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.
Outside of the main question of; Why do the "super rich" support socialist? the other question who will sway the female vote. (Media speak)
Hillary and Obama are barely left of center. God forbid a real liberal run.
I don't support either because I feel that Biden and Richardson are much more qualified. Still, Clinton and Obama are heads and shoulders better and actually have morals, unlike the Republican candidates.
If Hillary and Obama are not "left of center" nor their ideas socialist in theory, can someone explain just what is considered middle of the road on their agenda?
Just wondering
Hillary and Obama are barely left of center. God forbid a real liberal run.
I don't support either because I feel that Biden and Richardson are much more qualified. Still, Clinton and Obama are heads and shoulders better and actually have morals, unlike the Republican candidates.
Do you mean there are actually Republican candidates in the fold?
Outside of Ron Paul, who is actually Libertarian, all the other drones are RINO's aka Republican in Name Only.
If you look at all of their voting records, sponsored bills, and acts as state or local officials, under the description of true Republican principals dating back to party origination from the Whig's, zero of them are actually Republican.
If anyone thinks for a minute there is much difference between the Bush's and Clinton's then I would love to have a toke of what your smoking.
This dynasty has been in power since 1988 and has done nothing but continue the same program. Higher taxation, larger government, unsecured borders, neo-con foreign policy, and passing our entire manufacturing base to Communist China.
IMO, none of the above can be considered moral, again maybe Paul but he does not stand a chance. It's all about the money now.
I don't want to hijack this thread; but I have always wondered why so many of us Americans are afraid of the Government? In other countries its the other way around and things get done. Over here the Government does what they want, and what is the best that we can manage to do in protest?
Write E-mails and letters to CNN and Fox News complaining. Maybe if we were not so scared of our Government and got out there and protested and stood up for our rights a little more we wouldn't all be so frustrated and going at eachothers throats (republicans vs democrats; conservatives vs liberals; red state vs blue state; little league vs private schools; etc...) Sure, there were the protests of the 60s; but that was the exception to how things are done around here not the rule. And things sure did get done back then; everything from Civil Rights to pulling out of Vietnam during the "Red Scare" paranoia of pre 80s America.
I think those in power actually want us to fight with eachother because that way we don't have time to shout at them. God forbid we should get up off our couches and actually do something.
Ever since I started travelling abroad heavily back in the mid 90s and experienced how things are done in other modern, developed countries I have wondered what our problem is and why we are so afraid of our Government. I have also wondered when and where did so many people draw a line in the sand and say that either you think the U.S. is the biggest and best in every way or you don't love your country. As far as I'm concerned loving your country is believing in it, highlighting the positive while accepting the negative and looking for ways to make things better.
Most of the women who support Hillary are unfortunately not very well informed on politics, and the important events of the day. I've asked several women what issues are important to them, and what they believe Hillary stands for. Most cannot name a single issue. . .
One voter here in New Hampshire in fact was asked about why she supported Hillary. Her first and only response was in relation to the 6-week paid leave for mothers and how it isn't nearly enough. Unbelievable and downright frightening. One issue... and with everything the federal government has to address and is only SUPPOSE to be AUTHORIZED to address. The dumb get dumber, not that I believe I have even heard any position on this issue from Hillary any more than the next yo-yo, be it Ron Paul, Barrack Obama, or Mitt Romney.
It really is frightening from my persepctive, as these candidates pimp themselves around my local region. Pitifully, there are suddenly plenty of Hillary supporters in the "Live Free or Die" state, a state that once was red amongst a sea of blue states and understood the concept and benefits of limited government. Some of it is the "Mass"-intrusion in recent times, but I'm starting to realize that maybe I need to start taking more seriously the possibility of Hillary in the oval office in 2008. If we only could drum up enough support for passing a civics and history before one is allowed within 50 feet of a voting booth.
Do you mean there are actually Republican candidates in the fold?
Outside of Ron Paul, who is actually Libertarian, all the other drones are RINO's aka Republican in Name Only.
If you look at all of their voting records, sponsored bills, and acts as state or local officials, under the description of true Republican principals dating back to party origination from the Whig's, zero of them are actually Republican.
If anyone thinks for a minute there is much difference between the Bush's and Clinton's then I would love to have a toke of what your smoking.
This dynasty has been in power since 1988 and has done nothing but continue the same program. Higher taxation, larger government, unsecured borders, neo-con foreign policy, and passing our entire manufacturing base to Communist China.
IMO, none of the above can be considered moral, again maybe Paul but he does not stand a chance. It's all about the money now.
Excellent post, and very well stated. I find myself in complete agreement (except for Ron Paul). The current Republican candidates are nothing more than RINOs and one whacko (Ron Paul) who do not even remotely embody the two most basic GOP principles of fiscal responsibility and smaller government. Clinton's and Bush's foreign policy have been identical, except with regards to China.
As to Ron Paul, I wouldn't go so far as to give him the moral high ground either. Ron Paul voted to send US troops to war then flat out refused to fund those troops. That makes him morally irresponsible at best, and anti-military at worst. If Ron Paul didn't want to fund the military he shouldn't be voting to send them into battle.
One voter here in New Hampshire in fact was asked about why she supported Hillary. Her first and only response was in relation to the 6-week paid leave for mothers and how it isn't nearly enough. Unbelievable and downright frightening.
She should be the poster-child for the repeal of the 19th Amendment. It is no coincidence that the US took a decidedly sharp turn to the left and began going downhill ever since that amendment was ratified.
Yes, but look at where you live, ma'am. I assure you that a majority of women nationally will support Hillary.
not in florida they won't.
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.
