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.
Go ahead and elect a Hispanic governor. Right now there are three GOP Hispanic Govs and zero Dems. I'll wait right here. Change my oil after 3000 miles.
We already have. Remember Bill Richardson? But a black president or a woman president? You're not talking about a state, you're talking about the country. Republicans will not. Come on, you know this.
Go ahead and elect a Hispanic governor. Right now there are three GOP Hispanic Govs and zero Dems. I'll wait right here. Change my oil after 3000 miles.
^Well put!
What amazes me is that some people don't know how the presidential election nomination process works. They seem to think that just anyone can nominate someone. They keep asking if posters would nominate a candidate:
Both major political parties in the United States select their presidential candidates through a process of primary elections. However, voters do not directly select presidential nominees in these primaries. Instead, they choose delegates from their respective states who will attend a national party convention to nominate a presidential candidate for their party.
It's hard to believe discussions like this can happen... without a trace of irony.
This sums up my take on this well. I actually made an effort to read through the thread, but quickly saw it was pretty much devoid of any traction. The completely partisan and blatant attempt at smear just bleached the tires. The subsequent descent of adlring Obamabots and their opposites made it obvious things were going nowhere fast.
The question posed was just an open invitation to strife. I guess we call that "troll". I've seen far less blatant, and far more worthy, topic for threads deleted for less. Yes...I'm dismissing the question OP. I can't even fathom how anyone sees any "intellect" displayed in this. Merely perceived, but very nebulous. Honestly, since this is nothing but individual opinion, with zero supporting criteria, I don't feel I've slighted the subject with lack of commentary. But hey....I don't have any of that vastly enlightened leftist "intellect".
Not the last, but a shameful regression by Republicans
Given that the Republican party is the party of Dixie, without a doubt, the obstruction is the product of racism and ignorance. It is a shameful, embarrassing time for the GOP, and it will be viewed as such in the future.
See, that's so easy to type. I could type that I want world peace and for everyone to have a puppy.
Republicans will not nominate a black or a woman for president. Saying you would choose Carson over Obama because you agree more with him is meaningless. Would you actually nominate Carson? Would you be able to see it through all the way to the nomination? That's the rub. There may be a handful of Republicans that would, but the Republican Party overall will still choose the white guy. Carson would have to win all the Republican primaries and make it all the way to the Republican Convention. That's where the rhetoric ends and reality sets in.
You are mistaken, but sadly too myopic to see it. I will also note you injected me into the discussion when I was speaking for what (R's) would do. Personally I would not vote for Carson because he is not qualified to be president in my view. Then again neither was Obama. Still it has little to do with your absurd assertion.
If the (R's) wanted to reverse your simplistic generalization, they would say (D's) will not nominate a Hispanic, they only nominate white males up until a black man. Heck I don't think a Hispanic has ever run for the (D) nomination, yet several are running and might very well be the (R) nominee. So (D's) therefore must be racist against Hispanics.
See how stupid that sounds?
The (R's) obstructed Bill Clinton and hated him like poison because of his smarmy behavior and lack of ethics. As you may recall he is about as white and male as you can get. Oh wait, the (R's) actually impeached him. Did they do the same with Obama, the black president
The big difference between Bill and Barak is that Bill was pragmatic enough to want to accomplish things, and recognized sticking to intractable liberal ideology would only result in gridlock. So he negotiated with Gingrich to get things done.
He got some of what he wanted and so did the (D's). The same is true of Reagan who had to deal with Tip O'Neal and the (D's).
Hence the reason he raised taxes, but also got some things in return. Both Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton were successful governors, hence loaded with executive experience.
Not so much with Obama, who is one of the least experienced presidents we have ever had.
So you can blindly stick to your delusion or PC brainwashing and believe Obama is the victim of racism at the hands of the (R's). But it is just as much a false narrative as the race merchants promoting of "hands up, don't shoot".
The old white men that run the Democrat Party aren't ready for that.
Don't forget about the old white women. Hillary, Nancy, and Dianne.
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.
They keep asking if posters would nominate a candidate:
Not the last, but a shameful regression by Republicans
