|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Jul 19th, 2007 01:49 PM | |
| El Blanco |
Max, that superpower issue would make a good new thread. As for the feminists, how big a part of the voting population can they be? They really don't seem to tip the balance in elections and are firmly in the Democrats' base anyway. |
| Jul 19th, 2007 12:21 PM | |
| Perndog | But most, if not all, of those women are liberals who will probably vote Democrat no matter who the candidate is. Their feminism will only matter in the primaries. |
| Jul 19th, 2007 10:22 AM | |
| Geggy | Based on political strategy, hillary has the gender advantage over obama. I've met a lot of women whom are pro-feminists and they want hillary as president. They dont care what she has to say, just so as long she is a woman. According to them, if you are against that idea of her being a president then you are an anti-feminist. |
| Jul 19th, 2007 08:51 AM | |
| Perndog | My money's on China, as soon as they boot the Communists and make up with Taiwan. |
| Jul 18th, 2007 06:34 PM | |
| mburbank |
I mostly agree with you. It makes my stomach churn. I can NOT stand Hillary Clinton and I way, way, way don't want her to have the unitary executive power W has established. I find her less inherently evil then Cheney, but no less secretive and power hungry. I prefer Edwards to Obama, but I don't agree with you that his being black is a deal breaker anymore. America has proved it can accept Black people in power as long as they don't have a black voice. That's what kept Jesse jackson down. Obama has a very white voice. I think you could be right about the name, though. Of course, I think the main reason Joe Lieberman could never be President isn't the fact that he's a Jew, it's that his wife is named Hadassah, which is WAY too JewISH for America to tolerate. We are a simple people, we want simple names and simple sounds. And the fact that in THIS environment there isn't one Democrat who could stand up and hget people behind him.... seriously, it does not look good. I think the sun is setting on American Empire. I think we're going to take the deck chair next to the Britts and watch India, Europe, China and Russia decides who gets to be Daddy next. |
| Jul 18th, 2007 01:24 PM | |
| Rongi | What about Mike Gravel? The man doesnt have a snowball's chance in hell, but i think if more people took time to find out a little more about him, they'd be more than willing to vote for the guy |
| Jul 18th, 2007 12:42 PM | |
| El Blanco |
What is wrong with the Democrats? Seriously? This isn't an ideological rant. More of a political strategy type. Its bad enough they couldn't win in 2004. They basically put up their version of George W Bush up there and took a very condescending approach to their campaign. Now, Bush has an approval rating of about 30% (and dropping) and they still can't get their motors running. They are so busy attacking each other rather than establishing themselves as actual leaders, the Republican candidates are actually looking like good options. Their two front runners are not going to win a national election. Hillary- She's a woman. Her own state doesn't even fully support her. The state she represents in the Senate isn't a lock for her, either. Her name is a swear word in several highly populated parts of the country. Obama- A black president? Yeah, right. The Dems couldn't even find one with an Anglo sounding name? How well do you think he plays in rural America? And his actual record isn't too impressive. I've said from the beginning John Edwards is their best bet. He's young, he has some experience. He has exposure, but not so much that we have all the dirt on him. He can appeal to the left without sacrificing moderate rights tired of the Republicans. Anyway, I'm rambling here. Does any of it make sense? Kevin, Max, a little insight perhaps? |
