Archive

Republican debates/primaries.

  • like_that
    ZWICK 4 PREZ;1776365 wrote:What you're painstakingly missing is demographics has nothing to do with voting skin color, but party lines.
    They are interchangeable in this day and age of politics.

    How is your boy Bernie doing since you were 100% sure he was going to take the primary? Are you loving these debates catered to the ****?
  • Heretic
    fish82;1776038 wrote:The pubs are winning this year, Sport.

    Sorry if that makes you mad.
    I remember QQuaKKKer saying that four years ago. Quite adamantly. Might want to show your work on that theory instead of just throwing it out there if you want to be taken seriously, instead of coming off like CC/Spock and his general level of idiocy.
  • like_that
    Heretic;1776375 wrote:I remember QQuaKKKer saying that four years ago. Quite adamantly. Might want to show your work on that theory instead of just throwing it out there if you want to be taken seriously, instead of coming off like CC/Spock and his general level of idiocy.
    I don't think anyone she be confident about either side winning. Each side has so many red flags at this point.

    I also don't think Donald trump should be taken lightly at this point unfortunately.
  • ZWICK 4 PREZ
    like_that;1776374 wrote:They are interchangeable in this day and age of politics.

    How is your boy Bernie doing since you were 100% sure he was going to take the primary? Are you loving these debates catered to the ****?
    Hes actually closing in on her, if you hadn't noticed. He's up in the first two states.

    I don't watch the debates for that reason.
  • like_that
    ZWICK 4 PREZ;1776381 wrote:Hes actually closing in on her, if you hadn't noticed. He's up in the first two states.

    I don't watch the debates for that reason.
    I saw earlier he was up in NH, but not Iowa (or is it the other way around), but I've also noticed she has a 20% national lead on him. If he squeaks out a state in early February it will eventually all come crumbling down on Super Tuesday.
  • fish82
    Heretic;1776375 wrote:I remember QQuaKKKer saying that four years ago. Quite adamantly. Might want to show your work on that theory instead of just throwing it out there if you want to be taken seriously, instead of coming off like CC/Spock and his general level of idiocy.
    If after all these years you can't discern my credibility from those two, then I'm not sure what to tell ya.
  • SportsAndLady
    Yeah, pretty unfair to throw fish in with QQuakkker and CC.
  • HitsRus
    Dr Winston O'Boogie;1776332 wrote:This "quote" gets rolled out whenever right wingers want to mock democratic politicians. Good luck finding any evidence of its accuracy. Typical scare tactic. It's no different than pulling the Hitler card when referring to Republican nut jobs like Cruz and Trump.
    Wake up man... The guy is talking socialism with a capital "S". Check out this guy's history.... And stop drinking the kool aid. Doesn't it bother you when people equivocate the Constitution?... Or minimize it as a document of rights and liberty? Don't you notice the not so veiled attempts at discrediting the founding fathers?
    Do you like the United States? Well, then wake up to what's going on around you.
  • Heretic
    fish82;1776415 wrote:If after all these years you can't discern my credibility from those two, then I'm not sure what to tell ya.
    SportsAndLady;1776417 wrote:Yeah, pretty unfair to throw fish in with QQuakkker and CC.
    Oh, I agree with that, it's just that I can't take anyone seriously when they're saying it's a definite that one side or the other will win since we're in a time where the two parties overall are very even when it comes to support, where it seems victory is something that comes down to which side does better at swinging the undecided votes. It generally gets decided on which guy comes up with the best sound bites, combined with which side's support is more apathetic coming into the election (generally due to how virtually every candidate comes off as a barely-competent attention whore who wants their time in the sun). When you have to go back to Reagan to get an election where a president could even muster 55% of the popular vote, it's just foolish to say one side is winning unless you have a good argument as to why.
  • HitsRus
    https://www.yahoo.com/politics/bernie-sanders-radical-past-how-the-vermont-230255076.html?nf=1
    Feel the Burn and his radical past.
  • ZWICK 4 PREZ
    like_that;1776404 wrote:I saw earlier he was up in NH, but not Iowa (or is it the other way around), but I've also noticed she has a 20% national lead on him. If he squeaks out a state in early February it will eventually all come crumbling down on Super Tuesday.
    He's up in both States and down 7 pts nationwide.
  • ZWICK 4 PREZ
    Lol repubs gettin scared of Bernie.
  • jmog
    I normally wouldn't jump to platitudes. But let's be clear on a few things.

    When it comes down to who is a better human being, Sanders is 100 times a better person than Hillary and Trump.

    However, based on politics alone, I can say with 100% confidence, that anyone who votes for Sanders is a complete moron who doesn't understand politics, history, and economics.
  • jmog
    ZWICK 4 PREZ;1776427 wrote:He's up in both States and down 7 pts nationwide.
    Not true at all.

    realclearpolitics.com averages all recent polls and Sanders is down 13 pts nationally, down 4 pts in Iowa, and up 7 in NH. Using "he's up in NH" is barely more evidence than saying he will win Vermont. I mean seriously.

    Now, to be clear, the gap between him and Hillary has shrunk a large amount since August when she was up by 40+ nationally.
  • sleeper
    I'd rather have Sanders than Hillary. Sanders won't get anything done.
  • isadore
    major sparks wrote:Its a sad state in our politics when ones race and genitalia are neutralizing factors over substance and ideology. I care more about what is between a candidates ears than their legs. I know you do as well and are just stating your opinion given the unfortunate political reality.
    For the first 232 years of United States history being white and male were requirements for the Presidency. Now hypocrites who were fine with those requirements whine when a African American is elected President and a woman has a very good chance of succeeding him.
  • jmog
    isadore;1776451 wrote:For the first 232 years of United States history being white and male were requirements for the Presidency. Now hypocrites who were fine with those requirements whine when a African American is elected President and a woman has a very good chance of succeeding him.
    You are highly incorrect. Most people who are against Obama are just fine with electing Ben Carson. Most that are against Hilary would have been ecstatic if Condi Rice ever ran to elect her.

    So, once again you have no idea what you are talking about.
  • Dr Winston O'Boogie
    HitsRus;1776418 wrote:Wake up man... The guy is talking socialism with a capital "S". Check out this guy's history.... And stop drinking the kool aid. Doesn't it bother you when people equivocate the Constitution?... Or minimize it as a document of rights and liberty? Don't you notice the not so veiled attempts at discrediting the founding fathers?
    Do you like the United States? Well, then wake up to what's going on around you.
    I'm awake. The country has supposedly been falling apart many times before: during the Revolutionary War, during eh 1850s, during the era of the robber barrons, during the Great Depression, during the 1960's, the 1970's, Clinton's election, etc. Not to mention the time the country actually split apart and civil war resulted with half a million dead. Taken at that level, current times are not particularly out of the norm. The right wing narrative that has developed over the last 25 years has been preaching the demise of the US all along. I live in the one of the most, if not the most, conservative state in the union. What does our conservative representation do for us? High crime, poor healthcare, poor schools, high poverty, horrible race relations, worthlessly underfunded programs, and open hostility to groups that are different.
  • ZWICK 4 PREZ
    jmog;1776441 wrote:Not true at all.

    realclearpolitics.com averages all recent polls and Sanders is down 13 pts nationally, down 4 pts in Iowa, and up 7 in NH. Using "he's up in NH" is barely more evidence than saying he will win Vermont. I mean seriously.

    Now, to be clear, the gap between him and Hillary has shrunk a large amount since August when she was up by 40+ nationally.

    elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/polls/cbs-times-23488
    elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/polls/quinnipiac-23480
    elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/polls/fox-23458
  • ZWICK 4 PREZ
    Also. Polls don't mean shit until voting starts. We all know that.
  • like_that
    ZWICK 4 PREZ;1776458 wrote:elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/polls/cbs-times-23488
    elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/polls/quinnipiac-23480
    elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/polls/fox-23458

    What exactly are you disputing that jmog posted? All three polls you are linking are used in the Real Clear Politics average.
  • isadore
    jmog;1776453 wrote:You are highly incorrect. Most people who are against Obama are just fine with electing Ben Carson. Most that are against Hilary would have been ecstatic if Condi Rice ever ran to elect her.

    So, once again you have no idea what you are talking about.
    I am sure all these hypocrites were complaining about the racial and gender politics that kept qualified people from being considered for the Presidency before 2008.
  • ZWICK 4 PREZ
    like_that;1776462 wrote:What exactly are you disputing that jmog posted? All three polls you are linking are used in the Real Clear Politics average.
    They all confirm what I saw
  • HitsRus
    ZWICK 4 PREZ;1776430 wrote:Lol repubs gettin scared of Bernie.
    I've been scared of Sanders since the lemmings started following him.... not as a Republican, but as an American. You should read the article and be sure that is what you want to sign up for.
  • majorspark
    isadore;1776451 wrote:For the first 232 years of United States history being white and male were requirements for the Presidency. Now hypocrites who were fine with those requirements whine when a African American is elected President and a woman has a very good chance of succeeding him.
    Prior to my birth I am not sure how I could be fine with anything. I am not sure what requirements you are talking about. In the second presidential election season I was eligible to vote (1996). I voted to nominate an African American to be the Republican candidate for president.