Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
if you have read any of my posts, I think sarah palin is an idiot. nice try at deflection though. don't like the subject, attempt to hijack and start arguments. grow up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Joshua
John McCain did that, or are you confused as to how our elections work?
To the OP: They vote based on who they feel the most guilty about. Obama was elected because they thought that by doing so that it would somehow erase slavery and racism.
They are idiots.
You guys are either unconvincing liars, or you're being intentionally obtuse. And I understand why. You're embarrased...as you should be.
McCain WAS FORCED to put her on that ticket by party hacks and truth be told, SHE wad the only candidate that kept the party faithful (like you two) in line. Without her, he would've bombed even worse.
So again, why should we be lectured to by Palin supporters?
Hmm, i'm not sure i've ever seen any source where he made such a claim. Did Mitt Claim he was White? Hillary claim she was a woman? I seem to remember Mitt claiming mexican maybe. . .
Quote:
Originally Posted by lionsgators
there were more qualified and experienced candidates,
Who Hilary Clinton?
Mitt Romney ?
What makes a person qualified? or more qualified? the only thing i know is GETTING ELECTED
Quote:
Originally Posted by lionsgators
but he had the "history" thing going for him.
yep. He also had a George W Bush who sucked to high hell making it impossible for a Democrat president to lose. less you forget.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lionsgators
I recently read an article claiming that anyone who wanted to challenge must be a woman, because democrats are "eying history again."
I'm guessing that the democrats choice (man or woman) will be hard to beat regardless of the candidates from republican - based on most recent election and national trends. I don't think Obama won because he was "black" an to diminish his election (or Hillary) as a reverse discrimination is just asinine.
Sour grapes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lionsgators
I have often said that any white male that votes for a democrat is a self loather, and this is further proof of why.
Odd. I voted for Obama second time (not 1st, 1st Mccain) because Obama had done a decent job and Mitt Romney looked like an #@#@hole. Self loathing had nothing to do with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lionsgators
it seems like their goal is to nominate anyone but a white male. what's up with that?
Well they also said Hillary was guaranteed to win the nomination last time. I mean seriously. . things change. Could be she is due, after losing to Obama. She seems to have worked hard to put herself in contention. Looks like a better choice than Biden.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lionsgators
I mean, is there no white male democrat that is better suited to run for the white house than a brain damaged ex first lady?
The real question isn't that. The real question is why are you so UPSET about a woman running (and maybe winning) the president? What do you have against it? Other than the odd claim that . .its NOT FAIR. Deomcrats keep putting up popular history making candidates! its just NOT FAIR
I have been wondering this for a while. obama got elected by claiming to be black. there were more qualified and experienced candidates, but he had the "history" thing going for him. I recently read an article claiming that anyone who wanted to challenge must be a woman, because democrats are "eying history again." I have often said that any white male that votes for a democrat is a self loather, and this is further proof of why. it seems like their goal is to nominate anyone but a white male. what's up with that? I mean, is there no white male democrat that is better suited to run for the white house than a brain damaged ex first lady? don't get me started on warren. are there any "up and comers" that are white men in the democrat party, or are democrats finally phasing them out of their cult?
The people pushing Herman Cain and Ben Carson and Mia Love and every minority w/ a Conservative pulse into the spotlight have the b@!!s to say Dems are picking history over good candidates... ... HAHAHA
I have been wondering this for a while. obama got elected by claiming to be black. there were more qualified and experienced candidates, but he had the "history" thing going for him. I recently read an article claiming that anyone who wanted to challenge must be a woman, because democrats are "eying history again." I have often said that any white male that votes for a democrat is a self loather, and this is further proof of why. it seems like their goal is to nominate anyone but a white male. what's up with that? I mean, is there no white male democrat that is better suited to run for the white house than a brain damaged ex first lady? don't get me started on warren. are there any "up and comers" that are white men in the democrat party, or are democrats finally phasing them out of their cult?
There are always more qualified and experienced candidates. But since this is politics, they don't always get nominated.
Anyway, I don't think Liberals/the Left are more interested in 'making history' than the GOP/the Right. It just happens to be that history was made or is being made while a Democrat is in the White House. And not every event is necessarily something with which they want to be associated nor remembered for.
Either way, their objectives are being achieved - for better or worse - so how they did it will be forgotten history.
There you teabaggers go again. Always obsessed with race.
This is coming from the crowd that blathers on about civil rights, secession, nullification, racism, the Ku Klux Klan, slaveholders, Uncle Toms, blah blah blah. You don't have to look as far away as the teabaggers to find people obsessed with race - indeed, the Tea Party doesn't talk or think about about race nearly as much as their opponents do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieB.Good
The people pushing Herman Cain and Ben Carson and Mia Love and every minority w/ a Conservative pulse into the spotlight have the b@!!s to say Dems are picking history over good candidates... ... HAHAHA
They probably put them into the spotlight to demonstrate that conservatives aren't just a bunch of old white men, and to demonstrate that they are not racist and would vote for a minority without hesitation as long as he/she was a conservative and/or Tea Party person. For instance, a Democrat might say "conservatives are racist", and a conservative would reply "if I was a racist I wouldn't be campaigning and voting for black and latino candidates such as X, Y, and Z". If their opponents didn't bring up race so much you wouldn't see as much of that, although Herman Cain and Ben Carson seem to be the type of person (be it black or white) conservatives like to put in big-time political office such as President or Senator. Mia Love is just trying to run for Congress, and doesn't have nearly as much stature as Cain and Carson had/did within the conservative movement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Joshua
John McCain did that, or are you confused as to how our elections work?
And John McCain is an establishment Republican! Furthermore, the Tea Party didn't congeal until the aftermath of the bailouts and the financial crisis, which is a few months after Palin was selected. The origin of the Tea Party was during the Ron Paul presidential campaign in December 2007, and for the next year the impulse that later became the Tea Party sort of festered. While many in the Tea Party are fond of Palin, they didn't have anything at all to do with selecting or advocating for her, and I'd go so far to say that Tea Partiers only really became fond of Palin after she praised the Tea Party in 2009, after she lost the election.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MIKEETC
There are always more qualified and experienced candidates. But since this is politics, they don't always get nominated.
Anyway, I don't think Liberals/the Left are more interested in 'making history' than the GOP/the Right. It just happens to be that history was made or is being made while a Democrat is in the White House. And not every event is necessarily something with which they want to be associated nor remembered for.
Either way, their objectives are being achieved - for better or worse - so how they did it will be forgotten history.
[literally and figuratively]
Everyone, conservatives as well as liberals (and even libertarians on occasion), is at least somewhat attracted to the idea of making history, of electing the first member of this or that group to some office. I think you hear more about making history from Democrats because they are the ones who usually make it, by simple virtue of them having more female and minority candidates. Occasionally you see Republicans make history, with Tim Scott of South Carolina being a prime example (first black Senator from the South since 1881), and they make as big of a fuss over it as Democrats do when they make history in a similar way.
Everyone, conservatives as well as liberals (and even libertarians on occasion), is at least somewhat attracted to the idea of making history, of electing the first member of this or that group to some office. I think you hear more about making history from Democrats because they are the ones who usually make it, by simple virtue of them having more female and minority candidates. Occasionally you see Republicans make history, with Tim Scott of South Carolina being a prime example (first black Senator from the South since 1881), and they make as big of a fuss over it as Democrats do when they make history in a similar way.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
... HAHAHA
