The ..2012.... Political thread
-
ElvisBondCelebrityCosmos:
sunnydrummer:
Sexism continues to be a strong contender even considering the new millennia. This is not a reply to any particular post(s).
With so many Beautiful,interesting,lovely,fascinating,smart,capable,brilliant Women in America and that was the ONE(?!) who was running for President?!?!...Good grief!...Even her OWN husband(!) (and sorry,to mention this,BUT its the TRUTH! ) spent most of their married life "fooling around" with other women...I am sure you know what i mean...Next time :- I want to see a really Interesting Lady (there are so many in America!) running for President.
So in order for a woman to be qualified to run this country she not only has to be "... smart, capable and brilliant ..." which are admirable qualities but "... Beautiful ... lovely and fascinating ..." also?
As for the last three, I think your sexism is showing. Those last three qualities are superficial to say the least when talking about a U.S. President.
Just my opinion.
-
I guess you can forget Elizabeth I in England going by this description
-
jaipur:
I guess you can forget Elizabeth I in England going by this description
She was a very interesting Woman and a great Politician!...Something that Hillary "So Dull" Clinton is not!...
-
ElvisBondCelebrityCosmos:
ElvisBondCelebrityCosmos:
ElvisBondCelebrityCosmos:
Check out the next days...Barack Obama´s campaign team and staff are already preparing the VICTORY celebrations (
) for June,3,
Update/Countdown :- ONLY 48 Total delegates now.Wyoming SuperDelegate Nancy Drummond ( Vice-Chair of the Wyoming Democratic Party ) endorsed Barack Obama today.
Update/Official Results/Just in :- ONLY 45 Total delegates now!...Meaning?...Just another 4(4!) SuperDelegates and there will be massive Celebrations next tuesday,after the last 2 Primaries ...
Update/Official results/Countdown:- Now only 43 total delegates to the nomination.
2 more Democratic SuperDelegates endorsed Barack Obama (from the State of New Mexico). Next tuesday...PARTY!...
-
ElvisBondCelebrityCosmos:
jaipur:
I guess you can forget Elizabeth I in England going by this description
She was a very interesting Woman and a great Politician!...Something that Hillary "So Dull" Clinton is not!...
Elizabeth wasn't beautiful
I don't think Hillary is "dull".
-
sunnydrummer:
Sexism generally refers to the manner in which a woman is viewed across the board. A woman's personality is usually drawn as being silly, emotional, complaining, having a tone, not stable, unreasonable, weaker or weakest, safer at home, a nurse, exclusive to motherhood, secretary, or other rather than, smart, effectively decisive, genuinely intuitive, creative, powerful, capable guardian, safe Commander and Chief, a positive equal to the male counterpart, etc... Staying on the topic of the presidential race, this is the first time a woman has ever competed and quite successfully at best. If everyone recounts the opinions shrouding her you will find a good deal of sexism delegated towards Hillary's campaign throughout the media as a whole, which is completely unfounded.
I'm a total woman's libber and I DON'T TRUST HER!
-
[quote="Fan Since 1964"]
mustangsally10:
Fan Since 1964:
appletart2:
John Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson were not on the best of terms when Kennedy became the 1960 Democratic Presidential Nominee yet LBJ became JFK's Vice President on the ticket that would win the election. In politics you just never know.
[/quote Yea and look what happen to JK in Texas, LBJ home state
No trust me not a good idea to make Clinton,Obama VP. She too power hungry and the puppeteer who put Bush into office has their deck stacked two ways, McCain or Hillary. Obama now he kind of tipping the applecart and not in there cards.
Respectfully, I trust my own instincts.
Your remark "... and look what happened to JK in Texas, LBJ home state" was not necessary and better left unsaid. The National media would have a field day with that one. "... too power hungry...." "... the puppeteer who put Bush into office?
:
: Based on what? She is my Senator and has done a good job. All politicians like to be in center stage. I heard an interesting fact on the NBC Nightly News yesterday in regards to the Iraq War and Scott McClellen's book. Brian Williams was interviewing Tom Brokaw and Browkaw said that only 12 out of 100 U.S. Senators voted against the Iraq War. That means 88 U.S. Senators bought the bill of goods the Bush Administration sold Congress in presenting it's case for the war. Does that make 88% of the U.S. Senate unqualified to run for President?
I think not. On yesterday's newscast it was also said that Bush's case for the war was based on propaganda but we simply had no way of verifying the facts about WMDs in any concrete way. Gen. Colin Powell even made the case for the war and I'm sure he now feels duped by the Bush Administration too. He left the Administration. Does that make him unfit to run for President?
:
Clinton did not read the intelligence report on WMD in Iraq. Sen. Bob Graham of florida was going to vote for the war resolution but after reading the intelligence report said evidence on their having WMD was not conclusive. He even wrote a book about it. I think for pres. we should have the person with the best judgement, Obama.
Did Obama read the report?
: No, because he was not even in the U.S. Senate at the time and hindsight being 20/20 Obama then comes out against the war. Bills in Congress can go 100+ pages and I doubt that the majority of Congress read the whole bill. Faith was put in the Bush Administration who misguided Congress on the war. If Obama had the "best" judgement he wouldn't be chomping at the bit to be President with his lack of experience on a National level in the U.S. Senate.
He is wrongly rushing to make history and there are plenty of more experienced candidates out there who, unfortunately, are not running for President. As I've said before, I will vote for the Democratic nominee because the last thing this country needs in John McCain in The White House. Obama is not the ideal candidate and Sen. Clinton is a better candidate but sometimes you have to vote for the lesser of evils rather than fall victim to voter apathy. Unfortunately, many Democratic voters have bought into Obama's exhuberence but his inexperience comes with the package. I hope if elected Obama will have good, experienced people behind him to lessen his learning curve and we don't end up being sold another bill of goods.
When the course is so destructive and people are feeling disenfranchised ith there government there going to vote for change. It sending a message that there not going to take it anymore. What has kept the politician in office is this same belief that change means you won't have qualifed people representing you. That kind of thinking has kept in office all these career politician and given them power and divided this country. You have all these senator washing each other backs so they can all get there stuff pushed through,. They also are power hunger and will do anything to keep that power even if its do nothing, We need term limits. 6 years max and your out. That give a fresh approach to Washington and it allows for change to happen when a certain industry has paid off all the politician like Halliburton and or oil companies. What is a president anyway. He a puppet that someone else controls. His only purpose is to be believable The people who put Bush in office are backing Hillary and McCain in case the Rep can't pull it off in the fall. Obama clearly is against the war and those who put Bush in are. Who are The People. .. Try Exxon, BP, the whole military industrial complex. Who backing Hillary I belive the medical insurance industry. Obama in 08
-
It seems that some people will back any candidate that uses the buzz word "Change" regardless of (in)experience level. Change is a good thing but it seems that Obama's backers think that he is just going to bring about change just by being in the Oval Office, which is a bit of a dellusion. If there was a candidate who called for "Change" but, unlike Obama, had Washington, DC experience I would vote for them without hesitation. Obama has spent his first term as a U.S. Senator campaigning for President instead of learning the ropes on Capitol Hill. I have a problem with that because Obama is simply seizing his moment of opportunity, regardless of his inexperience. He needs to have a damn good cabinet behind to keep him in check if he is elected. Don't think for a minute that Obama can single-handedly bring the Washington lobbyists and corporate favors to their knees and cut out all the pork in Washington. I think people have expectations of Obama that are too high simply because he is campaigning for "Change". Ever hear of the expression "Don't set your sights too high or you will be dissappointed?" That's what I think people are doing with Obama. This country does not need John McCain as President under any circumstances. That said, detractors of Sen. Clinton seem to find her guilty of whatever simply by osmosis, which is wrong. She has the experience in Washington to be an effective President but people are condemning her because of her name alone ignoring her experience as a U.S. Senator and First Lady. She knows Washington and does not have the audacity to run for President as a Freshman U.S. Senator. I would hate to be interviewing for a job with a personnel director who is looking to hire the most inexperienced candidate for the job because that just doesn't make sense but yet that's just what some Americans are doing with Obama. They want to hire the most inexperienced candidate for the highest job in the land.
However, I will vote for the Democratic candidate on election day to keep John McCain out of office and I hope the majority of Americans do too.
Just my opinion and I'm sticking to it!
Just my opinion.
-
imo: the people who put Bush in office were five people wearing black robes, of whom two should have recused themselves in the decision:wink This is not to say that Gore won the election....just clarifying how it came to be.
-
ElvisBondCelebrityCosmos:
ElvisBondCelebrityCosmos:
ElvisBondCelebrityCosmos:
ElvisBondCelebrityCosmos:
Check out the next days...Barack Obama´s campaign team and staff are already preparing the VICTORY celebrations (
) for June,3,
Update/Countdown :- ONLY 48 Total delegates now.Wyoming SuperDelegate Nancy Drummond ( Vice-Chair of the Wyoming Democratic Party ) endorsed Barack Obama today.
Update/Official Results/Just in :- ONLY 45 Total delegates now!...Meaning?...Just another 4(4!) SuperDelegates and there will be massive Celebrations next tuesday,after the last 2 Primaries ...
Update/Official results/Countdown:- Now only 43 total delegates to the nomination.
2 more Democratic SuperDelegates endorsed Barack Obama (from the State of New Mexico). Next tuesday...PARTY!...
Update/Just in/Official results :- NOW only 41 Total delegates to the Nomination.
Barack Obama said to "Associated Press" :-"This process will be over this week.Then we will focus 100% on the General Election".Well said,of course.
-
Hillary Clinton has been thoroughly "vetted" or checked out over the years and try as they might, they couldn't find anything wrong. Yet many persist in viewing her as untrustworthy. She does seem half crazed with greed for the Presidency, but isn't that kind of a prerequisite for running for the "highest office"? You have to have a great deal of ambition. A qualified woman would be better than a male president because of extra positive qualities which seem more common in the female gender, although you can't generalize. If Obama wins the nom, I'll back him, consider the alternative.
-
cheer up boys & girls.....the new number is now 2,118 not 2,025 so says the dems chief honchos.
-
.....and remember what I said about floor fights??
-
Fan Since 1964:
It seems that some people will back any candidate that uses the buzz word "Change" regardless of (in)experience level. Change is a good thing but it seems that Obama's backers think that he is just going to bring about change just by being in the Oval Office, which is a bit of a dellusion. If there was a candidate who called for "Change" but, unlike Obama, had Washington, DC experience I would vote for them without hesitation. Obama has spent his first term as a U.S. Senator campaigning for President instead of learning the ropes on Capitol Hill. I have a problem with that because Obama is simply seizing his moment of opportunity, regardless of his inexperience. He needs to have a damn good cabinet behind to keep him in check if he is elected. Don't think for a minute that Obama can single-handedly bring the Washington lobbyists and corporate favors to their knees and cut out all the pork in Washington. I think people have expectations of Obama that are too high simply because he is campaigning for "Change". Ever hear of the expression "Don't set your sights too high or you will be dissappointed?" That's what I think people are doing with Obama. This country does not need John McCain as President under any circumstances. That said, detractors of Sen. Clinton seem to find her guilty of whatever simply by osmosis, which is wrong. She has the experience in Washington to be an effective President but people are condemning her because of her name alone ignoring her experience as a U.S. Senator and First Lady. She knows Washington and does not have the audacity to run for President as a Freshman U.S. Senator. I would hate to be interviewing for a job with a personnel director who is looking to hire the most inexperienced candidate for the job because that just doesn't make sense but yet that's just what some Americans are doing with Obama. They want to hire the most inexperienced candidate for the highest job in the land.
However, I will vote for the Democratic candidate on election day to keep John McCain out of office and I hope the majority of Americans do too.
Just my opinion and I'm sticking to it!
Just my opinion.
This isn't England we don't have dynasty's. We don't need 30 years of Bush or Clinton. What Obama has is something Hillary does not have. He is multi racial and I think when dealing with countries around the world who are tied of the White supremacy that Bush and his neocon's have put out there will be good. He can sit down with the likes of leader from the middle east and Africa and they will respect him for where he has come from. They will understand what it took. He also speaks the King's Language something Bush could never do. I think he has superior speaking skills than any of the candidates and unmatched diplomacy. MCcain is like he on something. Like some heavy seditive. Hillary is like on major hormone injections.
-
Dynasties. That's a ridiculous argument given U.S. history. FDR spent more than 12 years in office and would have served until 1949 if he had not died in office. He got this country back on it's feet from The Great Depression with his programs, many of which are still in force today. I have said before that the race of a candidate does not matter to me one bit. It's experience that matters and Obama's experience is lacking on a National level. That's something Obama's supporters never address, choosing to side-step it. If you think that Obama has superior speaking skills than any of the candidates you obviously have chosen to ignore his stammering for words while attempting to think on his feet and analyists acknowledging that Obama has inferior debating skills. Unmatched diplomacy?
: That's yet to be determined because Obama has no experience in implementing such policies to date. It's all talk and campaign speeches. Implementation is another story. Talk is cheap. Actions speak louder than words. Hillary on hormone injections? Based on what?
: Your belief that Obama can do no wrong. I will support the Democratic ticket in November because we don't need John McCain in the White House, not because of Obama's need to seize the moment to make history even though he is inexperienced. If elected Obama needs an experienced VP and an experienced cabinet to make up for his huge learning curve, which can be ill-afforded with the political climate in the world today. Some people always lump the Bushs and the Clintons to make the ridiculous dynasty argument and those people forget that America as a whole was better off with Bill Clinton as President. Some people say Hillary is guilty because of her husband's personal indiscretions which is ridiculous. Nobody is guilty by osmosis. Since when is trying to salvage the institution of marriage a bad thing? That's why we have a 50% divorce rate in this country. The Bush part of the arguement is a no-brainer, though. Just my opinion
-
Well,done DNC :- Barack Obama :-"The DNC ruling was fair". http://www.politico.com : -Read the article -"Its Barack Obama Party now!"...
-
appletart2:
This isn't England we don't have dynasty's. We don't need 30 years of Bush or Clinton. What Obama has is something Hillary does not have. He is multi racial and I think when dealing with countries around the world who are tied of the White supremacy that Bush and his neocon's have put out there will be good. He can sit down with the likes of leader from the middle east and Africa and they will respect him for where he has come from. They will understand what it took. He also speaks the King's Language something Bush could never do. I Hillary is like on major hormone injections.
Exactly.
Well said!...
-
appletart2:
I'm a total woman's libber and I DON'T TRUST HER!
Well said,again!...
-
jaipur:
cheer up boys & girls.....the new number is now 2,118 not 2,025 so says the dems chief honchos.
Exactly.And Barack Obama has already,so far,2051 Total delegates.Obama has currently 327 SuperDelegates against only 291 of Clinton.Tonight,the Primary in Puerto Rico will give another 20 or 21 pledged delegates to Obama.So,2051 + 20 = 2071.More SuperDelegates endorsing Senator Obama next days...
-
ElvisBondCelebrityCosmos:
Well,done DNC :- Barack Obama :-"The DNC ruling was fair". http://www.politico.com :-"Its Barack Obama Party now!"...
I expected you to make such a comment. The DNC ruling is a joke. Sen. Clinton played by the rules in Michigan and let things play out at the time of the January primary. Source: The hearing on C-SPAN yesterday. Obama didn't even respect the process enough to keep his name on the ballot, yet he was awarded Michigan delegates yesterday. That's not democracy. That's substituting the DNC's judgement for democracy. The DNC has goofed again. Obama's supporters should ask themselves this: If Sen. Clinton was your candidate of choice would you be overjoyed?
: No. The DNC did not count write-in votes because they would be too numerous to count and rightly so but awarding delegates to Obama who was not even on the Michigan ballot is no better than awarding delegates to a write-in candidate.
It's like telling someone who is at the polling place that they can vote but then telling them after their vote before they get to the exit "Would you rather be cut off at the waist or split down the middle because the vote you have just cast is only going to be 1/2 counted?"