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.
Beta is a straightwhitemale. The current Democrat party is incapable of nominating someone like that these days. Keep in mind, by 2020, it will have been 16 years since the last time that they did. And they are more radical now.
So unless he decides to go and have it cut off and become uni-sexual, he won't be nominated by the radical super delegates that control the party now.
Its radical to nominate a black man,gay person or women ?????
Along this line of thinking he voted to deregulate Wall Street regulations (I didn’t like the Obama regulations, but voting to further deregulate rather than reform them made it worse):
Its radical to nominate a black man,gay person or women ?????
Showing your true colors I see.
You know you want to call me the R-word, but can't man up enough to do it. This speaks for itself. It's the Democrat's war of White males that's racist. Calling them out doesn't make someone one.
You know what I said is true. You just don't want to admit it.
You know you want to call me the R-word, but can't man up enough to do it. This speaks for itself. .
No, your post is racist, sexist and homophobic, im 100% fine with calling it that.
Quote:
It's the Democrat's war of White males that's racist. Calling them out doesn't make someone one.
You know what I said is true. You just don't want to admit it
You are arguing that there is a war on white men because the Democratic Party nominated a sitting United States senator for President, He won... TWICE and then nominated his Secretary of State as hi successor, who he had previously faced in his primary.
By your own logic, the Republican party hasnt nominated any of those groups, so arent they racist ? Oh, but your logic doesnt go both ways does it , LOL
Well, all I see is there has been a lot of experimentation that's been going on since 2000. We've tried a family dynasty, a black guy, and a newbie biz mogul so far, and we aren't happy yet with any of them.
So- what's next? There's still a lot of experiments we can do; we have never elected a woman, nor a Hispanic, nor an Asian, nor a Jew yet.
Which party is the most ready to plunge into unknown waters next time? One now has that issue decided for it, as Trump announced he's eager to repeat 2016, and if he can, he will make another run.
And, oddly, no matter how badly he screws up repeatedly, he still keeps his dog-loyal troops. Any GOP opponent has to contend with them and with incumbency.
That leaves only one party with the problem of who to nominate. I have no crystal ball, but I tend to believe that, after trying a black man and their own version of a dynasty, with one loss and one win, Trump's next opponent will likely be a white, Anglo, Christian man who has only been married once, and has no great wealth or great novelty.
Can't say who that may be, though. It's a possibility that that guy might not have to be Christian to win. A Jew might be a minor experiment, but Bernie was sure a hit last time.
And since an old guy was just elected for the first time in this century, the Dems may decide nominating an old guy might be the ticket to the White House next election too.
Age has been another experiment, but a longer one than the others, and if Bernie gets the nod, it will be the first time white male candidates from the same generation have opposed each other in the 21st century.
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.