Hillary Clinton Might Be the Least Electable Democrat

gimmesometruth27

here we go again, people saying who is electable and who is unelectable. vote for your candidate. the media did this same thing saying dean and kerry were unelectable in 2004. that had to have brainwashed a few of the sheep in this country, and look who we got stuck with again. vote for your candidate and don't listen to people who tell you your guy/gal is unelectable. don't let them sway you away from who and what you believe in. if you do that we end up with another republican or a new republican-lite (middle of the road dem) president and nothing will ever change.

wtf does it mean to be unelectable anyway, and who has the ability to dub someone unelectable?

SoonForgotten2

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

here we go again, people saying who is electable and who is unelectable. vote for your candidate. the media did this same thing saying dean and kerry were unelectable in 2004. that had to have brainwashed a few of the sheep in this country, and look who we got stuck with again. vote for your candidate and don't listen to people who tell you your guy/gal is unelectable. don't let them sway you away from who and what you believe in. if you do that we end up with another republican or a new republican-lite (middle of the road dem) president and nothing will ever change.

wtf does it mean to be unelectable anyway, and who has the ability to dub someone unelectable?

I think unelectable means someone who based on polls looks to be slaughtered in an actual election against the opposition party. Now of course a lot cane happen between now and the presidential election, but personally this news about Hillary does not surprise me and the points made sound highly valid. Personally I cringe at the thought of HC winning the Democratic nom because I strongly doubt she could defeat any but the worst Republican candidates.

my2hands

the only people saying that a woman or a black dont have a chance... are all white people...usually white men... afraid to lose control and afraid of change




they are currently the 2 leading cadidiates in the countries largest political party...

i think we are ready... i think it is overdue... and i think we will have a black president

with edwards as VP

my2hands

lest not forget the majority of the country is either a woman or a minority

Indian Summer

my2hands wrote:

lest not forget the majority of the country is either a woman or a minority

yeah, but a Majority of the Minority doesn't vote.

my2hands

Indian Summer wrote:

yeah, but a Majority of the Minority doesn't vote.

now they have a reason too...

they have only had white males to choose from... i think if obama gets through the primary you will see a record # of minority voters

Indian Summer

my2hands wrote:

now they have a reason too...

they have only had white males to choose from... i think if obama gets through the primary you will see a record # of minority voters

I hope you're right.

DriftingByTheStorm

my2hands wrote:

now they have a reason too...

they have only had white males to choose from... i think if obama gets through the primary you will see a record # of minority voters

So the majority of the minority is intrinsicly rascist and doesn't feel compelled to cast a vote unless the candidate is black?

Even if it's not latent rascism, it's pretty stupid if the only motivating factor is the candidates skin color.

Why didn't they vote for Al Sharpton or Jessie Jackson in past elections?

:rolleyes:

Hell, the guy is black, he must be a great man and agree with me.

God know as a white man, i have agreed with EVERY candidate for president in past elections!

:rolleyes:

RolandTD20Kdrummer

I wonder how long it's going to take people to realize Obama and Hillary are pro war and are only offering (very) transparent lip service just to get votes?

plastic city... long live the CFR gang...

Let's hope we see some integrity voters come into full understanding over the next year and get the country back on track.

MrBrian

sweetpotato wrote:

unfortunately, i think this country is not yet ready to elect either a woman or a black prez. and edwards has been through the whole presidential run before (as the VP candidate, i mean). he's not perfect, i'm the first to admit that. but he's our best hope, imo.
.

best hope for what exactly? he's one of the worst dems, if he is your best hope. Then we are all really screwed.

Edwards is a pro war zionist bulldog. But sadly that's a positive for some voters.

DriftingByTheStorm

MrBrian wrote:

best hope for what exactly? he's one of the worst dems, if he is your best hope. Then we are all really screwed.

Edwards is a pro war zionist bulldog. But sadly that's a positive for some voters.

Why do people keep throwing the word "zionist" around willy-nilly?

The term has a LOT of connotations, many of which revolve around militant jews pushing for a homeland ... but fundamentaly "zionism" was a movement born out of extreme oppression which simply stated, "With a homeland, we can be free and safe".

I understand that militaristic governments that use force to maintain control of land are not prefereable to peaceful ones, but to spew garbage about "zionism" simply implies that you somehow believe jews are to blame just because they wanted a place to call home.

Remember it was the BRITISH who pulled out of the BMOPalistine and gave it to the Jews! Not only that, but they offered HALF of it to the Arabs.

Instead of accepting, the ENTIRE Arab world went to war with Israel the next day ... and LOST.

So Israel took the whole lot.

Can you really blame them for that?

Are you dragging up history beyond that?

From the holocaust? You blame the zionist jews of the holocaust who stood up against hitler and rallied their people with a vision of a new home outside of the ghettos and deathcamps?

Or do you take it back even farther in to the depths of the 1800s where you think the greedy jew was unjustified in his belief that the holy land was still a place where the "wandering jew" could settle and live?

I guess what i'm saying is, "zionism" goes so far back in history that it seems pointless to rally against the specfic terminology, especially since the jews already HAVE jeruselum.

Zionism = The Belief That Jews Should Have A State Called Israel = Already Happened = ???

my2hands

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

So the majority of the minority is intrinsicly rascist and doesn't feel compelled to cast a vote unless the candidate is black?

Even if it's not latent rascism, it's pretty stupid if the only motivating factor is the candidates skin color.

Why didn't they vote for Al Sharpton or Jessie Jackson in past elections?

:rolleyes:

Hell, the guy is black, he must be a great man and agree with me.

God know as a white man, i have agreed with EVERY candidate for president in past elections!

:rolleyes:

talk to an honest black person and get back to me... black people are highly skeptical of our government and its typically lilly white leadership... and they are skeptical for good reason IMO...

if you dont think that a legit black candidate will bring more black voters to the polls... then i dont know what to tell you. it seems fairly simple to me.

the same thing wih women and hillary... a good # of women will vote for hillary just because she is a legit woman candidate


the same logic that says white men will hesitate to vote for a black or woman can be applied in the opposite direction... women and minority voters will be attracted to those candidates

spiral out

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Why do people keep throwing the word "zionist" around willy-nilly?

The term has a LOT of connotations, many of which revolve around militant jews pushing for a homeland ... but fundamentaly "zionism" was a movement born out of extreme oppression which simply stated, "With a homeland, we can be free and safe".

I understand that militaristic governments that use force to maintain control of land are not prefereable to peaceful ones, but to spew garbage about "zionism" simply implies that you somehow believe jews are to blame just because they wanted a place to call home.

Remember it was the BRITISH who pulled out of the BMOPalistine and gave it to the Jews! Not only that, but they offered HALF of it to the Arabs.

Instead of accepting, the ENTIRE Arab world went to war with Israel the next day ... and LOST.

So Israel took the whole lot.

Can you really blame them for that?

Are you dragging up history beyond that?

From the holocaust? You blame the zionist jews of the holocaust who stood up against hitler and rallied their people with a vision of a new home outside of the ghettos and deathcamps?

Or do you take it back even farther in to the depths of the 1800s where you think the greedy jew was unjustified in his belief that the holy land was still a place where the "wandering jew" could settle and live?

I guess what i'm saying is, "zionism" goes so far back in history that it seems pointless to rally against the specfic terminology, especially since the jews already HAVE jeruselum.

Zionism = The Belief That Jews Should Have A State Called Israel = Already Happened = ???

I get what you are saying, but the term zionism now doesn't necessarily have the same connotations as it did when it was first used, for a start not all zionists are jews.

And how would you best describe the agenda? It's not a jewish one, at least in the sense that not all people of jewish desent agree or care about the agenda.

sweetpotato

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

a.
you KNOW i ain't your damn "hon"

b.
clearly you haven't looked at the mans record.

He is ANYTHING but your typical "politician".

As he said himself in the last debate,
"I don't think Washington has changed me."

snookums, he's just as full of shite as the rest of them. i never used the term "typical" because i don't think that matters. a politician is a politician.

sweetpotato

MrBrian wrote:

best hope for what exactly? he's one of the worst dems, if he is your best hope. Then we are all really screwed.

Edwards is a pro war zionist bulldog. But sadly that's a positive for some voters.

i think it's either him or we lose to the repugnicans. pick yer poison. edwards' brand is less toxic, imo.

and where do you get this "pro-war" title from? aside from the iraq vote- in which our congress was LIED to by our president and his cronies in order to drum up support for the war- where has he been all "pro-war"? i'm genuinely curious.

sweetpotato

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

You know.
I'm actualy waiting for another candidate to bring this or his alleged remarks in the 96 newsletter up in an upcoming debate.

If his racist ties are real, you think they'd be all over them. Hell, if you could even suggest it was true, you would.

Mostly, i just want to see how Dr. Paul responds.

i think we should all begin using the title "Esquire" after the name of every candidate with a law degree whenever we refer them. that would be almost as silly and tardish as "Dr. Paul". So he's a doctor, who gives a rat's ass? He's running for president, not surgeon general. :rolleyes:

maybe it's the fact that i work with hundreds of doctors that the title doesn't really knock my socks off the way it apparently does yours. most of them i know don't even want to be referred to that way. they let their work speak for itself.

Get_Right

y'all is crazy

best president we have had in a long, long time
bill clinton

why would you not want him back in the white house as first gentleman?

Thats reason enough to vote for hillary

sweetpotato

i loved bill clinton (well, not in the biblical sense, but i woulda, given the chance... ), but i'm still supporting john edwards, esquire.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

shameless...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkdeYffHb5o

However I support illegal war and torture...Merry Christmas

azwyldcats

Look, this Country elected in G.W. Bush...twice. I'm afraid that the Country is simply not ready for a Woman President, nor an African-American President. It is just the reality of today, as depressing and unfortunate as it is. I'd love to be an optimist, but I just cannot.