Hillary Clinton Might Be the Least Electable Democrat

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.

azwyldcats

Plaintiffs' lawyers like Edwards keep me in business, so I supose I will have to vote for him on that basis alone. At the end of the day, he is the Dems best shot.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

How long is the Bush/Clinton family going to try and rule the US for anyways?

I mean....holy...

JC29856

For 9 years the democrats knew Hilliary was unelectable, I'm guessing at this point Vladimir Putin is more favorable then Hilliary. So anyway, 9 years in the making and all the democrats can say is Russia Russia Russia. At least now private citizens Hilliary and Arkansas Bull can focus on their foundation and it's deeds. Ironically donations are down 40% when the world needs them most.

Gern Blansten

JC29856 said:

For 9 years the democrats knew Hilliary was unelectable, I'm guessing at this point Vladimir Putin is more favorable then Hilliary. So anyway, 9 years in the making and all the democrats can say is Russia Russia Russia. At least now private citizens Hilliary and Arkansas Bull can focus on their foundation and it's deeds. Ironically donations are down 40% when the world needs them most.

This "Russia Russia Russia" thing is getting really old and stupid.

I don't hear the dems blaming the Russians for losing the election. I hear ignorant right wingers saying that a lot though.

JimmyV

They didn't think she was unelectable. They thought their coalition was unbeatable regardless of the candidate. They were wrong.

what dreams

JimmyV said:

They didn't think she was unelectable. They thought their coalition was unbeatable regardless of the candidate. They were wrong.

Exactly. The coalition fell apart. That's how elections are lost.