many of the half that would consider casting a ballot for her are southern women who like the idea of a female president but won't vote for a black man? I've said before that this could be the election a 3rd party candidate finally wins if they run on the platform of "I'm a non-partisan white guy"

Do I think that your point about some people not voting for a women or a black is valid?Sure.Do I think that the GOP and Bush have shit the bed with Iraq and other issues so bad that it would make voting for Clinton who is basically an extension of her husband(a very popular president) a possibility?Yes.Bush needed the evangelicals to squeak out a victory (52%).With them probably not showing up it makes it easier for the Dems to get over 50%.A third party candidate would only drain votes from the GOP since Democrats are very united right now.Kerry lost because evangelicals came out in force against him and independents went for Bush.Now evangelicals are either not voting or going third party and independents are swinging towards the Dem's.

[Anhil8tor]

Larry Craig

*tap tap tap*

[Tribal Dragon]

*tap tap tap*

:ccrap:






:lool:

[what?]

Do I think that your point about some people not voting for a women or a black is valid?Sure.Do I think that the GOP and Bush have shit the bed with Iraq and other issues so bad that it would make voting for Clinton who is basically an extension of her husband(a very popular president) a possibility?Yes.Bush needed the evangelicals to squeak out a victory (52%.With them probably not showing up it makes it easier for the Dems to get over 50%.A third party candidate would only drain votes from the GOP since Democrats are very united right now.Kerry lost because evangelicals came out in force against him and independents went for Bush.Now evangelicals are either not voting or going third party and independents are swinging towards the Dem's.

I agree that the republicans have spotted the democrats two touchdowns in the last and in this election. the dems seem to keep finding a way to lose. do you seriously think that kerry was a good candidate? from what I hear the hillary's biggest weakness in the primary is that the party is concerned she can't win in the general. Obama's camp is telling people that he's the second coming of bill, not hillary. do you want hillary in the white house? can you not think of a half dozen better candidates in the party? I've spent no time researching it, but I'd guess one of them is Obama (edit - not just 'cause he's black either, bird). the upper echelon democrats can't all be disingenuous assholes that talk out of both sides of their mouths, can they? the dems know that hillary is so polarizing that she's got the toughest race to run in the general, but you're hell bent on nominating her to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory again?

[BIRD33]

[SIZE="3"]Clinton would cream Giuliani, poll finds[/SIZE]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1007/6644.html

How did the the Dems lose the last election?They won the majority.

Kerry lost because of a combination of being swiftboated which whatever you think of Kerry it was a travesty for a guy like Bush to question his service credentials and the fact that the religious right was whipped up into a frenzy by that shiny object that is gay marriage and a feeling of obligation to support the president they worked hard to elect in the first place in a time of war.Not voting for bush for the second time would have meant for them that they screwed up in the first place.You are stuck believing the spin that the GOP wants you to believe I suspect because you watch Fox news.Look at the polling numbers in the article I posted.

" She wins the South."


Thats pretty amazing considering the south has been owned by the GOP for 8 years.

"She polls evenly with voters who attend church at least once a week."

Again thats amazing considering the lock the GOP had on it.


Democrats are seen as the party “more concerned about people like me” (by 29 percentage points) and the party best able to bring about “needed change” (by 22 percentage points).

This is a change election and all the GOP candidates are not saying anything to different that what GW has proposed and thats not going to work.

The one thing not mentioned in this poll is how well she's doing with women.She's killing everyone when it come to that stat which was virtually a solid lock for republicans because they were usually looking for a daddy figure to lead them and the GOP was seen as the party of national security.

Other polling has also showed that for the first time in decades Americans now see the two parties as equally qualified to face down national security threats — erasing the “security advantage” Republicans have long relied on.

You can't just rely on old GOP talking points about Hillary and whitewater etc.. when the major issue of the day is American soldiers dying in a pointless war.Like it or not the republicans are tied at the hip to Iraq and barring a miracle over there in the next year people will still have the same feeling about the party that lead us there on false pretenses and will want to radically change the direction this country is going.


You seem so sure that Hillary is the wrong choice but offer no real explanation for why.Would electing the second coming of Bill Clinton like Obama's people are claiming be that bad?Who's administration was better for America the current one or the previous one?I think its pretty obvious but the larger point is this election is really about change and voting the party out of office thats brought disgrace to America.How many phrases or events like Guantanomo, WMD's, Halliburton,Niger Uranium, Water Boarding,Spying on US citizens,No bid contracts,Alberto Gonzales,Preemptive war,linking Iraq and 9\11,Rumsfeld's medal of freedom,Katrina,1 trillion! spent in iraq etc... bring a feeling of shame to you?This election can't be won by scaring the population into voting for someone.Thats all the GOP knows how to do at this point and Hillary for all her faults is a way better choice than any GOP candidate.Do I think she's the best choice?Probably not but she's got good ideas and is the most likely to be able to win and taking power from people like Bush is the most important thing right now.

[what?]

I don't watch fox news. my political news comes from a rock station and this site. is giuliani a lock for the republican nomination? does hillary cream thompson? mccain? whoever the other guys are?

hillary wins the south? didn't she basically renounce the south after bill was sworn in? I haven't seen any polling on this so feel free to shoot me down, but I'm not sure I buy it, except for maybe against giuliani.

hillary seems to try to be all things to all people and it plays as false. most politicians are like that but she has very little charisma to smooth it over, like bill did. she reminds me of kerry somewhat in that respect. I haven't done any research about universal health care and her plan there but I'd guess it will raise taxes significantly.

on security, I feel better with republicans in general than I do with democrats. was the decision in iraq made the wrong way - yes. has the plan been carried out poorly - probably. were there/are there bigger fish to fry - maybe. is the world a better place without saddam - absolutely. was it worth the cost - I don't know. would we be safer with democrats in power the last 7 years - doubtful

I think bush et all set the republicans back a long way. I don't consider myself really party affiliated, I line up with republicans on fiscal and security issues but with dems more on social issues and a little of both on government. I'd vote for a democrat I felt comfortable with. I don't feel comfortable with hillary.

you say taking power from bush is most important right now. I doubt any of the republican candidates are pressing for bush's endorsement. bush is going out of power, and the republicans will have to indicate change in the party to keep the white house. they'll distance themselves from how the decisions were made and implemented while maintaining the the decisions themselves were necessary, and assure you that they'll make the necessary changes. in response, the democrats will say "we've got this licked because people want change" and charge hillary out there? where's the sense in that? if you've got better candidates, put them out there

[WoolyGoat]

how's Romney look?

[Anhil8tor]

I don't vote along party lines...

but chef cried when louisiana elected a republican governor this year.

[BIRD33]

I don't watch fox news. my political news comes from a rock station and this site. is giuliani a lock for the republican nomination? does hillary cream thompson? mccain? whoever the other guys are?

Guiliani seems like the lock.Romneys a mormon and that doesnt seem to mesh with the south.Its kind of funny, the gop is almost saying hey were not just racist against blacks but also other white guys.He's also a "flip flopper".Thompson doesnt have the fire to win it.Mcain has a shot but he's going to have to take on Guliani to do it and I think he's gunning for a vp spot at this point.Ive only seen polls for Guliani vs. Clinton because he's far out in front on national polls.All in all Clinton has big advantages against anyone in certian demographics that used to be locked up for republicans.

hillary wins the south? didn't she basically renounce the south after bill was sworn in? I haven't seen any polling on this so feel free to shoot me down, but I'm not sure I buy it, except for maybe against giuliani.

Thompson would do well there but I doubt he'll get nominated.The polls show her beating Giuliani in the south which makes sense because evangelicals won't vote for Giuliani because his pro abortionpromo's stance.They won't vote for Hillary either but she'll get the blacks and the southerners who loved bill clinton.He'll be all over the south smoozing people.He's great at that.


hillary seems to try to be all things to all people and it plays as false. most politicians are like that but she has very little charisma to smooth it over, like bill did. she reminds me of kerry somewhat in that respect. I haven't done any research about universal health care and her plan there but I'd guess it will raise taxes significantly.

She does have a problem of pandering but thats not new for politicians trying to get elected.Remember bush as the compassionate conservative?She actually impressed me with her poise on some of her answers and don't underestimate Bill bringing the charisma for her while she looks presidential.I hate to break it to you but taxes need to be raised regardless if we adopt universal healthcare or not.We are basically passing off a huge huge debt to our kids.How have you sacrificed personally or finance wise for the war thats going on right now that costs a billion dollars a month?If you're like me not much.Thats insane.I'm sure you remember those old ww2 posters selling war bonds or telling you to conserve rubber, we arent doing anything like that.Unless we raise taxes we'll be passing a huge debt onto our kids due to reckless spending.Republicans used to kill Democrats over spending.You won't ever hear that again after this administration.I read Warren Buffet said the other day that people in his economic bracket arent taxed enough.The GOP protects the rich plain and simple.

on security, I feel better with republicans in general than I do with democrats. was the decision in iraq made the wrong way - yes. has the plan been carried out poorly - probably. were there/are there bigger fish to fry - maybe. is the world a better place without saddam - absolutely. was it worth the cost - I don't know. would we be safer with democrats in power the last 7 years - doubtful

Kim Jong Ill has nukes.Why was Saddam more dangerous?Don't think for a second we would have invaded iraq if they didnt have oil.The world would be better without a lot of people but you need to recognize we arent in charge of the world and that type of thinking got us into this mess today.You offer no reason why the Dems are weaker on defense, seems like just a gut feeling.Gut feelings got us into Iraq.I don't think you've got a good overall view of the world and the ramifications of us flying off the handle and not trying to negotiate with countries we disagree with.Look at how we handled the single greatest threat to destroy america in the last century, russia.

I think bush et all set the republicans back a long way. I don't consider myself really party affiliated, I line up with republicans on fiscal and security issues but with dems more on social issues and a little of both on government. I'd vote for a democrat I felt comfortable with. I don't feel comfortable with hillary.

why?Who do you feel comfortable with and why?

you say taking power from bush is most important right now. I doubt any of the republican candidates are pressing for bush's endorsement. bush is going out of power, and the republicans will have to indicate change in the party to keep the white house. they'll distance themselves from how the decisions were made and implemented while maintaining the the decisions themselves were necessary, and assure you that they'll make the necessary changes. in response, the democrats will say "we've got this licked because people want change" and charge hillary out there? where's the sense in that? if you've got better candidates, put them out there

You still havent established why she isnt a good candidate.You're all gut feelings and relying on a general impression of her that dates back 8 years.All the republican candidates say they will continue the iraq mission until we win.What is winning?I bet you don't know because I sure don't know what the hell that means.Doesnt that scare you that my neighbors and yours are getting killed for a purpose we can't define?Hillary said the other night she'd remove all troops from Iraq except a small force to attack and kill Alqeida in Iraq( a group that didnt exist until we invaded).That right there seems like a good enough reason to support her rather than blindly throwing our people to a dead end cause like every gop candidate except Ron Paul wants to do.

[BIRD33]

how's Romney look?

He's supposed to win Iowa but he's out spent everyone to do it.He's in trouble when it comes to the core base of the GOP.

[Sassy]

He's supposed to win Iowa but he's out spent everyone to do it.He's in trouble when it comes to the core base of the GOP.

I see. supposed to win Iowa but he is out spent everyone to do it is
supposed to win Iowa but he is out spent everyone to do it
?How long has he been there?

[what?]

You still havent established why she isnt a good candidate.You're all gut feelings and relying on a general impression of her that dates back 8 years.All the republican candidates say they will continue the iraq mission until we win.What is winning?I bet you don't know because I sure don't know what the hell that means.Doesnt that scare you that my neighbors and yours are getting killed for a purpose we can't define?Hillary said the other night she'd remove all troops from Iraq except a small force to attack and kill Alqeida in Iraq( a group that didnt exist until we invaded).That right there seems like a good enough reason to support her rather than blindly throwing our people to a dead end cause like every gop candidate except Ron Paul wants to do.

gut feelings and general impression are all I've got to go on, link me to some decent articles/research/etc about all the candidates? I trust you to steer me in the right direction. as for the little I have read/seen/heard - am I right or wrong that the biggest strike against hillary in the primary is that they're concerned she can't win the general? why do other members of her party think that? surely one of them can articulate her divisiveness (is that a word?) and pandering (is she worse than most, or just scrutinized more?) better than a dumb redneck like me.

again, I'm not a bush admirer. he was the tallest midget in both elections. I think he's done more harm than good, particularly in his second term. again, how could the dems not put somebody with enough credibility up to slaughter him? I'd have voted for them. 3 sound bites took kerry down - a google search during the vetting process could have told you enough not to put him in that situation (of course I'm exaggerating, but how did they not know that his service record and voting record was going to bite him in the ass?)

[BIRD33]

gut feelings and general impression are all I've got to go on, link me to some decent articles/research/etc about all the candidates? I trust you to steer me in the right direction. as for the little I have read/seen/heard - am I right or wrong that the biggest strike against hillary in the primary is that they're concerned she can't win the general? why do other members of her party think that? surely one of them can articulate her divisiveness (is that a word?) and pandering (is she worse than most, or just scrutinized more?) better than a dumb redneck like me.

again, I'm not a bush admirer. he was the tallest midget in both elections. I think he's done more harm than good, particularly in his second term. again, how could the dems not put somebody with enough credibility up to slaughter him? I'd have voted for them. 3 sound bites took kerry down - a google search during the vetting process could have told you enough not to put him in that situation (of course I'm exaggerating, but how did they not know that his service record and voting record was going to bite him in the ass?)

Clintons biggest worry is theres a poll out there where almost half that responded said they would never vote for Hillary but its misleading.Now thats not a good thing but figure 30 to 40% of those people would never vote for a Democrat or a women or black at all.Thats just the way it is.She just needs to swing independents that voted for Bush over Kerry which trends now indicate that the independent vote is now stongly in the democrats hands.You also have to figure that the 50% who would never vote for Clinton 20% are evangelicals who arent going to vote for guiliani because of abortion and will either sit the whole thing out or go third party which draws away from the republican candidate.She's a devisive figure no doubt and she has a lot to overcome but her #'s have improved as people who don't know much about her hear her speak which is a good sign.For her its all about knocking down old assumptions about herself and creating new impressions.Keep in mind that Kerry ran a terrible campaign and barely lost and this time around the GOP base is scattered and independents are going democrat.

You can't compare this election with the last.Kerry was going against a war time president and like I said a lot of people suspected bush was a phony but voted for him again because they would have felt like they fucked up voting for him in the first place.You need to avoid getting caught up in the soundbites and slogans that the GOP repeats over and over so whenever you think about the person you don't even consider the issues you just focus on that one stupid thing that person might have said.The swiftboating of kerry is one of the biggest travestys in American politics ever when you consider Bush was doing coke and awol while kerry was fighting for his life in nam.I can't point you in the direction of anything thats going to break everything down completly but I suggest reading the new york times or even http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/, he's a gay republican that has AIDS(so you'll identify) that supported the war in Iraq but has now wisened up to the fraud that bush is and makes some good points.He also hates hillary but I don't agree with him on that.Whats the biggest issue for you, the war, the economy, the enviroment?Whatever it is you need to vote accordingly.For me its the war and I feel I need to support the person who has the best chance of winning and turning around the disgraceful policys of the bush administration.

[what?]

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/, he's a gay republican that has AIDS(so you'll identify)

I thought I already said I wasn't really a republican ><

sound bytes and slogans are all that a lot of people are going to pay attention to. do I think that's any more sensible than voting against a woman or a black man? no. but am I right about it? yes. you say yourself that there are probably better candidates out there than hillary - why won't the dems nominate them? I'm not sure how I feel about giuliani, but if thompson is a better candidate than him I vote he's the republican nominee. I'd have to look at his record but just from seeing him speak on a few issues I'd vote for obama over hillary, maybe over giuliani.

I guess my biggest issue after security is the economy. when I say "security" I don't necessarily mean the war, although the two are obviously linked, but rather a feeling that the population is safe from attack. I'd like to not have to think too much "are we safe?" in my daily life. after that I'm for economic opportunity and personal responsibility. I don't want to be subsidizing any more sorry motherfuckers than we already are. mostly I think we're trusting whoever we elect to make our biggest decisions for us. I trusted bush more than kerry last time - I'm still not convinced I decided that wrongly even in hindsight because I think we'd have different and possibly larger problems under a kerry administration. and at the end of the day the question "who do you trust more?" is a gut feeling, based on the information that's available and that you've paid attention to. I'm sure you're well read on all the candidates - who do you want in the white house? if the decision was all yours, do you pick hillary? obama? thompson? whoever's managing the phillies?

[what?]

this thread has done wonders for my crackers total

[BIRD33]

I thought I already said I wasn't really a republican ><

sound bytes and slogans are all that a lot of people are going to pay attention to. do I think that's any more sensible than voting against a woman or a black man? no. but am I right about it? yes. you say yourself that there are probably better candidates out there than hillary - why won't the dems nominate them? I'm not sure how I feel about giuliani, but if thompson is a better candidate than him I vote he's the republican nominee. I'd have to look at his record but just from seeing him speak on a few issues I'd vote for obama over hillary, maybe over giuliani.

I guess my biggest issue after security is the economy. when I say "security" I don't necessarily mean the war, although the two are obviously linked, but rather a feeling that the population is safe from attack. I'd like to not have to think too much "are we safe?" in my daily life. after that I'm for economic opportunity and personal responsibility. I don't want to be subsidizing any more sorry motherfuckers than we already are. mostly I think we're trusting whoever we elect to make our biggest decisions for us. I trusted bush more than kerry last time - I'm still not convinced I decided that wrongly even in hindsight because I think we'd have different and possibly larger problems under a kerry administration. and at the end of the day the question "who do you trust more?" is a gut feeling, based on the information that's available and that you've paid attention to. I'm sure you're well read on all the candidates - who do you want in the white house? if the decision was all yours, do you pick hillary? obama? thompson? whoever's managing the phillies?

You are a republican.I think thats the defining thing that seperates Dems and Republicans.I have all sorts of friends who are republicans who feel they pulled themselves up from no where and worked to where they are today with nobodys help which is true to a certain point but these guys went to the same white suburban schools with me that had good teachers and had both parents active in their life.That makes a huge difference when it comes to shaping a persons overall view of life,how to treat people and how hard they need to work to be a success.Education is the key to getting all these people off the streets and not killing each other over coke.Theres no hope in inner cities with poor schools.Your father if you knew him never graduated so its no big deal if you dont.I see it every day when I drive around Philly and read the papers.Its a terrible cycle where the only guy in the neighborhood who needs to know how to spell is the guy who air brushes those white tshirts they wear to funerals with the guys name on it who got shot.In laymens terms the better the education you provide to these sorry motherfuckers the less chance of them mugging you when they get older.I know it sucks that its come to that but its almost human nature.Republicans bristle at paying anyones way because they believe they were born smart but they were just lucky.Unfortunately the education system is broken in this country and its no coincidence that the least educated are the ones most likely to commit crimes or be on welfare.Why not try to change that by improving schools with tax dollars instead of spending trillions on a war?

As far as who I like I try not to get swayed by peoples personalities and focus on their stance on issues.I was a mcain guy a little bit until he kept backing the surge a few months back.I like both Clinton and Obama almost equally.I think Obama brings a fresh approach which I like but I think they are both on the right track.