You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Go to Page...
Thank you for crosschecking our sponsors!
About This Page: This is a discussion on Politics within the LetsGoKings.com forums, at Los Angeles Kings Hockey Fan Forum. Reading comprehension...
You said the Democrats can't win because the candidates are "unqualified."
I don't think it's difficult to argue that Bush is undeniably more unqualified than either potential Democratic
You said the Democrats can't win because the candidates are "unqualified."
I don't think it's difficult to argue that Bush is undeniably more unqualified than either potential Democratic nominee. It has nothing to do with you thinking he was a bad president. It has everything to do with an "unqualified" candidate winning.
And I pose the question once more: in what ways are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama "unqualified"? Present your answer in list format if you please.
You said the Democrats can't win because the candidates are "unqualified."
I don't think it's difficult to argue that Bush is undeniably more unqualified than either potential Democratic nominee. It has nothing to do with you thinking he was a bad president. It has everything to do with an "unqualified" candidate winning.
And I pose the question once more: in what ways are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama "unqualified"? Present your answer in list format if you please.
Thanks, 140.
Point taken. You don't have to be qualified to be President. I see how you made the connection between that and Bush. Congratulations. You managed to find a small hole in the myriad of things that I discussed. How very Republican of you.
At this time I will exercise my right to refer to certain things that I have said all along and from hence forth stick to them and them only whenever discussing why the Democrats ****ed the dog this election year. Are you ready?
Point taken. You don't have to be qualified to be President. I see how you made the connection between that and Bush. Congratulations. You managed to find a small hole in the myriad of things that I discussed. How very Republican of you.
At this time I will exercise my right to refer to certain things that I have said all along and from hence forth stick to them and them only whenever discussing why the Democrats ****ed the dog this election year. Are you ready?
I found one decently sized hole amongst a virtual whiffle ball structure of holes that a few others already took the time to quite decidedly point out.
Forgive me for not simply repeating the obvious logical conclusions said others have already arrived to. I didn't feel it necessary to re-open your laughable points regarding such issues including (but by no means limited to): female leaders, social programs during a recession, "real world thinking," your IQ, all the black Republican candidates that exist (hypothetically, I guess)...and many, many more!
How very reasonable of me (which would actually be the antithesis of "Republican"...oh snap! Major burn!).
But thanks for reaffirming my point, Mr. Mensa guy!
That's funny I thought we were talking about the probability of a black man being elected US President but if you want to change the subject to members of congress so that you can "win" an argument go right ahead. Last time I checked having black members in the House and Senate is not a requirement to being able to elect one as President.
Right. Getting elected POTUS is easier than getting elected to congress. My bad. I would at least think that Republicans would test this idea to see if it works by running black candidates for congress, or maybe even a governorship.
Your argument was thus: A black moderate Republican would win a presidential election because they would garner the conservative voting block along with the black vote because (and I'm quoting you here) "black Americans who traditionally vote Democrat would vote for a black Republican simply to get a man of color into office." Not only was this outrageous idea shot down by Joe Hoya and then myself by citing such examples as Alan Keyes, Democratic polling numbers at the beginning of this primary, and the absence of a single black Republican in congress or even the governorship of all 50 states.
But furthermore, your making the stupid claim that black voters cast their vote based on racial identity, while everyone else votes based on the issues. Even further, you seemingly reject the notion that if Republicans ran a moderate black person for President it would alienate a large section of the socially conservative base of the party along with the smaller block of racist voters upon which the Republican party has relied in order to win national elections since the late 60s.
Quote:
Read again....a country AT was AND in the midst of a depression. Roosevelt didn't have to deal with both at the same time. By the time he took office in the early 30's the country was already about 5 years into the depression and the only way that it managed to pull itself out of the depression was by turning WWII into a viable business starting around 1940.
I'll concede this portion of the argument to you if you can tell me exactly how Obama plans to pull this one off. We aren't exactly profiting form this war and if we actually could you puss bags would never allow it because it goes against your core values. You see, people were behind WWII unlike this one so I'd really love to hear an answer on this one. And please, let that answer be anything other than "Change."
Get a clue OP. All those social programs that were enacted under the leadership of FDR did not simply evaporate the moment the US entered WW2. The US was able to handle a war along with massive public works programs at the same time. Albeit, that war was shorter than the ones we are currently involved in. Additionally, the government was able to provide GI bills to hundreds of thousands of veterans after war's end.
I can't say how Obama would do it but here's how I would: Raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans, just like was done during WW2. More oversight and regulation of the banks and firms whose reckless business plans caused the mortgage crisis. Reduce the cost of the Iraq war by reducing troop levels. Further reduce costs by not giving away no bid contracts to contractors while allowing proper congressional oversight of government contracts. For examples of how a lack of oversight has cost the US money, look no further than the current senate race in Maine.
I never said that the Pakistani people assassinated her but you seem adept at putting words in my mouth so please continue to do so. It does wonders for your credibility. If you think a female president will get a fair shake when dealing with certain mid East countries then we'll have to agree to disagree because quite frankly neither of us know exactly how a female US President will be received there.
You jumped on the assassination of Benazir Bhutto as proof that "quote Middle Eastern countries would never put up with her [a female US president]." You later, after I mentioned the popularity of Bhutto and her party along with the fact that it was Al Qaeda who murdered her, dismissed your own point as "satire." So do me a favor OP, name a country in the Middle East that would not deal fairly with a female POTUS. Back up your point with evidence, an example, anecdote, anything, something.
__________________ I'd rather some one was holding the constitution and burning the flag than vice-versa.
I did get an interesting flyer in the mail last week for local Torrance voting - seems that all the Asians in office in so CA have come together to back one candidate for Torrance city council because there aren't enough asians in office. That being said, surely there aren't as many asians in politics, and should I vote for this guy because he is asian and he will "represent" me? there really isn't anything on this mailer that says what he stands for; well, it does say that he will stand for small businesses, whatever that means.
So...how many people do you think would respond to this mailer? how many people do you really think actually put time into understanding what the candidates are really about and making up there own mind? I have no idea what the % would be that would vote down racial lines, I'm willing to guess that the % is probably pretty high that people don't know what the person stands for (doesn't educate themselves) and still votes for someone that should "understand me".
nosoupforyou
