Elections Hillary will be President.

[ruthless robert]

Well, not really. It's true that Southern white working class voters disproportionately voted against the black candidate, but that only made the race somewhat close. They weren't successful in electing Romney.

Anyway, genius, I wasn't denying that it happens. I wanted to see specifically what IDL was referring to.

Aren't you yhe type of liberal that says all white southern working class are all republican?

If not then you should at least understand that the overwhelmingly majority of southern white working class lean to the right on social issues and politics.

That being said, they would have voted republican no matter the color of the democratic counter part

For your assumption you would have to take actual data of REGISTERED DEMOCRATS that are white and they voted republican just because of race......

this will be extremely hard for you to do..... so next time instead of bashing people saying that others are afraid to post their opinion in concrete maybe you should check yourself because your opinion holds no water on this issue.

.

 

[Jack V Savage]

No I heard it from liberals and liberal sources and saw the media totally side with Obama from the get go. Fox news was the only exception.

So you mean liberals totally sided with the more-liberal candidate from the beginning? What do you think could explain that mystery? I guess race is the only answer.

Aren't you yhe type of liberal that says all white southern working class are all republican?

Er, I'm a person who says that working-class whites in the South as a group voted for Romney by a large margin.

If not then you should at least understand that the overwhelmingly majority of southern white working class lean to the right on social issues and politics.

Actually, if you look at polling on issues among that group, they're split pretty evenly, or even agree more with Democrats. It's not an ideological split as much as just identity politics.

That being said, they would have voted republican no matter the color of the democratic counter part

For your assumption you would have to take actual data of REGISTERED DEMOCRATS that are white and they voted republican just because of race......

Nope.

this will be extremely hard for you to do..... so next time instead of bashing people saying that others are afraid to pist their opinion in concrete maybe you should check yourself because your opinion holds no water on this issue.

English, please.

 

[Deleted member 457759]

So you mean liberals totally sided with the more-liberal candidate from the beginning? What do you think could explain that mystery? I guess race is the only answer.

Sided with the more liberal candidate because of race, yes. Are you simple? It obvious a majority of the campaign was pure emotional pandering to women and blacks. Do I need to embarrass you with 10000000000 sources?

 

[Tekk]

It wasn't only that some people voted against him because he was black, which was grossly inflated. It was that liberals voted for him because of their romantically obsessed idea of having the first black president. I heard it for over a year while he was campaigning so don't deny it because he's turned out to be a total empty suit failure NWO puppet.

Yep, it had nothing to do with people being sick of republicans and Bush in general. Our the fact that John McCain was a terrible candidate work an even worse vp candidate. Or that Obama pulled more independents and moderates.

 

[VulgarSnaps]

Isn't it great to have the illusion of two shitty choices!

Over my life I have not had a president I have not despised for some reason. Generally a major one.

I look back at the Clinton years with a great deal of fondness, it was late teens through early twenties, my career growing, great times. Then I think...

1. I think "did not have sexual relations..." The wordplay double talk was an art form in those days. It's fucking tiresome and insulting. It's also fucking tiresome and insulting to lack discretion. Up your game.
2. NAFTA. While I blame Reagan/Unions for the continuing destruction of american manufacturing, I still feel like NAFTA was a nail in the coffin.

I do think Hillary and Bill would basically be the same president. Not because Bill is running shit, but because they're basically the same.

I'm sick of the essentially two available narratives, that have minor differences, and this is just the same old shit.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Sided with the more liberal candidate because of race, yes. Are you simple?

You're impossible to parody, friend. Congratulations.

It obvious a majority of the campaign was pure emotional pandering to women and blacks. Do I need to embarrass you with 10000000000 sources?

So why did Hispanics, Asians, and highly educated whites also vote Obama overwhelmingly? Why did white working-class voters in non-Southern regions split pretty much down the middle? Doesn't add up, see?

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

Sided with the more liberal candidate because of race, yes. Are you simple? It obvious a majority of the campaign was pure emotional pandering to women and blacks. Do I need to embarrass you with 10000000000 sources?

That is the essence of political campaigning...you placate, pander, appeal to the emotions of your base, your own voting block. You act as if this type of political activity is completely endemic to Democrats.

Republicans attempted the very same tactic in the 2004 and 2008 campaign, by attempting to portray Obama as un-American, against American ideals, against the American Dream, against capitalism. The GOP placated to the fears of the their voting bloc, insinuating that Israel will no longer have an ally, Foriegn powers will walk over America if Obama is elected.

 

[Jack V Savage]

That is the essence of political campaigning...you placate, pander, appeal to the emotions of your base, your own voting block. You act as if this type of political activity is completely endemic to Democrats.

Republicans attempted the very same tactic in the 2004 and 2008 campaign, by attempting to portray Obama as un-American, against American ideals, against the American Dream, against capitalism. The GOP placated to the fears of the their voting bloc, insinuating that Israel will no longer have an ally, Foriegn powers will walk over America if Obama is elected.

You do what works, but when you believe you have a program that will be broadly beneficial and popular, you pound that (and highlight the folks you're talking to will specifically benefit). When your agenda is to cut benefits for the poor, raise taxes on the middle class, and drastically cut taxes for the rich, your best bet is identity politics. So there's no question who played it more in the last election.

 

[Strychnine]

Either Hillary or "Crazy Joe" Biden.

 

[kpt018]

Isn't it great to have the illusion of two shitty choices!

Over my life I have not had a president I have not despised for some reason. Generally a major one.

I look back at the Clinton years with a great deal of fondness, it was late teens through early twenties, my career growing, great times. Then I think...

1. I think "did not have sexual relations..." The wordplay double talk was an art form in those days. It's fucking tiresome and insulting. It's also fucking tiresome and insulting to lack discretion. Up your game.
2. NAFTA. While I blame Reagan/Unions for the continuing destruction of american manufacturing, I still feel like NAFTA was a nail in the coffin.

I do think Hillary and Bill would basically be the same president. Not because Bill is running shit, but because they're basically the same.

I'm sick of the essentially two available narratives, that have minor differences, and this is just the same old shit.

You really don't believe there are major (and important) differences between the two parties?

The ACA, regardless of where you stand on it, is a huge piece of legislation with very important impacts. Romney (and whoever ended up running) was strongly opposed to it and even declared he/she would repeal it if given the opportunity.

More broadly, one party believes that growing income inequality is a problem, thinks we need to do something about climate change, supports gay marriage and thinks the military budget is bloated. The other party wants lower taxes for the wealthy, less business regulation and wants to increase the military budget.

It's naive to say "both parties are the same". You are marginalizing very important differences. I would say though, that there are good reasons the presidential candidates are moderate (they have to appeal to a lot of people) which probably leads to the misconception that the parties are the same.

 

[Higus]

Elizabeth Warren. You heard it here first.

Here's a brain stumper: Who's the least electable at the moment, Liz Warren, Ted Cruz or Rand Paul?

 

[Tekk]

Here's a brain stumper: Who's the least electable at the moment, Liz Warren, Ted Cruz or Rand Paul?

Isn't Rafael Cruz Canadian?

 

[Strychnine]

Isn't Rafael Cruz Canadian?

Yes he is. Born in Canada. He cannot be elected as President of the U.S.

"Ted Cruz was born in Canada. His mother was born in Delaware. Cruz' father was born in Cuba, lived in the U.S. on a student visa, went to Canada and became a Canadian citizen. But, he did not become a naturalized U.S. citizen until 2005. "

http://newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd636.htm

 

[Uchi Mata]

Yes he is. Born in Canada. He cannot be elected as President of the U.S.

"Ted Cruz was born in Canada. His mother was born in Delaware. Cruz' father was born in Cuba, lived in the U.S. on a student visa, went to Canada and became a Canadian citizen. But, he did not become a naturalized U.S. citizen until 2005. "

http://newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd636.htm

The constitution doesn't say what a 'natural born citizen' is. The supreme court has never ruled on it. Cruz is probably eligible because he didn't have to go through naturalization to become a citizen (his mother being a citizen meant he was automatically a citizen). It's almost certain that he'd be allowed to run.

 

[Deleted member 457759]

My main theory is that both parties are controlled by corporate and banking interests. The parties are just name brands who use more trivial issues to manipulate enough people to get elected. Because of Republican unelectability and how successful a "first women president" platform will be, it's all very obvious. Obama proved that you don't have to do anything you said you'd do in order to avoid losing Liberals.

The media will be behind Hillary and the Republicans will run another candidate that not one lefty will vote for.Hillary will campaign on being the first women president, use Bill like Obama did, and she will have the support of the NWO

 

[Jukai]

Jack is 100% right when he said race didn't play much of an issue. I don't know why this is so hard to understand.

Part A of this theory: the people who voted for Obama because he was black were going to vote for a Democrat anyway
Part B of this theory: the people who voted for McCain/Romney because Obama was black were going to vote for a Republican anyway

The voter turnout wasn't THAT high that you can say a lot of people came out to vote who wouldn't normally vote.

Again, this is very simple.

 

[kpt018]

My main theory is that both parties are controlled by corporate and banking interests. The parties are just name brands who use more trivial issues to manipulate enough people to get elected. Because of Republican unelectability and how successful a "first women president" platform will be, it's all very obvious. Obama proved that you don't have to do anything you said you'd do in order to avoid losing Liberals.

The media will be behind Hillary and the Republicans will run another candidate that not one lefty will vote for.Hillary will campaign on being the first women president, use Bill like Obama did, and she will have the support of the NWO

So the ACA is a "trivial issue"?

Just in case you didn't know, republicans want to repeal it. And regardless of where you stand on it, it's a massive piece of legislation. If there's one thing it isn't, that's "trivial".

I think this both sides are the same crap is a lazy way to get angry about government.

 

[Deleted member 457759]

So the ACA is a "trivial issue"?

Just in case you didn't know, republicans want to repeal it. And regardless of where you stand on it, it's a massive piece of legislation. If there's one thing it isn't, that's "trivial".

I think this both sides are the same crap is a lazy way to get angry about government.

they are not exactly the same but definitely have most strings being pulled from a corporate and elite level.

Point is Hillary will get in because judging by the last American election the media and the democratic party have this shit tuned in to a science. Obama lied about almost every single thing he said in his campaign. It didn't matter. I saw through the lies the whole time but liberals were so Damn romantically involved in this guy for being black and pretending he wanted change, they voted for him. They will do the exact same thing with Hillary.

 

[Jukai]

they are not exactly the same but definitely have most strings being pulled from a corporate and elite level.

Point is Hillary will get in because judging by the last American election the media and the democratic party have this shit tuned in to a science. Obama lied about almost every single thing he said in his campaign. It didn't matter. I saw through the lies the whole time but liberals were so Damn romantically involved in this guy for being black and pretending he wanted change, they voted for him. They will do the exact same thing with Hillary.

They do have strings being pulled from a corporate and elite level. You're absolutely right. Unfortunately, these corporations are not hiveminded, and they are pumping money into the parties that will protect THEIR interests, which constantly differ.

 

[kpt018]

they are not exactly the same but definitely have most strings being pulled from a corporate and elite level.

This is sounding like IDL stuff. Care to elaborate?

Point is Hillary will get in because judging by the last American election the media and the democratic party have this shit tuned in to a science.

Huh? Politics have been a "science" WAAAAYYY longer then that and for both parties.

Obama lied about almost every single thing he said in his campaign. It didn't matter. I saw through the lies the whole time but liberals were so Damn romantically involved in this guy for being black and pretending he wanted change, they voted for him. They will do the exact same thing with Hillary.

What did he lie about? There are certainly things I would like to have seen, but he has mostly lived up to what I thought he would be. I would have liked more done on the environment front, he did bullshit about labeling GMOs (which I don't care too much about anyway), but otherwise he has done a good job.